EJ Manuel's film session games 1-4

[Hapless Bills Fan]

 

You're singling out the completion %, while I'm also including his TD/Int ratio. Over all it's decent, IMO.

 

The point I was trying to make with completion %, is that it tucks him in around a number of young QB with similar game experience. Also that a number of QB who are top-20 now either didn't play their first 1-3 years in the league, or had completion percentages around the same mark in their first 1-3 years.

I don't think he was playing favorites here. Watkins stood up on a couple blocks is all.

 

Yeah, Watkins took a few plays off last year. Hopefully it's not a pattern for the future.

[San-O]

 

You're singling out the completion %, while I'm also including his TD/Int ratio. Over all it's decent, IMO.

 

Actually bottom on the pile again. I mean, completing passes is pretty much the main purpose of the QB thrwoing the ball, so aside from that, he's pretty decent I guess...

 

http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/touchdown-to-interception-ratio/2014/

 

It's just that we've seen SO MUCH BAD Qb play over the past 15 years +, I think think some on this board

just hope against hope that someone's better than they are.

Edited May 30, 2015 by San-O

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Its interesting that you bring up Lee and Fitz/Manuel

 

I was thinking about this the other day....Fitz DEF regressed under Lee

 

I do wonder if that was a situation of a old dog not being able to change his game without thinking too much....where as EJ might still be the (as Mayock put it) "Piece of clay that you can form into whatever you want at QB"

 

Im not saying your right or wrong....I just thought it was interesting

 

I don't know. I hope you're right. I did think we saw overall improvement in Geno Smith's game between 1st and 2nd years. It is possible also that Lee learned something from his Fitz failure and stopped being in people's ears so much during the game.

 

Time will tell I guess.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

 

Well, Marrone is gone now, which is a good thing, however you can blame bad passing ALL on the O line and OC.

 

EJ is now a 58% completion QB with 16 TDs and 12 INTs. That's pretty bad.

 

.

Bilz are then hosed. Cassell is on averags the same and Taylor is worse. Maybe sims?

[26CornerBlitz]

 

Actually bottom on the pile again. I mean, completing passes is pretty much the main purpose of the QB thrwoing the ball, so aside from that, he's pretty decent I guess...

 

http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/touchdown-to-interception-ratio/2014/

 

It's just that we've seen SO MUCH BAD Qb play over the past 15 years +, I think think some on this board

just hope against hope that someone's better than they are.

Same ratio as Rivers.

[JESSEFEFFER]

In statistical terms, I'd say that EJ's supposedly regressed play in his last two games and the o-line's easily demonstrated regression has a correlation coefficient pretty close to 1.000.

 

The maker of the Youtube videos is biased in that he is acting as an advocate for EJ. Much like defense attorneys (or player agents) that try to create a case for innocence, they can't help but say some pretty dumb things like "He was there but didn't pull the trigger" or "He is innocent but the NFL ran a sting operation."

Edited May 31, 2015 by JESSEFEFFER

[Hapless Bills Fan]

 

Actually bottom on the pile again. I mean, completing passes is pretty much the main purpose of the QB thrwoing the ball, so aside from that, he's pretty decent I guess...

 

http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/touchdown-to-interception-ratio/2014/

 

It's just that we've seen SO MUCH BAD Qb play over the past 15 years +, I think think some on this board

just hope against hope that someone's better than they are.

 

Dude, I don't know where to start. Oh, I lie, I do too

 

1. It's statistically inappropriate to compare disparate sample sizes ie QB who played 16 games, and QB who played 4 games. Thus, you really can't compare Matt Cassel (who played what, 3 games) to Jay Cutler, Cam Newton, and Teddy Bridgewater and conclude Cassel is way worse because he's #45 on the list while they're #26, #27, and #35. (Part of the reason is that with a small sample size, an outlier like a single horrid game can skew the results much more). Likewise, you can not properly conclude that EJ Manuel, #25 on the list and at the same ratio as Philip Rivers and Mike Glennon, is actually the same as those guys and much better than that Cutler or Newton guy.

