Been giving this a lot of thought....and I am a OL guy and

[Thurman#1]

How many elite QBs in the last 10 years have won superbowls? NOTE!!!!! I said how many elite QBs not how many superbowls

 

For extra credit, tell me how many of those elite QBs had an average or worse o-line?

 

 

Gosh, you mean Super Bowl winning teams have to be pretty good in all aspects? Um, no kidding.

 

But, Roethlisberger didn't have an average or worse o-line year before last. They weren't good. It can be done.

 

But it's beside the point of this argument. By and large, you have to have a good o-line and a good QB to win the SB. Pretty much everyone here gets that. The point is how they are assembled, and in particular, whether the Golden Rule is a high percentage move. And it is.

 

Last time the Steelers had a shot at a franchise QB, when they didn't have it, they took him. And yeah, they already had an excellent OL at the time, but how often did the Steelers ignore the Golden Rule? The Colts? The Pats*? ..........

[Thurman#1]

2002 Tampa with Brad Johnson. 85 Bears

 

 

 

People forget that in the middle of his career, Brad Johnson was a damn fine quarterback. The guy is 28th in passer rating in NFL history. 92.9 rating the Super Bowl year, back when ratings were lower than they are now.

 

He also made the Pro Bowl two times, including the Super Bowl year.

 

He was oft-traded, but the Vikes regretted trading him to the Skins and the Skins regretted trading him to the Bucs.

 

For his first two years, and from about 2003 on, when he hit 35, he wasn't a particularly good QB. But in his prime years, he was very good.

 

He is an excellent example of a QB who wasn't drafted high but was good and won a Super Bowl (there are a few, it's just a much lower percentage move than drafting in the first). He's NOT a good example of a bad to mediocre QB who won a Super Bowl, a Trent Dilfer type. He was much better than Dilfer.

[Thurman#1]

My entire problem with the Buffalo Bills is that if they fail to address the O line and blocking tight end, then how will they ever know if its the QB or other problems?

Last season we all knew its the O line, I think everyone agrees that the line was completely horrid for most of the year and hindered the QB's and running game.

 

J.P. Losman and Trent Edwards both started out looking promising. People were saying playoffs in 07 after the 06 season and then JP came out and fell on his face.

Edwards came out and won 4 straight in 08, was severely concussed in the Arizona game and hasn't been quite the same since.

 

Who is to say that if the Bills draft Bradford or Clausen and they start to play a few games and look really good... and then "wham" they get injured or concussed.

Everyone will then say "oh they sucked from the start" and lets look at next years draft for the "real" Buffalo Bills franchise QB.

 

 

 

Wildrabbit, that IS a legitimate concern, but it's simply a risk that you either take or sit the guy.

 

Peyton Manning was manhandled that first year. It just made him better. Kelly took a lot of hits that first year behind that very young OL. It didn't have any permanent effects, it just worked as good experience, for both Kelly and the young OL. But you're right, you run the risk of injury, you always do.

 

Losman is an interesting case, because his line in 2006 was much worse than in 2007. Fowler at center, Gandy at guard, Tutan Reyes and Terrence Pennington at tackle. Chris Villarrial was a good player, though fading, at RG, but he only played eight games before injury ended his season. Jason Peters first starts at RT in the second half of the season were about the only bright spot. Yet Losman played well.

 

The next year the line got better. But the brain trust changed the playbook and the playcalling to reel in Losman, close down the playbook and make him play conservative, despite clear evidence that he had played much better the year before when they opened up the playbook in the second half. They were much too clever to play to his strengths, and played to his weaknesses instead, and even with a significantly better OL, Losman started his flame-out.

[Thurman#1]

QUOTE (JStranger76 @ Feb 23 2010, 03:53 PM) *

The 2000 Ravens are a once every 25 years team. That type of cast only comes around 3 or 4 times in a century.

 

 

 

 

ZING!!!!

 

AS much as I would like to let's not forget the 1991 Giants that beat our star QB led Bills

 

 

Aargh. Don't remind me.

 

Though Simms was a very solid franchise QB and Hostetler a Frank Reich-style excellent backup.

[Thurman#1]

2) Show me a team that drafted their top 10 pick QB first before having a MUCH better line than we have now.

 

 

I'm guessing you meant Rivers, rather than Brees, correct?

 

Anyway, there is no significant difference between number 10 and number 24, where Rodgers was picked. Rivers and Rodgers are two cases where first-rounders sat. It happens. The reason it doesn't happen all that often is simply because for many teams it isn't the proper move under the circumstances. For San Diego, it was the proper move, and they did it. For Green Bay, it made sense, so they did it.

 

The fact is that if it makes sense in the situation, teams will do it.

 

The only reason you're adding in "top ten" and "bad offensive lines" as qualifications is to eliminate recent guys who were first rounders who sat. JP Losman was a first-rounder who sat. They happen.

 

If the Bills want to sit their guy, they will do it. In no way is it a fact that first-rounders sit. What is a fact is that if you eliminate all but a few guy from your sample, as you tried to do, you can prove almost anything. Even under your qualifications, which cuts it down to about, what, five to eight QBs in the last ten years, you still have Rivers. One out of, what, six? Nine? That's above 10% of your QBs who sat.

[Orton's Arm]

How many elite QBs in the last 10 years have won superbowls? NOTE!!!!! I said how many elite QBs not how many superbowls

 

For extra credit, tell me how many of those elite QBs had an average or worse o-line?

I looked up the recent Super Bowl winners.

1998. Broncos. John Elway.

1999. Broncos. John Elway.

2000. Rams. Kurt Warner. Hall of Famer.

2001. Ravens. Trent Dilfer.

2002. Patriots. Brady.

2003. Bucs. Brad Johnson. A solid player.

2004. Patriots. Brady again!

2005. Patriots again. Brady again!

2006. Steelers. Roethlisberger--a very good QB!

2007. Colts. Peyton Manning. An even better QB!

2008. Giants. Eli Manning. Had a really good year that year!

2009. Steelers. Roethlisberger.

2010. Saints. Drew Brees.

 

Super Bowls won by teams with first ballot Hall of Fame QBs 7. (Elway x 2) + Warner + (Brady x 3) + Peyton Manning.

Super Bowls won by teams with QBs playing near a Hall of Fame level: 3. Brees + (Roethlisberger x 2)

Super Bowls won by teams with quarterbacks having a really good year: 1. Eli Manning.

Super Bowls won by teams with above-average quarterbacks: 1 (Brad Johnson)

Super Bowls won by teams with mediocre quarterbacks: 1 (Trent Dilfer).

 

I'll be the first to say that a good quarterback deserves and really benefits from a good offensive line. And that the Bills have traditionally neglected their offensive line on draft day--which is inexcusable. But the above data are clear: a good offensive line, alone, is not enough for a Super Bowl win. You're going to need that franchise quarterback! It makes sense to take him early in the rebuilding process for two reasons: 1) it takes a while for a quarterback to develop, and 2) early in the process, your draft picks are likely to be higher than they'll become after your team has gotten stronger. Because the quarterback is the single hardest piece of the puzzle to fill, it makes sense to use a top 10 pick on him, if possible. (As opposed to using a top 10 pick on, say, a backup SS.)

[Billsfansince72]

If Tony Pike is available in the 3rd round, take him. No way do you pick for need. It's a reach to pick a QB 1st, 9th overall, and this team can't afford another first round bust.

[PDaDdy]

There is no denying the numbers of sacks allowed and the proficiency of the Colts' passing game in Manning's rookie year.

 

But for an OL so great, it took seven seasons since Manning was drafted for the first of his OLmen (Glen) to be selected to the Pro Bowl. Not that the Pro Bowl selection process is the be all end all but it is telling to some degree. Manning, Faulk, James, Harrison, Dilger all made Pro Bowl and/or All Pro teams during that same span. The Colts' talent WAS recognized. And yet their OL was not honored in the same fashion. Interesting.

 

Manning, in his 13 seasons has always been among the least sacked QBs in the league. That covers many OL combinations. The one constant is Manning himself. He's always been able to get the ball out ON TIME or buy extra time in the pocket. This year they had no running game to speak of, yet Manning was sacked a mere 10 times. 10 TIMES!

 

Taking nothing away from their OLine and the sacks allowed stat, but I submit that the low sack numbers are more a testament to Manning's ability over the years than that of his OL to protect him. He simply gets rid of the ball so quickly.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

A QB can help or hurt his lines sack numbers but the line is the major contributing factor. I'll put it another way. Ability to beat the blitz can cause opposing defenses to send fewer guys which should also reduce the sack number. If Manning had 1.5, 2 seconds to throw the ball and he was just getting rid of it to prevent sacks. I'll say that is to the QBs credit. NOW...if Manning has 3, 4 sec + to throw the ball, that is mostly his offensive.

 

Be honest, when you watched the Colts games, what did you see? I saw a QB that could often beat the blitz when it came, to Manning's credit, and a QB that had a lot of time to throw when not blitzed...o-line doing it's job and doing it well.

[PDaDdy]

No doubt. Glen was a great, if not elite, LT. Yet it took him eight seasons (seven with Manning) to make the Pro Bowl while others on those teams were well recognized as Manning, Faulk, James, Harrison, Dilger all made Pro Bowl and/or All Pro teams during that span. I find that interesting.

I'm not even remotely suggesting that the Colt's OLine didn't/doesn't provide great protection. I'm saying Manning's greatness at getting rid of the ball has made their jobs a hell of a lot easier over the years.

 

Manning was sacked 10 times in 16 games this year. His backup, Painter, was sacked three times in the two games he appeared in, which amounted to about 5 quarters, give or take. It makes a difference when you have an HOFer behind center. That's all I'm saying.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

They still have to block the defenders. It is amazing to me how people diminish the importance of the o-line and think that magically the QB blocks for himself some how. No matter how well the QB does his job, o-linemen HAVE TO WIN THEIR INDIVIDUAL MATCHUPS or BE COACHED WELL ENOUGH AND PLAY A SCHEME WHERE THEY COLLECTIVELY GET THE JOB DONE. This sometimes produces the noname offensive line like I believe the superbowl winning giants employed somewhere around 1990. This is so obvious but people are swinging from, one of a kind, Peyton Manning's sack and buy into the savior philosophy SO much they think you could stick any 5 bums out in front of Peyton and he would still only get sacked 10 times a year.

[PDaDdy]

QUOTE (thewildrabbit @ Feb 23 2010, 03:48 PM) *

Yet you managed to over look my question angel.gif

 

"Anyone care to explain how the Ravens won that game with the winning QB completing only 4 passes in 10 attempts for a total of 34 yards?"

 

Jeez, the Ravens managed to beat the Patriots in New England with a power running game and a QB who did almost nothing to help win, and everyone conveniently ignores the post.

 

Wow. Tough question. OK, here's the answer. Weird stuff happens a small percentage of the time. That's all the answer that's necessary. Again, did they win another? Did they get to the conference championship? The Super Bowl?

 

Luck wins a game or two, probably more, every single week in the NFL. And in the case of that particular game, the Pats* are no longer as good as they looked, Thank the Deity, and the Ravens were lucky enough to get three turnovers. Doubt it was luck? Then why didn't they keep winning?

 

A team winning one playoff game, however they do it, doesn't impress. When they string together a few wins and get to the conference championship or the SB, start considering them a serious threat.

 

But smart people go for the high odds.

 

EDIT: Ah, I see you already answered that, EDWARDSARM, and better than I could have. Great job.

 

 

COME ON THURMAN...have some integrity man! What a weak response! The Ravens victory was a statistical anomaly? They got lucky? THEY KICKED ASS TO THE TUNE OF 34 - 7. They won in every phase of that game!

[PDaDdy]

OK, so apparently we have uncovered your blueprint for Super Bowl success. All we have to do is put together one of the great defenses of all time. Then you don't have to have a competent passing game. Wow, if only I had realized it was so simple. And that strategy works ... for the Ravens ... the 1985 Bears ...

 

Um ...

 

I'm sure there are others if you go far enough back.

 

Again, as I have said again and again and again, yeah, there are other ways to win. But they are lower percentage chances. The smart thing to do is go high percentage.

 

Bill Polian has followed the Golden Rule of the Draft, "Never pass up a franchise type QB, unless you already have one," every single time he built a team.

 

The Bills. He had one in Kelly, so he was able to work on other aspects.

The Panthers. He didn't have one, so he went QB in the first in his first draft there.

The Colts. He didn't have one, so he went QB in the first in his first draft there.

 

Hey, unless you are willing to go out on a limb and say that Bradford is the next Jim Kelly and a franchise QB your opinion is completely worthless! If you or the front office isn't willing to make that statement, draft a LT at #9, start fixing the line and keep your hypothetical winy "we need a savior at QB" crap to your self.

[PDaDdy]

Gosh, you mean Super Bowl winning teams have to be pretty good in all aspects? Um, no kidding.

 

But, Roethlisberger didn't have an average or worse o-line year before last. They weren't good. It can be done.

 

But it's beside the point of this argument. By and large, you have to have a good o-line and a good QB to win the SB. Pretty much everyone here gets that. The point is how they are assembled, and in particular, whether the Golden Rule is a high percentage move. And it is.

 

Last time the Steelers had a shot at a franchise QB, when they didn't have it, they took him. And yeah, they already had an excellent OL at the time, but how often did the Steelers ignore the Golden Rule? The Colts? The Pats*? ..........

 

 

Gosh, you mean there are rare exceptions at QB that can succeed with a poor oline? Thanks for that insight. Now please rattle off the list of other QBs that have had similar success! ...OH...You can't? ...Thought so. Please stop using rare statistical anomalies like Mannning and Roethlesberger to try to set an example for what the Bills should do if Bradford falls to them. Bradford is neither Manning or the impossible to take down Big Ben.

 

Say something of value like "I think Bradford is a franchise QB and like Peyton Manning he will make his line better or like Big Ben he will refuse to go down". Until you can say something of substance like that and take a stand stop wasting our time with your BS exceptions and rare QBs as examples the Bills should follow.

[thewildrabbit]

Gosh, you mean Super Bowl winning teams have to be pretty good in all aspects? Um, no kidding.

 

But, Roethlisberger didn't have an average or worse o-line year before last. They weren't good. It can be done.

 

But it's beside the point of this argument. By and large, you have to have a good o-line and a good QB to win the SB. Pretty much everyone here gets that. The point is how they are assembled, and in particular, whether the Golden Rule is a high percentage move. And it is.

 

Last time the Steelers had a shot at a franchise QB, when they didn't have it, they took him. And yeah, they already had an excellent OL at the time, but how often did the Steelers ignore the Golden Rule? The Colts? The Pats*? ..........

You guys gotta stop equating sacks given up to equal a bad O line. Both Rothlisberger and Aaron Rogers tend to hold the ball longer then they should waiting for receivers to get open, or they move around in the pocket to buy time. So they tend to take more sacks then they should, that doesn't mean the O line is bad.

 

Plus the fact that the Steelers have transformed under Big Ben because they throw the ball much more now then they did when they had Jerome Bettis.

Big Ben was allowed to develop in a power run offense which helped him immensely IMO.

 

The Bills O line vs the Steelers O line... there is a drastic difference in just playing experience alone. Then you need to take other things into consideration, who is calling the plays, who game planned against the opponent and what scheme do they run. Not to mention the other coaches, 2nd year line coach, no QB coach.

 

I'd imagine the Bills QB's would have fared much better this season behind that Steeler's O line, both Fred Jackson and Marshawn Lynch would have done much better also.

 

That 08 SB year the Steelers center had 8 years exp-LG 3 years exp-RT 3 years exp -LT 6 years exp RG 6 years exp. granted they had some young linemen but the min exp was 3 years and the LT and C were excellent at their positions.

[PDaDdy]

The only reason you're adding in "top ten" and "bad offensive lines" as qualifications is to eliminate recent guys who were first rounders who sat. JP Losman was a first-rounder who sat. They happen.

 

 

Use your head man, stop trying to focus on wining some moral victory and focus on learning something. The reasons I am limiting it to top 10 picks is because if we are presented with that choice it would be a top 10 pick QB. QBs drafted in those slots for that kind of money PLAY. THEY WILL START. There is no "keep the guy on the bench for a year or 2". It's a fantasy. We are all talking about what could be but at least lets try to keep it real. If we get a QB first, he will play and we would risk screwing the kid up like so many other teams. QBs drafted sometimes go to better teams and can sit the bench a while. Aaron Rogers was backing up Brett Farve. Show me the Brett Farve on our team and then there is the possibility that a QB pick at #9 won't play. OH, you can't? No surprise there.

 

So I would ask the question again even though people don't have the integrity to answer the question we all know if we get a QB at #9 he starts this year. If you want to roll the dice on a potentially promising rookie QB AND THEN throw him behind whatever BS we would have to trot out there at o-line you are a braver and "stupider" man than I.

[PDaDdy]

You guys gotta stop equating sacks given up to equal a bad O line. Both Rothlisberger and Aaron Rogers tend to hold the ball longer then they should waiting for receivers to get open, or they move around in the pocket to buy time. So they tend to take more sacks then they should, that doesn't mean the O line is bad.

 

 

Rabbit, Thurman is a waste of time. You can't educate a brick! In this same thread he claims that the 22 sacks that Manning took in his rookie year didn't tell the story of what went on and says that even with a low sack total of 22 Manning was beat up. He then turns around and uses sacks as the whole story regarding how poorly Roethlisberger and Rogers line performed.

 

What a clod! Does he really think that people won't catch him talking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time?

[thebandit27]

You guys gotta stop equating sacks given up to equal a bad O line. Both Rothlisberger and Aaron Rogers tend to hold the ball longer then they should waiting for receivers to get open, or they move around in the pocket to buy time. So they tend to take more sacks then they should, that doesn't mean the O line is bad.

 

Plus the fact that the Steelers have transformed under Big Ben because they throw the ball much more now then they did when they had Jerome Bettis.

Big Ben was allowed to develop in a power run offense which helped him immensely IMO.

 

The Bills O line vs the Steelers O line... there is a drastic difference in just playing experience alone. Then you need to take other things into consideration, who is calling the plays, who game planned against the opponent and what scheme do they run. Not to mention the other coaches, 2nd year line coach, no QB coach.

 

I'd imagine the Bills QB's would have fared much better this season behind that Steeler's O line, both Fred Jackson and Marshawn Lynch would have done much better also.

 

That 08 SB year the Steelers center had 8 years exp-LG 3 years exp-RT 3 years exp -LT 6 years exp RG 6 years exp. granted they had some young linemen but the min exp was 3 years and the LT and C were excellent at their positions.

 

You would imagine incorrectly, then.

 

Buffalo's running game ranked 16th in the NFL at 116.7 yds/game, and 8th in the NFL at 4.4 yds/carry.

Pittsburgh's running game ranked 19th in the NFL at 112.1 yds/game, and 15th in the NFL at 4.2 yds/carry.

 

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?off...mp;d-447263-n=1

 

And regarding the 2008 season, Pittsburgh's offensive line not only allowed many more sacks than Buffalo's (49 to 38), they also ranked way behind Buffalo in rushing yds/game (115.1 [14th] to 105.6 [23rd]) and yds/carry (4.2 [14th] to 3.7 [29th]).

 

So I'd say you're going pretty darn far out on a limb in imagining that, since there's really nothing (other than years of experience) to back that up. And on that note, it's important to understand that 60% of Pittsburgh's Superbowl OL weren't starters prior to 2008 (Darnell Stapleton, Chris Kemoeatu, and Willie Colon). And another starter, LT Max Starks, had never started at LT.

[K-9]

They still have to block the defenders. It is amazing to me how people diminish the importance of the o-line and think that magically the QB blocks for himself some how. No matter how well the QB does his job, o-linemen HAVE TO WIN THEIR INDIVIDUAL MATCHUPS or BE COACHED WELL ENOUGH AND PLAY A SCHEME WHERE THEY COLLECTIVELY GET THE JOB DONE. This sometimes produces the noname offensive line like I believe the superbowl winning giants employed somewhere around 1990. This is so obvious but people are swinging from, one of a kind, Peyton Manning's sack and buy into the savior philosophy SO much they think you could stick any 5 bums out in front of Peyton and he would still only get sacked 10 times a year.

 

So now you're saying I'm diminishing the importance of a good OLine? Far from it. You get a kick out of insulting people's football IQ around here. Hey, whatever floats your boat as they say.

 

But I'll play along for a minute more regarding the Colts' Oline.

 

Why haven't the Colts' OLineman, if they're so great, been recognized by their peers and writers over the years? Why, if they're that great, did their running game SUCK last season? Why, if they're so great, did their backup get sacked 3 times in 5 quarters, while Manning got sacked 10 times all year? All I'm saying is Manning has been among the least sacked QBs his ENTIRE career and over that time he's played with NUMEROUS OLine combinations. Aside from Glen and Saturday (only recently) his line hasn't been littered with All Pros. Manning is the one constant. Or are you suggesting that Manning has always played behind 5 Pro Bowlers?

 

It's interesting to look at the ratio of sacks given up by the Colts when Manning is behind center vs. when his backup has been in the game. Granted, that's not often because Manning has always stayed pretty healthy. But it's still telling as it's clear there's a difference when a QB not as good is taking the snaps.

 

You have it backwards. It's not a question of putting Manning behind five bums, it's putting a bum behind the Colt's OLine. While I know you strongly disagree, Manning, based on what I've observed of him since he was a freshman at Tennessee, would not get sacked as much as our QBs do behind our horrid OLine. He'd get rid of it first. Unlike our QBs, he DOESN'T hold on too long very often. I won't go into how his quick decisions, quick release, and ability to buy extra time contribute to his ability to avoid sacks. I won't bore you with the fact that he's one of the best play-action QBs to ever suit up and how much that helps. Nor will I bore you with an explanation of what it means to get rid of the ball ON TIME (do you know what that means in football terms?). The huge significance of all these superior traits in Manning and how they contribute to his avoiding sacks wouldn't be of the least importance to you, I feel.

