chris heff
-
Posts
5,784 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by chris heff
-
-
Edwards Arm will eventually come around. Right now he is very invested in his bandwith paradigm. It's a very interesting approach to evaluating qb prospects and it does have merit. My complaint with his paradigm is that there are plenty of examples outside of his paradigm who have thrived at the position.
On this issue don't give up on Edwards Arm. I and many others are taking turns hammering away trying to wear him down. If he is as open-minded as I think he is he will eventually come around. He is like the man who only dates blonds. When he eventually trys a redhead who rocks his boat he will learn the lesson about the wisodom of expanding his bandwith.
After my first go round with Edwards Arm, which was after the draft and before training camp, I asked him if he had ever seen Manuel play at FSU. His silence led me to conclude he had not. His opinion was based on how the opinion of others fit his own bandwidth theory. It makes his conclusion questionable. I felt that some of my responses may have been a bit harsh. So I backed off the Manuel debate. I even attempted to find common ground, on other topics. It is not my intention to come to this site to be contentious. I'm cognizant of the fact that we are all Bills Fans. That being said blaming yesterday's loss on Manuel is like blaming World War II on Poland.
-
The WaltersFootball evaluation you cited is a terrific evaluation of him as a prospect. What made him appealing were his pysical tools and his personality and character traits. That's the essence of why he was such an intriguing prospect and also a risky prospect. Not one qb prospect in last year's draft was a clean prospect. In all probability no qb prospect in this year's draft is a clean (guaranteed) prospect. The best qb I have seen this year in the college ranks is FSU's Winston. He is not eligible to enter the draft this year and he has some serious legal issues hovering over him.
Andrew Luck is a once in a generation qb. So let's not bother using him as a template to compare qbs to. Russell Wilson is another special prospect in that his on the field maturity is already at an elite level. Kaepernick/Griffin/Newton/Foles were not instantly finished products. All of them are undergoing the challenges of learning how to play. That's the frustrating nature of the learning curve that can't be avoided. Since you can't avoid it my recommendation to you is don't allow yourself to be spooked to the point of prematurely pulling the plug on a prospect. The irony that you haven't stated is that the struggles that EJ is going through are the same struggles that other future qb prospects are going to endure. Why start the developmental process and then start the same process with another fresher prospect??? That makes no sense to me.
Next offseason the Bills shouldn't use a high draft pick for another qb. In my view that would be foolish. What they need to do is do everything they can to put EJ in a position to succeed. They need to bolster the OL and they need to acquire a playmaking TE. The model for qb development that we should copy is the model that the Steelers used when they drafted Roethlisberger. They had a terrific OL and emphasized the running game and kept the pressure off of their raw qb. Steadily Big Ben got better and better to the point that he is now bordering on being an elite qb.
If you put things in perspective you have to acknowledge that EJ has shown enough ability to allow you to think that he can be a franchise qb. The inconsistency he is exhibiting is the norm for young qbs. Is he going to be an elite qb? Absolutely not! He doesn't have the natural impeccable accuracy that those types of special qbs possess.
This organization has no choice other than place their chips on the qb they brought to the table. Gambles pay off if you play the cards you are holding; not if you too soon throw the cards on table and walk away. If you want guarantees then you shouldn't have walked into the casino,
You are absolutely correct, but you are trying to reason with the unreasonable. Edwards Arm had decided that Manuel was not any good prior to the draft. He determined this without, in my opinion, ever having seen him play a down of football. Trying to blame Manuel for yesterday's loss is absurd. Manuel's stat line was virtually identical to Luck's. Luck won because his defense didn't get gashed for 34 points and alleged skill players didn't turn over the ball on consecutive potential game wining drives, not because pundits believe he is polished or NFL ready.
By Edwards Arm's standards there is a bunch of HOF, Super Bowl winning QBs that would not be considered elite. Starr, Namath, Dawson, Griese and probably Young. There are ten guys that won Super Bowls that he wouldn't have on his team. Bradshaw won four and I remember when he got beaten out by Joe Gilliam, should the Steelers have drafted another QB?
You don't give up on a guy after eight starts and you sure as he'll don't give up on him before he even player one game. You also don't try and create blame where there is none.
-
Wait: does the title of this thread suppose Stevie ever was the leader of this offense?
That was my first thought exactly.
-
From my imaginary trade down. LOL. WOOT!!!
That being said, I fully realize how hard it is to trade down...
I love a good imaginary trade. Good job on the positions by round.
-
Colts went to the playoffs last year. Let me know when the Bills do that with a rookie QB please.
Better coaching last year.
Colts went to the playoffs last year. Let me know when the Bills do that with a rookie QB please.
Better coaching last year.
-
Good post.
The questions the Bills need to ask themselves are these: "What has Manuel done to change our pre-draft assessment of him? What has he done to change the naysayers' predraft assessment of him?"
The naysayers pointed out there were certain things Manuel didn't do in college. Manuel was apparently never asked to go beyond his second read; and probably didn't go beyond his first read very often either. It was rare for him to throw to anything other than a wide-open receiver. His accuracy was inconsistent. His footwork was often questionable. He had great physical tools to be sure, but there's a lot he didn't prove at the college level. That's why so many experts had one or more (usually more) QBs ranked ahead of him in a very weak 2013 QB draft.
One of the naysayers' concerns has been at least partially addressed. Manuel will occasionally make a good throw to a tightly covered WR. This is extremely rare; but happens often enough for people to have some throws to point to; if pointing is what they want to do.
Other than that one thing, Manuel hasn't done anything to disprove the naysayers' main arguments against him. On the other hand, he hasn't disproved his supporters' arguments either; because one could point to almost any rookie QB and say, "Maybe he'll outgrow his present limitations."
But if a QB hasn't shown he can do a particular task in college; and if he hasn't shown he can do it in his rookie year in the NFL, odds are heavily against him ever learning to do that task. Manuel has several different things on his "hasn't yet shown" list--any one of which will cripple his ability to be a franchise QB if not corrected.
However much positive emotion the Bills may have felt about drafting Manuel in the first place--however good they may have felt about "having a plan" and making Manuel the cornerstone of that plan--they need to carefully weigh the probability of his failing against the chance he'll succeed. They need to ask themselves this question in as unbiased a way as possible; as though they were evaluating the QB situation of the Detroit Lions or Arizona Cardinals, or some other team in whose success they have no vested interest. Then, having asked this question, they need to decide whether to take advantage of the QB opportunities which may await them in the first round of the 2014 draft.
Passive aggressive.
17 of 32 for 200 yards and 1 TD is just not getting it done. Teams don't need game manager QBs. What this team needs is Payton Manning, 22 of 35 for 403 yards and 2 TDs.
The Colts need to draft a QB in the first round.
-
Gilmore: I hope he gets better. I really do. He's played better than this in the past. Is his arm still bothering him? Is he in less than 100% best possible condition? Is he suffering from a lack of confidence? Or maybe those better performances early on his career were a fluke; or something offenses figured out how to counter. I just don't know.
As for Manuel: he averaged 6.5 yards per pass attempt: the same average Trent Edwards compiled over the course if his career. Like Edwards, Manuel relied mostly on dump offs. Saying he played well enough to win is like saying Trent Dilfer played well enough to win the Super Bowl.
Football is a team sport. A "well enough to win" from a Trent Dilfer on the Ravens could represent a much worse individual performance than a "not well enough to win" from John Elway on a 7-9 Broncos team.
Will you give it up EJ Manuel had nothing to do with this loss. You are so hell bend on being right about your personal analytics that you can't see what is in front of you. The defense gave up more running yards to this team than they had gained all year. Manuel had the team in position to win the game twice and twice the ball was fumbled. How many touch downs should Manuel have thrown to over come the lack of effort and concentration by his teammates? Maybe Manuel should complete passes to himself, so that he can then prevent fumbling.
-
Charles. It's a homecoming breakout in Canada if Kyle can't go.
Kyle Williams on the field for warm ups.
-
The Walsh/Aikman scenario happened a quarter century ago. There is a good reason why that duplicative qb strategy hasn't happened too often. In addition, it didn't take the Cowboys too long to determine that Walsh didn't have a strong enough arm to be a quality qb starter. When the Saints made the deal with the Cowboys that bolstered the Cowboys and weakened their team they made a stupendous blunder that current non harebrained franchises would not want to make. Another factor why the Dallas/Saint deal you make reference to is improbable is that in the NFL of today draft picks are coveted in this era strongly influenced by the cap.
The Bills are in a rebuild stage where they are entering the level of respectability. If they believe that they already have a good franchise qb prospect with their first drafted qb it would makeA little sense to delay the rebuild process with another younger qb entering the mix.
Drafting a QB in the first round in consecutive drafts was virtually impossible prior to to new CBA rookie salary structure. That being said, I can't see a team doing it unless the only missing position is QB and in the second draft, when your turn comes up, the number one guy on your board is a QB that has fallen to you. It would be a guy impossible to pass on.
-
Best finish since Miami vs Boston College, what as that guys name again?
-
It's the same discussion as the theoretical of whether you take a tight end or a guard in the first round.
You don't know until you're on the clock and you see what your options are.
My point is that you don't disqualify the possibility.
I don't believe dogmatism is a good approach to anything (I was just dogmatic, wasn't I?).
That I agree with.
-
Drafting QBs in the first round in consecutive seasons, as has already been agreed, is an outside the box, unconventional idea to say the least.
It becomes less "out there" when you consider that:
1) QB has increased in value almost exponentially in the last decade and
2) With the new collective bargaining agreement which includes a rookie pay scale, what used to be impossible is now plausible.
I was as big a supporter of EJ Manuel BEFORE the draft and CONTINUE to support and believe in him.
The reason I don't think any team should ever rule out drafting a QB highly in consecutive years is multi-fold. QBs are valuable assets.
If this QB draft is as outstanding as scouts are saying, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that the Bills will have a premier QB prospect (AJ McCarron for instance) available when they pick even at picks 10-12.
As I mentioned upthread, the Cowboys spent a first rounder on Troy Aikman less than one year after taking Steve Walsh using a first round pick in the supplemental draft.
When they determined that Aikman was the better prospect four games into the 1990 season, "Dallas traded Walsh to the New Orleans Saints for a first, third and second round draft choices. With the third pick the Cowboys would eventually select Erik Williams."
http://en.wikipedia....erican_football)
Williams was a dominating force who went to 4 Pro Bowls, was a 3-time All Pro and one of the most feared O-linemen of his era.
In any given draft, there are numerous teams looking for their franchise QB. Being able to draft one is a great form of being able to leverage value.
I'm a bit surprised by the adherence to conventional thinking at a time when there's strong rationale for reassessing this issue.
I think there were some extenuating circumstances to the Dallas example. Not to nit pick but Aikman and Walsh were taken in the same year. Jimmy Johnson took Walsh in the supplemental, Walsh had played for him at the U. He was taken after Aikman.
1989 was also the year of the Herschel Walker trade, aside from the five players they got six draft picks. You can fill a lot of holes with all those extra picks. So to use two picks on QBs wasn't that big of a deal.
So do you think the Bills are solid enough at all other positions that they can afford to use another first round pick on a QB?
-
This has led me to do some considerable research into botulism today. crazy!
So you are going to need to figure out how to work botulism into conversations for the next few days.
-
I think the assumption you have made here that the Chargers were ready to fully commit to Rivers is pivotal in your conclusions with the Rivers/Brees situation. There is no evidence at all to think that had Brees not got injured that the Chargers would not have stayed with him. He had effectively shown himself to be a legitimately good QB verging on elite and his performance easily kept Rivers on the bench for 2 full seasons.
To me it seems far more likely that had Brees not been injured, that the Chargers would have re-signed him and then recouped some of their initial draft investment by trading an unproven Rivers.
The only real logic to draft a QB in the 1st round in the year after already drafting one in the first round is(as others have stated).....injury, the situation where one has the chance to land an elite prospect(pick #1 or #2), or where your 1st round QB has shown enough in his first year to have your talent evaluators drastically reduce their grading of his potential.
IMO, selecting consecutive 1st round QBs is a totally fine concept. The problem however being that the same concept could be used in the third year....and fourth, which is not a tenable situation. Furthermore, there is no logic to suggest that the guy you have given up on and replaced as a starter......or the guy who wasn't good enough to get onto the field....would net you a reasonable trade return for your investment.
The example of Brees//Rivers or Brunell/ Johnson are both invalid. The concept of drafting QBs first round in consecutive years only works under the current CBA. If it weren't for the rookie salary structure it would be impossible. That being said, barring injury I still think it is a bad idea.
-
So this thread has now become about the wisdom of drafting QBs in the first round in consecutive years.
As far as Brees and Rivers are concerned. The Chargers had all but given up on Brees. He had been replaced as the starter by Flutie. After acquiring Rivers, Brees had two really good years. Last of which he had been franchised. Brees was injured in the last game of 2005. San Diego couldn't afford to pay both Rivers and Brees. The rest is history. San Diego received no compensation. If they knew then what they know now, would they have acquired Rivers? I doubt it.
To determine if a QB is indeed a franchise QB doesn't that require a considerable amount of playing time? How exactly does a team do that? Two QB systems do not work in the NFL. So you would have to trade the one with the greatest body of work. What if your wrong? Of course there may be a team willing to trade high picks or pick for a QB with a very limited number of games, but that organization would have to be dumb, desperate or both. Should Jacksonville have traded Brunell rather than Johnson?
-
Relax, Francis. Go look at the "apology threads" all over the main board, look up sarcasm, then revisit this string of posts.
The correct quote is"lighten up Francis".
-
"Truth is, none of those issues will be solved this weekend. There will be the usual whining about Toronto’s lack of tailgating freedom and how it damages the bacchanalian instincts of NFL fans; about how there is no atmosphere in the Rogers Centre and about how many tickets were discounted or comps. In the end, it will matter not one iota because commissioner Roger Goodell and his owners don’t give out letter grades for tailgating parties, and if partying’s that big an issue anyhow, Toronto has two words for NFL owners: Rob and Ford. End of discussion."
From the Toronto Globe and Mail, funny.
-
Ralphie is cheap.
This is the best post ever!
-
Are the college rules for OT better? They are entertaining.
-
Defense has a say in both the outcome of the game (ie, win-loss record, which you cite above) and in the offense's performance (ability to play it somewhat safe in second halves). And it wasn't like they weren't loaded with underclassmen on offense anyway. Cam Erving is probably gonna go between 5 and 15 in April.
As for objectivity -- I mean no offense, but I could care less. It's a message board, and of course it's subjective. It's not worth arguing about in my opinion, though.
I agree that defense has a say, but go back and watch the FSU, Florida game, the defense stunk. Cam Erving only played with Manuel for one year. Last year was his first as an offensive lineman.
I was only using the example of Manuel's college record because Badobeelz supposition is that he is right because of objectivity, anyone that disagrees is wrong because of subjectivity.
-
And get your fact straight it was 11 players drafted, 7 were defense. On offense it was, Manuel, Thomson a 5'7" 192 pound running back, a project O lineman Watkins and Hopkins a kicker.
One of those five of the first forty two, one was on offense.
-
One of the facts from last year is that Florida State had more players drafted than any other school, including Alabama. 5 of the first 42 picks were FSU players. Let me repeat: 5 of the first 42. That team was loaded. In fact, they were even more loaded than the draft record showed given how dominant the team is this year. And it wasn't like they were running sophisticated offenses and defenses. They generally roll superior athletes out on the field and, in simple fashion, unleash merciless beat downs on teams with average-to-decent talent. I gotta agree with Badol here - Manuel looked pretty raw last season and the FSU team this year looks virtually unstoppable. I don't know how many FSU games you watched last year, but you could see the rawness. And he performed poorly in the biggest game of the year (against Florida). He threw 3 picks, lost a fumble, and averaged 5.5 ypa. Having said this, I was very much on board with the pick and remain highly supportive of it. He has a lot of talent.
Subjective opinion, one pick was tipped, one was on Manuel, one the receiver gave up on the route. One fumble on Manuel, one in the NFL is a penalty and a fine.
You have missed the point Badol believes he is objective. My point is exclusive of just facts objectivity is impossible. You and I both watch the same game and draw different conclusions. Are you right? Am I? Only physics is objective.
-
I can read a bio too. But I also watch college football. I saw the problems with his game. He was a good caretaker for that talented team but not a dominant player because he struggles to get into a rhythm, he was too cautious with the ball despite a wealth of talent around him and his mechanics were a mess(which is part of why he struggled early in games). In all fairness, a significant portion of his game was running the football at FSU as well and that is no longer part of the equation as an NFL QB. He wasn't a dominant player or an elite prospect as a QB. The best option in THIS draft? Perhaps. I didn't disagree with his selection and I am of the belief that the jury is still out on him going forward but that his leash should not be so long that it precludes pursuing other QB's next season.
But perhaps the simple answer regarding why EJ was far from dominant at FSU is to simply see how Florida State is performing this season WITHOUT Manuel. THAT is dominant. Manuel as a senior was a far cry from Winston as a redshirt freshman.
Your response is based on your observations not fact. Which by definition makes it subjective. The statistic in the "bio"as you put it are the facts. This many games were won, this many bowl games, this many yards, and so on, those are the facts. You watched games , made observations and reached conclusions. My conclusions differ. Which would also make them subjective. I live in Florida and I also watched his games. I know a number of FSU fans and alumni and the majority would disagree with your conclusion. Manuel's time at FSU was spent in a rebuilding program. After Bowden's "retirement" the program had to be rebuilt. The talent around Manuel was not anywhere close to what is there today. The Oline was bad the receivers were not good and the RB were not remotely as good as the current group.
Objectivity is both a metaphysical and an epistemological concept. Whether human beings can be objective is a philosophical and sociological debate that has gone on for thousands of years. I could bore everyone with examples of what was perceived as objectivity but was not. Human objectivity is an oxymoron.
If you were just given the statistical facts of Manuel's career, not knowing who or what team, would you conclude that it was a successful career? You watched the games, I watched the games and we reached different conclusions. I am assuming that you as I reached your conclusion on Manuel before the draft. Does that make you objective and me subjective?
-
Well, I guess I am the most objective fan you will find then because I am not emotionally effected by the team. I am jovial before the game....and regardless of the outcome I am the same way after it. It's just a game to me.
And that being said......the objective viewpoint is that the president and the gm weren't really all that new. Not that "new" is even what they needed, but they certainly weren't entirely unaccountable for the past failings of the organization which is what *new* suggests.
Whaley has been the #2 personnel man here for the three previous seasons......basically he has been responsible for setting the draft board for this team for years.....inarguably the most important job in the personnel department.....and Brandon has served as GM prior to being president. While Whaley may not have to answer to Nix now, I am not really sure that was exactly their relationship to start with and we really don't know what more Brandon does than he was doing last November.
The head coach arrived after compiling a .500 record in a middle-of-road conference in Div. 1 college football. The QB has had success in college but was far from dominant on that level. These are objective viewpoints.
What YOU are asking for is at it's root, unobjective.
"Manuel led the Seminoles to a 12-win season for just the third time in program history and the first time since their dominant stretch in the 1990s. During his senior season, he threw for the second most yards in team history with 3,392, trailing only Chris Weinke's Heisman Trophy winning season, in which Weinke threw for 4,167 yards. Manuel went 25-6 as a starter, won the first BCS bowl for Florida State since 2000, won five out of six games against intrastate rivals Miami and Florida, and he also led the offense to its most prolific season in team history, cleanly surpassing the 1999 National Championship squad with 6,591 yards."
How exactly did you objectively arrive at the conclusion that this is "far from dominant"?
A Few Thoughts About The Game, in no particular order.....
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted · Edited by chris heff
Do you pontificate for a living? That was the excuse for invading Poland if your looking for the blame for World War II it lies in World War I and the Treaty of Versailles.
Nice use of Wikipedia though.
By the way both Kaiser Wilhelm and Hitler had good YPA, arms strength, accuracy, but bad decision making. Neither could win the big one.