2. #25 on a list of QB which includes a bunch of established starters who are lower down (and the same ratio as #23) is not "bottom on the pile", OK? I think you need to consider the meaning of that term, I don't think it means what you think it means

3. Based on this evidence that EJ sucks, you want to do what? Trade, cut, or bench him so that Cassel, who is way lower on the list than EJM, can start, because Cassel's 2014 57.7% completion was worse than Manuel's? I mean, what is it exactly that you'd like to see here?

4. I'm sure there are people who "hope against hope" that players are better than they are because they're now playing for us. I mean, we all hope that Cassel plays like he did in 2010 not 2014, right? And that Taylor plays better than has ever been seen. You sorta say this like it's a flaw, is that what you think?

 

With regard to EJ Manuel, of course, people note that many a QB has had a rough first 16 or 32 starts (or has just plain sat out his first couple seasons) and gone on to improve, which is not the same thing as "hoping against hope" it's more like "hoping history repeats itself here as it has elsewhere".

[Maury Ballstein]

3. Based on this evidence that EJ sucks, you want to do what? Trade, cut, or bench him so that Cassel, who is way lower on the list than EJM, can start, because Cassel's 2014 57.7% completion was worse than Manuel's? I mean, what is it exactly that you'd like to see here?

.

[OCinBuffalo]

I'm starting to think we're not going to figure this out based solely on the past, and that it might require - gulp - waiting and seeing... just a wild hunch, I know.

I've written posts to that effect, hell, my avatar screams it. I used to change it all the time. I've wanted to change it lots of times, but I can't until the "special rules for EJ" nonsense ends. I've been trying to impress upon this board the following, undeniable questions and answers, from a quantitative prespective(and therefore as near to being the truth as we can get):

 

Question: For the last 40 years, in all but a very few cases, it's taken 3 years minimum for a QB to acclimate to the pro game. But, suddenly because a few decent rookie QBs(and when I say decent, try telling me that RG3, Luck, Kaepernick, or Wilson are comparable to Montana, Marino, Elway, Kelly, Manning or Brady) have a few good years recently, in every way a statistical outlier, we are supposed to ignore the last 40 years of contrary data, wholesale?

 

Answer: No, no we are not, because that's idiotic. This notion that ALL rookies can "step right in and play in "today's" NFL" because...new, something, that causes...something, is Underpants Gnomes ridiculous. I don't care about spread offenses in college. I don't care about "new" offense X, which isn't West Coast-level innovation, thus not new at all. I certainly don't care that we have media clowns and their parrots running around pretending a correlation = a causation.

 

Ask yourself: how does the RG3 trade look now? How come Tebow isn't an all-pro, after all he can "change the NFL because: winner", right? What happened to Kaepernick last year? Name one SB winning QB in the last 10 years who is undeniably worse than Wilson(Hint). How many are much better? Why hasn't Luck been to, never mind won, a SB already?

 

Answer: because most of what college football fans/media say is subjective garbage, in general, and doubly so when their "thinking" is applied to the NFL. No, the NFL isn't "changing" because the biggest fanbois, fans/media, repeat themselves in hopes that it is. There's no causation here. There is only hype. The data proves it, because actually, the data proves: NOTHING! There is no pattern, there is absolutely no causal proof of anything. It might as well be random. The ONLY thing we have is that it takes ~ 3 years for a guy to head in one direction or the other.

 

Thus, EJ was always going to take 3 years to develop, if he develops at all, just like 98% of QBs who did over the last 40 years. The ONLY real differences between he and Tannehill are: EJ has more talent, but Tannehill plays. Therefore, I am tired of these "special EJ rules". Nobody, not even EJ, knows right now whether he has "it" or doesn't. Anyone who says they do is delusional. The data, and the outliers like Kurt Warner, prove beyond all doubt that "certainty" about NFL QB development, or what makes one, or where one will come from, is folly. The only certainty: What you think you "see" ...has a high statistical propensity to be pre-conceived BS.

 

"Wait and see" is the only quantitatively supported approach.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Bilz are then hosed. Cassell is on averags the same and Taylor is worse. Maybe sims?

 

Worst yet.

