Jump to content


The case for the "Bad Weather" QB.


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#1 ChanOverChin

ChanOverChin

    Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 397 posts

Posted 03 May 2013 - 08:40 AM

It turns out that a big reason why the Bills had such a strong conviction for taking Manuel as early as they did is that besides his strong arm and impressive intangibles they felt like they needed someone who could function well in bad weather.  The bad weather situation played a big part in the overall decision.  After all, the Bills play seven games in Buffalo and often play at other locations such as Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Cincy where the weather can be very bad.  It just so happens that Manuel and his big hands/strong arm worked out for the Bills in very bad weather and when they saw how well he performed that sold them that he would be well suited for playing in Buffalo.

See link to an article on this subject.  As it turns out, the Ravens made the same decision with Joe Flacco.  They traded up in R1 to get him even when all of the experts were saying that it was a big reach.  Several years and a SB win later that decision seems to have worked out pretty well for Flacco and the Ravens.

Link: http://www.cbssports...-deal-for-bills.

#2 kdiggz

kdiggz

    Kiko is my daddy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,202 posts

Posted 03 May 2013 - 09:06 AM

I mentioned that whoever the Bills get needs to be able to play in bad conditions and I got laughed at by people on here.  I questioned whether someone like Barkley coming out of socal and with a weaker arm and no experience in adverse conditions would be able to deal with the cold/wind/rain/snow of wny and the wanna-be experts on this forum said he could figure it out in about 20 min so this was not an issue at all.  Glad to see that the coaches have more common sense than the forum members in here.  Manuel has huge hands to grip the ball and a strong arm and of course the wheels to pull it down and run with it if need be, so I agree that he should do well in the elements and I'm glad to see the coaches and scouts gave this such high consideration as it is a very important aspect when selecting a QB for our team

#3 kickedface

kickedface

    Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 353 posts

Posted 03 May 2013 - 09:11 AM

i agreed with this move. its also the main reason i didn't like barkley. i think jimbo brought it up as well, you don't want someone who can't play in the cold. i like the move and i think that its the best way to assess a player who will be dealing with this a large part of the season.

#4 Rubes

Rubes

    The Doctor of Football...is IN

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,575 posts

Posted 03 May 2013 - 09:16 AM

But this guy says it was a huge reach...

Honestly, I wish everyone would get on the same page and just tell me what I'm supposed to think of the Manuel pick.

#5 26CornerBlitz

26CornerBlitz

    Read The FN Manuel

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,610 posts

Posted 03 May 2013 - 09:18 AM

View PostChanOverChin, on 03 May 2013 - 08:40 AM, said:

It turns out that a big reason why the Bills had such a strong conviction for taking Manuel as early as they did is that besides his strong arm and impressive intangibles they felt like they needed someone who could function well in bad weather.  The bad weather situation played a big part in the overall decision.  After all, the Bills play seven games in Buffalo and often play at other locations such as Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Cincy where the weather can be very bad.  It just so happens that Manuel and his big hands/strong arm worked out for the Bills in very bad weather and when they saw how well he performed that sold them that he would be well suited for playing in Buffalo.

See link to an article on this subject.  As it turns out, the Ravens made the same decision with Joe Flacco.  They traded up in R1 to get him even when all of the experts were saying that it was a big reach.  Several years and a SB win later that decision seems to have worked out pretty well for Flacco and the Ravens.

Link: http://www.cbssports...-deal-for-bills.

Dude, You never seem to search. This article is already linked and has been discussed in a couple of different places on TSW.

Like here: http://forums.twobil...80#entry2801274

and here: http://forums.twobil...00#entry2801695

Edited by 26CornerBlitz, 03 May 2013 - 09:24 AM.


#6 Edwards' Arm

Edwards' Arm

    Mysterious owl

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,736 posts

Posted 03 May 2013 - 09:25 AM

View PostRubes, on 03 May 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:

But this guy says it was a huge reach...

Honestly, I wish everyone would get on the same page and just tell me what I'm supposed to think of the Manuel pick.

The one sentence of that article which jumped out at me was this:

> Why would they take him with the 16th overall pick when most reports, like Scouts Inc., didn't even
> have him as one of the five best quarterbacks in the draft, let alone the first one to be taken?

If true, that's a very serious concern.

#7 BuffaloBill

BuffaloBill

    Get Well Jim K

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,552 posts

Posted 03 May 2013 - 09:54 AM

I am happy that the Bills thought about this.  Time will tell if they made the correct decision.  It was evident that the last several QBs lacked the arm strength to play well in B'lo conditions.  It is a huge factor in several games each year.

View PostRubes, on 03 May 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:

But this guy says it was a huge reach...

Honestly, I wish everyone would get on the same page and just tell me what I'm supposed to think of the Manuel pick.

The dude is writing for the Huntington WV paper....

Not exactly the Mecca of football writers.  However, rumor has it that JW is lusting for the job.

#8 Hopeful

Hopeful

    clearing the swamp

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,272 posts

Posted 04 May 2013 - 10:40 AM

View PostEdwards, on 03 May 2013 - 09:25 AM, said:

The one sentence of that article which jumped out at me was this:

> Why would they take him with the 16th overall pick when most reports, like Scouts Inc., didn't even
> have him as one of the five best quarterbacks in the draft, let alone the first one to be taken?

If true, that's a very serious concern.

Of course a guy writing for the Huntington W Va Herald Dispatch would have an unbiased opinion about the draft strategy that dumped WVU's star down into the 2nd round?

Why is it a very serious concern? Who is behind  "Scouts Inc" and how have they fared, historically, in rating QB.  The article is worth a look in deconstructing previous Scouts Inc ratings.  Some gems (editing indicated by ......):
"What is unforgiveable when you look at this list is some of the names that are highlighted in red. Blaine Gabbert put up gaudy numbers vs bad teams, but in 2 bowl games ....he lost twice and threw 4 INTs vs just 2 TDs. Kaepernick’s performance vs the better teams he faced (Boise State, BYU, etc.) was vastly better than Gabbert’s. Scouts had Gabbert as close to perfect with a score of 96 while Kaepernick is at 81 (27th best). [emphasis theirs]

Mark Sanchez and Brian Brohm are #7 and #9 on the list. At a score of 95 and 93 they are rated better than Flacco (and Cam Newton). Scouts’ own analysis says “Sanchez's deep ball tends to float on occasion… Arm strength is adequate but not great.” ...... I would think that these weaknesses would merit a lot more than 5 points from perfect.

Brian Brohm was in the same draft class as Joe Flacco. He was being evaluated right alongside Joe Flacco. The physical edge that Flacco has over Brohm should have been obvious. ......in road games vs South Florida, West Virginia, and UConn the guy threw 7 INTs vs just 4 TDs. So a weak armed QB ....... is 7 points from being the perfect QB and clearly rated higher than Joe Flacco? I’m not even going to mention that JIMMY F*CKING CLAUSEN has the same rating as Joe Flacco.

Bottom line: if Scouts, Inc were picking stocks instead of QB, their investors would be hurtin'.  So it may be true, AND I can't consider it a serious concern.

The only thing that seems certain are:
1) No one felt there was a QB equivalent to RGIII or Luck in the draft.  The highest viewpoint were draft position like Ponder, maybe Tannehill.
2) Opinions on the QB ranking varied considerably from analyst to analyst. I think that's related to the above - no one there who was considered the "complete package", so it became a question of how the individual analyst weights various flaws.
Some analystsI have a bit more respect for:
Cosell: thought more than 3 QB would go in the 1st round.  Nassib, Smith, not clear on who his #3 guy was.
Mayock: thought 3 QB would go in the 1st round: Smith, EJ Manuel, Barkley

To me what would be a serious concern is that if every draft expert were in agreement and had EJ Manual going late and had him ranked as the 5th or 6th best QB in the draft.  That's simply not the case.  As the NFL link sums it up: "This is a crop of players that inspires a lot of disagreement, and not a lot of consistency" (eg, in the experts' ratings).  Some experts had Manuel in 1st, some in the 2nd, some lower rounds.  Some had Smith, Nassib, and Barkley higher.
So how it turns out is anyone's guess, but I think it's clear it would not have been "a sure thing" to wait for Manuel in the 2nd or later.  He seems to have been higher rated by the more NFL-experienced experts and lower by the "media hype" guys.

Edited by Hopeful, 04 May 2013 - 11:17 AM.


#9 Kelly the Dog

Kelly the Dog

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,974 posts

Posted 04 May 2013 - 10:52 AM

View Postkdiggz, on 03 May 2013 - 09:06 AM, said:

I mentioned that whoever the Bills get needs to be able to play in bad conditions and I got laughed at by people on here.  I questioned whether someone like Barkley coming out of socal and with a weaker arm and no experience in adverse conditions would be able to deal with the cold/wind/rain/snow of wny and the wanna-be experts on this forum said he could figure it out in about 20 min so this was not an issue at all.  Glad to see that the coaches have more common sense than the forum members in here.  Manuel has huge hands to grip the ball and a strong arm and of course the wheels to pull it down and run with it if need be, so I agree that he should do well in the elements and I'm glad to see the coaches and scouts gave this such high consideration as it is a very important aspect when selecting a QB for our team
And Manuel figured it out in 20 minutes. It wasn't that he was so prepared for it and played so many games in it before. He grew up in Florida and played in Florida. The reason he could do it is because he has the big hands and the big arm and that is why they chose him. Barkley couldn't do it IMO because he has the rag arm.

#10 NoSaint

NoSaint

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,312 posts

Posted 04 May 2013 - 10:53 AM

View Postkdiggz, on 03 May 2013 - 09:06 AM, said:

I mentioned that whoever the Bills get needs to be able to play in bad conditions and I got laughed at by people on here.  I questioned whether someone like Barkley coming out of socal and with a weaker arm and no experience in adverse conditions would be able to deal with the cold/wind/rain/snow of wny and the wanna-be experts on this forum said he could figure it out in about 20 min so this was not an issue at all.  Glad to see that the coaches have more common sense than the forum members in here.  Manuel has huge hands to grip the ball and a strong arm and of course the wheels to pull it down and run with it if need be, so I agree that he should do well in the elements and I'm glad to see the coaches and scouts gave this such high consideration as it is a very important aspect when selecting a QB for our team

The reason you got a hard time is that people start putting that over just getting the best qb. Without getting the best qb those cold weather games he might struggle or play well in wont really matter either way.

#11 Lurker

Lurker

    16 pages is NOT enough

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,827 posts

Posted 04 May 2013 - 11:17 AM

View PostRubes, on 03 May 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:

But this guy says it was a huge reach...

Honestly, I wish everyone would get on the same page and just tell me what I'm supposed to think of the Manuel pick.

That kid's not even on the paper's payroll...still, I suppose his 'insights' are about as keen as any of the other 16 pages of folks I've got on ignore here.   :lol:

#12 ChanOverChin

ChanOverChin

    Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 397 posts

Posted 04 May 2013 - 11:41 AM

I think the Bills did well by trading back to #16 and getting the extra picks (which they really needed).  So many of us wanted to see them trade back again (and Nix did say that he had a few offers to do so), but at some point you just can't take that chance.  The Bills knew that there were a handful of teams that needed to draft a QB and anyone of them could have traded up ahead of Buffalo in R1 (if they had traded down again) or in R2 at #41 (if they had not traded down again.  It shows you that the Bills feel very strongly that Manuel is the best QB in the 2013 draft.  They knew what he could do in bad weather and the fact that he's very intelligent, mature, and coachable sealed the deal for them.  When you watch him on tape you see on multi-dimensional he is.  The biggest knock on him is that he does move through his progressions quickly enough.  To me, that's something that he can learn.  In the meantime, calling the type plays where he won't have to do much of that will give him the best chance for success.  This kid is a real weapon.  He can burn you with his arm and he can burn you with his feet.  I still say that when Nix saw what C. Kaepernick could do as a young NFL QB as both a passer and a runner it really opened his eyes, influenced him greatly, and gave him the strong inclination to draft Manuel in R1.  Kaepernick is part of the new wave of NFL QBs (much like RGIII and C. Newton.  EJ Manuel is our C. Kaepernick.

#13 kdiggz

kdiggz

    Kiko is my daddy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,202 posts

Posted 04 May 2013 - 11:58 AM

View PostKelly the Dog, on 04 May 2013 - 10:52 AM, said:


And Manuel figured it out in 20 minutes. It wasn't that he was so prepared for it and played so many games in it before. He grew up in Florida and played in Florida. The reason he could do it is because he has the big hands and the big arm and that is why they chose him. Barkley couldn't do it IMO because he has the rag arm.
Exactly and that was my point. Manuel is a big strong guy with huge hands. I think he will do well in the bad weather.

#14 MoreOffense

MoreOffense

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,715 posts

Posted 04 May 2013 - 12:04 PM

QB, CB, LB, OL....sunshine, rain, snow...doesn't really matter does it? Don't we want our football players big and strong?

#15 Kelly the Dog

Kelly the Dog

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,974 posts

Posted 04 May 2013 - 12:11 PM

View Postkdiggz, on 04 May 2013 - 11:58 AM, said:

Exactly and that was my point. Manuel is a big strong guy with huge hands. I think he will do well in the bad weather.
If I recall, however, weren't you saying that you wanted a guy who already proved he could play in cold weather? I could be wrong.

#16 Edwards' Arm

Edwards' Arm

    Mysterious owl

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,736 posts

Posted 04 May 2013 - 01:08 PM

View PostHopeful, on 04 May 2013 - 10:40 AM, said:

Of course a guy writing for the Huntington W Va Herald Dispatch would have an unbiased opinion about the draft strategy that dumped WVU's star down into the 2nd round?

Why is it a very serious concern? Who is behind  "Scouts Inc" and how have they fared, historically, in rating QB.  The article is worth a look in deconstructing previous Scouts Inc ratings.  Some gems (editing indicated by ......):
"What is unforgiveable when you look at this list is some of the names that are highlighted in red. Blaine Gabbert put up gaudy numbers vs bad teams, but in 2 bowl games ....he lost twice and threw 4 INTs vs just 2 TDs. Kaepernick’s performance vs the better teams he faced (Boise State, BYU, etc.) was vastly better than Gabbert’s. Scouts had Gabbert as close to perfect with a score of 96 while Kaepernick is at 81 (27th best). [emphasis theirs]

Mark Sanchez and Brian Brohm are #7 and #9 on the list. At a score of 95 and 93 they are rated better than Flacco (and Cam Newton). Scouts’ own analysis says “Sanchez's deep ball tends to float on occasion… Arm strength is adequate but not great.” ...... I would think that these weaknesses would merit a lot more than 5 points from perfect.

Brian Brohm was in the same draft class as Joe Flacco. He was being evaluated right alongside Joe Flacco. The physical edge that Flacco has over Brohm should have been obvious. ......in road games vs South Florida, West Virginia, and UConn the guy threw 7 INTs vs just 4 TDs. So a weak armed QB ....... is 7 points from being the perfect QB and clearly rated higher than Joe Flacco? I’m not even going to mention that JIMMY F*CKING CLAUSEN has the same rating as Joe Flacco.

Bottom line: if Scouts, Inc were picking stocks instead of QB, their investors would be hurtin'.  So it may be true, AND I can't consider it a serious concern.

The only thing that seems certain are:
1) No one felt there was a QB equivalent to RGIII or Luck in the draft.  The highest viewpoint were draft position like Ponder, maybe Tannehill.
2) Opinions on the QB ranking varied considerably from analyst to analyst. I think that's related to the above - no one there who was considered the "complete package", so it became a question of how the individual analyst weights various flaws.
Some analystsI have a bit more respect for:
Cosell: thought more than 3 QB would go in the 1st round.  Nassib, Smith, not clear on who his #3 guy was.
Mayock: thought 3 QB would go in the 1st round: Smith, EJ Manuel, Barkley

To me what would be a serious concern is that if every draft expert were in agreement and had EJ Manual going late and had him ranked as the 5th or 6th best QB in the draft.  That's simply not the case.  As the NFL link sums it up: "This is a crop of players that inspires a lot of disagreement, and not a lot of consistency" (eg, in the experts' ratings).  Some experts had Manuel in 1st, some in the 2nd, some lower rounds.  Some had Smith, Nassib, and Barkley higher.
So how it turns out is anyone's guess, but I think it's clear it would not have been "a sure thing" to wait for Manuel in the 2nd or later.  He seems to have been higher rated by the more NFL-experienced experts and lower by the "media hype" guys.

Good post and good links. I agree with you that Scouts Inc. has been wrong before; and could be wrong again.

That said, my impression is that the national consensus is not dictated by Scouts Inc. only. There are two major scouting services--National and Blesto--whose reports inform NFL organizations. Teams learn which players to scout based on being subscribed to one or the other of those services. Evaluations provided by such services serve as a sort of starting point, to be modified by film study and other forms of evaluation.

My understanding is that information flows from those major scouting services to some of the major mock draft sites. If a lot of the mock drafts seem to be echoing each other, it's largely because their initial evaluations often come from one or the other of those two places. (At times modified by input from those creating the mock draft.) If (for example) the vast majority of mock drafts had Barkley rated as a first round talent, it's reasonable to conclude that's how one or both of the major scouting services had him rated as well.

I don't care that much about whether a team like the Bills ignores the opinions of Scouts Inc. But I get nervous when I see them ignoring the consensus established by National and Blesto. They are not better at evaluating talent than those two scouting services. In the past, when they've picked players well above where they appear to have been rated by the major scouting services, they've ended up with guys like Whitner, Troupe, and Graham. (I'm not saying that I have access to National's or Blesto's reports, because I don't. But if the vast majority of mock drafts have player X rated as a second round talent, it's reasonable to conclude that's where the major scouting services have him rated too.)

#17 chris heff

chris heff

    RFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,318 posts

Posted 04 May 2013 - 01:29 PM

View PostKelly the Dog, on 04 May 2013 - 10:52 AM, said:


And Manuel figured it out in 20 minutes. It wasn't that he was so prepared for it and played so many games in it before. He grew up in Florida and played in Florida. The reason he could do it is because he has the big hands and the big arm and that is why they chose him. Barkley couldn't do it IMO because he has the rag arm.
Grew up in Virginia.

#18 Kelly the Dog

Kelly the Dog

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,974 posts

Posted 04 May 2013 - 01:40 PM

View Postchris heff, on 04 May 2013 - 01:29 PM, said:


Grew up in Virginia.
Doh. Oh right. How stupid of me. And it does snow in Virginia Beach at times. Still, I think the point is the same. The Bills said they went back and looked at the qualities of the QBs that had success in inclement weather, and it seemed to be the strong arm and hand size argument versus the did he play in cold weather a lot in college or wherever.

#19 Kelly the Dog

Kelly the Dog

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,974 posts

Posted 04 May 2013 - 01:51 PM

And it snows 4 days a year with 6 inches total. Which is likely no high school football games. ;)

#20 Hopeful

Hopeful

    clearing the swamp

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,272 posts

Posted 04 May 2013 - 01:56 PM

View PostEdwards, on 04 May 2013 - 01:08 PM, said:

Good post and good links. I agree with you that Scouts Inc. has been wrong before; and could be wrong again.

That said, my impression is that the national consensus is not dictated by Scouts Inc. only. There are two major scouting services--National and Blesto--whose reports inform NFL organizations. Teams learn which players to scout based on being subscribed to one or the other of those services. Evaluations provided by such services serve as a sort of starting point, to be modified by film study and other forms of evaluation.

My understanding is that information flows from those major scouting services to some of the major mock draft sites. If a lot of the mock drafts seem to be echoing each other, it's largely because their initial evaluations often come from one or the other of those two places. (At times modified by input from those creating the mock draft.) If (for example) the vast majority of mock drafts had Barkley rated as a first round talent, it's reasonable to conclude that's how one or both of the major scouting services had him rated as well.

I don't care that much about whether a team like the Bills ignores the opinions of Scouts Inc. But I get nervous when I see them ignoring the consensus established by National and Blesto. They are not better at evaluating talent than those two scouting services. In the past, when they've picked players well above where they appear to have been rated by the major scouting services, they've ended up with guys like Whitner, Troupe, and Graham. (I'm not saying that I have access to National's or Blesto's reports, because I don't. But if the vast majority of mock drafts have player X rated as a second round talent, it's reasonable to conclude that's where the major scouting services have him rated too.)

You have some valid points about the Bills "lovin' them some sleepers", drafting guys (esp. smaller school/smaller program guys) several rounds above where the overall consensus had them, and getting skunked on talent.

I think there may be a bit of misunderstanding of the role of BLESTO and National and the quality of the information that leaks, however.  BLESTO and National are both scouting combines to which individual teams subscribe.  The subscriber teams pay a fee and provide a scout, who is usually the most junior, least established scout on the team.  These guys put together profiles of UNDERCLASSMEN which are presented at meetings AFTER THE DRAFT to serve as a starting point for the next year's draft evaluation.  The fundamental purpose as I understand it, is to help the subscribing teams winnow through the thousands of players across the country to help them identify the top 300-400 players for next year's draft evaluation process - the candidates that are "on the radar" to become the 250 players who will be drafted, and who merit further attention from the individual team's top individual scouts and who will be invited to the following year's pre-draft scouting combine event:
"As a tool, the organizations fill a need by presenting a starting point for the twelve month cycle based on information that would be hard to keep secret. General managers are often quoted as saying the medical and interview aspects of the combine event are more important than the times, which at that point are common knowledge."

BLESTO and National, as far as I know, do not put together a final draft evaluation board that can be or should be regarded as more definitive talent evaluation than an individual team's board - which depends entirely on the quality of the individual team's scouts.

It's correct that media pundits draw their information from BLESTO and National lists, public information such as combine times, and "inside information" harvested from their contacts within each team - note that obviously such "inside information" pre-draft can represent either truth or disinformation.

Does it make you feel more positive about the quality of BLESTO's talent evaluation to learn in May 2012, they hired Modrak as National Scouting Director?

I think the bottom line on this year's "top QB prospects" is that there WAS no national consensus, except on the point that the class as a whole lacked a clear Newton/Luck/RGIII type front-runner, and all of the QB candidates were perceived as having strengths and weaknesses.  Their rank thus depends on the value each team places on these qualities: strong arm? read option capability?  experience in a pro-style offense?  intelligence?  intangibles?  This was reflected in the LACK of consensus in QB rankings.  We have the functional answer for several teams who voted "none of the above" (eg, Chiefs, Raiders, Cards), and the Bills who voted "trade down, bottom half of the first, we'll take a flier on the guy we like best".

The players that bother me more in the Bills draft as flying against consensus evaluation were players like Marquise Goodwin in the 3rd and Jonathan Meeks in the 5th, both of whom fit the Bills habitual draft behavior of ignoring consensus about these less-scouted later-round players where the combine and BLESTO info gets weighted more heavily by all teams*, and instead going for the "dark horse".

*all teams who subscribe, that is

Edited by Hopeful, 04 May 2013 - 01:59 PM.