 

Again, I hope we get the best player to help us at #9. If it's an OT, great. If it's an LB, super. If it's a QB our FO feels has franchise abillity, so much the better.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[PDaDdy]

You would imagine incorrectly, then.

 

Buffalo's running game ranked 16th in the NFL at 116.7 yds/game, and 8th in the NFL at 4.4 yds/carry.

Pittsburgh's running game ranked 19th in the NFL at 112.1 yds/game, and 15th in the NFL at 4.2 yds/carry.

 

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?off...mp;d-447263-n=1

 

And regarding the 2008 season, Pittsburgh's offensive line not only allowed many more sacks than Buffalo's (49 to 38), they also ranked way behind Buffalo in rushing yds/game (115.1 [14th] to 105.6 [23rd]) and yds/carry (4.2 [14th] to 3.7 [29th]).

 

So I'd say you're going pretty darn far out on a limb in imagining that, since there's really nothing (other than years of experience) to back that up. And on that note, it's important to understand that 60% of Pittsburgh's Superbowl OL weren't starters prior to 2008 (Darnell Stapleton, Chris Kemoeatu, and Willie Colon). And another starter, LT Max Starks, had never started at LT.

 

 

You are correct. The 2008 Steelers with Big Ben were an exception. But that's the thing about exceptions....they AREN'T the rule!

[PDaDdy]

So now you're saying I'm diminishing the importance of a good OLine? Far from it. You get a kick out of insulting people's football IQ around here. Hey, whatever floats your boat as they say.

 

But I'll play along for a minute more regarding the Colts' Oline.

 

Why haven't the Colts' OLineman, if they're so great, been recognized by their peers and writers over the years?

 

You don't have to be in a probowl to be good. I believe the probowl mean a lot but it is for the best of the best. For example, I think 2 centers from the AFC go out of 16 starters. What if you are the 3rd best? You're still DAMN GOOD but no probowl. Get it?

 

Why, if they're that great, did their running game SUCK last season?

 

I have explained this to death. If you haven't heard, Indy is a passing team by choice not by necessity. How did Indy's 5+ yds per carry look in the superbowl for a team that can't run?

 

Why, if they're so great, did their backup get sacked 3 times in 5 quarters, while Manning got sacked 10 times all year?

 

Are you really going to try to compare some chump 3rd string back up to Peyton "by god" Manning and their impact on the # of sacks? Come one man get real! Hardly enough snaps to be statistically relevant wouldn't you say?

 

All I'm saying is Manning has been among the least sacked QBs his ENTIRE career and over that time he's played with NUMEROUS OLine combinations. Aside from Glen and Saturday (only recently) his line hasn't been littered with All Pros. Manning is the one constant. Or are you suggesting that Manning has always played behind 5 Pro Bowlers?

 

Nope. I am suggesting that Manning has always played behind a good line because the colts see the importance of a good line giving Peyton the time to be all he can be.

 

It's interesting to look at the ratio of sacks given up by the Colts when Manning is behind center vs. when his backup has been in the game. Granted, that's not often because Manning has always stayed pretty healthy. But it's still telling as it's clear there's a difference when a QB not as good is taking the snaps.

 

Again are you really going to try to compare some chump 3rd string back up to Peyton?

 

You have it backwards. It's not a question of putting Manning behind five bums, it's putting a bum behind the Colt's OLine. While I know you strongly disagree, Manning, based on what I've observed of him since he was a freshman at Tennessee, would not get sacked as much as our QBs do behind our horrid OLine.

 

No my point is I would like both. I'm not advocating putting a bum behind a great oline I am advocating building a great line to protect your savior QB. Absolutely Peyton would be sacked less but he would be also be MUCH less successful than behind the lines he has benefited from in Indy.

 

He'd get rid of it first. Unlike our QBs, he DOESN'T hold on too long very often. I won't go into how his quick decisions, quick release, and ability to buy extra time contribute to his ability to avoid sacks. I won't bore you with the fact that he's one of the best play-action QBs to ever suit up and how much that helps. Nor will I bore you with an explanation of what it means to get rid of the ball ON TIME (do you know what that means in football terms?). The huge significance of all these superior traits in Manning and how they contribute to his avoiding sacks wouldn't be of the least importance to you, I feel.

 

Too late you already did bore me but thanks for telling me in detail what you weren't going to bore me with! LOL...Just kidding. Lighten up. And yes, Peyton the exception is really good at those things and makes his great line look even better.

 

 

 

Again, I hope we get the best player to help us at #9. If it's an OT, great. If it's an LB, super. If it's a QB our FO feels has franchise abillity, so much the better.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

 

So.....that all being said AND THE ONLY THING OF IMPORTANCE HERE IS.....What does the once in a generation Peyton Manning have to do with the Bills and what we should do at the QB position or the o-line? All of this academic stuff that is being put out there is interesting bird cage liner but how does it apply to what the Bills have to do? I think this has been answered so I will pretty much disregard all of this as "I" am speaking to what the Bills should do and using examples relevant to that point.

[thebandit27]

So now you're saying I'm diminishing the importance of a good OLine? Far from it. You get a kick out of insulting people's football IQ around here. Hey, whatever floats your boat as they say.

 

But I'll play along for a minute more regarding the Colts' Oline.

 

Why haven't the Colts' OLineman, if they're so great, been recognized by their peers and writers over the years? Why, if they're that great, did their running game SUCK last season? Why, if they're so great, did their backup get sacked 3 times in 5 quarters, while Manning got sacked 10 times all year? All I'm saying is Manning has been among the least sacked QBs his ENTIRE career and over that time he's played with NUMEROUS OLine combinations. Aside from Glen and Saturday (only recently) his line hasn't been littered with All Pros. Manning is the one constant. Or are you suggesting that Manning has always played behind 5 Pro Bowlers?

 

It's interesting to look at the ratio of sacks given up by the Colts when Manning is behind center vs. when his backup has been in the game. Granted, that's not often because Manning has always stayed pretty healthy. But it's still telling as it's clear there's a difference when a QB not as good is taking the snaps.

 

You have it backwards. It's not a question of putting Manning behind five bums, it's putting a bum behind the Colt's OLine. While I know you strongly disagree, Manning, based on what I've observed of him since he was a freshman at Tennessee, would not get sacked as much as our QBs do behind our horrid OLine. He'd get rid of it first. Unlike our QBs, he DOESN'T hold on too long very often. I won't go into how his quick decisions, quick release, and ability to buy extra time contribute to his ability to avoid sacks. I won't bore you with the fact that he's one of the best play-action QBs to ever suit up and how much that helps. Nor will I bore you with an explanation of what it means to get rid of the ball ON TIME (do you know what that means in football terms?). The huge significance of all these superior traits in Manning and how they contribute to his avoiding sacks wouldn't be of the least importance to you, I feel.

 

Again, I hope we get the best player to help us at #9. If it's an OT, great. If it's an LB, super. If it's a QB our FO feels has franchise abillity, so much the better.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

Another great case study is the 2007 Patriots with Tom Brady behind center vs. the 2008 Patriots with Matt Cassel. The same line that surrendered a mere 21 sacks in 2007 (5 fewer than the 2007 Bills, by the way) allowed 47 sacks with Cassel at the helm in 2008. It's not a coincidence.

 

P.S. if you get tired of trying to talk sense into PDaDy, try this:

 

You have chosen to ignore all posts from: PDaDdy.

 

· View this post

· Un-ignore PDaDdy

 

It will save you time and patience.

[PDaDdy]

Another great case study is the 2007 Patriots with Tom Brady behind center vs. the 2008 Patriots with Matt Cassel. The same line that surrendered a mere 21 sacks in 2007 (5 fewer than the 2007 Bills, by the way) allowed 47 sacks with Cassel at the helm in 2008. It's not a coincidence.

 

P.S. if you get tired of trying to talk sense into PDaDy, try this:

 

You have chosen to ignore all posts from: PDaDdy.

 

· View this post

· Un-ignore PDaDdy

 

It will save you time and patience.

 

 

So 3 time superbowl winning QB Tom Brady playing in the scheme designed for him had less than half the sacks of a QB that hadn't started a game since high school? WOW, you don't say? I am truly amazed. Thank you for enlightening me. As I have stated I know a QB can have an effect on the number of sacks for a line. I have seen Brady stay clean for 3+ second a LOT of snaps. Is that because he got rid of the ball early or because his line afforded him that protection? You know the answer....come on say it!!!

 

Anyhow AGAIN ...what does this have to do with the Bills if a QB falls to us at #9? If you can't relate it to the real world decision we might be presented with I really don't care what your point is.

[thewildrabbit]

You would imagine incorrectly, then.

 

Buffalo's running game ranked 16th in the NFL at 116.7 yds/game, and 8th in the NFL at 4.4 yds/carry.

Pittsburgh's running game ranked 19th in the NFL at 112.1 yds/game, and 15th in the NFL at 4.2 yds/carry.

 

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?off...mp;d-447263-n=1

 

And regarding the 2008 season, Pittsburgh's offensive line not only allowed many more sacks than Buffalo's (49 to 38), they also ranked way behind Buffalo in rushing yds/game (115.1 [14th] to 105.6 [23rd]) and yds/carry (4.2 [14th] to 3.7 [29th]).

 

So I'd say you're going pretty darn far out on a limb in imagining that, since there's really nothing (other than years of experience) to back that up. And on that note, it's important to understand that 60% of Pittsburgh's Superbowl OL weren't starters prior to 2008 (Darnell Stapleton, Chris Kemoeatu, and Willie Colon). And another starter, LT Max Starks, had never started at LT.

 

Wait a min... your trying to tell me the Bills had the better O line this season because their rushing offense was ranked higher then the Steeler's...

Sorry, but my eyes tell me something different then your stats.

[Hey Hey]

You really consider any one of those guys "serviceable"?!?!

 

The Bills have really only had aONE top flight QB since the merger, JIM KELLY. A first rounder. They have only chosen 2 first round QB's in that time. Kelly and Losman. QB, more than ever, is the MOST IMPORTANT PLAYER ON A TEAM. Maybe if the Bills had chosen more 1st round QB's through the years, we might not have had to sit through all the embarrassing seasons. They missed ONCE with a 1st rd. QB, but with the other pick it was "GLORY DAYS".

 

Once you have "the guy" he should be around for 10 years or so, plenty of time to build up a line. They have failed with SO MANY 1st picks, that I don't see why anyone thinks it would be a catastrophe if they miss again. You gotta have one.

 

For the 1000th time, if a guy is worthy, it's still going to take a few years before a QB is going to be seasoned enough to win regularly. You can fix the other stuff while the QB sits a year, etc. Get a QB in here as soon as possible. Even if they spend a first pick on a quarterback THIS YEAR, we are still likely gonna have to sit through watching one of those "serviceable" QB's this coming season. Then the next year the guy gets it together, THEN the next season, IF WE"RE LUCKY, he will get into the playoffs. That's 2 more drafts and free agencies before the team needs to be a "complete" team.

 

Pick 7 QB's! I don't care, they are going NOWHERE without a good QB, don't try to tell me they need a Nose Tackle more than they need a Quarterback!

Amen to that. Get me Clausen! The kid has fire

[K-9]

So.....that all being said AND THE ONLY THING OF IMPORTANCE HERE IS.....What does the once in a generation Peyton Manning have to do with the Bills and what we should do at the QB position or the o-line? All of this academic stuff that is being put out there is interesting bird cage liner but how does it apply to what the Bills have to do? I think this has been answered so I will pretty much disregard all of this as "I" am speaking to what the Bills should do and using examples relevant to that point.

 

I've already answered your question as to the relevance of Manning and the Colts to what the Bills have to do.

 

And you're being intellectually dishonest by suggesting that your responses to my posts in Post #s 208 and 209 are examples of "you" just speaking of examples of what the Bills should do and their own relevance to the subject. You know as well as I do we were simply debating the merits of Manning and his contributions to low sack numbers vs. the Colts' Olines' contributions over the years. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

One final point on the invincible Colts Oline. It's so good that Polian saw fit to throw it under the bus after the Superbowl. But I'm sure he doesn't know a thing about it. Oh, and that, too, has NO relevance to what the Bills should do this year.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[PDaDdy]

I've already answered your question as to the relevance of Manning and the Colts to what the Bills have to do.

 

And you're being intellectually dishonest by suggesting that your responses to my posts in Post #s 208 and 209 are examples of "you" just speaking of examples of what the Bills should do and their own relevance to the subject. You know as well as I do we were simply debating the merits of Manning and his contributions to low sack numbers vs. the Colts' Olines' contributions over the years. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

One final point on the invincible Colts Oline. It's so good that Polian saw fit to throw it under the bus after the Superbowl. But I'm sure he doesn't know a thing about it. Oh, and that, too, has NO relevance to what the Bills should do this year.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

Yes you did answer my question that this has absolutely nothing to do with what the Bills strategy should be in the draft and getting a QB before fixing the offensive line.

 

 

Polian did. You are correct. Far be it from me to question Polian but I didn't see an offensive line failure in that game. I saw a good running game, a passing game that seemed to be somewhat out of sync and a defense that failed them once their hobbled star Freeney got stiff during half time and was completely ineffectual.

 

It's not like Polian is going to throw Peyton Mannning under the bus is it?

 

This thread has been round and round and I finally realized all of this really means nothing as far as the real world decision we MAY have to make at #9 if Bradford or Claussen falls to us. We can argue academic points all day long and continue to go round and round. I realized it would be far more productive to discuss something real world which is what has generated all of this o-line vs QB talk. NOW people actually have to take a stand on something and make a relevant point instead of endless academic points which whether accurate or not doesn't help with our possible real world choice.

 

Please continue to discuss meaningless academics all day....I have been trying to focus on what the Bills do at #9 if Bradford or Claussen falls to us as I don't think veteran experience Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Big Ben or Aaron Rogers will be an option for us there in the 2010 draft.

[K-9]

Polian did. You are correct. Far be it from me to question Polian but I didn't see an offensive line failure in that game. I saw a good running game, a passing game that seemed to be somewhat out of sync and a defense that failed them once their hobbled star Freeney got stiff during half time and was completely ineffectual.

 

It's not like Polian is going to throw Peyton Mannning under the bus is it?

 

I suggest you didn't see poor line play because you didn't recognize it when it occurred.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[thebandit27]

Wait a min... your trying to tell me the Bills had the better O line this season because their rushing offense was ranked higher then the Steeler's...

Sorry, but my eyes tell me something different then your stats.

 

Not what I said at all.

 

What I said was that I refute your assertion that Buffalo's running backs would have performed "much better" behind Pittsburgh's offensive line, since the numbers show that the performance of both lines, in the running game, was eerily similar.

 

Here's another great diagnostic tool that we can use to analyze this situation:

 

http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol

 

As you'll see (if you choose to click the link), Buffalo had a higher adjusted YPC (if you're unfamiliar with this site, you can read all about how they come up with the #s, it's highly analytical) and a lower percentage of "stuffed" plays than Pittsburgh, while the Steelers held the edge in short-yardage run blocking. The 1st and 2nd level numbers are also very similar for the 2 units. In fact, the only large disparity in the 2 running games as a whole would be the significant edge that Pittsburgh held in open-field yards, which the site describes as "heavily dependent on the running back breaking long runs to make the running game work".

 

They also have a pretty nice breakdown of pass blocking too, but I'd hate to point to the stats in that case, since apparently sacks are only an indicator of a bad line when it applies to the Bills, not for everyone else.

 

Just the facts man. Take 'em as you see fit.

[PDaDdy]

I suggest you didn't see poor line play because you didn't recognize it when it occurred.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

I saw what I saw. I saw WR dropping balls, Peyton misfiring and generally a great defensive effort by the Saints. Personally I wouldn't dump that on the o-line. But in any case you ignored the main point of my last post.

 

This is just more useless academics. You've stated that your points have nothing to do with our real world. How about you step up and say something concrete that is relevant to the real world and the real choices the Bills may have to make?

 

I'm guessing you'll ignore that request too as it might actually lead to some productive, relevant discussion. LOL

[thebandit27]

Not what I said at all.

 

What I said was that I refute your assertion that Buffalo's running backs would have performed "much better" behind Pittsburgh's offensive line, since the numbers show that the performance of both lines, in the running game, was eerily similar.

 

Here's another great diagnostic tool that we can use to analyze this situation:

 

http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol

 

As you'll see (if you choose to click the link), Buffalo had a higher adjusted YPC (if you're unfamiliar with this site, you can read all about how they come up with the #s, it's highly analytical) and a lower percentage of "stuffed" plays than Pittsburgh, while the Steelers held the edge in short-yardage run blocking. The 1st and 2nd level numbers are also very similar for the 2 units. In fact, the only large disparity in the 2 running games as a whole would be the significant edge that Pittsburgh held in open-field yards, which the site describes as "heavily dependent on the running back breaking long runs to make the running game work".

 

They also have a pretty nice breakdown of pass blocking too, but I'd hate to point to the stats in that case, since apparently sacks are only an indicator of a bad line when it applies to the Bills, not for everyone else.

 

Just the facts man. Take 'em as you see fit.

 

After some further though, I think maybe we should drill further into the numbers, just to be thorough. Let's compare each team's quality rushing performances so that we can be sure they weren't just beating up on the bad defenses. For the purpose of this comparison, I’ll define “quality performance” as a game in which the team rushed for more than their season average (as defined in my post above).

 

Pittsburgh’s quality performances came as follows (opponent’s rushing defense rank in parenthesis):

 

177 yards vs. SD (31)

140 yards vs. Cle (8)

173 yards vs. Den (18)

114 yards vs. KC (11)

153 yards vs. Bal (5)

132 yards vs. Oak (21)

202 yards vs. Mia (4)

 

Buffalo’s quality performances came as follows (again, opponent’s rushing defense rank in parenthesis):

 

218 yards vs. TB (23)

145 yards vs. Cle (8)

142 yards vs. NYJ (1)

129 yards vs. Mia (4)

123 yards vs. NYJ (1)

200 yards vs. KC (11)

248 yards vs. Ind (32)

 

I guess that comparison would put to rest any assertion that Pittsburgh’s running game performed any better than Buffalo’s. At least if we go by the facts, and not imagination.

[Orton's Arm]

Amen to that. Get me Clausen! The kid has fire

In his first year of general manager for the Dolphins, Parcells found himself in need of both a quarterback and a left tackle. Picking first overall, he chose the left tackle. Matt Ryan fell to #3 overall, where he was taken by the Falcons.

 

Parcells now has his left tackle. But how many more opportunities is he going to have to draft Matt Ryan's like again? The quarterback he does have--Henne-seems okay. But he's no Matt Ryan. Parcells is likely to run that team well enough that he will have very few picks in the top 10--and none in the top 5--ever again while he's the general manager.

 

The Dolphins are likely to be limited by the kind of play they'll be getting from the quarterback position. They'll win some games, make it to the postseason on occasion, and maybe even win a game or two while they're there. But they won't win a Super Bowl.

 

The Bills should not make the same mistake Parcells made. If Clausen is a franchise quarterback, the Bills should take him. Period.

[thewildrabbit]

Rabbit, Thurman is a waste of time. You can't educate a brick! In this same thread he claims that the 22 sacks that Manning took in his rookie year didn't tell the story of what went on and says that even with a low sack total of 22 Manning was beat up. He then turns around and uses sacks as the whole story regarding how poorly Roethlisberger and Rogers line performed.

 

What a clod! Does he really think that people won't catch him talking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time?

Thurman#1 is ok, he just doesn't share the same opinion. I really can't fault him for it either considering actual NFL GM's and coaches truly believe that you take the QB before the line is ready. They even plan to have them sit out, and for whatever reason they end up playing.

 

Look at the Detroit Lions who drafted Matthew Stafford and wanted him to sit out the year as they knew the line wasn't ready. They also brought in Dante Culpepper to play so Stafford could sit, watch and learn. We know that didn't happen because the kid had the burning desire to be on the field, so they let him play.

 

If you watched that kid play this year he was amazing in some games, but then look what happened, he suffered a separated shoulder in the Cleveland game where he set rookie records for TD's (5) and passing yards (422). Then he ended the season on injured reserve and was forced to undergo knee surgery.

 

It is a huge gamble on the teams part to let him play knowing he might get severely injured and have his career end before it can even get started.

 

If I were the HC of the Lions, Stafford would have been sitting like Carson Palmer did his first year while I build the O line and get the offense ready, so I know they can adequately protect him. But hey, that's me.

[thewildrabbit]

In his first year of general manager for the Dolphins, Parcells found himself in need of both a quarterback and a left tackle. Picking first overall, he chose the left tackle. Matt Ryan fell to #3 overall, where he was taken by the Falcons.

 

Parcells now has his left tackle. But how many more opportunities is he going to have to draft Matt Ryan's like again? The quarterback he does have--Henne-seems okay. But he's no Matt Ryan. Parcells is likely to run that team well enough that he will have very few picks in the top 10--and none in the top 5--ever again while he's the general manager.

 

The Dolphins are likely to be limited by the kind of play they'll be getting from the quarterback position. They'll win some games, make it to the postseason on occasion, and maybe even win a game or two while they're there. But they won't win a Super Bowl.

 

The Bills should not make the same mistake Parcells made. If Clausen is a franchise quarterback, the Bills should take him. Period.

The thing you gotta understand about Parcells is he doesn't want a flashy superstar QB, he wants a QB that can manage the game and not turn the ball over.

 

Parcells did the smartest thing a GM can do, he took the player who he thought was the very best player available to him, I happened to agree with the pick.

[Orton's Arm]

The thing you gotta understand about Parcells is he doesn't want a flashy superstar QB, he wants a QB that can manage the game and not turn the ball over.

 

Parcells did the smartest thing a GM can do, he took the player who he thought was the very best player available to him, I happened to agree with the pick.

It all depends on what your objectives are. If you want to have a solid, respectable team, making those kinds of decisions will be okay. But if you want to win the Super Bowl, odds are you're going to need more than just a game manager at quarterback.

 

Look at the Steelers back when they had Neil O'Donnell at quarterback. That team had a solid offensive line, a good to very good running game, a very good defense, and even a solid game manager of a quarterback in the form of Neil O'Donnell. As far as not turning the ball over--O'Donnell typically had the fewest interceptions per pass attempt of any quarterback in the league. He was about as good as game managing quarterbacks are going to get.

 

But despite its talent, and despite the coaching of Bill Cowher, that team didn't come away with any Super Bowl rings. That team would make the playoffs most (all?) years, sometimes advance a round or two, but eventually would get eliminated. That's what happens when you follow a Parcells strategy: your team will be solid, but is very unlikely to come away with a Super Bowl win.

 

If Parcells remains the Dolphins' GM for the next few years, he'll probably build them into a team like the O'Donnell-era Steelers. They'll have a good offensive line, a good defense, and will be consistently respectable. But they won't get any Super Bowl rings. Especially because it's far from clear that Henne will be as good a QB as O'Donnell was!

[thewildrabbit]

It all depends on what your objectives are. If you want to have a solid, respectable team, making those kinds of decisions will be okay. But if you want to win the Super Bowl, odds are you're going to need more than just a game manager at quarterback.

 

Look at the Steelers back when they had Neil O'Donnell at quarterback. That team had a solid offensive line, a good to very good running game, a very good defense, and even a solid game manager of a quarterback in the form of Neil O'Donnell. As far as not turning the ball over--O'Donnell typically had the fewest interceptions per pass attempt of any quarterback in the league. He was about as good as game managing quarterbacks are going to get.

 

But despite its talent, and despite the coaching of Bill Cowher, that team didn't come away with any Super Bowl rings. That team would make the playoffs most (all?) years, sometimes advance a round or two, but eventually would get eliminated. That's what happens when you follow a Parcells strategy: your team will be solid, but is very unlikely to come away with a Super Bowl win.

 

If Parcells remains the Dolphins' GM for the next few years, he'll probably build them into a team like the O'Donnell-era Steelers. They'll have a good offensive line, a good defense, and will be consistently respectable. But they won't get any Super Bowl rings. Especially because it's far from clear that Henne will be as good a QB as O'Donnell was!

I'm thinking they will be more like Parcells NY Giants, and we all know how that turned out

[thewildrabbit]

After some further though, I think maybe we should drill further into the numbers, just to be thorough. Let's compare each team's quality rushing performances so that we can be sure they weren't just beating up on the bad defenses. For the purpose of this comparison, I'll define "quality performance" as a game in which the team rushed for more than their season average (as defined in my post above).

 

Pittsburgh's quality performances came as follows (opponent's rushing defense rank in parenthesis):

 

177 yards vs. SD (31)

140 yards vs. Cle (8)

173 yards vs. Den (18)

114 yards vs. KC (11)

153 yards vs. Bal (5)

132 yards vs. Oak (21)

202 yards vs. Mia (4)

 

Buffalo's quality performances came as follows (again, opponent's rushing defense rank in parenthesis):

 

218 yards vs. TB (23)

145 yards vs. Cle (8)

142 yards vs. NYJ (1)

129 yards vs. Mia (4)

123 yards vs. NYJ (1)

200 yards vs. KC (11)

248 yards vs. Ind (32)

 

I guess that comparison would put to rest any assertion that Pittsburgh's running game performed any better than Buffalo's. At least if we go by the facts, and not imagination.

Dude, you need to get your head outta your stats...

 

There are so many variables that you can't see on a stat page. Like Fred Jackson and Marshawn Lynch breaking the first tackle to make most of the yardage on their own. Like the Steeler's starting RB getting injured and then losing his job to the rookie.

 

The two offenses were completely different and Pittsburgh threw the ball way more often and had more total offensive plays. Big Ben was injured and concussed and sat out a few games...which the Steelers lost. The Steeler scheme is better, the OC was better, the HC was better, the line was better.

 

I still tend to think Big Ben getting injured was more of the fact the QB holds the ball to long trying to make a play vs the Bills QB checking down every other play and still getting injured.

 

Why not look up the stats regarding each player's game experience, position by position Bills vs Steeler's O line for 09. The biggest difference between both lines was Buffalo's inexperience and horrid play at tackle.The injuries and constant player changes at almost every position on the line.

When your tackles are as bad as the Bills were this season the offense is going to be bad.

 

Go back and watch that Bills vs Saints game and witness Edwards literally running for his life every offensive play, he had about 2 seconds to get rid of the ball as both tackles were constantly overwhelmed.

 

The Steeler's O line may look worse then Buffalo's because of sacks given up and the running games were similar, the Bills had far more injuries and were a constant revolving door at every position except center.

[Orton's Arm]

I'm thinking they will be more like Parcells NY Giants, and we all know how that turned out

I wouldn't worry too much. Parcells didn't have GM power over the Giants; which is one of the reasons they were built into a Super Bowl winner. If you look at the places where he was GM, you'll typically see teams that got good in a hurry, but were never able to advance past the first or second round of the playoffs. They had too many limitations. And you can see those same kinds of limitations getting built into that current Dolphins team--for example with his choice of Long over Matt Ryan.

 

Those Giants teams won two Super Bowls with Parcells as coach. The first was with Phil Simms (chosen 7th overall) at QB. The second--against the Bills --was with Jeff Hostetler. But even though Hostetler was only a third round pick, he had a very solid career average of 7.0 yards per passing attempt, with a career passer rating of 80.2. Plus that team had Lawrence Taylor; not to mention Bill Belichick! Having a player like that, with a defensive coordinator like that, is decidedly not a good thing for opposing offenses!

 

Parcells is likely to fall short of building a team like that in Miami; just as he'd fallen short with the Jets and Cowboys.

[thewildrabbit]

I wouldn't worry too much. Parcells didn't have GM power over the Giants; which is one of the reasons they were built into a Super Bowl winner. If you look at the places where he was GM, you'll typically see teams that got good in a hurry, but were never able to advance past the first or second round of the playoffs. They had too many limitations. And you can see those same kinds of limitations getting built into that current Dolphins team--for example with his choice of Long over Matt Ryan.

 

Those Giants teams won two Super Bowls with Parcells as coach. The first was with Phil Simms (chosen 7th overall) at QB. The second--against the Bills --was with Jeff Hostetler. But even though Hostetler was only a third round pick, he had a very solid career average of 7.0 yards per passing attempt, with a career passer rating of 80.2. Plus that team had Lawrence Taylor; not to mention Bill Belichick! Having a player like that, with a defensive coordinator like that, is decidedly not a good thing for opposing offenses!

 

Parcells is likely to fall short of building a team like that in Miami; just as he'd fallen short with the Jets and Cowboys.

I love how someone can basically dismiss one of the greatest NFL minds to ever be a coach / GM / president as being a poor judge of talent because each and every team he was with didn't win the super bowl.

 

This man is so good he managed to get a team to the super bowl with Drew Bledsoe at QB

 

NY Giants-2 super bowls WON with the NY Giants, Broncos-Bills. When he took over as HC the NY Giants had only won one winning season in the previous ten years. Parcells did have some power from what I remember, he hand picked the defensive players

 

New England-In his 2nd year at NE he had them in the playoffs, in 3 years he had them in the Super Bowl.

 

NY Jets-In his 2nd year with the Jets he went 12-4 out of 3 years, his last season there the starting QB was injured and went on IR, he retired. He stepped down as HC and remained one year as GM.

 

Dallas- Playoffs his first year, In his 3 years at Dallas he made the playoffs 2x and the second time with a young brash still learning QB in Tony Romo. His OC was Sean Payton, you know... the same guy who just won the SB as the Saints HC. I tend to think he was somewhat limited at Dallas because of losing OC Payton and owner Jerry Jones putting his nose in everything.

 

Miami- President - he hired the coaching staff and GM and the Dolphins were a previous 1-16 team and then made the playoffs the his first year with an older noodle armed vet QB named Chad Pennington.

 

Who is to say how good Chad Henne can become playing behind a solid O line and in an innovative wildcat offense.

Maybe your not worried about the Dolphins becoming the next divisional powerhouse, I certainly am.

 

The Patriots with Belichick...the NY Jets with Rex Ryan... the Dolphins with Parcells as President.

 

I don't see many wins for the Buffalo with with Ralph Wilson as president, Buddy Nix as GM and Chan Gailey as Head coach. But hey, that's just me.

[Bill from NYC]

It all depends on what your objectives are. If you want to have a solid, respectable team, making those kinds of decisions will be okay. But if you want to win the Super Bowl, odds are you're going to need more than just a game manager at quarterback.

 

Look at the Steelers back when they had Neil O'Donnell at quarterback. That team had a solid offensive line, a good to very good running game, a very good defense, and even a solid game manager of a quarterback in the form of Neil O'Donnell. As far as not turning the ball over--O'Donnell typically had the fewest interceptions per pass attempt of any quarterback in the league. He was about as good as game managing quarterbacks are going to get.

 

But despite its talent, and despite the coaching of Bill Cowher, that team didn't come away with any Super Bowl rings. That team would make the playoffs most (all?) years, sometimes advance a round or two, but eventually would get eliminated. That's what happens when you follow a Parcells strategy: your team will be solid, but is very unlikely to come away with a Super Bowl win.

 

If Parcells remains the Dolphins' GM for the next few years, he'll probably build them into a team like the O'Donnell-era Steelers. They'll have a good offensive line, a good defense, and will be consistently respectable. But they won't get any Super Bowl rings. Especially because it's far from clear that Henne will be as good a QB as O'Donnell was!

 

Sorry old friend, but this type of thinking is way too abstract for my tastes.

 

You seem to be basing everything upon winning a superbowl which is fine, but imo not for the Bills. You see, the Bills can be summed up as a team of tiny little players who collectively, and more often than not individually suck. Our last 4 first round picks during the pitiful debacle of Levy/Jauron consisted of a head case running back, 2 small, so-so defensive backs and a defensive end who weighs less than 100 pounds. Week after week we see our team pushed around. Now.....bandit (and I like dialogue with him mind you) or another poster will soon find some stats telling us that we are NOT a small team.

 

The ugly truth is that we are small, weak, and we suck. Our best resources have been consistently put into "skill" players, mostly defensive backs. Putting an inexperienced and or fragile qb behind this motley would sell tickets but it won't make this team of weak sisters strong. The Bills are not to be taken seriously because they can't block and they can't tackle. They even had defensive backs playing linebacker. This is a joke. A sick joke, and the joke is on fans like us.

 

Sorry to talk in cliches, but you can't win a superbowl unless you make the playoffs. The Bills can't make the playoffs until they toughen op, stats and abstract theory notwithstanding. They need Linemen on both sides and linebackers more than yet another quarterback to get destroyed. Thruthfully, it is surprising to see you post otherwise.

[thebandit27]

Dude, you need to get your head outta your stats...

 

There are so many variables that you can't see on a stat page. Like Fred Jackson and Marshawn Lynch breaking the first tackle to make most of the yardage on their own. Like the Steeler's starting RB getting injured and then losing his job to the rookie.

 

I'd assert that maybe, instead of just interpreting things in an abstract fasion, you could afford to get your head into some stats.

 

The link I provided to FO takes everything you are saying into account. The process of number crunching that they do is exhaustively analytical. I'd urge you to look at it before you make statements like the above.

 

The two offenses were completely different and Pittsburgh threw the ball way more often and had more total offensive plays. Big Ben was injured and concussed and sat out a few games...which the Steelers lost. The Steeler scheme is better, the OC was better, the HC was better, the line was better.

 

I still tend to think Big Ben getting injured was more of the fact the QB holds the ball to long trying to make a play vs the Bills QB checking down every other play and still getting injured.

 

I understand that Pittsburgh threw the ball more than Buffalo (about 6 times per game more often). This has nothing to do with whether or not Buffalo's RBs would be more successful behind Pittsburgh's line, which was the point of discussion with which I disagreed. You seem to want to argue who had the better offensive line, whereas my original point is that there is literally zero grounds on which to say that Buffalo's running backs would perform better behind Pittsburgh's OL. I don't know who has the better line, how can you say? They certainly don't perform any better, as Ben gets just as beat up as Buffalo's QBs, and they don't seem to be able to run the ball any better than Buffalo does.

 

At this point, it's also worth noting that Pittsburgh actually ran the ball almost the exact number of times that Buffalo did during the 2009 season. If it were an issue based on # of carries, I don't think you'd see the discrepancy that you do.

 

Also, Big Ben did not sit out a few games, he missed one game against Baltimore that the Steelers lost in OT. The offense played awful that game but the defense kept them in it.

 

Why not look up the stats regarding each player's game experience, position by position Bills vs Steeler's O line for 09. The biggest difference between both lines was Buffalo's inexperience and horrid play at tackle.The injuries and constant player changes at almost every position on the line.

When your tackles are as bad as the Bills were this season the offense is going to be bad.

 

Go back and watch that Bills vs Saints game and witness Edwards literally running for his life every offensive play, he had about 2 seconds to get rid of the ball as both tackles were constantly overwhelmed.

 

The Steeler's O line may look worse then Buffalo's because of sacks given up and the running games were similar, the Bills had far more injuries and were a constant revolving door at every position except center.

 

I don't need to look it up, because if you follow the NFL at all, you already know who's line has more experience. Yes, Buffalo's tackles were bad, but somehow, that didn't stop the team from producing a better running game (not just in yards/game, which would be indicative of a team that runs the ball far more often than Pittsburgh, but also in yards/carry, which is more indicative of a team that can run the ball more effectively when it tries to).

 

I was at the Bills-Saints game, and I don't need you to recap it for me. Your argument of Edwards "running for his life" is over-stated, in my opinion. They had chances to make plays downfield that game, plays where Edwards had time to throw the ball to an open receiver and simply didn't. That's the difference between guys like him and guys like Roethlisberger, Rodgers, etc. Even though they take a pounding, they'll stand in there and throw the ball.

 

Every successful QB in the world knows that when the protection from the OTs is weak, you need to step forward into the pocket and throw the ball. I don't know about you, but I think Buffalo's protection from the interior was perfectly adequate for much of the season, but I don't see our QBs stepping up to avoid the outside rush. I don't see our QBs making spot-throws that trust a WR to make the right break at the right time and run a proper route.

 

Regardless, unless you plan to provide some justification for why you think Buffalo's RBs would perform better behind Pittsburgh's OL, when Pittsburgh hasn't had a good run blocking OL in years, there's not much point to continuing this discussion.

[thewildrabbit]

Yes, Buffalo's tackles were bad

Thanks for agreeing.

 

When the Bills draft a decent LT and RT I think the offense will be much improved