I still believe in EJ Manuel

[Luxy312]

Take away the junk drive at the end of the game and EJ was 11 for 25 and just 42 yards passing. The drive that didn't matter added 11 completions more and another 14 attempts. That is absolutely atrocious. The defense didn't lose this game for the Bills. It's all squarely on an inept offense.

[KikO M G]

One game.....coming off injury on the road....and a rookie

 

That is all

 

Jeff Tuel, undrafted rookie, first start ever, against best Defense in NFL. And he played way better. Now that, is all.

[John from Riverside]

Was he coming off injury?

[thebandit27]

If Thad Lewis was the project drafted in the 1st round, I would be optimistic. If Tuel was the project drafted in the 1st round, I would be optimistic. Both of them, though not great, proved themselves capable of doing SOME things at the NFL level. What did Manuel show yesterday? In the most important game of the season for a team clinging to its season hopes? Absolutely nothing! No fight like Thad. No deep ball like Tuel. No creativity. No decision making. No confidence.

 

Being a project insinuates that you have first round talent that needs to be developed and refined. Where was that talent yesterday? Did you see ANY sign of it? Even for a moment? I didn't. And that tells me the first round pick was a giant swing and miss.

Jeff Tuel, undrafted rookie, first start ever, against best Defense in NFL. And he played way better. Now that, is all.

 

Actually, neither of the two posts (yours or John's) is all. They're both just opinions that cannot be proven in any way, shape, or form.

 

As for your first post, EJ looked horrible yesterday. Why does it represent anything more than some of his previous performances that showed that he does have potential? Like, for example, leading a comeback win in his 2nd start against one of the top 2 defenses in the NFL? Or being on his way to bringing the Bills to a 3-2 record on the road in the short week before getting hurt?

 

I understand how bad he was yesterday, and I understand that fans are upset (hey, I'm pretty ticked off too; the guy was pathetic yesterday). Let's try to have some semblance of perspective here. He played a couple of good games, and now he's had 2 real stinkers. Let's see how he responds.

[26CornerBlitz]

Jeff Tuel, undrafted rookie, first start ever, against best Defense in NFL. And he played way better. Now that, is all.

 

Umm no. Tuel sucked against the Chiefs with the exception of the long ball to Goodwin. Tuel did not succeed despite having great run game support from the OL and the RBs.

[Gordio]

Boy I don't know. Yesterdays performance by Manuel sucked in epic proportions to be sure. Lewis, and even Tuel played better than Manuel did yesterday. The only thing he did well was to get out of bounds or slide on his runs. But to say now that the Bills should take another QB with their first round pick when there are so many needs on the team? If Manuel sucks the rest of the season and shows no signs of getting better, I suppose that's a consideration. But to say it now seems very premature to me.

 

I know it sounds like desperation but I think the Bills need to do it. What if Bridgewater is sitting their when the Bills pick. Or Boyd, or marriotta, or Manzel, or Price or Hundley, all those guys are going to be rated higher then what Manuel was rated coming out of the draft.

[John from Riverside]

 

 

 

Actually, neither of the two posts (yours or John's) is all. They're both just opinions that cannot be proven in any way, shape, or form.

 

As for your first post, EJ looked horrible yesterday. Why does it represent anything more than some of his previous performances that showed that he does have potential? Like, for example, leading a comeback win in his 2nd start against one of the top 2 defenses in the NFL? Or being on his way to bringing the Bills to a 3-2 record on the road in the short week before getting hurt?

 

I understand how bad he was yesterday, and I understand that fans are upset (hey, I'm pretty ticked off too; the guy was pathetic yesterday). Let's try to have some semblance of perspective here. He played a couple of good games, and now he's had 2 real stinkers. Let's see how he responds.

 

When I say...."That is all" it means "that is all I have to say on the subject....jmo"

[thebandit27]

When I say...."That is all" it means "that is all I have to say on the subject....jmo"

 

I understood and I wasn't really meaning to take a shot at either of you...the other poster made it sound like his/hers was the final word on the subject, and I'm simply trying to point out that the book on EJ isn't even close to being written, and when it is, it won't be by any of us.

[Security]

Jeff Tuel, undrafted rookie, first start ever, against best Defense in NFL. And he played way better. Now that, is all.

 

I would not really say he played better. He was bad too.

[KikO M G]

 

 

Umm no. Tuel sucked against the Chiefs with the exception of the long ball to Goodwin. Tuel did not succeed despite having great run game support from the OL and the RBs.

 

Tuel sucked EXCEPT for that awesome TD bomb. Manuel sucked period. No except. That was the difference. I certainly am not a Tuel supporter, but I am bringing it up to highlight just how inexcusably bad EJ was yesterday.

Edited November 11, 2013 by KikO M G

[Puckman5]

I would suggest that every draft pick made by every team is an example of "we know something everyone else doesn't." Nothing is guaranteed -- particularly not at the QB position. It is simply too soon to make an assessment on EJ.

 

This kid -- and yes, EJ is still a kid -- has played 6 games of football against NFL pros. He had a bad day against one of the greatest defensive coaches in history. Time to throw that baby out with the bathwater all right.

 

The Pop-Tart mentality of so many on this board is frustrating.

So he was consensus first round 16th over all pick? Did you watch the game yesterday? I'm not looking for greatness here, but I guess were seeing something entirely different up to this point. I'm looking for signs that that greatness will develop and I stand by my statement that he was drafted way too high. Does the fact that he clearly hasn't outplayed 2 undrafted QB's tell you anything? I'm not ripping the kid, but I am ripping him being picked where he was.

[bbb]

I hope EJ lights it up in the last 6 games or at least shows that he's most likely a franchise quarterback.

 

And, if that doesn't happen, I hope he has 6 more games like yesterday.

 

I don't want any of this fair to middling kind of stuff where we then pass on first round QBs this year.

[Buffalo Barbarian]

How is this myth being perpetuated, I was reading that by the end of his college career he was among the most accurate Qbs in the history of FSU and ACC...he was the most accurate of any QB drafted last year...a simple search shows this accuracy assertion is just wrong.

 

not if you watched him play yourself, can't solely rely on scouting reports.

[dave mcbride]

not if you watched him play yourself, can't solely rely on scouting reports.

Right. The criticism is that he only throws to open guys, of which there were a lot at FSU. If you only throw to open guys, your completion rate will be high. In his first preseason game, he was 16 for 21, but only threw for 107 yards. Regardless, I'm willing to defer judgment until the end of the season. Bad games happen to every QB. Right now, he has a 79.4 rating with an acceptable-but-not-great 8 percent sack rate. He's averaging 6.6 ypa and has a 56.7 completion rate. That's not horrible for a rookie QB. He's really declined since games 1 and 2, though, suggesting that teams have quickly adjusted to him. Since those games, he has a 50.1 percent completion rate and a 5.6 ypa average.

Edited November 11, 2013 by dave mcbride

[Buffalo Barbarian]

It's funny the extremes from the bust crowd to the apologists. He could still be a great quarterback someday, we simply don't know right now. My issue is with management drafting him where he was drafted. This type of "we know something everyone else doesn't" mentality has kept this franchise in a state of mediocrity for years. You simply can't get cute with the draft.

 

This

[dave mcbride]

So he was consensus first round 16th over all pick? Did you watch the game yesterday? I'm not looking for greatness here, but I guess were seeing something entirely different up to this point. I'm looking for signs that that greatness will develop and I stand by my statement that he was drafted way too high. Does the fact that he clearly hasn't outplayed 2 undrafted QB's tell you anything? I'm not ripping the kid, but I am ripping him being picked where he was.

 

Disagree. Manuel has real upside that those other guys don't - huge arm, quick release, athletic, and excellent size. This team avoided taking a QB with their first pick for far too long. Better to take a risk on one with upside than to draft a can't miss LB who will do nothing to help the team win (assuming it doesn't have a quality QB). Manuel would not have been there at 41. You can't win in the NFL without a top QB. Keep drafting them until you have one, I say.

Edited November 11, 2013 by dave mcbride

[Thunderstealer]

Days like today I'm reminded of how undermanned this team was when Marone was hired.

[YoloinOhio]

not if you watched him play yourself, can't solely rely on scouting reports.

Except that scouting reports are done by college scouts employed by NFL teams who watch not only games but practices, in person, and study hours upon hours of film. You watch it on TV. Yes, scouting reports are more accurate than a fan's viewpoint.

 

I agree to an extent.

 

Let him finish up the season and if he continues to be inaccurate, indecisive, and down right awful, then the team NEEDS to draft a quarterback within the first three rounds, IMO.

They won't though.. no matter what the fans want, this FO has tied itself to Marrone and EJ for the next 3 years, I believe. Unless there was a "can't-miss" QB in this draft (and there almost never is) they will not waste a top pick on a QB.

[Orton's Arm]

I just want to point out to people that perhaps they should move back from the ledge about Manuel. Who knows how good/bad he ends up but QBs have bad games all the time.

 

Carolina put up 10 points and Newton wasn't good. 50% for 160 something yards. They won...thanks to the D.

The Niners put up 9 points and Kaepernick was brutal. 50% passing for less than 100 yards. He's looked bad plenty this season.

Luck, lots of passing yards but 3 INTs and his team put up 8 points (and this was at home.)

 

Imagine that, young QBs are inconsistent and sometimes have horrendous games. I'm not sold on Manuel but I'm willing to give the kid a chance.

 

> Luck, lots of passing yards but 3 INTs and his team put up 8 points

 

I'd like to address the issue of Luck. Let's say you have a QB who throws well and is productive most of the time, but 5% of the time messes up to create an INT. With a performance like that, you can build on the 80 - 90% of the time when he's playing like a good-to-great quarterback should play, while working on the 5% - 10% that's resulting in those INTs.

 

Compare that to a guy who, for the most part, does not do the things good or great QBs do. The problem with a QB like that isn't with 5% or 10% of his throws. It's with 80 - 90% of them.

 

Did Luck's three INTs really hurt his team? Absolutely. No question. But performances like that will become less common for him as he matures as a player. Luck already looks like a good-to-great QB on 80 - 90% of his plays, and I expect that percentage will only increase as he matures as a player. Manuel's percentage is much smaller--probably somewhere in the teens or twenties. Manuel is much farther from being a good or great QB than Luck.

[YoloinOhio]

> Luck, lots of passing yards but 3 INTs and his team put up 8 points

 

I'd like to address the issue of Luck. Let's say you have a QB who throws well and is productive most of the time, but 5% of the time messes up to create an INT. With a performance like that, you can build on the 80 - 90% of the time when he's playing like a good-to-great quarterback should play, while working on the 5% - 10% that's resulting in those INTs.

 

Compare that to a guy who, for the most part, does not do the things good or great QBs do. The problem with a QB like that isn't with 5% or 10% of his throws. It's with 80 - 90% of them.

 

Did Luck's three INTs really hurt his team? Absolutely. No question. But performances like that will become less common for him as he matures as a player. Luck already looks like a good-to-great QB on 80 - 90% of his plays, and I expect that percentage will only increase as he matures as a player. Manuel's percentage is much smaller--probably somewhere in the teens or twenties. Manuel is much farther from being a good or great QB than Luck.

As are a lot of QBs in the league, unfortunately. Luck is not on a very good team and is making it a good to great team, but they need to give him more WR help.