EJ as Evaluated by FSU fans - Caution: pretty brutal

[GG]

 

My main question is does Cassel have the down field ability to make them back off? A team that wants to run the ball can't have 8-9 guys crowding the LoS. This is what led me to believe it would be Tyrod or EJ.

 

Top it off with the fact that Cassel - despite being a vet - hasn't been known to be a "protector of the ball" during most of his career and I'm not sure what he actually brings to the table as a QB of this offense. If he doesn't make the big play to get the D to back off and doesn't protect the ball how is he helping a run first offense?

 

If EJ really is on the outside looking in of the QB competition it would seem like Tyrod would be the guy best suited to run this offense.

 

Many points in there.

 

I don't think that Roman is designing an offense that will be as simplistic as throwing deep bombs to Sammy or Harvin. I think a lot will involve pre snap reads to call out of a play into a different play in the same formation. That's apparently what they've been running in camp. I think this is where their concern is with EJ that he's still processing the plays & formations too slowly.

 

Yes, I imagine TT is their preferred guy to start, but Cassel's experience probably puts him in the lead in running Roman's designs. I wouldn't be surprised if Cassell starts, but Tyrod supplants him at some point.

[Kelly the Dog]

What is missing in most all or all of this chatter is that all three of them can make good passes. When people say EJ can't throw they act as if he would be 0-25 in a regular season game, or Cassell can never complete a long ball or TT can't do this or that. The fact is they can all play well enough to win in the right situation but a lot of things have to happen along with it.

 

That doesn't mean 15-25 other QBs wouldn't perform better than any of these jokers in the same situation - but with good coaching on offense, which I truly believe we have, a decent OL which I hope we have but don't know, and with a crazy ass set of skill guys, any one of these three will be able to put up some points, and maybe a decent amount of points and enough to win 11-12 games. They don't miss every pass, you're talking about three a game.

 

Granted, those three a game on a team like we had last year could very well be the difference between winning and losing.

 

But with far better coaching, a better OL and far, far better skill players, these QBs do not have to be great or even in the top 15. And each of them has the ability to be decent enough. They don't miss every pass. They miss one out of ten more than they should. And they miss guys in stride who could get more YAC if they were hit in stride. On poor teams that can kill you because you need every play you can get.

 

People are underestimating our skill players. All we need is very average QBing.

[dave mcbride]

 

Many points in there.

 

I don't think that Roman is designing an offense that will be as simplistic as throwing deep bombs to Sammy or Harvin. I think a lot will involve pre snap reads to call out of a play into a different play in the same formation. That's apparently what they've been running in camp. I think this is where their concern is with EJ that he's still processing the plays & formations too slowly.

 

Yes, I imagine TT is their preferred guy to start, but Cassel's experience probably puts him in the lead in running Roman's designs. I wouldn't be surprised if Cassell starts, but Tyrod supplants him at some point.

Agreed. I get the sense that more than anything else, Roman wants a quick pre-snap information processor given the relative complexity and newness of the offense. He knows that this team needs to win now.

What is missing in most all or all of this chatter is that all three of them can make good passes. When people say EJ can't throw they act as if he would be 0-25 in a regular season game, or Cassell can never complete a long ball or TT can't do this or that. The fact is they can all play well enough to win in the right situation but a lot of things have to happen along with it.

 

That doesn't mean 15-25 other QBs wouldn't perform better than any of these jokers in the same situation - but with good coaching on offense, which I truly believe we have, a decent OL which I hope we have but don't know, and with a crazy ass set of skill guys, any one of these three will be able to put up some points, and maybe a decent amount of points and enough to win 11-12 games. They don't miss every pass, you're talking about three a game.

 

Granted, those three a game on a team like we had last year could very well be the difference between winning and losing.

 

But with far better coaching, a better OL and far, far better skill players, these QBs do not have to be great or even in the top 15. And each of them has the ability to be decent enough. They don't miss every pass. They miss one out of ten more than they should. And they miss guys in stride who could get more YAC if they were hit in stride. On poor teams that can kill you because you need every play you can get.

 

People are underestimating our skill players. All we need is very average QBing.

Agreed, but that makes me think that the deciding factor will be which guy can best run what will be a relatively complex offense. A failure to run it adequately will maximize the potential for mistakes, and they want a relatively mistake-free offense above all else. They plan to win with D and mistake-free offense that can get 17-24 points in a game. I have to think Cassel is that guy at this point.

[Kelly the Dog]

Agreed. I get the sense that more than anything else, Roman wants a quick pre-snap information processor given the relative complexity and newness of the offense. He knows that this team needs to win now.

 

Yep. And Cassell is the best guy for that right now. It's possible he craps the bed but he should easily do enough well to win the job they are asking him to do. It's really interesting to listen to Roman talk. I love that guy.

[dave mcbride]

Yep. And Cassell is the best guy for that right now. It's possible he craps the bed but he should easily do enough well to win the job they are asking him to do. It's really interesting to listen to Roman talk. I love that guy.

He's a GREAT hire. I thought SF's offense under him was really fun to watch. Fantastic running game. I'm also very optimistic about the guards on this team. Say what you will about Incognito, but he's a good player.

[Canadian Bills Fan]

He's a GREAT hire. I thought SF's offense under him was really fun to watch. Fantastic running game. I'm also very optimistic about the guards on this team. Say what you will about Incognito, but he's a good player.

 

 

Agreed 100%

 

 

 

CBF

[Kelly the Dog]

He's a GREAT hire. I thought SF's offense under him was really fun to watch. Fantastic running game. I'm also very optimistic about the guards on this team. Say what you will about Incognito, but he's a good player.

It's going to drive me crazy when fans are going to complain we way overpaid for Clay because he doesn't put up Jimmy Graham numbers but he's going to be awesome in this offense, moving around, blocking, causing mismatches, opening up the run and pass game for every other skill position. He's going to be one of the MVPs even if he catches 50 balls and 4 TDs.

[MDH]

Many points in there.

 

I don't think that Roman is designing an offense that will be as simplistic as throwing deep bombs to Sammy or Harvin. I think a lot will involve pre snap reads to call out of a play into a different play in the same formation. That's apparently what they've been running in camp. I think this is where their concern is with EJ that he's still processing the plays & formations too slowly.

 

Yes, I imagine TT is their preferred guy to start, but Cassel's experience probably puts him in the lead in running Roman's designs. I wouldn't be surprised if Cassell starts, but Tyrod supplants him at some point.

I wasnt suggesting that its as simple as chucking up a long ball, im talking aout his abilities in general. His long balls tend to float. Once the wind comes swirling off the lake in November Cassel becomes more of a liabiltiy than he is now. If he countered this with amazing accuracy in his short game the lack of the long ball would be mitigated. Yet, hes not that accurate and has proven throughout his career to make bad decisions with the ball that result in turnovers.

 

Without the long ball your short range accuracy needs to be on par with Brady or Rivers because there are so many guys near the LoS there isnt room for mistakes. This is compounded even further when your O plans to run the ball nearly 50% of the time. You cant run the ball with any consistency with 8-9 guys in the box. You have to make them change formations and personnel. You do that by making plays downfield.

 

As you mentioned Romans offense relies heavily on pre-snap reads. That, to me, is a blessing for a young QB. He doesnt have to be relied on to consistently make difficult reads post snap. Get the guys out of the huddle in time and the young signal caller has an eternity to figure out the read. Granted, again, its not as simple as that as there will always be post snap reads but the reliance of pre-snap reads effectively cuts the field in half which makes the post snap read infinitely easier.

 

Top it off with an offense that utilizes a lot of pre-snap movement and the pre-snap reads become even easier as the D is often forced to show their hand.

 

Nothing that Ive seen out of a Roman offense suggests that a vet signal caller, with limited arm strength, mobilty and a penchent for turnovers is the right choice. His offense is tailor made for a young, strong armed, athletic guy who doesn't need to have the pressure of the entire offense on his shoulders.

 

Sorry for the long post.

[dave mcbride]

I wasnt suggesting that its as simple as chucking up a long ball, im talking aout his abilities in general. His long balls tend to float. Once the wind comes swirling off the lake in November Cassel becomes more of a liabiltiy than he is now. If he countered this with amazing accuracy in his short game the lack of the long ball would be mitigated. Yet, hes not that accurate and has proven throughout his career to make bad decisions with the ball that result in turnovers.

 

Without the long ball your short range accuracy needs to be on par with Brady or Rivers because there are so many guys near the LoS there isnt room for mistakes. This is compounded even further when your O plans to run the ball nearly 50% of the time. You cant run the ball with any consistency with 8-9 guys in the box. You have to make them change formations and personnel. You do that by making plays downfield.

 

As you mentioned Romans offense relies heavily on pre-snap reads. That, to me, is a blessing for a young QB. He doesnt have to be relied on to consistently make difficult reads post snap. Get the guys out of the huddle in time and the young signal caller has an eternity to figure out the read. Granted, again, its not as simple as that as there will always be post snap reads but the reliance of pre-snap reads effectively cuts the field in half which makes the post snap read infinitely easier.

 

Top it off with an offense that utilizes a lot of pre-snap movement and the pre-snap reads become even easier as the D is often forced to show their hand.

 

Nothing that Ive seen out of a Roman offense suggests that a vet signal caller, with limited arm strength, mobilty and a penchent for turnovers is the right choice. His offense is tailor made for a young, strong armed, athletic guy who doesn't need to have the pressure of the entire offense on his shoulders.

 

Sorry for the long post.

My one critique of this good post is that I've been hearing for years about all of the bad weather games the Bills will be playing in. It seems to me that they've played in 1-2 bad weather games on average the last few years.

[GG]

I wasnt suggesting that its as simple as chucking up a long ball, im talking aout his abilities in general. His long balls tend to float. Once the wind comes swirling off the lake in November Cassel becomes more of a liabiltiy than he is now. If he countered this with amazing accuracy in his short game the lack of the long ball would be mitigated. Yet, hes not that accurate and has proven throughout his career to make bad decisions with the ball that result in turnovers.

 

Without the long ball your short range accuracy needs to be on par with Brady or Rivers because there are so many guys near the LoS there isnt room for mistakes. This is compounded even further when your O plans to run the ball nearly 50% of the time. You cant run the ball with any consistency with 8-9 guys in the box. You have to make them change formations and personnel. You do that by making plays downfield.

 

As you mentioned Romans offense relies heavily on pre-snap reads. That, to me, is a blessing for a young QB. He doesnt have to be relied on to consistently make difficult reads post snap. Get the guys out of the huddle in time and the young signal caller has an eternity to figure out the read. Granted, again, its not as simple as that as there will always be post snap reads but the reliance of pre-snap reads effectively cuts the field in half which makes the post snap read infinitely easier.

 

Top it off with an offense that utilizes a lot of pre-snap movement and the pre-snap reads become even easier as the D is often forced to show their hand.

 

Nothing that Ive seen out of a Roman offense suggests that a vet signal caller, with limited arm strength, mobilty and a penchent for turnovers is the right choice. His offense is tailor made for a young, strong armed, athletic guy who doesn't need to have the pressure of the entire offense on his shoulders.

 

Sorry for the long post.

 

I can definitely see that, but isn't it a concern if the young QB can't process the read in time between the huddle and the snap?

 

I recall EJ had a good practice where it was pointed out that he did precisely that - called out of a set play and turned it into a TD or a big gain. But I think those instances have been far & few in between, and I don't know if there's going to be enough time left in camp for EJ to get it together and reclaim the top job.

 

Again, Cassel is who he is - Ryan's 3rd or 4th choice, and he still seems better than EJ at this point. After watching a few of the Browns' plays, I see why they went after McCown.

[dave mcbride]

 

I can definitely see that, but isn't it a concern if the young QB can't process the read in time between the huddle and the snap?

 

I recall EJ had a good practice where it was pointed out that he did precisely that - called out of a set play and turned it into a TD or a big gain. But I think those instances have been far & few in between, and I don't know if there's going to be enough time left in camp for EJ to get it together and reclaim the top job.

 

Again, Cassel is who he is - Ryan's 3rd or 4th choice, and he still seems better than EJ at this point. After watching a few of the Browns' plays, I see why they went after McCown.

McCown was definitely their preferred choice.

[Kelly the Dog]

McCown was definitely their preferred choice.

McCown was a FA. They didn't want to pay him that much or give him a multi year deal. When he signed with CLE then they decided to give up a couple of low round draft picks they didn't really want to but were willing to pay him $4m, something they weren't willing to do for McCown. If all things were equal and we didn't care about money or draft picks I think perhaps they would choose Cassell. But I don't know.

[dave mcbride]

McCown was a FA. They didn't want to pay him that much or give him a multi year deal. When he signed with CLE then they decided to give up a couple of low round draft picks they didn't really want to but were willing to pay him $4m, something they weren't willing to do for McCown. If all things were equal and we didn't care about money or draft picks I think perhaps they would choose Cassell. But I don't know.

My sense is that they thought McCown was a better quarterback, especially with Cassel coming off of injury. I think McCown is better, although he's certainly not great.

[Kelly the Dog]

My sense is that they thought McCown was a better quarterback, especially with Cassel coming off of injury. I think McCown is better, although he's certainly not great.

They both are pretty average at best. I never really liked MCCown. Not that I ever liked Cassel either. It's probably a wash. McCown has a better arm. I never really watched McCown when he had his one good season so I can't really make a fair assessment. Every time I do watch him I think he stinks. Ha.

[Wraith]

For more detailed responses, see below...

 

 

Matthew Stafford absolutely sucked at Day 1 (and Day 720-ish).

 

Warning: Actual Data for Making Comparisons

 

The data set linked to is all Quarterbacks, through their first two seasons, from 2005 through the present day, who were good enough that their teams started them 8 or more times (or 25% of the 32 team games). The total list is 52 quarterbacks.

 

There are a variety of quarterback summary statistics to choose from in the table. I advise you to sort the table by one of them and check out the results.Comparing E.J. Manuel to the field, and specifically to Sam Bradford and Matthew Stafford, shows that Manuel has started out his career average/slightly above average while Bradford and especially Stafford were horrendous.

 

Below are the rankings for each of the three (versus the 52 man field) in this order: Completion percentage, QB rating, Yards/Attempt, Adjusted Yards/Attempt (summary metric that factors in interceptions and touchdowns), and Adjusted Net Yards/Attempt (another summary statistic that factors in interceptions, touchdowns, and sacks).

 

Manuel vs. 52 man field: 22nd, 20th, 29th, 24th, 24th (14 games)

Bradford vs. 52 man field: 27th, 31st, 43rd, 35th, 35th (26 games)

Stafford vs. 52 man field: 37th, 43rd, 45th, 46th, 42 (13 games)

 

Check out Matthew Stafford's proximity to J.P. Losman on most of those lists.

Edited August 14, 2015 by Wraith

[thebandit27]

 

Matthew Stafford absolutely sucked at Day 1 (and Day 720-ish).

 

Warning: Actual Data for Making Comparisons

 

The data set linked to is all Quarterbacks, through their first two seasons, from 2005 through the present day, who were good enough that their teams started them 8 or more times (or 25% of the 32 team games). The total list is 52 quarterbacks.

 

There are a variety of quarterback summary statistics to choose from in the table. I advise you to sort the table by one of them and check out the results.Comparing E.J. Manuel to the field, and specifically to Sam Bradford and Matthew Stafford, shows that Manuel has started out his career average/slightly above average while Bradford and especially Stafford were horrendous.

 

Below are the rankings for each of the three (versus the 52 man field) in this order: Completion percentage, QB rating, Yards/Attempt, Adjusted Yards/Attempt (summary metric that factors in interceptions and touchdowns), and Adjusted Net Yards/Attempt (another summary statistic that factors in interceptions, touchdowns, and sacks).

 

Manuel vs. 52 man field: 22nd, 20th, 29th, 24th, 24th (14 games)

Bradford vs. 52 man field: 27th, 31st, 43rd, 35th, 35th (26 games)

Stafford vs. 52 man field: 37th, 43rd, 45th, 46th, 42 (13 games)

 

Check out Matthew Stafford's proximity to J.P. Losman on most of those lists.

 

Thanks for the reference, but I actually know how to look at data sets.

 

I don't think that Stafford "absolutely sucked" day 1, and I further don't think that comparing them on a numbers-only basis tells the whole story. I also think that you're jumping the gun if you're taking me to task for unjustifiably bashing EJ; I've defended him whenever I could reasonably do so throughout his tenure here.

 

What I said about Stafford and Bradford were that they looked the part from day 1. They could make all of the throws, and generally showed the things that you look for in an NFL QB. Notice that I never once said that EJ didn't. In fact, if you've read any of my posts on the subject in the past, you'd know that I've repeatedly said that I thought EJ showed signs of being a competent starter as a rookie (which is the main reason that the team didn't consider bringing in any viable competition for him in 2014).

 

If it is your belief that EJ will eventually develop into a QB worthy of a $17.7M/year contract like Stafford, then so be it. At this point I disagree, though I haven't written him off completely.

 

EDIT: by the way, it looks like your data set is wrong if what you were really looking for is "all Quarterbacks, through their first two seasons, from 2005 through the present day, who were good enough that their teams started them 8 or more times (or 25% of the 32 team games)"...

 

Here's the Real Data Set

Edited August 14, 2015 by thebandit27

[BuffaloHokie13]

 

Matthew Stafford absolutely sucked at Day 1 (and Day 720-ish).

 

Warning: Actual Data for Making Comparisons

 

The data set linked to is all Quarterbacks, through their first two seasons, from 2005 through the present day, who were good enough that their teams started them 8 or more times (or 25% of the 32 team games). The total list is 52 quarterbacks.

 

There are a variety of quarterback summary statistics to choose from in the table. I advise you to sort the table by one of them and check out the results.Comparing E.J. Manuel to the field, and specifically to Sam Bradford and Matthew Stafford, shows that Manuel has started out his career average/slightly above average while Bradford and especially Stafford were horrendous.

 

Below are the rankings for each of the three (versus the 52 man field) in this order: Completion percentage, QB rating, Yards/Attempt, Adjusted Yards/Attempt (summary metric that factors in interceptions and touchdowns), and Adjusted Net Yards/Attempt (another summary statistic that factors in interceptions, touchdowns, and sacks).

 

Manuel vs. 52 man field: 22nd, 20th, 29th, 24th, 24th (14 games)

Bradford vs. 52 man field: 27th, 31st, 43rd, 35th, 35th (26 games)

Stafford vs. 52 man field: 37th, 43rd, 45th, 46th, 42 (13 games)

 

Check out Matthew Stafford's proximity to J.P. Losman on most of those lists.

 

 

RG3: 6th, 5th, 6th, 5th, 6th (28 Games) Also had a knee injury after year 1 and hasn't really recovered to his old form

[hondo in seattle]

http://www.tomahawknation.com/2013/4/25/4264734/nfl-draft-2013-ej-manuel-next-level-florida-state

 

The above is a pre-draft article about EJ that I remember reading in the lead up to the 2013 draft. It's a good read and what's said seems spot on thus far in his NFL career.

Great article.

 

Clearly Marrone/Hackett couldn't correct his flaws. Maybe Greg Roman and his staff can.

[hondo in seattle]

I have no problem with predicting he won't be good. It is the absolute posters that drive me crazy. We could all say every single qb drafted won't amount to a hill of beans and be right 80-90% of the time but to what end? The options on this team are Cassel, TT, and EJ. I am hoping either EJ or TT shows better than Cassel. I want zero parts of Cassel starting because his book has been written. He has proven to be every bit of terrible that posters are PROJECTING EJ to be. Why not wait to find out?

 

I also don't think he has shown little progress. His rookie year stacks up with many good and great qbs.

 

I'm not defensive to EJ. I am defensive of this aura of not rooting for our players. I try to stay away from we when talking about this team because I am not part of it but the Bills are part of me. I root for every single player to do and be their best. I don't need to be early to the he sucks bandwagon.

 

I'm with section122 all the way on this.

 

I want EJ to be good because he's a Buffalo Bill. We pretty much know what MC is as a QB. I'm hoping EJ becomes something more than that.

 

 

Alex Smith had 5 mediocre years in San Francisco from 2005 to 2010. 49er fans started calling him a bust and wanted him replaced. The year before Greg Roman became his OC, Smith had a 82.1 QB rating - the best of his lackluster career thus far.

 

Smith's first year with Roman, he passed for more yards in Roman's run-oriented offense than he ever had before. And his rating jumped up to 90.7. The following year under Roman, Smith's rating rocketed up to 104.1!

 

Why is it so impossible for some to conceive that Roman might help EJ get better just like he did with Smith? I'm not predicting it, but I sure am hoping for it.

 

EJ's career rating is 78.5. Roman improved Smith's rating by 22 points over two years. If he improved EJ's rating this year by 10 points - to 88.5 - it would be awesome. I think it's fair to predict the Bills are going to the playoffs if our starting QB has a 88.5 rating.

 

This is not an unreasonable hope.

Edited August 14, 2015 by hondo in seattle

[FireChan]

 

I'm with section122 all the way on this.

 

I want EJ to be good because he's a Buffalo Bill. We pretty much know what MC is as a QB. I'm hoping EJ becomes something more than that.

 

 

Alex Smith had 5 mediocre years in San Francisco from 2005 to 2010. 49er fans started calling him a bust and wanted him replaced. The year before Greg Roman became his OC, Smith had a 82.1 QB rating - the best of his lackluster career thus far.

 

Smith's first year with Roman, he passed for more yards in Roman's run-oriented offense than he ever had before. And his rating jumped up to 90.7. The following year under Roman, Smith's rating rocketed up to 104.1!

 

Why is it so impossible for some to conceive that Roman might help EJ get better just like he did with Smith? I'm not predicting it, but I sure am hoping for it.

 

EJ's career rating is 78.5. Roman improved Smith's rating by 22 points over two years. If he improved EJ's rating this year by 10 points - to 88.5 - it would be awesome. I think it's fair to predict the Bills are going to the playoffs if our starting QB was a 88.5 rating.

 

This is not an unreasonable hope.

Because EJ hasn't gotten better.