@tim-couch-pulls-out said:

Favre didn't drink himself out of Atlanta. Check your facts.

Roethlisberger has never lost starting time nor struggled because of off the field problems.

Kerry Collins is atop the list for "worst quarterbacks to play in a Super Bowl" along with Grossman and Dilfer. Never really a franchise guy, his erratic play led to him being more of a journeyman than franchise player.

Why is Kyle Orton even on this list?

"Our buddy Thom Abraham of WNSR in Nashville passes along a clip of a recent interview with former Falcons coach Jerry Glanville, who defended the decision to trade Favre in blunt terms. “I had to get him out of Atlanta. . . . I could not sober him up,” Glanville said. “I sent him to a city where at 9:00 at night the only thing that’s open is Chili Joes. You can get it two ways, with or without onions. And that’s what made Brett Favre make a comeback was going to a town that closed down. If I would have traded him to New York, nobody to this day would have known who Brett Favre ever was.”"

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/03/18/glanvilles-eye-opening-explanation-of-trading-favre/

"Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger was suspended Wednesday for six games for violating the NFL's personal conduct policy, the league announced. Commissioner Roger Goodell handed down the punishment a week after prosecutors decided not to charge Roethlisberger in a case involving a 20-year-old college student who accused him of sexually assaulting her in a Georgia nightclub in March."

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5121614

................

Prey tell, how does getting suspended for six football games (later reduced) not directly refute your claim that Ben never lost starting time? I'm also tickled with excitement as I await how you refute direct comments from the decision-maker that clearly attributes his choice to trade Favre from Atlanta to alcohol.

I suspect that it's fair to surmise that your postings are more or less rendered invalid because you clearly lack the intellect to promote a factually based conversation.

@miktoxic said:

hey man i agree. i'm not a manziel hater. i'm a realist. if that kid was so Fing good he would have taken over the reigns of the team inTC last year.....no QB competition, he wins.......

BUT we all know that didn't happen. when i say this to you and all of his fans i don't want to sound disrespectful but where in anything last year did you see him be able to perform athletically at a nfl level?

if the kid 'tore up the nfl' like he said, he could be swinging by chadeliers acting like a foll and no one would care. the fact is he sucks so far and i were him or anyone involved with him i'd tell him to hit the books.

sadly, IMO even if he studied harder that hawkins or einstein i still think he wouldn't get it.

The hope in Manziel, or any rookie QB for that matter, remains in large part within the clear historical observation that the majority of NFL rookies simply dont play well in their first professional season. Sure, we could over analyze what has become the most hotly contested seven quarters of live action that I can remember but I dont think that even the most cynical Browns fan would argue in good faith that the Manziel in Year 2 or Year 5 is the same player that we saw in Year 1. I do like to read from players including Haden and Dansby who mention that Manziel looked good in practice and I did like seeing Manziel find some success in Buffalo (he scored a quick touchdown against a Prevent defense which, by definition, is intended to "prevent" quick touchdowns). That being said, we are all hoping to see large incremental improvement in Manziel's game next year and beyond.

In my opinion the problem that we've seen is the result of unrealistic expectations that never should have existed to begin with. Rookie quarterbacks, especially 21 year olds coming from unorthodox college offenses and needing to adapt a unique skillset to a higher level of competition, simply do not find instant success in the NFL. Part of this problem of perception was fueled by Manziel who boisterously claimed he was ready to "wreck this league" and part of the problem was fueled by college football fans that never appreciated the enormous leap in competition that the NFL represents.

Would we be debating JFF to the same extent that we are if he sat out the entire year? Are Patriot fans worried that Garrapolo is busting because they haven't seen anything to prove that he has NFL talent? Is Blake Bortles a bust because he didnt play up to to the same standard as league veterans? Of course not.

Let's take a look at the teams that have won the Superbowl since the turn of the millenium....

Rams- Kurt

Ravens- Dilfer, Flacco

Patriots- Tom

Bucs- Gannon

Colts- Manning

Steelers- Roethlisberger

Giants- Manning

Saints- Brees

Packers- Rodgers

Seahawks- Wilson

Which of these franchises had anything less than a clear upper-echelon QB? In fact, the list reads like a "who's who" of the top quarterbacks that have presided over offenses for 15 years.

Hell, it took a near-historic season from Rich Gannon along with a defense littered with HOFers for Gruden to bring a championship to Tampa. The only outlier remains, of course, with Baltimore and Trent Dilfer. Well, when the Browns field a roster with enough HOFers or borderline HOFers to qualify for group rates through Starwood then we can talk about Hoyer leading the organization to a championship.

@tour2ma said:

Please rattle away on that list of young QBs "we all know" that faltered by refusing to accept their professional responsibilities before succeeding. A half-dozen will do...

Sure, I'll play....

Off the top of my head:

Brett Favre- Drank himself out of Atlanta

Ben Roethlisberger- He may have sexually assaulted more women than passes completed in SB XL. Talented motorcyclist as well

Joe Namath- Broadway Joe gave Walt Clyde a serious run for drinks, drugs, and women as King of NYC

Kerry Collins- Rehabilitated racist and alcoholic that led the Giants to a SB

Jay Cutler- Popular figure on the Denver social scene until shipped off to Chicago

Mike Vick- Alpha of the NFL's first family of scumbag quarterbacks

Jake Plummer- Party boy that almost drove himself out of the NFL before finding success with the Cards and Donkeys

Dan Marino- If it werent for his penchant for nose powder the Jets may have actually drafted Dan rather than Ken O'brien

Duante Culpepper- Great deep ball but just dont let him borrow your yacht

Kyle Orton- Drink Like A Champion

I'd imagine that we'd gladly sign up for having a quarterback on our roster that plays out their career with similar success to any of the aforementioned with the possible exception of Orton and Plummer. What do I win?

A mediocre quarterback? Within the context of the entire NFL, regardless of positioning within a depth chart, perhaps. But let's not create revisionist history and pretend that Hoyer was an average starting NFL signal caller this season because he was not. The fact remains that Brian rounded out 2014 near to last in every individual statistical category applicable to starting quarterbacks, many of whom were significantly younger and more inexperienced than him.

Did the team scratch out a collection of nice wins while he steered the ship (and nearly crashed it at some points)? Sure. Did he play marginally better than some past quarterbacks employed by the Browns? Yes. Unfortunately, football is not judged in a vacuum and neither of these answers is exclusive or even a strong indicator of prolonged quarterback success going forward. Do we appreciate the professionalism and exemplary work ethic that Hoyer brought to the team? Of course, however those qualities and a credit card are only good enough to get you season tickets. The fact remains that outside of a limited sample when nearly every other positional unit of the Browns was functioning at an incredible pace Hoyer performed well below the average NFL starting quarterback.

Now, if folks are campaigning for Hoyer because they simply feel as if the alternatives will never amount to anything better then I'd understand it to an extent but to suggest that Brian Hoyer will suddenly secrete some sort of new skill level at the age of 30 that four NFL teams have been unable to unearth? How does that definition of insanity, falsely attributed to Einstein, read again?

My personal opinion is that we all can reasonably project what the Browns ceiling is with Brian Hoyer at the helm and this projection falls substantially short of a Super Bowl, which is the ultimate goal. Does treading water in mediocrity bring the Browns closer to their end goal? I dont believe so, in fact I believe that finding that critical component necessary to charter a championship club (ie. difference maker at QB) will simply become that much more elusive as the organization becomes complacent enough with mediocracy and too fearful of losing to have the fortitude to make a change at that point.

I'd rather take a chance on the unknown that at one point was at least thought to have the upside to be a difference maker at the quarterback position. We can debate the merits and skill of Manziel until next year but the fact remains that a 22 year old with his pedigree does have upside. Did Johnny give any on-field indications of future success in his 7 quarters? He did not (outside of one Buffalo drive). Has Johnny acted like a petulant child? Yes. Thankfully we can rattle off past examples of young quarterbacks that also faltered early and/or refused their professional responsibilities only to eventually develop into quality starting quarterbacks. Even considering the high probability of default we still enjoy a material possibility for healthy returns on investment into this player.

I'd prefer that the organization fail in taking a chance of developing a champion to committing to a future that realistically has a ceiling lower than that of which we'd like.

@johnny-fingers-farmer said:

Charlie Casserly, ROFLMAO If I wanted to fuck a team over for a decade plus he'd the first GM on my list. Three plus years of having Charlie as GM will cost your organization ten years to recover from. I know after Charlie screwed over the Redskins and Texans he tried to get a job with the NFL front office. I guess fucking up one team at a time was no longer a challenge to him. Charlie has always been below average at evaluating talent and absolutely horrible "maybe worst ever" in evaluating QB's. Look at his track record.

1990 Gary Conklin 4th round

1992 Chris Hakel 4th round

1994 Heath Shuler 3rd pick 1st round

1994 Gus Frerotte 7th round

2002 David Carr 1st pick 1st round

2003 Dave Ragone 3rd round

2003 Drew Henson 6th round

2004 B.J. Symons 7th round

Don't get me wrong I actually love Charlie and I'm happy he's going to the Jet's. I enjoy playing the game within the game and no other GM has made me more money. However if I was an owner and Charlie told me he wanted x QB I'd immediately take that QB off my board. I'd be fuck Charlie want's this guy so you know he won't pan out....Next

As an aside....if Casserly ever went missing, David Carr should be the first person that they come to speak with. David Carr was sacked 76 times his rookie season...SEVENTY SIX times. He was sacked 68 times just a few seasons later. To put that into context, Brian Hoyer was sacked 18 times this year. I really wonder if Carr could've actually developed into a solid NFL quarterback if he hadn't become shell-shocked in Houston.

@johnny-fingers-farmer said:

Quick release - Nope

Arm strength - Average

Speed - Faster than a statue not as fast a premier running QB's

Agility - Above average for pocket QB, average for running QB

Intelligence - Football IQ is way below average, Can't read defenses, Makes extremely poor decisions after the snap, doesn't put the work in during the week. Who cares what his Wonderlic score was, Ryan Fitzpatrick has one or the highest Wonderlic scores ever. You want him? Gross

The Critics have questioned every aspect of Manziel's game and whether it would translate to the NFL. So far the critics have been 100% accurate. If Manziel is being drafted by Al then something went horribly wrong Al's league is dead.

Charlie Casserly, ROFLMAO If I wanted to fuck a team over for a decade plus he'd the first GM on my list. Three plus years of having Charlie as GM will cost your organization ten years to recover from. I know after Charlie screwed over the Redskins and Texans he tried to get a job with the NFL front office. I guess fucking up one team at a time was no longer a challenge to him. Charlie has always been below average at evaluating talent and absolutely horrible "maybe worst ever" in evaluating QB's. Look at his track record.

1990 Gary Conklin 4th round

1992 Chris Hakel 4th round

1994 Heath Shuler 3rd pick 1st round

1994 Gus Frerotte 7th round

2002 David Carr 1st pick 1st round

2003 Dave Ragone 3rd round

2003 Drew Henson 6th round

2004 B.J. Symons 7th round

Don't get me wrong I actually love Charlie and I'm happy he's going to the Jet's. I enjoy playing the game within the game and no other GM has made me more money. However if I was an owner and Charlie told me he wanted x QB I'd immediately take that QB off my board. I'd be fuck Charlie want's this guy so you know he won't pan out....Next

Casserly sure does have a spotty history drafting and *developing* quarterbacks but I was referencing his comments because he was among the "analysts" (loose term) more critical of Manziel while some others including Gruden, McShay, Warner, Kiper, etc seemed mesmerized by Johnny's college highlights prior to the season. Sure, certain talking heads claimed that his arm was average but it seemed to me that the majority of prognosticators were comfortable ceding the point that Johnny could throw the ball. The main criticism was and remains to be that Manziel entered the League with almost no discernable pocket presence and may lack the committment to self-improvement.

Since the Bengals game its become en vogue to claim that Manziel is simply the latest in a line of scatbacks masquarading as a quarterback but lest we forget that he was regarded as having the physical skillset necessary to succeed as a passing quarterback. This was not a Tim Tebow redux. Manziel is able to throw a downfield pass without skipping the ball five yards beyond his target (insert hyberbolic joke here). Additionally, I cited his Wonderlic score because it reflects that Johnny has some reasonable semblance of intelligence and at least has the ability to take something seriously related to his profession. Sure, its admittably the biggest reach of any quantifiable data collected on a prospect, but short of having his academic transcript released I dont know of many other ways of which to help ascertain the intellectual capacity of a football player. Fitzpatrick did indeed dominate the Wonderlic and it's reflected by his almost universal regard as one of the smarter quarterbacks in football, of whom has managed to parlay his intelligence and poor arm into an NFL career. The hope with Johnny is that he might develop into a player that can marry what I consider to be above-average physical abilities with the intelligence necessary to read NFL defenses. It will be a process, as it has been for every rookie quarterback.

I dont think that there is much debate that Johnny Manziel underwhelmed in his seven quarters of football as a 21-22 year old. I dont think that there is much debate that Brian Hoyer was the best option behind center for the Browns in 2014. What I will dispute is that Manzie did not demonstrate any NFL talent and I'm rather confident that Pettine, Farmer, and the front office know better than to operate under the ridiculous assumption that young talent does not improve and mature.

@masterdog said:

Enlighten us on those attributes.

Sure.

- Quick release

- Arm strength

- Speed

- Agility

- Intelligence (if you believe that the Wonderlic has any predictive power?)

At the onset, you dont need to be Bill Polian to objectively realize that Manziel can make all of the throws that an NFL quarterback needs to make. Manziel's harshest critics have never questioned his ability to quickly spin the football downfield. We also know that Johnny has reasonable mobility and athleticism of which defenses will need to account for on some level. Unfortunately, these abilities and a pulse might be enough to get you drafted by Al Davis or the starting gig in Chicago but it's all for naught if you cannot read a defense and/or deliver the ball accurately.

Charlie Casserly, well respected within NFL circles and a recent hire of the Jets (and a former professor of mine), had been vocal for quite some time that he felt Manziel has the physical attributes to be a successful quarterback but his challenge will be in developing the pocket presence necessary to thrive within the confines of an NFL offense. Does this critique ring familiar to any of us that watched Manziel this season? Johnny enters a game against Buffalo in relief of Hoyer and rifles an otherwise ill-advised pass to Dray before capping off the drive with a touchdown run. In one drive we saw the physical promise of Manziel but we also got a glimpse of the mental shortcomings that would plague the next six quarters of his play. Such is life as a rookie quarterback in the NFL.

There's always a premium placed on offensive tackles and after the incredible impact that the past class of WRs had this season I wouldn't wait to pick up players in those spots if the FO has identified them as areas of weakness. Solid interior linemen are often found in the 2nd round and beyond.

@brownsfan4evr said:

Then JFF needs to ask for his money back. Apparently, by his on field play, George Whitfield taught him nothing!!

Well, this leads to the frustration felt by most rational fans that know Manziel has the arm, legs, and mental capacity necessary to be a successful starting quarterback in the NFL, unfortunately none of which appeared during the two Sundays that mattered most in 2014. Johnny was never going to be as good as some made him seem but he also shouldn't be as bad as he played against the Bengals. He does have attributes that made and still make him an attractive prospect as the long-term solution at quarterback.

Moving beyond the 7 quarters of professional football...

Quite simply, Johnny Manziel is losing the battle of public perception and that is why many fans are up in arms. As fans, we are at the mercy of whatever information the news outlets feed us and we've become almost conditioned to see, hear, and read the sensationalist mantra that drives user-clicks and ad sales. Tell me that Johnny is riding an inflatable swan while clutching a bottle of champagne and Joe Sixpack will bite, yet print an article detailing his car arriving before schedule every morning in Berea and he'll pass it over. Heck, at this point is has become a self-fullfilling prophecy for critics because anytime Manziel does enjoy himself the moment will instantly be captured and blown up via social media, without mention of any other athlete doing the same.

Let us remember that prior to arriving in Cleveland Manziel was renowned for having a terrific work-ethic exemplified by his tutelage under George Whitfield each summer in San Diego. Whereas a large portion of college athletes returned home or worked summer jobs, Manziel willingly sought out a well regarded QB guru and leveraged this relationship in his committment to get better. Are we to believe that this dedicated approach to the sport was disregarded once Johnny was selected by Cleveland? I think it would be foolish to jump to that conclusion at such a nascent point in Manziel's professional career.

Truth be told, I'd argue that we will glean little insight into Johnny's development as a football player this offseason through whatever is reflected in the tabloids or newspaper because there is no way to quantify improvement until we see him step onto a football field next year. We simply do not know what work, and the utility of that work, Manziel is putting in from 9-9 or whenever. Is Manziel more committed to the Browns by drinking in the privacy of his home rather than at a bar? The next time that we see Manziel in Vegas are we going to argue that he'd become a better football player if he instead was flipping burgers at a casual backyard BBQ? I would hope not (but we will) because its an ignorant leap in logic. The professional athletes that we cheer for are not robots and do enjoy lives outside of sport. We are but given a small window, 19 weeks if we're lucky, of which to view them. The priviledge of hindsight offers that the Roethlisberger's, and Favre's, and Brady's, and Manning's did alright for themselves but lest we recall that winning has a way of curing any reasonable suspicion or care for how players utilize their personal time. And therein lays the dangers of perception that we, as fans, always struggle to interpret.

Farmer, Pettine, and the decision makers within the front-office should have the purest insight into Manziel's character, abilities, and work habits, so as difficult as it may seem at times I would argue that we should defer to their assessment of Johnny. My hope is that Johnny puts in the time and effort that will most certainly not be acknowledged by media outlets, and I will temper my judgement when his extraneous and irrevalent social exploits become media fodder.

As disastrous as Johnny's 6 quarters have been, the Browns need to hope that allowing him to play and consequently fail has at least the silver lining benefit of him being humbled and more expantant with regards to the speed of the NFL going into next season. Sure, to us it seems obvious that the NFL is an incredibly unforgiving league that demands complete dedication thus Manziel should have done all he could have to prepare himself for this season. The reality of the matter is that there really is no way to realistically prepare for the NFL without having experienced it. We've gone through examples ad nauseam of smart and succesfull quarterbacks that still were humbled through their first string of NFL starts. That being said, even considering the low liklihood that enhanced concentration would've benefited Johnny to a large extent this season I think most would agree that developing those strong work habits would have at the very least endeared him more to the fans, his teammates, and his coaches. He isn't the first QB to act like an idiot as a young professional (Favre run out of Atlanta, Roethlisberger, Sanchez, etc) but clearly it is not a positive indicator for the player that your franchise is looking towards for leadership.

In 2015, Johnny will no longer be entering the season unaware and ignorant to the talent level and sheer speed that he must account for in the NFL. Hopefully Manziel has also been humbled as a result of his poor play that enhance the scrutiny of his poor professional work habits and exacerbated his situation within the Browns organization. Perhaps it is the optomist in me but it has been indicated that Manziel is intelligent; I hope that this intelligence allows him to recognize the considerable improvements that he neeeds to make and how he must go about his training regimin to make these improvements. It's going to be a long offseason for Manziel and I sincerely hopes that he leverages this time as an opportunity to improve rather than a period of rest.

Well, I suppose that we should be thankful that Dansby was a bit more optomistic with regards to our rookie QB?

@mark-o said:

First...don't say Zombo is a "respected poster" it goes to his head and that's already big enough.

Seriously though... Therein lies the problem, is Manziel the next Eli Manning? Pretty good QB who can get hot from time to time and lead a super bowl run? Or is he the next Troy Smith or Danny Wuerffel, great college QB who can't play at the NFL level?

The biggest issue with Sunday was not only that he played like horse shit, he didn't show one thing that looked like he has the ability to be a NFL QB. He looked like a high school kid trying to survive in the NFL. Maybe that's just one game or maybe not but I think we'll have a pretty good idea after the next 2 games.

The answer to your question, or the ability to answer it really is the Holy Grail for anyone associated with a professional football franchise. How can you seperate those that can master the learning curve and go from bad-to-great from those that never progress? I think we'd all agree that collegiate production is next to worthless as an indicator without proper context. Eli played in a pro-style offense at Ole Miss and left college after his senior year (not including redshirt). Clearly we would imagine that this would have better prepared him for the NFL but he still struggled mightily. Stafford declared early but played in a pro-style offense. Does this reflect better on Manziel having struggled, as a younger rookie inexperienced in an NFL offense? Who the heck knows.

In my opinion the real answer to your question of whether Manziel, or any rookie QB for that matter, can be the next Manning or Brees or whomever after suffering from poor performance early on is if they are intelligent enough, committed enough, and have the physical ability to learn and make the necessary adjustments throughout their career. I dont question Manziel's intelligence (wonderlick, etc), I have slight concerns regarding his physical ability (height), and I'm cautiously optomistic that the perception of his off-field committment doesn't match his true committment to getting better. Will that demonstrate itself over the next week weeks? Hopefully to the coaching staff it will, but it may not translate directly to what we see on Sundays just yet. I wouldn't feel comfortable writing off a 22 year old QB with a nice pedigree after 3 games but I think I'd have a much better indication on their ability to improve after an off-season of prepartion as starter and a few games. But, alas....I dont get paid to make those decisions

@tour2ma said:

Now that's how to make an entrance. Welcome to the light...

As a longtime lurker, you also surely know that most of the Manziel rejection rage is aimed at his fans, and not him. Perhaps at season's end we'll have the 3-game data to see where JM falls on your list.

Couple questions:

Do you happen to know where those 3-game stretches fell within the season?

Were they consecutive starts?

I appreciate the welcome.

Those three games stretches varied with regards to what point in the season they came in, but once they began they were almost universally consecutive starting experiences. From my anecdotal observation, first-round quarterbacks typically grant their coaching staff the luxury of more time and patience from ownership. As a coach, starting a rookie quarterback gives you a ready-made excuse to ownership and the fanbase as they endure mounting losses ("he's only going to get better"), therefore I understand it to be almost an act of self-preservation to keep starting the rookie for an extended audition.

It's not out of convenience that I liken Manziel's situation most closely to that of Eli Manning in 2004. The Giants were 5-4 with Kurt Warner having put up solid numbers but anyone more than a casual observer knew that while the Giants were winning with Kurt, there clearly was a ceiling with Warner that fell short of the ultimate goal for any franchise, a Super Bowl. I had a similar feeling with this season's Browns and Hoyer (*ducks for cover*). So Coughlin made the switch to Manning and Eli rewarded him with horrible performances through his first season and well into his second season. Coughlin effectively destroyed his chances of making the playoffs by turning over the reigns to Eli but he wasnt operating the team within a one game or even a one season vacuum, rather he was trying to set the foundation for more sustainable long-term success. It worked for the Giants, its failed for other franchises.

Now, when I read posts from well respected posters such as Zombo I empathize and agree with what I think might be their main point, which is that Hoyer has given the Browns the best chance to win any game this season. Where I believe I differ is in the timeframe of my perspective. I dont view each game or even this season in a vacuum because I dont think that the ceiling of this season's Browns ever involved a Super Bowl. Rather, I take a longer holistic approach where I am willing to experience the growning pains of a young quarterback with the pedigree of Manziel, as embarrassingly lame as his debut was, for the hope that the Browns are building something that can culminate into something special and sustainable for a decade to come.

Longtime lurker...

It seems as though posters are arguing against one of two extremes when in reality the majority of individuals are more moderate in their respective positions.

Certain fans seem intent on stamping out what they perceive to be the Manziel "fanboys" who unabashedly felt that success in the SEC and a catchy nickname preordained Manziel to NFL superstardom at the expense of Brian Hoyer. I find this persecution to be rather quiotic, as I cant imagine many rational fans of the Browns and/or Manziel to have expected any player, regardless of pedigree, to step onto an NFL and dominate at the quarterback position. Conversely, there are certain Manziel supporters that feel as if many fans and the Browns organization itself has somehow concocted a scheme to ostracize Johnny, never allowing him the fair chance to succeed. Again, it defies logic to believe that any coach, front office personnel, or fan would implicitly compromise their livlihood (for coaches this is quantified by winnings, for fans it is their desire to support a winner) out of spite or some unfounded machonistic need.

From my perspective, I think that most rational individuals fall somewhere in between these two extremes. Manziel supporters by and large felt that Johnny had (has) the potential to develop into a quality NFL quarterback after progressing through the learning curve that nearly every quarterback....well, ever has had to master. More reserved Browns fans are hopeful that Manziel can succeed in Cleveland and acknowledge that he has certain skills that may be exciting, but too many heralded quarterbacks have come and gone throughout the years in Cleveland for them to have untempered enthusiasm for the latest golden-boy. Unfortunately, there do exist illogical individuals on both sides that rile up these more moderate fans and stoke the flames in favor or against whichever "faction" appears to be more substantiated at that time.

What we do know is that Johnny Manziel had a brutal first start in the NFL, approaching near-historic futility. I think that most of us would also agree that, thankfully, the overwhelming majority of NFL quarterbacks also struggled in their first start so all hope is not lost, yet. Of course the next milestone that all interested parties have set their sights on is Game 3, representing the last game of this season and a three game sample for Manziel. I'd also suggest that predictive power of the three game sample has not been historically strong for quarterbacks in like situations to Manziel's.

I surveyed a sample of current starting quarterbacks in the NFL that had relatively similar circumstances with regards to their first three starting opportunities. In reviewing the context of these experiences I took into account the year in which they debuted, their debut relative to their draft year, the pedrigree or "hype" surrounding them, and their role within the offense. For example, I dont find it as useful to look at Brady/Peyton from 15 years back, or Rodgers/Romo having the benifit of sitting for multiple seasons, or even Cam Newton/Luck who were expected to throw the ball 40 times a game and have the offense run through them from the onset. There were some players such as Matt Ryan and Russell Wilson that did come out of the gate and look solid, whereas other quarterbacks such as Jake Locker were omitted because they clearly have little future in this league and would only muddle our conversation.

In any event, I noted the following players and their respective performance through the first three starts or significant playing time of their careers. In order of the best debut performances to the worst...

Player--Comp%--TD/INT--Yds

Sanchez --59%--4/2--606

Cutler --59%--6/3--592

Shaun Hill --55%--6/3--537

Roethlisb. --61%--4/3--513

Brees --60%--3/2--504

Flacco --56%--1/2--450

Stafford --53%--2/5--598

Tannehill --53%--1/4--615

Fitzpatrick--54%--1/7--467

E.Manning-42%--1/4--423

Alex Smith-54%--0/8--351

You can notice a rather steep dropoff in production from Brees (arguably irrelevant data from 2001) to Flacco and the grouping below. What is clear to me is that the relative success, or lackthereof, of each player listed in that three game sample had very little predictive power in projecting their career success going forward. In fact, you have as many Super Bowl championships (3) from that top grouping as you do from the bottom grouping, with Stafford and Flacco still relatively young.

Now to be clear, Johnny Manziel's debut was worse than any of the aforementioned quarterbacks, arguably sans Smith & Manning. In addition, certain quarterbacks listed may have struggled on the field but clearly possessed physical NFL attributes beyond that of Manziel including the size and arm strength of Flacco, Manning, and Stafford. That being said, I think there is enough empirical evidence to suggest that Johnny's NFL obituary should not necessarily be written in December of his rookie season.

So, anyway..TL;DR...I think that the two opposing extreme viewpoints of Johnny are not truly indicative of how most rational fans feel. I think anyone foolish enough to suggest that Manziel could step onto an NFL field as a rookie and dominate should be taken as just that...a fool. I hope that folks can be a bit more forward thinking to realize that while Manziel was horrible in his NFL debut, there have been precadents set in which quarterbacks mastered the NFL learning curve after humbling rookie experiences.