McD Posted January 20, 2011 Author Share Posted January 20, 2011 Shouldn't these lists be titled the most famous busts of all time? Why would Lawrence Philips at number 6 and Andre Ware be bigger busts than the busts at higher picks? There are what they are my friend... fact is, keep looking at these lists... they have a very common theme... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 I don't think Mallet will be a dominant QB and I am not sure about Gabbert. I am pretty sure that a bunch of the D-linemen have a good shot to be dominant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McD Posted January 20, 2011 Author Share Posted January 20, 2011 This article is pretty interesting... these are the top 10 teams to never win a SB. Weird thing... all but 1 had the top rated Offense in the league, but it did have the #2 Offense and the #1 Defense (NFL stats, not combined with AFL stats)... that was the '68 Colts who were upset in SB 3 by the NY Jets #2 O and #4 D that year. FWIW...our beloved 1990 Bills are #10. Again, you'll see these teams very well balanced (no argument there). http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_1190_The_almost-greatest_teams.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 There are what they are my friend... fact is, keep looking at these lists... they have a very common theme... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McD Posted January 20, 2011 Author Share Posted January 20, 2011 Guess I have to spell it out... there are a shitload of fist round QB busts littering the NFL, and way more of them than D linemen especially within the top 10 busts of all time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayzer32 Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Guess I have to spell it out... there are a shitload of fist round QB busts littering the NFL, and way more of them than D linemen especially within the top 10 busts of all time. All this proves is that QB is the most sought after and important position in the NFL, thus so many picks spent on QBs that teams are hoping can become a franchise type player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Guess I have to spell it out... there are a shitload of fist round QB busts littering the NFL, and way more of them than D linemen especially within the top 10 busts of all time. Any position can be a bust- I just don't know if I would risk Gabbert or Mallet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Guess I have to spell it out... there are a shitload of fist round QB busts littering the NFL, and way more of them than D linemen especially within the top 10 busts of all time. Guess you need to re-read my question. I know you're on a rampage about not wanting to pick a QB, but that's not what I was asking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 (edited) Here's some articles for you.... http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/galleries/nfls_biggest_draft_busts/nfls_biggest_draft_busts.html http://bleacherreport.com/articles/389546-the-nfls-10-biggest-draft-busts http://www.xtrapointfootball.com/20100321280/2010-archives/march/nfl-draft-busts-top-50.html http://www.nfl.com/news/story?confirm=true&id=09000d5d817ff891&template=with-video-with-comments http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft08/news/story?id=3325687 These lists are EVERYWHERE... OMG too damned easy. LMAO at your skewed attempt of listing a bunch "bust" lists that actually provided no information of any kind to how often a QB busts in relation to other players, specifically DL. So, here is a real report specifically addressing the myth that high draft pick QB's bust at a higher rate than high draft pick DL. Literally was the first one to pop up on google...isnt google great Link to real report about bust rates In case you refuse to read it, it actually shows DL have a higher bust rate than QB's...also, teams that hit with a QB go on to have a better winning percentage and more playoff appearances on average than teams that hit on DL. Here is the TRUTH about the QB bust rate: Its MISTAKENLY believed to be much higher than it is given the HIGH PROFILE nature of the QB position, the larger contracts, and the fact that you cant hide a busted QB as they touch the ball on every offensive play. Dfensive players can struggle without drawing as much attention like a QB. So there is all this misguided myths (see your entire history in the thread for example) that some how QB's bust more than any other position, and its simply not accurate. Guess I have to spell it out... there are a shitload of fist round QB busts littering the NFL, and way more of them than D linemen especially within the top 10 busts of all time. See above...clearly, this statement by you is something you decided to pull out of your back side considering its factually false. Edited January 20, 2011 by Alphadawg7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 LMAO at your skewed attempt of listing a bunch "bust" lists that actually provided no information of any kind to how often a QB busts in relation to other players, specifically DL. So, here is a real report specifically addressing the myth that high draft pick QB's bust at a higher rate than high draft pick DL. Literally was the first one to pop up on google...isnt google great Link to real report about bust rates In case you refuse to read it, it actually shows DL have a higher bust rate than QB's...also, teams that hit with a QB go on to have a better winning percentage and more playoff appearances on average than teams that hit on DL. Here is the TRUTH about the QB bust rate: Its MISTAKENLY believed to be much higher than it is given the HIGH PROFILE nature of the QB position, the larger contracts, and the fact that you cant hide a busted QB as they touch the ball on every offensive play. Dfensive players can struggle without drawing as much attention like a QB. So there is all this misguided myths (see your entire history in the thread for example) that some how QB's bust more than any other position, and its simply not accurate. See above...clearly, this statement by you is something you decided to pull out of your back side considering its factually false. Your list actually is better. The list I clicked into from the multi-list post was called biggest busts of all time. And, it's just really a popularity thing. Meaning the better you were known coming out of college, the bigger bust you were considered. And, that's why I asked how Andre Ware could be something like the 6th biggest bust of all time when he was drafted number 7 in the draft. Surely, there were washouts who were picked much higher than him. Your list is actually a little generous to the DTs. I would call Big Daddy a bust and not a hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lv-Bills Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 (edited) Let's end the stupidity in this thread and kill the macho yelling by looking at recent champs: 10 New Orleans - Franchise QB 09 Pittsburgh - Franchise QB 08 NY Giants - Franchise QB 07 Indy - Franchise QB 06 Pittsburgh - Franchise QB 05 Patriots - Franchise QB 04 Patriots - Franchise QB 03 Tampa Bay - Defense 02 Patriots - Franchise QB 01 Baltimore - Defense 00 Rams - Franchise QB 99 Denver - Franchise QB 98 Denver - Franchise QB 97 Green Bay - Franchise QB You were saying??? Or, should I keep going with Aikman, Young, Aikman, Aikman, and so on??? While football is a team game, a franchise QB goes a long way helping teams win. Good teams without franchise QB's usually get shut down because teams can shut down their ability to run and force offensive coordinators to play the game scared. IE, Baltimore through the years. Almost all of these teams have franchise QB's. Other factors such as Terrell Davis in Denver helped. HOWEVER, Davis without a franchise QB would have been pretty easy to shut down in today's NFL. It's a QB driven game nowadays, and this list of champs pretty clearly, on an elementary level shows that most teams are set at QB when they've won the big one. Edited January 20, 2011 by Lv-Bills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Lets pretend those teams didn't have great defenses. And how is Sanchez and Cutler franchise QB's if Fitz isn't? Fitz has better stats than Sanchez and equal to Cutler... and he did it with NO real preseason prep with the rest of the starters and he didn't play in 3 or 4 games. You have no clue to what you're talking about. This is comical... This isn't a slight, but no ****. But lets also look at our beloved Bills. We upgraded our QB play (maybe not dramatically, but it was an upgrade), however we did NOT improve our record. I know we need balance... people here keep thinking I don't value QB play.. THEY'RE WRONG! I do value it, BUT we need balance too. Fitz works for now, but we don't have adequate D play. WE need playmakers on both sides of the ball, but we have so very few on D. Draft D and more D. This is the essence of my post! You don't want to go here do you? You do realize that a team will carry WAY more D lineman/front 7 guys than they will QB's right? Therefore, there will be WAY more D lineman/front 7 guys drafted and theoretically have more players counted as BUSTS. You aren't that ignorant. But... go ahead and do some research... find the biggest BUSTS of all time. You'll find a good mix of players and positions, but if there were 5 QB's and 5 D Line guys, then the %'s would tell the real tale as probably twice as many D line guys are selected than QB's. I've seen many of these "lists" the past few days and they are littered with QB's. Again, because you seem to have lost any clue to what my original argument was... we have a QB... Andrew Luck isn't there... we prob wont find a trade partner, and no other QB should be taken at #3... draft the hell out of D, we have holes everywhere on D... fill them, and not with bondo patches, but with real no **** steel. Do it right OBD. My favorite QB stat is yards per attempt. Fitz's career average for that stat is 6.0, but this past season he averaged 6.8. Cutler's career average is 7.2, and this past season he averaged 7.6. I haven't seen a lot of Cutler's play recently, but at least statistically he's doing better than Fitz. As for Sanchez: this past season he averaged 6.5 yards per attempt, so he's playing less well than Fitz. (Especially after you factor in the Jets' stronger supporting cast.) In reference to your response to my post, I agree that AlphaDawg's point was very obvious. Upgrading the QB's level of play is more impactful than an equal upgrade at a DL position. But I nevertheless saw that point being disputed! With Luck out of the draft, I don't see any of the available QB prospects as worthy of the 3rd overall pick. I have no objection to the Bills taking a front-7 defensive player with that pick, as long as they're reasonably comfortable that he'll live up to his draft position. I fully agree the Bills' defense needs a major talent infusion. I'm intrigued by Bowers, who I think has the size and strength to be a DE even in a 3-4. As for the Bills' W/L record, the first two games the whole team seemed to collapse. Then the offense started putting up points because of the OL playing better, going up against defenses not as good as the Packers' or the Dolphins', and because of the QB switch. But the Bills' own defense was allowing insane numbers of points per game, so the vast improvement Fitz created in the Bills' point production didn't result in many wins. Then in the second half of the season the defense started playing better and keeping opponents' scores more reasonable. But the offense's point production began dwindling down--in part because of Fitz--so there weren't too many wins at the end of the season either, except against weaker teams. All of which goes to show that football is a team sport, and that you're not going to win a lot of games unless you're strong on both sides of the ball. Since the Bills aren't particularly strong on either side of the ball, they could justify going in a number of different ways in the draft. But an elite DE is the second- or third-most valuable thing you can come away with in the draft (after an elite QB and maybe an elite LT), which is another reason for the Bills to strongly consider Bowers. There will be no QBs or LTs worthy of a top-5 pick in this draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Let's end the stupidity in this thread and kill the macho yelling by looking at recent champs: 10 New Orleans - Franchise QB 09 Pittsburgh - Franchise QB 08 NY Giants - Franchise QB 07 Indy - Franchise QB 06 Pittsburgh - Franchise QB 05 Patriots - Franchise QB 04 Patriots - Franchise QB 03 Tampa Bay - Defense 02 Patriots - Franchise QB 01 Baltimore - Defense 00 Rams - Franchise QB 99 Denver - Franchise QB 98 Denver - Franchise QB 97 Green Bay - Franchise QB You were saying??? Or, should I keep going with Aikman, Young, Aikman, Aikman, and so on??? While football is a team game, a franchise QB goes a long way helping teams win. Good teams without franchise QB's usually get shut down because teams can shut down their ability to run and force offensive coordinators to play the game scared. IE, Baltimore through the years. Almost all of these teams have franchise QB's. Other factors such as Terrell Davis in Denver helped. HOWEVER, Davis without a franchise QB would have been pretty easy to shut down in today's NFL. It's a QB driven game nowadays, and this list of champs pretty clearly, on an elementary level shows that most teams are set at QB when they've won the big one. All those teams had very good to great defenses. Green Bay,San Fran, Denver- you could argue all were defense first teams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 (edited) Let's end the stupidity in this thread and kill the macho yelling by looking at recent champs: 10 New Orleans - Franchise QB 09 Pittsburgh - Franchise QB 08 NY Giants - Franchise QB 07 Indy - Franchise QB 06 Pittsburgh - Franchise QB 05 Patriots - Franchise QB 04 Patriots - Franchise QB 03 Tampa Bay - Defense 02 Patriots - Franchise QB 01 Baltimore - Defense 00 Rams - Franchise QB 99 Denver - Franchise QB 98 Denver - Franchise QB 97 Green Bay - Franchise QB You were saying??? Or, should I keep going with Aikman, Young, Aikman, Aikman, and so on??? While football is a team game, a franchise QB goes a long way helping teams win. Good teams without franchise QB's usually get shut down because teams can shut down their ability to run and force offensive coordinators to play the game scared. IE, Baltimore through the years. Almost all of these teams have franchise QB's. Other factors such as Terrell Davis in Denver helped. HOWEVER, Davis without a franchise QB would have been pretty easy to shut down in today's NFL. It's a QB driven game nowadays, and this list of champs pretty clearly, on an elementary level shows that most teams are set at QB when they've won the big one. Great post! Just to add to what you've written: Tampa Bay was a defense-first team. But they still had Brad Johnson, who had a Pro Bowl year, and put up Pro Bowl numbers the year the Bucs won the Super Bowl. Like you said, if you don't have a franchise QB--or at least a guy who's close--odds are heavily against your team winning the Super Bowl. But football is a team sport, so once you have that franchise QB you need to surround him with talent or else you're not going to win anything. More simply, having a very good QB is close to being a necessary condition of winning a Super Bowl, but is not a sufficient condition. Edited January 20, 2011 by Edwards' Arm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 When we picked Bruce #1 in '85, neither I nor anybody else thought "We are on our way!".........But, when Kelly came on board in '86, that is exactly what I and everybody else thought. And, we were! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1B4IDie Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 (edited) My favorite QB stat is yards per attempt. Fitz's career average for that stat is 6.0, but this past season he averaged 6.8. Cutler's career average is 7.2, and this past season he averaged 7.6. I haven't seen a lot of Cutler's play recently, but at least statistically he's doing better than Fitz. As for Sanchez: this past season he averaged 6.5 yards per attempt, so he's playing less well than Fitz. (Especially after you factor in the Jets' stronger supporting cast.) In reference to your response to my post, I agree that AlphaDawg's point was very obvious. Upgrading the QB's level of play is more impactful than an equal upgrade at a DL position. But I nevertheless saw that point being disputed! With Luck out of the draft, I don't see any of the available QB prospects as worthy of the 3rd overall pick. I have no objection to the Bills taking a front-7 defensive player with that pick, as long as they're reasonably comfortable that he'll live up to his draft position. I fully agree the Bills' defense needs a major talent infusion. I'm intrigued by Bowers, who I think has the size and strength to be a DE even in a 3-4. As for the Bills' W/L record, the first two games the whole team seemed to collapse. Then the offense started putting up points because of the OL playing better, going up against defenses not as good as the Packers' or the Dolphins', and because of the QB switch. But the Bills' own defense was allowing insane numbers of points per game, so the vast improvement Fitz created in the Bills' point production didn't result in many wins. Then in the second half of the season the defense started playing better and keeping opponents' scores more reasonable. But the offense's point production began dwindling down--in part because of Fitz--so there weren't too many wins at the end of the season either, except against weaker teams. All of which goes to show that football is a team sport, and that you're not going to win a lot of games unless you're strong on both sides of the ball. Since the Bills aren't particularly strong on either side of the ball, they could justify going in a number of different ways in the draft. But an elite DE is the second- or third-most valuable thing you can come away with in the draft (after an elite QB and maybe an elite LT), which is another reason for the Bills to strongly consider Bowers. There will be no QBs or LTs worthy of a top-5 pick in this draft. Why you little . . . As one of the flag bearers for "the Bills must lose to get a higher draft pick" mind(less)set; you now have the audacity to claim that there might not be a player that will "live up to the draft position." Is it possible that you may have set unrealistic expectations of the difference between the quality of players in the NFL draft ? It doesn't sound like you know the players in the draft very well, you're splitting hairs in the Top30. If Stevie catches the pass, and one of the kicks counts against the Cheifs then we can draft Mallet or Newton right where they are "worthy" to be picked. It seems like you might believe a QB upgrade is better in the longterm for the Bills too bad the Bills didn't have 2 more wins. Edited January 20, 2011 by Why So Serious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Gun Special Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 All those teams had very good to great defenses. Green Bay,San Fran, Denver- you could argue all were defense first teams Not really, especially when they were the top scoring offenses those few years. A good D will stop the other team from scoring, ie ravens in 2001 ; but a good offense gets you points obviously. The 01 ravens were an average offense propelled by a great D, that was a defense first team. The numbers back this up, those broncos and GB teams were top in the league in getting first downs. That means the offense was controlling the ball and dictating the flow of the game. It also keeps the defense off the field and inflates their stats. Kinda like the Pats D this year gave up very few points. No one would argue they were a great D or a team first D; its their offense that has carried them and always will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfreak Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Guess I have to spell it out... there are a shitload of fist round QB busts littering the NFL, and way more of them than D linemen especially within the top 10 busts of all time. Tell Erik Flowers and John McCargo that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akm0404 Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Time to face reality: Until the Bills get consistent elite-level quarterback play, they will be an irrelevant, bad to mediocre team. Fitzpatrick = rebuild to 7-9, which is plenty good enough for most Bills fans, for some bizarre reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Why you little . . . As one of the flag bearers for "the Bills must lose to get a higher draft pick" mind(less)set; you now have the audacity to claim that there might not be a player that will "live up to the draft position." Is it possible that you may have set unrealistic expectations of the difference between the quality of players in the NFL draft ? It doesn't sound like you know the players in the draft very well, you're splitting hairs in the Top30. If Stevie catches the pass, and one of the kicks counts against the Cheifs then we can draft Mallet or Newton right where they are "worthy" to be picked. It seems like you might believe a QB upgrade is better in the longterm for the Bills too bad the Bills didn't have 2 more wins. Over the course of his career, Bill Polian has had four picks in the top-5. He used those picks on Bruce Smith, Kerry Collins, Peyton Manning, and Edgerrin James. Bill Polian has also had successes later on in the first round. But none of those successes compare to Manning or Smith, and very few compare to James. There were also a fair number of busts mixed in with Polian's picks later in the first round. An early draft pick is more valuable than one later in the draft, period. Giving a good GM like Polian the choice of any player he wants is much better than putting him in a situation where the players he wanted the most have already been taken. There will be a number of talented front-7 players available when the Bills pick. But the bust rate for DTs taken in the first 16 picks of the draft is over 50% (as someone pointed out earlier). Nearly all those busts had glowing pre-draft endorsements from a host of mock draft sites, much like this year's current crop of DL have. But those players failed to come close to expectations. More generally, the league is littered with players at all positions who had all the talent in the world, but who turned into busts anyway due to a lack of work ethic, football character, and passion for the game. Think of how much Mike Williams could have achieved had he worked as hard as Kyle Williams! The Bills' front office gets paid to identify (and avoid drafting) future Mike Williams-type players. Suppose that the two defensive front-7 players with the best work ethic and passion for the game get snapped up first and second overall. That would leave the Bills in a situation where they could still take a front-7 player with plenty of athletic talent, but who's more likely to become the next Mike Williams. Should that happen, they might want to consider going in a different direction in the draft instead. On the other hand, there might well be more than two early DL picks from the 2011 draft who go on to have very good careers. As for Mallett and Newton: I'm not overly interested in drafting either player at any point in the first round. Had Luck been an option, I would have been very happy to see the Bills trade up to get him. Even if they had to pay a king's ransom to do so. Having a franchise QB is just that important. Since Luck isn't available, the Bills might want to consider using a second round pick on Ponder. While Ponder may not have the arm strength of Mallett or the physical tools of Newton, he's done far more than either of those two have to show he's an accurate QB, a guy who can quickly read defenses, and generally be a pocket passer at the NFL level. The higher your team's draft pick, the more able your GM will be to do what he wants. Giving a Matt Millen the ability to do whatever he wants won't help your team much, because he'll just waste the pick anyway. But giving a Bill Polian the ability to do exactly what he wants is a very powerful thing! If Nix is more like Polian than he is like Millen, we should want to see him have as many draft-day options as possible. That means early picks. If, however, Nix is more like Millen, we should want to see nothing but miserable seasons for however long it takes to get Nix fired. Either way, a losing record in 2010 made sense. But obviously if Nix is good, you want to see that losing record get turned around before someone gets the ax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts