dave mcbride Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 I see... Felix Hernandez rightly won a Cy Young award with a 13-12 record. And QBs have less to do with wins and losses than pitchers do. Trent Dilfer had a great W/L record with the Ravens in 2000. My larger point is that while it's indicative of something, it's not indicative of much, and it is the case that the Bills defense was pretty dominant in 2013 and 2014 (4th and 2nd overall in football outsiders DVOA rankings). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 I don't put in any stock in QB records, for what it's worth. Having said that, I think Manuel has a chance to be OK and help the team win a game or two over a 3-4 game stretch. But honestly it's less about him - it's what happens if he goes down. The Bills QB situation all along has been shaky, and that's not a debatable issue. I like Taylor, but all of the guys have serious flaws. What happens if Brady goes down? And then Garrapalo goes down? What happens if Manning goes down? And then Osweiller goes down? What happens if Wilson goes down? And then Tavaris Jackson goes down? Are all those GMs idiots for not having the foresight to secure the all important position of 3rd string QB? GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malazan Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 It's like this possibility doesn't even exist for Bucky, Sully, Wawrow, et. all and this whole "Cassel was #2" thing is definitive proof he's a better QB than EJ. Oy vey. They criticized Cassel being the number 2. They're aware, but they want clicks and going negative generates clicks from people who think it was a bad idea and then from people who think it was a good idea who are aghast at how they can't realize something so obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 What happens if Brady goes down? And then Garrapalo goes down? What happens if Manning goes down? And then Osweiller goes down? What happens if Wilson goes down? And then Tavaris Jackson goes down? Are all those GMs idiots for not having the foresight to secure the all important position of 3rd string QB? GO BILLS!!! Haha, exactly. I keep saying the same thing. It is why guys like Josh Johnson are on the weekly payment plan. No GM wants 3 QBs taking up active roster spots if they can help it. The Browns do that... an organization to look at and do the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2o Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Well, we'll sure as hell see since both Manuel and Cassel will be starting on Sunday. Cowboys have a bye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Felix Hernandez rightly won a Cy Young award with a 13-12 record. And QBs have less to do with wins and losses than pitchers do. Trent Dilfer had a great W/L record with the Ravens in 2000. My larger point is that while it's indicative of something, it's not indicative of much, and it is the case that the Bills defense was pretty dominant in 2013 and 2014 (4th and 2nd overall in football outsiders DVOA rankings). I mean, you can do that all day. The D certainly wasn't dominant vs the Falcons in 2013 when EJ led the offense to 30+ and they lost. So hand him another win? I don't buy it. He deserves the wins he has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 What happens if Brady goes down? And then Garrapalo goes down? What happens if Manning goes down? And then Osweiller goes down? What happens if Wilson goes down? And then Tavaris Jackson goes down? Are all those GMs idiots for not having the foresight to secure the all important position of 3rd string QB? GO BILLS!!! You trade a low round pick to a team like the Bills who have a quality option (relatively speaking)! Look: the Bills situation was never like those other teams - they never had a sure-thing starter, and they have hardly any money invested in the position. The Jets had two question marks last year, and that didn't work out. People can convince themselves all they want about how Matthew Mulligan or Jordan Gay is more valuable than Cassel on a team with no great QBs, but at a certain point it looks to me like blind defense of the decision makers. Whaley has made a lot of good moves -- the defense is loaded. But he has made some less good ones too. This qualifies as one of those, in my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarleyNY Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 (edited) It seemed like they wanted to make sure they had a "capable" vet going into TC because they didn't know what they were going to get out of EJ and TT with the new system and coaching staff. When I say capable I mean "experienced." Obviously a "good" experienced vet isnt available in FA or for a late round pick. Once they saw what they had with those two, he became dispensible. Teams that rely on guys like Cassel, McCown, Hoyer, Fitz, etc. at QB are just playing scared. JMO.I largely agree with that except for two things. 1) Those teams' GMs aren't "playing scared". They're just desperate and taking what they can find in the desert QB-less teams wander in.. 2) Including McCown. He's been that oasis those GMs hope to stumble into. He'd be the starting QB in Buffalo right now if he'd have chosen the Bills over the Browns. I'd have lumped him with all of the others in the offseason, but he's lighting it up in Cleveland these days - with a lot less skill position talent than the Bills have. 3 straight games with over 300 yards passing, a 102 QBR and AFC Offensive Player of the Week this week thanks to his 457 yards and win over the Ravens. If Cleveland could stop the run (at all) and rush the passer consistently they'd be dangerous. Edited October 14, 2015 by BarleyNY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 (edited) I mean, you can do that all day. The D certainly wasn't dominant vs the Falcons in 2013 when EJ led the offense to 30+ and they lost. So hand him another win? I don't buy it. He deserves the wins he has. ? He played well in that game. He didn't have control over a number of factors that decided the Falcons game - which is my point. W-L stats for QBs is a weak analytical tool, basically. Just ask Archie Manning. Edited October 14, 2015 by dave mcbride Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Haha, exactly. I keep saying the same thing. It is why guys like Josh Johnson are on the weekly payment plan. No GM wants 3 QBs taking up active roster spots if they can help it. The Browns do that... an organization to look at and do the opposite. as Dave mentions though...the Packers do regularly keep 3 and they are an ideal organization....think it depends who the #3 is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Cubed Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 What happens if Brady goes down? And then Garrapalo goes down? What happens if Manning goes down? And then Osweiller goes down? What happens if Wilson goes down? And then Tavaris Jackson goes down? Are all those GMs idiots for not having the foresight to secure the all important position of 3rd string QB? GO BILLS!!! To that point, 17 teams have 3 Qbs on the active roster. 