EJ Manuel's film session games 1-4

[Solomon Grundy]

FWIW

 

Norfolk Tides ‏@NorfolkTides May 24

@buffalobills QB and Virginia Beach native @EJManuel3 threw a perfect strike prior to today's game at Harbor Park!

 

So you say there is a chance??

[San-O]

Sorry, but horsecrap. I refuse to lower the standard for this board. That high standard was set by guys like you who were here long before I showed up. I'm just following it. The audience has choices : get on our level, or go follow Joe B on Twitter. Besides, audience? Please. My audience is you, personally, and the other posters like you. It's obvious to both of us who is on that list, isn't it? One great thing about a message board is that it is a meritocracy(unless the mods are misbehaving). Posters can earn their way into my audience, the same as I earn my way into theirs.

 

Think about it: Bill in NYC is in my audience, and he has hated every damn minute of it, for 10 years! Shall we do CB vs. OL draft picks one more time for the newbies?

 

Yes, the only 100% plug and play QB I've seen in my lifetime is Marino. We can never fully support the case for Kelly or Warren Moon, because of the start in the USFL, and CFL, respectively, and the horrible NFL teams they joined. Kelly, Moon, and Fred Jackson, are reasons why minor leauge NFL makes sense.

 

"Developing" on the bench vs. playing every week? Easy choice. TV audiences is a concern. Thus, minor leauge NFL should be played on Tuesdays.

 

 

There IS a minor league: it's called the NCAA!

 

 

[Orange]

 

Well, Marrone is gone now, which is a good thing, however you can blame bad passing ALL on the O line and OC.

 

EJ is now a 58% completion QB with 16 TDs and 12 INTs. That's pretty bad.

 

http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/15803/ej-manuel

 

 

 

He's just inaccurate and throws poorly, which was one the analysis of him coming out of college as I recall.

he really hasnt shown any growth in quarterbacking abilities since college; regardless of offseason activities, benching last year, and watching to s of film. If he fails to dhoe the tiniest of growth i dont doubt that they will get rid of him. They wont need a distraction when and if they get another qb with a failed previously drafted first rounder on the team.

[OCinBuffalo]

 

 

"The data proves nothing", yet quantitative analysis proves the 98% of the QBs over the last 40 years took at least 3 full seasons of playing (not "developing" on the bench)? Because RG3, Tebow and Kaepernick?

 

SOme other QBs who were doing OK before they were off the bench for 3 years (or otherwise):

 

Elway: 2nd year 12-2, 3rd 11-5

P MAnning: 13-3 by year 2

Brady: 11-3 his first year as starter, SB MVP

Favre: 8-5 his 1st year (3300 yards) on a moribund Packers team

Montana: 13-3 his first full year as starter, SB MVP

Rivers: 14-2 his first year Pro Bowl

Big Ben: 13-0 his first year

Rodgers: 4000+ yds, 26 TDs/13 ints first year, 11-5 second year

Flacco: 11-5, 9-7, 12-4 avg 3000+ yards first 3 seasons (playoffs)

Ryan: 11-5, 9-5, 13-3 first 3 years (playoffs)

Dalton: Pro Bowl fist year, playoffs every year on a mediocre team

 

What happened to Kaepernick last year? Almost 3400 yards passing, 640 yards rushing, 19 passing TDs only 10 ints on 478 attempts. I'd take that and they can have EJ.

 

SO Luck hasn't been to, yet alone won a SB? What is the point of mentioning that? In only 3 seasons, he has won 33 games, thrown 83 TDs, been to 3 Pro Bowls and already has won as many SBs as Marino.

 

And Wilson? He's won 36 games, was a Pro Bowler in his first 2 seasons, has been to 2 SB, winning one. He has thrown for almost 10,000 yards on a run heavy team for a whopping 7.9 YPA. He has 72 passing TDs, an int ration of 2.1%. Last season, he threw for 3475, ran for 849 (and 6 TDs). Who is a worse SB champ than him? E MAnning perhaps.

 

Show me the 98% of all QBs who took 3 or more seasons as starter to reach success in the NFL. Unless you mean it takes 3 or more years to conclude a QB won't succeed , your analysis is lacking persuasive data.

Somebody needs to learn what "~" means, and, that it does not mean "took at least 3 full years of playing". ">= 3 years" is the proper mathematical representation...of what I didn't say. I said "~3 years"... "to start heading in one direction or the other".

 

And, I made it clear that playing/not playing, as well as all other variables, are indicative of: NOTHING! "No causal factors" means: you can pull any amount of data out of this domain, and prove one point, but, some other clown can do the same and prove the exact opposite. Why? Because all any of you can do(maybe, if you know how) is identify correlations. Correlation is not causation, and we are not the social scientists who pretend that it is.

 

We are Bills fans who want straight answers. The straightest, quantitatively supported answer remains, like it or not, "wait and see".

 

All playing can possibly accomplish: allow a player to reach his maximum potential, and then, again, in ~3 years, head in direction or the other. However, playing real games against real teams does offer one thing: certainty. For example: since it's been 3 years, we don't have much to fear from Ryan Tannehill. I know that, because I have hard data that tells me we don't. Unlike EJ, we now know exactly who Tannehill is: Captain Pop Gun. Captain Pop Gun isn't going to beat you deep on a fly, because his deep ball == a punt. The entire NFL knows this now, especially our D, never mind Rex Ryan. I am exactly as afraid of Tannehill as I was of Chad Pennigton...because: data, not emoting.

 

Also, misquoting me/misunderstanding it, is how you ended up writing a whole post, before you realized at the end...that the 2nd bolded above is exactly what I meant, isn't it? So, what, you got done researching/writing all of that, and at the very end, you realized it was misguided, and finally comprehended what I actually did say...But, after working so hard on it, you just decided to post it anyway?

 

Well, then let me say that if I had said the first bolded, this would be a fine counter argument. However, I said the 2nd bolded...so...nice, if irrelevant, work. I guess.

 

Free advice counselor? Leave the math and science, to the math and science people.

Edited June 2, 2015 by OCinBuffalo

[OCinBuffalo]

 

 

"Developing" on the bench vs. playing every week? Easy choice. TV audiences is a concern. Thus, minor leauge NFL should be played on Tuesdays.

 

 

There IS a minor league: it's called the NCAA!

 

 

No. Just like in hockey, there is juniors, and NCAA, but there is also the AHL.

 

You can't really believe that looking to the sideline for the read on the defense/audible calls, throwing to one side of the field, read option, spread offenses that run 3 routs only and no sight adjustments, hell, these "new" college offenses which are merely modified versions of the same old wishbone/option offenses...which is exactly what is happening in college...

 

....have anything to do with NFL football. If anything, college is regressing into High School football, because college coaching has become inundated by control freaks. There's an inverse relationship between college football control freak and successful NFL coaching. Two words: Nick Saban. (Soon to be: Chip Kelly, btw. Doug Marrone too soon?)

 

Most college players might as well have a joystick on their helmets, especially QBs, since their every action is now controlled by the sideline. Contrast that with how Dan Marino or Jim Kelly played the college game. You think either of their coaches told them F all once the play was sent in? Back in the 80s-90s, maybe the NCAA was the NFL minor leagues. Not anymore.

 

Christ, go through the draft analysis of practically every damn QB now, except Luck, and for the last 8 years or so: it's always the same thing! "Concerns over how QB X will adapt to the NFL game" It's approaching broken record status. And who was Luck's coach? Answer: an NFL guy who ran an NFL offense.

Edited June 2, 2015 by OCinBuffalo

[sjjr]

EJ is at his best with a solid running game to work with and when he use play action to look over the defense and make throws down the field or use his legs to get first downs. He's shown he can throw a pretty deep ball along with some solid seam passes. This offense would seem to be perfect for him with Roman and Rex. If all 3 are even, have to believe he'll get the nod and really he should win the competition.