I've written posts to that effect, hell, my avatar screams it. I used to change it all the time. I've wanted to change it lots of times, but I can't until the "special rules for EJ" nonsense ends. I've been trying to impress upon this board the following, undeniable questions and answers, from a quantitative prespective(and therefore as near to being the truth as we can get):

 

Question: For the last 40 years, in all but a very few cases, it's taken 3 years minimum for a QB to acclimate to the pro game. But, suddenly because a few decent rookie QBs(and when I say decent, try telling me that RG3, Luck, Kaepernick, or Wilson are comparable to Montana, Marino, Elway, Kelly, Manning or Brady) have a few good years recently, in every way a statistical outlier, we are supposed to ignore the last 40 years of contrary data, wholesale?

 

Answer: No, no we are not, because that's idiotic. This notion that ALL rookies can "step right in and play in "today's" NFL" because...new, something, that causes...something, is Underpants Gnomes ridiculous. I don't care about spread offenses in college. I don't care about "new" offense X, which isn't West Coast-level innovation, thus not new at all. I certainly don't care that we have media clowns and their parrots running around pretending a correlation = a causation.

 

Ask yourself: how does the RG3 trade look now? How come Tebow isn't an all-pro, after all he can "change the NFL because: winner", right? What happened to Kaepernick last year? Name one SB winning QB in the last 10 years who is undeniably worse than Wilson(Hint). How many are much better? Why hasn't Luck been to, never mind won, a SB already?

 

Answer: because most of what college football fans/media say is subjective garbage, in general, and doubly so when their "thinking" is applied to the NFL. No, the NFL isn't "changing" because the biggest fanbois, fans/media, repeat themselves in hopes that it is. There's no causation here. There is only hype. The data proves it, because actually, the data proves: NOTHING! There is no pattern, there is absolutely no causal proof of anything. It might as well be random. The ONLY thing we have is that it takes ~ 3 years for a guy to head in one direction or the other.

 

Thus, EJ was always going to take 3 years to develop, if he develops at all, just like 98% of QBs who did over the last 40 years. The ONLY real differences between he and Tannehill are: EJ has more talent, but Tannehill plays. Therefore, I am tired of these "special EJ rules". Nobody, not even EJ, knows right now whether he has "it" or doesn't. Anyone who says they do is delusional. The data, and the outliers like Kurt Warner, prove beyond all doubt that "certainty" about NFL QB development, or what makes one, or where one will come from, is folly. The only certainty: What you think you "see" ...has a high statistical propensity to be pre-conceived BS.

 

"Wait and see" is the only quantitatively supported approach.

 

Stop making sense

[Fixxxer]

When I posted those videos, I should have recommended to watch it without sound and then focus on three things, the routes the WRs are running on the play, the pocket and the level of OL play and finally the decision the QB is making on those plays.

[jumbalaya]

Where are all the guys who said "I trust Doug" "I trust Hackett?"

[K-9]

I've written posts to that effect, hell, my avatar screams it. I used to change it all the time. I've wanted to change it lots of times, but I can't until the "special rules for EJ" nonsense ends. I've been trying to impress upon this board the following, undeniable questions and answers, from a quantitative prespective(and therefore as near to being the truth as we can get):

 

Question: For the last 40 years, in all but a very few cases, it's taken 3 years minimum for a QB to acclimate to the pro game. But, suddenly because a few decent rookie QBs(and when I say decent, try telling me that RG3, Luck, Kaepernick, or Wilson are comparable to Montana, Marino, Elway, Kelly, Manning or Brady) have a few good years recently, in every way a statistical outlier, we are supposed to ignore the last 40 years of contrary data, wholesale?

 

Answer: No, no we are not, because that's idiotic. This notion that ALL rookies can "step right in and play in "today's" NFL" because...new, something, that causes...something, is Underpants Gnomes ridiculous. I don't care about spread offenses in college. I don't care about "new" offense X, which isn't West Coast-level innovation, thus not new at all. I certainly don't care that we have media clowns and their parrots running around pretending a correlation = a causation.

 

Ask yourself: how does the RG3 trade look now? How come Tebow isn't an all-pro, after all he can "change the NFL because: winner", right? What happened to Kaepernick last year? Name one SB winning QB in the last 10 years who is undeniably worse than Wilson(Hint). How many are much better? Why hasn't Luck been to, never mind won, a SB already?

 

Answer: because most of what college football fans/media say is subjective garbage, in general, and doubly so when their "thinking" is applied to the NFL. No, the NFL isn't "changing" because the biggest fanbois, fans/media, repeat themselves in hopes that it is. There's no causation here. There is only hype. The data proves it, because actually, the data proves: NOTHING! There is no pattern, there is absolutely no causal proof of anything. It might as well be random. The ONLY thing we have is that it takes ~ 3 years for a guy to head in one direction or the other.

 

Thus, EJ was always going to take 3 years to develop, if he develops at all, just like 98% of QBs who did over the last 40 years. The ONLY real differences between he and Tannehill are: EJ has more talent, but Tannehill plays. Therefore, I am tired of these "special EJ rules". Nobody, not even EJ, knows right now whether he has "it" or doesn't. Anyone who says they do is delusional. The data, and the outliers like Kurt Warner, prove beyond all doubt that "certainty" about NFL QB development, or what makes one, or where one will come from, is folly. The only certainty: What you think you "see" ...has a high statistical propensity to be pre-conceived BS.

 

"Wait and see" is the only quantitatively supported approach.

The problem with well reasoned analysis is that it's too often beyond the grasp of the very same audience for which it's intended.

 

Your take is spot on in every every aspect. I am willing to go one step further by saying that the only rookie QB who was NFL ready from the moment he first took the field was Marino.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[JESSEFEFFER]

I am beginning to think that there is a generational component to how Bills fans view QB development. There is a whole list of HOF QBs that were not very good at the start of their careers. This is no surprise because those of us that were raised without the internet, smart phones and satellite HD television know that this is true of most every human being doing any job. History teaches the value of, if not necessity for, patience.

[YoloinOhio]

I've written posts to that effect, hell, my avatar screams it. I used to change it all the time. I've wanted to change it lots of times, but I can't until the "special rules for EJ" nonsense ends. I've been trying to impress upon this board the following, undeniable questions and answers, from a quantitative prespective(and therefore as near to being the truth as we can get):

 

Question: For the last 40 years, in all but a very few cases, it's taken 3 years minimum for a QB to acclimate to the pro game. But, suddenly because a few decent rookie QBs(and when I say decent, try telling me that RG3, Luck, Kaepernick, or Wilson are comparable to Montana, Marino, Elway, Kelly, Manning or Brady) have a few good years recently, in every way a statistical outlier, we are supposed to ignore the last 40 years of contrary data, wholesale?

 

Answer: No, no we are not, because that's idiotic. This notion that ALL rookies can "step right in and play in "today's" NFL" because...new, something, that causes...something, is Underpants Gnomes ridiculous. I don't care about spread offenses in college. I don't care about "new" offense X, which isn't West Coast-level innovation, thus not new at all. I certainly don't care that we have media clowns and their parrots running around pretending a correlation = a causation.

 

Ask yourself: how does the RG3 trade look now? How come Tebow isn't an all-pro, after all he can "change the NFL because: winner", right? What happened to Kaepernick last year? Name one SB winning QB in the last 10 years who is undeniably worse than Wilson(Hint). How many are much better? Why hasn't Luck been to, never mind won, a SB already?

 

Answer: because most of what college football fans/media say is subjective garbage, in general, and doubly so when their "thinking" is applied to the NFL. No, the NFL isn't "changing" because the biggest fanbois, fans/media, repeat themselves in hopes that it is. There's no causation here. There is only hype. The data proves it, because actually, the data proves: NOTHING! There is no pattern, there is absolutely no causal proof of anything. It might as well be random. The ONLY thing we have is that it takes ~ 3 years for a guy to head in one direction or the other.

 

Thus, EJ was always going to take 3 years to develop, if he develops at all, just like 98% of QBs who did over the last 40 years. The ONLY real differences between he and Tannehill are: EJ has more talent, but Tannehill plays. Therefore, I am tired of these "special EJ rules". Nobody, not even EJ, knows right now whether he has "it" or doesn't. Anyone who says they do is delusional. The data, and the outliers like Kurt Warner, prove beyond all doubt that "certainty" about NFL QB development, or what makes one, or where one will come from, is folly. The only certainty: What you think you "see" ...has a high statistical propensity to be pre-conceived BS.

 

"Wait and see" is the only quantitatively supported approach.

TBD needs a "like" button!

[Kelly the Dog]

I've written posts to that effect, hell, my avatar screams it. I used to change it all the time. I've wanted to change it lots of times, but I can't until the "special rules for EJ" nonsense ends. I've been trying to impress upon this board the following, undeniable questions and answers, from a quantitative prespective(and therefore as near to being the truth as we can get):

 

Question: For the last 40 years, in all but a very few cases, it's taken 3 years minimum for a QB to acclimate to the pro game. But, suddenly because a few decent rookie QBs(and when I say decent, try telling me that RG3, Luck, Kaepernick, or Wilson are comparable to Montana, Marino, Elway, Kelly, Manning or Brady) have a few good years recently, in every way a statistical outlier, we are supposed to ignore the last 40 years of contrary data, wholesale?

 

Answer: No, no we are not, because that's idiotic. This notion that ALL rookies can "step right in and play in "today's" NFL" because...new, something, that causes...something, is Underpants Gnomes ridiculous. I don't care about spread offenses in college. I don't care about "new" offense X, which isn't West Coast-level innovation, thus not new at all. I certainly don't care that we have media clowns and their parrots running around pretending a correlation = a causation.

 

Ask yourself: how does the RG3 trade look now? How come Tebow isn't an all-pro, after all he can "change the NFL because: winner", right? What happened to Kaepernick last year? Name one SB winning QB in the last 10 years who is undeniably worse than Wilson(Hint). How many are much better? Why hasn't Luck been to, never mind won, a SB already?

 

Answer: because most of what college football fans/media say is subjective garbage, in general, and doubly so when their "thinking" is applied to the NFL. No, the NFL isn't "changing" because the biggest fanbois, fans/media, repeat themselves in hopes that it is. There's no causation here. There is only hype. The data proves it, because actually, the data proves: NOTHING! There is no pattern, there is absolutely no causal proof of anything. It might as well be random. The ONLY thing we have is that it takes ~ 3 years for a guy to head in one direction or the other.

 

Thus, EJ was always going to take 3 years to develop, if he develops at all, just like 98% of QBs who did over the last 40 years. The ONLY real differences between he and Tannehill are: EJ has more talent, but Tannehill plays. Therefore, I am tired of these "special EJ rules". Nobody, not even EJ, knows right now whether he has "it" or doesn't. Anyone who says they do is delusional. The data, and the outliers like Kurt Warner, prove beyond all doubt that "certainty" about NFL QB development, or what makes one, or where one will come from, is folly. The only certainty: What you think you "see" ...has a high statistical propensity to be pre-conceived BS.

 

"Wait and see" is the only quantitatively supported approach.

Wow. Cut it out. You have already had two really good posts in one year, shattering your previous record. That was right on the money.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

I've written posts to that effect, hell, my avatar screams it. I used to change it all the time. I've wanted to change it lots of times, but I can't until the "special rules for EJ" nonsense ends. I've been trying to impress upon this board the following, undeniable questions and answers, from a quantitative prespective(and therefore as near to being the truth as we can get):

 

Question: For the last 40 years, in all but a very few cases, it's taken 3 years minimum for a QB to acclimate to the pro game. But, suddenly because a few decent rookie QBs(and when I say decent, try telling me that RG3, Luck, Kaepernick, or Wilson are comparable to Montana, Marino, Elway, Kelly, Manning or Brady) have a few good years recently, in every way a statistical outlier, we are supposed to ignore the last 40 years of contrary data, wholesale?

 

Answer: No, no we are not, because that's idiotic. This notion that ALL rookies can "step right in and play in "today's" NFL" because...new, something, that causes...something, is Underpants Gnomes ridiculous. I don't care about spread offenses in college. I don't care about "new" offense X, which isn't West Coast-level innovation, thus not new at all. I certainly don't care that we have media clowns and their parrots running around pretending a correlation = a causation.

 

Ask yourself: how does the RG3 trade look now? How come Tebow isn't an all-pro, after all he can "change the NFL because: winner", right? What happened to Kaepernick last year? Name one SB winning QB in the last 10 years who is undeniably worse than Wilson(Hint). How many are much better? Why hasn't Luck been to, never mind won, a SB already?

 

Answer: because most of what college football fans/media say is subjective garbage, in general, and doubly so when their "thinking" is applied to the NFL. No, the NFL isn't "changing" because the biggest fanbois, fans/media, repeat themselves in hopes that it is. There's no causation here. There is only hype. The data proves it, because actually, the data proves: NOTHING! There is no pattern, there is absolutely no causal proof of anything. It might as well be random. The ONLY thing we have is that it takes ~ 3 years for a guy to head in one direction or the other.

 

Thus, EJ was always going to take 3 years to develop, if he develops at all, just like 98% of QBs who did over the last 40 years. The ONLY real differences between he and Tannehill are: EJ has more talent, but Tannehill plays. Therefore, I am tired of these "special EJ rules". Nobody, not even EJ, knows right now whether he has "it" or doesn't. Anyone who says they do is delusional. The data, and the outliers like Kurt Warner, prove beyond all doubt that "certainty" about NFL QB development, or what makes one, or where one will come from, is folly. The only certainty: What you think you "see" ...has a high statistical propensity to be pre-conceived BS.

 

"Wait and see" is the only quantitatively supported approach.

Woah woah woah OC... You try to make a rational argument with facts and asking leading questions which are convenient to answer in the framework of this "analysis" using "facts" and "logic". You even have the audacity to suggest there is not enough evidence for any salient conclusion either way. But you have no answer for.....

 

"The eyeball test"

 

Scouts and stats, facts and logic are inferior to a knowledgible poster's eyeball test. It just knows.

[K-9]

Ah, the eyeball test. As OC implies, some of the greatest QBs in history flunked it with flair early on. For example, NOBODY looked at Montana coming out and determined he passes the eyeball test. Conversely, JeMarcus Russell passed everybody's eyeball exam.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[John from Riverside]

I've written posts to that effect, hell, my avatar screams it. I used to change it all the time. I've wanted to change it lots of times, but I can't until the "special rules for EJ" nonsense ends. I've been trying to impress upon this board the following, undeniable questions and answers, from a quantitative prespective(and therefore as near to being the truth as we can get):

 

Question: For the last 40 years, in all but a very few cases, it's taken 3 years minimum for a QB to acclimate to the pro game. But, suddenly because a few decent rookie QBs(and when I say decent, try telling me that RG3, Luck, Kaepernick, or Wilson are comparable to Montana, Marino, Elway, Kelly, Manning or Brady) have a few good years recently, in every way a statistical outlier, we are supposed to ignore the last 40 years of contrary data, wholesale?

 

Answer: No, no we are not, because that's idiotic. This notion that ALL rookies can "step right in and play in "today's" NFL" because...new, something, that causes...something, is Underpants Gnomes ridiculous. I don't care about spread offenses in college. I don't care about "new" offense X, which isn't West Coast-level innovation, thus not new at all. I certainly don't care that we have media clowns and their parrots running around pretending a correlation = a causation.

 

Ask yourself: how does the RG3 trade look now? How come Tebow isn't an all-pro, after all he can "change the NFL because: winner", right? What happened to Kaepernick last year? Name one SB winning QB in the last 10 years who is undeniably worse than Wilson(Hint). How many are much better? Why hasn't Luck been to, never mind won, a SB already?

 

Answer: because most of what college football fans/media say is subjective garbage, in general, and doubly so when their "thinking" is applied to the NFL. No, the NFL isn't "changing" because the biggest fanbois, fans/media, repeat themselves in hopes that it is. There's no causation here. There is only hype. The data proves it, because actually, the data proves: NOTHING! There is no pattern, there is absolutely no causal proof of anything. It might as well be random. The ONLY thing we have is that it takes ~ 3 years for a guy to head in one direction or the other.

 

Thus, EJ was always going to take 3 years to develop, if he develops at all, just like 98% of QBs who did over the last 40 years. The ONLY real differences between he and Tannehill are: EJ has more talent, but Tannehill plays. Therefore, I am tired of these "special EJ rules". Nobody, not even EJ, knows right now whether he has "it" or doesn't. Anyone who says they do is delusional. The data, and the outliers like Kurt Warner, prove beyond all doubt that "certainty" about NFL QB development, or what makes one, or where one will come from, is folly. The only certainty: What you think you "see" ...has a high statistical propensity to be pre-conceived BS.

 

"Wait and see" is the only quantitatively supported approach.

This should be stickied

 

Now I will say this....while I agree with you on every point.....the problem that we face here is there is indeed a window of opportunity for the bills due to their defense.....and while I DO think EJ Manuel has not gotten the amount of time needed to evaluate (in retrospect he should have been inserted back into the lineup when Orton started floundering last year).......but you cannot wait for a rookie to "figure it out" when you have other parts of the team that could get you to the championship game in other areas.....

 

but......then you also have to look at what your other options are.....is Cassel or TT THAT much better? THis is the chance that they take.

[3rdand12]

Where are all the guys who said "I trust Doug" "I trust Hackett?"

I am still here.

last man standing, Me , has folded his hand. and pushed the pile of chips away. I lost.

Have no doubt about that my friend

I've written posts to that effect, hell, my avatar screams it. I used to change it all the time. I've wanted to change it lots of times, but I can't until the "special rules for EJ" nonsense ends. I've been trying to impress upon this board the following, undeniable questions and answers, from a quantitative prespective(and therefore as near to being the truth as we can get):

 

Question: For the last 40 years, in all but a very few cases, it's taken 3 years minimum for a QB to acclimate to the pro game. But, suddenly because a few decent rookie QBs(and when I say decent, try telling me that RG3, Luck, Kaepernick, or Wilson are comparable to Montana, Marino, Elway, Kelly, Manning or Brady) have a few good years recently, in every way a statistical outlier, we are supposed to ignore the last 40 years of contrary data, wholesale?

 

Answer: No, no we are not, because that's idiotic. This notion that ALL rookies can "step right in and play in "today's" NFL" because...new, something, that causes...something, is Underpants Gnomes ridiculous. I don't care about spread offenses in college. I don't care about "new" offense X, which isn't West Coast-level innovation, thus not new at all. I certainly don't care that we have media clowns and their parrots running around pretending a correlation = a causation.

 

Ask yourself: how does the RG3 trade look now? How come Tebow isn't an all-pro, after all he can "change the NFL because: winner", right? What happened to Kaepernick last year? Name one SB winning QB in the last 10 years who is undeniably worse than Wilson(Hint). How many are much better? Why hasn't Luck been to, never mind won, a SB already?

 

Answer: because most of what college football fans/media say is subjective garbage, in general, and doubly so when their "thinking" is applied to the NFL. No, the NFL isn't "changing" because the biggest fanbois, fans/media, repeat themselves in hopes that it is. There's no causation here. There is only hype. The data proves it, because actually, the data proves: NOTHING! There is no pattern, there is absolutely no causal proof of anything. It might as well be random. The ONLY thing we have is that it takes ~ 3 years for a guy to head in one direction or the other.

 

Thus, EJ was always going to take 3 years to develop, if he develops at all, just like 98% of QBs who did over the last 40 years. The ONLY real differences between he and Tannehill are: EJ has more talent, but Tannehill plays. Therefore, I am tired of these "special EJ rules". Nobody, not even EJ, knows right now whether he has "it" or doesn't. Anyone who says they do is delusional. The data, and the outliers like Kurt Warner, prove beyond all doubt that "certainty" about NFL QB development, or what makes one, or where one will come from, is folly. The only certainty: What you think you "see" ...has a high statistical propensity to be pre-conceived BS.

 

"Wait and see" is the only quantitatively supported approach.

Your comment about the Underpants Gnomes.. was a bit over the top i think.

 

other than that this is pretty decent post. okay. it straddles really really good

 

Wait and see of course is the only way to define the actual results of mucho speculation, projection and fantastical conceptualization.

The culture of immediate gratification is short sighted and narrow of mind. and affects society in the most horrid ways.

well done OC.