EJ Manuel's film session games 1-4

[Gugny]

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.

 

Excellent post.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

 

Excellent post.

what he said.

 

Worst yet.

 

Stop making sense

this too

[LB3]

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.

http://a.fod4.com/images/GifGuide/clapping/wethot.gif

[Hot Buffalo Wings]

TBD needs a "like" button!

It really does. The like button adds a great eliment.

[OCinBuffalo]

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.

You know I've been ignoring your routine attempts to soothe your own PPP butthurt using my football posts, right? Mostly because you're a good poster. You avoid PPP now, and say things like the above, here, not because you are a coward, but because you know there's no point in defending what has obviously become indefensible. So, you take your shots where you can. I get it.

 

But, come on. My quantitative approach, when I'm being serious and not trolling, doesn't change. The only thing that changes is the subject matter. Therefore, whether you "like" this post or not solely depends on whether it just happens to agree with your beliefs. You're one of many posters who benefit when I change gears from PPP to football, but apply literally the same approach, because it means somebody else's nonsense is being scrutinized and shredded this time, instead of yours. It's a relief, and fun to watch, isn't it?

 

That's all this is.

[OCinBuffalo]

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!!!

Sorry, but horsecrap. I refuse to lower the standard for this board. That high standard was set by guys like you who were here long before I showed up. I'm just following it. The audience has choices : get on our level, or go follow Joe B on Twitter. Besides, audience? Please. My audience is you, personally, and the other posters like you. It's obvious to both of us who is on that list, isn't it? One great thing about a message board is that it is a meritocracy(unless the mods are misbehaving). Posters can earn their way into my audience, the same as I earn my way into theirs.

 

Think about it: Bill in NYC is in my audience, and he has hated every damn minute of it, for 10 years! Shall we do CB vs. OL draft picks one more time for the newbies?

 

Yes, the only 100% plug and play QB I've seen in my lifetime is Marino. We can never fully support the case for Kelly or Warren Moon, because of the start in the USFL, and CFL, respectively, and the horrible NFL teams they joined. Kelly, Moon, and Fred Jackson, are reasons why minor leauge NFL makes sense.

 

"Developing" on the bench vs. playing every week? Easy choice. TV audiences is a concern. Thus, minor leauge NFL should be played on Tuesdays.

[OCinBuffalo]

"The eyeball test"

I think we can all agree that if If the world was run on "the eyeball test"?

 

It would suck. Every great idea or great person has one thing in common: tons of rejection prior to acceptance. Then, automagically after acceptance, the person/their ideas are taken for granted, as if the rejection never existed. We remember the greatness, we forget the rejection. We all know why.

 

That rejection almost entirely results from "The eyeball test".

 

The good news: if the eyeball test didn't exist, half my business wouldn't exist, because that's the part where we clean up the stupid that the previous eyeball tests have generated.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Yes, the only 100% plug and play QB I've seen in my lifetime is Marino.

 

Not even Peyton Manning? Whew, you're a tough audience.

[Kelly the Dog]

You know I've been ignoring your routine attempts to soothe your own PPP butthurt using my football posts, right? Mostly because you're a good poster. You avoid PPP now, and say things like the above, here, not because you are a coward, but because you know there's no point in defending what has obviously become indefensible. So, you take your shots where you can. I get it.

 

But, come on. My quantitative approach, when I'm being serious and not trolling, doesn't change. The only thing that changes is the subject matter. Therefore, whether you "like" this post or not solely depends on whether it just happens to agree with your beliefs. You're one of many posters who benefit when I change gears from PPP to football, but apply literally the same approach, because it means somebody else's nonsense is being scrutinized and shredded this time, instead of yours. It's a relief, and fun to watch, isn't it?

 

That's all this is.

Ummm... No. Like most people and most posters, when you post something stupid I'll say it's stupid. Which you get from others more than not. When you say something smart, like the above post, I give you the deserved credit. It just happens so infrequently that it surprises me.

[OCinBuffalo]

Ummm... No. Like most people and most posters, when you post something stupid I'll say it's stupid. Which you get from others more than not. When you say something smart, like the above post, I give you the deserved credit. It just happens so infrequently that it surprises me.

Yeah, yeah, keep carrying that warter, Kelly. In fact I get "good post" a hell of a lot more than not...when...I'm being serious/not writing targeted posts designed to draw out idiocy/real motives.

 

Sometimes it makes sense to fight absurdity, with absurdity. Sometimes not. You simply don't know when I'm doing what, or why, and I am sure as hell not gonna tell you. Besides, it's far more entertaing, for me, to see you continue your "try to play PPP on the football board" Children's Crusade. It's friggin hilarious.

 

Not even Peyton Manning? Whew, you're a tough audience.

No. I said 100% plug and play, not 75%.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

my 2 cents

 

If you need to post EJ sucks daily, you are trolling.

 

and yes I agree

 

 

there's no point in defending what has obviously become indefensible

 

EJ has much to prove, but to dismiss him and say he's a failure at this time is ludicrous

[Mr. WEO]

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 data proves nothing", yet quantitative analysis proves the 98% of the QBs over the last 40 years took at least 3 full seasons of playing (not "developing" on the bench)? Because RG3, Tebow and Kaepernick?

 

SOme other QBs who were doing OK before they were off the bench for 3 years (or otherwise):

 

Elway: 2nd year 12-2, 3rd 11-5

P MAnning: 13-3 by year 2

Brady: 11-3 his first year as starter, SB MVP

Favre: 8-5 his 1st year (3300 yards) on a moribund Packers team

Montana: 13-3 his first full year as starter, SB MVP

Rivers: 14-2 his first year Pro Bowl

Big Ben: 13-0 his first year

Rodgers: 4000+ yds, 26 TDs/13 ints first year, 11-5 second year

Flacco: 11-5, 9-7, 12-4 avg 3000+ yards first 3 seasons (playoffs)

Ryan: 11-5, 9-5, 13-3 first 3 years (playoffs)

Dalton: Pro Bowl fist year, playoffs every year on a mediocre team

 

What happened to Kaepernick last year? Almost 3400 yards passing, 640 yards rushing, 19 passing TDs only 10 ints on 478 attempts. I'd take that and they can have EJ.

 

SO Luck hasn't been to, yet alone won a SB? What is the point of mentioning that? In only 3 seasons, he has won 33 games, thrown 83 TDs, been to 3 Pro Bowls and already has won as many SBs as Marino.

 

And Wilson? He's won 36 games, was a Pro Bowler in his first 2 seasons, has been to 2 SB, winning one. He has thrown for almost 10,000 yards on a run heavy team for a whopping 7.9 YPA. He has 72 passing TDs, an int ration of 2.1%. Last season, he threw for 3475, ran for 849 (and 6 TDs). Who is a worse SB champ than him? E MAnning perhaps.

 

Show me the 98% of all QBs who took 3 or more seasons as starter to reach success in the NFL. Unless you mean it takes 3 or more years to conclude a QB won't succeed , your analysis is lacking persuasive data.

[RyanC883]

Marrone destroyed this team.

Orton was no better than EJ and now we still don't know about EJ.

I think he will start but I also see the faults others point out.

I can not see how EJ can be judged by any of us with Marrone and Hackett running the offense.

 

Overall Orton made better reads, but his sliding down to avoid a hit and missing the 1st down market is/was unforgivable. Manual should have been put in at that point.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

 

 

"The data proves nothing", yet quantitative analysis proves the 98% of the QBs over the last 40 years took at least 3 full seasons of playing (not "developing" on the bench)? Because RG3, Tebow and Kaepernick?

 

SOme other QBs who were doing OK before they were off the bench for 3 years (or otherwise):

 

Elway: 2nd year 12-2, 3rd 11-5

P MAnning: 13-3 by year 2

Brady: 11-3 his first year as starter, SB MVP

Favre: 8-5 his 1st year (3300 yards) on a moribund Packers team

Montana: 13-3 his first full year as starter, SB MVP

Rivers: 14-2 his first year Pro Bowl

Big Ben: 13-0 his first year

Rodgers: 4000+ yds, 26 TDs/13 ints first year, 11-5 second year

Flacco: 11-5, 9-7, 12-4 avg 3000+ yards first 3 seasons (playoffs)

Ryan: 11-5, 9-5, 13-3 first 3 years (playoffs)

Dalton: Pro Bowl fist year, playoffs every year on a mediocre team

 

Show me the 98% of all QBs who took 3 or more seasons as starter to reach success in the NFL. Unless you mean it takes 3 or more years to conclude a QB won't succeed , your analysis is lacking persuasive data.

FACT CHECK (again) WRT to "3 full seasons" your list - you have a mish mash of what is and what you perceive to be.

Favre: 8-5 his 1st year (3300 yards) on a moribund Packers team

Rodgers: 4000+ yds, 26 TDs/13 ints first year, 11-5 second year :blush:

 

IIRC Favre sat on the bench in ATL and he'd been an INT MACHINE in many games

the 1989 Packers were 10-6 2 with a bad season or 2 prior to Favre and HC Mike Holmgren and 8-5 isn't morbid

Before Favre the morbid Packers had Mike Tomczak and no Holmgren

 

Also Aaron Rodgers sat on the bench behind Favre for 4 years learning!

how many seasons before Peyton won a playoff game?

and WRT to year 2.. EJ has barely had 1 season in before the Moron(e) benched him for a has been who was not in the game 100%

Edited June 1, 2015 by BillsFan-4-Ever

[Agent 91]

 

Bingo.

