PDaDdy

I tried to educate but apparently you aren't capable of understanding the difference between can't run and choosing to pass. The superbowl is indeed one example of the fact that they can run when they want to. Poor to bad running teams don't all of a sudden produce over 5yds/carry in the biggest game on the planet. I really don't know why we are arguing this either. #1 ranked line in the NFL is #1 ranked line in the NFL. PERIOD...END OF STORY....NO DISCUSSION NECESSARY. Sorry to be a jerk but your opinion is completely worthless and you are beyond education if you can't acknowledge this fact. Again the weak tactic of questioning the "ruler" when you don't like the "measurement" is tired and shows little integrity. MAN....reading comprehension really is a big issue with you isn't it. Do you understand the difference between "can" and "did"? My WHOLE point is that the Colts are "capable" of running the ball just fine/well but chose to pass. NFL, passing league, good qb, team passes....never mind that has probably already fallen through the sieve that is your brain. Speaking of integrity ... how about answering those questions I asked? Bad o-lines can't run the ball is your assertion is it not? If your answer is "yes" then you have said in effect Indy has a bad line. If your answer is "no" then your stats of their regular season ypc is completely irrelevant in the discussion of whether they have a bad line or not. POW....score one for me again. Again Mr Integrity, answer this question directly....Yep, figured you wouldn't.....either way you answer it directly contradicts at least one point you have already tried to make. REALLY??? Do I have to point out again that disparaging their running game and attributing their #1 ranking to Peyton Manning's ability to get rid of the ball IS NOT a glowing endoresment of the Colts' line. Therefore, the inference that you feel that they are not a good line. PLEASE...PLEASE...PLEASE take this opportunity to set me straight and be a man and tell me that despite those remarks you think they have a good line. There is that short term memory loss again and contradictory points. Let's clear it all up for me. YOU TELL ME WHAT LINES YOU THINK ARE GOOD????? This will remove all doubt because all you do is point out things that you believe make the various lines discussed look bad including the Colts. Again given your lack of integrity I do not expect a definitive answer. Apparently you have no idea WHAT a correlation is if you use the phrase "direct relationship" Here is a link for the dictionary.com definition. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/correlation Short term memory loss is really an issue for you. I would suggest St John's Wort. As I have said it is a small mind that can only weigh 2 factors that might influence sacks per attempt. What is it you are trying to say with this drivel? Be clear man. Blah blah blah. Typical discussion and search for knowledge that has gone nowhere. I don't think there was anything of value in this entire thread which does truly make it a waste of time. No knowledge gained or shared. Keep believing that the QB is more important than having a good offensive line. For me, it's order of operation or putting up a building. You need a firm foundation in the o-line to make any of the rest of it worth it. That being said as I have not once provided any negative statements about the QB. QB is VERY important but you will not get to the promised land without a good o-line. I DON'T MEAN STELLAR OR PROBOWLER AT EVERY POSITON. Just at least good. Then again I'm sure that you attribute the Jets success to the heroics of Mark Sanchez not the 3 probowlers on their o-line. I'm sure there is some rare exception you will cling to to say this strategy isn't the way to go ...but then again your opinion has proven to be sketchy at best. The o-line is like a set of tires on the best race car. If your tires aren't good enough you won't be first on race day no matter how much horse power the engine has. No matter how good the suspension. So I'll close by saying: 1) Taking offense is at the discretion of the one offended. I have no idea what would make you or anyone previous think to address me as "bro" as we are not siblings or friends. 2) "Lighten up Francis" I am the King of Stats...get used to it. When I use them they don't even refute my statements. I don't say something is good or important and then provide stats to the contrary. 3) Already explained the difference between "can" and "did" hope it was educational. For the record you basically refused to answer pretty much all of my questions thus proving your lack of integrity. Keep it classy bandit

Indeed you should know when you are conquered. You should also brush up on your reading comprehension because it is severely lacking. Let's play the I never said game....I never said the Colts ran the ball well last season. This is a sad desperate attempt of a man beaten. Fabricate a point that I didn't make and then attack it. Nice try but no dice chump. Apparently you also have a problem with short term memory loss. I said that today's nfl is a passing league and teams with great QBs like Manning CHOOSE to pass more. They don't do so out of necessity. Apparently that leap of logic is beyond you no matter how I have tried to educate you. Wow that is a good one ...now you're accusing me of trying to use a small number of exceptions to disprove the rule? That is rich. I guess then that that is an admission that your previously attempted tactic was not valid and your argument BS. Score one for me. Again for the record ...please point where I said the Colts ran the ball well last season? I won't hold my breath because people like you are about trying to win a stupid argument than discover truth and have no integrity to answer direct questions. I expect the usual "make up a question and answer mine first response" all the while not answering mine on this one. And yes.....you should salute me. You're still kind of thick but I'll try to get through. Answer me this question? Do you understand the difference between choosing not to run the ball vs can't run the ball? That should be enough to give the normal guy a clue but being thicker than most I'm sure I'll have to elaborate for you. Passing league, passing team, more passes, less running. Get it? Do you understand that those rankings are based on a multitude of stats some passing related, some rushing related and some QB ball retention related? #1 o-line is #1 o-line. As I have said and backed up with my points you need both a QB and a line. You can't have the #1 ranked line with a bad line. I DON'T CARE WHO YOUR QB IS!!! Next you'll take the loser "I can't admit I am beaten" approach by questioning the "ruler" when things don't "measure" up the way you like. YOU are a bunch of contradictions. You claim to have the wisdom to understand that QB and o-line are important but then all of your arguments attack this concept and minimize the importance of the o-line by pointing out exceptions to the rule. I on the other hand am able to back up my point without taking a single shot at a QB. That is because my supporting arguments are consistent with my beliefs and stated views while you pretend to understand the importance of the line but then consistently minimize that importance with your arguments. It is a small mind that can only weight two potential factors to explain what they see. A person with a brain is going to realize YES there is a correlation, not a mathematical formula applied to sacks and attempts. A 5th grader could see that the more you pass the more sacks, hurries and pressures you expose your QB too. A multitude of factors including QB ball retention, how quickly your WR can get open, how good your line is at protection are to be considered here. Does this help to explain the potential difference in you smorgasbord of stats your provided as proof of nothing? Let me elaborate even further. Good lines help to drive the sack to pass attempt ration down. Bad lines can drive it up. When a team does most of their passing in a game is also relevant. Do you pass early to get ahead...or do you pass when you are behind to catch up. Let me explain that for you because you have demonstrated problems here. If you are passing early teams still have to respect the run game. Defenses are less likely to focus as much attention to the pass. If you are passing late because you are behind defenses will bring the house because they know you have no choice? Get it? Don't bother. I know you don't have the integrity to answer a direct question. Hope you don't feel too foolish. Some of the terms are getting too fluid here to hold your feet to the fire. You were not talking about QBs succeeding without a "great" line. Effectively you said get your QB first as it is more important than o-line. You then attempted to point out a group of QBs that you thought were in the play offs and succeeded despite poor line play. The difference here is that you did not say great, good or even average. You tried to provide examples of POOR line play. It is this strategy that I have attacked. If this was supposedly just in support of the get your QB first idea it failed miserably. It became a look at this small group of QBs that I think succeeded despite poor line play. There are always exceptions but again it doesn't invalidate the rule. You don't sell someone an extended warranty by telling them your product sucks and it will break without it! You don't try to sell someone on the idea that the QB is most important by saying offensive line is not important. This is what you argued despite your contradictory statement that you think o-line is important. SWEET ...trap set and sprung. Let me get this straight. Sooo.. Atlanta went 4-0 with Matt Ryan and no Micheal Turner but the Falcons lost according to you due to bad QB play? -LOL...way to dispute your own point that the Falcons lost due to bad QB play!!!! Cheers...another point for me. This may be a news flash for you. Do you know that Altanta has more than 1 RB? GOSH...yes they do. You have done much to minimize the importance Micheal Turner in your post. Could it be that the most important reason for their drop in rushing rank was poor offensive line play? OH GOD NO! You mean the offensive line not getting the job done in the running game could have been more of a factor than supposedly bad QB play which your own stats without Turner refute? Score another for me! To throw you a bone. Matt Ryan was injured a good portion of the year with some foot thing too. So he might not have been up to 2008 form either. Not that I know what teams you are referencing in this section but your statement seems to be you remember what you did and didn't say. Hooray for you. Please elaborate on what words I have put in your mouth. I'll remember that "BRO"

ARGH...You want to trade one of the FEW bright spots on the team to get a TE for Trent??? That is a bad idea period much less saying getting rid of him would somehow help Trent by getting yet another 5 yd or less check down option. Well I will say this. Given the fact that Trent has the balls and the arm of a hamster Lee Evan's speed and ability to stretch the field is wasted. That's the answer. Get rid of good weapons because our QB is unable to utilize them. Lee Evans is a .50 bullet. The answer isn't to replace him with BBs for Edwards pop gun arm. The answer.... IS TO GET A BIGGER GUN!!!!

Hey bro. Check out the fact that nfl.com has Indy ranked as the #1 O-line in the league. While you're at it bra...take a look at how they ran the ball in the super bowl....LOL. So your basically talking about 4 of your 5 teams also ranking in the top 1/3 in the league in passing attempts right? Teams with great QBs you are talking about? So basically teams that pass the ball a lot? It proves my point. And yes I AM the king of stats. I'm not going to spend a whole day compiling stats on 28 - 30 teams just because some jack ass has challenged me when you have proven that there are only a handful of exceptions. Again logic and inference applied tells us the the rest of the teams you want stats on disprove your exception. Already said as much? I actually had already said as much and my arguments are consistent with that belief. You claim to think that offensive line play is also important and you need both a QB AND a line but then your argument and line of reasoning points to successful teams that choose not to run the ball as often being examples of bad lines. You contradict yourself. Some more flawed logic is your assessment of the Falcons. Matt Ryan's numbers weren't up to his previous years par but I would hardly say it is because he was a bad QB or had a bad year however you want to put it. Atlanta went from #2 in rushing in 2008 to #15 in 2009. Micheal Turner multiple games lost due to an ankle injury anyone? Do you think that this might have been an issue? NAH, looking at QB rating in a vacuum is the only way to judge QB play and team performance right? Oh wait...you do think O-line is equally as important but continually try to provide proof to the contrary. What a joke. First of all learn to count. So let me get this straight. You're again saying that in today's nfl which is a passing league, teams that pass a lot subject their QBs to more sacks and pressures? Yes they do. So does the fact that all of the teams with the exception of the Vikings ranked in the bottom half of rushing attempts? Is this due to the fact that they couldn't rush the ball as you assert or is it due to the fact that, AGAIN, today's nfl is a passing league and their teams had great QBs so they passed? So....ya continue to bring it Mr A** Bandit.

Imagine that! A successful GREAT QB had a good line in front of him. That never happens!

So passing offense QBs take sacks? NO....you don't say? Perhaps because they drop back to throw more than the other teams their QBs are exposed to more pressures and sacks? Is that what you are saying? Do you mean like Mike Martz a brilliant offensive mind got his QB's killed because of how often they had to pass and hold on to the ball to be successful? Do you mean these passing teams that COULD RUN THE BALL AND DO IT WELL but chose to pass because they were even better at the passing game? Indy did lose but did you see how successful they were at running the ball. OH WAIT...I forgot it was their franchise QB carrying the rock in the super bowl! So you find a handful of exceptions you can provide stats on and I am supposed to find stats on the other 30 teams over the last 5 years. Riiiiiiiiiight. I am king of stats. I often go to great lengths to provide stats. I'm just not going to spend half a day compiling stats on the general rule not your exceptions. Tell you what..you find me more than a couple of exceptions and give me stats and I'll find stats on the rest. Deal? So basically you're agreeing with me in that a team need both a line and a QB? Show me a playoff team with a bad line and then look at the rest that had good one. Atlanta? Houston? bad QB play...not sure I agree with that especially considering Pro Bowl Matt Schaub. How about you do your own leg work? Go find me a list of teams that made the playoffs that didn't have AT LEAST an average line and I'll show you your 1 exceptions. A little lesson in logic this means you can then infer that everyone else had at least an average to an above average line. This is the group of teams defining the rule that you so enthusiastically can find 2 exception to. Don't play the game. You'll lose.

Let's not play the game. I never said you wanted to be GM. I just stated a good reason why you shouldn't be one based on your extremist statement. If all it took was drafting QBs 5 years in a row to get Peyton manning every team would do the same. Unfortunately a QB like Manning comes along once a generation and they go #1 overall. 5 years of drafting QBs in the first and or second though might position you nicely for the #1 overall pick for a while ala the Lions. Maybe you could get lucky and your extremist approach to make a point might have merit. You are right picking a QB is nothing like picking a WR. But constantly blowing draft picks on the same position hoping to hit the lottery is a recipe for failure. I know you were just trying to make an extreme point. This is just my extreme rebuttal to that point. I think I get the specifics of your purely academic point. Unfortunately they are rarely useful in the real world. So, I'll give you your academic point but it is nearly useless in the real world because no team is presented with the option of "in this draft you have the choice of a franchise QB or a valuable o-lineman" It is a gamble to be sure and a good portion of your successful play off QBs actually had good lines as rookies. Something to think about

Ok apparently "maybe half" was not clear enough. I should have said maybe a quarter didn't find success with their first team. Romo didn't actually play somewhere else he was just an undrafted free agent. You list does bring up something very interesting though. 7 of the 12 QBs were first round picks. Of those 7, FIVE were drafted in the top 5 picks. 2 of them first overall with McNabb actually being #2. Another reason why I am glad you provided the list. How many of those QBs had good offensive lines in front of them? Indy was #1 overall and New Orleans was #4 overall. Getting the picture? Those 2 I knew by heart but it looks like the worst and only suspect offensive line in that list of QBs is Green Bay and they improved significantly during the second half of the season.

Good for you!!!! You are able to find the scant handful of exceptions. YAAAAAAAA. Now go back and find me the stats on the other 50 million teams in that time period that actually had at least average offensive lines.

I even hear that old rubber arm is ahead of schedule following his second season ending shoulder injury and subsequent surgery before the age of 22

Don't mean to be a jerk but that is EXACTLY why you shouldn't be a GM. You need to have good scouting and a good front office to do it efficiently instead of blowing picks for years and hoping to hit the lottery. This is what we did with Losman and Edwards. We took shots and picked guys that really didn't have what it takes and of course we have to wait 2+ years to see that each one is not the guy. If we are just taking guesses and picking a QB every year like the Lions picked WRs we could be in a world of hurt for the next 1o years. If you are willing to bank on whatever QB falls to us is the next superstar...more power to you. Me? I would rather get a LT that will make our run game AND whatever QB we have back there better. Everyone including myself sometimes forgets that we also have free agency. There are a couple names out there that I would love to see in Buffalo. Along with a stud LT and some offensive ingenuity we are right back in the hunt!!!!! Bank on one of these QBs at #9 and we could likely be having the same discussion about a QB or LT 2 - 3 years from now

We probably agree 95% but the devil is in the details and that last 5%. The NFL is a passing league now. Sacks can come along with that especially when you consider some of those QBs, like Farve, Rogers and Rethlisberger are known for holding on to the ball trying to extend the play. Another thing to consider is maybe half of those QBs were actually free agent pickups that found success with their second and sometimes 3rd team. Yet another thing to consider is that half or more of them WERE NOT FIRST ROUND PICKS!!!!! It's yin and yang. You NEED both. If you see the next Favre, Manning, Brees, Roethlisberger or Rogers slam dunk in the draft...by all means draft him at #9 if he is there. I think if you are honest you will likely say that they aren't there in the draft. You can't just grab a QB because you need one and expect that there is a franchise guy in the first round when it is your turn to pick. Again we agree on most everything just the order of operation.

By the time we drafted Kelly or by the time that he finally played his first game for Buffalo after he acquired a bit of experience?

Brees didn't start his 1st year. He played one game. Take a look at his magical 3rd year starting. He showed signs early enough to show that he could become what he is. Also, people need to stop with the ...there have been a scant handful of cases in the past so we should give Trent more time. Just because people have won the lottery in the past doesn't mean that it is a valid retirement plan.

Agreed x10. Also...a "stud QB" won't amount to anything without a decent if not great line already assembled in front of him.

Uh...no! I'm not saying Jim wouldn't have as much success as in the early 90's but he would definitely be better than Edwards with this line.

a) His arm strength pales in comparison to Brees and Manning b) He has no balls c) Manning and Brees had better numbers for the same number of starts and time to develop

Drew's first couple years sucked but his last 2 years in San Diego were great. He averaged over 3300yds and 25 TDs. That is an important middle part to the story. Matter of fact Drew's 3rd year as a starter was a 27 TD year. Wake me when we see that kind of potential in Edwards....YAWN!!!!

It's such a freakin long shot but Troy Smith! PLEASE!!! We have a lot of nothing at QB right now. Yes, they could be better with a better line but we are talking backup quality talent. I would rather get someone that has at least the slightest chanve to be more than what we have now. We know what is on our roster. Sometimes you just have to admit you backed the wrong candidate and move on. I don't want to waste one more single, year, off season, starting rep or game on Edwards. I said it a couple years ago. AT BEST Edwards could be our Frank Reich. Let's stop fooling around and find our Jim Kelly.

I have to STRONGLY disagree with that!

Unlike Bradford, Kelly had a huge arm

This guy gets it. Don't forget the Pitt traditionally has great defenses too! QB is of huge importance but we actually have greater needs right now. There are a few FA QBs out there that can help us now and potentially even be the QB of the future.

Sorry to be a jerk but when the hell are people going to get the clue that the exception doesn't invalidate the rule? Seriously! I'll go with the draft a QB before o-line if you can find me a 6'5" 241lb first round talent QB who is half as tough as Big Ben. I assume some jackass already brought up the other exception, Aaron Rogers. He had 3 - 4 years on the bench to learn the game before being thrust into a starting role and his and his teams play improved appreciably after the "talk" where they discussed o-line play and getting rid of the ball earlier. PLEASE do not try to use these examples to say we don't need a line first. It's the same weak ass argument that people try to make for drafting late round QBs because one team, NE, has struck gold in the last 40 years doing so.

+1000. Believe it or not I always had faith but Drew Brees was an up and down QB for the Chargers. His first truly good year came the year that the Chargers effectively gave up on him as the franchise QB of the future and ended up with Phillip Rivers. That year he seemed to put it together. After a shoulder injury the Chargers promptly dealt him and the rest is history for the Saints. If ANYTHING this shows that adding a FA QB to an existing good team with a good line is sometimes all that is needed to take your team to the next level or even to the super bowl. Saints? What? Vikings? What? Cardinals? What? Texans? What? There are also several examples of teams with great offensive lines and running games that have had great success with rookie QBs? Jets? What? Ravens? What? Falcons? What? Long story short. Get an offensive line. Don't expose your rookie QB to playing to early and ruining their career developing bad habits and getting gun shy behinds a bad line.

More proof. Brees can't do what he does without an offensive line to give him the time and a respectable run game. Draft O-line first. Your own argument points to Brees being a second round pick. Not to mention the Chargers already had a pretty good line. Our line is in such complete and total disarray. We are not talking about an OK line and getting the QB of the future now. Whatever the excuse, youth, injury our line was TERRIBLE! THAT is our #1 priority.