I'm hoping we bottom out this year: 0-16. Here's why.

[PromoTheRobot]

Buddy Nix stated he would draft a QB and that is exactly what he did. AFAIK Buddy Nix was the factual GM until after the draft, and it was entirely his decision as to when he would step down. The point being is the Bills already had their QB, WR inadequacies addressed after Nix retired.

 

Its irrelevant anyway, as my point being is that Whaley was in complete control until after the draft and he failed miserably to upgrade the one area he could least afford to fail in. Even now the line is still in flux, as they don't know what to expect in terms of line protection until preseason. This simply shouldn't be the case with three 2nd year QB's all trying to properly develop.

If you are going to focus where he failed miserably, why not also focus where he succeeded impressively?

Edited July 6, 2014 by PromoTheRobot

[thewildrabbit]

But at the same time they solidified the LBs, DL, WRs & secondary, and got a QB. The next offseason they added more to the WRs, LBs, RBs & secondary and addressed the OL.

 

Perhaps there needed to be an area which got bandaided last year as there was too much to fix in one offseason. As most of the moves last offseason turned out well......perhaps giving them a "wait and see" attitude would be more appropriate.

Not for nothing but the very first area that should be addressed in building a team properly is from the ground up, and as with anything, its only as strong as the foundation. Protecting the QB should be the prime concern of any team, and at all times.

 

Even if Kolb was the supposed starting QB you would think that since the Bills defense managed to knock him the previous season that they would think to protect him the best they can. The FO had to know he was made of glass, and should have taken more steps to properly protect him on the field. The end result of that would have been to also help the three rookie QB's last year.

 

I don't have blind faith, and want to see positive results. 6-10 showed me the same old stuff. I'm really sick of regime after regime trying to build a team bass ackwards. I'm hoping that this staff can put a winning team on the field this season, and that's all we really have is hope.

 

If you are going to focus where he failed miserably, why not also focus where he succeeded impressively?

I did earlier state in this thread he masterfully made additions to the defense. He just outright sucked in the important area of protecting the QB. You know, the most important part of building a winning team

[chris heff]

Not for nothing but the very first area that should be addressed in building a team properly is from the ground up, and as with anything, its only as strong as the foundation. Protecting the QB should be the prime concern of any team, and at all times.

 

Even if Kolb was the supposed starting QB you would think that since the Bills defense managed to knock him the previous season that they would think to protect him the best they can. The FO had to know he was made of glass, and should have taken more steps to properly protect him on the field. The end result of that would have been to also help the three rookie QB's last year.

 

I don't have blind faith, and want to see positive results. 6-10 showed me the same old stuff. I'm really sick of regime after regime trying to build a team bass ackwards. I'm hoping that this staff can put a winning team on the field this season, and that's all we really have is hope.

 

I did earlier state in this thread he masterfully made additions to the defense. He just outright sucked in the important area of protecting the QB. You know, the most important part of building a winning team

Ok, how should he have done that? Drafted OL over Woods or Alonso? Who was available in rounds three through seven? What FA should they have picked up? Demanded that they sign Levitre?

[thebandit27]

 

 

Let's say I predict failure for 100 out of 100 "raw" QBs. And let's say that 99 out of 100 fail, and one succeeds. Then another 100 raw QBs come along, and I again predict failure for all 100. At this point in the conversation, you could pick one guy out of the hundred, more or less at random, and say, "Maybe this is the one time you'll be wrong."

 

If you weren't a Bills fan, would you have any reason for thinking that Manuel will be the rare exception to the general rule of raw QBs failing at the NFL level?

 

Aside from your completely arbitrarily (read: made-up) 99 out of 100 supposition, your point still makes no sense.

 

I've already answered your question: the guy played well in college, won 4 of 4 bowl games, Howard pretty well for a rookie QB in the NFL, and has all the raw material, intelligence, and work ethic you could ask for in a prospect.

 

You want to boil the discussion on EJ down to traits that cannot be measured, presumably because you are convinced of their importance over and above the measurables--but I cannot help but think that part of it has to do with the idea that the unquantifiable parameters just happen to be those that allow you to make unsupported claims.

 

Just what is your definition of "raw"? How is any QB not raw? Who in the last 10 years was a complete QB entering the league? I have 3 guys in mind (I'll wait for your list)--3 in 10 years. How many of them became franchise QBs? Surely more than 1 in 100, I can virtually guarantee you that.

 

This discussion has practically jumped the shark now with some of the claims that are being made.

 

 

Buddy Nix stated he would draft a QB and that is exactly what he did. AFAIK Buddy Nix was the factual GM until after the draft, and it was entirely his decision as to when he would step down. The point being is the Bills already had their QB, WR inadequacies addressed after Nix retired.

 

Its irrelevant anyway, as my point being is that Whaley was in complete control until after the draft and he failed miserably to upgrade the one area he could least afford to fail in. Even now the line is still in flux, as they don't know what to expect in terms of line protection until preseason. This simply shouldn't be the case with three 2nd year QB's all trying to properly develop.

 

One might've thought that bringing in 4 OL this offseason would've stopped the malevolent crusade...they'd be wrong

[Kirby Jackson]

Just so we're all clear here: history is 100% irrelevant as to how this front office staff goes about building their team.

 

Yes, completely irrelevant.

 

It does not matter at all what the team has done the last 14 seasons; build the team the way you believe it should be built. Only frightened fans care about what previous regimes did.

 

It does not matter at all whether or not another team would've made the Watkins trade; if he's the best offensive player in the draft, and that's what you're after, go get him and let his play on Sundays prove you right.

 

You think the Seahawks cared at all that every other team laughed at the Bruce Irvin pick 3 seasons ago? Think they care now?

 

Anyone think they cared what people thought when they traded 1st, 4th, and 7th round picks for a WR whose career stat line is strikingly similar to Stevie Johnson, and then said WR failed his physical and missed the entire regular season? Think they care now?

 

Guys, this stuff doesn't matter. Yeah, I know, 14 years, bean counters, blah blah blah; it's all rubbish.

 

If you're scared, get a dog. If you're a Bills' fan, suck it up and watch.

 

/rant over

 

Edit: sorry, one more thing...we've devolved into using ESPN's fantasy rankings to evaluate the Watkins trade now?

 

Man, I need to take my kids outside.

This may very well be the best post of the year. It drives me nuts when people say things like, "this is the team that took Mike Williams 4th overall." What does that have to do with anything? It was different people scouting, different people picking, different people managing the budget and different people coaching a different scheme. The only correlation with then and now is they put on the same uniforms. Scratch that, even those are different!!!

 

If you do not like the decisions that this group has made -fine. I am on record as having some reservations about EJ. I don't however have reservations about EJ because JP, Trent & RJ were bad. They have nothing to do with each other. You have to evaluate these situations independent of one another. If you want to have reservations of the offense based on last year and what you saw from Hackett, go for it. At least it is relevant. Please, please, please do not bring up things from 14 years ago that have absolutely NOTHING to do with this group.

[K-9]

Since you evidently want more stats, below is a list of QBs, their career YPAs, and years played.

 

Roger Staubach: 7.7 (1969 - 1979)

Dan Fouts: 7.7 (1973 - 1987)

Bart Starr: 7.8 (1956 - 1971)

Joe Montana: 7.5 (1979 - 1994)

Johnny Unitas: 7.8 (1956 - 1973)

 

Tom Brady: 7.5

Peyton Manning: 7.6

Drew Brees: 7.5

 

Jack Kemp: 6.9 (1957 - 1969)

Joe Ferguson: 6.6 (1973 - 1990)

J.P. Losman: 6.6

 

Some pretty anemic YPA in the early years for some of the greats you cite, especially Brady. Maybe we need more than a rookie year to make a case? Wait, let me guess. You will just resort to how they all showed prowess from the pocket in college, so even with pedestrian YPA stats early on, you could still predict greatness.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[thewildrabbit]

Ok, how should he have done that? Drafted OL over Woods or Alonso? Who was available in rounds three through seven? What FA should they have picked up? Demanded that they sign Levitre?

Clearly, almost anything would have been better then being forced to cut the two supposed replacements for Andy Levitre after six weeks of starts. Good coaches, GM's usually don't make these types of errors. The O line hasn't been a priority for this franchise since the Bill Polain, Chuck Knox days, and its shows up every season.

[chris heff]

Clearly, almost anything would have been better then being forced to cut the two supposed replacements for Andy Levitre after six weeks of starts. Good coaches, GM's usually don't make these types of errors. The O line hasn't been a priority for this franchise since the Bill Polain, Chuck Knox days, and its shows up every season.

I would like to go on record that I am enjoying this discussion. It is a rainy humid day in South FL.

 

I agree that the LG position was a mess. I wasn't for over paying Levitre, but what the hell was plan B? My point is Whaley couldn't fix everything. I don't remember there being any FA worth a damn. So who and where should he have drafted somebody?

 

It's funny that you mention Knox and Polian, earlier you mentioned Levy. When Polian hired Levy the general reaction was who? I wrote in an earlier post that this teams biggest problem had been Ralph Wilson, who let Knox walk and fired Polian.

[Orton's Arm]

By his own admission, since Kelly retired, he has been wrong as often as right (I threw out Bledsoe). He would have been better off just predicting they would all fail.

 

> By his own admission, since Kelly retired, he has been wrong as often as right

 

Actually, that's by your admission, not mine.

 

> (I threw out Bledsoe)

 

I predicted Bledsoe would not play well enough for the Bills to justify the first round pick we'd traded for him. A lot of people disagreed with me including TD (who made the trade) and Levy (who praised it). I'm still at a loss as to why you've chosen to discount that successful prediction.

 

And--at the risk of sounding repetitive--my errors have come when I've predicted success for a particular QB. Not when I've predicted failure.

[JohnC]

 

 

> If the orgnization drafts well and finds their franchise qb then they can compete at a higher level and position themselves for a more serious SB run some day down the line.

 

Finding a franchise QB is easier said than done. Below is a list of AFC East teams, together with the number of franchise QBs they've had since the first Super Bowl.

 

Buffalo: 1 (Jim Kelly)

New England Patriots: 1.5 (Tom Brady, and the first half of Bledsoe's career)

Miami: 2

New York Jets: 1 (Joe Namath)

 

Every Super Bowl victory achieved by an AFC East team has been achieved with the help of a franchise QB. Nearly every Super Bowl appearance by an AFC East team involved a franchise QB also. Finding a franchise QB fundamentally changes the equation for your football team.

 

Without a franchise QB, a GM has to try to be so strong at non-QB positions that he compensates for his team's weakness at QB. It's very difficult to hold a complete team together for any length of time. Some of your best players will leave in free agency, as Byrd just did. Or they'll get old and pass the peak of their usefulness. Complete teams typically don't stay complete for very long.

 

> Is EJ the answer? You conclusively say no while I suggest that we should be more patient on the qb issue and see how it plays out.

 

If Manuel were to become the second franchise QB in Bills' history, it would fundamentally change my analysis. Whether that will or won't happen has already been discussed elsewhere. My expectation is that he won't rise to that level; and that the front office will spend the next two to three years figuring that out. That means wasting two to three years of every current Bills' player's career--at least as far as Super Bowl opportunities go. By that point, guys like Kyle Williams and Mario Williams will be nearing the ends of their careers; and even a guy like Eric Wood will have much more of his career behind him than in front of him.

 

I don't understand your position. You are stating the obvious when you make the point that not having a franchise qb curtails the team's odds on being a seriously competive team. The Bills used a first round pick on a qb prospect they thought could develop into a franchise qb. If he fails then the front office will have to continue in their pursuit of a quality franchise qb. What else do you expect them to do: Throw up their hands in frustration and lament to the gods how life is so unfair? If EJ doesn't work out then you continue with your pursuit of a quality qb. Wouldn't it be self-defeating to prematurely discard a prospect because of impatience and then see the player playing well on another team.

 

> It seems to me under Whaley he has stabilized this very chaotic organization and made it into a normal franchise

 

Much the same thing was said when TD took over the reins from Butler. Similar optimistic sentiments were voiced a year or so after Marv took over from TD. Or when Buddy Nix took over from Marv/Jauron. The common thread throughout all of these regimes is that they lacked a viable plan to achieve long-term success at quarterback. In the absence of such a plan, everything else they did proved ephemeral and ineffectual.

 

The past is the past. Criticizing this regime for the mistakes of the past is patently unfair. Judge Whaley on what he has done, not what transpired before he assumed authority. Sometimes an abused dog will reflexively flinch when a new owner attempts to kindly pet the traumatized animal because it remembers how it was previously treated. It seems to me that your judgment for today is contaminated by the history of the past. Let it go and move on to the present. You'll have a fresher perspective if instead of looking back you look at what is happening in front of you.

[Orton's Arm]

Aside from your completely arbitrarily (read: made-up) 99 out of 100 supposition, your point still makes no sense.

 

I've already answered your question: the guy played well in college, won 4 of 4 bowl games, Howard pretty well for a rookie QB in the NFL, and has all the raw material, intelligence, and work ethic you could ask for in a prospect.

 

You want to boil the discussion on EJ down to traits that cannot be measured, presumably because you are convinced of their importance over and above the measurables--but I cannot help but think that part of it has to do with the idea that the unquantifiable parameters just happen to be those that allow you to make unsupported claims.

 

Just what is your definition of "raw"? How is any QB not raw? Who in the last 10 years was a complete QB entering the league? I have 3 guys in mind (I'll wait for your list)--3 in 10 years. How many of them became franchise QBs? Surely more than 1 in 100, I can virtually guarantee you that.

 

This discussion has practically jumped the shark now with some of the claims that are being made.

 

One might've thought that bringing in 4 OL this offseason would've stopped the malevolent crusade...they'd be wrong

 

> I've already answered your question: the guy played well in college, won 4 of 4 bowl games,

 

We've been over that. I provided a list of QBs who'd won Heisman Trophies. Guys with plenty of victories in bowl games, great college YPA, and so forth. Very few of those guys had much success in the NFL.

 

> Just what is your definition of "raw"?

 

A "raw" quarterback runs a simplified college offense. He almost always throws to his first read, or at most to his dump-off option if the first read is covered. A "raw" QB is a guy who's done little or nothing to suggest he can handle the very rapid information processing normally required to excel at the NFL level.

 

Most college QBs can never develop that information processing ability, regardless of effort or experience. When a college QB is considered "raw," it's normally a sign he's like the vast majority of college QBs; and will never process information quickly enough to be great in the NFL.

Edited July 6, 2014 by Edwards' Arm

[K-9]

Allow me to encapsulate Edwards' Arm's position:

 

success from the pocket in college, elite YPA, mental bandwidth, aka: ability to process lots of information in a short period of time

 

Nothing else matters when evaluating QBs. Let alone predicting future success based on those evaluations. And there is never such a thing as developing those attributes. You either have them or you don't.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[chris heff]

 

 

> By his own admission, since Kelly retired, he has been wrong as often as right

 

Actually, that's by your admission, not mine.

 

> (I threw out Bledsoe)

 

I predicted Bledsoe would not play well enough for the Bills to justify the first round pick we'd traded for him. A lot of people disagreed with me including TD (who made the trade) and Levy (who praised it). I'm still at a loss as to why you've chosen to discount that successful prediction.

 

And--at the risk of sounding repetitive--my errors have come when I've predicted success for a particular QB. Not when I've predicted failure.

Ok put Bledsoe back in that means your success rate is 58%..

[thebandit27]

 

 

> I've already answered your question: the guy played well in college, won 4 of 4 bowl games,

 

We've been over that. I provided a list of QBs who'd won Heisman Trophies. Guys with plenty of victories in bowl games, great college YPA, and so forth. Very few of those guys had much success in the NFL.

 

> Just what is your definition of "raw"?

 

A "raw" quarterback runs a simplified college offense. He almost always throws to his first read, or at most to his dump-off option if the first read is covered. A "raw" QB is a guy who's done little or nothing to suggest he can handle the very rapid information processing normally required to excel at the NFL level.

 

Most college QBs can never develop that information processing ability, regardless of effort or experience. When a college QB is considered "raw," it's normally a sign he's like the vast majority of college QBs; and will never process information quickly enough to be great in the NFL.

 

You keep arguing as though success in college football is a predictor of failure in the NFL; here's a point you need to understand if you don't already: nobody makes it to the NFL if they weren't good in college.

 

You asked what about EJ could make a person think he can be an NFL QB--I answered (with an actual, measurable performance metric by the way). How about if you do the same for your argument: provide some type of factual evidence that says he can't be an NFL QB.

 

And once again I'll congratulate you on turning this into another EJ thread when there were about 5 different talking points in the OP.

 

Lastly, "raw" simply implies untapped potential in a prospect. It's not a barometer for your "info processing"/other nebulous traits.

 

How about that list of guys that weren't "raw" in some capacity in the last 10 years?

 

Allow me to encapsulate Edwards' Arm's position:

 

success from the pocket in college, elite YPA, mental bandwidth, aka: ability to process lots of information in a short period of time

 

Nothing else matters when evaluating QBs. Let alone predicting future success based on those evaluations. And there is never such a thing as developing those attributes. You either have them or you don't.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

Good thing Newton and Kaepernick had all those things or they'd have had no chance!

[thewildrabbit]

I would like to go on record that I am enjoying this discussion. It is a rainy humid day in South FL.

 

I agree that the LG position was a mess. I wasn't for over paying Levitre, but what the hell was plan B? My point is Whaley couldn't fix everything. I don't remember there being any FA worth a damn. So who and where should he have drafted somebody?

 

It's funny that you mention Knox and Polian, earlier you mentioned Levy. When Polian hired Levy the general reaction was who? I wrote in an earlier post that this teams biggest problem had been Ralph Wilson, who let Knox walk and fired Polian.

Happy to accommodate you.

 

What the hell was plan B? As we found out there was no plan B.

 

My point being is that O line should have been a priority, especially with three rookie QB's on the roster. When Whaley knew Kolb was done, and Marrone made it known he wasn't satisfied with Brown, he then should have made the proper changes. These men are very highly paid professionals who are supposed to make intelligent choices to build a winning team. Clearly that didn't happen with the O line.

 

BTW, Chuck Knox already had very good starters on the O line, and yet drafted OG Jim Ritcher with the #1 pick in 1980. Ritcher didn't even start for three years. But the end result was 14 years of playing LG for the Buffalo Bills, four super bowl appearances, and he played for both Knox, and Levy.

[Pirate Angel]

I like what Whaley seems to be doing...Players don't want to be or stay in Buffalo so he seems to be Targeting the best players that he believes would want to be here and would be committed to turning this thing around. Watkins was a Bills fan growing up and Manuel is Bruce Smiths god son.

[Orton's Arm]

I don't understand your position. You are stating the obvious when you make the point that not having a franchise qb curtails the team's odds on being a seriously competive team. The Bills used a first round pick on a qb prospect they thought could develop into a franchise qb. If he fails then the front office will have to continue in their pursuit of a quality franchise qb. What else do you expect them to do: Throw up their hands in frustration and lament to the gods how life is so unfair? If EJ doesn't work out then you continue with your pursuit of a quality qb. Wouldn't it be self-defeating to prematurely discard a prospect because of impatience and then see the player playing well on another team.

 

> It seems to me under Whaley he has stabilized this very chaotic organization and made it into a normal franchise

 

The past is the past. Criticizing this regime for the mistakes of the past is patently unfair. Judge Whaley on what he has done, not what transpired before he assumed authority. Sometimes an abused dog will reflexively flinch when a new owner attempts to kindly pet the traumatized animal because it remembers how it was previously treated. It seems to me that your judgment for today is contaminated by the history of the past. Let it go and move on to the present. You'll have a fresher perspective if instead of looking back you look at what is happening in front of you.

 

> You are stating the obvious when you make the point that not having a franchise qb curtails the team's odds on being a seriously competive team.

 

I'm glad we're in agreement about this point. At least as of a few years ago, nine out of the last ten Super Bowl winners had had either franchise QBs, or else guys who'd played at a franchise level. You're much more likely to win a Super Bowl with a franchise QB, than you are trying to be the Ravens of 2000 or the Bucs of 2002.

 

> The Bills used a first round pick on a qb prospect they thought could develop into a franchise qb.

 

And in so doing, made the same mistake they made with Losman. Both Losman and Manuel have great physical gifts. But neither had demonstrated he could operate a college offense with multiple reads. Neither were particularly good pocket passers at the college level. Both were considered "raw." A number of teams questioned whether Losman or Manuel should be first round picks.

 

> What else do you expect them to do?

 

I expect them to recognize that the odds of Manuel failing are much higher than the chances of him succeeding. This isn't only because most first round QBs fail (although that's a point worth bearing in mind). It's because Manuel belongs to an exceptionally risky category of first round QB: a "raw" prospect selected largely for his great physical tools.

 

The 2015 draft could turn out to have a significant amount of QB talent. Unfortunately, none of that first round QB talent will be available to the Bills.

 

> Criticizing this regime for the mistakes of the past is patently unfair.

 

I am not criticizing this regime for mistakes made in the past. I'm criticizing it for repeating the mistakes of the past.

[DC Tom]

Allow me to encapsulate Edwards' Arm's position:

 

success from the pocket in college, elite YPA, mental bandwidth, aka: ability to process lots of information in a short period of time

 

Nothing else matters when evaluating QBs. Let alone predicting future success based on those evaluations. And there is never such a thing as developing those attributes. You either have them or you don't.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

When discussing the quarterback position with Edwards' Arm, it is advisable to keep in mind that he's had two screen names: "Edwards' Arm," and "Holcombs_Arm." That right there tells you all you need to know about his knowledge of the QB position.

 

When he starts talking about QB stats, just remember he's the yahoo responsible for the boards "3.5" meme.

 

 

That's pretty much all you need to know about discussing anything with Edwards' Arm.

[Rockinon]

read the first line of the OP, then refused to read any more. What possesses a fan to write this garbage. Outta here.

[Orton's Arm]

When discussing the quarterback position with Edwards' Arm, it is advisable to keep in mind that he's had two screen names: "Edwards' Arm," and "Holcombs_Arm." That right there tells you all you need to know about his knowledge of the QB position.

 

When he starts talking about QB stats, just remember he's the yahoo responsible for the boards "3.5" meme.

 

 

That's pretty much all you need to know about discussing anything with Edwards' Arm.

 

You're too stupid to understand even basic concepts like expected value.

 

************

Example 1. Let X represent the outcome of a roll of a fair six-sided die. More specifically, X will be the number of pips showing on the top face of the die after the toss. The possible values for X are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, all equally likely (each having the probability of 1/6).

 

The expectation of X is

***********

 

Maybe 3.5 seems like nonsense to you. But it seems perfectly sound to people who, you know, have working brains.

Edited July 6, 2014 by Edwards' Arm