Ron Jaworski's on QB Kevin Kolb (Ranked #30)

[Orton's Arm]

I am using an iPad, same operating system as a Mac.

 

You missed the point, John C said Kolb knew his place as maybe a temporary starter and eventual back up. I said based on that quote he did not know.

 

What exactly about Manuel's NFL career has led you to conclude he can't play?

 

> I am using an iPad, same operating system as a Mac.

 

If you want to paste text while getting rid of the formatting, hold down command + option + shift + v. It's a lot of keys to press at once, but very useful!

 

> You missed the point, John C said Kolb knew his place as maybe a temporary starter and

> eventual back up. I said based on that quote he did not know.

 

Fair enough. My guess is that Kolb has been told about his role. But that he intends to prove to the coaching staff that he's a better short-term option and a better long-term option than Manuel.

 

> What exactly about Manuel's NFL career has led you to conclude he can't play?

 

I've addressed this subject in this post, and in this post.

[chris heff]

 

 

> I am using an iPad, same operating system as a Mac.

 

If you want to paste text while getting rid of the formatting, hold down command + option + shift + v. It's a lot of keys to press at once, but very useful!

 

> You missed the point, John C said Kolb knew his place as maybe a temporary starter and

> eventual back up. I said based on that quote he did not know.

 

Fair enough. My guess is that Kolb has been told about his role. But that he intends to prove to the coaching staff that he's a better short-term option and a better long-term option than Manuel.

 

> What exactly about Manuel's NFL career has led you to conclude he can't play?

 

I've addressed this subject in this post, and in this post.

In your previous post you state that FSU offense was a one read simplified offense. One read yes but simplified? I live in FL and know some FSU fans, they can't even agree on whether that offense is simple or overly complicated. Pro style? Maybe but not really. Limited number of plays from multiple formations, it is hard on young receivers. Which complicates thinks for any QB.

 

Comparing EJ Manuel to Ryan Leaf is a bad comparison. Ryan Leaf was and still is an immature punk, EJ appears to be anything but.

[Rubes]

A side note: Greg Cosell was very harsh in his evaluation of Barkley in this draft. His main criticisms dealt with his arm strength and lack of athleticism. He liked Nassib a lot. If I recall correctly he also liked EJ Manuel.

 

Cosell's podcast talking about Manuel has disappeared, but I found this on NFL.com from March:

 

 

NFL Films guru Greg Cosell -- like Mayock, knee-deep in game film -- also sees something intriguing in Manuel's game.

 

"When you look at Manuel, there's a lot to work with. There's size, there's arm strength, there's athleticism, and I think he can run read-option stuff," Cosell said Thursday on the Yahoo! Sports Shutdown Corner draft podcast.

 

"Now, are there other things? He's a little sloppy with his footwork. He had a tendency to fall away from throws. I thought at times he was a bit of a pusher (of the ball) with a very high elbow position. There were times when he leaned over his front foot when he had to re-set, and that impacted his ability to make accurate throws. As most quarterbacks are in college, he was very over-reactive to bodies around him."

 

Said Cosell: "There are concerns here, but then when you look at some of the positives -- stronger arm, the movement, at times he was very composed -- I'm very anxious to see where he gets drafted, because he gives you that read-option factor."

 

For what it's worth.

[Orton's Arm]

In your previous post you state that FSU offense was a one read simplified offense. One read yes but simplified? I live in FL and know some FSU fans, they can't even agree on whether that offense is simple or overly complicated. Pro style? Maybe but not really. Limited number of plays from multiple formations, it is hard on young receivers. Which complicates thinks for any QB.

 

Comparing EJ Manuel to Ryan Leaf is a bad comparison. Ryan Leaf was and still is an immature punk, EJ appears to be anything but.

 

> One read yes but simplified? I live in FL and know some FSU fans, they can't even agree on whether that offense is simple or overly complicated.

 

Contradictory claims are a pain: one usually doesn't know what to believe. I recall having seen one article in which the FSU coach described the offense as simplified; but went on to say that he felt Manuel could have run a more complex offense. I personally put more faith in what players actually did in college, than in what their coaches claim they could have done.

 

> Comparing EJ Manuel to Ryan Leaf is a bad comparison. Ryan Leaf was and still is an immature punk, EJ appears to be anything but.

 

I certainly have seen nothing to suggest Manuel is an immature punk. Ryan Leaf was an example of a guy who'd been described as "raw," "unpolished," "a project" and "not NFL-ready." Losman is another example of a guy who was considered raw, unpolished, a project, etc. And Losman didn't have Leaf's attitude problems. Losman seemed to have a pretty good work ethic and willingness to be a team player. But he failed anyway due to his mental limitations. Most players described as "raw" or "not NFL-ready" will fail for that same reason.

 

Which brings me to a quote from a pro-Manuel article.

 

"Literally nowhere on the Internet can I find someone with a respected football opinion to tell me [Manuel is] ready to be a starter in the NFL."

 

Manuel is much more likely to fail than he is to succeed.

[BillnutinHouston]

What does it say about EJ if the 30th QB in the league is projected to beat him out.

 

Who's making this projection, other than you?

[Dorkington]

Who's making this projection, other than you?

 

All the EXPERTS

[Marv's Neighbor]

I like him as an analyst but I can't speak to Ron Jaworski the person.

 

I find it interesting that they named a stadium in Lackawanna Ron Jaworski Stadium.

 

And then a few years later, stripped it of the name.

I didn't know the name was stripped, I just thought that Smokes Creek flooded again and washed it off.

[JohnC]

Cosell's podcast talking about Manuel has disappeared, but I found this on NFL.com from March:

 

 

 

 

For what it's worth.

 

Thanks for the link. It was informative. What does it say about his future pro prospects? It's inconclusive as it is for most qb prospects. The only recent prospect that was almost a given was Luck. He was as close to being a ready pro qb as I have seen in a long time. He was a Peyton like prospect but more athletically gifted.

 

I understand Edward's Arm's hesitancy to embrace Manuel. He gives cogent reasons as to why he is not buying the product, at least at this point. Manuel's success or failure is going to be very much influenced by the way he is coached. Will they immediately throw him in the fray, or will they gradually bring him along? The way they handle him will be critical. Even if they take a slow and steady trac with him I don't believe that it will take that long to determine if he will be a capable NFL qb.

 

Just as some people learn languages differently (immersion vs gradually adding vocabulary) the coaches will have to determine what is the best approach for Manuel. He certainly is not going to start off playing a complicated multiple read offense in his rookie year. Simplifying the offense and then as he gains experience adding more complexity to the offense is probably the best way to go. The offense that Cam Newton played and even RGIII played was not a complicated offense.

 

My preference is to get him on the field sooner rather than later. If he can handle the responsibility then go ahead with the immersion approach. If not, then bring him along more slowly. I rather find out that a player with tools can or can not play than play a qb I already know will not be a success because he lacks the requisite tools.

[BillnutinHouston]

 

 

All the EXPERTS

 

Such as?

[ALLEN1QB]

Looks about right

[chris heff]

 

 

> One read yes but simplified? I live in FL and know some FSU fans, they can't even agree on whether that offense is simple or overly complicated.

 

Contradictory claims are a pain: one usually doesn't know what to believe. I recall having seen one article in which the FSU coach described the offense as simplified; but went on to say that he felt Manuel could have run a more complex offense. I personally put more faith in what players actually did in college, than in what their coaches claim they could have done.

 

> Comparing EJ Manuel to Ryan Leaf is a bad comparison. Ryan Leaf was and still is an immature punk, EJ appears to be anything but.

 

I certainly have seen nothing to suggest Manuel is an immature punk. Ryan Leaf was an example of a guy who'd been described as "raw," "unpolished," "a project" and "not NFL-ready." Losman is another example of a guy who was considered raw, unpolished, a project, etc. And Losman didn't have Leaf's attitude problems. Losman seemed to have a pretty good work ethic and willingness to be a team player. But he failed anyway due to his mental limitations. Most players described as "raw" or "not NFL-ready" will fail for that same reason.

 

Which brings me to a quote from a pro-Manuel article.

 

"Literally nowhere on the Internet can I find someone with a respected football opinion to tell me [Manuel is] ready to be a starter in the NFL."

 

Manuel is much more likely to fail than he is to succeed.

Of course Manuel is more likely to fail than succeed. How many guys really succeed as an NFL QB? Every year how many are successful? Ten, fifteen ? The league is full of guys that weren't NFL ready at all positions. Everyone drafted after the third round and all UDFA aren't considered as ready.

 

I watched most of FSU's games last year. I was intrigued my Manuel, thought he was the best QB in the draft. I don't think Jimbo Fishers offense played to Manuel's skill set. I understand that a college coach can't be constantly changing his offense to suit a QB who may start for a year or two. That being said both Manuel and Ponder were pretty successful in that offense. I think Ponder is better suited for it. In the NFL a coach can build around a QB skills, they hope to have the guy start for ten years.

 

So what would you have done? Taken one of the other QBs in this draft? Kept Fitz? Traded for Alex Smith or somebody else? Free agency? Wait and draft somebody from this years college crop?

 

Since Kelly retired the Bills have traded a couple of times, drafted in early rounds, including Manuel, a couple of times, mid rounds a couple of times, late rounds a couple of times and some really lack luster free agents.

 

Because of the rookie compensation structure taking a QB in the first round does not hand cuff a team for five years like it use too. In fact I read a article, before the draft, that said if there is a QB you want and need the best place to take him is mid first round. You won't over pay and if he works out you have an option on a fifth year. So why not take the guy with the most potential? NFL ready or not.

 

By the way I always thought Losman was a goof ball

[Dorkington]

Such as?

 

There's been various articles and lineup projections that generally state that Kolb will likely be the starter for the Bills this year. If you really want me to dig those up, then you're barking up the wrong tree.

[Orton's Arm]

Of course Manuel is more likely to fail than succeed. How many guys really succeed as an NFL QB? Every year how many are successful? Ten, fifteen ? The league is full of guys that weren't NFL ready at all positions. Everyone drafted after the third round and all UDFA aren't considered as ready.

 

I watched most of FSU's games last year. I was intrigued my Manuel, thought he was the best QB in the draft. I don't think Jimbo Fishers offense played to Manuel's skill set. I understand that a college coach can't be constantly changing his offense to suit a QB who may start for a year or two. That being said both Manuel and Ponder were pretty successful in that offense. I think Ponder is better suited for it. In the NFL a coach can build around a QB skills, they hope to have the guy start for ten years.

 

So what would you have done? Taken one of the other QBs in this draft? Kept Fitz? Traded for Alex Smith or somebody else? Free agency? Wait and draft somebody from this years college crop?

 

Since Kelly retired the Bills have traded a couple of times, drafted in early rounds, including Manuel, a couple of times, mid rounds a couple of times, late rounds a couple of times and some really lack luster free agents.

 

Because of the rookie compensation structure taking a QB in the first round does not hand cuff a team for five years like it use too. In fact I read a article, before the draft, that said if there is a QB you want and need the best place to take him is mid first round. You won't over pay and if he works out you have an option on a fifth year. So why not take the guy with the most potential? NFL ready or not.

 

By the way I always thought Losman was a goof ball

 

> So what would you have done?

 

Prior to the draft, I had written something along the following lines, "The Bills should have Barkley throw the ball around, to see if he has the minimum level of arm strength you'd expect from a starting quarterback. If he has that much arm strength, they should take him 8th overall." My guess is that he was unable to provide satisfactory evidence of adequate arm strength; hence falling to the fourth round.

 

If the Bills' pre-draft evaluation of Barkley consisted of, "likely to fail due to lack of arm strength," then it would have been foolish to take him in the first round. But if he's still there in the third round--which he was--then I would have taken him then.

 

In addition to drafting Barkley in the third round of this year's draft, I would have used a first round pick on a QB in next year's draft. Going into the 2013 draft, there were a number of people on these very boards who wrote, "there are no quarterbacks in this year's draft. Wait until next year, and take a first round QB then."

 

> Because of the rookie compensation structure taking a QB in the first round does not hand cuff a team for five years like it use too.

 

That's true. But I would have been perfectly happy to use a first round pick on a QB even under the old rookie compensation system. When it comes to the QB, getting the right guy dwarfs the importance of everything else. (Everything else being draft picks used, salary cap space consumed, etc.) But if you draft the wrong QB, then your team will spend the next several years eschewing opportunities to draft the right one. For example; the Bills drafted Losman in 2004. In 2005, the Packers used a late first round pick on Aaron Rodgers. Had we not traded our own first round pick of 2005 away as part of the Losman deal, we would have had both the ability to take Rodgers, and a perceived need at the QB position.

[jumbalaya]

For those of us hoping that Kolb would be able to give Manuel a year on the bench to study and learn, I was disheartened to hear that Larry Fitzgerald is saying that Carson is his first real QB he has had since Kurt Warner retired. Sounds like Larry is not a fan of Kevin Kolb and looks to me like we have been duped again.

[chris heff]

 

 

> So what would you have done?

 

Prior to the draft, I had written something along the following lines, "The Bills should have Barkley throw the ball around, to see if he has the minimum level of arm strength you'd expect from a starting quarterback. If he has that much arm strength, they should take him 8th overall." My guess is that he was unable to provide satisfactory evidence of adequate arm strength; hence falling to the fourth round.

 

If the Bills' pre-draft evaluation of Barkley consisted of, "likely to fail due to lack of arm strength," then it would have been foolish to take him in the first round. But if he's still there in the third round--which he was--then I would have taken him then.

 

In addition to drafting Barkley in the third round of this year's draft, I would have used a first round pick on a QB in next year's draft. Going into the 2013 draft, there were a number of people on these very boards who wrote, "there are no quarterbacks in this year's draft. Wait until next year, and take a first round QB then."

 

> Because of the rookie compensation structure taking a QB in the first round does not hand cuff a team for five years like it use too.

 

That's true. But I would have been perfectly happy to use a first round pick on a QB even under the old rookie compensation system. When it comes to the QB, getting the right guy dwarfs the importance of everything else. (Everything else being draft picks used, salary cap space consumed, etc.) But if you draft the wrong QB, then your team will spend the next several years eschewing opportunities to draft the right one. For example; the Bills drafted Losman in 2004. In 2005, the Packers used a late first round pick on Aaron Rodgers. Had we not traded our own first round pick of 2005 away as part of the Losman deal, we would have had both the ability to take Rodgers, and a perceived need at the QB position.

Barkley would have been my second choice. I think at some point this year he starts.

 

The two guys that seem to be definite first rounders in 2014 draft are Bridgewater and Boyd, are these guys more NFL ready than Manuel? The next two are Carr and Manziel. Are they ready? Two of these four guys are Juniors.

[vincec]

For those of us hoping that Kolb would be able to give Manuel a year on the bench to study and learn, I was disheartened to hear that Larry Fitzgerald is saying that Carson is his first real QB he has had since Kurt Warner retired. Sounds like Larry is not a fan of Kevin Kolb and looks to me like we have been duped again.

That's not a good sign, although TO gave Fitz a similar endorsement after he replaced Edwards as the starter when Fewell took over. And Fitz didn't turn out to be anything, so receivers don't know everything.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

> What exactly about Manuel's NFL career has led you to conclude he can't play?

 

I've addressed this subject in this post, and in this post.

 

Comparing EJ Manuel to Ryan Leaf?

 

Seriously?

 

C'mon, man.

 

The part of Ryan Leaf that was not, and would never be, NFL ready was completely between his ears.

If Manuel doesn't succeed, it won't, by all indications, be due to lack of mental effort or lack of coachability.

Edited July 9, 2013 by Hopeful

[Hapless Bills Fan]

> One read yes but simplified? I live in FL and know some FSU fans, they can't even agree on whether that offense is simple or overly complicated.

 

Contradictory claims are a pain: one usually doesn't know what to believe. I recall having seen one article in which the FSU coach described the offense as simplified; but went on to say that he felt Manuel could have run a more complex offense. I personally put more faith in what players actually did in college, than in what their coaches claim they could have done.

 

> Comparing EJ Manuel to Ryan Leaf is a bad comparison. Ryan Leaf was and still is an immature punk, EJ appears to be anything but.

 

I certainly have seen nothing to suggest Manuel is an immature punk. Ryan Leaf was an example of a guy who'd been described as "raw," "unpolished," "a project" and "not NFL-ready." Losman is another example of a guy who was considered raw, unpolished, a project, etc. And Losman didn't have Leaf's attitude problems. Losman seemed to have a pretty good work ethic and willingness to be a team player. But he failed anyway due to his mental limitations. Most players described as "raw" or "not NFL-ready" will fail for that same reason.

 

Which brings me to a quote from a pro-Manuel article.

 

"Literally nowhere on the Internet can I find someone with a respected football opinion to tell me [Manuel is] ready to be a starter in the NFL."

 

Manuel is much more likely to fail than he is to succeed.

 

I don't know about "much", it's a fact that even QB drafted #1 overall are even money and by halfway down the first round, more likely to fail than to succeed overall.

So that isn't news, nor is it specific to Manuel.

 

To me, it's more important that the Bills finally pulled the trigger in the 1st and took a chance. Yeah, he could be a bust, but you never hit the shot you don't take.

[hondo in seattle]

Of course Manuel is more likely to fail than succeed. How many guys really succeed as an NFL QB? Every year how many are successful? Ten, fifteen ? The league is full of guys that weren't NFL ready at all positions. Everyone drafted after the third round and all UDFA aren't considered as ready.

 

I watched most of FSU's games last year. I was intrigued my Manuel, thought he was the best QB in the draft. I don't think Jimbo Fishers offense played to Manuel's skill set. I understand that a college coach can't be constantly changing his offense to suit a QB who may start for a year or two. That being said both Manuel and Ponder were pretty successful in that offense. I think Ponder is better suited for it. In the NFL a coach can build around a QB skills, they hope to have the guy start for ten years.

 

So what would you have done? Taken one of the other QBs in this draft? Kept Fitz? Traded for Alex Smith or somebody else? Free agency? Wait and draft somebody from this years college crop?

 

Since Kelly retired the Bills have traded a couple of times, drafted in early rounds, including Manuel, a couple of times, mid rounds a couple of times, late rounds a couple of times and some really lack luster free agents.

 

Because of the rookie compensation structure taking a QB in the first round does not hand cuff a team for five years like it use too. In fact I read a article, before the draft, that said if there is a QB you want and need the best place to take him is mid first round. You won't over pay and if he works out you have an option on a fifth year. So why not take the guy with the most potential? NFL ready or not.

 

By the way I always thought Losman was a goof ball

 

Good questions, one and all. Given the available options, signing Kolb and drafting EJ was about the best course I could imagine. Not to say it will work out, but I'm ever hopeful.

[billsrcursed]

For those of us hoping that Kolb would be able to give Manuel a year on the bench to study and learn, I was disheartened to hear that Larry Fitzgerald is saying that Carson is his first real QB he has had since Kurt Warner retired. Sounds like Larry is not a fan of Kevin Kolb and looks to me like we have been duped again.

 

Meh, Warner and Palmer wouldn't have survived behind that line Kolb had to play behind either. I don't think anyone would have, it was historically bad.

 

I'm with 'Chandler#81', wait and see.

Edited July 9, 2013 by billsrcursed

[chris heff]

So to kind of get back on point here, I think Jaws ranking of Kolb is too high. I'd rank him around 50. Based on his past performance I would say there are about 17 back up QBs that are better. Don't misunderstand me, this is not personal. I be said this before, he lost the starting job twice with two different teams.

 

I know he lost the job in Philly due to injury, however the fact that they brought in Vick at all says to me that they were not fully confident in Kolb. Vick was still pretty polarizing at that point.

 

I'm sorry I don't buy the argument that in Arizona he didn't fit the system and played behind a bad OL. If he had shown anything there he would still be there.

[JohnC]

 

I certainly have seen nothing to suggest Manuel is an immature punk. Ryan Leaf was an example of a guy who'd been described as "raw," "unpolished," "a project" and "not NFL-ready." Losman is another example of a guy who was considered raw, unpolished, a project, etc. And Losman didn't have Leaf's attitude problems. Losman seemed to have a pretty good work ethic and willingness to be a team player. But he failed anyway due to his mental limitations. Most players described as "raw" or "not NFL-ready" will fail for that same reason.

 

Which brings me to a quote from a pro-Manuel article.

 

"Literally nowhere on the Internet can I find someone with a respected football opinion to tell me [Manuel is] ready to be a starter in the NFL."

 

Manuel is much more likely to fail than he is to succeed.

 

I read the link you provided written by Chris Trappasso. From reading that link I am more encouraged, not less, that he is an excellent prospect with the odds suggesting success more than failure. You are absolutely correct that what most often differentiates a qb's success from failure is a qbs (innate) ability to quicly process information (read defenses and go throught the progressions.).As you smartly noted Trent Edwards had most of the required traits to be a good qb but failed in the most important category: having a deeper dimensial mind to sort out the chaotic burst of information a qb faces.

 

Where I think you are making a mistake is in setting up a paradigm with limited categories that predict qb success in today's game. The offensive game is changing. Without a doubt being able to read defenses is critical. But with more athletic qbs such as Kaepernick, Cam Newton and RGIII the read option has come into play and allowsqbs with another set of traits to be successful.

 

Don't misunderstand what I am saying. You make very strong points regarding what is most essential for a qb to be a success in this fast paced game. What I am suggesting is that you widen your paradigm a tad bit in evaluating qbs then I will be more comfortable with your assessment of Manuel. As it stands I have a much more positive view of Manuel's prospect than you do.

 

.

[Dorkington]

So Kolb sucks, and EJ is going to fail.

 

Why do we even bother?

[hondo in seattle]

Kevin Kolb has only 21 NFL starts and has been injured much of his career.. Effectively, he's a NFL sophomore. I don't think, given his paucity of playing time, we can yet assess his ceiling with absolute certainty. I think he's done enough good things in his limited experience as a starter to at least suggest the possibility that he's capable of more.

 

EJ is a rookie. Like any rookie QB, even 1st round rookies, his chances of NFL stardom aren't great. But there is a chance.

 

Kolb and EJ - combined - give me something I haven't felt in a while: HOPE. We knew what we had in Fitz. We knew his strengths and we knew his weaknesses. Unfortunately, so did our opponents.

 

We really don't know what we have in Kolb and EJ. Maybe both end up failing, who knows? But I'm beginning this season more hopeful in our QB play than I began last season. And for that I'm grateful.

[Orton's Arm]

I read the link you provided written by Chris Trappasso. From reading that link I am more encouraged, not less, that he is an excellent prospect with the odds suggesting success more than failure. You are absolutely correct that what most often differentiates a qb's success from failure is a qbs (innate) ability to quicly process information (read defenses and go throught the progressions.).As you smartly noted Trent Edwards had most of the required traits to be a good qb but failed in the most important category: having a deeper dimensial mind to sort out the chaotic burst of information a qb faces.

 

Where I think you are making a mistake is in setting up a paradigm with limited categories that predict qb success in today's game. The offensive game is changing. Without a doubt being able to read defenses is critical. But with more athletic qbs such as Kaepernick, Cam Newton and RGIII the read option has come into play and allowsqbs with another set of traits to be successful.

 

Don't misunderstand what I am saying. You make very strong points regarding what is most essential for a qb to be a success in this fast paced game. What I am suggesting is that you widen your paradigm a tad bit in evaluating qbs then I will be more comfortable with your assessment of Manuel. As it stands I have a much more positive view of Manuel's prospect than you do.

 

> Without a doubt being able to read defenses is critical. But with more athletic qbs such as Kaepernick,

> Cam Newton and RGIII the read option has come into play and allowsqbs with another set of traits to be successful.

 

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that, in the right system, a sufficiently athletic QB can use his athleticism to compensate for mental limitations. This right system would ask the QB to do a lot of things that only an athletic quarterback could do--thus playing to his strengths. At the same time, the person designing the system needs to avoid asking the QB to do some of the things expected from traditional pocket passers; because those things are beyond the QB's mental limits.

 

The above-described experiment has periodically been tried in the past. I remember the hype surrounding Kordell Stewart. Neil O'Donnell was described as an old guard QB: the kind of immobile pocket passer that highly athletic, Kordell Stewart-style QBs would soon replace. Kordell quickly flamed out; whereas Tom Brady (as immobile as they come) led his team to three Super Bowl wins.

 

This time around, highly athletic, mobile QBs--guys who don't necessarily have Aaron Rodgers-level information processing ability--are experiencing considerable success early in their careers. Is that success an anomaly, much like the one good season Kordell Stewart had, or Losman's one good season? Or has something changed--something which would allow today's athletic, mentally limited QBs to achieve more long-term success than that category of QBs had in the past?

 

For the sake of argument, let's say something has changed. Suppose for example offensive coordinators have gotten better at designing offenses well-suited to this style of quarterback. The competition between offensive and defensive coordinators is permanent. If offensive coordinators have unleashed a new style of offense uniquely suited to maximizing athletic QBs' strengths, how long will it be before defensive coordinators unveil new defenses well-suited to exposing their mental weaknesses?

[Dorkington]

Kolb and EJ - combined - give me something I haven't felt in a while: HOPE.

 

Basically how I feel. I'm keeping my expectations low, but I think between the two of these guys we'll get some sort of improvement (as long as the offensive system doesn't suck).

[chris heff]

So Kolb sucks, and EJ is going to fail.

 

Why do we even bother?

I don't think Kolb sucks, I think he is a good veteran back up. I also think he was the best option available to the Bills.

 

I don't think EJ s going to fail.

 

Kevin Kolb has only 21 NFL starts and has been injured much of his career.. Effectively, he's a NFL sophomore. I don't think, given his paucity of playing time, we can yet assess his ceiling with absolute certainty. I think he's done enough good things in his limited experience as a starter to at least suggest the possibility that he's capable of more.

 

EJ is a rookie. Like any rookie QB, even 1st round rookies, his chances of NFL stardom aren't great. But there is a chance.

 

Kolb and EJ - combined - give me something I haven't felt in a while: HOPE. We knew what we had in Fitz. We knew his strengths and we knew his weaknesses. Unfortunately, so did our opponents.

 

We really don't know what we have in Kolb and EJ. Maybe both end up failing, who knows? But I'm beginning this season more hopeful in our QB play than I began last season. And for that I'm grateful.

I agree with you. I am a little more pessimistic about Kolb. I am more hopeful in our QB situation than I have been in years.

[BillsWatch]

So to kind of get back on point here, I think Jaws ranking of Kolb is too high. I'd rank him around 50.

 

It is ranking of projected starers of NFL teams. Sorry you think your little league football team QB should be on list ahead of Kolb but there are only 2 teams and asking for a ranking shows problem with reading comprehension.

[chris heff]

 

 

It is ranking of projected starers of NFL teams. Sorry you think your little league football team QB should be on list ahead of Kolb but there are only 2 teams and asking for a ranking shows problem with reading comprehension.

Finally the kind of reaction I expected. My reading comprehension is fine, I just don't believe Kolb will be the starter.

 

I'm not going to go through the entire list of back ups that may be better than Kolb, nor extoll the virtues of my Little League football team's QB, who was Rick Finn (Rick was better with his legs than his arm). I will ask you this, within our own division the backups as of today are, Ryan Mallett, Matt Moore and Geno Smith. Would you make a straight up trade of Kolb for any of these guys?

[JohnC]

> Without a doubt being able to read defenses is critical. But with more athletic qbs such as Kaepernick,

> Cam Newton and RGIII the read option has come into play and allowsqbs with another set of traits to be successful.

 

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that, in the right system, a sufficiently athletic QB can use his athleticism to compensate for mental limitations. This right system would ask the QB to do a lot of things that only an athletic quarterback could do--thus playing to his strengths. At the same time, the person designing the system needs to avoid asking the QB to do some of the things expected from traditional pocket passers; because those things are beyond the QB's mental limits.

 

The above-described experiment has periodically been tried in the past. I remember the hype surrounding Kordell Stewart. Neil O'Donnell was described as an old guard QB: the kind of immobile pocket passer that highly athletic, Kordell Stewart-style QBs would soon replace. Kordell quickly flamed out; whereas Tom Brady (as immobile as they come) led his team to three Super Bowl wins.

 

This time around, highly athletic, mobile QBs--guys who don't necessarily have Aaron Rodgers-level information processing ability--are experiencing considerable success early in their careers. Is that success an anomaly, much like the one good season Kordell Stewart had, or Losman's one good season? Or has something changed--something which would allow today's athletic, mentally limited QBs to achieve more long-term success than that category of QBs had in the past?

 

For the sake of argument, let's say something has changed. Suppose for example offensive coordinators have gotten better at designing offenses well-suited to this style of quarterback. The competition between offensive and defensive coordinators is permanent. If offensive coordinators have unleashed a new style of offense uniquely suited to maximizing athletic QBs' strengths, how long will it be before defensive coordinators unveil new defenses well-suited to exposing their mental weaknesses?

 

The mistake (I believe) you are making is that you are being too strict in categorizing types of players. It isn't an issue of a being an athletic qb at the expense of being a more cerebral qb. There is a spectrum where there is a merging of traits. You interestingly cited O'Donnell in your comparison to Stewart. O'Donnell was a heady qb with physical limitations. He is an earlier version of Fitz. That type of qb is not going to be the type of qb that will get the Bills out of their generational muck. Would a Kordell Stewart type qb raise the prospects of this franchise? Absolutely not. But that doesn't mean that an athletic gifted qb can't be adequately adept at the mental side of the game to succeed.

 

Kaepernick and RGIII are both in their way physical marvels. Both played in very simplistic offenses, and both excelled. Just because they were effective in their first read offenses that doesn't mean that as they gain experience they won't mature into second and third read qbs. They both are smart people who have a passion for the game and are willing to put in the effort to get better.

 

You have made good points indicating what makes a good qb prospect. Where my position departs from your position is that your paradigm is too rigid. Players learn and evolve. A strength is a strength. But a weakness is not always a weakness if a player is receptive to hard work and good coaching. That is why I'm more optimistic to Maneul's prospect than you are.

[chris heff]

 

 

The mistake (I believe) you are making is that you are being too strict in categorizing types of players. It isn't an issue of a being an athletic qb at the expense of being a more cerebral qb. There is a spectrum where there is a merging of traits. You interestingly cited O'Donnell in your comparison to Stewart. O'Donnell was a heady qb with physical limitations. He is an earlier version of Fitz. That type of qb is not going to be the type of qb that will get the Bills out of their generational muck. Would a Kordell Stewart type qb raise the prospects of this franchise? Absolutely not. But that doesn't mean that an athletic gifted qb can't be adequately adept at the mental side of the game to succeed.

 

Kaepernick and RGIII are both in their way physical marvels. Both played in very simplistic offenses, and both excelled. Just because they were effective in their first read offenses that doesn't mean that as they gain experience they won't mature into second and third read qbs. They both are smart people who have a passion for the game and are willing to put in the effort to get better.

 

You have made good points indicating what makes a good qb prospect. Where my position departs from your position is that your paradigm is too rigid. Players learn and evolve. A strength is a strength. But a weakness is not always a weakness if a player is receptive to hard work and good coaching. That is why I'm more optimistic to Maneul's prospect than you are.

 

Could not have said it better.

[Buftex]

I have not read this thread in its' entirety, so forgive me if this has already been said...I love Ron Jaworkski, the Buffalo guy and all...while he likely knows or thing or two more than the rest of us about playing QB, lets' not forget that he has been horribly off in recent years, in assessing QBs. His word is not "gold" for me. He has been working coaching, or tutoring (whatever word you want to use) young college prospects, and even some guys who are already in the NFL...it seems to me his opinions on certain guys are influenced by the guy$ he works with.

[eball]

I have not read this thread in its' entirety, so forgive me if this has already been said...I love Ron Jaworkski, the Buffalo guy and all...while he likely knows or thing or two more than the rest of us about playing QB, lets' not forget that he has been horribly off in recent years, in assessing QBs. His word is not "gold" for me. He has been working coaching, or tutoring (whatever word you want to use) young college prospects, and even some guys who are already in the NFL...it seems to me his opinions on certain guys are influenced by the guy$ he works with.

 

Great post. I love listening to/watching Jaws analyze game film, but he has been decidedly "average" in predicting the success and/or failure of NFL QBs.

[MRW]

Finally the kind of reaction I expected. My reading comprehension is fine, I just don't believe Kolb will be the starter.

 

I'm not going to go through the entire list of back ups that may be better than Kolb, nor extoll the virtues of my Little League football team's QB, who was Rick Finn (Rick was better with his legs than his arm). I will ask you this, within our own division the backups as of today are, Ryan Mallett, Matt Moore and Geno Smith. Would you make a straight up trade of Kolb for any of these guys?

I'd trade Kolb for Moore in a heartbeat. Mallett scares me in spite of his physical tools, and Smith... we'll see, but it doesn't seem to me like he has the temperament to make it in the league.

 

I'm not sure if that's support for your point or not.

[JohnC]

Great post. I love listening to/watching Jaws analyze game film, but he has been decidedly "average" in predicting the success and/or failure of NFL QBs.

 

Isn't being average at predicting how a prospect does better than how the pro scouts do? Prognosticating how qbs will do when they move from the college to the pro ranks is incredibly difficult. It is an inexact science with the mystifying human ingredient of character/personality mixed in with the variables. Even when all the traits (physcial and mental) signal success for a prospect that doesn't necessarily translate into success. . Sometimes being average is a good thing when the standard is typically below average. The bottom line is that it is a very difficult endeavor.

[Gugny]

I'd trade Kolb for Moore in a heartbeat. Mallett scares me in spite of his physical tools, and Smith... we'll see, but it doesn't seem to me like he has the temperament to make it in the league.

 

I'm not sure if that's support for your point or not.

I maintain that Matt Moore is the best QB on Miami's roster. I just hope the Dolphins never realize it, because putting him in would make them a far better team.

[chris heff]

 

I'd trade Kolb for Moore in a heartbeat. Mallett scares me in spite of his physical tools, and Smith... we'll see, but it doesn't seem to me like he has the temperament to make it in the league.

 

I'm not sure if that's support for your point or not.

I think it does, threw out three names you said yes to one. There are other back up QBs you would probably trade Kolb for. Like maybe Kirk Cousins or Matt Flynn?

Edited July 9, 2013 by chris heff

[Chandler#81]

 

Finally the kind of reaction I expected. My reading comprehension is fine, I just don't believe Kolb will be the starter.

 

I'm not going to go through the entire list of back ups that may be better than Kolb, nor extoll the virtues of my Little League football team's QB, who was Rick Finn (Rick was better with his legs than his arm). I will ask you this, within our own division the backups as of today are, Ryan Mallett, Matt Moore and Geno Smith. Would you make a straight up trade of Kolb for any of these guys?

 

Touché! This settles it. I want Rick Finn!! Reading defenses be damned, RUN, RICK, RUN!!

[chris heff]

 

 

Touché! This settles it. I want Rick Finn!! Reading defenses be damned, RUN, RICK, RUN!!

It helped that Rick was about a foot taller and 20lbs. heavier than everybody else.

[Orton's Arm]

The mistake (I believe) you are making is that you are being too strict in categorizing types of players. It isn't an issue of a being an athletic qb at the expense of being a more cerebral qb. There is a spectrum where there is a merging of traits. You interestingly cited O'Donnell in your comparison to Stewart. O'Donnell was a heady qb with physical limitations. He is an earlier version of Fitz. That type of qb is not going to be the type of qb that will get the Bills out of their generational muck. Would a Kordell Stewart type qb raise the prospects of this franchise? Absolutely not. But that doesn't mean that an athletic gifted qb can't be adequately adept at the mental side of the game to succeed.

 

Kaepernick and RGIII are both in their way physical marvels. Both played in very simplistic offenses, and both excelled. Just because they were effective in their first read offenses that doesn't mean that as they gain experience they won't mature into second and third read qbs. They both are smart people who have a passion for the game and are willing to put in the effort to get better.

 

You have made good points indicating what makes a good qb prospect. Where my position departs from your position is that your paradigm is too rigid. Players learn and evolve. A strength is a strength. But a weakness is not always a weakness if a player is receptive to hard work and good coaching. That is why I'm more optimistic to Maneul's prospect than you are.

 

I agree that athletic ability and mental acuity are not mutually exclusive. Steve Young had great mobility, but he also had the accuracy and mental tools needed to be a great pocket passer. Even if injuries had robbed Young of his great mobility, his pocket passing along was good enough to make him one of the best QBs ever to have played.

 

But there is another type of QB: a guy who uses great athleticism to mask his below-average information processing ability. Kaepernick and RGIII--the two guys you mentioned--are in that category.

 

> But a weakness is not always a weakness if a player is receptive to hard work and good coaching.

 

That depends on the weakness. No amount of hard work and good coaching was going to give Rob Johnson good pocket awareness; or Losman good awareness, or make Trent Edwards aware of opportunities more than five yards away from the line of scrimmage. All three of those quarterbacks failed due to their mental shortcomings--shortcomings which could not be erased by any amount of hard work or coaching. It's possible that players like Kaepernick, RGIII, and Manuel have higher mental ceilings than Johnson, Losman, and Edwards. It's also possible that offensive coordinators can do a better job of masking Kaepernick's/RGIII's/Manuel's mental weaknesses than they did at masking those of Johnson/Losman/Edwards.

 

> You interestingly cited O'Donnell in your comparison to Stewart. O'Donnell was a heady qb with physical limitations. He is an earlier version of Fitz.

 

I agree that there are strong similarities between O'Donnell and Fitz. But Joe Montana had physical limitations also: he lasted until the third round because he lacked a big time arm. The main difference between Joe Montana on the one hand and O'Donnell and Fitzpatrick on the other was that Montana didn't have an Irish last name. But the second-most important difference was that Montana was a ridiculously accurate passer who could hit receivers in perfect stride; and whose threw with perfect touch. The limitations of an O'Donnell or a Fitzpatrick don't signal the end of the pocket passer era. A team with a Fitzpatrick as its starter can obtain a huge QB upgrade by obtaining an Aaron Rodgers or a Peyton Manning.