EJ as Evaluated by FSU fans - Caution: pretty brutal

[metzelaars_lives]

 

First off, any QB the team would have drafted the last 15 years would have been beaten to a pulp, and rendered useless after a few years. Case in point JP Losman, Trent Edwards.

No question in my mind that the morons coaching the Bills over the last 15 season were more useless then any QB they could have drafted or obtained in free agency. Fitz could get the ball out usually in under 2 seconds and he was still hit way more then he should have been!

 

 

Now that the Bills finally have a decent HC, OC, O line coach, along with some top players things could be drastically different for any rookie / young QB. Although I'm not so sure about the QB coach looking back at how Geno Smith performed last season, and what the guy did with Fitz when he was here before. I'm also not to keen on the starting right side of that line with a rookie at RG, and a still developing RT.

 

Cassel could be the right guy to manage the offense and not make mistakes in turning the ball over, and a lot will depend on how well that line blocks for the statuesque QB. We will see on Friday.

I have no faith in TT in that he will become anything other then a turnover machine. JMO

 

 

EJ being on Doug Maroon's staff, and he was being tutored by a moron who didn't know how to do his own job much less help a first year QB develop. EJ still needs time to develop properly, and should the Bills have that power run game working like it did in SF then I can see EJ eventually maturing into a decent starter. It makes no sense to me to give up on a QB with only 14 starts when the guy has a winning record when the team actually ran the ball, and the QB wasn't being asked to throw 40+ times a game. JMO

 

 

Why do you have so much patience when it comes to EJ but have already thrown in the towel on Tyrod Taylor? You mention EJ's 14 starts, yet I believe Taylor has 0 starts. And by every account, Taylor has been much better than Manuel in camp. Not to mention, Taylor was a better college QB than Manuel. And Gary Kubiak desperately wanted Taylor to follow him to Denver. I don't think anyone wants EJ Manuel to follow them anywhere. I just think if Manuel wasn't drafted in the first round, our perceptions of him would be wildly different.

 

And also, guys, enough with the "no quarterback could have possibly been good on the Bills the last 15 years because they were so incredibly incompetent" argument. There are plenty of teams that were completely incompetent UNTIL a good QB came along. Unfortunately the Bills have had bad luck drafting QB's. I'm not even going to blame the Bills' scouting on this one. I liked the Losman pick, Edwards was a steal in the third round and I liked the Manuel pick. It's the chicken and the egg. You are putting way too much onus on everyone except the QB and not nearly enough on the QB himself. If the QB is good, he'll be good anywhere. And as far as not liking the QB coach because he was unable to develop Fitzpatrick in Buffalo? Are you kidding me? Fitzpatrick exceeded every expectation in Buffalo. In fact, he played the best football of his career in Buffalo, refuting your entire argument.

Edited August 13, 2015 by metzelaars_lives

[thebandit27]

And also, guys, enough with the "no quarterback could have possibly been good on the Bills the last 15 years because they were so incredibly incompetent" argument. There are plenty of teams that were completely incompetent UNTIL a good QB came along. Unfortunately the Bills have had bad luck drafting QB's. I'm not even going to blame the Bills' scouting on this one. I liked the Losman pick, Edwards was a steal in the third round and I liked the Manuel pick. It's the chicken and the egg. You are putting way too much onus on everyone except the QB and not nearly enough on the QB himself. If the QB is good, he'll be good anywhere. And as far as not liking the QB coach because he was unable to develop Fitzpatrick in Buffalo? Are you kidding me? Fitzpatrick exceeded every expectation in Buffalo. In fact, he played the best football of his career in Buffalo, refuting your entire argument.

 

^ this

[thewildrabbit]

 

 

It's stunning to realize someone would believe this or think this way...

Its stunning to me that others think differently. But then most NFL fans think its all about the QB.

[thewildrabbit]

Why do you have so much patience when it comes to EJ but have already thrown in the towel on Tyrod Taylor? You mention EJ's 14 starts, yet I believe Taylor has 0 starts. And by every account, Taylor has been much better than Manuel in camp. Not to mention, Taylor was a better college QB than Manuel. And Gary Kubiak desperately wanted Taylor to follow him to Denver. I don't think anyone wants EJ Manuel to follow them anywhere. I just think if Manuel wasn't drafted in the first round, our perceptions of him would be wildly different.

 

And also, guys, enough with the "no quarterback could have possibly been good on the Bills the last 15 years because they were so incredibly incompetent" argument. There are plenty of teams that were completely incompetent UNTIL a good QB came along. Unfortunately the Bills have had bad luck drafting QB's. I'm not even going to blame the Bills' scouting on this one. I liked the Losman pick, Edwards was a steal in the third round and I liked the Manuel pick. It's the chicken and the egg. You are putting way too much onus on everyone except the QB and not nearly enough on the QB himself. If the QB is good, he'll be good anywhere. And as far as not liking the QB coach because he was unable to develop Fitzpatrick in Buffalo? Are you kidding me? Fitzpatrick exceeded every expectation in Buffalo. In fact, he played the best football of his career in Buffalo, refuting your entire argument.

The Bills have had lots of bad coaches, bad talent evaluation which resulted in a lot of losing seasons over the last 15 years. If you don't believe that fact then don't even bother reading any further.

 

 

Why do I have patience with EJ? Mostly because many highly respected draft analysts graded the kid a late first round pick and stated that EJ needed a redshirt year. He needed to go to a decent team to sit behind a decent veteran QB and learn the NFL ropes. He did not get that at all his first season, and was instead thrown into the fire. No QB coach, and no vet QB on the roster!!! Was he supposed to learn his role as an NFL QB by osmosis from the opponents QB?

 

The coaching staff under Doug Marroon was bad, and most everyone now concludes he was a very bad offensive coach. The real reason for any success last year was the defense, and the vet QB. Doug Maroon with a rookie GM let a decent OG walk and tried to replace him with utter garbage in Colin Brown (outright cut after 6 games), and Doug Legursky cut after the season. This with 3 young QB's on the roster, unbelievably moronic!!

 

 

To me, the coaches / coaching is the most important part of building a great team. Bad coaches will lose more games then having great players. Example? Go back to Bills DC's George Edwards / Dave Wannstedt, and Bills fans knew there was better talent then the defensive record was showing, as 9 of the 11 starters on defense were either a first or second round draft pick. Even DC Mike Pettine improved the defense enough to show that. But it wasn't until a really good DC / ex HC in Schwartz took over that the defense that it showed up by becoming the #4 overall defense in the NFL last year.

 

 

Chicken or egg? QB Drew Bledsoe was a former #1 overall pick at QB, and would tear bad teams (with not much of a pass rush) to shreds. The Bills acquired Bledsoe then they tried to upgrade the O line by drafting LT Mike D Willams, and since that pick didn't turn out well they basically gave up on building an elite line. (GM / president Tom Donahoe probably fired for this and other bad moves) In 2002 Bledsoe threw for 4,359 yards with 24 TD's, 15 INT's. On offense the Bills were 11th overall that year, and went 8-8.

 

The very next year in 2003 the Bills didn't protect the QB very well and the result was a 6-10 finish with the offense ending up at 30th. HC Gregg Williams was fired and replaced by Mike Mularkey. The new HC changed the offense and had the Bills running more then throwing, and the result was a 9-7 finish with an improved offense.

 

Bottom line: instead of building a top O line to protect the QB the Bills FO & Mularkey wanted Bledsoe to get the ball out quicker, and when the older QB couldn't change his ways they opted for a rookie QB. A player who they managed to ruin behind bad lines. (Trent Edwards left the Bills with at least 5 severe concussions that I'm aware of.)

 

 

The NFL is littered with great prospects at QB who go to bad teams and get beaten down, and ruined. In my view it wasn't that they all sucked from the start.

 

Chicken or egg? Look at Steve Young at Tampa Bay. Drafted @ #1 overall in the supplemental draft. A HoF QB who played like crap on a bad team going 1-4 his first year, and 2-12 his second with 11 TD's & 21 INT's while completing fewer then 55% of his passes. The Bucs deemed Steve Young a bust! Then the Buc's opted to draft Vinnie Testaverde #1 overall, and then basically went on to ruin him.

[machine gun kelly]

I agree a possible good QB on a bad team can kill his hopes. I always thought if the older brother Carr went somewhere else besides Houston, he could have made it in the NFL. He was so damaged from all of the hits, it ruined him.

 

With EJ though, I watched him in college and don't see it. I hope I'm wrong. He was just never accurate, and does not read defenses well.

[thewildrabbit]

And as far as not liking the QB coach because he was unable to develop Fitzpatrick in Buffalo? Are you kidding me? Fitzpatrick exceeded every expectation in Buffalo. In fact, he played the best football of his career in Buffalo, refuting your entire argument.

Actually Fitz luckily fell into Gailey's lap, as that moron chose Trent Edwards over Fitz initially.

 

That first year in 2010 the Bills started the season 0-8, and ended up 4-12. Fitz was literally running for his life for those first few games behind a bad line with new RT Cornell Green. A guy who was benched and cut after 6 games. Replaced with off the street waiver wire players in Pears, and Urbik was also picked up. Good thing because the starting center in Hangartner played 12 games, and Wood was moved to center, and Urbik took over at OG.

 

That week four Jets game Fitz was the leading rusher with 7 rushes for 74 yards...literally...running...for...his...life!!

 

Fitz was a result of Chan Gailey building the offense around what Fitz did best, and that was he was able to read a defense, set the O line, and get the ball out in usually under 2.0 seconds. A quick, short passing game throwing mostly to one WR in Stevie Johnson. The Bills also had WR Lee Evans but it was Johnson always getting open that helped make that quick strike offense work.

 

Gailey wasn't and isn't a QB guru, as it was all Fitz eventually developing into a decent backup journeyman QB.

 

Opposing defenses soon realized Fitz's limitations with his arm strength / deep accuracy, and the Bills never finished better then 6-10 under Gailey. Lets face facts here, if Fitz were that good he would still be the starting QB for the Buffalo Bills.

[thebandit27]

To me, the coaches / coaching is the most important part of building a great team. Bad coaches will lose more games then having great players. Example? Go back to Bills DC's George Edwards / Dave Wannstedt, and Bills fans knew there was better talent then the defensive record was showing, as 9 of the 11 starters on defense were either a first or second round draft pick. Even DC Mike Pettine improved the defense enough to show that. But it wasn't until a really good DC / ex HC in Schwartz took over that the defense that it showed up by becoming the #4 overall defense in the NFL last year.

 

 

 

Gailey wasn't and isn't a QB guru, as it was all Fitz eventually developing into a decent backup journeyman QB.

 

 

I'm not even sure you know what you're saying on this topic anymore.

 

Apparently, bad coaches hold back good QBs, but bad coaches don't stop decent backup QBs from becoming productive.

 

Also, bad OLs ruin QBs, but bad OLs don't stop decent backup QBs from becoming productive.

Edited August 14, 2015 by thebandit27

[BarleyNY]

http://www.tomahawknation.com/2013/4/25/4264734/nfl-draft-2013-ej-manuel-next-level-florida-state

 

The above is a pre-draft article about EJ that I remember reading in the lead up to the 2013 draft. It's a good read and what's said seems spot on thus far in his NFL career.

[Canadian Bills Fan]

http://www.tomahawknation.com/2013/4/25/4264734/nfl-draft-2013-ej-manuel-next-level-florida-state

 

The above is a pre-draft article about EJ that I remember reading in the lead up to the 2013 draft. It's a good read and what's said seems spot on thus far in his NFL career.

 

 

Wow that is really spot on

 

 

 

CBF

[thewildrabbit]

I agree a possible good QB on a bad team can kill his hopes. I always thought if the older brother Carr went somewhere else besides Houston, he could have made it in the NFL. He was so damaged from all of the hits, it ruined him.

 

With EJ though, I watched him in college and don't see it. I hope I'm wrong. He was just never accurate, and does not read defenses well.

I've seen enough of EJ in a ball control offense to know he could develop into a decent starter if he isn't rushed into an all out throwing scheme like Hackett tried after week two last year.

 

The Bills ran the ball successfully against Chicago 33 rushes for 193 yards vs 16 of 22 passes for 173 1 TD, 1 INT. result win 23-20

 

The Bills ran the ball against Miami 33 times for 113 yards vs 16 of 26 passes for 202 yards, and 1 TD. result win 29-10

 

Then inexplicably against the Chargers the Bills rush 22 times for 87 yards, and ask EJ to throw 40 times result loss 10-22. A complete reversal of what was helping the team win the first two games.

 

Against the Texans it was 23 rushes for 96 yards vs 44 passes. About the only thing the Texans had going for them was a great rush by JJ Watt, and the Buffalo coaches stupidly forced EJ right into the Houston strength!!

 

Then after benching EJ the coaches went with a basic all out passing scheme asking the QB to carry the offense by himself. Kyle Orton managed to go 7-5 last year despite the bad play calling, offensive scheme.

 

 

Bottom line: I feel EJ can still be a decent starter in a ball control offense with a limited passing scheme if he isn't asked to carry the entire offense on his shoulders. Lets not forget that this kid played his entire college career in a one read simplistic offense. He needs to develop at a slow pace by adding one or two plays a game, and not by throwing the entire passing offensive playbook at him all at once like the last coaching staff did after week two.JMO

[Hapless Bills Fan]

http://www.tomahawknation.com/2013/4/25/4264734/nfl-draft-2013-ej-manuel-next-level-florida-state

 

The above is a pre-draft article about EJ that I remember reading in the lead up to the 2013 draft. It's a good read and what's said seems spot on thus far in his NFL career.

 

 

Wow that is really spot on

CBF

 

It's interesting, but one aspect of it concerns me with regard to accuracy: both guys say they don't know Manuel personally. Both guys comment on his "fragile psyche" and inability to take hard coaching.

 

So.....if they don't know Manuel personally and they aren't part of the team, they know this about Manuel....how?

 

Always be suspicious when people who don't know a guy start spluttering psychobabble

Edited August 14, 2015 by Hopeful

[ko12010]

I've seen enough of EJ in a ball control offense to know he could develop into a decent starter if he isn't rushed into an all out throwing scheme like Hackett tried after week two last year.

 

The Bills ran the ball successfully against Chicago 33 rushes for 193 yards vs 16 of 22 passes for 173 1 TD, 1 INT. result win 23-20

 

The Bills ran the ball against Miami 33 times for 113 yards vs 16 of 26 passes for 202 yards, and 1 TD. result win 29-10

 

Then inexplicably against the Chargers the Bills rush 22 times for 87 yards, and ask EJ to throw 40 times result loss 10-22. A complete reversal of what was helping the team win the first two games.

 

Against the Texans it was 23 rushes for 96 yards vs 44 passes. About the only thing the Texans had going for them was a great rush by JJ Watt, and the Buffalo coaches stupidly forced EJ right into the Houston strength!!

 

Then after benching EJ the coaches went with a basic all out passing scheme asking the QB to carry the offense by himself. Kyle Orton managed to go 7-5 last year despite the bad play calling, offensive scheme.

 

 

Bottom line: I feel EJ can still be a decent starter in a ball control offense with a limited passing scheme if he isn't asked to carry the entire offense on his shoulders. Lets not forget that this kid played his entire college career in a one read simplistic offense. He needs to develop at a slow pace by adding one or two plays a game, and not by throwing the entire passing offensive playbook at him all at once like the last coaching staff did after week two.JMO

All of this makes sense, but I wouldn't put so much effort into responding to some of the people here because it's falling on deaf ears. They have their minds made up and don't want to listen to reason.

[thewildrabbit]

All of this makes sense, but I wouldn't put so much effort into responding to some of the people here because it's falling on deaf ears. They have their minds made up and don't want to listen to reason.

Thanks! and am glad somebody gets it.

[thebandit27]

All of this makes sense, but I wouldn't put so much effort into responding to some of the people here because it's falling on deaf ears. They have their minds made up and don't want to listen to reason.

 

Was EJ mismanaged? Absolutely.

 

That fact is entirely mutually-exclusive from whether or not he can pilot this offense to a winning season.

 

...and keep in mind this is coming from a guy that's been an EJ supporter.

[HankBulloughMellencamp]

http://www.tomahawknation.com/2013/4/25/4264734/nfl-draft-2013-ej-manuel-next-level-florida-state

 

The above is a pre-draft article about EJ that I remember reading in the lead up to the 2013 draft. It's a good read and what's said seems spot on thus far in his NFL career.

 

Thanks for posting ... I first read this after EJs injury-riddled rookie year. I then curled up into the fetal position, and cried like Nancy Kerrigan.

 

I get it, EJ apologists/hopefuls ... we desperately want a franchise QB for our team, and picked this guy in the 1st round. And he's such a hard-working nice guy. But, just as we came to realize with JP, Trent, and others, EJ just doesn't have what it takes to be an NFL starter and leader of men. We must move on from him.

 

In fact, it does not even look like EJ is a lock to make Rex's team at this point. Wishing and hoping that he somehow magically develops into a consistent, winning force is pure fools gold at this point.

 

And he just can't be entrusted with a team this talented. Rex is no dummy, and I am certain he will roll the dice with Tyrod or hedge his bets with Cassel ... either is a smarter choice than trying to salvage an underwhelming enigma like EJ.

Edited August 14, 2015 by HankBulloughMellencamp

[BarleyNY]

Thanks for posting ... I first read this after EJs injury-riddled rookie year. I then curled up into the fetal position, and cried like Nancy Kerrigan.

 

I get it, EJ apologists/hopefuls ... we desperately want a franchise QB for our team, and picked this guy in the 1st round. And he's such a hard-working nice guy. But, just as we came to realize with JP, Trent, and others, EJ just doesn't have what it takes to be an NFL starter and leader of men. We must move on from him.

In fact, it does not even look like EJ is a lock to make Rex's team at this point. Wishing and hoping that he somehow magically develops into a consistent, winning force is pure fools gold at this point.

 

And he just can't be entrusted with a team this talented.

I agree. You want a good, likable guy like EJ to succeed and be the face of your franchise. He's easy to root for, but at the end of the day he doesn't seem to have what's needed to be a good QB. It's a shame.

[GG]

I've seen enough of EJ in a ball control offense to know he could develop into a decent starter if he isn't rushed into an all out throwing scheme like Hackett tried after week two last year.

 

The Bills ran the ball successfully against Chicago 33 rushes for 193 yards vs 16 of 22 passes for 173 1 TD, 1 INT. result win 23-20

 

The Bills ran the ball against Miami 33 times for 113 yards vs 16 of 26 passes for 202 yards, and 1 TD. result win 29-10

 

Then inexplicably against the Chargers the Bills rush 22 times for 87 yards, and ask EJ to throw 40 times result loss 10-22. A complete reversal of what was helping the team win the first two games.

 

Against the Texans it was 23 rushes for 96 yards vs 44 passes. About the only thing the Texans had going for them was a great rush by JJ Watt, and the Buffalo coaches stupidly forced EJ right into the Houston strength!!

 

Then after benching EJ the coaches went with a basic all out passing scheme asking the QB to carry the offense by himself. Kyle Orton managed to go 7-5 last year despite the bad play calling, offensive scheme.

 

 

Bottom line: I feel EJ can still be a decent starter in a ball control offense with a limited passing scheme if he isn't asked to carry the entire offense on his shoulders. Lets not forget that this kid played his entire college career in a one read simplistic offense. He needs to develop at a slow pace by adding one or two plays a game, and not by throwing the entire passing offensive playbook at him all at once like the last coaching staff did after week two.JMO

 

Would you consider for a second that Pagano looked at the film of the first two games, and noticed the obvious, and then Crennel dusted off the same tape, and the Bills QB couldn't adapt?

 

This is exactly what's going to happen this year. For all the talk about Bills being a run first team, the opponents will look to stop Shady first. Listen to Roman's interviews, he realizes that. That's why he said he wants to see how his QBs react to a play that needs to be changed or can the QB spot a situation where a play needs to be changed.

 

EJ couldn't do it last year, and that's the biggest question facing him this year.

[MDH]

 

Would you consider for a second that Pagano looked at the film of the first two games, and noticed the obvious, and then Crennel dusted off the same tape, and the Bills QB couldn't adapt?

 

This is exactly what's going to happen this year. For all the talk about Bills being a run first team, the opponents will look to stop Shady first. Listen to Roman's interviews, he realizes that. That's why he said he wants to see how his QBs react to a play that needs to be changed or can the QB spot a situation where a play needs to be changed.

 

EJ couldn't do it last year, and that's the biggest question facing him this year.

 

My main question is does Cassel have the down field ability to make them back off? A team that wants to run the ball can't have 8-9 guys crowding the LoS. This is what led me to believe it would be Tyrod or EJ.

 

Top it off with the fact that Cassel - despite being a vet - hasn't been known to be a "protector of the ball" during most of his career and I'm not sure what he actually brings to the table as a QB of this offense. If he doesn't make the big play to get the D to back off and doesn't protect the ball how is he helping a run first offense?

 

If EJ really is on the outside looking in of the QB competition it would seem like Tyrod would be the guy best suited to run this offense.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

And also, guys, enough with the "no quarterback could have possibly been good on the Bills the last 15 years because they were so incredibly incompetent" argument. There are plenty of teams that were completely incompetent UNTIL a good QB came along. Unfortunately the Bills have had bad luck drafting QB's. I'm not even going to blame the Bills' scouting on this one. I liked the Losman pick, Edwards was a steal in the third round and I liked the Manuel pick. It's the chicken and the egg. You are putting way too much onus on everyone except the QB and not nearly enough on the QB himself. If the QB is good, he'll be good anywhere. And as far as not liking the QB coach because he was unable to develop Fitzpatrick in Buffalo? Are you kidding me? Fitzpatrick exceeded every expectation in Buffalo. In fact, he played the best football of his career in Buffalo, refuting your entire argument.

 

 

^ this

 

I don't really want to get into the whole "EJ good/EJ sucks/No QB could have been good here" thing. But I would like to infuse a few thought questions and facts:

1) if it's true "if the QB is good, he'll be good anywhere" is true (with the implication that coaching, D, and the rest of the O don't matter too much)

-why do the Lions have a 32-32 w-l record since drafting Stafford? Do you feel he's no good? Would you be unhappy if we had him (relative to our current QB sitch)?

-why did the Rams have a 16-32 w-l record in their first 3 years with Bradford (when he was healthy)? Do you feel he's no good? Would you be unhappy if we had him?

-why have the Giants not sniffed playoffs since 2011 (SB) with Eli Manning at the helm? Do you feel he's no good? Would you be unhappy if we had him?

-why have the Falcons not sniffed playoffs the last 2 seasons with Matt Ryan at the helm? Do you feel he's no good? Would you be unhappy if we had him?

 

My personal take, FWIW, is that there are a handful of great QB who would be great and carry a team anywhere they go - Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, probably Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady. But a "good" QB? Pffffft. Good QB need good coaching and a good team around them or they can look remarkably like dog-doo. With a different coach, in a different system, I think Trent and Losman just might have developed into decent NFL starters. Not Tom Brady, but certainly Cutler (prior to last year) or Ryan, possibly Eli.

 

2) it's in fact not true that Fitzpatrick played the best football of his career in Buffalo. By every metric except passing yardage (a stat not correlated to winning games), he played the best football of his life last year in Houston (YPA, A/YA, # INTs, TD/INT ratio, completion %, #turnovers, QBR, rating) - in a run-first, run-heavy system. So if you're counting on that "fact" to refute FTL whole argument, Bzzzzzzt.

3) it's also a fact that Fitzpatrick appeared to regress somewhat under David Lee in 2012 (lower completion percentage, lower passing yardage, lower QBR) or certainly not progress (same Y/A). Whether that's on David Lee or some other factor, I can't tell you, but it appears somewhat specious to link any "exceeding expectations" to David Lee as Fitz had certainly a better first half of the season, the previous year before Lee got there.

Edited August 14, 2015 by Hopeful

[thebandit27]

I'll do my best to answer...

 

In general, a QB playing well and the team winning are not always a direct relationship. A QB can play well and the team can still lose; although QB is the most important position, the overall team quality remains the ultimate determining factor. My agreement regarding Metz's post is that a good QB will play well in spite of bad coaching or OL play (etc.)

 

For more detailed responses, see below...

 

 

 

 

I don't really want to get into the whole "EJ good/EJ sucks/No QB could have been good here" thing. But I would like to infuse a few thought questions and facts:

1) if it's true "if the QB is good, he'll be good anywhere" is true (with the implication that coaching, D, and the rest of the O don't matter too much)

-why do the Lions have a 32-32 w-l record since drafting Stafford? Do you feel he's no good? Would you be unhappy if we had him (relative to our current QB sitch)? Yes I think Stafford is good, and I think he looked the part from day 1.

-why did the Rams have a 16-32 w-l record in their first 3 years with Bradford (when he was healthy)? Do you feel he's no good? Would you be unhappy if we had him? I do like Bradford, and feel he's exceeded expectations playing behind a lousy OL and alongside generally underwhelming WR options

-why have the Giants not sniffed playoffs since 2011 (SB) with Eli Manning at the helm? Do you feel he's no good? Would you be unhappy if we had him? Mostly because of a regression defenisvely. Eli has been inconsistent, but I'd take him any day of the week. Even at Eli's worst, the Giants remain competitive in a tough division.

-why have the Falcons not sniffed playoffs the last 2 seasons with Matt Ryan at the helm? Do you feel he's no good? Would you be unhappy if we had him? Again, it's a team game. I'm talking about the QB being a player that doesn't hold the team back. IMO, a franchise guy is a guy that a team can win with provided that no glaring deficiencies exist. I think Ryan is one of those guys.

 

My personal take, FWIW, is that there are a handful of great QB who would be great and carry a team anywhere they go - Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, probably Aaron Rodgers and Tom Brady. But a "good" QB? Pffffft. Good QB need good coaching and a good team around them or they can look remarkably like dog-doo. With a different coach, in a different system, I think Trent and Losman just might have developed into decent NFL starters. Not Tom Brady, but certainly Cutler (prior to last year) or Ryan, possibly Eli.

 

I don't think you'll see many examples of franchise QBs looking like "dog-doo" in any circumstances. Sure, some of them have bad games, but on the whole, even guys like Flacco and Alex Smith look the part the vast majority of the time.

 

2) it's in fact not true that Fitzpatrick played the best football of his career in Buffalo. By every metric except passing yardage (a stat not correlated to winning games), he played the best football of his life last year in Houston (YPA, A/YA, # INTs, TD/INT ratio, completion %, #turnovers, QBR, rating) - in a run-first, run-heavy system. So if you're counting on that "fact" to refute FTL whole argument, Bzzzzzzt. The general point is that the offense suddenly went from useless under Edwards to competent under Fitz. The sacks per game dropped by 1.5, and the passing game all of a sudden emerged. Fear himself points out that his had nothing to do with coaching, just Fitz. The fact that he previously stated that coaching is the biggest determining factor in a QB's success sort of belies reason.

3) it's also a fact that Fitzpatrick appeared to regress somewhat under David Lee in 2012 (lower completion percentage, lower passing yardage, lower QBR) or certainly not progress (same Y/A). Whether that's on David Lee or some other factor, I can't tell you, but it appears somewhat specious to link any "exceeding expectations" to David Lee as Fitz had certainly a better first half of the season, the previous year before Lee got there. My opinion is that Fitz regressed for the same reason most QBs regress: teams get enough game tape of a QB in a system to know what he likes to do, and then systematically deny him the ability to do that. When he cannot adapt and hurt them in other ways, his ability to be effective takes a drastic hit. That's Fitz, and it's been the same for him every place he's played.

[GG]

 

My main question is does Cassel have the down field ability to make them back off? A team that wants to run the ball can't have 8-9 guys crowding the LoS. This is what led me to believe it would be Tyrod or EJ.

 

Top it off with the fact that Cassel - despite being a vet - hasn't been known to be a "protector of the ball" during most of his career and I'm not sure what he actually brings to the table as a QB of this offense. If he doesn't make the big play to get the D to back off and doesn't protect the ball how is he helping a run first offense?

 

If EJ really is on the outside looking in of the QB competition it would seem like Tyrod would be the guy best suited to run this offense.

 

Many points in there.

 

I don't think that Roman is designing an offense that will be as simplistic as throwing deep bombs to Sammy or Harvin. I think a lot will involve pre snap reads to call out of a play into a different play in the same formation. That's apparently what they've been running in camp. I think this is where their concern is with EJ that he's still processing the plays & formations too slowly.

 

Yes, I imagine TT is their preferred guy to start, but Cassel's experience probably puts him in the lead in running Roman's designs. I wouldn't be surprised if Cassell starts, but Tyrod supplants him at some point.

[Kelly the Dog]

What is missing in most all or all of this chatter is that all three of them can make good passes. When people say EJ can't throw they act as if he would be 0-25 in a regular season game, or Cassell can never complete a long ball or TT can't do this or that. The fact is they can all play well enough to win in the right situation but a lot of things have to happen along with it.

 

That doesn't mean 15-25 other QBs wouldn't perform better than any of these jokers in the same situation - but with good coaching on offense, which I truly believe we have, a decent OL which I hope we have but don't know, and with a crazy ass set of skill guys, any one of these three will be able to put up some points, and maybe a decent amount of points and enough to win 11-12 games. They don't miss every pass, you're talking about three a game.

 

Granted, those three a game on a team like we had last year could very well be the difference between winning and losing.

 

But with far better coaching, a better OL and far, far better skill players, these QBs do not have to be great or even in the top 15. And each of them has the ability to be decent enough. They don't miss every pass. They miss one out of ten more than they should. And they miss guys in stride who could get more YAC if they were hit in stride. On poor teams that can kill you because you need every play you can get.

 

People are underestimating our skill players. All we need is very average QBing.

[dave mcbride]

 

Many points in there.

 

I don't think that Roman is designing an offense that will be as simplistic as throwing deep bombs to Sammy or Harvin. I think a lot will involve pre snap reads to call out of a play into a different play in the same formation. That's apparently what they've been running in camp. I think this is where their concern is with EJ that he's still processing the plays & formations too slowly.

 

Yes, I imagine TT is their preferred guy to start, but Cassel's experience probably puts him in the lead in running Roman's designs. I wouldn't be surprised if Cassell starts, but Tyrod supplants him at some point.

Agreed. I get the sense that more than anything else, Roman wants a quick pre-snap information processor given the relative complexity and newness of the offense. He knows that this team needs to win now.

What is missing in most all or all of this chatter is that all three of them can make good passes. When people say EJ can't throw they act as if he would be 0-25 in a regular season game, or Cassell can never complete a long ball or TT can't do this or that. The fact is they can all play well enough to win in the right situation but a lot of things have to happen along with it.

 

That doesn't mean 15-25 other QBs wouldn't perform better than any of these jokers in the same situation - but with good coaching on offense, which I truly believe we have, a decent OL which I hope we have but don't know, and with a crazy ass set of skill guys, any one of these three will be able to put up some points, and maybe a decent amount of points and enough to win 11-12 games. They don't miss every pass, you're talking about three a game.

 

Granted, those three a game on a team like we had last year could very well be the difference between winning and losing.

 

But with far better coaching, a better OL and far, far better skill players, these QBs do not have to be great or even in the top 15. And each of them has the ability to be decent enough. They don't miss every pass. They miss one out of ten more than they should. And they miss guys in stride who could get more YAC if they were hit in stride. On poor teams that can kill you because you need every play you can get.

 

People are underestimating our skill players. All we need is very average QBing.

Agreed, but that makes me think that the deciding factor will be which guy can best run what will be a relatively complex offense. A failure to run it adequately will maximize the potential for mistakes, and they want a relatively mistake-free offense above all else. They plan to win with D and mistake-free offense that can get 17-24 points in a game. I have to think Cassel is that guy at this point.

[Kelly the Dog]

Agreed. I get the sense that more than anything else, Roman wants a quick pre-snap information processor given the relative complexity and newness of the offense. He knows that this team needs to win now.

 

Yep. And Cassell is the best guy for that right now. It's possible he craps the bed but he should easily do enough well to win the job they are asking him to do. It's really interesting to listen to Roman talk. I love that guy.

[dave mcbride]

Yep. And Cassell is the best guy for that right now. It's possible he craps the bed but he should easily do enough well to win the job they are asking him to do. It's really interesting to listen to Roman talk. I love that guy.

He's a GREAT hire. I thought SF's offense under him was really fun to watch. Fantastic running game. I'm also very optimistic about the guards on this team. Say what you will about Incognito, but he's a good player.

[Canadian Bills Fan]

He's a GREAT hire. I thought SF's offense under him was really fun to watch. Fantastic running game. I'm also very optimistic about the guards on this team. Say what you will about Incognito, but he's a good player.

 

 

Agreed 100%

 

 

 

CBF

[Kelly the Dog]

He's a GREAT hire. I thought SF's offense under him was really fun to watch. Fantastic running game. I'm also very optimistic about the guards on this team. Say what you will about Incognito, but he's a good player.

It's going to drive me crazy when fans are going to complain we way overpaid for Clay because he doesn't put up Jimmy Graham numbers but he's going to be awesome in this offense, moving around, blocking, causing mismatches, opening up the run and pass game for every other skill position. He's going to be one of the MVPs even if he catches 50 balls and 4 TDs.

[MDH]

Many points in there.

 

I don't think that Roman is designing an offense that will be as simplistic as throwing deep bombs to Sammy or Harvin. I think a lot will involve pre snap reads to call out of a play into a different play in the same formation. That's apparently what they've been running in camp. I think this is where their concern is with EJ that he's still processing the plays & formations too slowly.

 

Yes, I imagine TT is their preferred guy to start, but Cassel's experience probably puts him in the lead in running Roman's designs. I wouldn't be surprised if Cassell starts, but Tyrod supplants him at some point.

I wasnt suggesting that its as simple as chucking up a long ball, im talking aout his abilities in general. His long balls tend to float. Once the wind comes swirling off the lake in November Cassel becomes more of a liabiltiy than he is now. If he countered this with amazing accuracy in his short game the lack of the long ball would be mitigated. Yet, hes not that accurate and has proven throughout his career to make bad decisions with the ball that result in turnovers.

 

Without the long ball your short range accuracy needs to be on par with Brady or Rivers because there are so many guys near the LoS there isnt room for mistakes. This is compounded even further when your O plans to run the ball nearly 50% of the time. You cant run the ball with any consistency with 8-9 guys in the box. You have to make them change formations and personnel. You do that by making plays downfield.

 

As you mentioned Romans offense relies heavily on pre-snap reads. That, to me, is a blessing for a young QB. He doesnt have to be relied on to consistently make difficult reads post snap. Get the guys out of the huddle in time and the young signal caller has an eternity to figure out the read. Granted, again, its not as simple as that as there will always be post snap reads but the reliance of pre-snap reads effectively cuts the field in half which makes the post snap read infinitely easier.

 

Top it off with an offense that utilizes a lot of pre-snap movement and the pre-snap reads become even easier as the D is often forced to show their hand.

 

Nothing that Ive seen out of a Roman offense suggests that a vet signal caller, with limited arm strength, mobilty and a penchent for turnovers is the right choice. His offense is tailor made for a young, strong armed, athletic guy who doesn't need to have the pressure of the entire offense on his shoulders.

 

Sorry for the long post.

[dave mcbride]

I wasnt suggesting that its as simple as chucking up a long ball, im talking aout his abilities in general. His long balls tend to float. Once the wind comes swirling off the lake in November Cassel becomes more of a liabiltiy than he is now. If he countered this with amazing accuracy in his short game the lack of the long ball would be mitigated. Yet, hes not that accurate and has proven throughout his career to make bad decisions with the ball that result in turnovers.

 

Without the long ball your short range accuracy needs to be on par with Brady or Rivers because there are so many guys near the LoS there isnt room for mistakes. This is compounded even further when your O plans to run the ball nearly 50% of the time. You cant run the ball with any consistency with 8-9 guys in the box. You have to make them change formations and personnel. You do that by making plays downfield.

 

As you mentioned Romans offense relies heavily on pre-snap reads. That, to me, is a blessing for a young QB. He doesnt have to be relied on to consistently make difficult reads post snap. Get the guys out of the huddle in time and the young signal caller has an eternity to figure out the read. Granted, again, its not as simple as that as there will always be post snap reads but the reliance of pre-snap reads effectively cuts the field in half which makes the post snap read infinitely easier.

 

Top it off with an offense that utilizes a lot of pre-snap movement and the pre-snap reads become even easier as the D is often forced to show their hand.

 

Nothing that Ive seen out of a Roman offense suggests that a vet signal caller, with limited arm strength, mobilty and a penchent for turnovers is the right choice. His offense is tailor made for a young, strong armed, athletic guy who doesn't need to have the pressure of the entire offense on his shoulders.

 

Sorry for the long post.

My one critique of this good post is that I've been hearing for years about all of the bad weather games the Bills will be playing in. It seems to me that they've played in 1-2 bad weather games on average the last few years.

[GG]

I wasnt suggesting that its as simple as chucking up a long ball, im talking aout his abilities in general. His long balls tend to float. Once the wind comes swirling off the lake in November Cassel becomes more of a liabiltiy than he is now. If he countered this with amazing accuracy in his short game the lack of the long ball would be mitigated. Yet, hes not that accurate and has proven throughout his career to make bad decisions with the ball that result in turnovers.

 

Without the long ball your short range accuracy needs to be on par with Brady or Rivers because there are so many guys near the LoS there isnt room for mistakes. This is compounded even further when your O plans to run the ball nearly 50% of the time. You cant run the ball with any consistency with 8-9 guys in the box. You have to make them change formations and personnel. You do that by making plays downfield.

 

As you mentioned Romans offense relies heavily on pre-snap reads. That, to me, is a blessing for a young QB. He doesnt have to be relied on to consistently make difficult reads post snap. Get the guys out of the huddle in time and the young signal caller has an eternity to figure out the read. Granted, again, its not as simple as that as there will always be post snap reads but the reliance of pre-snap reads effectively cuts the field in half which makes the post snap read infinitely easier.

 

Top it off with an offense that utilizes a lot of pre-snap movement and the pre-snap reads become even easier as the D is often forced to show their hand.

 

Nothing that Ive seen out of a Roman offense suggests that a vet signal caller, with limited arm strength, mobilty and a penchent for turnovers is the right choice. His offense is tailor made for a young, strong armed, athletic guy who doesn't need to have the pressure of the entire offense on his shoulders.

 

Sorry for the long post.

 

I can definitely see that, but isn't it a concern if the young QB can't process the read in time between the huddle and the snap?

 

I recall EJ had a good practice where it was pointed out that he did precisely that - called out of a set play and turned it into a TD or a big gain. But I think those instances have been far & few in between, and I don't know if there's going to be enough time left in camp for EJ to get it together and reclaim the top job.

 

Again, Cassel is who he is - Ryan's 3rd or 4th choice, and he still seems better than EJ at this point. After watching a few of the Browns' plays, I see why they went after McCown.

[dave mcbride]

 

I can definitely see that, but isn't it a concern if the young QB can't process the read in time between the huddle and the snap?

 

I recall EJ had a good practice where it was pointed out that he did precisely that - called out of a set play and turned it into a TD or a big gain. But I think those instances have been far & few in between, and I don't know if there's going to be enough time left in camp for EJ to get it together and reclaim the top job.

 

Again, Cassel is who he is - Ryan's 3rd or 4th choice, and he still seems better than EJ at this point. After watching a few of the Browns' plays, I see why they went after McCown.

McCown was definitely their preferred choice.

[Kelly the Dog]

McCown was definitely their preferred choice.

McCown was a FA. They didn't want to pay him that much or give him a multi year deal. When he signed with CLE then they decided to give up a couple of low round draft picks they didn't really want to but were willing to pay him $4m, something they weren't willing to do for McCown. If all things were equal and we didn't care about money or draft picks I think perhaps they would choose Cassell. But I don't know.

[dave mcbride]

McCown was a FA. They didn't want to pay him that much or give him a multi year deal. When he signed with CLE then they decided to give up a couple of low round draft picks they didn't really want to but were willing to pay him $4m, something they weren't willing to do for McCown. If all things were equal and we didn't care about money or draft picks I think perhaps they would choose Cassell. But I don't know.

My sense is that they thought McCown was a better quarterback, especially with Cassel coming off of injury. I think McCown is better, although he's certainly not great.

[Kelly the Dog]

My sense is that they thought McCown was a better quarterback, especially with Cassel coming off of injury. I think McCown is better, although he's certainly not great.

They both are pretty average at best. I never really liked MCCown. Not that I ever liked Cassel either. It's probably a wash. McCown has a better arm. I never really watched McCown when he had his one good season so I can't really make a fair assessment. Every time I do watch him I think he stinks. Ha.

[Wraith]

For more detailed responses, see below...

 

 

Matthew Stafford absolutely sucked at Day 1 (and Day 720-ish).

 

Warning: Actual Data for Making Comparisons

 

The data set linked to is all Quarterbacks, through their first two seasons, from 2005 through the present day, who were good enough that their teams started them 8 or more times (or 25% of the 32 team games). The total list is 52 quarterbacks.

 

There are a variety of quarterback summary statistics to choose from in the table. I advise you to sort the table by one of them and check out the results.Comparing E.J. Manuel to the field, and specifically to Sam Bradford and Matthew Stafford, shows that Manuel has started out his career average/slightly above average while Bradford and especially Stafford were horrendous.

 

Below are the rankings for each of the three (versus the 52 man field) in this order: Completion percentage, QB rating, Yards/Attempt, Adjusted Yards/Attempt (summary metric that factors in interceptions and touchdowns), and Adjusted Net Yards/Attempt (another summary statistic that factors in interceptions, touchdowns, and sacks).

 

Manuel vs. 52 man field: 22nd, 20th, 29th, 24th, 24th (14 games)

Bradford vs. 52 man field: 27th, 31st, 43rd, 35th, 35th (26 games)

Stafford vs. 52 man field: 37th, 43rd, 45th, 46th, 42 (13 games)

 

Check out Matthew Stafford's proximity to J.P. Losman on most of those lists.

Edited August 14, 2015 by Wraith

[thebandit27]

 

Matthew Stafford absolutely sucked at Day 1 (and Day 720-ish).

 

Warning: Actual Data for Making Comparisons

 

The data set linked to is all Quarterbacks, through their first two seasons, from 2005 through the present day, who were good enough that their teams started them 8 or more times (or 25% of the 32 team games). The total list is 52 quarterbacks.

 

There are a variety of quarterback summary statistics to choose from in the table. I advise you to sort the table by one of them and check out the results.Comparing E.J. Manuel to the field, and specifically to Sam Bradford and Matthew Stafford, shows that Manuel has started out his career average/slightly above average while Bradford and especially Stafford were horrendous.

 

Below are the rankings for each of the three (versus the 52 man field) in this order: Completion percentage, QB rating, Yards/Attempt, Adjusted Yards/Attempt (summary metric that factors in interceptions and touchdowns), and Adjusted Net Yards/Attempt (another summary statistic that factors in interceptions, touchdowns, and sacks).

 

Manuel vs. 52 man field: 22nd, 20th, 29th, 24th, 24th (14 games)

Bradford vs. 52 man field: 27th, 31st, 43rd, 35th, 35th (26 games)

Stafford vs. 52 man field: 37th, 43rd, 45th, 46th, 42 (13 games)

 

Check out Matthew Stafford's proximity to J.P. Losman on most of those lists.

 

Thanks for the reference, but I actually know how to look at data sets.

 

I don't think that Stafford "absolutely sucked" day 1, and I further don't think that comparing them on a numbers-only basis tells the whole story. I also think that you're jumping the gun if you're taking me to task for unjustifiably bashing EJ; I've defended him whenever I could reasonably do so throughout his tenure here.

 

What I said about Stafford and Bradford were that they looked the part from day 1. They could make all of the throws, and generally showed the things that you look for in an NFL QB. Notice that I never once said that EJ didn't. In fact, if you've read any of my posts on the subject in the past, you'd know that I've repeatedly said that I thought EJ showed signs of being a competent starter as a rookie (which is the main reason that the team didn't consider bringing in any viable competition for him in 2014).

 

If it is your belief that EJ will eventually develop into a QB worthy of a $17.7M/year contract like Stafford, then so be it. At this point I disagree, though I haven't written him off completely.

 

EDIT: by the way, it looks like your data set is wrong if what you were really looking for is "all Quarterbacks, through their first two seasons, from 2005 through the present day, who were good enough that their teams started them 8 or more times (or 25% of the 32 team games)"...

 

Here's the Real Data Set

Edited August 14, 2015 by thebandit27

[BuffaloHokie13]

 

Matthew Stafford absolutely sucked at Day 1 (and Day 720-ish).

 

Warning: Actual Data for Making Comparisons

 

The data set linked to is all Quarterbacks, through their first two seasons, from 2005 through the present day, who were good enough that their teams started them 8 or more times (or 25% of the 32 team games). The total list is 52 quarterbacks.

 

There are a variety of quarterback summary statistics to choose from in the table. I advise you to sort the table by one of them and check out the results.Comparing E.J. Manuel to the field, and specifically to Sam Bradford and Matthew Stafford, shows that Manuel has started out his career average/slightly above average while Bradford and especially Stafford were horrendous.

 

Below are the rankings for each of the three (versus the 52 man field) in this order: Completion percentage, QB rating, Yards/Attempt, Adjusted Yards/Attempt (summary metric that factors in interceptions and touchdowns), and Adjusted Net Yards/Attempt (another summary statistic that factors in interceptions, touchdowns, and sacks).

 

Manuel vs. 52 man field: 22nd, 20th, 29th, 24th, 24th (14 games)

Bradford vs. 52 man field: 27th, 31st, 43rd, 35th, 35th (26 games)

Stafford vs. 52 man field: 37th, 43rd, 45th, 46th, 42 (13 games)

 

Check out Matthew Stafford's proximity to J.P. Losman on most of those lists.

 

 

RG3: 6th, 5th, 6th, 5th, 6th (28 Games) Also had a knee injury after year 1 and hasn't really recovered to his old form

[hondo in seattle]

http://www.tomahawknation.com/2013/4/25/4264734/nfl-draft-2013-ej-manuel-next-level-florida-state

 

The above is a pre-draft article about EJ that I remember reading in the lead up to the 2013 draft. It's a good read and what's said seems spot on thus far in his NFL career.

Great article.

 

Clearly Marrone/Hackett couldn't correct his flaws. Maybe Greg Roman and his staff can.

[hondo in seattle]

I have no problem with predicting he won't be good. It is the absolute posters that drive me crazy. We could all say every single qb drafted won't amount to a hill of beans and be right 80-90% of the time but to what end? The options on this team are Cassel, TT, and EJ. I am hoping either EJ or TT shows better than Cassel. I want zero parts of Cassel starting because his book has been written. He has proven to be every bit of terrible that posters are PROJECTING EJ to be. Why not wait to find out?

 

I also don't think he has shown little progress. His rookie year stacks up with many good and great qbs.

 

I'm not defensive to EJ. I am defensive of this aura of not rooting for our players. I try to stay away from we when talking about this team because I am not part of it but the Bills are part of me. I root for every single player to do and be their best. I don't need to be early to the he sucks bandwagon.

 

I'm with section122 all the way on this.

 

I want EJ to be good because he's a Buffalo Bill. We pretty much know what MC is as a QB. I'm hoping EJ becomes something more than that.

 

 

Alex Smith had 5 mediocre years in San Francisco from 2005 to 2010. 49er fans started calling him a bust and wanted him replaced. The year before Greg Roman became his OC, Smith had a 82.1 QB rating - the best of his lackluster career thus far.

 

Smith's first year with Roman, he passed for more yards in Roman's run-oriented offense than he ever had before. And his rating jumped up to 90.7. The following year under Roman, Smith's rating rocketed up to 104.1!

 

Why is it so impossible for some to conceive that Roman might help EJ get better just like he did with Smith? I'm not predicting it, but I sure am hoping for it.

 

EJ's career rating is 78.5. Roman improved Smith's rating by 22 points over two years. If he improved EJ's rating this year by 10 points - to 88.5 - it would be awesome. I think it's fair to predict the Bills are going to the playoffs if our starting QB has a 88.5 rating.

 

This is not an unreasonable hope.

Edited August 14, 2015 by hondo in seattle

[FireChan]

 

I'm with section122 all the way on this.

 

I want EJ to be good because he's a Buffalo Bill. We pretty much know what MC is as a QB. I'm hoping EJ becomes something more than that.

 

 

Alex Smith had 5 mediocre years in San Francisco from 2005 to 2010. 49er fans started calling him a bust and wanted him replaced. The year before Greg Roman became his OC, Smith had a 82.1 QB rating - the best of his lackluster career thus far.

 

Smith's first year with Roman, he passed for more yards in Roman's run-oriented offense than he ever had before. And his rating jumped up to 90.7. The following year under Roman, Smith's rating rocketed up to 104.1!

 

Why is it so impossible for some to conceive that Roman might help EJ get better just like he did with Smith? I'm not predicting it, but I sure am hoping for it.

 

EJ's career rating is 78.5. Roman improved Smith's rating by 22 points over two years. If he improved EJ's rating this year by 10 points - to 88.5 - it would be awesome. I think it's fair to predict the Bills are going to the playoffs if our starting QB was a 88.5 rating.

 

This is not an unreasonable hope.

Because EJ hasn't gotten better.