To all of the EJ bashers

[OCinBuffalo]

Apparently. EJ is not a rookie. His second year in the play book, two full years of OTAs, almost two years of training camp, an extra few months of off season work, almost two full preseasons, even time spent on the sidelines when he was hurt last year for six games is an advantage.

 

He has less than 16 starts that a rookie may have. That is the only thing that should be considered. It's a big one. But if you're going to say look at how good he is after 16 games, he would have an ENORMOUS advantage over all other rookies 16 games and it wouldn't be fair to them.

Fine. Factor that in.

 

But, that works the other way as well: we can't compare "EJ's rookie year", to another QB's "rookie year" who played in all 16 games, either.

 

As you said: It's a big one.

Largely because: it's the ONLY one....that matters.

 

Whenever the EJ haters/apologists get done with twisting the data through their "only apply to EJ" rules: The fact remains that we shouldn't be saying anything at all until EJ plays 16 games, and we shouldn't be talking about EJ's draft until after next year.....just like we have ALWAYS done with every player.

 

It was, is, and will continue to be friggin preposterous to pretend that the "NFL has changed" in terms of Rookie/2nd/3rd year of starting(happy?) QBs. Dan Marino went to the SB his rookie year. He never went back(largely thanks to us.) Did the NFL change because he had a good rookie year? No.

 

The NFL has not changed. That was a nonsense story, and it remains a nonsense story:

Anybody watch Kapernick's 3 picks? How about Wilson's lack of effectiveness? What's Andrew Luck's team's record this year? Anybody ready to call BUST! on any of them? Why not? RG3? You take the data from this weekend? And by the hater's rules? ALL of them are busts, especially Luck, as a #1 overall with 3 picks in 2 games?

 

Look: even lowly JP Losman got his 3 years.

 

WTF is anyone doing talking about EJ in absolutes?....before he even gets 2?

 

Enough is enough of this nonsense.

[papazoid]

Keep rooting against him papazoid. Sorry this 2-0 start is so painful.

 

i'm not rooting against him. I would love to see him become a Franchise QB (Top 10).

 

based on what I've seen so far, I think his upside puts him around 20th best, which isn't good enough.

 

his last 2 games of playing at about 15th best is encouraging. but that 2 game body of work is even less reliable than last years 10 game body of work.

 

 

[Dibs]

.....

 

WTF is anyone doing talking about EJ in absolutes?....before he even gets 2?

 

....

 

Actually, that was you when you entered this thread with....

25 pages I'm not going to read because, as my avatar clearly indicates, EJ remains a rookie.....

[Thurmal34]

pap, is it your position that only "top 10" QBs are able to win super bowls?

[LOVEMESOMEBILLS]

i'm not rooting against him. I would love to see him become a Franchise QB (Top 10).

 

based on what I've seen so far, I think his upside puts him around 20th best, which isn't good enough.

 

his last 2 games of playing at about 15th best is encouraging. but that 2 game body of work is even less reliable than last years 10 game body of work.

Why? Rookie year is going to be one of, if not the worst year of your career, that's a given. That's why many people believe games 17-32 are far more telling then games 1-16. If rookie seasons were far more telling there would be no super star QBs.

[Thurmal34]

Right LOVE. EJ's rookie year was just that, a rookie year. 2-3 good games, 2-3 stinkers, and 3-4 average games. In other words, an NFL rookie QB.

[OCinBuffalo]

Had you just said "English", you could have gotten away with the other definitions(raw recruit, a novice)......but you specifically said "NFL football English". In NFL football terminology(and every sport) a rookie is an athlete playing in their first season. By dictionary definition, EJ is not a rookie.

 

I reiterate that I have no problem whatsoever with your argument. EJ didn't play a full rookie season, therefore that should be factored into ones analysis when determining his progress etc, etc.

 

I merely had a problem with you saying(in a superior manner) that you had "a full command of the English dictionary" and then directly followed that up with "...EJ is a Rookie....in NFL football English".

 

 

For somebody who avows to have a full command of the English dictionary, it is ironic that you cannot understand that you made a simple error in regards to the definition that you used.

Yawn. In NFL football English, ask any player/ex-player: EJ is still a rookie. Christ, Steve Tasker said it, I've heard a boatload of other players say it/something similar. Now you're telling me they aren't fluent in their own language?

 

And, really, the dictionary thing was for PPP people....not for you.(Notice I directed it a Rob, a PPP veteran) This dictionary thing, is an old thing, that really has nothing to do with you.

 

You've already declared my argument "valid". Great. You concede the content. Now, you want to make a big deal about the process/play thesaurus/dictionary police, or whatevertheF you are doing, I couldn't care less.

 

I'm done with it, largely because, again, it has nothing to do with you.

[papazoid]

pap, is it your position that only "top 10" QBs are able to win super bowls?

 

here is a list of super bowl winning QBs. i'd say close to 85-90% of the time a Top 10 QB won.

 

so "most likely" instead of "only".

 

Super Bowl 1. Bart Starr (MVP), 2 TDs

Super Bowl 2. Bart Starr (MVP), 1 TD

Super Bowl 3. Joe Namath (MVP), 0 TDs

Super Bowl 4. Len Dawson (MVP), 1 TD

Super Bowl 5. John Unitas (Chuck Howley), 1 TD

Super Bowl 6. Roger Staubach (MVP), 2 TDs

Super Bowl 7. Bob Griese (Jake Scott), 1 TD

Super Bowl 8. Bob Griese (Larry Csonka), 0 TDs

Super Bowl 9. Terry Bradshaw (Franco Harris), 1 TD

Super Bowl 10. Terry Bradshaw (Lynn Swann), 2 TDs

Super Bowl 11. Ken Stabler (Fred Biletnikoff), 1 TD

Super Bowl 12. Roger Staubach (Harvey Martin & Randy White), 0 TDs

Super Bowl 13. Terry Bradshaw (MVP), 4 TDs

Super Bowl 14. Terry Bradshaw (MVP), 2 TDs

Super Bowl 15. Jim Plunkett (MVP), 3 TDs

Super Bowl 16. Joe Montana (MVP), 1 TD

Super Bowl 17. Joe Theismann (John Riggins), 2 TDs,

Super Bowl 18. Jim Plunkett (Marcus Allen), 1 TD

Super Bowl 19. Joe Montana (MVP), 3 TDs

Super Bowl 20. Jim McMahon (Richard Dent), 0 TDs

Super Bowl 21. Phil Simms (MVP), 3 TDs

Super Bowl 22. Doug Williams (MVP), 4 TDs

Super Bowl 23. Joe Montana (Jerry Rice), 2 TDs

Super Bowl 24. Joe Montana (MVP), 5 TDs

Super Bowl 25. Jeff Hostetler (Ottis Anderson), 1 TD

Super Bowl 26. Mark Rypien (MVP), 2 TDs

Super Bowl 27. Troy Aikman (MVP), 4 TDs

Super Bowl 28. Troy Aikman (Emmitt Smith), O TDs

Super Bowl 29. Steve Young (MVP), 6 TDs

Super Bowl 30. Troy Aikman (Larry Brown), 1 TD

Super Bowl 31. Brett Favre (Desmond Howard), 2 TDs

Super Bowl 32. John Elway (Terrell Davis), 0 TDs

Super Bowl 33. John Elway (MVP), 1 TD

Super Bowl 34. Kurt Warner (MVP), 2 TDs

Super Bowl 35. Trent Dilfer (Ray Lewis), 1 TD

Super Bowl 36. Tom Brady (MVP), 1 TD

Super Bowl 37. Brad Johnson (Dexter Jackson), 2 TDs

Super Bowl 38. Tom Brady (MVP), 3 TDs

Super Bowl 39. Tom Brady (Deion Branch), 2 TDs

Super Bowl 40. Ben Roethlisberger (Hines Ward), 0 TDs

Super Bowl 41. Peyton Manning (MVP), 1 TD

Super Bowl 42. Eli Manning (MVP), 2 TDs

Super Bowl 43: Ben Roethlisberger (Santonio Holmes), 1 TD

Super Bowl 44: Drew Brees (MVP), 2 TDs

Super Bowl 45: Aaron Rogers (MVP), 3TDs

Super Bowl 46: Eli Manning (MVP), 1 TD

Super Bowl 47: Joe Flacco (MVP), 3TDs

Super Bowl 48: Russell Wilson, 2TDs

[26CornerBlitz]

i'm not rooting against him. I would love to see him become a Franchise QB (Top 10).

 

based on what I've seen so far, I think his upside puts him around 20th best, which isn't good enough.

 

his last 2 games of playing at about 15th best is encouraging. but that 2 game body of work is even less reliable than last years 10 game body of work.

 

This is nothing more than arbitrary pseudo analysis.

[OCinBuffalo]

Actually, that was you when you entered this thread with....

Ok. Right, which, means....what, exactly?

 

We should talk about EJ in absolutes? When I just said, we shouldn't?

 

Got any more "zingers" there Dibs?

 

You're beginning to amuse me, and that's hard to after 8 hours of drinking and then 4 hours of watching Netflix/posting here. By all means....give me all ya got. I might actually not fall asleep in my chair, like last weekend.

[Thurmal34]

So your position is that we need a top 10 QB to be a SB contender. Fair enough.

 

Manuel may never be that, only time will tell. However, it's clear the kid is getting better. Let's see how his game evolves over the course of the year before we rush to judgement.

[OCinBuffalo]

It's hilarious how, after numerous posts defining the very simple fact that a BOATLOAD of variables combine, per season, and sometimes, per game, to make ANY "top 10 QB" into one, and I'd say about 40% of those variables having nothing to do with the QB himself....

 

....some are still struggling with the cause/effect here.

 

Terry Brashaw. Top Ten QB? In that league, at that time, with those rules?

 

Still...no way.

 

I suppose we could always make up special Terry Bradshaw "analytics" rules now too, couldn't we?

[Dibs]

.....

 

And, really, the dictionary thing was for PPP people....not for you.(Notice I directed it a Rob, a PPP veteran) This dictionary thing, is an old thing, that really has nothing to do with you.

.......

 

Sorry, my mistake. My mind reading abilities are a little off lately.

 

Ok. Right, which, means....what, exactly?

 

We should talk about EJ in absolutes? When I just said, we shouldn't?

 

Got any more "zingers" there Dibs?

 

You're beginning to amuse me, and that's hard to after 8 hours of drinking and then 4 hours of watching Netflix/posting here......

 

Perhaps the drinking has hindered your usual cognitive abilities. My point was that you derided others about talking in absolutes, yet entered the thread by stating one yourself.

[1billsfan]

So your position is that we need a top 10 QB to be a SB contender. Fair enough.

 

Manuel may never be that, only time will tell. However, it's clear the kid is getting better. Let's see how his game evolves over the course of the year before we rush to judgement.

 

I think his “Top 10 QB” parameters are misguided. There are the big four of franchise/HOF QBs in Brady, Manning, Rogers and Brees…and then there’s everybody else who fights it out for who the next best ten QBs are in any given season. Those QBs are Luck, Wilson, Kaepernick, Flacco, Rothlesberger, Stafford, Ryan, E. Manning, Rivers, Cutler, Dalton and Newton. Luck and Wilson are the only QBs from that second group who might graduate to the current top four’s status in time.

 

So his “Top 10” should really be a “Top 15” because from that second pool (which fluctuates from season to season). Out of the last 10 Superbowls, there are 6 winning QBs from that second pool of QBs. So far, EJ Manuel looks well on his way to being in that top 15 status because he has a balanced team like Rothlesberger, Flacco, Wilson and E. Manning had during their successful seasons. To me, EJ looks like he’s getting comfortable in what they are asking him to do. I think the TDs will start coming. That preseason was so shaky that I’m not surprised the Bills are slow with the TD output right out of the gate. I'm very excited about tomorrow's game, because I think if they win convincingly that the Bills will look like a team which has truly "turned a corner" and is heading for a big season. Because it's been no secret that the talent is here and they were missing the QB and some confidence to get them over the hump.

[BillsBytheBay]

funny how 10 games of below average play from last season (ave rank 27th) is not a big enough body of work....

 

but 2 games of slightly above average play from this season (ave rank 15th) is proof positive.

my criticism of EJ from last year through preseason was he didn't ever look to be getting better. The last two weeks looked how I expected our rookie QB to progress last year..... But I'll take year two.

 

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

So your position is that we need a top 10 QB to be a SB contender. Fair enough.

 

Manuel may never be that, only time will tell. However, it's clear the kid is getting better. Let's see how his game evolves over the course of the year before we rush to judgement.

Top 10 like

 

Trent Dilfer?

Jeff Hostetler?

Brad Johnson?

Mark Rypien?

[YoloinOhio]

@AlbertBreer: ... What Bills need from Manuel ... Panther problems ... Amari Cooper ... Cam Erving ... Cousins' shot ... And MORE http://t.co/GQ9tXuTdPF

[billsfan1959]

here is a list of super bowl winning QBs. i'd say close to 85-90% of the time a Top 10 QB won.

 

so "most likely" instead of "only".

 

Super Bowl 1. Bart Starr (MVP), 2 TDs

Super Bowl 2. Bart Starr (MVP), 1 TD

Super Bowl 3. Joe Namath (MVP), 0 TDs

Super Bowl 4. Len Dawson (MVP), 1 TD

Super Bowl 5. John Unitas (Chuck Howley), 1 TD

Super Bowl 6. Roger Staubach (MVP), 2 TDs

Super Bowl 7. Bob Griese (Jake Scott), 1 TD

Super Bowl 8. Bob Griese (Larry Csonka), 0 TDs

Super Bowl 9. Terry Bradshaw (Franco Harris), 1 TD

Super Bowl 10. Terry Bradshaw (Lynn Swann), 2 TDs

Super Bowl 11. Ken Stabler (Fred Biletnikoff), 1 TD

Super Bowl 12. Roger Staubach (Harvey Martin & Randy White), 0 TDs

Super Bowl 13. Terry Bradshaw (MVP), 4 TDs

Super Bowl 14. Terry Bradshaw (MVP), 2 TDs

Super Bowl 15. Jim Plunkett (MVP), 3 TDs

Super Bowl 16. Joe Montana (MVP), 1 TD

Super Bowl 17. Joe Theismann (John Riggins), 2 TDs,

Super Bowl 18. Jim Plunkett (Marcus Allen), 1 TD

Super Bowl 19. Joe Montana (MVP), 3 TDs

Super Bowl 20. Jim McMahon (Richard Dent), 0 TDs

Super Bowl 21. Phil Simms (MVP), 3 TDs

Super Bowl 22. Doug Williams (MVP), 4 TDs

Super Bowl 23. Joe Montana (Jerry Rice), 2 TDs

Super Bowl 24. Joe Montana (MVP), 5 TDs

Super Bowl 25. Jeff Hostetler (Ottis Anderson), 1 TD

Super Bowl 26. Mark Rypien (MVP), 2 TDs

Super Bowl 27. Troy Aikman (MVP), 4 TDs

Super Bowl 28. Troy Aikman (Emmitt Smith), O TDs

Super Bowl 29. Steve Young (MVP), 6 TDs

Super Bowl 30. Troy Aikman (Larry Brown), 1 TD

Super Bowl 31. Brett Favre (Desmond Howard), 2 TDs

Super Bowl 32. John Elway (Terrell Davis), 0 TDs

Super Bowl 33. John Elway (MVP), 1 TD

Super Bowl 34. Kurt Warner (MVP), 2 TDs

Super Bowl 35. Trent Dilfer (Ray Lewis), 1 TD

Super Bowl 36. Tom Brady (MVP), 1 TD

Super Bowl 37. Brad Johnson (Dexter Jackson), 2 TDs

Super Bowl 38. Tom Brady (MVP), 3 TDs

Super Bowl 39. Tom Brady (Deion Branch), 2 TDs

Super Bowl 40. Ben Roethlisberger (Hines Ward), 0 TDs

Super Bowl 41. Peyton Manning (MVP), 1 TD

Super Bowl 42. Eli Manning (MVP), 2 TDs

Super Bowl 43: Ben Roethlisberger (Santonio Holmes), 1 TD

Super Bowl 44: Drew Brees (MVP), 2 TDs

Super Bowl 45: Aaron Rogers (MVP), 3TDs

Super Bowl 46: Eli Manning (MVP), 1 TD

Super Bowl 47: Joe Flacco (MVP), 3TDs

Super Bowl 48: Russell Wilson, 2TDs

And how many of them were top 10, superbowl winning caliber QBs after their first 12 games? It seems you want to apply a standard to EJ that few, if any of the QBs on your list reached in their first 12 games. Why? If you don't expect him to achieve that standard after 12 games then what is your point? And how in the world do you know he won't achieve that standard when he reaches the point in his career most of the above QBs were at when they won a superbowl?

Edited September 20, 2014 by billsfan1959

[Kelly the Dog]

 

Fine. Factor that in.

 

But, that works the other way as well: we can't compare "EJ's rookie year", to another QB's "rookie year" who played in all 16 games, either.

 

As you said: It's a big one.

Largely because: it's the ONLY one....that matters.

 

Whenever the EJ haters/apologists get done with twisting the data through their "only apply to EJ" rules: The fact remains that we shouldn't be saying anything at all until EJ plays 16 games, and we shouldn't be talking about EJ's draft until after next year.....just like we have ALWAYS done with every player.

 

It was, is, and will continue to be friggin preposterous to pretend that the "NFL has changed" in terms of Rookie/2nd/3rd year of starting(happy?) QBs. Dan Marino went to the SB his rookie year. He never went back(largely thanks to us.) Did the NFL change because he had a good rookie year? No.

 

The NFL has not changed. That was a nonsense story, and it remains a nonsense story:

Anybody watch Kapernick's 3 picks? How about Wilson's lack of effectiveness? What's Andrew Luck's team's record this year? Anybody ready to call BUST! on any of them? Why not? RG3? You take the data from this weekend? And by the hater's rules? ALL of them are busts, especially Luck, as a #1 overall with 3 picks in 2 games?

 

Look: even lowly JP Losman got his 3 years.

 

WTF is anyone doing talking about EJ in absolutes?....before he even gets 2?

 

Enough is enough of this nonsense.

Doug Marrone and Nate Hackett constantly talk about the seismic jump that EJ took in the OTAs and training camp because it was his SECOND year in the play book, and he knew the offense WAY better, and he knew what they were asking of him way more, and he knew he was doing with the ball instead of thinking. Your premise is just flat wrong. Yes it is unfair to him to criticize him when he didn't have a full year compared to other rookies who played a full 16 games. And got hurt. But it's just as unfair if not more unfair to other rookies to stop at 16 games in his second season and say look at his rookie season now because he will have an ENORMOUS advantage over them in his games 11-16, which is really what you're talking about.

[billsgpr88]

Horsecrap. 16 games started is the only real measurement we can use. What's the alternative? Running Madden simulations for the 6 games EJ didn't play last year? (You know it wouldn't surprise me...) Letting yet another "sports analytics" clown fail at doing my job, causing me to have to post, yet again, another long refutation of their idiot methodolgy?

 

(Past examples: "Road Wins Against Playoff Teams" , "Yards Per Attempt" )

 

Ridiculous comparison. Was Aaron Rodgers starting games those 3 years? No.

 

In fact, you're proving my point for me: any analyis of a drafted-->starting QB is relatively pointless, even after 16 games, because of the plethora of variables that cannot be accounted for in a SANE manner.

 

Why is it that for last 20 years, we have always reserved "bust" status until 3 years after a player was drated, and rarely declared someone a bust until they demonstrate absolute suckitude consistently? Because that's the rational approach.

 

Suddenly, due to a few outliers like Kapernick and Wilson, we are supposed to throw away everything we know about the college-->NFL transition? Who the F gave that order, and why the hell are we following it? Again, there are FAR too many variables(like, um, the strength of both SF and SEA defenses?) to pretend we know a damn thing about Kapernick or Wilson or EJ so far.

 

Question: How much is EJ been benefitting from our D/ST(like Kap and Wilson have) thus far vs. how much is due to EJ himself?

No one has any idea until we get more data.

 

I'll use our current game plan over the last 2 games as an example: Would this be the gameplan GB would have used Aaron Rodgers in his post-Farve start? Of course not. So, does Aaron Rodgers first 16 games have much chance of telling us anything in relation to EJ's first 16 games? Not a chance in hell.

 

Using statistical analysis requires precision, it also requires knowing WTF you are doing. I've seen very little precision, all sorts of confidence bias, and hardly anyone demonstrating proficiency in this new "field" of "sports analytics" thus far. Football Outsiders and PFT are the only people "doing it right" and even they have flaws in their methods. The difference? They are competent enough to know about these flaws, they admit them, and they are trying to fix them. QBR is flawed as well, but, ESPN has decided that this is the best that can be done given the resources they are willing to put into it. Fine. At least it has a reasonable methodology.

 

In comparison, I hear morons talking about YPA, without even demonstrating the slightest correlation, never mind finding a propensity %, to winning/making the playoffs, not even a relationship to offensive proficiency/efficiency. Why? Because they haven't even bothered to set a F'ing baseline for these things.

 

Yards Per Attempt sits there like a burning pile of schit, and we have moronic "shamans" howling at the moon and dancing around it, and getting the same exact results in terms of predicting future results.

 

Here's another interesting, QBR-like approach to rating players. Methodology here: http://www.numberfir.../info/glossary/ First let me say, this is at least a competent effort.

 

The problem is, just like with QBR, and to quote the method explanation itself:

 

 

The "at least once" part is the issue. Using historical data in this manner doesn't account for deltas in team defensive schemes, or offensive schemes, nor does it account for individual opposing player's strengths weaknesses, nor does it account for time of game(or perhaps it does, but this doesn't say.)

 

This is why PFT's rating schema is superior: it compares player v. player, every play, all game. (But it has other problems that I won't get into here)

 

While it's fair to assume that "rare" plays, of the "at least once" variety have a reasonable chance of remaining "rare", how does it account for something like Converting a 4th Down and 32 with an inside handoff? That's an pretty rare/large achievement, and either indicative of one hell of a RB, or O line, or, indicative of a terrible D. Or, maybe it's merely a scheme thing? Time of game? Score? While, throwing for 6 yards on a slant, on 2nd/3rd and 5, all over the field, any time of game, happens all the time.

 

Thus, you're bound to have a bias in "expected successful outcome achieved" in "most common situation". You're going to see the pattern you are looking for(otherwised known as confidence bias) in the most common situations, precisely because they are so common, and precisely because teams use "common" approaches to solving "common" problems. Almost every QB in the league is capable of converting that slant, and they do, lots.

 

How therefore does any of this distinguish one QB from another? It over-credits QBs for making that play, and over-punishes QBs for not making it.

 

Now, consider the fact that 12 years ago, nobody was running the read/option, and there were very few true "running QBs", therefore, no LB had to account for the QB(except for a very few) taking off. Now, many teams are designing runs for QBs(The Dolphins designed 2 runs for Ryan F'ing Tannehill last game). Thus, the run action is making the passing game easier for those QBs who bring that threat to the game. (Ahem, look at Wilson, Kapernick, and to a lesser degree, EJ)

 

This is where QBR-like approaches fail. It's the threat of the run that they simply do not take into account. They try to measure and then weight a QB run as more equivalent to the pass, but only AFTER the fact.

 

Passing will, in the aggregate, be better for all QBs who can demonstrate both a competent pass and run threat, especially for teams that gameplan that very thing, thus causing defesnes to respond with appropriate gamplans. But, data from 12-5 years ago doesn't take that into account, does it? EDIT: At the very least, you've got one skew here. Maybe more than a few.

 

In closing, this methodology is well thought out, and is a responsible, competent effot. But, clearly, so are my criticisms of it.

 

The bottom line: proper weighting of the raw data, BEFORE it's put into the algorithms, is required to make this method more accurate. Either that, or somebody simply needs to show me the alogrithms, or, somebody simply needs to tell me that the alogrithms have taken everything I've said into account....and make me believe it(tough gig).

 

 

 

You know what I haven't had in a while? big league chew