2 of those are because the teams starting QB is injured. So at the start of the NFL season a little less than half of the teams have 3 QBs. Most of those 3rd QBs are young developmental players. None of them are really viable backups in the league. Maybe Charlie Whitehurst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 I largely agree with that except for two things. 1) Those teams' GMs aren't "playing scared". They're just desperate and taking what they can find in the desert QB-less teams wander in.. 2) Including McCown. He's been that oasis those GMs hope to stumble into. He'd be the starting QB in Buffalo right now if he'd have chosen the Bills over the Browns. I'd have lumped him with all of the others in the offseason, but he's lighting it up in Cleveland these days - with a lot less skill position talent than the Bills have. 3 straight games with over 300 yards passing, a 102 QBR and AFC Offensive Player of the Week this week thanks to his 457 yards and win over the Ravens. If Cleveland could stop the run (at all) and rush the passer consistently they'd be dangerous. Ha! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 I largely agree with that except for two things. 1) Those teams' GMs aren't "playing scared". They're just desperate and taking what they can find in the desert QB-less teams wander in.. 2) Including McCown. He'd be the starting QB in Buffalo right now if he'd have chosen the Bills over the Browns. I'd have lumped him with all of the others in the offseason, but he's lighting it up in Cleveland these days - with a lot less skill position talent the. The Bills have. 3 straight games with over 300 yards passing, a 102 QBR and AFC Offensive Player of the Week this week thanks to his 457 yards and win over the Ravens. If Cleveland could stop the run (at all) and rush the passer consistently they'd be dangerous. But they can't do those things, so they are on their way to 6-10 or 7-9 with McCown who is 36 and not the future, is 2-14 in his last 16 games, and will miss out on the top QBs in the draft. The Ravens can't stop anyone through the air, everyone has lit them up. They are scared of seeing what they have with Manziel. Because Pettine is desperate to not get fired, as you said. I am just not a fan of starting the stopgap guy when you have a high round prospect sitting right there. I thik the Jets should start Geno, but glad they aren't. JMO - I know tons disagree, that is fine, I see all of your points too and they are valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 What happens if Brady goes down? And then Garrapalo goes down? What happens if Manning goes down? And then Osweiller goes down? What happens if Wilson goes down? And then Tavaris Jackson goes down? Are all those GMs idiots for not having the foresight to secure the all important position of 3rd string QB? GO BILLS!!! Yes, because it would take a genius to plan that Tyrod, a guy who is only effective when running, and EJ, the guy with 3 separate knee injuries, could both get hurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 Not really. At the start of the year they still had questions about EJ. Then they decided EJ was worth keeping and Cassel wasn't, and they saw a chance to get something for him. Smart move, imo. No, you have to look at it from the risk management standpoint, and this week's activities made this a very bad move because the comparison is whether Johnson as #3 is a better option than either Cassel or EJ. In no universe is Johnson better than the other two guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 To that point, 17 teams have 3 Qbs on the active roster. 2 of those are because the teams starting QB is injured. So at the start of the NFL season a little less than half of the teams have 3 QBs. Most of those 3rd QBs are young developmental players. None of them are really viable backups in the league. Maybe Charlie Whitehurst. This speaks more to roster construction than anything else. Different systems implemented by different coaches means different emphasis on different positions. There is not a team in the league that isn't thin at some positions compared to other positions on other teams. Bucky and other rigid thinkers would do well to consider that before embarrassing themselves. GO BILLS!!! Yes, because it would take a genius to plan that Tyrod, a guy who is only effective when running, and EJ, the guy with 3 separate knee injuries, could both get hurt. Yes, so teams need to construct rosters on the basis of who MIGHT get hurt. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 This speaks more to roster construction than anything else. Different systems implemented by different coaches means different emphasis on different positions. There is not a team in the league that isn't thin at some positions compared to other positions on other teams. Bucky and other rigid thinkers would do well to consider that before embarrassing themselves. GO BILLS!!! But that's exactly why Bucky is complaining. Bills expended two valuable roster spots for players who didn't matter (and one is now gone) and left themselves very exposed in the most important position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 (edited) This speaks more to roster construction than anything else. Different systems implemented by different coaches means different emphasis on different positions. There is not a team in the league that isn't thin at some positions compared to other positions on other teams. Bucky and other rigid thinkers would do well to consider that before embarrassing themselves. GO BILLS!!! Yes, so teams need to construct rosters on the basis of who MIGHT get hurt. GO BILLS!!! Perhaps in a "win now/playoffs or bust" season, a solid vet option at QB is worth just a teeny bit more than a 5th rounder two years from now. And yes, good depth is how rosters are constructed. Edited October 14, 2015 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 But that's exactly why Bucky is complaining. Bills expended two valuable roster spots for players who didn't matter (and one is now gone) and left themselves very exposed in the most important position. Valuable to whom? As I have said previously, different coaches and schemes place different values on different positions. Yes, in hindsight, we are now thin. But you simply cannot make every roster decision and on the basis of who MIGHT get hurt. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 But that's exactly why Bucky is complaining. Bills expended two valuable roster spots for players who didn't matter (and one is now gone) and left themselves very exposed in the most important position. how are they exposed any more than the rest of the teams who carry 2 QBs and sign a 3rd if the 1st gets hurt, then cuts the 3rd when the 1st comes back? It is common, no? I don't think it had anything to do with the KOS. Roster spots are valuable, especially as injuries pile up throughout the season, and that's why he is gone now too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts