Cash Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Obvious troll is obvious. Elite defense + elite running game + elite O-line + shaky QB = 2006-2008 Vikings. Good stuff. Best case is probably: Arguably best defense in NFL history + elite running game + mediocre QB = 2000 Ravens. Nice job winning one of the worst Super Bowls ever, but not really the sustained success that most fans are dreaming about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Obvious troll is obvious. Elite defense + elite running game + elite O-line + shaky QB = 2006-2008 Vikings. Good stuff. Best case is probably: Arguably best defense in NFL history + elite running game + mediocre QB = 2000 Ravens. Nice job winning one of the worst Super Bowls ever, but not really the sustained success that most fans are dreaming about. Good point, Cash. And remember, the Ravens beat a Giants team that had played way over its head to get to the SB. Teams like that often fall apart in the clutch (see Pats in SB XX, Chargers in SB XXIX, Bears in SB XLI). Some teams are fortunate in their opponent in the Super Bowl; some are not: (see Bills in SB XXV, XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsPhan Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 So, down goes Manning, down goes Brees, down goes Flacco, down goes Vick, down goes Ryan, down goes Brady.... ....Roethlesberger (1st Round pick), vs. Sanchez (1st round pick) in the AFC Championship. Cutler (1st round pick) Vs. Rogers (1st round pick) in the NFC Championship. Gee, these teams that seem to be winning with all "defense" certainly have some pretty damn good QB's too, huh??? The Bills can go right ahead and draft a QB with their 1st round pick (3rd overall), if they feel he will grow into a franchise QB within a year or two. It's obvious that you really do need both a franchise QB and a great defense to win Championships in today's NFL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 You will waste any QB you draft unless you fix they lines first. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1B4IDie Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 (edited) His is sorted by a statistic other than QB rating - passing yardage I think Step over to another thread and read a viewpoint that QB rating doesn't matter, all that matters is YPA, completion %, and third down conversion. I'm not saying that's my viewpoint (since both completion percentage and YPA are part of QB rating along with TD and INTs) It's a viewpoint with enough merit not to say QB rating is "real" and other metrics are not Look, WSS, no one seems to be arguing that a good QB is not necessary, or that good QB are more likely to be found in the 1st round than in other rounds. Maybe I missed it? Riddle me this: Something like 3/4 of the guys starting at the beginning of the season or 2/3 of the guys starting 1/2 way through the season are 1st round QB. When the playoffs started, the majority of those guys were sitting on the sofa, while the proportion of non-1st round to 1st round QB in the playoffs is about the same as it is in the league overall. Several other highly-touted 1st round QB sat down rather quickly, rookie and vet. What does that tell you? It tells me this: 1. Once you find a good QB, you've found a good QB; his draft status does not make him more or less likely to take you to the playoffs and keep you there 2. There must be other critical factors than the QB draft status which govern whether a team goes to the playoffs and playoff success. Strong defense, OL play, and superior coaching come to mind I could be wrong, but I don't think the OP's point was a good QB isn't needed. I think the OP's point was, once a team has a good QB, they are better off putting the other critical pieces in place than gunning for a GREAT, once-in-a-decade, franchise QB. Several arguably superior QB (Manning, Ryan, Vick, Brees) went home quickly, while several arguably lesser QB (Sanchez, Cutler) are still in the game. Why? Because their teams OVERALL proved superior. Elite defense + elite running game + elite O-line + shaky QB = 2006-2008 Vikings. Good stuff. Best case is probably: Arguably best defense in NFL history + elite running game + mediocre QB = 2000 Ravens. Nice job winning one of the worst Super Bowls ever, but not really the sustained success that most fans are dreaming about. The QB matters. The 2010 O-Line is not horrible. The 2010 D-Line is horrible. If Fairely is gone, its time this franchise takes a shot on a QB, with this being the perfect time in the sense we don't have to throw the kid into the frying pan on day 1. The same may not be said in 2012 or 2013. (Not to mention 2012's QB class is horrible after Luck) Although getting Marcell Dareaus is a pretty darn good consolation prize to finally getting a franchise QB. Finally having a franchise QB gives an organization a chance at success for a sustained period of time. I believe Cam Newton & Ryan Mallet will have very successful NFL careers, both can be "the man." If you "reach" on one of them at #3, in three years everyone will be wondering why they don't go #1 overall. Similar to Josh Freeman, Matt Ryan, or Jim Kelly. Yes Manning, Rivers and Brees are out of the playoffs this year, but how often are they in the playoffs? Edited January 17, 2011 by Why So Serious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maddog69 Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 couldn't have said it better myself, although I still think you need a franchise QB but a good running game and defense are more important. If you look at who is left I would say each team considers their QB a franchise QB even if Sanchez has been off since the shoulder injury. 1. Dareus 2. Paea 3. Acho ... after that its all good. Defense and running game are important, but you cannot win consistently without an elite QB and we don't have an elite QB. The Bills will be in position to possibly draft the #1 QB in this years draft class. If Nix decides that one of the QBs in this draft is a potentially elite prospect, that should be the pick. I am not saying that any of these prospects are that guy, but you would think that one of the QBs in this draft class will turn out to be great, we need to find him. Once we have the QB to develop, then you build the OL and the defense. With out the QB, the rest is meaningless. Say all you want about the Jets D, they would not have won that game yesterday without Sanchez outplaying Brady and matching him score for score in the 4th qtr. The Jets "dominating D" couldn't stop a runny nose in the 4th qtr. Same goes with Pittsburgh, their D is good, but Rapelisburger is winning games for them. The #1 most important position on an NFL team who wants to win consistently is an Elite QB and until you have one, you should be trying to get one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Tindale Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Just because a team blew first round money on a qb, it doesn't necessarily follow that these qb's are "elite" and/or "franchise". By that logic, we should have let JP Losman quarterback the Bills for next decade. And, Jay Cutler and Mark Sanchez are hardly either; they both benefit from a defense that can take over games. Sanchez has more ints than tds in his career. Cutler is one year removed from 26 ints and had nearly identical stats to Fitzy in 2010. I'm obviously guessing here, but I think fans from both cities tolerate these guys, but have no illusion that they are "franchise qb's". If so, then I'm not clear what a franchise qb is (apparently, it's just one that gets drafted in the first round, but doesn't even have to make a Pro Bowl...). In my opinion, there are a very small handful of transcendent qb's who don't need "help" from a strong running game or front seven. I think that handful is Manning, Brady, Brees, and Rodgers (at least he appears to be developing into one). Incidentally, I don't put Roethlisberger on that list, but I would have considered putting Kurt Warner there (another non-first rounder) not that long ago. I have no idea what Roethlisberger would do with a weak running game and/or defense. The Steelers missed the playoffs last year with a spotty running game. I'm not convinced he can carry a team on his own consistently. Anyway, ironically, only one of the four qb's I consider "transcendent" were top ten picks and only two of them were even first rounders. So, the conclusion that we HAVE to spend a top five pick on a quarterback because this year's playoffs provide plenty of evidence for the merits of doing so... I think that's an incorrect interpretation of the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimp Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Yea, Brady, Brees and Manning have not won many games (and Super Bowls) in the league...please Look at the defenses on those teams that won the super bowls before you make an ignorant post...please rodgers rothlisberger sanchez cutler hmmmmmmm all first round picks. one with multiple rings. one just traded for a kings ransom last year. one selected in the top 5. one that got to sit for 3 years to learn the position after being picked in the first round. brady, brees, manning also better then ok qbs -- so thats 7 franchise qbs referenced by your post..... matty ice and joe flacco, both good but not great so thats 9, of probably the top 10 qbs that are in the playoffs, leaving out only rivers who did have a good D Cutler is a franchise QB? NO. No he isn't. Franchise QB is not determined by what you are traded for. A franchise QB leads an offense that is better than 30th in the league. Sanchez may be a franchise QB. I would prefer to see him do something before he is deemed a franchise QB. Whatever happened to the prove it mentality? I agree with the other 2 qb's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBaumer Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Look at the defenses on those teams that won the super bowls before you make an ignorant post...please Huh? Yea, REAL dominating D on that Colt team. Let's try and just make the playoffs before we anoint the Bills to the Super Bowl level. Maybe just a winning record would work once every 10 years. Gimme a freakin' franchise QB any day of the week.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimp Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Huh? Yea, REAL dominating D on that Colt team. Let's try and just make the playoffs before we anoint the Bills to the Super Bowl level. Maybe just a winning record would work once every 10 years. Gimme a freakin' franchise QB any day of the week.... That defense did take the ball away 5 times in the super bowl so they culdn't have been too terrible. When is the last time the Bills took the ball away 5 times? I will agree that Peyton was the man that year but the other two QB's you list had really good defenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flmike Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 No doubt you have to have horses on both sides of the ball. Look at the 90s Bills teams. They were stacked with talent on both sides. The key was taking Bruce Smith in the first round. I don't think the Bills would have done as well without him. Definitely not 4 SBs. Opposing teams never figured out a way to completely seal him off, leaving Bennett, Conlan, Talley and others free to do their thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Gun Special Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 You will waste any QB you draft unless you fix they lines first. PTR Really? and why is that? Fitz was sacked less than any QB who made the playoffs. The Bills had more rushing yards than the packers, bears, saints, colts, and seahawks. So the bills line gave up less sacks, and produced more rushing yards than all these playoff teams but a rookie QB would be wasted? How? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1B4IDie Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 No doubt you have to have horses on both sides of the ball. Look at the 90s Bills teams. They were stacked with talent on both sides. The key was taking Bruce Smith in the first round. I don't think the Bills would have done as well without him. Definitely not 4 SBs. Opposing teams never figured out a way to completely seal him off, leaving Bennett, Conlan, Talley and others free to do their thing. Which is the greater point. You need a franchise QB and a great defense. The Bills have 0 of the 2. Hopefully they can start to solve atleast 1 of the 2 areas in 2011 by drafting a Cam Newton, Ryan Mallet, Marcell Dareaus or best case Nick Fairely. 40% of the roster has flipped from DJ's team and about another 25% is probably going to flip after this off season. This is truly rebuilding. Really? and why is that? Fitz was sacked less than any QB who made the playoffs. The Bills had more rushing yards than the packers, bears, saints, colts, and seahawks. So the bills line gave up less sacks, and produced more rushing yards than all these playoff teams but a rookie QB would be wasted? How? They think its still 2008. They don't realize there are two Top 40 picks on the O-Line with a young LT that is developing into a good LT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 The QB matters. The 2010 O-Line is not horrible. The 2010 D-Line is horrible. I disagree about the 2010 O-line. Fitz made it look better than it was. Fitz was also limited in what he could attempt, hurried, and hit a lot. Essentially what you're saying seems to come down to a matter of faith. It's time to take a shot on a QB even if the only QB there are acknowledged projects, not NFL-ready players. Or 1 year wonders who haven't proven their staying power and level of committment. We disagree, and since it's a matter of faith, we'll continue to disagree. We seem to agree about Dareus. If there were a Manning, Bradford, or Luck available at #3, we'd likely agree. Leave it there, 'nuff said. If you "reach" on one of them at #3, in three years everyone will be wondering why they don't go #1 overall. Similar to Josh Freeman, Matt Ryan, or Jim Kelly. I haven't heard too many people wondering why #17 Josh Freeman didn't go #1 overall. In 1986, I didn't hear that too much about Jim Kelly either. Maybe I listen in the wrong places. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Gun Special Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 I disagree about the 2010 O-line. Fitz made it look better than it was. Fitz was also limited in what he could attempt, hurried, and hit a lot. Essentially what you're saying seems to come down to a matter of faith. It's time to take a shot on a QB even if the only QB there are acknowledged projects, not NFL-ready players. Or 1 year wonders who haven't proven their staying power and level of committment. We disagree, and since it's a matter of faith, we'll continue to disagree. We seem to agree about Dareus. If there were a Manning, Bradford, or Luck available at #3, we'd likely agree. Leave it there, 'nuff said. I haven't heard too many people wondering why #17 Josh Freeman didn't go #1 overall. In 1986, I didn't hear that too much about Jim Kelly either. Maybe I listen in the wrong places. So all those QBs who are without a doubt better than fitz but took more sacks and had fewer rushing yards FAILEd to make their respective lines look better? Please, Fitz is a worse than average QB with a avg to below avg line who gave him better protection than ....for example Aaron Rodgers. Youre telling me that after watching Rodgers running for his life all game this past weekend that his Oline is so much better? Not really, but he's a hell of a lot better than our QB. QB makes alllll the difference, but whether that guy is at #3 i dont know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 So, down goes Manning, down goes Brees, down goes Flacco, down goes Vick, down goes Ryan, down goes Brady.... To all of you that think we NEED a QB at #3 this year (none worthy at #3), once again... here is a CLASSIC example of the need for a solid defense. This years defenses prove once again, that a top D is the tonic this team needs. It will give this team the attitude this team and city needs. You want to grab a QB in the third? Ok... no issues, but that better be after a selection of a DE/DT and a LB. Buddy... SOLIDIFY the D through the draft AND through FA. Don't bank on Merriman being "the man"... he's an unknown at this time. Go draft help, go pay the $$ for FA help... The O can use an RT an TE and some depth too... BUT... I hope you're paying attention this post season... D, D, D, D, D, D!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There are four teams still alive in the playoffs: the Steelers, Jets, Bears, and Packers. Of those four teams, the Steelers, Jets and Packers have starting quarterbacks they drafted in the first round. The Bears' starting QB was also drafted in the first round, albeit by the Broncos. Nor was Jay Cutler's time with the Broncos considered a disappointment, as demonstrated by the king's ransom the Bears traded away to acquire him. With the exception of Sanchez, all of the quarterbacks in question have equalled or exceeded their draft positions. Even Sanchez had a big day against the Patriots' defense; and without that big day from him the Jets would not have won. As for Peyton Manning: his career average is 7.6 yards per pass attempt. This past season he averaged 6.9 yards per attempt. He was drafted back in 1998, and is no longer in his prime. As for Drew Brees: he led his offense to over 40 points against the Seahawks. Normally you'd think that having your offense score 40 points would be an extremely useful part of your overall effort to win a football game. Unfortunately for the Saints, Greggggggggg and the Saints' defense weren't able to do enough to win the game even with their offense doing all that. The Brees example doesn't illustrate the uselessness of a franchise QB, because 40 points is obviously a lot better than, say, 10 or 20 points. But you can't just have an offense and no defense and expect to win the Super Bowl. Flacco and the Ravens were eliminated by a Roethlisberger-quarterbacked team, and Ryan and the Falcons were eliminated by a Rodgers-quarterbacked team. Those games don't illustrate that franchise QBs have become superfluous, any more than the victory of a team with Bruce Smith over one with Reggie White (or vice versa) would illustrate the lack of importance of RDEs. (As an aside, I'm not saying that any of those quarterbacks are as good at their positions as Smith or White were at theirs.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Really? and why is that? Fitz was sacked less than any QB who made the playoffs. The Bills had more rushing yards than the packers, bears, saints, colts, and seahawks. So the bills line gave up less sacks, and produced more rushing yards than all these playoff teams but a rookie QB would be wasted? How? As Brian Brohm proved, the QB does has a role in protection schemes. That same Bills O-line you are praising in front of Fitz suddenly looked lost and overmatched with Brian Brohm under center. Stick a rookie hotshot there and I expect the same thing to happen. One of Fitz's underappreciated skills is reading defenses, changing protection schemes at the line, and rolling the play away from the rush. Despite how some may feel about Fitz's (exaggerated) inaccuracy and/or arm strength issues, he is one of the best QBs in the NFL when it comes to seeing the field and responding on the fly. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gumby Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 I read the OP then I read it again. But I'm left to wonder if as the OP claims "defenses wins...PERIOD!" what's the explanation for the Chargers? The whole argument is silly. You need both a top flight QB and D. I believe the QB is more important but the argument is moot because the Bills have neither. If Luck was in the draft the Bills should have made every effort to get him. But since he's not then there isn't a QB left to justify selecting one at #3 overall. Trading back to get one would be an option but that's easier said than done. Barring a trade down, as it stands now, the best option is BPA. Even if that means Green or Peterson. Needless to say the Bills finished 4-12. They are without question one of the 5 worst teams in the NFL. They need help everywhere. (Maybe not a NT but Williams needs to follow up his performance next year to convince me he's nailed that position down). The sad reality is that the Bills are not anywhere near to competing yet. If there is a season in '11 I expect the Bills to be picking in the top 10 next year as well. It's going to take several drafts, and nailing your picks, to get the Bills to a level where they can compete as a legitimate NFL team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Gun Special Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 As Brian Brohm proved, the QB does has a role in protection schemes. That same Bills O-line you are praising in front of Fitz suddenly looked lost and overmatched with Brian Brohm under center. Stick a rookie hotshot there and I expect the same thing to happen. One of Fitz's underappreciated skills is reading defenses, changing protection schemes at the line, and rolling the play away from the rush. Despite how some may feel about Fitz's (exaggerated) inaccuracy and/or arm strength issues, he is one of the best QBs in the NFL when it comes to seeing the field and responding on the fly. PTR Thats the same Brian Brohm who sucked with Green Bay too. Stick any bad QB back there and the Oline will look bad. Put Aaron rodgers back there and the Bills win more games with the same line. Its a strawman argument and not fair whatsoever. Brohm would suck with any O line. You cant pass up a franchise QB just bc youre worried the Oline might need a better RT. its absurd. The point is that GMs dont have the luxury of building a team like a step by step process like set forth on this board. At #3, they arent gonna pass on a QB if they think the next big one is there, nor are they gonna take a QB just to fill a need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 (edited) So, down goes Manning, down goes Brees, down goes Flacco, down goes Vick, down goes Ryan, down goes Brady.... To all of you that think we NEED a QB at #3 this year (none worthy at #3), once again... here is a CLASSIC example of the need for a solid defense. This years defenses prove once again, that a top D is the tonic this team needs. It will give this team the attitude this team and city needs. You want to grab a QB in the third? Ok... no issues, but that better be after a selection of a DE/DT and a LB. Buddy... SOLIDIFY the D through the draft AND through FA. Don't bank on Merriman being "the man"... he's an unknown at this time. Go draft help, go pay the $$ for FA help... The O can use an RT an TE and some depth too... BUT... I hope you're paying attention this post season... D, D, D, D, D, D!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Man, some people on this board come up with some crazy things some times...I love how you ignore Big Ben (2 time SB Champion) who in his last SB appearance won the game for Pitt after the D broke down and gave up a long Fitzgerald TD near the end of the 4th quarter for what looked like a probably game winning TD for AZ. He only led them straight down the field and threw a perfect game winning TD for his SECOND SB win in his still relatively young career. Or how about Rodgers who is playing better than anyone in the NFL right now and dismantling his opponents while carrying his team through the playoffs so far? Or how about Sanchez, who once again is in the AFC Championship in just his 2nd year, and once again is having a strong postseason, including 3 TD's against the Pats this weekend to out duel Brady and Belichick (who is the best coach in the NFl, and probably top 3 all time, at game planning against young QB's). How about Cutler? He is playing at a very high level right now and has been since mid season and he is doing it with a mediocre group of recievers. Coincidentally, all four are first round draft picks, all four teams generally win when the QB plays well and lose when the QB struggles. Defense is an important part of football, but so is the offense. To be a consistently winning team with a below average QB you need to have an ELITE defense...and I am sorry, we are not one or two players away from an ELITE defense. We would be a much better team (including on defense) if we had a much more consistent QB then we would be if we just got one more great player on D. Need more proof...Which team do you HONESTLY think has the better record this year...this exact Bills team with any of the top Defensive guys like Ngata anchoring our D...or this exact Bills team with one of the top QB's leading our team like A. Rodgers, P. Manning, Brees, or Brady? Clearly, anyone with any football sense of any kind would agree, any of those QB's (as well as guys like Big Ben, Rivers, Vick, etc) would clearly impact this teams win loss record greater than adding the best D player to our team. Defense is important, but its easier to win in this league with a solid D and a good QB than a very good D and a weak QB. Edited January 17, 2011 by Alphadawg7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts