Deranged Rhino Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 The funny thing part is you don't even realize how ridiculous your post is. Criticizing a poster for suggesting the Bills shouldn't be too quick to rid themsevles EJ for a player like RG3 while mocking EJ for his knee injury. Yeah, cause RG3's knees are juuuuuuuuust fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted March 23, 2015 Share Posted March 23, 2015 This thread has been amazing, if for nothing other than all the RG3 images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Leroi, see if your crystal ball looks into the past a little better than it looks into the future. Then pick, who you believe are, the five best QBs in the history of the NFL. Then look at their stats for their first 14 games. Then wonder to yourself, "gee, I guess it's a good thing for those guys that their teams were really patient or just ignorant." Stats in the 80s have just about as much bearing on the NFL as a con flip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 I was reading this at work today (dont log in )and WOW.pretty strong opinions being tossed about ! I would want to take a look at RJ3 if i was Whaley. a hard look. Not from a fans viewpoint.If the kids is trashed already then so be it. But i would want to know that for sure. and then compare that to EJ Manuel. I think this might be the surprise pick up honestly.But the QB trade doesn't make sense to me. Interested to see what Washington thinks they can get for him at this point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Stats in the 80s have just about as much bearing on the NFL as a con flip. Bull. And you know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Bull. And you know it. I don't. I really really don't. Look at Matt Ryan's rookie stats. How do they compare to stats from the 80s? Or Cam Newton's? Or Jay Cutler's first full season? I can go on and on and on. There will be your Ben Roethlisbergers, who don't put up gaudy stats as rookies, but win, but it's clear the trend of a franchise or at least above average QB is having better, young seasons than the older greats. That's just the new NFL. Joe Montana's 1981 season, his first almost full one in his third year in the NFL, is nothing special compared to this day and age. It's just not. We can look at two QB's that give us the best view of that, and not even all the way back to the 80s. Compare Peyton Manning's first year stats to Andrew Luck's. Peyton is a Hall of Famer. And his rookie year wasn't even nearly close to Luck's. It's not as though Luck was ten times the prospect either. Would you argue that 23 year old Luck was better than 23 year old Peyton? I wouldn't. But still, blew him out of the water, numbers wise. In finality, you're incorrect. You really are. Comparing EJ's stats to the 80s or 90s is less than meaningless. Even if you wanna compare him to the greats still playing, right now, somewhere, there's a Jets fan claiming that Geno's rookie year "was a lot like Peyton's," and he's not wrong. But he's wrong that it means anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 "We can look at two QB's that give us the best view of that, and not even all the way back to the 80s. Compare Peyton Manning's first year stats to Andrew Luck's. Peyton is a Hall of Famer. And his rookie year wasn't even nearly close to Luck's. It's not as though Luck was ten times the prospect either. Would you argue that 23 year old Luck was better than 23 year old Peyton? I wouldn't. But still, blew him out of the water, numbers wise." You make my point for me with this. Manning's rookie year ... like most QBs .... was horrible. Yet he's a hall of famer. Had the Colts said after 14 games, "!@#$ this, this kid's a bust," that would have been pretty stupid; wouldn't you agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 (edited) "We can look at two QB's that give us the best view of that, and not even all the way back to the 80s. Compare Peyton Manning's first year stats to Andrew Luck's. Peyton is a Hall of Famer. And his rookie year wasn't even nearly close to Luck's. It's not as though Luck was ten times the prospect either. Would you argue that 23 year old Luck was better than 23 year old Peyton? I wouldn't. But still, blew him out of the water, numbers wise." You make my point for me with this. Manning's rookie year ... like most QBs .... was horrible. Yet he's a hall of famer. Had the Colts said after 14 games, "!@#$ this, this kid's a bust," that would have been pretty stupid; wouldn't you agree? Except Peyton Manning was a rookie 20 years ago dude. That's why it's ridiculous to compare his rookie season to EJ's, it was a different game. The NFL 20 years ago is almost as different from the modern NFL as college. Answer me this. Why was Luck's rookie year so much better than Peyton's? I'll wait. Edited March 24, 2015 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Santana Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Maybe i'm just overreacting but Buffalo doesn't need to pursue every mediocre QB. The concept of replacing mediocrity with mediocrity is just a completely dumbfounding concept. We already traded for Matt Cassel, we picked up Kyle Orton last year. Idk who does? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Except Peyton Manning was a rookie 20 years ago dude. That's why it's ridiculous to compare his rookie season to EJ's, it was a different game. The NFL 20 years ago is almost as different from the modern NFL as college. Answer me this. Why was Luck's rookie year so much better than Peyton's? I'll wait. Because the Luck Colts weren't nearly as bad as the Peyton Colts their rookie years. Everything went wrong the year before Luck was drafted. Luck came to basically an 8-8 roster, not a 1-15 roster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Except Peyton Manning was a rookie 20 years ago dude. That's why it's ridiculous to compare his rookie season to EJ's, it was a different game. The NFL 20 years ago is almost as different from the modern NFL as college. Answer me this. Why was Luck's rookie year so much better than Peyton's? I'll wait. So what you're saying is that 20 years ago, it was acceptable for a QB to suck for 1-2 years; but in today's NFL, if a QB sucks before his first complete season is over, it's proper to give up on him. Funny how ... oh, I don't know ... no !@#$ing team in the league ever does that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 (edited) So what you're saying is that 20 years ago, it was acceptable for a QB to suck for 1-2 years; but in today's NFL, if a QB sucks before his first complete season is over, it's proper to give up on him. Funny how ... oh, I don't know ... no !@#$ing team in the league ever does that. I'm saying what qualified as "suck" 20 years ago is not what qualifies as "suck" today. The standards have changed. So comparing EJ's rookie season to Montana's is bananas. Indy had the sixth highest passing yard total in the NFL when Peyton was a rookie. SIXTH! They would've been 18th in 2013. Are we gonna pretend like that means nothing still? Or, can we agree, that a top 6th passer in the NFL is a lot different that the bottom 14th? Edited March 24, 2015 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VADC Bills Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 (edited) Interesting comments on RG3, although the Bills are my team I have had Redskins seasons tickets for the last 8 years. RG3 has two big problems, I don't think anyone has picked up on, first the offensive line has deteriorated since his first season. Arguably on of the worst in the league. Second he has a coach that is not good and doesn't like him. Shanahan had a zone blocking scheme which worked pretty good in the first season. His second year he was hurt. Enter Gruden who needed to make an example of someone to show his authority like any rookie coach would do. Keep in mind RG3 didn't become a head case and a bad guy until Gruden came in deploying tough love. RG3 is the easily the best QB on the team. Cousin has never played a good game when game planned against. His best games are when he came in after the starter was hurt. Colt McCoy... well is Colt McCoy. Gruden is possessed with doing things his way. He will be gone after this year and I don't think the upper management will pull the plug on RG3 until another QB is in place. Side note Brian Orakpo is a beast he let walk for a 4 year 27 million dollar deal. For that money he would have looked real good in a Bills uniform. I'm a Hughes fan but Orakpo is better and cheaper. Edited March 24, 2015 by VADC Bills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 I'm saying what qualified as "suck" 20 years ago is not what qualifies as "suck" today. The standards have changed. So comparing EJ's rookie season to Montana's is bananas. Indy had the sixth highest passing yard total in the NFL when Peyton was a rookie. SIXTH! They would've been 18th in 2013. Are we gonna pretend like that means nothing still? Or, can we agree, that a top 6th passer in the NFL is a lot different that the bottom 14th? No, they likely would have been sixth again if it were now. It's relative to other teams and changes in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 (edited) No, they likely would have been sixth again if it were now. It's relative to other teams and changes in the game. No. Stop that. Edited March 24, 2015 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobChalmers Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 (edited) "We can look at two QB's that give us the best view of that, and not even all the way back to the 80s. Compare Peyton Manning's first year stats to Andrew Luck's. Peyton is a Hall of Famer. And his rookie year wasn't even nearly close to Luck's. It's not as though Luck was ten times the prospect either. Would you argue that 23 year old Luck was better than 23 year old Peyton? I wouldn't. But still, blew him out of the water, numbers wise." You make my point for me with this. Manning's rookie year ... like most QBs .... was horrible. Yet he's a hall of famer. Had the Colts said after 14 games, "!@#$ this, this kid's a bust," that would have been pretty stupid; wouldn't you agree? Actually, Luck was a better prospect than Manning - hands down. Your basic point is OK - but it's tiring listening to people not grasp what sort of prospect Luck was. He was universally regarded as the greatest draft prospect since Elway - Manning was not close. Luck had NO WEAKNESSES coming out of college - he's as fast as Cam Newton with a cannon arm that Manning never had. Edited March 24, 2015 by BobChalmers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Actually, Luck was a better prospect than Manning - hands down. Your basic point is OK - but it's tiring listening to people not grasp what sort of prospect Luck was. He was universally regarded as the greatest draft prospect since Elway - Manning was not close. Luck had NO WEAKNESSES coming out of college - he's as fast as Cam Newton with a cannon arm that Manning never had. Yup. Luck was a better prospect than Manning was, and more prepared to play, even though Manning was a great prospect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gestes72 Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 RGIII = Michael Vick and that isn't a compliment on my part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 "We can look at two QB's that give us the best view of that, and not even all the way back to the 80s. Compare Peyton Manning's first year stats to Andrew Luck's. Peyton is a Hall of Famer. And his rookie year wasn't even nearly close to Luck's. It's not as though Luck was ten times the prospect either. Would you argue that 23 year old Luck was better than 23 year old Peyton? I wouldn't. But still, blew him out of the water, numbers wise." You make my point for me with this. Manning's rookie year ... like most QBs .... was horrible. Yet he's a hall of famer. Had the Colts said after 14 games, "!@#$ this, this kid's a bust," that would have been pretty stupid; wouldn't you agree? Gug, I hate to pile on, but this business that Manning sucked as a rookie is total utter horse ****. He was amazing as a rookie. The only column of his stat sheet that was negative was INTs, which is the kind of thing you expect to improve with experience. His yds and TDs were off the charts good for a rookie. They were on par with the better veteran QBs of the time. Back then throwing for 4k yds was a really big deal. Now it's just pretty good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 (edited) Gug, I hate to pile on, but this business that Manning sucked as a rookie is total utter horse ****. He was amazing as a rookie. The only column of his stat sheet that was negative was INTs, which is the kind of thing you expect to improve with experience. His yds and TDs were off the charts good for a rookie. They were on par with the better veteran QBs of the time. Back then throwing for 4k yds was a really big deal. Now it's just pretty good. All I've been trying to say. EJ would be regarded as the second coming if he came out his rookie year and threw 2800 yards, 20 TD's and 15 INT's in '98 or '81. Now, that's just adequate. Edited March 24, 2015 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts