OTA's

[Frankie2Gunz]

3 hours ago, RaidersAreOne said:

He was decent in spot duty for Carr. He is a very viable #2.

I would hardly call a 58% completion percentage, 1 to 1 TD to Int ratio and QB rating of 77 for his career a "very viable" option as a backup.  I certainly think Cook or Hack could post similar numbers if thrust into action and they are younger.  I have never been impressed with EJ and he didn't look terrible in the one game he played for us last year but his career stats are far more telling of the player he is than the 1 game he started for us.  

[holyghost]

17 hours ago, Frankie2Gunz said:

I would hardly call a 58% completion percentage, 1 to 1 TD to Int ratio and QB rating of 77 for his career a "very viable" option as a backup.  I certainly think Cook or Hack could post similar numbers if thrust into action and they are younger.  I have never been impressed with EJ and he didn't look terrible in the one game he played for us last year but his career stats are far more telling of the player he is than the 1 game he started for us.  

Agreed. Why do Raider fans continually enamor themselves with average to below average guys and them call them really good options. We're in a league where teams periodically come up with guys such as Foles, Garoppolo, McCarron as backups. Those are very viable to varying degrees. Manuel is utterly average to below. But in contrast to other entirely unqualified trash we've trotted out before, he's actually moderately functional. Moderately functional is an apt description.

[Frankie2Gunz]

2 minutes ago, holyghost said:

Agreed. Why do Raider fans continually enamor themselves with average to below average guys and them call them really good options. We're in a league where teams periodically come up with guys such as Foles, Garoppolo, McCarron as backups. Those are very viable to varying degrees. Manuel is utterly average to below. But in contrast to other entirely unqualified trash we've trotted out before, he's actually moderately functional. Moderately functional is an apt description.

That's what I love about being on this forum.  For years I called DHB every negative adjective the forum would allow but there were always tons of homers talking about his tremendous work ethic and how he had turned a corner.  It was comical and shocking that people can't see that the dude was flat out garbage with terrible hands and the only reason he approached 1k was bc the old man demanded he be on the field for every snap.  Don't get me started on my rants about JaWalrus either...  

I'm here to tell it like it is and EJ is exactly what we have both stated, a below average Qb and backup.  He does nothing well and the only thing he has going for him is that he has started games which should hardly make him a lock for the backup QB spot.    

[Blazer026]

I agree that EJ is an average backup, but unless Cook improved a lot this offseason I'd take EJ over Cook. 

[Bitty 2.0]

3 hours ago, Blazer026 said:

I agree that EJ is an average backup, but unless Cook improved a lot this offseason I'd take EJ over Cook. 

Keep whoever gets paid less

[holyghost]

14 hours ago, Bitty 2.0 said:

Keep whoever gets paid less

EJ Is a moderately functional backup. Nothing whatsoever that Cook has done merits him getting the backup job. I know little to nothing about what he has or hasn't done to grow as a player, but there was no indication in last year's preseason he was any better than before. It's the only indicator we have. Cook and Hackenberg cost less than Manuel, but neither has any qualification thus far to being in any position to potentially play actual snaps in the regular season. Despite them being cheaper than Manuel, they can't just be thrown in to utterly fail because of their price tag. And we are a team whose backup might play considering Carr's recent injury history.

[Frankie2Gunz]

1 hour ago, holyghost said:

EJ Is a moderately functional backup. Nothing whatsoever that Cook has done merits him getting the backup job. I know little to nothing about what he has or hasn't done to grow as a player, but there was no indication in last year's preseason he was any better than before. It's the only indicator we have. Cook and Hackenberg cost less than Manuel, but neither has any qualification thus far to being in any position to potentially play actual snaps in the regular season. Despite them being cheaper than Manuel, they can't just be thrown in to utterly fail because of their price tag. And we are a team whose backup might play considering Carr's recent injury history.

While I agree, I would hardly say that EJ has a lock on the backup QB spot.  I feel that it will be a true battle in camp and Gruden will select the best player to backup Carr.  I also feel that Hack most likely will be the number 3 and be given a chance to learn the system before we can make a determination on what his skills are.   

[oakdb36]

Their salaries aren't that far apart so it shouldn't be a factor. And i couldn't care less who is the backup because whoever gets the job won't be good enough if Carr goes down.

[Humble_Beast]

On 5/27/2018 at 1:13 PM, Blazer026 said:

I agree that EJ is an average backup, but unless Cook improved a lot this offseason I'd take EJ over Cook. 

EJ is an average back up with starting experience. Cook is lucky to be in the NFL. Cook roster spot is up in the air with Hackenberg. Hackenberg has potential to be have a great camp and win backup spot, but could be an easy cut if he flops during camp..so far he has been a bust, but maybe he can turn his career around and become a solid backup QB. we will see

[holyghost]

2 hours ago, Humble_Beast said:

EJ is an average back up with starting experience. Cook is lucky to be in the NFL. Cook roster spot is up in the air with Hackenberg. Hackenberg has potential to be have a great camp and win backup spot, but could be an easy cut if he flops during camp..so far he has been a bust, but maybe he can turn his career around and become a solid backup QB. we will see

Thus far, both Cook and Hackenberg have shown little to nothing to merit NFL roster spots. Whether that changes this camp is possible but unlikely. Manuel, as stated, has a moderately functional ability to actually run this offense. The gap between Manuel and the others is wider than most fans realize. And none are remotely exciting options as far as backup QBs across the league go.

The idea of it being a "battle" in camp is a bit of wish fulfillment. Cook has a huge uphill climb to beat out Manuel, he has shown so little NFL quality thus far. He would have to perform quite well, all camp from day one to day last. Hackenberg has an even steeper climb than that. 

[drfrey13]

5 hours ago, holyghost said:

Thus far, both Cook and Hackenberg have shown little to nothing to merit NFL roster spots. Whether that changes this camp is possible but unlikely. Manuel, as stated, has a moderately functional ability to actually run this offense. The gap between Manuel and the others is wider than most fans realize. And none are remotely exciting options as far as backup QBs across the league go.

The idea of it being a "battle" in camp is a bit of wish fulfillment. Cook has a huge uphill climb to beat out Manuel, he has shown so little NFL quality thus far. He would have to perform quite well, all camp from day one to day last. Hackenberg has an even steeper climb than that. 

I am in no way comparing the players to Brady but I wonder how good Brady looked in practice before Bledsoe went down?

[holyghost]

10 hours ago, drfrey13 said:

I am in no way comparing the players to Brady but I wonder how good Brady looked in practice before Bledsoe went down?

It's hard for me to even reply to this. You're using as a reference perhaps the best QB ever to play. And somehow relating that to Connor Cook. On the other side of Tom Brady there's literally hundreds to thousands of players at the position through NFL history that show no such emergence. So what's the realistic percentage that Cook is a magic Brady vs. the chance he is what we have already seen? .01% vs. 99.99%?

You say "I am in no way comparing the players to Brady but I wonder how good Brady looked in practice before Bledsoe went down?", but that's exactly what you're doing in sideways fashion. 

I could not find 2000 preseason stats on Brady, that is the only thing that could be a reference. Or if you or I were a Patriot fan back then, maybe that would be some insight. What I do know is that Manuel has had enough time to see that he is moderately functional. Is he getting better and better? Not that I, or any Buffalo fans, have seen. We've seen enough of Cook and Hackenberg to conclude their battle is steeply uphill. It's not as if we've never seen either get on a field. Last preseason Cook showed nothing different, a year later, than the same guy he was in the playoff game. 0 progression. That's not remotely comparable to the arc of a future hall of famer. It's the arc of a guy with a non descript career, like the many many others before him.

[drfrey13]

2 minutes ago, holyghost said:

It's hard for me to even reply to this. You're using as a reference perhaps the best QB ever to play. And somehow relating that to Connor Cook. On the other side of Tom Brady there's literally hundreds to thousands of players at the position through NFL history that show no such emergence. So what's the realistic percentage that Cook is a magic Brady vs. the chance he is what we have already seen? .01% vs. 99.99%?

You say "I am in no way comparing the players to Brady but I wonder how good Brady looked in practice before Bledsoe went down?", but that's exactly what you're doing in sideways fashion. 

I could not find 2000 preseason stats on Brady, that is the only thing that could be a reference. Or if you or I were a Patriot fan back then, maybe that would be some insight. What I do know is that Manuel has had enough time to see that he is miderately functional. We've seen enough of Cook and Hackenberg to conclude their battle is steeply uphill. Last preseason Cook showed nothing different, a year later, than the same guy he was in the playoff game. 0 progression. That's not remotely comparable to the arc of a future hall of famer. It's the arc of a guy with a non descript career, like the many many others before him.

You misunderstood why I used Brady.  He was a sixth round pick that was not expected to make the team based on his draft status coming out of college.   would expect 1st round rookies to look good and show promise but not a sixth rounder.  It was the topic of showing promise in practice that got me thinking about good or great QBs that come out of nowhere to succeed and how well they did when they first started getting practice reps.  I could have said Tony Romo or Jeff Garcia but the first one to pop into my head was Brady because he is one of the greatest and was thrust into the starting role so early in his career.  When it comes to our team I want Manuel as the backup and we should develop Cook or Hackenberg based upon who shows the most talent.    This year we are more likely to have a need for a QB to come in and play .500 ball for a few games for us to sneak into the playoffs than throw away the season hoping to develop a backup QB who has to start.

[holyghost]

22 minutes ago, drfrey13 said:

You misunderstood why I used Brady.  He was a sixth round pick that was not expected to make the team based on his draft status coming out of college.   would expect 1st round rookies to look good and show promise but not a sixth rounder.  It was the topic of showing promise in practice that got me thinking about good or great QBs that come out of nowhere to succeed and how well they did when they first started getting practice reps.  I could have said Tony Romo or Jeff Garcia but the first one to pop into my head was Brady because he is one of the greatest and was thrust into the starting role so early in his career.  When it comes to our team I want Manuel as the backup and we should develop Cook or Hackenberg based upon who shows the most talent.    This year we are more likely to have a need for a QB to come in and play .500 ball for a few games for us to sneak into the playoffs than throw away the season hoping to develop a backup QB who has to start.

No I didn't misunderstand. This paragraph is full of misconception. "wasn't expected to make the team"? Belichick drafted him so I am sure he thought differently than that. 6th rounders show some promise if you made a great pick. Since neither of us sees any real practice and unless we're with the team are never going to have that access, even a media person or fan's insight is limited. But you paragraph is predicated on that. What promise do you expect from Cook at this point?

It's interesting you used Brady. Not for the reasons that you did, but his case is actually a bit similar to Cook in one aspect. Starting QB gets hurt, backup goes in. Unfortunately that game was Cook's shot, his audition. That's kinda how it works in the NFL. So we all saw he's no Brady. Brady may have played mediocre day one but went on demolish P. Manning the following week and go 11-3 the rest of the way. Not sure I saw that kind of quality coming from Cook. Wouldn't we have seen a leap in the following preseason if that was the case?  Seems like he got his feet wet in that game, then got his pants wet thereafter.

[true2form]

36 minutes ago, holyghost said:

No I didn't misunderstand. This paragraph is full of misconception. "wasn't expected to make the team"? Belichick drafted him so I am sure he thought differently than that. 6th rounders show some promise if you made a great pick. Since neither of us sees any real practice and unless we're with the team are never going to have that access, even a media person or fan's insight is limited. But you paragraph is predicated on that. What promise do you expect from Cook at this point?

It's interesting you used Brady. Not for the reasons that you did, but his case is actually a bit similar to Cook in one aspect. Starting QB gets hurt, backup goes in. Unfortunately that game was Cook's shot, his audition. That's kinda how it works in the NFL. So we all saw he's no Brady. Brady may have played mediocre day one but went on demolish P. Manning the following week and go 11-3 the rest of the way. Not sure I saw that kind of quality coming from Cook. Wouldn't we have seen a leap in the following preseason if that was the case?  Seems like he got his feet wet in that game, then got his pants wet thereafter.

Hate to jump in, but it sounds like you're giving Brady way more credit in those early years than you should.  Because of what Brady has become maybe those early years are forgotten.  Maybe because the "team" was winning he gets all of that credit as the QB.  However, Brady was Andy Dalton at best back then.  Not trying to take anything away from him, he obviously had to be good enough to make plays and have clutch moments when called upon. Everyone points to that first season and coming in for Bledsoe, but I always look at that second season when they went 9-7 and missed the playoffs.  He didn't start carrying the team like he has for a few years into his career.  He had time to develop and continue the winning because of the super bowl roster that was in place around him.