 

He clearly played tentatively in his first 14 starts because he was asked not to lose games. The first game he could have been blamed with (Texans) he was pulled. To me though, if the Bills could have run the ball against two weak run Ds (Chargers and Texans) then they win both of those games easily. Not his fault.

 

He'll be fine and it doesn't matter what anyone says now.

[Mr. WEO]

Somebody needs to learn what "~" means, and, that it does not mean "took at least 3 full years of playing". ">= 3 years" is the proper mathematical representation...of what I didn't say. I said "~3 years"... "to start heading in one direction or the other".

 

And, I made it clear that playing/not playing, as well as all other variables, are indicative of: NOTHING! "No causal factors" means: you can pull any amount of data out of this domain, and prove one point, but, some other clown can do the same and prove the exact opposite. Why? Because all any of you can do(maybe, if you know how) is identify correlations. Correlation is not causation, and we are not the social scientists who pretend that it is.

 

We are Bills fans who want straight answers. The straightest, quantitatively supported answer remains, like it or not, "wait and see".

 

All playing can possibly accomplish: allow a player to reach his maximum potential, and then, again, in ~3 years, head in direction or the other. However, playing real games against real teams does offer one thing: certainty. For example: since it's been 3 years, we don't have much to fear from Ryan Tannehill. I know that, because I have hard data that tells me we don't. Unlike EJ, we now know exactly who Tannehill is: Captain Pop Gun. Captain Pop Gun isn't going to beat you deep on a fly, because his deep ball == a punt. The entire NFL knows this now, especially our D, never mind Rex Ryan. I am exactly as afraid of Tannehill as I was of Chad Pennigton...because: data, not emoting.

 

Also, misquoting me/misunderstanding it, is how you ended up writing a whole post, before you realized at the end...that the 2nd bolded above is exactly what I meant, isn't it? So, what, you got done researching/writing all of that, and at the very end, you realized it was misguided, and finally comprehended what I actually did say...But, after working so hard on it, you just decided to post it anyway?

 

Well, then let me say that if I had said the first bolded, this would be a fine counter argument. However, I said the 2nd bolded...so...nice, if irrelevant, work. I guess.

 

Free advice counselor? Leave the math and science, to the math and science people.

 

This is the exact response I expected--and it is awesome!

 

Actually, you opened with: ": For the last 40 years, in all but a very few cases, it's taken 3 years minimum for a QB to acclimate to the pro game".

 

A minimum of 3 means "at least 3", or "3 or more" or.....">=3".

 

Also, I It's clear from my examples, that you can tell whether a guy is going to be a good QB before he has played for 3 years. You said "either way" in you original post. In your response to mine, you concede that it takes 3 years to realize they suck, which is what I originally said.

 

 

 

And, I made it clear that playing/not playing, as well as all other variables, are indicative of: NOTHING! "No causal factors" means: you can pull any amount of data out of this domain, and prove one point, but, some other clown can do the same and prove the exact opposite. Why? Because all any of you can do(maybe, if you know how) is identify correlations. Correlation is not causation, and we are not the social scientists who pretend that it is.

 

 

Classic nonsense. Why don't you just forward the data you have on the "98%" of QBs over the past 40 years, math guy?

[Coach Tuesday]

This is insufferable.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

 

 

Actually, I was very specific about this: I was using OC's criteria of "Not developing on the bench", but playing-- because he feels QBs don't learn anything and don't show anything from the bench. So...benchyears don't count in this argument.

 

Fact check: Rodgers was on the bench for 3 seasons, not 4, behind Favre. Also, Rodgers learned little from Favre except "a lot about practice". They were not close at all.

 

Also, given MAnning's pretty bad playoff record, you probably don't want to judge him by that.

so you are saying P Manning sucks?

 

Rodgers had 3 years on the bench, sorry I mistyped 4. excuuuuuse me.

funny you point out others mistakes but not your own.

 

32 teams and how many "elite: QB's are there? again excuuuuuse us for thinking EJ isn't a total failure.

did you list more that 1/3'rd of them (currently playing)?

[Mr. WEO]

so you are saying P Manning sucks?

 

Rodgers had 3 years on the bench, sorry I mistyped 4. excuuuuuse me.

funny you point out others mistakes but not your own.

 

32 teams and how many "elite: QB's are there? again excuuuuuse us for thinking EJ isn't a total failure.

did you list more that 1/3'rd of them (currently playing)?

 

Others have no trouble pointing out my mistakes so, less work for me.

 

No, strawman, I'm not saying Manning sucks. But his playoff record sure does. That can't be disputed.

 

And this isn't about how many elite QBs there are or whether EJ is a "total failure". It's about te endlessly repeated "fact" that all (or 98% of)QBs need 3 or more years to show that they will be starters worth keeping. This just isn't true.

 

I'm on record saying EJ will be our starter and I haven't changed my opinion as of this time, so why don't you go crazy about something else for a while?

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

 

Others have no trouble pointing out my mistakes so, less work for me.

 

No, strawman, I'm not saying Manning sucks. But his playoff record sure does. That can't be disputed.

 

And this isn't about how many elite QBs there are or whether EJ is a "total failure". It's about te endlessly repeated "fact" that all (or 98% of)QBs need 3 or more years to show that they will be starters worth keeping. This just isn't true.

 

I'm on record saying EJ will be our starter and I haven't changed my opinion as of this time, so why don't you go crazy about something else for a while?

Why don't you direct that to those who say EJ sucks then. It's their insentience that everyone else is better that EJ that keeps the BS going.

 

As to being crazy? Good sir. look in the mirror. You can also direct the P Mannig sucks in the playoffs to others because when I had posted such I was the "crazy" one.

 

it appears we agree on more that you care to admit. so you must be in the crazy club too

Edited June 2, 2015 by BillsFan-4-Ever

[Turbosrrgood]

Jesus those videos were painful to listen to. It sounded like a 12 year old TBD fan frantically defending EJ.

 

I do think EJ is the Bills best chance this year, but unless you want to torture your ears, skip these videos or watch them on mute.

Edited June 2, 2015 by Turbosrrgood

[Nanker]

This is insufferable.

[/lockthread]

[Gordio]

His footwork is atrocious. That's why he's so inaccurate. When he starts to throw he locks his legs. It's gotta flow

 

Usually makes the right read but he's late every single time. Gotta speed it up

 

 

This is where I am on EJ. His mechanics are horrible especially his footwork. If you have bad footwork like EJ does it is tough to overcome that, even with the tool set that Manuel posseses. His reads are poor & there slow. I am not sure this is correctable. I don't think Ryan and his staff have that kind of time. Agreed that the line & the poor coaching has not done Manuel any favors these past 2 years.

I've written posts to that effect, hell, my avatar screams it. I used to change it all the time. I've wanted to change it lots of times, but I can't until the "special rules for EJ" nonsense ends. I've been trying to impress upon this board the following, undeniable questions and answers, from a quantitative prespective(and therefore as near to being the truth as we can get):

 

Question: For the last 40 years, in all but a very few cases, it's taken 3 years minimum for a QB to acclimate to the pro game. But, suddenly because a few decent rookie QBs(and when I say decent, try telling me that RG3, Luck, Kaepernick, or Wilson are comparable to Montana, Marino, Elway, Kelly, Manning or Brady) have a few good years recently, in every way a statistical outlier, we are supposed to ignore the last 40 years of contrary data, wholesale?

 

Answer: No, no we are not, because that's idiotic. This notion that ALL rookies can "step right in and play in "today's" NFL" because...new, something, that causes...something, is Underpants Gnomes ridiculous. I don't care about spread offenses in college. I don't care about "new" offense X, which isn't West Coast-level innovation, thus not new at all. I certainly don't care that we have media clowns and their parrots running around pretending a correlation = a causation.

 

Ask yourself: how does the RG3 trade look now? How come Tebow isn't an all-pro, after all he can "change the NFL because: winner", right? What happened to Kaepernick last year? Name one SB winning QB in the last 10 years who is undeniably worse than Wilson(Hint). How many are much better? Why hasn't Luck been to, never mind won, a SB already?

 

Answer: because most of what college football fans/media say is subjective garbage, in general, and doubly so when their "thinking" is applied to the NFL. No, the NFL isn't "changing" because the biggest fanbois, fans/media, repeat themselves in hopes that it is. There's no causation here. There is only hype. The data proves it, because actually, the data proves: NOTHING! There is no pattern, there is absolutely no causal proof of anything. It might as well be random. The ONLY thing we have is that it takes ~ 3 years for a guy to head in one direction or the other.

 

Thus, EJ was always going to take 3 years to develop, if he develops at all, just like 98% of QBs who did over the last 40 years. The ONLY real differences between he and Tannehill are: EJ has more talent, but Tannehill plays. Therefore, I am tired of these "special EJ rules". Nobody, not even EJ, knows right now whether he has "it" or doesn't. Anyone who says they do is delusional. The data, and the outliers like Kurt Warner, prove beyond all doubt that "certainty" about NFL QB development, or what makes one, or where one will come from, is folly. The only certainty: What you think you "see" ...has a high statistical propensity to be pre-conceived BS.

 

"Wait and see" is the only quantitatively supported approach.

 

 

I am just curious, why do you say EJ has more talent the Tannehill?

[C.Biscuit97]

 

 

This is where I am on EJ. His mechanics are horrible especially his footwork. If you have bad footwork like EJ does it is tough to overcome that, even with the tool set that Manuel posseses. His reads are poor & there slow. I am not sure this is correctable. I don't think Ryan and his staff have that kind of time. Agreed that the line & the poor coaching has not done Manuel any favors these past 2 years.

 

 

I am just curious, why do you say EJ has more talent the Tannehill?

I'd say that are equally talented. Again, EJ had the same stats as Tannehill through 4 games last year. EJ had basically the same #s as Tannehill as a rookie. IMO, Tannehill has had the fair superior offensive coaches - Philbin (Rodgers' OC), Lazor (QB for Chip Kelly), Sherman (former head coach, his college coach, former NFL OC). EJ has Marrone (puppet OC for PAyton) and Hackett (Syracuse OC) as QB coach/ OC.

 

IMO, it's not a stretch that EJ is a very similar player if he is on Miami.

[Gordio]

 

 

"The data proves nothing", yet quantitative analysis proves the 98% of the QBs over the last 40 years took at least 3 full seasons of playing (not "developing" on the bench)? Because RG3, Tebow and Kaepernick?

 

SOme other QBs who were doing OK before they were off the bench for 3 years (or otherwise):

 

Elway: 2nd year 12-2, 3rd 11-5

P MAnning: 13-3 by year 2

Brady: 11-3 his first year as starter, SB MVP

Favre: 8-5 his 1st year (3300 yards) on a moribund Packers team

Montana: 13-3 his first full year as starter, SB MVP

Rivers: 14-2 his first year Pro Bowl

Big Ben: 13-0 his first year

Rodgers: 4000+ yds, 26 TDs/13 ints first year, 11-5 second year

Flacco: 11-5, 9-7, 12-4 avg 3000+ yards first 3 seasons (playoffs)

Ryan: 11-5, 9-5, 13-3 first 3 years (playoffs)

Dalton: Pro Bowl fist year, playoffs every year on a mediocre team

 

What happened to Kaepernick last year? Almost 3400 yards passing, 640 yards rushing, 19 passing TDs only 10 ints on 478 attempts. I'd take that and they can have EJ.

 

SO Luck hasn't been to, yet alone won a SB? What is the point of mentioning that? In only 3 seasons, he has won 33 games, thrown 83 TDs, been to 3 Pro Bowls and already has won as many SBs as Marino.

 

And Wilson? He's won 36 games, was a Pro Bowler in his first 2 seasons, has been to 2 SB, winning one. He has thrown for almost 10,000 yards on a run heavy team for a whopping 7.9 YPA. He has 72 passing TDs, an int ration of 2.1%. Last season, he threw for 3475, ran for 849 (and 6 TDs). Who is a worse SB champ than him? E MAnning perhaps.

 

Show me the 98% of all QBs who took 3 or more seasons as starter to reach success in the NFL. Unless you mean it takes 3 or more years to conclude a QB won't succeed , your analysis is lacking persuasive data.

 

 

I love how everybody dismisses Kap after his horrible year last year. I think everybody that is a bills fan would sign up for EJ having stats like Kap had last year.

I'd say that are equally talented. Again, EJ had the same stats as Tannehill through 4 games last year. EJ had basically the same #s as Tannehill as a rookie. IMO, Tannehill has had the fair superior offensive coaches - Philbin (Rodgers' OC), Lazor (QB for Chip Kelly), Sherman (former head coach, his college coach, former NFL OC). EJ has Marrone (puppet OC for PAyton) and Hackett (Syracuse OC) as QB coach/ OC.

 

IMO, it's not a stretch that EJ is a very similar player if he is on Miami.

 

 

Fair enough, but to say EJ is more talented as a definitive is silly & a dumb statement imo. That book has not been written yet. It will in the next few years.

[Orange]

I'd say that are equally talented. Again, EJ had the same stats as Tannehill through 4 games last year. EJ had basically the same #s as Tannehill as a rookie. IMO, Tannehill has had the fair superior offensive coaches - Philbin (Rodgers' OC), Lazor (QB for Chip Kelly), Sherman (former head coach, his college coach, former NFL OC). EJ has Marrone (puppet OC for PAyton) and Hackett (Syracuse OC) as QB coach/ OC.

 

IMO, it's not a stretch that EJ is a very similar player if he is on Miami.

Ryan Tannehill played 30 out of his 50 college games as a Wr. Ej played every game as a qb. Ej would not have shown growth just as he hasnt here. He literally has shown no growth from his college scouting report the pundits based his draft stock on 2 years ago. What do you base this theory that ej would be similar to tannehill if be was on miami?

[RuntheDamnBall]

 

Bingo.

 

This kid has been part of a painfully predictable offense for all of his young career. If every fan at home can predict what the Bills were going to do on every down, just think about how easy it was for professional defensive coaches to effectively defend against it.

and he is actually pretty good at selling the play action. It does help if the run game is actually functional.

[YattaOkasan]

Ryan Tannehill played 30 out of his 50 college games as a Wr. Ej played every game as a qb. Ej would not have shown growth just as he hasnt here. He literally has shown no growth from his college scouting report the pundits based his draft stock on 2 years ago. What do you base this theory that ej would be similar to tannehill if be was on miami?

I think he is using the "fair superior offensive coaches" (his mispelling not mine) as the basis for his theory. I do agree, Tannehill has had better coaches.

[Orange]

I think he is using the "fair superior offensive coaches" (his mispelling not mine) as the basis for his theory. I do agree, Tannehill has had better coaches.

Joe philbin a ride on tge back of brett favre and aaron rodgers to a sb and then flame out with a below .500 w/l record as a hc. Or is it bill lazor that has bounced between college and the pros back and forth after he fails each pro team? Or is it zac taylor the qb coach whos only previous work history was a graduate assistant? If they were better coaches it was negligible at best.