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

[Boatdrinks]

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.

Manuel was not going to be taken in the first round, not likely anyway. But DEN moved into the first round to take Tebow a few years ago, which was a shock. You don't know what other teams will do. They wanted EJM, but didn't want to risk him not being there for their 2nd round pick. So they moved down and picked up an extra 2nd, rather tha potentially GIVING UP something to move up in round 2. They may have eveb been able to move down again, but decided against it. I think this was smart drafting. You just obviously hate the pick, but keep looking for examples of NFL teams ditching 1st rounders after one season, there likely aren't many. Most NFL types I have heard commonly state that only pocket passers have won Super Bowls in recent times. Comparing draft eras of Montana to Losman may as well be centuries ago in the NFL. It is a different game. Most teams MO these days is not to take 1st round RB's, so that is unlikely. It's outdated thinking. Chan was an outdated guy, so was Buddy. I don't think we'll see the Whaley Bills use a 1st rounder on an RB. They have the shortest careers and most aren't worth the first round pick. LT's, QB's DE's and LB's are the priority in the 1st round. Maybe a few elite WR's with tremendous size.

[yungmack]

Much of the mess on Sunday is right on Marrone's head in my opinion. Just because EJ was cleared to play doesn't mean he should play. He was having troubles before his injury and then he sits for a month, gets a few passes in practice and he's starting a game. I truly believe they would have been better off working with him through Pitt and NYJ games, then prepping him over the bye week. No way was EJ ready to play last Sunday. He was a complete mess out there, from his vision to his mechanics to his footwork. Plain and simple, he wasn't ready. I understand that this season is all about "teaching him up" and so you willingly accept mistakes and poor games. But you don't do the kid any good if you put him out there when he's not ready. Now things are worse than if you'd kept him in street clothes another week or two.

[jjmac]

Will the rest of the team hang in there like lab rats in the ongoing experiment to ascertain whether the rookie QB does indeed suck.

 

I fear that the lab rats have already made their evaluation. And I wonder what will happen to the real progress toward a winning culture if the remainder of the season is "all about EJ."

 

It's more than that. It's also about the free agents.

[jumbalaya]

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.

[starrymessenger]

That reeks of Marrone trying to keep him confident. Anyone watching could see EJ was less than mediocre.

Or maybe Marrone is just towing the party line.

Or, heaven forbid, he had a big say in drafting him and now is unable politically to be more objective in his assessment.

I don't want to relive the painful Chan/Fitz death agony for another three years.

[colin]

This draft makes me think of the maybin one. Bust in the first pick, next 3 picks were really solid.

[yungmack]

Here's a mantra that will soothe your soul and set you free of the angst of the moment. Repeat and repeat, "Marcus Mariotta."

[xsoldier54]

The topic of this thread is not the short supply of patience on this board, but whether or not the other 52 players have the patience to watch their careers dwindle away while we ascertain whether the 53rd sucks a lot or just a little.

I repeat, ridiculous thread.

[Dibs]

This draft makes me think of the maybin one. Bust in the first pick, next 3 picks were really solid.

 

That made me laugh. A bust after less than 6 full games.

[Orton's Arm]

 

 

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)?

 

 

 

Say you invest 2 years of development time. Then you release said player. The balance of that contract will be dead money vs your cap the next season. You will have to re-do some deals or perhaps release a player, creating another hole to fill. Then you have to begin the process over again with the QB, meaning a couple years of development. Very few NFL QB's are good right away, or do not suffer a sophomore slump of some sort, etc. It usu. takes a few seasons to know if you have your guy. So yes, a failed QB in the first round will set you back about 4 years. It used to be much more, as it was about twice as many $$$

 

There are several reasons why teams normally don't take back-to-back first round QBs.

 

1) normally, the people deciding whether to take a first round QB in year 2 of this equation are the same ones who selected a first round QB in year 1. They obviously liked the QB they chose in year 1; or else they wouldn't have used a first round pick on him.

 

Often that liking is based on an erroneous evaluation of a QB, or wishful thinking. But it takes a while to undo erroneous thought processes or wishful thinking. For example: from the get go, I was confident that JaMarcus Russell, J.P. Losman, and Tim Tebow would all be busts. When Denver took Tebow, I thought to myself, there's a waste of a first round pick! But it took Denver a bit to realize that, because they'd invested too much mental energy into an erroneous thought process.

 

2) Rookie quarterbacks usually get off to rocky starts. If a GM sees flaws with the guy he just drafted, it's less painful to tell himself that the guy just needs to develop, than it is to admit he drafted a first round bust. Sometimes the guy really did just need time to develop; as Drew Brees will doubtless attest. But it's also very easy to use the development thing as an easy excuse to ignore red flags and warning signs.

 

3) if an organization uses first round picks on QBs two years in a row, it gets egg on its face. A lot if times people are more politically attuned to short-term egg splatters than they are to implementing a disciplined long-term plan for the franchise. That short-sightedness will bite them in the long run; but people don't always think about the long run.

 

4) many times when a bust QB was chosen, it's because flawed QB evaluation techniques were used. It's generally unrealistic to expect a team to significantly upgrade its QB evaluation techniques immediately after drafting a QB in the first round. After having used a first round pick on a QB, they are typically more focused on crossing their fingers and praying that their pick works out; than they are on taking a cold hard look at the mistakes they may have made with their QB evaluation technique.

[Offside Number 76]

Wow, the first page of this thread is some of the dumbest stuff I ever have seen on this board. I can't even read the next three pages.

[K-9]

There are several reasons why teams normally don't take back-to-back first round QBs.

 

1) normally, the people deciding whether to take a first round QB in year 2 of this equation are the same ones who selected a first round QB in year 1. They obviously liked the QB they chose in year 1; or else they wouldn't have used a first round pick on him.

 

Often that liking is based on an erroneous evaluation of a QB, or wishful thinking. But it takes a while to undo erroneous thought processes or wishful thinking. For example: from the get go, I was confident that JaMarcus Russell, J.P. Losman, and Tim Tebow would all be busts. When Denver took Tebow, I thought to myself, there's a waste of a first round pick! But it took Denver a bit to realize that, because they'd invested too much mental energy into an erroneous thought process.

 

2) Rookie quarterbacks usually get off to rocky starts. If a GM sees flaws with the guy he just drafted, it's less painful to tell himself that the guy just needs to develop, than it is to admit he drafted a first round bust. Sometimes the guy really did just need time to develop; as Drew Brees will doubtless attest. But it's also very easy to use the development thing as an easy excuse to ignore red flags and warning signs.

 

3) if an organization uses first round picks on QBs two years in a row, it gets egg on its face. A lot if times people are more politically attuned to short-term egg splatters than they are to implementing a disciplined long-term plan for the franchise. That short-sightedness will bite them in the long run; but people don't always think about the long run.

 

4) many times when a bust QB was chosen, it's because flawed QB evaluation techniques were used. It's generally unrealistic to expect a team to significantly upgrade its QB evaluation techniques immediately after drafting a QB in the first round. After having used a first round pick on a QB, they are typically more focused on crossing their fingers and praying that their pick works out; than they are on taking a cold hard look at the mistakes they may have made with their QB evaluation technique.

 

"QB evaluation techniques."

 

I can now die a happy man. I have officially heard it all.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[San-O]

There are several reasons why teams normally don't take back-to-back first round QBs.

 

3) if an organization uses first round picks on QBs two years in a row, it gets egg on its face. A lot if times people are more politically attuned to short-term egg splatters than they are to implementing a disciplined long-term plan for the franchise. That short-sightedness will bite them in the long run; but people don't always think about the long run.

 

4) many times when a bust QB was chosen, it's because flawed QB evaluation techniques were used. It's generally unrealistic to expect a team to significantly upgrade its QB evaluation techniques immediately after drafting a QB in the first round. After having used a first round pick on a QB, they are typically more focused on crossing their fingers and praying that their pick works out; than they are on taking a cold hard look at the mistakes they may have made with their QB evaluation technique.

 

We have seen it before, and again. I don't know how it can continue.

 

Can't they HIRE a QB evaluator to help?

 

[Orton's Arm]

 

 

"QB evaluation techniques."

 

I can now die a happy man. I have officially heard it all.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

Your problem with the phrase "QB evaluation techniques" is what exactly? Obviously your reason for responding to that post is the same reason you have for responding to any of my other posts: to quibble about, express disagreement about, or cast doubt on something. But what on earth possessed you to single out that particular phrase? Do you honestly believe that every team uses the same set of criteria in evaluating QBs? Do you think that all the other teams on the league had the same lofty opinion of Tebow that Denver had? Or the same high opinion of Losman that TD had?

 

One of the reasons teams' assessments of QBs differ from each others' is because they are emphasizing different things. When one team sees a college QB with great physical skills but limited accomplishments as a pocket passer, they think to themselves, this guy can be developed.. Another team sees that same guy and thinks to itself, future bust. The two teams have different QB evaluation techniques. Different ways of interpreting the available data.

 

I've heard it claimed that you're one of the more knowledgeable people here. If that's true, why not use that knowledge to make meaningful contributions to discussions? Why are you attempting to derail this discussion with a meaningless squabble over what ought to be a self-explanatory phrase?

[K-9]

Your problem with the phrase "QB evaluation techniques" is what exactly? Obviously your reason for responding to that post is the same reason you have for responding to any of my other posts: to quibble about, express disagreement about, or cast doubt on something. But what on earth possessed you to single out that particular phrase? Do you honestly believe that every team uses the same set of criteria in evaluating QBs? Do you think that all the other teams on the league had the same lofty opinion of Tebow that Denver had? Or the same high opinion of Losman that TD had?

 

One of the reasons teams' assessments of QBs differ from each others' is because they are emphasizing different things. When one team sees a college QB with great physical skills but limited accomplishments as a pocket passer, they think to themselves, this guy can be developed.. Another team sees that same guy and thinks to itself, future bust. The two teams have different QB evaluation techniques. Different ways of interpreting the available data.

 

I've heard it claimed that you're one of the more knowledgeable people here. If that's true, why not use that knowledge to make meaningful contributions to discussions? Why are you attempting to derail this discussion with a meaningless squabble over what ought to be a self-explanatory phrase?

 

No attempt to derail intended.

 

Please, carry on.

 

I have nothing intelligent to contribute here.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[San-O]

No attempt to derail intended.

 

Please, carry on.

 

I have nothing intelligent to contribute here.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

I guess I don't understand why these guys think you can "develop" accuracy, or pocket awareness, or quick decision making?

 

Don't you generally either have these things and need to improve them some, or you don't???

[reddogblitz]

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)?

 

The only examples I can think of teams drafting a QB high and then drafting a QB high the next year is the Clowns taking Colt McCoy and then Weeden in the 1st round the following year (I think). The other is the Carolina Camsters taking Jimmy Clausen one year pretty high and then Cam the folloiwng year.

 

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.

 

Trent was accurate on the short passes though.

[Prickly Pete]

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

 

I don't care that teams haven't drafted QB's high in successive drafts. It may be time for the Bills to break new ground in something other than consecutive Super Bowl losses, and playoff droughts.

 

The coming draft class of QB's is being touted as one of the best in a while (scoff if you like), and if there is a great prospect available when they have a pick, TAKE HIM! They are going nowhere without a QB, and if both turn out, effin' GREAT.

 

All this nonsense about "there isn't enough reps to go around in training camp" or that it will mess up EJM's psyche is balderdash. The way QB's are getting injured, the new rookie payscale, and the development of QB coaching that has guys better prepared for the pro game, it could very well signal that a new approach to drafting QB's is reasonable.

 

It's obviously too early to make a fair assessment of EJM's potential right now, but by the end of the season, he will have been given enough time to show potential. Give us something to hang a helmet on!

 

For their own good, this staff better have a QB looking good by the end of their 3rd season. Even if the team sucks, if they have a developed a good QB (finally), it would probably save their skins. If EJM sucks next season, they will need someone else ready-to-go, for year three.

Edited November 13, 2013 by Marauder'sMicro

[MDH]

Your problem with the phrase "QB evaluation techniques" is what exactly? Obviously your reason for responding to that post is the same reason you have for responding to any of my other posts: to quibble about, express disagreement about, or cast doubt on something. But what on earth possessed you to single out that particular phrase? Do you honestly believe that every team uses the same set of criteria in evaluating QBs? Do you think that all the other teams on the league had the same lofty opinion of Tebow that Denver had? Or the same high opinion of Losman that TD had?

 

One of the reasons teams' assessments of QBs differ from each others' is because they are emphasizing different things. When one team sees a college QB with great physical skills but limited accomplishments as a pocket passer, they think to themselves, this guy can be developed.. Another team sees that same guy and thinks to itself, future bust. The two teams have different QB evaluation techniques. Different ways of interpreting the available data.

 

I've heard it claimed that you're one of the more knowledgeable people here. If that's true, why not use that knowledge to make meaningful contributions to discussions? Why are you attempting to derail this discussion with a meaningless squabble over what ought to be a self-explanatory phrase?

 

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.

[Dibs]

The only examples I can think of teams drafting a QB high and then drafting a QB high the next year is the Clowns taking Colt McCoy and then Weeden in the 1st round the following year (I think). The other is the Carolina Camsters taking Jimmy Clausen one year pretty high and then Cam the folloiwng year.

 

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.