boyst Posted December 2, 2013 Posted December 2, 2013 It just makes me shake my head that people pull up the thoughts they do and cast blame so easily. Kiko had a rough game and allowed for the TD. But the earlier one Leonhard completely missed the tackle and Kiko had no chance. Why did we wait until the end of the 4th to go long? Have to think part of that is on EJ. And that someone said Graham was a reason we lost. The guy probably barely got in and then never touched the ball. I get that he could and should have been a factor more so then being invisible but EJ didn't spread the ball and took the easy throws. How easy are we treading on the Dareus topic? Everyone here was calling him a lazy bust and in the football expert opinions he was a bad pick. Guess no one likes crow McKelvin, have some crow there, too. Gilmore, more crow. Easley, Hogan, Johnson, Spiller...crow crow crow crow.
Coach Tuesday Posted December 2, 2013 Posted December 2, 2013 It just makes me shake my head that people pull up the thoughts they do and cast blame so easily. Kiko had a rough game and allowed for the TD. But the earlier one Leonhard completely missed the tackle and Kiko had no chance. Why did we wait until the end of the 4th to go long? Have to think part of that is on EJ. And that someone said Graham was a reason we lost. The guy probably barely got in and then never touched the ball. I get that he could and should have been a factor more so then being invisible but EJ didn't spread the ball and took the easy throws. How easy are we treading on the Dareus topic? Everyone here was calling him a lazy bust and in the football expert opinions he was a bad pick. Guess no one likes crow McKelvin, have some crow there, too. Gilmore, more crow. Easley, Hogan, Johnson, Spiller...crow crow crow crow. I generally like your posts and value your football insight dude. But at some point, you're going to have to cut bait with T.J. Graham. You were wrong about the guy - he's just not a football player. Unlike EJ, he's actually had a chance to make plays over almost two entire seasons, and it just hasn't happened. There is nothing to be ashamed of - the entire FO was wrong about him as well. But come on man, it's over. T.J. Graham is over.
Bill from NYC Posted December 2, 2013 Author Posted December 2, 2013 To be fair, nobody said "bad"... "Awful", however, was mentioned. Agree with all of this...I'd like to make it clear that when I say EJ's going to be good, that's in my estimation based on what I've seen. I should amend my statement to say that, based on what I've seen, I'm hopeful that EJ can develop into a franchise QB, since he shows many of the qualities that I believe a franchise QB needs to have. Whether or not he will is entirely unsettled at this point in time. Good post. " Awful" was too harsh, You are correct. And I agree that EJ does have the talent necessary to be a possible franchise quarterback, and didn't say otherwise. I expect rookie mistakes, and hope that hard work and good coaching can make the difference. As for yesterday, he got very lucky that several of his passes were not picked off. I suppose this was a bright spot of a truly annoying game, even for our Bills.
Orton's Arm Posted December 2, 2013 Posted December 2, 2013 At least for me the difference in determining whether a team is taking a step forward rather than being mired in the muck of mediocrity is the play of the qb. The Falcons are a very battered team, especially on both of their lines. What enabled them to come out of this game as winners was the differntial in qb play. Matt Ryan was able to play the whole field. He spread his passes around and he used all his receivers. On the other hand the Bills OC kept a tight reign on Manuel and limited his options to mostly the safe underneath stuff. Maybe the OC feels compelled to do so because EJ is not at the point where he can make quick reads and his accuracy in tight spaces is too erratic. EJ locks in on SJ at the expense of his other receivers. Woods has become the forgotten receiver. TJ Graham is a bust. All teams have position vulnerabilities due to the nature of the cap that spreads talent out. Every team has unit vulnerabilities that can't be hidden. For the most part the difference between a successful franchise and an unsuccessful franchise is the quality of the qb play. I still believe that EJ can be a franchise qb. But he has a way to go. This season was never about the playoffs. The roster was simply too inadequate for that marker. The most important issue for this team is finding out whether EJ is a legitimate franchise qb. I believe he is but I am not going to confidently state that I know it for sure. Good post. The questions the Bills need to ask themselves are these: "What has Manuel done to change our pre-draft assessment of him? What has he done to change the naysayers' predraft assessment of him?" The naysayers pointed out there were certain things Manuel didn't do in college. Manuel was apparently never asked to go beyond his second read; and probably didn't go beyond his first read very often either. It was rare for him to throw to anything other than a wide-open receiver. His accuracy was inconsistent. His footwork was often questionable. He had great physical tools to be sure, but there's a lot he didn't prove at the college level. That's why so many experts had one or more (usually more) QBs ranked ahead of him in a very weak 2013 QB draft. One of the naysayers' concerns has been at least partially addressed. Manuel will occasionally make a good throw to a tightly covered WR. This is extremely rare; but happens often enough for people to have some throws to point to; if pointing is what they want to do. Other than that one thing, Manuel hasn't done anything to disprove the naysayers' main arguments against him. On the other hand, he hasn't disproved his supporters' arguments either; because one could point to almost any rookie QB and say, "Maybe he'll outgrow his present limitations." But if a QB hasn't shown he can do a particular task in college; and if he hasn't shown he can do it in his rookie year in the NFL, odds are heavily against him ever learning to do that task. Manuel has several different things on his "hasn't yet shown" list--any one of which will cripple his ability to be a franchise QB if not corrected. However much positive emotion the Bills may have felt about drafting Manuel in the first place--however good they may have felt about "having a plan" and making Manuel the cornerstone of that plan--they need to carefully weigh the probability of his failing against the chance he'll succeed. They need to ask themselves this question in as unbiased a way as possible; as though they were evaluating the QB situation of the Detroit Lions or Arizona Cardinals, or some other team in whose success they have no vested interest. Then, having asked this question, they need to decide whether to take advantage of the QB opportunities which may await them in the first round of the 2014 draft.
RuntheDamnBall Posted December 2, 2013 Posted December 2, 2013 Good post. The questions the Bills need to ask themselves are these: "What has Manuel done to change our pre-draft assessment of him? What has he done to change the naysayers' predraft assessment of him?" The naysayers pointed out there were certain things Manuel didn't do in college. Manuel was apparently never asked to go beyond his second read; and probably didn't go beyond his first read very often either. It was rare for him to throw to anything other than a wide-open receiver. His accuracy was inconsistent. His footwork was often questionable. He had great physical tools to be sure, but there's a lot he didn't prove at the college level. That's why so many experts had one or more (usually more) QBs ranked ahead of him in a very weak 2013 QB draft. One of the naysayers' concerns has been at least partially addressed. Manuel will occasionally make a good throw to a tightly covered WR. This is extremely rare; but happens often enough for people to have some throws to point to; if pointing is what they want to do. Other than that one thing, Manuel hasn't done anything to disprove the naysayers' main arguments against him. On the other hand, he hasn't disproved his supporters' arguments either; because one could point to almost any rookie QB and say, "Maybe he'll outgrow his present limitations." But if a QB hasn't shown he can do a particular task in college; and if he hasn't shown he can do it in his rookie year in the NFL, odds are heavily against him ever learning to do that task. Manuel has several different things on his "hasn't yet shown" list--any one of which will cripple his ability to be a franchise QB if not corrected. However much positive emotion the Bills may have felt about drafting Manuel in the first place--however good they may have felt about "having a plan" and making Manuel the cornerstone of that plan--they need to carefully weigh the probability of his failing against the chance he'll succeed. They need to ask themselves this question in as unbiased a way as possible; as though they were evaluating the QB situation of the Detroit Lions or Arizona Cardinals, or some other team in whose success they have no vested interest. Then, having asked this question, they need to decide whether to take advantage of the QB opportunities which may await them in the first round of the 2014 draft. OH HAI have a look at #1 overall pick Matthew Stafford's rookie year, mon frere. Let me remind you that Stafford had Calvin Johnson to throw to. http://www.nfl.com/player/matthewstafford/79860/profile Once you're done, stop the crusade. Please. What Manuel has shown is that he is a rookie. A rookie who makes mistakes like a rookie. A rookie who has talent and displays it sometimes. A rookie who put his team in FG range for the win yesterday, which, if they had capitalized upon it, would make this tired "Manuel hasn't done anything to disprove the naysayers" bit moot for this week. Luckily, they lost and clunky calculations get to live on in the public mind here. Jeeezum crow. Manuel has much to prove. But he does not need to prove that he deserves to continue his growth path in the NFL.
chris heff Posted December 2, 2013 Posted December 2, 2013 Good post. The questions the Bills need to ask themselves are these: "What has Manuel done to change our pre-draft assessment of him? What has he done to change the naysayers' predraft assessment of him?" The naysayers pointed out there were certain things Manuel didn't do in college. Manuel was apparently never asked to go beyond his second read; and probably didn't go beyond his first read very often either. It was rare for him to throw to anything other than a wide-open receiver. His accuracy was inconsistent. His footwork was often questionable. He had great physical tools to be sure, but there's a lot he didn't prove at the college level. That's why so many experts had one or more (usually more) QBs ranked ahead of him in a very weak 2013 QB draft. One of the naysayers' concerns has been at least partially addressed. Manuel will occasionally make a good throw to a tightly covered WR. This is extremely rare; but happens often enough for people to have some throws to point to; if pointing is what they want to do. Other than that one thing, Manuel hasn't done anything to disprove the naysayers' main arguments against him. On the other hand, he hasn't disproved his supporters' arguments either; because one could point to almost any rookie QB and say, "Maybe he'll outgrow his present limitations." But if a QB hasn't shown he can do a particular task in college; and if he hasn't shown he can do it in his rookie year in the NFL, odds are heavily against him ever learning to do that task. Manuel has several different things on his "hasn't yet shown" list--any one of which will cripple his ability to be a franchise QB if not corrected. However much positive emotion the Bills may have felt about drafting Manuel in the first place--however good they may have felt about "having a plan" and making Manuel the cornerstone of that plan--they need to carefully weigh the probability of his failing against the chance he'll succeed. They need to ask themselves this question in as unbiased a way as possible; as though they were evaluating the QB situation of the Detroit Lions or Arizona Cardinals, or some other team in whose success they have no vested interest. Then, having asked this question, they need to decide whether to take advantage of the QB opportunities which may await them in the first round of the 2014 draft. Passive aggressive. 17 of 32 for 200 yards and 1 TD is just not getting it done. Teams don't need game manager QBs. What this team needs is Payton Manning, 22 of 35 for 403 yards and 2 TDs. The Colts need to draft a QB in the first round.
FireChan Posted December 2, 2013 Posted December 2, 2013 Passive aggressive. 17 of 32 for 200 yards and 1 TD is just not getting it done. Teams don't need game manager QBs. What this team needs is Payton Manning, 22 of 35 for 403 yards and 2 TDs. The Colts need to draft a QB in the first round. Colts went to the playoffs last year. Let me know when the Bills do that with a rookie QB please.
chris heff Posted December 2, 2013 Posted December 2, 2013 Colts went to the playoffs last year. Let me know when the Bills do that with a rookie QB please. Better coaching last year. Colts went to the playoffs last year. Let me know when the Bills do that with a rookie QB please. Better coaching last year.
Orton's Arm Posted December 2, 2013 Posted December 2, 2013 (edited) OH HAI have a look at #1 overall pick Matthew Stafford's rookie year, mon frere. Let me remind you that Stafford had Calvin Johnson to throw to. http://www.nfl.com/p...d/79860/profile Once you're done, stop the crusade. Please. What Manuel has shown is that he is a rookie. A rookie who makes mistakes like a rookie. A rookie who has talent and displays it sometimes. A rookie who put his team in FG range for the win yesterday, which, if they had capitalized upon it, would make this tired "Manuel hasn't done anything to disprove the naysayers" bit moot for this week. Luckily, they lost and clunky calculations get to live on in the public mind here. Jeeezum crow. Manuel has much to prove. But he does not need to prove that he deserves to continue his growth path in the NFL. > Once you're done, stop the crusade. Please. You and several other Manuel supporters feel the need to respond to just about every anti-Manuel post out there; often in as loud and obnoxious a manner as possible. Please don't lecture me about crusades. Not that I'm trying to lump all Manuel supporters together. San Jose Bills Fan is a bright, articulate Manuel supporter; capable of conversing with the other side without turning it into a shouting match. The same could also be said of some other Manuel supporters, such as JohnC. As for the Stafford example: Stafford had proved far more as a pocket passer in college than had Manuel. An accomplished college pocket passer will sometimes get off to a rocky start in the NFL--which is also something that could be said of Drew Brees. If the Bills do take a QB in the 2014 draft, I'd want that new QB to sit and learn behind Manuel for at least one year, maybe two. That way Manuel would have more than just his rookie year in which to prove himself; without causing the Bills to waste a valuable opportunity to draft a franchise QB in 2014. Edited December 2, 2013 by Edwards' Arm
bobobonators Posted December 2, 2013 Posted December 2, 2013 Colts went to the playoffs last year. Let me know when the Bills do that with a rookie QB please. Agreed. BUT, Colts also played in one of the weakest divisions last season. Titans/Jaguars were 2 of the worst teams last season and the Texans have been, and continue to be, nothing but paper tigers.
FireChan Posted December 2, 2013 Posted December 2, 2013 Agreed. BUT, Colts also played in one of the weakest divisions last season. Titans/Jaguars were 2 of the worst teams last season and the Texans have been, and continue to be, nothing but paper tigers. Texan's made the playoffs, right? Titans were barely under .500. Jags are absolutely awful, but put the Colts in the AFC East last year and they still get a WC.
thewildrabbit Posted December 2, 2013 Posted December 2, 2013 (edited) My take is some of you are way overreacting over this rookie QB A Rookie at QB. He didn't have a full pre season as he was injured and only played in the two first most inconsequential games. The result of this was not getting enough playing experience, time to learn to read defenses, get his timing down with his starting receiving corps. To me this was the first of several setbacks. EJ played rather well the first five weeks IMHO. Going 2-2 in the first four games with a close game against the Patriots in week one. Then, If I'm not mistaken the score in that Browns game was 24-17 until EJ left with an injury. That knee injury was another setback for this rookie QB missing another four games of learning experience. Both WR's Johnson and Woods were listed at probable for this weeks game, meaning that they both were still not 100% healthy. Like JohnC stated, this season was never about the playoffs considering the other players on the roster. It was about learning if this rookie QB can become a top QB. Again, look what he has done with less talent around him then the NY Jets Geno Smith. who has 8 TD's, 19 INT's, 8 fumbles = 27 turnovers. The Jets have 3 first round, and a 2nd round pick on their O line. 1st & 2nd round picks at WR. EJ 8 games, 9 TD, 4 INT's 4 fumbles I love EJ as I see pocket presence when he gets decent protection. I see leadership. I see the ability to carry the entire offense...some games. I see a QB that knows how to run a 2 min drill, and could have won that game yesterday if not for some bad luck with 2 different receivers fumbling the ball away on two consecutive series. Edited December 2, 2013 by FeartheLosing
bobobonators Posted December 2, 2013 Posted December 2, 2013 (edited) Texan's made the playoffs, right? Titans were barely under .500. Jags are absolutely awful, but put the Colts in the AFC East last year and they still get a WC. Titans were 6-10..that's far enough under .500 to be bad. Jags were worst team in NFL. Texans in AFC East may have not made playoffs. There's a reason why the Texans stroll through regular season year after year and then get HAMMERED in the playoffs year after year. 2 wins vs. Jags; split titans and split colts (at worst) - an AUTOMATIC 4 wins off the bat every season for past few years (except for this season). That division has been a 2-team division for years. There's a huge drop-off between colts/texans and the rest. neither miami, jets, bills have been as bad as the Jags. Edited December 2, 2013 by bobobonators
boyst Posted December 2, 2013 Posted December 2, 2013 I generally like your posts and value your football insight dude. But at some point, you're going to have to cut bait with T.J. Graham. You were wrong about the guy - he's just not a football player. Unlike EJ, he's actually had a chance to make plays over almost two entire seasons, and it just hasn't happened. There is nothing to be ashamed of - the entire FO was wrong about him as well. But come on man, it's over. T.J. Graham is over. it is nothing to do with Graham. Its about the entire team. No one is criticizing many other players on this team who deserve it before Graham. That is what frustrates me. I am not saying he is over. I am not going to give up on any Bills player. The guy hasn't had a chance to do anything and hasn't made an opportunities to earn a chance to do so. He hasn't deserved the whipping he has got. Other players, Bradham and Aaron williams are great examples of how fans react to teams. No one says anything about Bradham underachieving. Then everyone jumps on AWilliams the first time he messes up at a new position. We are fans and we take our team way too seriously. We don't all stop to remember that.
FireChan Posted December 2, 2013 Posted December 2, 2013 Titans were 6-10..that's far enough under .500 to be bad. Jags were worst team in NFL. Texans in AFC East may have not made playoffs. There's a reason why the Texans stroll through regular season year after year and then get HAMMERED in the playoffs year after year. 2 wins vs. Jags; split titans and split colts (at worst) - an AUTOMATIC 4 wins off the bat every season for past few years (except for this season). That's fine, but you're acting like the Colts wouldn't have beaten the Phins and Jets twice last year, as well as have a good shot to split with the Pats. I know the Texans are the perennial soft team that goes to the playoffs to get crushed.
Coach Tuesday Posted December 2, 2013 Posted December 2, 2013 > Once you're done, stop the crusade. Please. You and several other Manuel supporters feel the need to respond to just about every anti-Manuel post out there; often in as loud and obnoxious a manner as possible. Please don't lecture me about crusades. Not that I'm trying to lump all Manuel supporters together. San Jose Bills Fan is a bright, articulate Manuel supporter; capable of conversing with the other side without turning it into a shouting match. The same could also be said of some other Manuel supporters, such as JohnC. As for the Stafford example: Stafford had proved far more as a pocket passer in college than had Manuel. An accomplished college pocket passer will sometimes get off to a rocky start in the NFL--which is also something that could be said of Drew Brees. If the Bills do take a QB in the 2014 draft, I'd want that new QB to sit and learn behind Manuel for at least one year, maybe two. That way Manuel would have more than just his rookie year in which to prove himself; without causing the Bills to waste a valuable opportunity to draft a franchise QB in 2014. Stafford completed 57.1% of his passes over three years at Georgia. There were HUGE questions about whether his game would translate to the NFL, or whether he was just a guy with a big arm.
RuntheDamnBall Posted December 2, 2013 Posted December 2, 2013 Stafford completed 57.1% of his passes over three years at Georgia. There were HUGE questions about whether his game would translate to the NFL, or whether he was just a guy with a big arm. Please, stop getting the point.
dave mcbride Posted December 2, 2013 Posted December 2, 2013 Stafford completed 57.1% of his passes over three years at Georgia. There were HUGE questions about whether his game would translate to the NFL, or whether he was just a guy with a big arm. It's probably wiser to compare their senior years only. They were pretty much equals as seniors. Manuel had a higher completion rate but Stafford had a slightly better ypa and td/int ratio. http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/players/ej-manuel-1.html http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/players/matthew-stafford-1.html
Orton's Arm Posted December 2, 2013 Posted December 2, 2013 Stafford completed 57.1% of his passes over three years at Georgia. There were HUGE questions about whether his game would translate to the NFL, or whether he was just a guy with a big arm. Stafford was taken first overall. Prior to the draft, I don't recall very many (any?) experts suggesting that this would be a reach. Below is a quote from NFL.com's pre-draft analysis of him: ******************* Quick to scan the field and go through his progressions . . . Consistent with excellent accuracy to all levels of the field . . . Has good deep accuracy and trajectory . . . Aggressive, but has developed into a smarter passer over his career and will take what the defense gives him by dropping to his second and third options . . . ************ There were some negatives mentioned as well; most notably concerns about his footwork and accuracy on crossing routes. However, the overall picture presented was of a pro-style college QB who'd demonstrated a lot of what you'd want to see from a franchise NFL QB. His ability to process information quickly, and go to his second and third reads, was an especially important part of that evaluation.
Al Cowlings Posted December 2, 2013 Posted December 2, 2013 Not exactly a major synopsis of the game, but it comes expected with these posts. No mention of the horrific defense-other than Gilmore? Everyone's savior Kiko was awful. He over pursues and guesses on everything. Not a very bright guy, and that's who is calling the defense on the field? This coaching staff is a nightmare, but what do ypou expect when you are hiring a staff from Syracuse of all places. Can we stop fretting about Pettine getting a head coaching job? Take a look at Buffalo's rankings on team defense. Sure, they have a lot of sacks, because all he does is blitz. Gets burned quite a bit and they can't stop the run. But hey, they are 4-8 and playing meaningful December football, right?
Recommended Posts