If the last 6 games are a continuation of The EJ Experiment...

[8-8 Forever?]

Or did they simple take a shiny new first round QB to have something to sell to their fans?

 

No matter how much of a reach EJ was, I'm sure Russ and co were aware they can market the hell out of him and Bills fans would eat it up like they do everything else.

yep there is a lot of truth to that. if they had stuck with Gailey and/or Fitz a lot less tickets would have been sold. don't underestimate the marketing angle here, they used it with TO and Mario as well. right before season ticket renewal time....

[GG]

 

From memory, the closest was the cowboys back in 1989 that spent a 1st rounder on Steve Walsh through the suplimentary draft & then selected Troy Aikman #1 overall in the regular draft.

 

And how did that work out?

[mannc]

 

 

O.K. professor , why is this not commonly done in the NFL if it is so absolute, the hands -down correct thing to do , without any shred of doubt? Why do teams not just give up on 1st round picks at QB and replace them after 1 season (or less in this case)?

 

i think the main reason it has not happened is because until the rookie pay scale was implemented, it was not feasible to tie up that much $ at one position. I think that is why the Rams have stuck with Bradford as long as they have, for example. I would also argue that a lot of teams should have drafted 1st round QBs back to back, but did not. Do you think Jags fans (to the extent there are any) are happy that they did not pulll the plug on the Gabbert era after one season? I would also guess that a lot of Rams fans are now sorry that they did not stay put and draft RGIII two years ago, even though Bradford had only played one year. And is there anyone who thinks the Weeden audition should have lasted more than a year in Cleveland? It is an interesting topic and this is an excellent thread. Many thanks to EA for his contributions, as always. Edited November 13, 2013 by mannc

[BigBuff423]

Not that it's a big deal, but Montana was taken in the third round.

 

The point I was making earlier is that teams tend to under-value and under-draft good college pocket passers with limited physical tools (Brees, Brady, Montana, etc.) while overvaluing QBs with great physical gifts who'd never become polished pocket passers (Losman, Akili Smith, EJ Manuel). The other point I was making is that if QBs with great physical tools are typically overvalued and over-drafted, then the fact that Manuel was still available at 16th overall should be a serious concern. Guys who got rejected because of their limited physical tools can still have great careers, as Brees, Brady, Montana, and others have proved. But normally when a QB with great physical tools gets rejected, it's a very strong indication he's likely to fail.

 

Thank you for the correction on Montana, my mistake...

 

As for looking for true pocket-passers and clarification on your initial point of contention, for the most part I concur. Specifically, I think pure pocket passers are indeed under-valued in today's NFL and that elite physical specimens are over-valued based upon the "win now" mentality, which seems to be the over arching idea in Buffalo. Of course I'm frustrated with the lack of winning, lack of playoff appearances, lack of relevance in the NFL, being the brunt of NFL jokes and jocularity, and most of all the lack of Lombardi Trophies sitting at One Bills Drive...but to what end? I would rather draft an Aikman, Elway, Manning, or Brady and see the team develop into a consistent winner than draft a QB with "elite physical tools" who can "win now" but at the expense of watching them meddle into mediocrity for years to come...Vick is an incredible athlete but to me, and up and down QB which brings him eventually to average.....and secondly, did you ever notice how pure pocket passers, ala Mannings, Brady, and the aforementioned great QBs seemed to get injured far less?? Something else that becomes truly legitimate in the discussion of QBs...it might also be why Tuel is better than some expected but still far from where a QB needs to be in order to lead an NFL team...

[Cash]

Nothing adds to the liveliness of a discussion like breaking down the meanings of "evaluation techniques" and "experiment" in posts just shy in length of War and Peace.

 

The post you quoted was 223 words long. (Thanks, MS Word!) If that's approaching War and Peace length for you, maybe it's time to make the switch from reading a message board to listening to talk radio? Or you could get your Bills discussion from twitter -- 140 character limit puts everything squarely in Ivanhoe territory.

 

Browns drafted McCoy in the 3rd in 2010 & Wheeden in the 1st in 2012 so that doesn't really count.

Clausen was 2nd round, pick #48......so this was close, but not a 1st rounder and the second selection was with the #1 pick in the draft(Newton) which is a bit of a different situation also.

 

From memory, the closest was the cowboys back in 1989 that spent a 1st rounder on Steve Walsh through the suplimentary draft & then selected Troy Aikman #1 overall in the regular draft.

 

Yes, this has been discussed extensively in other threads (MODS PLEASE MERGE INTO 200 PAGE SUPER-THREAD), and the Cowboys are the only team that has spend consecutive first-round picks on QBs, although I still think Walsh being a supplemental pick makes it a lot different. I think we'll eventually see a team spend back-to-back #1 picks on QBs in the regular draft, but I don't know if it'll be soon. I think if this past draft had been a better one for QBs, you could have seen Cleveland make that move. Drafting a 29-year-old QB in the 20s is the kind of #1 QB pick that lends itself to drafting a QB in the top 10 the following year. Drafting a 23-year-old "raw prospect" QB at #16 is less conducive to going back to the well the following year. Now, if EJ doesn't show any progress in the final 7 games, I'd be all for drafting another QB in the first, but I still don't think it would happen.

 

http://en.wikipedia....season_droughts

 

Wow, that was a very interesting an depressing article; thanks for sharing. So we're at 13 years, almost certainly 14 after this year. (Even if we won out, we'd probably get bumped by a 10-6 team.) The all-time record is 25 years without a playoff appearance, jointly held by the Arizona Cardinals and Washington Dixies. Still a ways to go before we threaten that record. Even if Marrone is a bust, we're looking at an additional 3-4 coaches to take us there.

[RuntheDamnBall]

There are numerous chapters left to be played out. Nobody with half a clue is gonna pronounce anyone better than anyone else based on a 6 game sample size.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Well, consider a number of people eliminated from this discussion.

 

EJ reminds me of Trent Edwards. Can't throw an accurate deep ball. Can't get it to the second or third option. Breaks down and can't go a full season. Nice guy. But not a top tier NFL player.

You know what, though? Trent Edwards had three seasons to prove what he could and couldn't do. And he was a third round pick. Settle down, Beavis.

[BarleyNY]

 

 

Thank you for the correction on Montana, my mistake...

 

 

Geez. It's like no one has ever seen There's Something About Mary.

 

 

I'm of the opinion that if a team isn't reasonably sure that they have a franchise QB (who isn't at the end of his career) then they'd better be looking for one and taking reasonable measures to acquire one. EJ is a sunk cost as of now. If another QB is available, then let them compete. That doesn't mean the Bills have to give up on Manuel. It just means he's got more competition.

 

I was listening to a Freakenomics podcast about failure and they discussed both common and effective practices regarding it. People typically look highly upon those that persevere at something, even in the face of certain failure. They also look down on those that fail. But it turns out that neither corresponds to people who succeed. Those people aren't afraid to fail. They often do. Repeatedly. But they keep trying new things (a different type of perseverance and resilience) until they do succeed at something. They also realize their failures early in the process and give them up quickly. That is key as it gives them the time and energy to pursue their other options. They don't get bogged down with things that aren't going to pay off and they can usually tell the difference between what will and what won't.

Edited November 13, 2013 by BarleyNY

[Orton's Arm]

 

 

Thank you for the correction on Montana, my mistake...

 

As for looking for true pocket-passers and clarification on your initial point of contention, for the most part I concur. Specifically, I think pure pocket passers are indeed under-valued in today's NFL and that elite physical specimens are over-valued based upon the "win now" mentality, which seems to be the over arching idea in Buffalo. Of course I'm frustrated with the lack of winning, lack of playoff appearances, lack of relevance in the NFL, being the brunt of NFL jokes and jocularity, and most of all the lack of Lombardi Trophies sitting at One Bills Drive...but to what end? I would rather draft an Aikman, Elway, Manning, or Brady and see the team develop into a consistent winner than draft a QB with "elite physical tools" who can "win now" but at the expense of watching them meddle into mediocrity for years to come...Vick is an incredible athlete but to me, and up and down QB which brings him eventually to average.....and secondly, did you ever notice how pure pocket passers, ala Mannings, Brady, and the aforementioned great QBs seemed to get injured far less?? Something else that becomes truly legitimate in the discussion of QBs...it might also be why Tuel is better than some expected but still far from where a QB needs to be in order to lead an NFL team...

 

Good post. I think we're on the same page.

 

I agree that a big part of the reason why QBs with good physical tools are over-valued is because of the win-now mentality. But I also think there's a political element. If you use a first round pick on a QB with good physical tools, and if he turns out to be a bust, at least you can say, "He had the most upside. We took a chance on a raw prospect, we thought he'd develop, and he didn't pan out." But if you use that same first round pick on a guy without great physical tools, and he doesn't pan out, the failure is harder to explain away.

 

A third factor is that some teams are better at evaluating players than others. Two of the easiest positions to evaluate are RB and DB; which is why, over the last 40 years, the Bills have used 50% of their first picks of the draft on RBs and DBs. If you're evaluating a college QB, it's much easier to assess his physical tools than it is to determine how good he is at quickly and accurately processing large amounts of on-field information; or the other things you look for in a pure pocket passer.

 

A QB prospect with great physical tools and few proven achievements as a pocket passer is in many ways ideal for a team which isn't very good at evaluating QBs. Using a first round pick on a guy like that lets them convince their fans they're doing something about the QB position. Odds are that his physical tools will allow him to achieve a few early career successes; and those will serve to excite the fan base. "Think of how much more this guy will be able to accomplish once he's developed!" Then, when the QB turns out to be a bust, the GM can at least say, "The NFL is a changing league, and the era of the immobile pocket passer is over. We had to take a prospect like him if we were going to compete in today's NFL."

[Dibs]

And how did that work out?

 

It worked out well for the Cowboys. But I'm sure the decision becomes a lot easier when you have the first overall pick in the draft and there is a legitimate star prospect available at QB whom you can take.

[Prickly Pete]

 

It worked out well for the Cowboys. But I'm sure the decision becomes a lot easier when you have the first overall pick in the draft and there is a legitimate star prospect available at QB whom you can take.

 

Well, maybe the decision should be easy when you haven't good quarterbacking for over a decade, and haven't made the playoffs for 14 seasons straight.

 

Having a second QB that is another great prospect, is not that terrible of a situation to be in.

[Dibs]

Well, maybe the decision should be easy when you haven't good quarterbacking for over a decade, and haven't made the playoffs for 14 seasons straight.

 

Having a second QB that is another great prospect, is not that terrible of a situation to be in.

 

I don't think that should matter. Either it's a legitimate thing to do, or it isn't. It shouldn't matter that you haven't had a legit QB in 3 years or 13. In today's NFL you definitely need one.

 

For the record(and I wrote this in another thread so I'm pretty sure this topic is doubled up now), I have no problem with the Bills selecting back to back 1st round QBs.......if the situation warrants it.

[Prickly Pete]

I don't think that should matter. Either it's a legitimate thing to do, or it isn't. It shouldn't matter that you haven't had a legit QB in 3 years or 13. In today's NFL you definitely need one.

 

For the record(and I wrote this in another thread so I'm pretty sure this topic is doubled up now), I have no problem with the Bills selecting back to back 1st round QBs.......if the situation warrants it.

 

Some have argued that selecting a second QB hasn't often been done, and I suggested that circumstances have changed. I also mention the drought to point out that new approaches may need to be taken, because the past approaches haven't been working.

[RuntheDamnBall]

Some have argued that selecting a second QB hasn't often been done, and I suggested that circumstances have changed. I also mention the drought to point out that new approaches may need to be taken, because the past approaches haven't been working.

If the QB is the best player to take both regardless of and considering circumstances, sure. But I am not sure I pass on a killer TE or an awesome receiver (things that could help EJ) just to take one.

[Prickly Pete]

If the QB is the best player to take both regardless of and considering circumstances, sure. But I am not sure I pass on a killer TE or an awesome receiver (things that could help EJ) just to take one.

 

We still have to see how much progress EJM makes the rest of the year. I think he will be okay, but if it doesn't look promising, I don't think they have much to lose.

[RuntheDamnBall]

We still have to see how much progress EJM makes the rest of the year. I think he will be okay, but if it doesn't look promising, I don't think they have much to lose.

I would call losing out on a position that the Bills never seem to address, which has become way more important in this league, a big loss. But yes, we have to see what kind of progress he makes. Here's hoping.

[Prickly Pete]

I would call losing out on a position that the Bills never seem to address, which has become way more important in this league, a big loss. But yes, we have to see what kind of progress he makes. Here's hoping.

 

Yeah, but if they don't have a QB, it won't matter. They have had many excellent players, who never even played in a playoff game. Whole careers wasted, while they couldn't even get out of the gate because they didn't have a competent QB.

 

I know this issue has been run into the ground...

[RuntheDamnBall]

Yeah, but if they don't have a QB, it won't matter. They have had many excellent players, who never even played in a playoff game. Whole careers wasted, while they couldn't even get out of the gate because they didn't have a competent QB.

 

I know this issue has been run into the ground...

I think they haven't had enough excellent players during this drought. Moulds, maybe. Evans, meh. Good RBs. Pre-injury Spikes. Fletcher. I think the list might be under 10. I'm prepared to give this QB a great team to see. This line looks better than any that some of the past QBs had. Give this team Jimmy Graham and it might have made the playoffs no matter who was at QB.

[Prickly Pete]

I think they haven't had enough excellent players during this drought. Moulds, maybe. Evans, meh. Good RBs. Pre-injury Spikes. Fletcher. I think the list might be under 10. I'm prepared to give this QB a great team to see. This line looks better than any that some of the past QBs had. Give this team Jimmy Graham and it might have made the playoffs no matter who was at QB.

 

You lost me there.

 

Selecting a guy as good as Moulds this draft, wouldn't seem that much more likely than finding a reasonably good QB. Either way, it's no given.

[RuntheDamnBall]

You lost me there.

 

Selecting a guy as good as Moulds this draft, wouldn't seem that much more likely than finding a reasonably good QB. Either way, it's no given.

First point is: give the guy a giant target who can catch and outrun everybody (can't be covered), and EJ might find a comfort zone. I am not saying he isn't missing open receivers, but he's basically outfitted with two smurfs, SJ, Chandler who is fine when he isn't dropping the ball or getting penalized, and running backs that the OC refuses to call passes to.

 

To your point: No, but it's no less likely that this QB is a grower and needs some time, especially in light of injury. Either way, we'll find out.

[MDH]

The post you quoted was 223 words long. (Thanks, MS Word!) If that's approaching War and Peace length for you, maybe it's time to make the switch from reading a message board to listening to talk radio? Or you could get your Bills discussion from twitter -- 140 character limit puts everything squarely in Ivanhoe territory.

 

 

Yeah, I was talking about his body of work, not really that specific post in terms of length (I just knew somebody would point this out.) He generally makes some good points but rehashes them ad nauseam and I end up skipping most of the post because he's not a columnist and I don't' have the time to read them. It's a shame, because he's a smart guy who makes good points, I just prefer posters who are more succinct.