which comes first?

[thebandit27]

It is clear to me that you are myopic and only see what you want to see, not that big a deal because even coaches like Jauron see things your way.

 

Consider this concerning Tenn, the defense had a new DC who was promoted to that position and did a horrid job with the defense until Jeff Fisher stepped in and helped him with it. The Titans also got back several defensive players from Injuries around the same time, like their all pro CB Cortland Finnegin. The Titans were beaten 59-0 at the Patriots just before the bye week and there was serious talk of Fisher being fired.

 

Although I'm not denying that Vince Young help spark the team with his running and throwing, but the entire team played better after that bye week. The defense only allowed 17 pts per game after that embarrassing NE blowout loss. With even the threat of a halfway decent QB behind the line it opened up both the passing game and running game. Lets not forget that Chris Johnson had over 2000 yards rushing and was named the AP offensive player of the year. Tenn also has one of the most dominate offensive lines in the NFL and an amazing running attack.

 

So at first glance it might appear that Vince Young was the sole reason for the Titans going on that tear after the bye week, he wasn't. Also,Kerry Collins just might have hit that proverbial "wall" after 16 years in the NFL.

 

While I do appreciate your attempted dig at both my analytical skills and character-of-mind, I have to ask: how is it that my opinion--supported solely by the presented facts--is myopic, but your choice in providing a reply to only one of 6 different examples (a reply that does absolutely nothing to refute the evidence that the importance of a good QB supercedes that of a good OL) and using it as a blanket response is well-thought-out, reasoned, and broadminded?

 

I'm fully aware of the team's defensive resurgence and running back situation, in fact, I went so far as to acknowledge the latter in my apparently myopic post. What I did not see from you is any argument that would refute my statement that success in the NFL begins with the QB position; that is to say that the QB position is more important than the OL. In fact, you even went so far as to agree with my position that Tennessee has a "dominant" OL and an "amazing" running attack...which lead to all of zero wins without a capable QB. You also backed up my stance by pointing out that upon switching QBs the entire team played better...exactly what part of my argument do you disagree with?

 

So I'm not sure where you disagree with me, since it's not evident at all from your post. What's even less evident is what makes my viewpoint--which by all discernable analysis is both accurate and statistically supported--myopic, or even slightly misguided.

[DarthICE]

I say QB.

 

I think mistakes can more easily be hidden by exceptional QB play than the opposite. Find a franchise trigger-man and build around him.

 

QB period

[Steely Dan]

Looking at the two most recent expansion franchises' initial first-round picks ...

 

1999 Browns: Tim Couch

2002 Texans: David Carr

 

Did they pick the wrong QB, or did they ruin a guy who could have been their franchise QB by not protecting him? Hmmm.

 

The Browns' 1999 line was anchored by aging LT Lomas Brown, but Brown wasn't totally finished -- he moved on to play in the SB with the Giants the following year. Buffalo native Dave Wohlabaugh was serviceable at center, 'Zeus' Brown at RT. Guards were ... meh. Ty Detmer was the backup that year, and didn't do much better than Couch.

 

Carr never had a chance, once the Texans discovered that Tony Boselli wouldn't be able to play. Their line looked a lot like Buffalo's (post-injury-bug) this year -- Steve McKinney at C, two rookies (including at LT), and a bunch of scrubs. All these years later, I still can't believe he survived 76 sacks, much less took every snap at QB for them. I have my doubts as to whether Carr would have panned out anyway, but I'd put him in the 'ruined' camp.

 

Overall, unless there's an obvious, can't-miss QB prospect available at No. 9, put me in the "fix the line first" camp. The Jets could go ahead and start Sanchez this year precisely because he had three Pro Bowl O-linemen in front of him and a strong running game to lean on.

 

What she said.

 

I'd go with the QB's on the roster right now. Gailey has a history of doing a lot with a little at the position. I believe his style of offense is a lot less stressful on a QB than others. Get the line set see if Edwards is really out of gas and worry about a QB next year.

[thewildrabbit]

While I do appreciate your attempted dig at both my analytical skills and character-of-mind, I have to ask: how is it that my opinion--supported solely by the presented facts--is myopic, but your choice in providing a reply to only one of 6 different examples (a reply that does absolutely nothing to refute the evidence that the importance of a good QB supercedes that of a good OL) and using it as a blanket response is well-thought-out, reasoned, and broadminded?

 

I'm fully aware of the team's defensive resurgence and running back situation, in fact, I went so far as to acknowledge the latter in my apparently myopic post. What I did not see from you is any argument that would refute my statement that success in the NFL begins with the QB position; that is to say that the QB position is more important than the OL. In fact, you even went so far as to agree with my position that Tennessee has a "dominant" OL and an "amazing" running attack...which lead to all of zero wins without a capable QB. You also backed up my stance by pointing out that upon switching QBs the entire team played better...exactly what part of my argument do you disagree with?

 

So I'm not sure where you disagree with me, since it's not evident at all from your post. What's even less evident is what makes my viewpoint--which by all discernable analysis is both accurate and statistically supported--myopic, or even slightly misguided.

It is perfectly clear that your perspective of how you see things is myopic= A narrow foresight, a narrow view of something. BTW I wasn't trying to flame, just trying to get you to broaden your perspective of how others see things.

 

Did you actually read my post or just skim over it and deduce that I was solely criticizing you, and you respond with the point that I agreed with some of what you stated?

 

The Titans defense allowing 59 points to the Patriots before the bye and then only allowing an average of 17 points per game after the bye and Chis Johnson had more to do with the Titans resurgence then Vince Young did.

 

 

What QB couldn't succeed behind a great O line with a dominate running attack?

 

That same formula allowed the Ravens to beat the Patriots "IN" New England for that "wildcard" playoff game, with QB Joe Flacco throwing 4 of 10 for 34 yards, clearly the only thing he did well that day was hand the ball off to Ray Rice.

 

That same formula allowed rookie Mark Sanchez to actually develop this year and help bring the Jets to one game away from the super bowl, it also helped he had the best running game in the NFL.

[Green Lightning]

There isn't a qb worth picking in the first round. Get a LB, DL or OL...best available.

[sllib olaffub]

In the draft, especially, it just depends on who's available. If the level of talent is about the same, relative to the position, I'd say elite talent - your going to have a harder time finding an elite QB, so you take QB, but, if it's just pretty good, then you're better off going LT, because a pretty good LT will go farther than a pretty good QB without a LT.

[thewildrabbit]

QB, by a lot.

 

By now, most of you have seen the points I've made on the subject, but once more couldn't hurt.

 

In 2009, 5 of the 10 most sacked QBs in the league lead 5 of the 10 best passing offenses in the league (Rodgers, Roethlisberger, Romo, McNabb, Favre).

 

As always, I welcome anyone that can make the case as strongly for the other side to do so...the floor is yours.

You state Tony Romo as among the leaders in sacks allowed, and yet Dallas has one of the best offensive lines in the NFL, same with McNabb and Farve.

 

Did you notice how poorly Romo performed AFTER LT Flozell Adams was injured and knocked out of the game in that NFC divisional playoff game in Minnesota?

 

Arron Rodgers game performance increased after O tackle Mark Tauscher returned form IR, there was a post about this in PFW.

 

Both Rodgers and Rothlisberger simply tend to hold the ball to long while waiting for receivers to get open, sack stats don't always tell the whole story.

 

As great as Jim Kelly and the k-gun offense was for the Buffalo Bills during the 90's, would you believe me if I stated that the Bills ran the ball more then they threw the ball most of those years?

[thebandit27]

It is perfectly clear that your perspective of how you see things is myopic= A narrow foresight, a narrow view of something. BTW I wasn't trying to flame, just trying to get you to broaden your perspective of how others see things.

 

If having an opinion that developed over years and years = myopic, then I suppose you can call me that. However, to call someone "clearly myopic" simply because they interpret statistics differently than you would lead other to believe that you...dare I say...to have a narrow view of things. It's not that I don't see the other side's point, but rather that I do not agree with it in the slightest.

 

Did you actually read my post or just skim over it and deduce that I was solely criticizing you, and you respond with the point that I agreed with some of what you stated?

 

Of course I read it, otherwise it wouldn't have been prudent for me to quote your post on multiple occasions. I'm not sure what lead you to believe I hadn't read it--other than the fact that I don't agree with it.

 

The Titans defense allowing 59 points to the Patriots before the bye and then only allowing an average of 17 points per game after the bye and Chis Johnson had more to do with the Titans resurgence then Vince Young did.

 

So you think that the defense magically got better? Count me among those that disagree with this myopic POV. The only thing that changed between weeks 6 and 8 was the QB...you think it's possible that the defense performed better because the offense kept them off the field more, and didn't turn the ball over 5 times like they did against NE in week 6?

 

What QB couldn't succeed behind a great O line with a dominate running attack?

 

Umm, Kerry Collins...the guy that won zero games at QB with a--as you said--"dominant" OL and "amazing" running game. We covered this already.

 

But just for fun, here's a few others with solid OL play in 2009 that didn't (parentheticals present team's ranking in fewest sacks allowed and rushing yards per game, respectively):

 

Brady Quinn (10th, 8th)

Matt Ryan (8th, 15th)

Eli Manning (12th, 17th)

Jake Delhomme (13th, 3rd)

Chad Henne (19th, 4th)

 

That same formula allowed the Ravens to beat the Patriots "IN" New England for that "wildcard" playoff game, with QB Joe Flacco throwing 4 of 10 for 34 yards, clearly the only thing he did well that day was hand the ball off to Ray Rice.

 

And that same formula allowed the team with a great QB and an offensive line that consists of late-round picks and undrafted free agents (save for RG Mike Pollak) to easily handle Baltimore the next week.

 

That same formula allowed rookie Mark Sanchez to actually develop this year and help bring the Jets to one game away from the super bowl, it also helped he had the best running game in the NFL.

 

The running game helps, yes...but the fact that Sanchez made plays when it mattered is what won playoff games for the Jets. Just look at his playoff performances versus those of the opposing QBs: Palmer was brutal, Rivers choked, and Manning seriously outplayed him. 2 wins, 1 loss.

 

You couldn't have picked a worse platform to argue on than the 2009-10 playoffs, as it's been a banner year for the QB > OL argument. Check out the QBs who's teams made the playoffs:

 

Manning

Brady

Palmer

Sanchez

Flacco

Rivers

Warner

Rodgers

Favre

Romo

McNabb

Brees

 

They're all elite-level players (save for Sanchez and Flacco, who were high 1st round picks and are well on their way).

[thebandit27]

You state Tony Romo as among the leaders in sacks allowed, and yet Dallas has one of the best offensive lines in the NFL, same with McNabb and Farve.

 

According to what? The teams you refer to gave up a lot of sacks and didn't run the ball exceptionally well (save for Dallas)...so should we completely ignore that and just take your word for it?

 

Did you notice how poorly Romo performed AFTER LT Flozell Adams was injured and knocked out of the game in that NFC divisional playoff game in Minnesota?

 

They scored 3 points with Adams in the lineup and zero without him...wow...compelling.

 

Arron Rodgers game performance increased after O tackle Mark Tauscher returned form IR, there was a post about this in PFW.

 

1) No player can return from IR

2) Tauscher came back in week 9. Prior to that, Rodgers had already thrown 14 of his 30 TD passes, had 5 consecutive games with a QB rating of over 100, and tossed only 2 of his 7 INTs...that doesn't exactly back up your argument.

 

Both Rodgers and Rothlisberger simply tend to hold the ball to long while waiting for receivers to get open, sack stats don't always tell the whole story.

 

So wait, is that supposed to tell me that the QB is NOT more important than the OL...because that makes me think that sacks are under the QB's control...what say you?

 

As great as Jim Kelly and the k-gun offense was for the Buffalo Bills during the 90's, would you believe me if I stated that the Bills ran the ball more then they threw the ball most of those years?

 

Yes, because that's actually a discernable fact...but if you're going to tell me that anyone could've quarterbacked that team to 4 straight Superbowls, then this discussion is over, because you clearly are...you guessed it...myopic regarding this topic.

[Guest dog14787]

You state Tony Romo as among the leaders in sacks allowed, and yet Dallas has one of the best offensive lines in the NFL, same with McNabb and Farve.

 

Did you notice how poorly Romo performed AFTER LT Flozell Adams was injured and knocked out of the game in that NFC divisional playoff game in Minnesota?

 

Arron Rodgers game performance increased after O tackle Mark Tauscher returned form IR, there was a post about this in PFW.

 

Both Rodgers and Rothlisberger simply tend to hold the ball to long while waiting for receivers to get open, sack stats don't always tell the whole story.

 

As great as Jim Kelly and the k-gun offense was for the Buffalo Bills during the 90's, would you believe me if I stated that the Bills ran the ball more then they threw the ball most of those years?

 

 

I agree, Thurman Thomas/ running game was a huge contributing factor to Jim Kelly's success in the 90's.

[lets_go_bills]

I say QB.

 

I think mistakes can more easily be hidden by exceptional QB play than the opposite. Find a franchise trigger-man and build around him.

 

It's widely accepted that the most important positions in football are:

1. QB

2. LT

3. DE

[thewildrabbit]

If having an opinion that developed over years and years = myopic, then I suppose you can call me that. However, to call someone "clearly myopic" simply because they interpret statistics differently than you would lead other to believe that you...dare I say...to have a narrow view of things. It's not that I don't see the other side's point, but rather that I do not agree with it in the slightest.

 

 

 

Of course I read it, otherwise it wouldn't have been prudent for me to quote your post on multiple occasions. I'm not sure what lead you to believe I hadn't read it--other than the fact that I don't agree with it.

 

 

 

So you think that the defense magically got better? Count me among those that disagree with this myopic POV. The only thing that changed between weeks 6 and 8 was the QB...you think it's possible that the defense performed better because the offense kept them off the field more, and didn't turn the ball over 5 times like they did against NE in week 6?

No, in fact you didn't read it. If you had you would have seen that I posted this...

 

Consider this concerning Tenn, the defense had a new DC who was promoted to that position and did a horrid job with the defense until Jeff Fisher stepped in and helped him with it. The Titans also got back several defensive players from Injuries around the same time, like their all pro CB Cortland Finnegin. The Titans were beaten 59-0 at the Patriots just before the bye week and there was serious talk of Fisher being fired.

 

So again, Vince Young wasn't the only thing that changed. Like I stated earlier that Young was a part of it, the defense drastically improved as did the running game with the offensive AP player of the year in Chris Johnson. I also stated that Kerry Collins may have hit that proverbial "'wall"', which means he is at the end of his 16 year career. I also stated the entire team played better after the bye week.

 

In your view the only thing that changed was the QB, so yea... I'd say that is myopic.

[thewildrabbit]

According to what? The teams you refer to gave up a lot of sacks and didn't run the ball exceptionally well (save for Dallas)...so should we completely ignore that and just take your word for it?

 

They scored 3 points with Adams in the lineup and zero without him...wow...compelling.

 

1) No player can return from IR-He was on IR from last season

2) Tauscher came back in week 9. Prior to that, Rodgers had already thrown 14 of his 30 TD passes, had 5 consecutive games with a QB rating of over 100, and tossed only 2 of his 7 INTs...that doesn't exactly back up your argument.- He was sacked much less after Tauscher returned and the team started winning more games

 

 

So wait, is that supposed to tell me that the QB is NOT more important than the OL...because that makes me think that sacks are under the QB's control...what say you?- First of all this discussion is not about which is more important, its about which to draft first ! Is it easier to find a left tackle to play well or a QB to play well?

 

 

Yes, because that's actually a discernable fact...but if you're going to tell me that anyone could've quarterbacked that team to 4 straight Superbowls, then this discussion is over, because you clearly are...you guessed it...myopic regarding this topic. Don't try to put words in my mouth about the QB, I was merely pointing out that the 90's Bills had one of the best running games the the NFL at that time that helped them achive their success.