thebandit27 Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Everything starts up front, and thats not a cliche Push , its a fact... See below for a comparison of two teams that totally debunks that "fact"... http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/index.php?...t&p=1629957 If it all started up front, wouldn't the team with the better o-line be 6-3, and the team with the weak o-line be 3-6, and not the other way around? Or is it possible that Push is right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PushthePile Posted November 20, 2009 Author Share Posted November 20, 2009 Everything starts up front, and thats not a cliche Push , its a fact... I hear ya Dog but you are missing the point or just avoiding it. The Point: Our TERRIBLE Qbs and coaching made our guys up front look worse than they are. Are they bad? Yes Does the team need tackles? Certainly Could this team have competed this year with a competent Qb and coach? Absolutely The wheels seem to be in motion, lets hope we get the QB and coach it takes to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dog14787 Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 I hear ya Dog but you are missing the point or just avoiding it. The Point: Our TERRIBLE Qbs and coaching made our guys up front look worse than they are. Are they bad? Yes Does the team need tackles? Certainly Could this team have competed this year with a competent Qb and coach? Absolutely The wheels seem to be in motion, lets hope we get the QB and coach it takes to win. The QB is not going to make an O-line worse or better, it is what it is, the overall results might get better or worse depending on the QB, but not the O-lines ability to keep their composure, run block and pass protect. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand as much and if this is all about Trent Edwards it doesn't really look like Edwards has much of a future here in Buffalo any more and you are probably getting your wish, so what more do you want. If it for me to admit TE has no starting potential in the NFL, its not happening buddy, and anyone that thinks they can efficiently evaluate a QB under the conditions Trent Edwards has played under more power to them, we'll just have to respectfully disagree. We can have this discussion a couple of years from now and one of us will be telling the other I told you so, until then lets just wait and see... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dog14787 Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 See below for a comparison of two teams that totally debunks that "fact"... http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/index.php?...t&p=1629957 If it all started up front, wouldn't the team with the better o-line be 6-3, and the team with the weak o-line be 3-6, and not the other way around? Or is it possible that Push is right? Awww come on man... Stop picking out anomalies and trying to prove a point with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timba Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Edwards has hit a point each season where he has taken enough abuse and he gets it in his head that the hit is coming. Just look at the trend: both of the last two years Trent's strongest performances have been in the first few weeks of the season (aside from last years anomaly in KC). Is that a knock on Edwards or the line? The line is definitely NOT GOOD and has been a hindrance to the offense. That being said, Trent needs to be able to shake the big hit and have faith that the guys around him will/can do their jobs. There is plenty of blame to go around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PushthePile Posted November 20, 2009 Author Share Posted November 20, 2009 The QB is not going to make an O-line worse or better, it is what it is, the overall results might get better or worse depending on the QB, but not the O-lines ability to keep their composure, run block and pass protect. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand as much and if this is all about Trent Edwards it doesn't really look like Edwards has much of a future here in Buffalo any more and you are probably getting your wish, so what more do you want. If it for me to admit TE has no starting potential in the NFL, its not happening buddy, and anyone that thinks they can efficiently evaluate a QB under the conditions Trent Edwards has played under more power to them, we'll just have to respectfully disagree. We can have this discussion a couple of years from now and one of us will be telling the other I told you so, until then lets just wait and see... I guess that my whole point is the opposite of this. A good Qb does indeed make a line better. I already know how you feel about Trent, so I wasn't attempting to convince you otherwise. It's the second highlited statement that I disagree with. Some fans treat Trents situation like it was completely hopeless and that he had no shot. Ridiculous! The guy wasn't under complete duress every play you know. He produced equally bad when provided with ample time. It's just the excuses that rile me up. If it's not the coaching that ruined him, it's the o-line, or the concussion he is still recovering from. In my estimation the guy had some things working against him but he also had alot of chances. Just like JP, he doesn't have it. This futility at the Qb position and lack of coaching are the main reasons for our playoff absence over the years. Get a coach and Qb, and this team turns around instantly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Awww come on man... Stop picking out anomalies and trying to prove a point with them. It's not an anomoly dude, it's a reality. You can have a great OL, but without a QB the offense won't function well. You can have a poor OL, but with a great QB the offense will function well. Just because you don't believe it doesn't make it any less true. And as for the "anomoly" stuff, well: - The Jets have allowed the 8th fewest sacks in the NFL, and lead the league in rushing, but they're below 0.500 because their QB play has been poor - The Giants have allowed the 9th fewest sacks in the NFL, and have the 7th ranked rushing attack in the game, but they've lost 4 straight due to Eli Manning's steadily declining level of play - The St. Louis Rams have allowed the 13th most sacks in the NFL (18, which is fewer than the prolific passing offenses of Minnesota, San Diego, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Green Bay) and rank 13th in the league in rushing yards per game, but cannot manage to score more than 11 PPG. Then of course you've got offenses like Pittsburgh, Green Bay, and Philly that have OL's that give up equal or more sacks than Buffalo's, and running games that produce similar numbers to Buffalo's, but score more points and have much better passing offenses. Am I to believe that these stats are anomolies as well? So you can continue to dodge this point as much as you want, but the facts prove otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dog14787 Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 I guess that my whole point is the opposite of this. A good Qb does indeed make a line better. I already know how you feel about Trent, so I wasn't attempting to convince you otherwise. It's the second highlited statement that I disagree with. Some fans treat Trents situation like it was completely hopeless and that he had no shot. Ridiculous! The guy wasn't under complete duress every play you know. He produced equally bad when provided with ample time. It's just the excuses that rile me up. If it's not the coaching that ruined him, it's the o-line, or the concussion he is still recovering from. In my estimation the guy had some things working against him but he also had alot of chances. Just like JP, he doesn't have it. This futility at the Qb position and lack of coaching are the main reasons for our playoff absence over the years. Get a coach and Qb, and this team turns around instantly. I realize what your whole point is, but it doesn't even make any sense in my opinion. The QB can improve the results, not someones abilities in front of him to pass protect or run block. They all still have the same strengths and weakness's from opposing defenses, their individual strengths and weakness's as athletes haven't changed, nothings changed. Don't confuse a QB that thinks and delivers the ball faster or scrambles better resulting in a better outcome with making the O-line better, it is what it is, and its the QB that changes the outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PushthePile Posted November 20, 2009 Author Share Posted November 20, 2009 I realize what your whole point is, but it doesn't even make any sense in my opinion. The QB can improve the results, not someones abilities in front of him to pass protect or run block. They all still have the same strengths and weakness's from opposing defenses, their individual strengths and weakness's as athletes haven't changed, nothings changed. Don't confuse a QB that thinks and delivers the ball faster or scrambles better resulting in a better outcome with making the O-line better, it is what it is, and its the QB that changes the outcome. Alright Dog, the QB doesn't literally change the individuals actual athletic ability. Is that your point? If you want to channel the discussion away from reality than that's fine. I know you understand what is being said and I know you get the point. To make it simple we need a QB that changes the outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dog14787 Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 It's not an anomoly dude, it's a reality. You can have a great OL, but without a QB the offense won't function well. You can have a poor OL, but with a great QB the offense will function well. Just because you don't believe it doesn't make it any less true. And as for the "anomoly" stuff, well: - The Jets have allowed the 8th fewest sacks in the NFL, and lead the league in rushing, but they're below 0.500 because their QB play has been poor - The Giants have allowed the 9th fewest sacks in the NFL, and have the 7th ranked rushing attack in the game, but they've lost 4 straight due to Eli Manning's steadily declining level of play - The St. Louis Rams have allowed the 13th most sacks in the NFL (18, which is fewer than the prolific passing offenses of Minnesota, San Diego, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Green Bay) and rank 13th in the league in rushing yards per game, but cannot manage to score more than 11 PPG. Then of course you've got offenses like Pittsburgh, Green Bay, and Philly that have OL's that give up equal or more sacks than Buffalo's, and running games that produce similar numbers to Buffalo's, but score more points and have much better passing offenses. Am I to believe that these stats are anomolies as well? So you can continue to dodge this point as much as you want, but the facts prove otherwise. Well I tell you what, you think like Russ Brandon and our FO, so you can build a team half ass backwards in your mind all you want , but if Shanahan, Cowher or any one of the top named coaching candidates that Buffalo has mentioned actually comes to Buffalo we won't have to worry about that anymore because they all know you have to pass protect and run block in this league to be successful. Point, what point bandit, you don't even have a point for me to dodge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dog14787 Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Alright Dog, the QB doesn't literally change the individuals actual athletic ability. Is that your point? If you want to channel the discussion away from reality than that's fine. I know you understand what is being said and I know you get the point. To make it simple we need a QB that changes the outcome. Well that statement makes allot more sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zazie Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 I thought Bradford might have been a good pick but not with that shoulder. That's always been the risk with draftig a QB in the first round. You can get Peyton Manning..........or Jemarcus Russel. More apt example, Peyton, or Ryan Leaf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Well I tell you what, you think like Russ Brandon and our FO, so you can build a team half ass backwards in your mind all you want , but if Shanahan, Cowher or any one of the top named coaching candidates that Buffalo has mentioned actually comes to Buffalo we won't have to worry about that anymore because they all know you have to pass protect and run block in this league to be successful. Point, what point bandit, you don't even have a point for me to dodge. You've got to be joking. If you really don't understand my point, then I'm afraid I'll need to simplify it for you: QB > OL That clear it up? I've proven it in post after post, with stat after stat, and example after example, and the only response you've ever had is to toss around a blanket statement: "it all starts up front". That's it. That's all you've ever refuted me with, and it doesn't hold water when you actually look at the facts. Then in this very post you trumpet that coaches like Shanahan and Cowher "all know you have to pass protect and run block in this league to be successful". Really? Is that why Cowher's 2005 Superbowl team allowed 32 sacks, 1 more than the Detroit Lions, who won 5 games that year? I know it wasn't Cowher's team, but how great was the OL when Pittsburgh's 2008 Superbowl team allowed 49 sacks (4th most in the NFL) and ranked 23rd in rushing? For that matter, run blocking must've been essential when the 2006-07 Colts ranked 18th in the NFL in rushing and won the Superbowl, right? Perhaps the OL was the main reason for the success of the 2003 Patriots, who ranked 27th in rushing and allowed 32 sacks en route to a Superbowl victory? There's always the 2002-03 Buccaneers to acknowledge as well, who won the Superbowl allowing 41 sacks (tied for 10th most in the NFL) and toting the league's 27th ranked rushing attack. How important was the offensive line when the 2001 Patriots won the Superbowl with the 13th ranked rushing attack and gave up 46 sacks (tied for 9th most in the league with--get this--Buffalo). Do you even pretend to research your points? I'll say it one last time, and then I'll move on: it's the QB, not the OL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Not liking TE I can understand Push, but not realizing the importance of good O-line play and how it impacts the whole offense run and pass doesn't make any sense. Take Aaron Rodgers for example, great QB but 9 games in and if I'm looking at it correctly Green bay would not make the playoffs if the season ended now. We are also talking about a great scrambling QB in Aaron Rodgers. Now if Aaron Rodgers struggles behind a bad O-line doesn't that tell you something Push? I don't remember which coach it was, but the stat last week was that 60% of Green Bay's sacks were Rogers' fault. Welcome to why fans should shut their mouths because they almost NEVER know who make the mistake on a given play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 [/b] Well that statement makes allot more sense. You really needed his point spelled out like that? Come on man. You've simply got to be a smarter person than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewildrabbit Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Bad teams usually have less talented coaching staffs who continually make the wrong decisions about their personnel. I've seen so many QB's come into the NFL over the last 20 years and go to bad team's, only to see them fail over and over. Many of them taken #1 overall, only to watch them get sacked again and again. After so many sacks they lose confidence in their Line, their receivers and themselves. Tom Brady went 16-0 and went into the SB undefeated, there they met the fierce some NY Giants pass rush and they lost because Brady didn't have time to throw. Both Payton Manning and Tom Brady are currently two of the least sacked QB's in the NFL, that is why they win so many games. Their O lines gives them enough time to complete almost any pass. If the Bills are trying to make do with a less talented QB then Brady or Manning, then they need to protect him better and run more often to set up the pass, kinda simple really and yet escapes the Idiot coaches. If Manning, Brady or even Drew Brees were the Bills QB, they yea they might have played like Trent Edwards did in the opener at NE and even won a few more games then him. But then after getting his as many times as he has this season and suffered another severe concussion you have to wonder how any QB could withstand that abuse and keep playing great. Players like Brady, Manning, Brees are rare finds and teams go all out to protect them, if they don't they miss the playoffs like the Patriots did last season when Brady hit the IR. That NE O line is so good that a backup QB who had never played college ball took the team to an 11-5 record. If the Bills didn't have so many injuries at the tackle position this year and so many players coming and going on that line, the Bills could easily be 5-4. Heck, the Bills O line is so bad they stole a tackle from the Packers practice squad and started him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thoner7 Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Yes QBs can play a part. But no, its our OL. FACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Yes QBs can play a part. But no, its our OL. FACT Typing it in caps doesn't make it true. Try pleading your case to the 2008 Steelers. Or the 2009 Titans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4BillsintheBurgh Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 Really guys - the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dog14787 Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 I don't remember which coach it was, but the stat last week was that 60% of Green Bay's sacks were Rogers' fault. Welcome to why fans should shut their mouths because they almost NEVER know who make the mistake on a given play. So you are telling me to shut my mouth based on a stat that isn't real, brilliant. Ever think maybe Aaron Rodgers wouldn't have happy feet if the line blocked better because I do. Same can be said for Big Ben and the Steeler's Buddy, but it doesn't change the fact that they both have sup par O-lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts