If all we did was plug in a Pro Bowl QB to last years team

[Alphadawg7]

obviously there is no perfect answer to building a super bowl winner....and there are always examples or exceptions to make in support of or against any strategy.

 

- in the early 90's the bills had pro bowlers at BOTH , QB (Kelly) and across the O-line (Wolford, Richter,Hull,Davis & Ballard) and STILL lost 4 times in the Super Bowl.....but they were an explosive high scoring machine...because the O-line provided outstanding protection and Kelly had ALOT of time to look all over the field.

 

- "IF" Kelly & Thurman played behind last years (or any recent years) offensive line for their entire careers...NEITHER would be in the HOF.

 

- my earlier point about how Fitz looked in the last INDY game was simply about the difference "protection" means. .... the difference between giving the QB over 5 seconds to throw (1990 bills) versus under 3 seconds (2009 bills) is enormous. in that Indy game everything about the bills stayed exactly the same (all the players).....but because INDY rested their starters, the bills were able to provide better protection allowing Fitz and the team to look great.

 

- Jim McMahon, Doug Williams, Jeff Hostetler, Mark Rypien, Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson and Eli Manning were all mediocre QB's with great O-lines that won Super Bowls.

 

Lots of problems with this post for me...

 

1. The O Line of the Bills in the 90's was a bit overrated by you and made to look better because of the hurry up no huddle offense often employed and Kelly's ablity to get rid of the ball quickly. It was a good O Line, but lets not be so exaggerative to imply that it is what made Kelly and Thomas HOF players...I mean come on.

 

2. That brings me to your next point...no offense, but saying Kelly and Thomas would not be HOF players if they were on this team is about as dumb as anything I have seen on here recently. Aaron Rodgers had a pretty fantastic season and so did Ryan Grant playing behind an equally incompetent line...so, I guess you must think Rodgers is already significantly better than Kelly and Ryan Grant is better than Thurman if you think neither Kelly or Thurman could put really good numbers still on this team.

 

I mean the sheer ignorance of that statement is what frustrates me with this board so often. Kelly throwing to Evans and TO last year with Thurman recieving out of the backfield (even behind this O Line) would have equalled at least, the very least, 5 more wins and probably 6.

 

Now, if you put that same O Line from the 90's on this team with Trent and Fitz at QB, we might have won a game or two more, thats it, if even that. And thats not rocket science, all you have to do is look at what the QB's did when they had time which was literally nothing. You point out a game where Fitz looked good against SECOND stringers...you use the time he had as why he looked better and ignore the fact that he was playing against second and third stringers (on a disinterested team still frustrated they mailed it in when closing in on a perfect season).

 

3. The SB winning QB's you listed did NOT win those SB's because of their O Line...they won those SB's because they had the top ranked (or close to it) defenses in the league those years. Not saying the O Line didnt help, but to imply that the O Line is what got them over the hump is quite a stretch. Not to mention, almost all those teams had a load of talented offensive weapons, including some of the best to ever play their respective positions. Those teams were loaded from top to bottom, so to play up the O Line as if it was the reason those teams were able to win is a bit silly.

 

McMahon - Best D of all time, best RB of all time

Doug Williams - One of the best D's of its era, loaded at WR including an all time great in Monk, dominant RB's

Jeff Hostetler - One of the best D's of all time, dominant running game, should have lost anyway (thanks Norwood)

Mark Rypien - One of the most dominant offenses in the 90's loaded with weapons at WR and RB, dominant D

Trent Dilfer - One of the 2 best D's of all time, best TE in history, 2000 yard bruising RB

Brad Johnson - Pretty good QB on his own, good weapons on offense, one of the best D's of that time

Eli Manning - One of the best D's in the league, only team to get to Brady is why they won...in fact, the drive that won them the game the O line failed miserably, Eli made a miracle escape, throw, then catch or game was over.

 

So, lets be a little more realistic before we start annoiting these SB's to the O Lines of those teams...

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

It's hardly "irrelevant." Some guys are injury-prone and/or prone to taking more sacks. RJ was injury-prone AND took more sacks behind the same O-line as Flutie. Kelly was not injury-prone, even behind a weaker O-line later in his career. He missed maybe a game a year at most towards the end of his career.

 

 

Not a TE fan but he hs actually took some beatings that he played through.

 

For Kelly:

 

he did't start 16 games in 87, 89, 90 91, 94, 95, and 96 and missed a playoff game against houston as well.

 

so out of 11 years, he started all games 4 years... and there were 5 seaons he missed multiple games.

[Rob's House]

McMahon - Best D of all time, best RB of all time

Doug Williams - One of the best D's of its era, loaded at WR including an all time great in Monk, dominant RB's

Jeff Hostetler - One of the best D's of all time, dominant running game, should have lost anyway (thanks Norwood)

Mark Rypien - One of the most dominant offenses in the 90's loaded with weapons at WR and RB, dominant D

Trent Dilfer - One of the 2 best D's of all time, best TE in history, 2000 yard bruising RB

Brad Johnson - Pretty good QB on his own, good weapons on offense, one of the best D's of that time

Eli Manning - One of the best D's in the league, only team to get to Brady is why they won...in fact, the drive that won them the game the O line failed miserably, Eli made a miracle escape, throw, then catch or game was over.

 

So, lets be a little more realistic before we start annoiting these SB's to the O Lines of those teams...

 

McMahon - Didn't even have an oline. Just Ditka

Doug Williams - a couple of scrubs they picked up at the bingo hall blocking for him. The Hogs? sound like scrubs to me.

Jeff Hostetler - playing behind a wall of swiss cheese. Parcells knows dick about protection

Mark Rypien - cool under pressure. Always had someone breathing down his neck. Made up for the sorry hogs.

Trent Dilfer - No line at all. Had someone on him before he even took the snap.

Brad Johnson - Ditto Trent Dilfer

Eli Manning - Never had a chance.

 

All these guys had teams w/ strong running games but no one blocking for the running backs.

 

And NE losing b/c the D got to Brady has less than nothing to do with pass protection.

 

And let's not forget those Dallas teams that beat Buffalo in the SB. Their line looked like a bunch of JV high school rejects. Aikman and Emmit didn't need any f*cking linemen.

 

It's all about the QB.

[Conch]

let's just say for the sake of arguement we replaced Trent Edwards with a pro bowl level QB ( like Rivers, Rodgers, Romo or McNabb) ......not an ALL PRO level like (Manning, Brees or Brady)......how many more wins would we have had from last years team if that was the only difference and everything else stayed exactly the same (players, injuries, etc...) ??

 

 

do the exact same thing at Left Tackle,.....plug in a pro bowl level LT (like Roos, Diehl, Long or Gross)....not ALL PRO like Clady or Thomas).

 

 

i know we need BOTH a QB & LT but i would rather have a below average QB with an Pro Bowl LT than a pro Bowl QB with a below average LT. the left tackle helps in both facets of the offense....RUNNING and passing.

 

in another thread someone made a point about how good Fitzpatrick and the bills looked against INDY at the end of the season when he had plenty of protection against indy's second string.

 

NONE. DJ WAS STILL THE COACH.

[Doc]

Not a TE fan but he hs actually took some beatings that he played through.

 

For Kelly:

 

he did't start 16 games in 87, 89, 90 91, 94, 95, and 96 and missed a playoff game against houston as well.

 

so out of 11 years, he started all games 4 years... and there were 5 seaons he missed multiple games.

In several of those seasons, the starting offense would sit-out the final game in prep for the playoffs. The most games he missed in a season was 3, the first in 1989 before his O-line got settled, and in his last (11th with the Bills, 13th playing pro football) season. Still, it's a far cry from "going down in week 4."

[DarthICE]

Good QB + pathetic O-line/ coaching = failure, but you guys can spin it any way you want.

 

This idea that a QB will come riding into town on a white stallion and magically make our problems all go away is unrealistic. Could it make the difference in a game or two, possibly, until he gets his brains scrambled like TE did then we're right back to where we started.

 

The guy was right, with the TEAM we had, put a top notch QB back there and odds are we win those games.

[DarthICE]

McMahon - Didn't even have an oline. Just Ditka

Doug Williams - a couple of scrubs they picked up at the bingo hall blocking for him. The Hogs? sound like scrubs to me.

Jeff Hostetler - playing behind a wall of swiss cheese. Parcells knows dick about protection

Mark Rypien - cool under pressure. Always had someone breathing down his neck. Made up for the sorry hogs.

Trent Dilfer - No line at all. Had someone on him before he even took the snap.

Brad Johnson - Ditto Trent Dilfer

Eli Manning - Never had a chance.

 

All these guys had teams w/ strong running games but no one blocking for the running backs.

 

And NE losing b/c the D got to Brady has less than nothing to do with pass protection.

 

And let's not forget those Dallas teams that beat Buffalo in the SB. Their line looked like a bunch of JV high school rejects. Aikman and Emmit didn't need any f*cking linemen.

 

It's all about the QB.

 

 

And the last 4 superbowl superbowl participants played absolute scrubs at LT but were there werent they?

[Rob's House]

And the last 4 superbowl superbowl participants played absolute scrubs at LT but were there werent they?

 

Are you joking?

 

Indy can pass protect, period. Maybe not the greatest of all time, but competent AT WORST.

 

New Orleans had one of the best O-lines in football

 

Pittsburg & Arizona had pretty decent pass protection in 08 as well. You see what happened to Pittsburg in 09 when the protection fell apart.

 

Tell me, please, who are these dominant offenses that have existed with less than mediocre lines? And yes, the Bills offensive line is less than mediocre.

 

And since when is LT the only position on the line? Incredulous.

[Alphadawg7]

McMahon - Didn't even have an oline. Just Ditka

Doug Williams - a couple of scrubs they picked up at the bingo hall blocking for him. The Hogs? sound like scrubs to me.

Jeff Hostetler - playing behind a wall of swiss cheese. Parcells knows dick about protection

Mark Rypien - cool under pressure. Always had someone breathing down his neck. Made up for the sorry hogs.

Trent Dilfer - No line at all. Had someone on him before he even took the snap.

Brad Johnson - Ditto Trent Dilfer

Eli Manning - Never had a chance.

 

All these guys had teams w/ strong running games but no one blocking for the running backs.

 

And NE losing b/c the D got to Brady has less than nothing to do with pass protection.

 

And let's not forget those Dallas teams that beat Buffalo in the SB. Their line looked like a bunch of JV high school rejects. Aikman and Emmit didn't need any f*cking linemen.

 

It's all about the QB.

 

LOL, your post here doesnt even make sense...I love how you want to ignore what what is literally regarded as 3 of the best Defenses of all time (Chi, Balt, and NY), the other defenses were all amongst the best of their day as well, the HOF and Pro Bowl RB's, HOF and Pro Bowl WR's, HOF and Pro Bowl TE's, including the #1 RB of all time and the #1 TE of all time, as well as the high level coaching present on these teams which has not even been mentioned yet and just decided that the O Lines are why those teams won. I guarantee you, without a shadow of a doubt, that at the bare min 5 of those 7 SB winners dont even make it to the SB that year let alone win it without the defenses they had. The other 2 would have been questionable too.

 

More importantly, its obviously clear you either werent old enough to even watch these teams or didnt watch football back then because if you did you would know that the "Hogs" had nothing to do with the Redskin teams of those SB years and were founded in 1982 when Theisman was the QB...lmao, so you are making assumptions about OL's on teams rather than making factual comments...

[Bill from NYC]

Lots of problems with this post for me...

 

1. The O Line of the Bills in the 90's was a bit overrated by you and made to look better because of the hurry up no huddle offense often employed and Kelly's ablity to get rid of the ball quickly. It was a good O Line, but lets not be so exaggerative to imply that it is what made Kelly and Thomas HOF players...I mean come on.

 

2. That brings me to your next point...no offense, but saying Kelly and Thomas would not be HOF players if they were on this team is about as dumb as anything I have seen on here recently. Aaron Rodgers had a pretty fantastic season and so did Ryan Grant playing behind an equally incompetent line...so, I guess you must think Rodgers is already significantly better than Kelly and Ryan Grant is better than Thurman if you think neither Kelly or Thurman could put really good numbers still on this team.

 

I mean the sheer ignorance of that statement is what frustrates me with this board so often. Kelly throwing to Evans and TO last year with Thurman recieving out of the backfield (even behind this O Line) would have equalled at least, the very least, 5 more wins and probably 6.

 

Now, if you put that same O Line from the 90's on this team with Trent and Fitz at QB, we might have won a game or two more, thats it, if even that. And thats not rocket science, all you have to do is look at what the QB's did when they had time which was literally nothing. You point out a game where Fitz looked good against SECOND stringers...you use the time he had as why he looked better and ignore the fact that he was playing against second and third stringers (on a disinterested team still frustrated they mailed it in when closing in on a perfect season).

 

3. The SB winning QB's you listed did NOT win those SB's because of their O Line...they won those SB's because they had the top ranked (or close to it) defenses in the league those years. Not saying the O Line didnt help, but to imply that the O Line is what got them over the hump is quite a stretch. Not to mention, almost all those teams had a load of talented offensive weapons, including some of the best to ever play their respective positions. Those teams were loaded from top to bottom, so to play up the O Line as if it was the reason those teams were able to win is a bit silly.

 

McMahon - Best D of all time, best RB of all time

Doug Williams - One of the best D's of its era, loaded at WR including an all time great in Monk, dominant RB's

Jeff Hostetler - One of the best D's of all time, dominant running game, should have lost anyway (thanks Norwood)

Mark Rypien - One of the most dominant offenses in the 90's loaded with weapons at WR and RB, dominant D

Trent Dilfer - One of the 2 best D's of all time, best TE in history, 2000 yard bruising RB

Brad Johnson - Pretty good QB on his own, good weapons on offense, one of the best D's of that time

Eli Manning - One of the best D's in the league, only team to get to Brady is why they won...in fact, the drive that won them the game the O line failed miserably, Eli made a miracle escape, throw, then catch or game was over.

 

So, lets be a little more realistic before we start annoiting these SB's to the O Lines of those teams...

 

AD, I strongly disagree wrt the Redskin superbowl teams. Their OL was in all probability the most dominant unit on their team, thus the nickname "Hogs." As I recall a little known running back set a record running behind them in one superbowl.

 

Also, wrt to Dilfer having one of the 2 best defenses of all time.....they were VERY good, but by no means one of the top 2. Right off the bat, the Steel Curtain and the superbowl Chiefs blew them away.

 

Just trying to keep it real.

[Alphadawg7]

AD, I strongly disagree wrt the Redskin superbowl teams. Their OL was in all probability the most dominant unit on their team, thus the nickname "Hogs." As I recall a little known running back set a record running behind them in one superbowl.

 

Also, wrt to Dilfer having one of the 2 best defenses of all time.....they were VERY good, but by no means one of the top 2. Right off the bat, the Steel Curtain and the superbowl Chiefs blew them away.

 

Just trying to keep it real.

 

The only problem with what you said here is that the "Hogs" didnt play for these Redskin teams...The legendary "Hogs" are from the early 80's with Joe Theisman under center, not the teams QB'd by Williams and Rypien. Every OL the Redskins has ever had that has been at least decent since 1982 has been nicknamed the Hogs, but the true Hogs were in the early 80's long before these 2 SB's...

 

As far as the Ravens D goes, during that season there was strong debate about whether they were the best ever. Now, that is all a matter of opinnion that will vary from person to person, so I have no problem with you not ranking them in the top 2. Regardless of exactly where you rank them though, I would have to imagine you could at least agree that their D was atleast one of the best all time which is really the only point that matters.

[Rob's House]

I love how you want to ignore what what is literally regarded as 3 of the best Defenses of all time (Chi, Balt, and NY),

 

Not ignoring anything. You were the one conveniently ignoring that most of the teams listed had above average to great offensive lines.

 

More importantly, its obviously clear you either werent old enough to even watch these teams or didnt watch football back then because if you did you would know that the "Hogs" had nothing to do with the Redskin teams of those SB years and were founded in 1982 when Theisman was the QB...lmao, so you are making assumptions about OL's on teams rather than making factual comments...

 

While Starke retired in 1984 shortly after the team won their third NFL Championship in Super Bowl XVII, Bostic, Grimm, Jacoby, and Warren stayed together until the early 1990s.

[Bill from NYC]

The only problem with what you said here is that the "Hogs" didnt play for these Redskin teams...The legendary "Hogs" are from the early 80's with Joe Theisman under center, not the teams QB'd by Williams and Rypien. Every OL the Redskins has ever had that has been at least decent since 1982 has been nicknamed the Hogs, but the true Hogs were in the early 80's long before these 2 SB's...

 

As far as the Ravens D goes, during that season there was strong debate about whether they were the best ever. Now, that is all a matter of opinnion that will vary from person to person, so I have no problem with you not ranking them in the top 2. Regardless of exactly where you rank them though, I would have to imagine you could at least agree that their D was atleast one of the best all time which is really the only point that matters.

 

OK, I don't have the time to go over rosters, but do you remember guys such as Grimm and Jacoby doing battle with Lawrence Taylor? These teams were coached by Gibbs as well. Theisman was pretty good, better than functional, but certainly not more responsible than their OL for the success of the Redskins.

 

Wrt the Ravens defense, you are correct. They are certainly in the top 10 in terms of teams that I have seen, more than likely in the top 5, but I would have to think about it.

The 69 Chiefs starting linebackers were Willie Lanier, Bobby Bell and Jim Lynch. Not sure if those names mean much to you, but Lynch was top shelf, and Bell and Lanier were literal superstars. Their DL included Buck Buchannon and Curley Culp. John Robinson was a safety. They had at least 3 Hall of Fame players on that unit, perhaps more.

The Steel Curtain and the Bears were also off the charts great, as was the TB superbowl winning defense but yes, I readily concede that Dilfer's defense is to be included amongst the best units ever.

[Alphadawg7]

OK, I don't have the time to go over rosters, but do you remember guys such as Grimm and Jacoby doing battle with Lawrence Taylor? These teams were coached by Gibbs as well. Theisman was pretty good, better than functional, but certainly not more responsible than their OL for the success of the Redskins.

 

Wrt the Ravens defense, you are correct. They are certainly in the top 10 in terms of teams that I have seen, more than likely in the top 5, but I would have to think about it.

The 69 Chiefs starting linebackers were Willie Lanier, Bobby Bell and Jim Lynch. Not sure if those names mean much to you, but Lynch was top shelf, and Bell and Lanier were literal superstars. Their DL included Buck Buchannon and Curley Culp. John Robinson was a safety. They had at least 3 Hall of Fame players on that unit, perhaps more.

The Steel Curtain and the Bears were also off the charts great, as was the TB superbowl winning defense but yes, I readily concede that Dilfer's defense is to be included amongst the best units ever.

 

Dont get me wrong, I am not saying the Skins didnt have a good OL during those two later SB runs, but they were getting played up here higher in this thread as if they were the true "Hogs' which they were not. More importantly, the incorrect statemtent of them being the "Hogs" was being used to validate their SB when the truth was both of those SB teams had great Defenses and a talented arsenal of offensive weapons.

 

And, I won't pretend to know anything about those Chiefs defenses, because I dont really other than recognizing those names. So, again, no problem with your ranking of them of higher than the Ravens, as I dont have a basis to compare the two and you clearly do. Although, we may have different placing amongst the top 5 or 10, we certainly agree they were still amongst the best ever which is all my point ever was. Definitely the best I have seen since the 85 Bears...

 

Just to be clear, I am not trying to say that O Line isnt important, because it is. However, the poster I originally replied to was trying to aruge that these teams won the SB because of the O Line when the truth is that these teams were immensly talented up and down the roster.

[Bill from NYC]

Just to be clear, I am not trying to say that O Line isnt important, because it is. However, the poster I originally replied to was trying to aruge that these teams won the SB because of the O Line when the truth is that these teams were immensly talented up and down the roster.

 

No team can win a superbowl only because of an offensive line, but a dominant OL in necessasy to win in the elements. Some disagree with this but I think it is as plain as day. A great qb makes a line better no doubt, but how many great qbs do you see out there?

 

The Redskins were obviously talented and very well coached, but Riggins running behind a line of monsters played a huge role in punishing opponents, dominating the clock, and winning football games. The Bills otoh come at you with Donte Whitner, Leodis McKelvin and Roscoe Parrish. See the defference?

[Meathead]

This idea that a QB will come riding into town on a white stallion and magically make our problems all go away is unrealistic. Could it make the difference in a game or two, possibly, until he gets his brains scrambled like TE did then we're right back to where we started.

here

 

that was probably the worst oline ive seen in blfo in my three-ish decades of watching football

 

a qb cant do it by themselves. consider how many times there was a completely jailbreak collapse. any qb of any caliber would have no choice but to protect themselves far too often to be consistently making plays

 

only a super scrambler like a young elway or even a young flutie would have a chance to make enough plays to make a big difference

[Alphadawg7]

No team can win a superbowl only because of an offensive line, but a dominant OL in necessasy to win in the elements. Some disagree with this but I think it is as plain as day. A great qb makes a line better no doubt, but how many great qbs do you see out there?

 

The Redskins were obviously talented and very well coached, but Riggins running behind a line of monsters played a huge role in punishing opponents, dominating the clock, and winning football games. The Bills otoh come at you with Donte Whitner, Leodis McKelvin and Roscoe Parrish. See the defference?

 

I agree an O Line helps a lot, but the OP was giving credit to those SB wins to those teams respective O Lines which was just silly considering how immensly talented those teams were are most skill positions on offense and the dominant force they were on D.

 

Also, again Riggins and the Hogs are not relevant as they were not part of these teams. Riggins had long reitred before Doug Williams won the SB for the Skins.

[Captain Hindsight]

I bet we go 11-5.... We had a ton of weapons last year on offense between ownes and Evans and jackson. Aaron Rodgers at QB we win at least 5 more games

[Rob's House]

I bet we go 11-5.... We had a ton of weapons last year on offense between ownes and Evans and jackson. Aaron Rodgers at QB we win at least 5 more games

 

Still living in that fantasy world where the GB line was the equivalent of the Buffalo line and Rogers miraculously made it work. Sorry man, didn't happen and here's why:

 

1. Green Bay's line was exponentially better than Buffalo's line

 

2. Roger's hung on to the ball forever whether he had the protection or not which led to big plays and a lot of sacks. Didn't translate into a lot of wins.

 

3. Most of Roger's and GBs success last year came in the second half when their line got healthy. Look at GB last season week to week.

 

4. Our weapons, Evans, an aging TO, Jackson, and not much else, doesn't stack up to the arsenal Rogers had at his disposal, and even at their worst, GB's line gave a lot more time than our QBs could ever have hoped for.

 

 

Not to say Rogers wouldn't have done better than TE & Fitz but to say at least 5 more games, meaning the Bills would have won at least 11 games. Don't see it.

[stuckincincy]

Stat Wars..It's what we do here!