FireChan Posted March 16, 2015 Author Posted March 16, 2015 (edited) Probably the latter, I do believe one of the biggest EJ fanboys has multiple accounts on here.... one of which is very prolific & M.I.A. since after the Raiders game. No proof, just a hunch... 26? He did disappear, didn't he? Are there actually 41 people on this board who would take Manwel over Tannehill or do we have a bunch of jerk offs who want to !@#$ up somebody's poll? To be fair, a ton of them said that neither will probably be good enough to win a Superbowl and they want cap space for 2016. Edited March 16, 2015 by FireChan
Rico Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 26? He did disappear, didn't he? To be fair, a ton of said that neither will be good enough to win a Superbowl and they want cap space for 2016. Lil Antoine?
Rob's House Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 To be fair, a ton of them said that neither will probably be good enough to win a Superbowl and they want cap space for 2016. I'm fine with those guys. The ones that irritate me are the ones whose real answer is yes but they vote no because if x then blah blah blah.
FireChan Posted March 16, 2015 Author Posted March 16, 2015 I'm fine with those guys. The ones that irritate me are the ones whose real answer is yes but they vote no because if x then blah blah blah. 14 games!!!!
Matt in KC Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 I'm fine with those guys. The ones that irritate me are the ones whose real answer is yes but they vote no because if x then blah blah blah. It wasn't me this time!
mountainwampus Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 EJ just doesn't have Tannehill's value. His accomplishments are just too few and far between at this point. Can't this poll be something more believable, like trading EJ for Gabbert or Jimmy Clausen?
BillsLux Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 Honestly, I like statistics as much as anyone, but have people throwing out the statistical comparisons between the two, actually watched EJ. He doesn't pass eye test, he doesn't look the part. Despite at draft people talking about his speed, he doesn't seem quick at all (hence no escapability), he shows little accuracy, and his ball flutters. Outside of the fact that he does genuinely seem like a nice guy, what can you say.
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 This is the 1st time that I have ever been called a troll here!! That's kind of exciting. EJ vs. Geno is a much more realistic comparison at this point than EJ vs. Tannehill. If you put a gun to my head I would pick EJ over Geno (mostly because of the unknown). I believe that Geno is more capable of winning (and losing) games on his own than EJ. I was not referring to you Kirby. Relax and take a deep breath BillsFan-4-Ever, on 15 Mar 2015 - 11:09 AM, said: I'd bet 100% would want any of the following over EJ and Tannehil Luck, Rogers, Wilson, Brady (well maybe 80% for Tummy as there is due to be a bias), should I poll it for you? (to make you feel better?) What does that have to do with anything? Word diarrhea again? It means the poll is trivial. I do hope it made you feel better.
GunnerBill Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 Honestly, I like statistics as much as anyone, but have people throwing out the statistical comparisons between the two, actually watched EJ. He doesn't pass eye test, he doesn't look the part. In some games he doesn't. In some games he does. I think Greg Roman said it in his introductory press conference - the issue with EJ is not that he hasn't shown some good things, it is that he hasn't shown them consistently. In the Chicago game did he look like a Quarterback who was still learning in the NFL but had some good skills? Yep. Against Houston did he look like a deer in headlights who couldn't complete a 5 yard dump off? Yep.
UticaBill Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 If we were running last year's offense then Tannehill is the obvious choice, but if we are running Greg Roman's 49er offense then I actually think EJ would be the better choice in that style of system and allow Roman a bigger playbook. I am not totally down on EJ like some, but he still has a lot to prove too. I think we give EJ a year (or two) under Roman before casting him off, but I absolutely do not see Tannehill fitting Roman's system well.
Kirby Jackson Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 (edited) I was not referring to you Kirby. Relax and take a deep breath It means the poll is trivial. I do hope it made you feel better. Aw man, I was kind of enjoying being called a troll. I'm going to start a thread talking about how the FO dropped the ball on letting Marrone go. That should cement my status as a troll and really get people going . Edited March 16, 2015 by Kirby Jackson
OCinBuffalo Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 (edited) Is it weird that one of my favorite things about Clay is that his number is #42? Love TEs with numbers in the 40's. Well, since 42 is the answer to life, the universe and everything? It's hard not to love it. However, here at TBD, we have found that 3.5 also has a similar profundity. For example: there have been ~3.5 threads started about EJ per week since he's been a Bill and all of them contain the reiteration of "Because Todd McShay said so!". Even when his own network's ESPN Sports Science show has rated EJ as one of the best pure talents in years. Recent problem here, posters locking in their opinions FAR TOO EARLY and then denying all contradictory facts. Example: "We gave away a chance to draft a QB by trading for Watkins." :lol: That was locked in on draft day, mostly by WGR parrots, and is now: Hilariously Stupid. What this is about: pure talent. Given how things ended up with Marrone, we have to take his judgement with a massive grain of salt. There's a 50/50 chance EJ improves the same way Tannehill did last year. We can NEVER know. So, to base any conclusion, for EJ or against, on that, is patently retarded. It's merely conjecture/opinion presented as fact, and therefore, useless. What I can say is: EJ's has a lot more pure talent than Tannehill. Period. It's obvious to anyone who is capable of observing athletic ability PROPERLY. Notice: stats/scores/blah has nothing to do with that. If you've never played/coached a team sport at a high level, your opinion is worthless, unless you can show me your ability to evaluate athletic ability is competent, and how you obtained it. X years of watching football doesn't count. Unless you can point out detail: like where a guy's elbow and toes are, in relation to the outcome of his throw? As I said: worthless. For the people who can only see this as a black box, where you put QB X in one end, and wins/whatever subjective measurement you use, come out the other end, but, you have no idea what's in the box or how it works? Please stop. But...all of these are symptoms of the larger disease. The disease: in the last 3 years we've suddenly decided to abandon everything we know, everything that has been proven about QBs, for reasons passing understanding. Rookie QBs(1st year out of college) having huge success in the NFL is an aberration. It hardly EVER happens. In the history of he NFL you can count on your hands the # of times a true rookie has had instant, and sustained, success. Why then have we suddenly accepted that every rookie QB that is drafted in the 1st round can "come right in and not only start, but take his team to the playoffs"? Because of yet another FAR TOO EARLY now set in concrete opinion: "College football has changed, and guys are ready now!" Horseshit. The reasons for it: Luck, RG3, Wilson, Kaepernick, Dalton. All of whom played well in the beginning but, all of whom have come crashing back down to earth very suddenly. How well did Wilson play in the SB? For 30 years, we've known it takes time(on average 3 years) to develop 95% of the true passing QBs who eventually meet with success in the NFL. Now we forget that, because of a few aberrant seasons? And then, these aberrations correct themselves: RG3 might not even be a Redskin next year. Enough of this nonsense. Let's go back to doing this the right way, shall we? We can't evaluate EJ, or any QB/WR/TE, either OT, C, DE, or S until AFTER their 3rd year. We can evaluate CB, DT, G, LB, RB immediately...due to the nature of the positions, as it has always been, and always will be. Edited March 16, 2015 by OCinBuffalo
FireChan Posted March 16, 2015 Author Posted March 16, 2015 Give EJ Tanny's OL and then we can talk. You mean that one that lost two starters in the middle of 2013, and was one of the worst in the NFL? Well, since 42 is the answer to life, the universe and everything? It's hard not to love it. However, here at TBD, we have found that 3.5 also has a similar profundity. For example: there have been ~3.5 threads started about EJ per week since he's been a Bill and all of them contain the reiteration of "Because Todd McShay said so!". Even when his own network's, ESPN Sports Science show has rated EJ as one of the best pure talents in years. Recent problem here, posters locking in their opinions FAR TOO EARLY and then denying all contradictory facts. Example: We gave away a chance to draft a QB by trading for Watkins. :lol: Hilariously stupid. What this is about: pure talent. Given how things ended up with Marrone, we have to take his judgement with a massive grain of salt. There's a 50/50 chance EJ improves the same way Tannehill did last year. We can NEVER know. So, to base any conclusion, for EJ or against, on that, is patently retarded. It's merely conjecture/opinion presented as fact, and therefore, useless. What I can say is: EJ's has a lot more pure talent than Tannehill. Period. It's obvious to anyone who is capable of observing athletic ability PROPERLY. Notice: stats/scores/blah has nothing to do with that. If you've never played/coached a team sport at a high level, your opinion is worthless, unless you can show me your ability to evaluate athletic ability is competent, and how you obtained it. X years of watching football doesn't count. Unless you can point out detail: like where a guy's elbow and toes are, in relation to the outcome of his throw? As I said: worthless. For the people who can only see this as a black box, where you put QB X in one end, and wins/whatever subjective measurement you use, come out the other end, but, you have no idea what's in the box or how it works? Please stop. But...all of these are symptoms of the larger disease. The disease: in the last 3 years we've suddenly decided to abandon everything we know, everything that has been proven about QBs, for reasons passing understanding. Rookie QBs(1st year out of college) having huge success in the NFL is an aberration. It hardly EVER happens. In the history of he NFL you can count on your hands the # of times a true rookie has had instant, and sustained, success. Why then have we suddenly accepted that every rookie QB that is drafted in the 1st round can "come right in and not only start, but take his team to the playoffs"? Because of yet another FAR TOO EARLY now set in concrete opinion: college football has changed, and guys are ready now! Horseshit. The reasons for it: Luck, RG3, Wilson, Kaepernick, Dalton. All of whom played well in the beginning but, all of whom have come crashing back down to earth very suddenly. How well did Wilson play in the SB? For 30 years, we've known it takes time(on average 3 years) to develop 95% of the QBs who eventually meet with success in the NFL. Now we forget that, because of a few aberrant seasons? And then, these aberrations correct themselves: RG3 might not even be a Redskin next year. Enough of this nonsense. Let's go back to doing this the right way, shall we? We can't evaluate EJ until AFTER his 3rd year. There's a 50/50 chance EJ improves like Tanny did? Where are you getting those numbers? Was Blaine Gabbert given up on too early?
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 Aw man, I was kind of enjoying being called a troll. I'm going to start a thread talking about how the FO dropped the ball on letting Marrone go. That should cement my status as a troll and really get people going . OK You are a TROLL I hope you have a nice Monday. Good luck on your Brackets
Doc Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 You mean that one that lost two starters in the middle of 2013, and was one of the worst in the NFL? No, last year's.
Kirby Jackson Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 OK You are a TROLL I hope you have a nice Monday. Good luck on your Brackets You too man! I like UB's draw. They have a chance.
FireChan Posted March 16, 2015 Author Posted March 16, 2015 No, last year's. The one that allowed more sacks, more QB hits and more negative rushing attempts than Buffalo's?
Recommended Posts