 

This kid has been part of a painfully predictable offense for all of his young career. If every fan at home can predict what the Bills were going to do on every down, just think about how easy it was for professional defensive coaches to effectively defend against it.

I just wanna remind everyone my favorite EJ Manuel quote... Went something like this

 

This playbook is easier to learn than the one at FSU

 

This tells me that the last 2 years were a waste. He hasn't even been exposed to true NFL football yet.

You mean like anytime they ran shotgun with cj in the backfield it was a draw or a screen?

A screen would have been SOOOOOOO welcomed. It was more like draw or dive. Wth did they make us watch 2 years of

[Mr. WEO]

FACT CHECK (again) WRT to "3 full seasons" your list - you have a mish mash of what is and what you perceive to be.

Favre: 8-5 his 1st year (3300 yards) on a moribund Packers team

Rodgers: 4000+ yds, 26 TDs/13 ints first year, 11-5 second year :blush:

 

IIRC Favre sat on the bench in ATL and he'd been an INT MACHINE in many games

the 1989 Packers were 10-6 2 with a bad season or 2 prior to Favre and HC Mike Holmgren and 8-5 isn't morbid

Before Favre the morbid Packers had Mike Tomczak and no Holmgren

 

Also Aaron Rodgers sat on the bench behind Favre for 4 years learning!

how many seasons before Peyton won a playoff game?

and WRT to year 2.. EJ has barely had 1 season in before the Moron(e) benched him for a has been who was not in the game 100%

 

 

Actually, I was very specific about this: I was using OC's criteria of "Not developing on the bench", but playing-- because he feels QBs don't learn anything and don't show anything from the bench. So...benchyears don't count in this argument.

 

Fact check: Rodgers was on the bench for 3 seasons, not 4, behind Favre. Also, Rodgers learned little from Favre except "a lot about practice". They were not close at all.

 

Also, given MAnning's pretty bad playoff record, you probably don't want to judge him by that.

Edited June 1, 2015 by Mr. WEO

[Agent 91]

Can anyone point out a game in which EJ played well or did something that looked remotely like playing QB? Who cares who really wanted EJ. Marrone's only good move as a coach was benching him. And before anyone tries to claim the Carolina comeback had anything to do with EJ go look at the film. Penalty aided and FJ smart drop of a bad pass by EJ kept drive alive. I pray there is a team who wants to give us a draft pick for this monumental bust of a player. Loser at FSU and a loser now. Zebras don't change their stripes and neither will EJ. He will always be mediocre.

So the guy who led us back against Carolina is not something you would sign up for? The one who could have potentially beat Atlanta after 2 TWO FUMBLES BY RECEIVERS still nothing? What about the Bears game last year. He showed something. We won in OT yeah Fred has a hell of a run. But there were crucial plays in that game he made. Just think if he had confidence! By the way. Who remembers the ball in a barrel passes to Sammy and Chandler in the first Dolphins game last year. Maybe he will end up mediocre but for now this is just conjecture.

[Gugny]

Can anyone point out a game in which EJ played well or did something that looked remotely like playing QB? Who cares who really wanted EJ. Marrone's only good move as a coach was benching him. And before anyone tries to claim the Carolina comeback had anything to do with EJ go look at the film. Penalty aided and FJ smart drop of a bad pass by EJ kept drive alive. I pray there is a team who wants to give us a draft pick for this monumental bust of a player. Loser at FSU and a loser now. Zebras don't change their stripes and neither will EJ. He will always be mediocre.

 

I'm confused. Is he a loser? Or is he mediocre?

 

And do leopards change their spots?

 

Is it possibly to take the hood out of person?

 

If it looks like a snake, is it always a snake?

 

I can't believe I've FINALLY found someone to answer these questions with some accuracy.

[Hot Buffalo Wings]

FWIW

Norfolk Tides ‏@NorfolkTides May 24

@buffalobills QB and Virginia Beach native @EJManuel3 threw a perfect strike prior to today's game at Harbor Park!

[Nanker]

 

I'm confused. Is he a loser? Or is he mediocre?

 

And do leopards change their spots?

 

Is it possibly to take the hood out of person?

 

If it looks like a snake, is it always a snake?

 

I can't believe I've FINALLY found someone to answer these questions with some accuracy.

 

Is it quicker to New York, or by bus?

Did you walk to work, or bring a lunch?

Remember, if you take away that David Tyree catch and the scramble/breakaway-from-a-sack complete pass to Plaxico, Eli Manning is just a loser.

 

 

FWIW

Norfolk Tides ‏@NorfolkTides May 24

@buffalobills QB and Virginia Beach native @EJManuel3 threw a perfect strike prior to today's game at Harbor Park!

 

Championship!