Orton's Arm Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 If you look at the most successful teams in the NFL, they generally have two things going for them: 1. A complete team with significant strengths and few or no major weaknesses. 2. A quarterback who plays at an elite level. Of the three quarterbacks that played at the highest level in 2009, two (Manning and Brees) found their way to the Super Bowl. Both played on complete teams. Now look at the also-rans. The Vikings had a complete team--arguably at least as complete a team as the Saints--but Favre didn't play at quite the same level as Drew Brees did in 2009. Kurt Warner's 2009 season was comparable to that of Manning or Brees, but he wasn't surrounded by the same level of players as those two quarterbacks were. Falling short in either area will normally keep you from getting a Super Bowl ring, because odds are there will be some other team that has both the elite quarterback and the strong supporting cast. Most other recent Super Bowl winners have fit that mold. The Patriots had Tom Brady, as well as a reasonably complete offense and defense. The Giants team that beat the Patriots had a good (but not great) year from Eli Manning, but made up for the lack of elite play at the quarterback position by having a stronger overall team at the non-quarterback positions than a lot of other Super Bowl winners tend to have. The Steelers, with Ben Roethlisberger, fit that mold--especially in his second Super Bowl win. The Colts obviously fit that mold as well when they won the Super Bowl. Looking back a few years, the Broncos, the Packers and the St. Louis Rams also adhered to that model in their most recent Super Bowl wins. Not all Super Bowl winners fit that mold. The most obvious example is the Ravens of 2000, a team which won despite having Trent Dilfer at QB. But that team had one of the three best defenses in NFL history. It's very hard to build a defense at that level; which is why you see most Super Bowls being won by teams that follow the elite QB play + complete team mold, and not the Ravens of 2000 or the Bears of '85 mold. The Bills should build a team that adheres to the elite QB + complete team specification. This means several things: 1) if the opportunity to acquire a franchise QB comes their way, they should take it. 2) They should not expend significant resources on acquiring a non-franchise QB. They should not trade a 2nd round pick for McNabb, for example, because he's old, and will not be playing at an elite level by the time the Bills assemble a complete team around him. If a resource cannot be used on the first part of the plan (acquiring long-term elite play at the QB position) it must be used on the second part (assembling a complete team around him). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peteski Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 Easier said than done bud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 Easier said than done bud. No chit. If it was that easy, the Bills would have figured it out within the past 10 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon in Pasadena Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 OK, which one of you jokers sent Brandon/Jauron that copy of "How to win in the NFL with a weak-ass incomplete team and crappy QB's" ? You forgot to tell them it was GAG gift, dumas... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted February 16, 2010 Author Share Posted February 16, 2010 Easier said than done bud. No argument there! But if you were going to build a skyscraper, you'd begin with a blueprint of what you wanted that building to look like when it was finished. You would direct all your efforts to reaching the specs laid out on the blueprint, and would not allow yourself to become distracted by anything outside the blueprint. One of the reasons why the Bills have consistently failed to build a Super Bowl winner is that, in the post-Polian era, we have not used the blueprint approach. Did anyone really think that trading away a third round pick for Billy Joe Hobart would lead to elite play at the quarterback position? Or what about the first round pick we traded for an aging Drew Bledsoe? Did anyone truly believe that Bledsoe--whose play in New England had been run of the mill in the years immediately leading up to the trade--would be playing at an elite level by the time the Bills were able to assemble a complete team around him? Or what about the 2nd round pick for Travis Henry? The RB position is associated with short careers, and yet Henry was drafted at the beginning of TD's rebuilding process. Ditto the Marshawn Lynch pick near the beginning of Marv's rebuilding process. The Bills don't have a franchise quarterback on their roster. That means that they should not invest draft day resources in the quarterback position, unless the guy they're investing in has serious potential to play at an elite level over a long period of time. If the latter is the case, they should be willing to pay almost any price at all to get him; because the franchise QB is both the most critical, and hardest to acquire, single piece of the puzzle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthICE Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 If you look at the most successful teams in the NFL, they generally have two things going for them: 2. A quarterback who plays at an elite level. ^^ This Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. Rich Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 If you look at the most successful teams in the NFL, they generally have two things going for them: 1. A complete team with significant strengths and few or no major weaknesses. 2. A quarterback who plays at an elite level. Is that all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts