timstep
-
Posts
89 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by timstep
-
-
You post a topic, theories and articles all rooted in percentages. But then you go on to make absolute declarations about how you can NOT win the big game without a top QB. Makes no sense.
No one is ever going to argue that you don't need a top tier QB to have a better chance to be a good team and with in the playoffs and SB. However, to say you can't do it when there have been plenty of teams that have won with marginal or worse QBs is a ridiculous jump in logic based on your post.
Clearly, the NFL is currently a passing league. Clearly, having premiere talent at QB and WR makes it easier to score points. However, how many SB's has Peyton Manning, Brett Favre, and Dan Marion won? Combined a total of 2. Thats the 3 most prolific passers in history and all the passing records between those guys, and the 3 of them managed just 2 SB wins. Eli Manning by himself has 2...let that sink in.
Peyton Manning has been "One and Done" NINE times in the playoffs...NINE. Thats insanely bad, yet he's the most prolific passer in history.
I want a top QB too, its a hell of a lot easier if you got a good QB to be a good team. But there is no perfect way to win the SB and it can be done many different ways and there are many variables that come into play every season. If it was just about the QB, then Peyton and Brees wouldn't have the same amount of rings as Dilfer and Hostetler...further more, Marino wouldnt have the same number of rings as Trentative Edwards and Fitzcraptrick.
I did not state absolutes, but I'm not just talking about Super Bowls, I'm talking about making the playoffs. Marino did that a few times, so has Manning. You're right, there is no perfect way, but the "defense wins championships" canard that is being bandied about is not going to get this team over the hump they've been stuck on for 15 years.
-
Crappy arguments are tiresome. Who drafts QBs every year? No one.
Look back at how Roethlisberger, Rodgers, Brady, Ryan, Wilson, Kaep, all landed with their teams. Or even Luck and Peyton. All of those guys were drafted at the spot they fell to. No one moved up, made wild trades. No one sold the farm to land their guy. Eli, Vick, RG3, and Sanchise are recent examples where a team sold the farm to move up and address the QB position. Hasn't exactly worked.
Crappy teams are more tiresome.
-
Please don't say things like "accepting mediocrity." Nobody "accepts that" and it makes you come off like you are more discerning than everyone else. You have an idea, it is interesting. It is not likely-- IMO-- to lead anywhere except an awful team with all the wasted picks you propose. But it is different.
Go back to when Orton was signed, and then had one or two good games, the pronounces of a franchise savior were not unusual, despite the fact that multiple teams had turned the page on this guy. It's the same thing with Fitzpatrick. People are willing to accept proven left-overs from another team and try to turn them into gold, and then are surprised that it doesn't work out. Over and over again. And when the Bills sign Hoyer or McCown, or some other journeyman vet, who does just enough to get people excited for a game or two, the same thing is gonna happen.
-
I think that is an oversimplification. Over the last 15 years the team has lacked talent generally, in signigicant part because of a lot of bad drafts. The team has been bad on both sides of the ball. Only quite recently has the talent level increased, mostly on defense. With some tweaks to the OL, this is likely a playoff team with poor/average QB play. I agree to go the final step and be a big threat in the playoffs, they need to have a good, if not great QB-- someone like a Flacco or Rivers.
What about the early/mid-2000s Bills, they had stacked defenses for a number years with Winfield, Clements, Washington, Spikes, Williams, etc.? I mean, yes, mostly the team has been abysmal, but they did try this "if we just build a #1 defense" approach before, and it resulted in almost the same outcome.
We got poor/average QB play this year out of Orton, who exactly is going to elevate that with an improved o-line? Manuel? Hoyer? Cousins?
Let me put it this way, if the Bills announced today they had traded multiple early picks to get Rivers, I'd be ecstatic. Rivers has been elevating a pretty horrible team for a number of years. Imagine if they had a garbage QB, they'd be 2-14 every year.
-
There were two choices there, tim. Yes isn't an answer.
Draft multiple QBs every year until you find a franchise QB. I don't care about the "What about the rest of the team!" argument. That argument has produced nothing. That argument has failed for 15 years. It's radical and crazy and nobody will ever do it, but accepting mediocrity has grown tiresome.
-
Wilson is a great QB who doesn't have to throw a lot. He's not the "baseline."
Russell, in terms of passing statics was 15th in total yards in 2014, 19th in attempts, 16th in TDs, He pretty much in the middle of the pack. However, he was 29th in INTs (he didn't turn it over) and was sacked 1 out every 95 attempts (10th best in league). When people talk about a "game manager," Wilson is the best possible version, because he's mobile, young and only going to get better.
-
So what do you do? Exhaust all available resources on landing a QB even though the chances of doing so are piss poor or try to build a complete team and take an opportunistic approach to landing a QB?
Yes, because choosing the other path has been played out with no success for this franchise, and rare success for others.
-
No question, but every wasted pick on a failed QB has the opportunity cost of not getting a good player that, as you say, are easier to find. If you do that consistently, like the Redskins, you still don't have a QB and the rest of your team sucks too.
But what's the upshot of not doing it? Since the Bills last playoff appearance, how many years has the Bills offense outranked the defense? My guess is not many? My guess is that the Bills have had a better overall defense more years than they have a better overall offense, and what has that gotten them? Two 9-7 seasons and no playoffs. So all you do by not doing it is continue the mediocrity.
-
I always love this talk about running out and getting a "franchise" QB - as if you can just pick one up anywhere. Below is a chart of the 2014 QBs (with the year they were drafted) that finished in the top 12 in QBR, Yards, and Touchdowns
There are a total of 15 QBS that were in the top 12 in one or more of those three categories. Of those 15, only 4 were drafted after 2008, and only three in the last five years: Andrew Luck (in top 12 in all three categories), Russell Wilson (12th in QBR), and Ryan Tannehil (11th in YDS).
Of the QBS that placed in the top 10 in all three categories, NONE were drafted after 2005.
Everyone wants a franchise QB; however, they really do not come along all that often. And there are a lot of people blaming the front office for not getting a top QB. So, over the last 5 years, which top QB would you have liked for them to get? This list contains 15 starting QBS out of 32. These are ALL of the above average QBs in the NFL - and only 3 of them were available. They were not going to get Luck. So, that leaves Wilson, who 1) nobody really saw his potential and 2) has not had to carry a team yet - so, the jury is still out; or Tannehill.
Of the other QBs that have been drafted over the last five years - they all have question marks and there are no sure bets.
So, until the Bills find one, they better concentrate on a top defense and a top running game...
I'm not saying it's easy like going to the grocery store, but the odds are if you have a franchise QB and an average defense, you're going farther than having not having a franchise QB and a great defense. And history bares that out.
-
No, and the additional problem is Washington totally crapped out taking RG III and Cousins, and it has set them back considerably. Every lottery ticket you buy means you don't buy other necessities like OL DL etc. It is a very big problem in the NFL right now, especially when it appears if you don't have one of the 12 you have no chance at a championship-- playoffs perhaps but not the big prize. If that does not change, if there is not some QB revival, the popularity of the NFL may decline because the same QBs/teams are always the only ones who can win the SB. It gets old.
The odds of filling holes with free agency, late round picks and undrafted free agents is far better with every other position than with QBs.
-
452515105 year old data is worthless in evaluating what will work and what won't work next year in the NFL.In many ways you're right, because as the league office tilts the rules even more towards offense and passing to drive up scoring and make the game more exciting, the few below-average QBs who led teams to Super Bowls in the past become even more irrelevant to the current day game.
-
Rex Grossman did not win a championship. Brad Johnson did. You don't go back very far do you. Plenty of qb's with lesser statures than Joe flacco have gone to and won super bowls. Hell Vince ferragamo was the rams' starting qb against the steelers.
My bad, I misstated on Grossman, he did GET to a SB. The statistics in the Freakonomics articles are for 45 years worth of stats, choosing anecdotal examples at a time when defenses could maul WRs and TEs at the line, as opposed the current NFL, is not really relevant.
-
The problem is there are only about a dozen human beings that can play QB in the NFL at a reasonably high level-- Brady, both Mannings, Rivers, Roethlisberger, Flacco, Luck, Romo, Wilson, Rodgers, Brees and Ryan. And not all these guys are great, just pretty good or better. There are another 5-7 that are servicable, but not very good. That means at least half the teams don't have a guy at all. It's reality. Finding a good QB-- one of the 12 or so, is mostly a matter of pure luck, either lucky in getting a guy with a lower pick or having the #1 pick when P. Manning or Luck come out. No one knows who will be one of the rare 12, if you knew it you could try and get a good QB with some certitude. But it is all largely guesswork, and waiting around for you lottery ticket to hit is not a viable strategy. You should keep buying those lottery tickets, but you need to do the best you can as a team with mediocre QB play, because that is what most teams are forced to do given the lack of men who can effectively play QB at the NFL level.
I totally agree with you - keep buying lottery tickets. Remember the year the Redskins drafted RGIII? They also drafted Kirk Cousins. As insane as it sounds, maybe it's time to start drafting a couple QBs every year. I mean, you're right, you're trying to hit lightning in the proverbial bottle, so you don't fire one shot every other year, you fire multiple. Andrew Luck was pretty much the only no-miss QB in the last 10 years, the Colts knew he was a stud. I know it's crazy, but has anything else propelled this team to a playoff spot in the last 15 years? Or the Browns? Or any number of other mediocre franchises?
-
Your stats merely tell you that you have to have a good TEAM to win the Super Bowl. This isn't about having a franchise QB because you know what? When a guy is on a good team with talent all around him, he more often than not develops into a franchise QB. You really think Brady would still be in the league if he had played on a team like the current Bucs or Titans? Why do you think Kelly despised the idea of coming to Buffalo?
The QB has to have a good TEAM around him to win football games consistently. Period.
Of course there are multiple factors, and many things have to align like the right coach, and scheme, and surrounding players. But if you swapped Orton and Luck this year, do you think the Bills would be better and the Colts would be worse, or that the skill level and physical ability of those players plays not part in the overall success of the team?
no shoulda, woulda and coulda
The Bills passed on Russell Wilson period end of story. just stating a fact.
I don't even understand your point, which makes sense, because anyone who has watched Big Ben and doesn't think the guy is a franchise QB is defying reality.
-
you mean the odds of missing another Russell Wilson. The Bills passed on him
The shoulda, woulda and coulda's with this team and the draft are astounding. I still remember screaming at my car radio when they passed on Nick Mangold to draft John McCargo. A team that had just let Trey Teague go in favor of Melvin Fowler. Every team has plenty of what-ifs when it comes to the draft, but few teams have been hurt as badly by those decisions as the Bills in the 15 years.
-
So the Seahawks are a blip?
Did I say that? Are you inferring he's not a franchise QB? He's ridiculous efficient, is a dangerous runner, has a good arm and is in another championship game. If the Bills had drafted Wilson, I don't know he would have developed the same way, but he's far better than any QB who has been on the Bills roster since Jim Kelly, and yes, I'm including Bledsoe.
-
My problem with this is, we don't have a franchise QB, are not likely to have one soon... and so what do you do...quit! These things are not black and white propositions. It is possible to win with a great team and an adequate QB. This part is indisputable. There are a couple of models that work. One is the franchise QB and a good team. The other is a great team and adequate QB. We have to work towards the second and if we find a so-called franchise guy along the way-Great.
Well, then it becomes, do you want to chase a veteran (like Denver did with Manning) or start with a rookie? I'd rather start with a rookie, but we're out that ballgame until 2016, because the odds of hitting another Russell Wilson this year are poor thanks to an already weak QB draft class. You could chase Cutler, but that seems like a lost cause. The guy isn't a 4-year vet in need of a new view, he's pretty much reached his peak. Someone might kick the tires on Sam Bradford or RGIII, but the injuries just keep mounting for those two. As a stop-gap for 1-2 years, Bills are probably looking at Brian Hoyer (aka Ryan Fitzpatrick 2.0), Kirk Cousins, either Josh McCown or Mike Glennon (one of whom will be cut when they draft Winston), or one of many other back-up/wannabes.
-
Joe Flacco has won a lot of in season and post season games, YET he is not considered a top 10 QB.
Had Baltimore kept Dilfer, he too could have won more post season games.
I DO NOT WANT a gunslinger that forces the team into a one dimensional offense!
lastly
Russel Wilson is not a gunslinger. In fact he's the opposite
Franchise does not equal gunslinger. Bills don't need Brett Farve. Flacco has been inconsistent, but he's been a top 10 QB based on statistics, and has an excellent post-season record.
There is nothing wrong with a good defense.
You're right, it's just that, aside from a few exceptions, they go to waste without a franchise QB.
Asinine analysis. If the team with the better offense AND defense wins, how do you credit that to "a slight edge to the offense."
Either eliminate those from the data sample, or adjust for score relative to season averages (i.e. do offensive teams win because the score more, or do defensive teams win because they give up less?)
If you read the article, they did analyze regular season numbers. And it's essentially a wash, meaning having a great defense is a 50/50 proposition.
That's absolutely right, and I think most fans here understand that (there's a few that still don't get it). I disagree with the "Anything else is a waste of time" statement however -- you still need other players.
Ultimately the Ryan era will be defined on what QB we are able to acquire in the next few years.
Agree on "you still need other players," but only a to a degree. A high-caliber QB can elevate the players around him. How many Hall-of-Fame WRs and RBs has Brady played with on his SB teams? How about Eli Manning? or Russell Wilson? Or Big Ben? I would argue that after the QB, the number one priority is not the weapons, but the protection.
-
Dilfer
Flacco
Hostetler
SB Winners yet not "Super Star" great QB's !!!
Defense, Defense, Defense
So you'd rather hitch your wagon to an occasional blip on the radar than accept history and reality? This is why we can't have nice things.
-
Forgive me, this has been on mind awhile...
There is an interesting Freakonomics article from 2012 that dissects the "defenses win championships" idea pretty solidly. A snippet:
"There have been 427 NFL playoff games over the last 45 seasons. The better defensive teams have won 58 percent of them. The better offensive teams have won 62 percent of the time. (Again, the winning team is sometimes better both offensively and defensively, which explains why the total exceeds 100 percent.) That’s a slight edge to the offense, but again, pretty even."Another interesting bit:
"But maybe the phrase “defense wins championships” is supposed to mean is that defense is somehow more necessary than offense. Maybe a team can prevail with a middling offense, but not with a middling defense. As it turns out, that doesn’t hold up, either. Three times the Super Bowl champion ranked in the bottom half of the league in defense; only twice did it rank in the bottom half in offense."
On the flip side, the list of "game manager" (i.e. sub-par) QBs to win championships is very small - Rex Grossman in 2007, Trent Dilfer in 2000. Lose a championship? Stan Humphries. Neil O'Donnell. Kerry Collins.
Consider the rule changes in recent years - are they there to help defenses or offenses?
Now look at this upcoming weekend:
Brady vs. Luck
Rodgers vs. Wilson
Two of the best veteran QBs, both who have rings, vs. two the best young QBs, one who already has a ring.
The QBs who lost last weekend - Manning, Flacco, Newton, Romo.
I'm pretty sure if you look at the final 4, the final 8, of the last 15 years, the majority of those teams are lead by franchise QBs, not journeyman, not projects, not retreads.
The point?
Just like our Great Lakes brethren in Cleveland, it doesn't matter if the Bills have a top 5 defense, a young star wide receiver, good RBs, a good line, until their is a legitimate franchise quarterback under center, this team will be on the outside looking in.
It does not matter if the Bills defense is #1 under Ryan. It matters that this team find a legitimate, young, franchise QB to lead this team. Anything else is a waste of time and will not move the franchise forward.
-
there are no NFL caliber QBs in this years draft. STAY AWAY.
Wha? We're not even 1/3rd of the way through the college football season, and you can already make that claim? Fairly certain most respected college and pro football analysts would disagree.
In reality, 3-5 of those guys will be starting next year, and the Bills should draft one. It doesn't matter if he plays well or not, recycling failed back-ups and 1st round busts isn't the longterm answer, even if it means doing what Atlanta and Philly have done and ship guys out for draft picks in a few years.
-
There is little to no market for running backs. The top offenses in the league? Green Bay, New England, New Orleans - they just rotate guys in and out.
What teams have "franchise" running backs? Minnesota, Tennessee? How'd that help them?
Franchise running backs is an outdated concept from a decade ago when the league was balanced offensively. It's not. It's a passing league.
This team needs defense. This team needs offensive line depth. This team needs guys who can catch the ball in clutch situations.
Guys who can rush the passer in this league are commodities. Running backs are not.
-
The Bills are not only not a good football team, they fall considerably short as a competitive organization in the modern NFL. A decade of pitiful drafts, no front office, inadequate and poor free agent signings, average at best starters and no depth what so ever. They were still giving up over 400 yards a game the first six weeks and in the NFL eventually good teams are going to figure you out - regardless of injuries. I am not sold on Nix, Gailey nor the current roster and believe the current coaching staff is not competitive. The Jets and Dolphins will get better and the patriots will remain the monster of the AFC East; we were 1 - 5 against it this year. During the 1990's this team did not go free agent wild but did make key aquisitions that made them playoff contenders - Ted Washington, Bryce Paup and we paid Jeffcoat 3 Million a year to rush the passer on third down. Quality veteran players wanted to be in Buffalo! Until we create a quality organization you will get more of the same? 10 - 6 good grief!
What this guy said. To call the current Bills a "good" football team is to misunderstand the meaning of the word "good."
The realistic title should be "The Bills are a good snake-bitten, poor drafting, mismanaged and for short spurts that give unrealistic hope to their desperately loyal fanbase, overachieving but mostly disappointing football team"
-
Dont act like guys havent been taking a knee in prayer for DECADES and he is the first to do it. Mark Bavaro was Tebowing before Tim was even born. Get over it.
I would get over it, but the networks didn't dedicate a segment an hour to Mark Bavaro, and this is my entire point. I follow plenty of Bills players on Twitter, and many of them are religious. They tweet about God and Faith, and I have 0 problem with - I choose to follow them.
The problem I have is that the NFL and media are acting like religion and charity did not exist in professional sports until Tebow arrived with 3:16 deliberately written on his eye black.
And please do not pretend this is some anti-religious thing. The US is the most religious nation in the world. The pity-me persecution card played by Christians is as laughable as it is disingenuous. Especially considering if Tim Tebow were not Christian, and said "praise Allah" during every press conference spoke about the Koran, Christian groups like Focus On The Family, that Tebow supports, would be protesting him.
QBs Matter, Not Defenses (Sort of)
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Sort of. My thought isn't that the Bills need a great QB, that's self-evident. It's the approach to acquire one. The approach so far has been either:
1. Reach in the draft for a project (EJ, Trent, JP, Todd Collins)
2. Pick up a well-traveled veteran (Orton, Fitzpatrick, Holcomb,etc. etc.)
Neither of these have worked out. The only time the offense has been remotely dangerous was with Bledsoe - i.e a legit franchise QB. He had good seasons in 2002 and 2004 (2003 was a wash because of all the injuries).
The problem is that you need a partner to trade, so going out and getting, for example, Phillip Rivers, relies on San Diego being willing to move him, which I doubt they are.
That brings me back around to the blitzkrieg approach - multiple draft picks per year. IMO, and I think the playoff teams each year back this up - QB is the most important position on the team, so pretending that continuing with options 1 and 2 is going to get it done just seems ridiculous. This isn't "DUH QBS are important," its the approach to acquiring one, and to that I'm saying the approach has to be radical, insane, beyond reasonable to most.
Am I suggesting something that will sacrifice the future in order to provide (possibly) immediate results? Sure, because the other options continue to fail.