QB turmoil possible in Buffalo

[FireChan]

 

 

It doesn't have to be Sherman in terms of intensity to be loud and foolish. What rookie QB says this--especially one who came from a program that simplified their offense to suit his skill set?--and he actually said the Bills playbook was EASIER than the Seminoles!

 

Here, in case you missed it.

 

“The funny thing is it’s easier to learn than the offense I had at Florida State,” Manuel, the Bills’ first round draft pick, told SiriusXM NFL Radio,according to ESPN.com. “It’s a true West Coast-type progression offense. That’s really what I wanted when I was coming through the pre-draft process. I wanted something that I could just go in and say 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, check it down and run it. That’s it, it’s that simple. I love it.”

 

“The learning curve for me is a lot shorter simply because of what I had at Florida State,” he added. “[That offense is] more complex and a little bit harder to catch on and learn. This offense is very simple. I’ve done a great job with it."

 

 

"Good Lord"....that's the loudest declaration by a rookie QB I've ever seen in training camp. Of course, it was delusional..

 

 

 

You said 4 QB will be picked before 9 because 6 teams ahead of us need a QB.

 

I guess in college, QB coaches don't care about footwork and accuracy.

 

Imagine if EJ was in a large market and said that. Especially after we had to scale it back for him. He'd be crucified.

[Mr. WEO]

Imagine if EJ was in a large market and said that. Especially after we had to scale it back for him. He'd be crucified.

 

Imagine if Geno Smith had said this...

 

No, I said that 4 teams need a QB and arguably 6 do, meaning that the 4 QB's with first round grades could be gone by the time the Bills pick. And if they're not and these teams pass on one of them, do the Bills really want him/them?

 

I'm sure they do. I'm also sure it's something that can be improved upon even in the pros.

 

You mean if crappy teams pass on a QB when they really need one--we should follow their lead?

 

Oh, wait...is Buddy Nix still GM?

[Kirby Jackson]

 

 

It doesn't have to be Sherman in terms of intensity to be loud and foolish. What rookie QB says this--especially one who came from a program that simplified their offense to suit his skill set?--and he actually said the Bills playbook was EASIER than the Seminoles!

 

Here, in case you missed it.

 

“The funny thing is it’s easier to learn than the offense I had at Florida State,” Manuel, the Bills’ first round draft pick, told SiriusXM NFL Radio,according to ESPN.com. “It’s a true West Coast-type progression offense. That’s really what I wanted when I was coming through the pre-draft process. I wanted something that I could just go in and say 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, check it down and run it. That’s it, it’s that simple. I love it.”

 

“The learning curve for me is a lot shorter simply because of what I had at Florida State,” he added. “[That offense is] more complex and a little bit harder to catch on and learn. This offense is very simple. I’ve done a great job with it."

 

 

"Good Lord"....that's the loudest declaration by a rookie QB I've ever seen in training camp. Of course, it was delusional..

 

 

 

You said 4 QB will be picked before 9 because 6 teams ahead of us need a QB.

 

I guess in college, QB coaches don't care about footwork and accuracy.

The irony is that they ended up

scaling back the playbook for him in week 14 or whatever it was. That to me was the scariest sign of his development or lack thereof.

[Doc]

Imagine if Geno Smith had said this...

Why? What do you suppose would have happened?

[You mean if crappy teams pass on a QB when they really need one--we should follow their lead?

 

Oh, wait...is Buddy Nix still GM?

Why? Did Buddy draft your boy Matt Leinart, er, Barkley and I missed it?

Edited February 19, 2014 by Doc

[FireChan]

 

Why? What do you suppose would have happened?

 

Why? Did Buddy draft your boy Matt Leinart, er, Barkley and I missed it?

 

The media would have called him arrogant, and an idiot. Which would be true.

 

If you're arrogant and correct, you're a confident leader. Arrogant and incorrect? An idiot.

Edited February 19, 2014 by FireChan

[Mr. WEO]

Why? What do you suppose would have happened?

 

Why? Did Buddy draft your boy Matt Leinart, er, Barkley and I missed it?

 

This place would have spawned a 60 page thread about it and how the Jets were "imploding" again.

 

No, Buddy didn't draft....any QB.

[Doc]

The media would have called him arrogant, and an idiot. Which would be true.

 

If you're arrogant and correct, you're a confident leader. Arrogant and incorrect? An idiot.

The media calling someone who is arrogant and incorrect an idiot? There's irony in there somewhere.

This place would have spawned a 60 page thread about it and how the Jets were "imploding" again.

 

No, Buddy didn't draft....any QB.

LOL! Of course it would have.

 

And again, thankfully Nix didn't draft Barkley. Speaking of which, who's your QB of choice this year?

Edited February 19, 2014 by Doc

[Dorkington]

I thought the following was a good post... wish it would have been merged here instead of simply locked. Hopefully Wing Man doesn't mind me copying his post to here.

 

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/165943-ej-manuel-v-the-greats/

 

With all the freaking panic I see on this board daily looking to throw EJ Manuel over the side, I thought I'd run an analysis of how quarterbacks who won Super Bowls did their first year starting in the pros. Many quarterbacks had a few starts or no starts at all their rookie season, so I tossed out all of the years prior to the one where they started at least half of all the games on the schedule. Len Dawson (KC) and Jeff Hostetler (NYG) started in earnest in their sixth year, Theismann (WAS) in his fifth. There are now just 31 Super Bowl winning QBs with Russell Wilson's addition this year, out of the hundreds that have been drafted over that period. Based on QB rating, Manuel would slide just above Jim McMahon (15th out of 31: 77.6 rating in 1983).

 

The average SB winning QB started 12.77 games, and was 205.9-359.3 (56.36% comp.) 2485yds 16.1 TDs 13.7 INTs 77.0 QB Rating.

Manuel started 10 games, was 180-306 (58.82% comp.) 1972yds 11 TDs 9 INTs 77.7 QB Rating

 

More interestingly, of the top 13 QB rated, only 2 started the majority of their games during their rookie season (Roethlisberger 98.1, Wilson 100.0). Among the 13 Super Bowl winning quarterbacks who took the reins of the team right out of college, Manuel would finish between Joe Flacco (3rd of 13: 80.3 rating in 2008) and Johnny Unitas (4th of 13: 74.0 rating in 1956). If you adjust Manuel's numbers to 16 games from 10, he throws for 3155 yards. Adjusting the other rookie starting QBs, only Peyton Manning throws for more (3739yds).

 

The bottom line is that a great majority of the quarterbacks who went on the win one or more Super Bowls stood on the sideline for at least half a season, frequently longer, holding a clipboard. Among those that didn't, the results were often horrible. Among them:

 

Troy Aikman 1989 11 starts 155-293 (52.9% comp.) 1749yds 9 TDs 18 INTs - won Super Bowl 27, 28, 30

John Elway 1983 10 starts 123-259 (47.49% comp.) 1663yds 7 TDs 14 INTs - won Super Bowl 32, 33

Terry Bradshaw 1970 8 starts 83-218 (38.07% comp.) 1410yds 6 TDs 24 INTs - won Super Bowl 9, 10, 13, 14

 

For the record, in 1986 after two years with the Houston Gamblers, Jim Kelly started 16 games, was 285-480 3593yds 22 TDs 17 INTs 83.3 QB Rating. The Bills went 4-12 that year.

 

Manuel may be a hit or a bomb but there's no real way to know yet. Just sayin'.

 

I think the last sentence is very accurate.

[YoloinOhio]

I thought the following was a good post... wish it would have been merged here instead of simply locked. Hopefully Wing Man doesn't mind me copying his post to here.

 

http://forums.twobil...l-v-the-greats/

 

 

 

I think the last sentence is very accurate.

I agree. But it is like talking to a wall, I give up. It seems the EJ bashers are completely set on the fact he is a bust, whereas the EJ "supporters" are just saying it is too early to know what he is going to be, which is true of 99% of rookies.

[billsfan1959]

Makes "no difference." When I first broached the subject the season was far from over so we had no idea where the team would be drafting. People were vehemently opposed to the thought of bringing in competition for EJ. I'd tell you to search my posts but I'm too prolific.

I was referring to this next upcoming draft. You don't make your team better by bringing in street FA's in the middle of the season.

 

I believe most people who disagreed (myself included) were "vehemently" opposed to drafting a QB in the first round. My response to a couple of the arguments were and are as follows:

 

(1) You draft a QB available to you who is better than the one you have: There isn't a QB in this draft who will be available at #9 (some might say even at #1) who is close to being a "slam dunk" as far as being a good NFL QB, much less a great NFL QB. Every one of them has as many question marks as EJ did coming out.

 

(2) Competition: There is a reason that, historically, people in the NFL who know a lot more about football than us have decided not to consecutively draft QBs in the 1st round. And, please, I don't want to hear the example of the Cowboys drafting Troy Aikman #1 and then drafting Steve Walsh #1 in the suppemental draft. Walsh was drafted purely for trade value. There was no real competition as Aikman was always going to be the starting QB. Even if, by some chance, you believe there was real competition, it doesn't support the argument as it certainly didn't make Aikman better. His first two years in the NFL were as bad or worse than EJ's first year - and Aikman's numbers didn't improve until after the Cowboys traded Walsh. I think most GMs and coaches view it as a recipe for disaster. The first time the incumbent throws a bad pass or makes a critical mistake, fans would be clamoring for the new guy - and every media session would be filled with questions about the QB situation.

 

I am all for competion in a general sense. Yet I will admit that I am also against bringing in true competion for EJ this year. I look at the QB situation as different than other positions on the field. There certainly is a time to have full competion at the QB position; however, I don't believe this is the time for the Bills to do so. When you draft a QB in the first round, you are saying he is going to be your #1 guy at some point. If the decision is made that he is going to be the starter and not have the opportunity to sit and learn behind a top NFL QB (much like.Rogers did in Green Bay), then he needs all the reps he can get. He has to learn to read NFL defenses, he has to learn virtually every offensive player's roles on any given play, he has to develop chemistry with receivers, running backs, and even his offensive line, etc., etc., etc. It takes time and continuity for all of that to develop. He did not have either last year. The Bills have made the decision that EJ is going to be their starting QB in 2014. People can debate all day on whether he should be or not. Personally, I do not think you can reach any substantive conclusions based on last year. If you cannot see the overwhelming number of factors why, not only EJ, but virtually every skill player on the offensive side of the ball did not perform well last season, then you just do not want to see it.

 

Regardless, the Bills have made their decision and EJ is the starter in 2014. As such, he should be given every possibility to show this year that he can be "that guy." I have no problem bringing in a veteran to come in to fill the role of a "mentor" and to step in should EJ get hurt. I also don't mind if they draft a QB in the 3rd on back to come in and compete with Tuel and Lewis. However, I think drafting a QB in the 1st round has more potential to hurt, rather than help this team right now.

[Beerball]

I believe most people who disagreed (myself included) were "vehemently" opposed to drafting a QB in the first round. My response to a couple of the arguments were and are as follows:

 

(1) You draft a QB available to you who is better than the one you have: There isn't a QB in this draft who will be available at #9 (some might say even at #1) who is close to being a "slam dunk" as far as being a good NFL QB, much less a great NFL QB. Every one of them has as many question marks as EJ did coming out.

I began making this argument long before the draft order was decided. The Bills were probably around pick 5 or 6 at the time.

 

You do not know who will be available even at #9.

 

Slam dunk? Is that a prerequisite for high first round picks? (Williams, Whitner, Maybin & Spiller say hello)

[billsfan1959]

I began making this argument long before the draft order was decided. The Bills were probably around pick 5 or 6 at the time.

 

You do not know who will be available even at #9.

 

Slam dunk? Is that a prerequisite for high first round picks? (Williams, Whitner, Maybin & Spiller say hello)

 

While there certainly is no such thing as a slam dunk when it comes to NFL draft picks, when you propose to draft a QB early in the first round after selecting a QB in the first round the year before - then he better be as close to certain as you can get (Read: guys like Manning or Luck). I don't see inyone in this year's class close to that caliber.

[Doc]

I believe most people who disagreed (myself included) were "vehemently" opposed to drafting a QB in the first round. My response to a couple of the arguments were and are as follows:

 

(1) You draft a QB available to you who is better than the one you have: There isn't a QB in this draft who will be available at #9 (some might say even at #1) who is close to being a "slam dunk" as far as being a good NFL QB, much less a great NFL QB. Every one of them has as many question marks as EJ did coming out.

 

(2) Competition: There is a reason that, historically, people in the NFL who know a lot more about football than us have decided not to consecutively draft QBs in the 1st round. And, please, I don't want to hear the example of the Cowboys drafting Troy Aikman #1 and then drafting Steve Walsh #1 in the suppemental draft. Walsh was drafted purely for trade value. There was no real competition as Aikman was always going to be the starting QB. Even if, by some chance, you believe there was real competition, it doesn't support the argument as it certainly didn't make Aikman better. His first two years in the NFL were as bad or worse than EJ's first year - and Aikman's numbers didn't improve until after the Cowboys traded Walsh. I think most GMs and coaches view it as a recipe for disaster. The first time the incumbent throws a bad pass or makes a critical mistake, fans would be clamoring for the new guy - and every media session would be filled with questions about the QB situation.

 

I am all for competion in a general sense. Yet I will admit that I am also against bringing in true competion for EJ this year. I look at the QB situation as different than other positions on the field. There certainly is a time to have full competion at the QB position; however, I don't believe this is the time for the Bills to do so. When you draft a QB in the first round, you are saying he is going to be your #1 guy at some point. If the decision is made that he is going to be the starter and not have the opportunity to sit and learn behind a top NFL QB (much like.Rogers did in Green Bay), then he needs all the reps he can get. He has to learn to read NFL defenses, he has to learn virtually every offensive player's roles on any given play, he has to develop chemistry with receivers, running backs, and even his offensive line, etc., etc., etc. It takes time and continuity for all of that to develop. He did not have either last year. The Bills have made the decision that EJ is going to be their starting QB in 2014. People can debate all day on whether he should be or not. Personally, I do not think you can reach any substantive conclusions based on last year. If you cannot see the overwhelming number of factors why, not only EJ, but virtually every skill player on the offensive side of the ball did not perform well last season, then you just do not want to see it.

 

Regardless, the Bills have made their decision and EJ is the starter in 2014. As such, he should be given every possibility to show this year that he can be "that guy." I have no problem bringing in a veteran to come in to fill the role of a "mentor" and to step in should EJ get hurt. I also don't mind if they draft a QB in the 3rd on back to come in and compete with Tuel and Lewis. However, I think drafting a QB in the 1st round has more potential to hurt, rather than help this team right now.

Excellent post.

I began making this argument long before the draft order was decided. The Bills were probably around pick 5 or 6 at the time.

 

You do not know who will be available even at #9.

 

Slam dunk? Is that a prerequisite for high first round picks? (Williams, Whitner, Maybin & Spiller say hello)

If you're going to replace a QB you took in the 1st year just a year before, and who you barely gave enough chance to prove himself, yeah a slam dunk is what would be needed before you consider taking another QB in the 1st round again. Otherwise you're just spinning your wheels.

[billsfan1959]

Excellent post.

 

If you're going to replace a QB you took in the 1st year just a year before, and who you barely gave enough chance to prove himself, yeah a slam dunk is what would be needed before you consider taking another QB in the 1st round again. Otherwise you're just spinning your wheels.

 

Amen!

[YoloinOhio]

Excellent post.

 

If you're going to replace a QB you took in the 1st year just a year before, and who you barely gave enough chance to prove himself, yeah a slam dunk is what would be needed before you consider taking another QB in the 1st round again. Otherwise you're just spinning your wheels.

I agree, which is why no other teams have done it in 25 years. The closest we have seen is the Panthers, who drafted Claussen in the 2nd rd and then Cam in the 1st the following year. But they had the #1 overall pick. And while Cam had some detractors, he was certainly a better prospect than any in this draft. While a lot of people rail on the Bills for thinking they are smarter than everyone else and doing the unorthodox... wouldn't taking a QB in the 1st round in back to back years be exactly that? I think some teams may have a better case for doing so, if they changed coaches and systems. The Bills didn't.

[Mr. WEO]

I agree. But it is like talking to a wall, I give up. It seems the EJ bashers are completely set on the fact he is a bust, whereas the EJ "supporters" are just saying it is too early to know what he is going to be, which is true of 99% of rookies.

 

I would be inclined to agree with you if you didn't paint all who disagree with you as "EJ bashers" who "are completely set on the fact that he is a bust". There's a middle ground here...

 

Of course no one knows how he will turn out. I have to say he may be a good startign QB at some point. But simply pointing out the obvious concerns and liabilities that have arisen thus far (accuracy, mechanics, durability) in the top QB drafted doesn't mean all such posters are "hating" on the guy.

 

These are legit concerns that few predicted at the beginning of the season.

 

The media calling someone who is arrogant and incorrect an idiot? There's irony in there somewhere.

 

LOL! Of course it would have.

 

And again, thankfully Nix didn't draft Barkley. Speaking of which, who's your QB of choice this year?

 

I have to admit that Manziel intrigues me. The rest I have hardly seen.

 

And for a guy who was carrying JPL's (who essentially could have strolled in from Tulane wearing an "I'm a bust, guys" T-shirt and you still wouldn't have caught on) jock until well after he was playing in the UFL, you are barking a lot about Barkley, a guy who hasn't bumped one of the hottest QBs in the league last year out of the starting spot. Rest assured that if Philly had drafted EJ, he would be in Barkley's spot right now.

[Beerball]

If you're going to replace a QB you took in the 1st year just a year before, and who you barely gave enough chance to prove himself, yeah a slam dunk is what would be needed before you consider taking another QB in the 1st round again. Otherwise you're just spinning your wheels.

I have never used the word replace in any form regarding Manuel, please stop trying to put words in my mouth. I do not know whether Manuel will be successful. Right now I'd put the odds at 30%. Why? Injuries. Mechanics. Vision. Confidence. Speed at which he moves through his progressions. Pocket awareness.

 

I'm not ready to anoint him anything (starter, bust or anything in between). He needs to get better fast and he needs competition.

[YoloinOhio]

I would be inclined to agree with you if you didn't paint all who disagree with you as "EJ bashers" who "are completely set on the fact that he is a bust". There's a middle ground here...

 

Of course no one knows how he will turn out. I have to say he may be a good startign QB at some point. But simply pointing out the obvious concerns and liabilities that have arisen thus far (accuracy, mechanics, durability) in the top QB drafted doesn't mean all such posters are "hating" on the guy.

 

These are legit concerns that few predicted at the beginning of the season.

 

 

 

I have to admit that Manziel intrigues me. The rest I have hardly seen.

 

And for a guy who was carrying JPL's (who essentially could have strolled in from Tulane wearing an "I'm a bust, guys" T-shirt and you still wouldn't have caught on) jock until well after he was playing in the UFL, you are barking a lot about Barkley, a guy who hasn't bumped one of the hottest QBs in the league last year out of the starting spot. Rest assured that if Philly had drafted EJ, he would be in Barkley's spot right now.

I didn't. I said "EJ Bashers" are the ones who are completely set. There are some like that. I didn't say everyone who disagrees with me is an EJ Basher. Edited February 19, 2014 by YoloinOhio

[Beerball]

While there certainly is no such thing as a slam dunk when it comes to NFL draft picks, when you propose to draft a QB early in the first round after selecting a QB in the first round the year before - then he better be as close to certain as you can get (Read: guys like Manning or Luck). I don't see inyone in this year's class close to that caliber.

I'll also ask you to stop putting words in my mouth. I have advocated that the Bills look hard at the position and if they see someone available who they think could be "the guy" they better take him.

 

I'll let the experts (team FO personnel) decide on caliber.

[billsfan1959]

I'll also ask you to stop putting words in my mouth. I have advocated that the Bills look hard at the position and if they see someone available who they think could be "the guy" they better take him.

 

I'll let the experts (team FO personnel) decide on caliber.

 

Two responses:

 

(1) As for putting words in your mouth, I don't see where I did that in what you quoted. You absolutely have advocated picking a QB in the first round after drafting one in the first round the year before. As for reasons, you originally advocated it for "competition." I rememeber it well as I responded to it. Now, it is if they see someone "who they think could be the guy." Let's just say this, you certainly have advocated taking a QB in the first round under "certain conditions." So, what I wrote was true.

 

(2) The FO apparently has found someone "who they think could be the guy" and have decided the caliber of QB they think he will be. They have said so publicly and have named him starting QB in 2014. Since you acknowledge that they are experts, and that is their opinion, then why again should they pick a QB in the first round this year?