Sisyphean Bills Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 You mean .444 vs. .4. Looks like another moderator edited my post. No, I did not. I was using the numbers from the quote. 2 wins and 3 losses. That's 2/5 which is 0.4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 No, the .4 I g What? The math is pretty basic. You got 6 wins and 10 losses. Whaley said the backup was 2-3. That means the backup was .400. That also means there are 4 wins and 7 losses going to the starter. That's .364. BTW, I'm not really interested in quibbling about what's 4/11 or qualifiers. The point is that, while this is a nice name drop for John Butler, it is faulty logic. Having a backup that can go .500 is all well and good when he's backing up a guy that is a Hall of Famer and can take you to the Super Bowl every year. Having a backup that can get you to .500 when he is on par with (or possibly even better than) your starter, is a recipe for losing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 [/background][/font][/color] What? The math is pretty basic. You got 6 wins and 10 losses. Whaley said the backup was 2-3. That means the backup was .400. That also means there are 4 wins and 7 losses going to the starter. That's .364. Tuel started one of those losses (Chefs) and another loss (Browns) EJ didn't finish the game but left with the score tied. So you either discount the game (.444) or count it as a tie (.45). At worst you count it as a loss and it's .4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 Tuel started one of those losses (Chefs) and another loss (Browns) EJ didn't finish the game but left with the score tied. So you either discount the game (.444) or count it as a tie (.45). At worst you count it as a loss and it's .4. I don't really care how you want to partition it. You can call it 2-4 for the "backups" and 4-10 for the "starter" or quibble further. Like I already explained in the last post, this was not a shot at EJ Manuel despite what you may think. [And, yes, I realize that the thread is an EJ Manuel thread; hence, my attempt to make it clear.] It was pointing out the flawed logic using an anecdote in a different context. Here's another reason: if your "starter" is playing in at least 14 games a season, then your "backup" being .500 capable means you only lose 1 game per season with the "backup". On the other extreme, if your "starter" is only playing 2 games a year then you are losing 7 games per season with the "backup". So, the anecdote is nice, but meaningless. And, obviously, I disagree with it. At this point, the Bills do not have a proven commodity at QB and should not be settling for a backup QB situation that is a group that can go 2-4 or 2-5. The last thing this franchise needs is another coaching staff that treads water for 3 years at 6 or 7 wins and blow it all up again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 I don't really care how you want to partition it. You can call it 2-4 for the "backups" and 4-10 for the "starter" or quibble further. Like I already explained in the last post, this was not a shot at EJ Manuel despite what you may think. It was pointing out the flawed logic using an anecdote in a different context. Here's another reason: if your "starter" is playing in at least 14 games a season, then your "backup" being .500 capable means you only lose 1 game per season with the "backup". On the other extreme, if your "starter" is only playing 2 games a year then you are losing 7 games per season with the "backup". So, the anecdote is nice, but meaningless. And, obviously, I disagree with it. At this point, the Bills do not have a proven commodity at QB and should not be settling for a backup QB situation that is a group that can go 2-4 or 2-5. The last thing this franchise needs is another coaching staff that treads water for 3 years at 6 or 7 wins and blow it all up again. I think it's kind of a weird quote from Whaley but I think what it amounts to is you want a guy who can manage the game and doesn't cost you many as a backup, while you hope for elite play from your QB. I'll give you that Manuel hasn't shown us much of that yet, so the jury is certainly out. But these guys believe he has that in him. Health is certainly a bigger issue. Because even if he did start showing us elite play, if he's only in there for 10 games and the team goes 6-4 in them, a .500 record with the backup only gets you to 9-7. The team could use competition at QB and it will be great no matter who rises to the occasion. I still think bringing in a guy like Murray would be a very sound move - a bargain on talent that is also a hedge against Manuel injuries or stagnation in the coming years. "Get better everywhere" should be the motto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 I think it's kind of a weird quote from Whaley but I think what it amounts to is you want a guy who can manage the game and doesn't cost you many as a backup, while you hope for elite play from your QB. I'll give you that Manuel hasn't shown us much of that yet, so the jury is certainly out. But these guys believe he has that in him. Health is certainly a bigger issue. Because even if he did start showing us elite play, if he's only in there for 10 games and the team goes 6-4 in them, a .500 record with the backup only gets you to 9-7. The team could use competition at QB and it will be great no matter who rises to the occasion. I still think bringing in a guy like Murray would be a very sound move - a bargain on talent that is also a hedge against Manuel injuries or stagnation in the coming years. "Get better everywhere" should be the motto. Right. Putting all your eggs in one unproven basket is what it is: a big risk. The question is can the Bills find a backup QB that is better than that 2-3 or whatever? Maybe even someone that can push the competition up a notch? And if so, how is that a "bad thing"? I get the "cheap" aspect, but the irony is the Bills paid Kolb more money than Manuel last year and got nothing out of it. But, that's the context again. If you have Jim Kelly as your QB, what you want in a backup QB is very different than if you have ? at QB and more ? as backups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 I think it's kind of a weird quote from Whaley but I think what it amounts to is you want a guy who can manage the game and doesn't cost you many as a backup, while you hope for elite play from your QB. I'll give you that Manuel hasn't shown us much of that yet, so the jury is certainly out. But these guys believe he has that in him. Health is certainly a bigger issue. Because even if he did start showing us elite play, if he's only in there for 10 games and the team goes 6-4 in them, a .500 record with the backup only gets you to 9-7. The team could use competition at QB and it will be great no matter who rises to the occasion. I still think bringing in a guy like Murray would be a very sound move - a bargain on talent that is also a hedge against Manuel injuries or stagnation in the coming years. "Get better everywhere" should be the motto. Had EJ stayed healthy, I could have seen the Bills going at least 8-8. Then you have games like the Atlanta game where he made plays to win it but players fumbled it away. Now yes the question is whether he can stay healthy, but one year doesn't make a trend. If he gets injured in year 2, then you say it's a trend and consider moving on. So give him the year and better weapons and hope for the best. As for a draft pick, again the Bills are looking at the 4th best prospect at 9 and then who knows what later. I doubt that a rookie would pose a serious challenge, especially a guy like Murray who will be useless as a rookie since he'll need most of the year to recover from an ACL injury suffered playing against college players (and the same goes for Mettenberger). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 Had EJ stayed healthy, I could have seen the Bills going at least 8-8. Then you have games like the Atlanta game where he made plays to win it but players fumbled it away. Now yes the question is whether he can stay healthy, but one year doesn't make a trend. If he gets injured in year 2, then you say it's a trend and consider moving on. So give him the year and better weapons and hope for the best. As for a draft pick, again the Bills are looking at the 4th best prospect at 9 and then who knows what later. I doubt that a rookie would pose a serious challenge, especially a guy like Murray who will be useless as a rookie since he'll need most of the year to recover from an ACL injury suffered playing against college players (and the same goes for Mettenberger). The thing is that Manuel is still unproven. Even if we don't agree with Tim Graham, what if he is right? What if Manuel regresses? What if Manuel slips on a rubber mat? Would a healthy Murray-look-alike be "useless" in the case Manuel bombs or can't go? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle flap Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 As for a draft pick, again the Bills are looking at the 4th best prospect at 9 and then who knows what later. I don't know that you can make that assumption. Of course it has a good chance of ringing true in a matter of speaking, but the QBs could be ranked far differently by the other teams than they are by the Bills. For example, Manziel might be the "consensus" 2nd ranked QB after Bridgewater. But what if he's number 1 on the Bills board, and not other teams' boards altogether, or at least not with a top 8 pick grade? In that example, say Bridgewater goes sometime in the first 8 picks. None of the other teams happen to like Manziel enough to take him that high. Then the Bills select him at 9, getting the guy that they'd take if they had the #1 overall pick anyway. Is that then a bad pick because the Bills didn't agree with everyone else? Or another way to put it, even if 3 QBs are drafted before the Bills pick, but the guy they had ranked as #1 anyway is picked at #9, does that necessarily mean he's the fourth best prospect? Sure, it's not likely, but it's certainly possible that the Bills would get the 1st or 2nd best prospect, at least in their eyes, no matter how many QBs are selected in the first 8 picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 I don't know that you can make that assumption. Of course it has a good chance of ringing true in a matter of speaking, but the QBs could be ranked far differently by the other teams than they are by the Bills. For example, Manziel might be the "consensus" 2nd ranked QB after Bridgewater. But what if he's number 1 on the Bills board, and not other teams' boards altogether, or at least not with a top 8 pick grade? In that example, say Bridgewater goes sometime in the first 8 picks. None of the other teams happen to like Manziel enough to take him that high. Then the Bills select him at 9, getting the guy that they'd take if they had the #1 overall pick anyway. Is that then a bad pick because the Bills didn't agree with everyone else? Or another way to put it, even if 3 QBs are drafted before the Bills pick, but the guy they had ranked as #1 anyway is picked at #9, does that necessarily mean he's the fourth best prospect? Sure, it's not likely, but it's certainly possible that the Bills would get the 1st or 2nd best prospect, at least in their eyes, no matter how many QBs are selected in the first 8 picks. My guess is that the #1 or #2 QB prospect aren't in the top 15 on their big board. If the Bills were intent on getting QB, I could see them trading down a few spots with the idea that their guy would still be there. Much like last year. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle flap Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 (edited) My guess is that the #1 or #2 QB prospect aren't in the top 15 on their big board. If the Bills were intent on getting QB, I could see them trading down a few spots with the idea that their guy would still be there. Much like last year. GO BILLS!!! How do you mean? Bridgewater, Manziel, and/or Bortles (who I think are likely to go in the top 8) are ranked lower than other QBs in the Bills eyes? Or just that their top 15 doesn't include any QBs period? Edited February 22, 2014 by uncle flap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 How do you mean? Bridgewater, Manziel, and/or Bortles (who I think are likely to go in the top 8) are ranked lower than other QBs in the Bills eyes? Or just that their top 15 doesn't include any QBs period? I just mean the top QBs are ranked lower than players at other positions. In other words, if they were to go BPA at 9 and one of them were available (and I think that will be the case), they won't take him. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 How do you mean? Bridgewater, Manziel, and/or Bortles (who I think are likely to go in the top 8) are ranked lower than other QBs in the Bills eyes? Or just that their top 15 doesn't include any QBs period? Let's make up a hypothetical here. Let's pretend the Colts drafted Jake Locker in 2011 and still ended up with a top 5 draft pick in 2012. Would that mean Andrew Luck and RG3 are no longer on their draft board? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 Let's make up a hypothetical here. Let's pretend the Colts drafted Jake Locker in 2011 and still ended up with a top 5 draft pick in 2012. Would that mean Andrew Luck and RG3 are no longer on their draft board? They take Andrew Luck, hands down. If there were an Andrew Luck in this year's draft, the Bills would take him. There's just no generational talent at the position this year. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 Right. Putting all your eggs in one unproven basket is what it is: a big risk. The question is can the Bills find a backup QB that is better than that 2-3 or whatever? Maybe even someone that can push the competition up a notch? And if so, how is that a "bad thing"? I get the "cheap" aspect, but the irony is the Bills paid Kolb more money than Manuel last year and got nothing out of it. But, that's the context again. If you have Jim Kelly as your QB, what you want in a backup QB is very different than if you have ? at QB and more ? as backups. Kind of like, if Enroth went .500 in 2011-2012, Sabres would have made the playoffs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 The thing is that Manuel is still unproven. Even if we don't agree with Tim Graham, what if he is right? What if Manuel regresses? What if Manuel slips on a rubber mat? Would a healthy Murray-look-alike be "useless" in the case Manuel bombs or can't go? A rookie is even more unproven. Even moreso since, as I've been saying all along, at the spot the bills are in, they're probably not going to get one of the top prospects. Never mind that the top prospects themselves are looking pretty iffy. And hoping a rookie who will be getting few snaps a) gets to start over Lewis if EJ gets hurt and b) plays well are longshots at best. They take Andrew Luck, hands down. If there were an Andrew Luck in this year's draft, the Bills would take him. There's just no generational talent at the position this year. GO BILLS!!! There's no one even close to Luck in this draft. And even if they were, the Bills are in no position to take him. He'll there's not even an RGIII, who has gone from stud to dud in the space of a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 Kind of like, if Enroth went .500 in 2011-2012, Sabres would have made the playoffs? Well, they won the 2004-05 cup on my cousin's friend's Xbox. They take Andrew Luck, hands down. If there were an Andrew Luck in this year's draft, the Bills would take him. There's just no generational talent at the position this year. GO BILLS!!! And, what of RG3? Is he on or off your board? Or would you pull the trigger on Trent Richardson to complement Locker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 Well, they won the 2004-05 cup on my cousin's friend's Xbox. And, what of RG3? Is he on or off your board? Or would you pull the trigger on Trent Richardson to complement Locker? I forgot to mention RG3. Yes, he's still getting picked. I never liked Trent Richardson as a generational RB. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts