QBs Matter, Not Defenses (Sort of)

[Fadingpain]

To a large extent this debate is meaningless.

 

I think we all agree that if we could somehow find an elite QB, or a QB who looked like he might be elite some day, we would all take him, regardless of the D.

These 2 things don't have to be mutually exclusive.

 

The reality is we don't have an elite QB and don't know where we might find one next...so why not at least have the #1 D in the league, if at all possible?

 

Seems like a solid backup plan.

 

And sure, we still need a QB of some type! Can't wait to find out what the plan is and what was said to convince Ryan to come to Buffalo, other than the cash.

Lost in this discussion was the notion of defense wins championships started back in the age of the NFL being mostly run oriented. The other adage used to be shut the run game down to win. The game has flipped. The run game has become secondary to an efficient passing game.

The statistics really should be looked at by era. Hard to say where the dividing line is.

Sadly, the Giants proved to the Bills that ball control, defense and a middling QB could win it all. The Bills clearly had a better QB and offense but if they did not have the ball there was little they could do.

 

The reality is that the Bills defense in the early phase of our Superbowl runs was always way overrated, and we were soft against the run, particular up the middle.

 

Secondly, that Superbowl 25 exposed Marv as not being an elite coach. He was good, not elite, and he needed to be on that night.

 

We tried to maintain our high octane passing offense even though the Giants really cheated towards stopping that...

 

Marv should have almost abandoned the passing game and pounded the ball with a strong running game, which that defense was not designed to stop. Then once the Giants adapt to what you are doing, you throw. We just stuck with the old game plan that worked all year long, and it backfired.

 

At least that is the way I have remembered that game over the years. I have not watched 5 seconds of replays from it since.

 

 

[QCity]

So have about 25 other teams. The fact is, "elite" QBs don't come easy. It's basically a crapshoot unless you're Luck/Manning coming out of college. So this whining about the Bills needing a QB is really dumb, because our FO is very aware. Every team has constant pressure on them to secure the next elite QB.

 

Elite?? I wasn't talking about an elite QB. We haven't had a top-15 QB in over a decade. That's referred to as "butchering the position," and that's a polite way of describing that level of incompetence.

[timstep]

So the gist of this thread is that having a great QB is very important - gee who would have thunk it?

 

The hard part is finding a great QB...

Sort of. My thought isn't that the Bills need a great QB, that's self-evident. It's the approach to acquire one. The approach so far has been either:

 

1. Reach in the draft for a project (EJ, Trent, JP, Todd Collins)

2. Pick up a well-traveled veteran (Orton, Fitzpatrick, Holcomb,etc. etc.)

 

Neither of these have worked out. The only time the offense has been remotely dangerous was with Bledsoe - i.e a legit franchise QB. He had good seasons in 2002 and 2004 (2003 was a wash because of all the injuries).

 

The problem is that you need a partner to trade, so going out and getting, for example, Phillip Rivers, relies on San Diego being willing to move him, which I doubt they are.

 

That brings me back around to the blitzkrieg approach - multiple draft picks per year. IMO, and I think the playoff teams each year back this up - QB is the most important position on the team, so pretending that continuing with options 1 and 2 is going to get it done just seems ridiculous. This isn't "DUH QBS are important," its the approach to acquiring one, and to that I'm saying the approach has to be radical, insane, beyond reasonable to most.

 

Am I suggesting something that will sacrifice the future in order to provide (possibly) immediate results? Sure, because the other options continue to fail.

[mattsox]

Dilfer

 

Flacco

 

Hostetler

 

SB Winners yet not "Super Star" great QB's !!!

Defense, Defense, Defense

 

Dilfer and The "Hos" played in a different era.

 

Flacco made the right throws at the right times to get the Ravens a championship.

 

It's a QB driven league.

 

The Bills don't have one yet.

 

Could be another decade before they do...

[Thrivefourfive]

How is Joe Flacco on this side of the argument???: A great defense and a journey man QB can win a Super Bowl. He's a FRANCHISE QB. There's one human being that the Ravens will not part with...it's Joe Flacco. They've invested their entire future on his huge arm, ice cold veins, and tremendous playoff team record and indiviual performances. He's as good as any quarterback in the NFL in the regular season (wins) and playoffs. He may talk funny, but goddam if they guy can play.

[OldTimer1960]

Sort of. My thought isn't that the Bills need a great QB, that's self-evident. It's the approach to acquire one. The approach so far has been either:

 

1. Reach in the draft for a project (EJ, Trent, JP, Todd Collins)

2. Pick up a well-traveled veteran (Orton, Fitzpatrick, Holcomb,etc. etc.)

 

Neither of these have worked out. The only time the offense has been remotely dangerous was with Bledsoe - i.e a legit franchise QB. He had good seasons in 2002 and 2004 (2003 was a wash because of all the injuries).

 

The problem is that you need a partner to trade, so going out and getting, for example, Phillip Rivers, relies on San Diego being willing to move him, which I doubt they are.

 

That brings me back around to the blitzkrieg approach - multiple draft picks per year. IMO, and I think the playoff teams each year back this up - QB is the most important position on the team, so pretending that continuing with options 1 and 2 is going to get it done just seems ridiculous. This isn't "DUH QBS are important," its the approach to acquiring one, and to that I'm saying the approach has to be radical, insane, beyond reasonable to most.

 

Am I suggesting something that will sacrifice the future in order to provide (possibly) immediate results? Sure, because the other options continue to fail.

I can agree that more "shots" could be taken in the draft, but there are limits to how many QBs you can effectively evaluate in training camp/offseason. It isn't practical to bring 5 guys to camp (3 incumbents and 2 draft/FAs because there isn't enough practice time to go around. Still, I could support the idea of drafting a QB every year in the mid to late rounds in hopes of getting lucky, but really other than Brady and Romo, there aren't many good QBs that weren't drafted early (that I can think of). I know Kaepernick,dalton, and Wilson were 2nd and 3rd rounders, but even those are rare exceptions (and I wouldn't annoint Kaepernick or Dalton yet). I'd be reluctant to commit a 1st or 2nd every year to a QB, but could buyin to more selections than they have made.