The Dean

Precisely. "Game manager" isn't a judgement of quality. It is more a description of role. At this point in time, EJ is a game manager. And for the first two games of the year, a pretty good one at that. But a great game manager needs to make big plays, when the situation calls for it. But typically the game manager doesn't have the weight of the offense entirely on his shoulders. At the moment, that's the ideal situation for EJ and the team. And he could be right. At some point in time, the Bills may need the QB to take on a different role, If, for example, the RB corp gets decimated by injury, or the OL falls apart, the weight of the offense may have to be carried by EJ. I hope that doesn't happen in the near future. I happen to be one who thinks EJ has the physical skills to be able to excel in that role. But currently he hasn't had to demonstrate the ability to do it. Of course, he hasn't been asked to do it, either. I prefer he doesn't have to do it in the near future. Of course. In some offenses, though, the QB is the centerpiece of just about every play. In others, he is more of a complementary piece. Still a great game manager is a usually a very good QB any way you look at it. And a great QB is typically a very good game manager. Guys like Dilfer were adequate game managers, who happened to be play for teams with great defenses---and they avoided mistakes. But you can tell by the limited success Dilfer had over time, he wasn't a great game manager.

So, I'm confused. In this case is it better for the results to be negative, or positive. I now believe this thread was a test to see if one could get a multi-page thread out of posting "Test" and nothing else.

A perfectly reasonable perspective, IMO.

I'll make this my last post on the topic as I think this horse has been kicked far past death. The HC indicates, to the official who is standing right next to him, that he wants a TO. Just like at any other time in the game,. Should a QB be able to call time just before the play clock runs out? Is that OK? The official blows the whistle and stops play. If the defensive HC times it just right, The TO comes right before the snap and by the time the defense can react the ball has already been snapped. Typically the kick is an afterthought---the kicker knows it doesn't count, but just kicks it anyway. Perhaps as practice, perhaps due to muscle memory or just keeping things the same as every kick. There is noting underhanded going on. It's strategy, plain and simple. In some instances, I think it can actually help the kicker. Give him a preview of the wind affect at that moment. But it has become the darling of HCs as of late.Icing a kicker well before the snap may actually have a bigger impact on him psychologically. So how do you stop this? Take away the ability for the team to use the TO? That doesn't seem right. Not let the defense call a time out after the play clock runs down to under 4 seconds? That sucks, since the offense has until the last moment. About the only way I can think of to stop this, without making some crazy rule, is for the officials to be too far from the sidelines, or a defensive player, for someone on the defense to indicate a TO at the last second---and then they would be out of position to make the necessary calls. So I think you will just have to live with it, until coaches start realizing it doesn't work all that well when everyone knows it is coming.

Teams got better at timing their call to just before the snap. If you think the NFL allows a timeout to be called AFTER the snap, you are mistaken. It has become more prevalent in recent years. So has the zone read.

The time out is ALWAYS called before the ball is kicked. You can't call a timeout after the ball is snapped. The kicker just decides to kick a meaningless kick, most of the time. Maybe they should make THAT a penalty! :blink: Really this isn't very hard to understand. If a team has a timeout left they get to use it. All they have to do is call it before the snap---just like on every other play during the game. There is nothing special, or unusual going on here. Are you thinking they call the TO after the ball is snapped?

Well we have that to be thankful for.

I'e prefer to never see that, as I prefer the Bills not fall behind by three scores. But if they do, then I agree. And I think it will come down to protection. If he's kept clean he will likely be OK. Under a ton of pressure, well I'm not so sure.

Pretty much this. I think he has the potential to be a perfectly average starter, or a decent backup. But not much more.

Your post sort of smacks as a fantasy football analysis. While most backs don't make or break their teams (some do of course), backs aren't interchangeable. You know why? Because there is more to the job than just running the ball. There is blocking, selling the fake, pass protections, knowing where to be when the play breaks down, etc. Just like certain WRs deliver far more than their receiving production by the little things they do to help the team win. But if your idea of football is watching the Red Zone. mostly for your fantasy score, you miss most of that. I'm not saying that is you, BTW. But this post leads me to to suspect it might be.

Indeed, You know what stats are filthy liars? Points differential. Who cares if your team outscored the other team, if your QB sucked while doing it. Well, a lot of times field goals win games. So there is that. If a team allows the opposing offense to drive down the field and get a FG on every drive, they better have a pretty damn good offense to work with. You hit the nail on the head with that one. Stats only lie effectively if you don't have the context for which to interpret them.

So, you want a special rule that effectively denies a team one of their time outs, because ...well I missed that. Why exactly should a team be denied one of their allotted time outs? Because you don't like to see a kicker on the field for longer than necessary?

What TO rule do you want to remove? Are you talking about a team taking a TO before the FG? If a team has a TO why shouldn't they be allowed to use it. That's not a TO rule, those are just the basic rules. You'd have to create a special rule to stop a team from doing that. But perhaps you meant something else.

I believe it is not only that, but now about how and why all threads are about EJ. Heady stuff, no?

Cause and effectiveness are not synonymous? No kidding. They are completely unrelated concepts. Wow, That is some warped logic right there. Your answer is, let the EJ haters run rampant. Probably not going to happen.

I couldn't hear the sound where i watched the game. But it is hard to believe there is a worse announcer than Tasker. I loved the guy on the field, but he is unbearable in the booth.

:blink: :blink: So Kelly's reasonable reply to the absurd EJ hate, caused the EJ haters to post in the first place? Sure that makes a LOT of sense.

I believe the point was basing your current assessment of EJ, to any extent, on how he played in college is a flawed analysis. But since that is what YOU introduced that line of reasoning to this thread, isn't it fair game to discuss how well he actually played?

Yes, but those giant bolt-ons are absurd.

BUM!

Actually correlation doesn't mean causation. But causation pretty much by definition suggests correlation. No? And I agree the loss of Moreno wasn't a major factor, as Knowshon is a good, but not great, RB, But I'd dial down the RB1 = RB2 rhetoric, as there are backs who make a huge difference.

Think of all the grills you could get. And coolers, it seems.

We got a ballgame I think.

For Rodak that isn't a bad article and it's hard to argue the Bills need to improve their red zone production (though they are getting points once they are there). But it is "analysis light" (which is about the best you can expect from this hack) as he dumps all the red zone trips into a single basked and treats them as if they were equal. They were not.