What comes first Egg or Chicken?

[BillnutinHouston]

Bills OL is rubbish?  PFF ranks them 6th in pass blocking efficiency.

 

https://www.profootballfocus.com/news/pro-o-line-rankings-pass-blocking-efficiency

[boyst]

Just now, Dr. Who said:

Well, I believe the chicken should come first, as well, though I don't see how the religion/science divide follows from your analogy.  Most fundamentalists, I would guess, suppose the chicken came first.  But the whole debate between science (under the guise of neo-Darwinism) and religion (perhaps under the rubric of Intelligent Design) share certain metaphysical assumptions that mean it is actually an internecine dispute.  Both are basically locked into an inadequate ontological understanding, imo.  Regardless, one needn't really choose between religion and science, just as one can have one's chicken and one's egg, too, especially when FA allows one to make up for "lost" draft capital used to secure the chicken (er, qb).

 

it was actually a sermon i heard from a preacher that altered how i view the question.

 

his debate was that God applied his willpower upon the earth to create it.  as such, the seed of life began with the egg.  the creation of all started from the essential being and was upon man and all of his creation to have will power, essentially.

 

he, himself, claimed that science refuted this.  it was a very good sermon and whilst i am not religious he had very good points on both ends. the chicken coming first due to science means the earth was first inhabited with species evolving.  the chicken had been created over and over again until one point where the egg was created by the chicken to continue its existence and survive.  this was done by a need to adapt which would have been agaisnt god's plan - he put it much more eloquently.  but, to have the conclusion before the introduction is not a healthy stream of events was his jist.

 

however, science debates that animals all began laying eggs and some animals adapted to stop laying eggs and do full term gestation.

 

 

 

how that relates to football?  well, if you want to have your quarterback come in and step your team up you can do just that and end up with teams like the colts, giants, packers, falcons, cowboys, etc

but the patriots, chiefs, etc did it better by choosing the egg first

[Dr. Who]

2 minutes ago, billsredneck1 said:

getting a qb (which in fact we do currently have one) that can get the ball out quick will shoot the ranking of our oline way up the chart. my hope is for a very good fa rt. i thought henderson would develop into that, but something has to be done there. i think we'll be fine with groy this year.

Well, I'm not going to try and disabuse you of confusion.  Sorry, if you don't like my comment.  My constructive criticism is to take care with potentially comic acronyms.  Read Free Agent RT too fast and acronym becomes advocacy for superior flatulence.

[PolishDave]

6 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

 

I hear you. I dont think it will either. Just showing in a year they have the capital to go get their stud Rookie they can because if they have to go into the season with the current OL i dont see how it is setting any Rookie up for failure. 

 

This current line a power scheme and still an elite RB I dont agree that a Rookie is set up for failure 

 

We don't really know what type of running schemes Daboll is going to implement and we don't know what his run/pass ratio is going to be either.

 

If you want to play smash-mouth run, run, run football (like only about 5% of the fanbase wants to do) well then this line is serviceable.   If you want a more traditional pocket passing game with average ratio of pass vs. run, this line is not very good.   And it will likely be even worse with defensive coordinators blitzing your rookie more often than they would a veteran.

 

And assuming Glenn will be playing RT is a very big and very unlikely thing to actually happen.   There is a reason they  didn't do it this year.   Nobody knows what it is.   But they could have done that when he was healthy and they didn't.

[Dr. Who]

1 minute ago, Boyst62 said:

it was actually a sermon i heard from a preacher that altered how i view the question.

 

his debate was that God applied his willpower upon the earth to create it.  as such, the seed of life began with the egg.  the creation of all started from the essential being and was upon man and all of his creation to have will power, essentially.

 

he, himself, claimed that science refuted this.  it was a very good sermon and whilst i am not religious he had very good points on both ends. the chicken coming first due to science means the earth was first inhabited with species evolving.  the chicken had been created over and over again until one point where the egg was created by the chicken to continue its existence and survive.  this was done by a need to adapt which would have been agaisnt god's plan - he put it much more eloquently.  but, to have the conclusion before the introduction is not a healthy stream of events was his jist.

 

however, science debates that animals all began laying eggs and some animals adapted to stop laying eggs and do full term gestation.

 

 

 

how that relates to football?  well, if you want to have your quarterback come in and step your team up you can do just that and end up with teams like the colts, giants, packers, falcons, cowboys, etc

but the patriots, chiefs, etc did it better by choosing the egg first

Alright.  I am bothering folks by expatiating on these matters.  Seems to me the Patriots just got lucky in the sixth round one year.  Not sure how that fits with your analogy.  I would explain theological/science matters quite differently, but this is not the forum for such a discussion.

[MAJBobby]

2 minutes ago, PolishDave said:

 

We don't really know what type of running schemes Daboll is going to implement and we don't know what his run/pass ratio is going to be either.

 

If you want to play smash-mouth run, run, run football (like only about 5% of the fanbase wants to do) well then this line is serviceable.   If you want a more traditional pocket passing game with average ratio of pass vs. run, this line is not very good.   And it will likely be even worse with defensive coordinators blitzing your rookie more often than they would a veteran.

 

And assuming Glenn will be playing RT is a very big and very unlikely thing to actually happen.   There is a reason they  didn't do it this year.   Nobody knows what it is.   But they could have done that when he was healthy and they didn't.

 

This line graded well against the pass this year and it wont next year why?  

 

It is a servicable line if you need your capital to go get your QB this year. 

 

Yes it will need to be upgraded as wel but if your cant because you went and got your QB then you are not destroying the rookie QB putting him behind this line 

Edited February 18, 2018 by MAJBobby

[PolishDave]

4 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

 

This line graded well against the pass this year and it wont next year why?  

 

It is a servicable line if you need your capital to go get your QB this year. 

 

I think if you see a traditional pocket passer in as QB for the Bills it is going to completely change the way defenses play against the Bills offense.    Remember teams were trying to make Tyrod a pocket quarterback?   They aren't going to do that to a traditional pocket passer - especially not a rookie one.   Defenses will bring a lot more pressure instead of contain and it will show.

 

I don't want to take away draft capital for getting a QB.    I get the QB and use whatever other capital I have left to upgrade elsewhere.    Depends a lot on which QB they like.   If they honestly want one of the guys projected to go in later rounds, maybe they wait till 21.   Otherwise, trade up.

Edited February 18, 2018 by PolishDave

[Dr. Who]

3 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

 

This line graded well against the pass this year and it wont next year why?  

 

It is a servicable line if you need your capital to go get your QB this year. 

I understood your initial comment to mean we could get by without addition.  This does not preclude some improvement through FA and the draft, which I surmise you are open to.  My own hope would be to use FA to bolster both DL and OL if possible.  This makes moving up for qb more palatable, though I would move up for qb regardless.

[MAJBobby]

1 minute ago, PolishDave said:

 

I think if you see a traditional pocket passer in as QB for the Bills it is going to completely change the way defenses play against the Bills offense.    Remember teams were trying to make Tyrod a pocket quarterback?   They aren't going to do that to a traditional pocket passer - especially not a rookie one.   Defenses will bring a lot more pressure and it will show.

 

I don't want to take away draft capital for getting a QB.    I get the QB and use whatever other capital I have left to upgrade elsewhere.    Depends a lot on which QB they like.   If they honestly want one of the guys projected to go in later rounds, maybe they wait till 21.   Otherwise, trade up.

 

I understand what you are getting at. However also a traditional pocket passer that gets the ball out on time and doesnt hold it like TT also puts less stress on whatever OL you have in front of him. 

1 minute ago, Dr. Who said:

I understood your initial comment to mean we could get by without addition.  This does not preclude some improvement through FA and the draft, which I surmise you are open to.  My own hope would be to use FA to bolster both DL and OL if possible.  This makes moving up for qb more palatable, though I would move up for qb regardless.

 

Yes I am OK with upgrading the Line. 

 

But to say the line needs to be built before the QB is gotten is asnine. This years draft and or Offseason should be about getting that QB first and foremost. 

[PolishDave]

1 minute ago, MAJBobby said:

 

I understand what you are getting at. However also a traditional pocket passer that gets the ball out on time and doesnt hold it like TT also puts less stress on whatever OL you have in front of him. 

 

I think we disagree on what this line would look like under an average pocket passer.   With an average pocket passer I think they perform at best (average) or lower in pass protection - which isn't good enough of course.

 

No doubt the Qb can influence how good the line looks/performs.  Hopefully the new guy is good enough to elevate their performance.    

[Call_Of_Ktulu]

I would like O-Line to be a priority and I would like to see good depth at the position as well. 

 

After watching the playoffs and super bowl I saw O-Lineman get away with more holding than I've ever seen before. You give elite O-Lineman the ability to get away with holding like that and you will have all day to pass the football.

[MAJBobby]

1 minute ago, PolishDave said:

 

I think we disagree on what this line would look like under an average pocket passer.   With an average pocket passer I think they perform at best (average) or lower in pass protection - which isn't good enough of course.

 

No doubt the Qb can influence how good the line looks/performs.  Hopefully the new guy is good enough to elevate their performance.    

 

I actually do think we agree on that the line does need to be upgraded but not at the expense of not using your capital to go get your Guy at QB. Right?

[Call_Of_Ktulu]

I think we all can agree that Brady is the least athletic QB in the NFL. I would take Brady's pocket awareness over Taylor's athletic ability every time. The ability to feel the pressure and keep your eyes down field while making a slight move in the right direction is what I would like to see from our next QB.

[Bangarang]

If you have identified a franchise QB and have the chance to get him then you do it. End of story. 

[PolishDave]

1 minute ago, Call_Of_Ktulu said:

I think we all can agree that Brady is the least athletic QB in the NFL. I would take Brady's pocket awareness over Taylor's athletic ability every time. The ability to feel the pressure and keep your eyes down field while making a slight move in the right direction is what I would like to see from our next QB.

 

It is a silly comparison though, because you can't expect to get someone with Tom Brady's (greatest of this era) pocket awareness.     

 

If the Bills get someone with Brady's pocket awareness and anywhere close to his level of accuracy, there are going to be lots of trips to the Superbowl for the Buffalo Bills over the next decade plus.

 

There is nobody anywhere who wouldn't make the same trade of Brady over Tyrod.   Nobody except Tyrod's parents.    

 

A more realistic comparison of what you might get would be better.

[Buddo]

29 minutes ago, BillnutinHouston said:

Bills OL is rubbish?  PFF ranks them 6th in pass blocking efficiency.

 

https://www.profootballfocus.com/news/pro-o-line-rankings-pass-blocking-efficiency

 

Tbh, I don't really care what they were ranked at, as I seriously doubt an accurate assessment can be made, by an outside organization. And certainly not when you are talking about how well pass pro holds up when you have a QB like Taylor.

 

My eyes told me they weren't particularly good, generally, whether it was in pass pro or run blocking, and as I mentioned, they are down a center as well.

 

They aren't without hope though, and I've talked myself about maybe using Glenn at RT, with the emergence of Dawkins as being serviceable. Groy might well be okay at center, but the reluctance to use him last year, in any sort of capacity other than backup, doesn't bode well for his standing with the current coaches. The overall conclusion being that more talent will be required for the O-Line, to aid whatever QB we throw behind it.

[boyst]

54 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:

Alright.  I am bothering folks by expatiating on these matters.  Seems to me the Patriots just got lucky in the sixth round one year.  Not sure how that fits with your analogy.  I would explain theological/science matters quite differently, but this is not the forum for such a discussion.

They did, because that is the chicken in the egg argument.

 

The Patriots kept laying eggs until they needed to crack One open. In this case they got lucky.  Remember they had just signed Drew Bledsoe to the largest NFL contract ever and had Brady as just some scrub nobody on the team. A team that was loaded on defense and played smart football with veterans across the board. They were the epitome of one of these NCAA basketball teams having five seniors on the team so when one goes down in that true freshman comes in they can still succeed.

 

It is simple as that. The Patriots got lucky

[nedboy7]

1 hour ago, Dr. Who said:

Everyone will hope the rookie turns into a player of Rodgers quality.  Rodgers sat for a few years.  That was made easier because the Packers had Favre.  But I'm not sure what is the real import of your rhetorical question:  are you presupposing the pick is a bust?  How would anyone know that?  Does one refuse to move up for a qb because they might not turn out well?  Is a trade up for qb never justified?  Does one have to have divine foreknowledge the player will be the next Aaron Rodgers before such a trade is okay with you?

 

If you're only asking will the fanbase be okay if the Bills draft a bad qb, there's something jejune and cynically despairing about such a view -- and naturally, people will be disappointed.  But you can bust on any player at any position; maybe we should try to get a good one when the top of the draft has a number of promising prospects.  We passed on Watson and Mahomes, presumably to put ourselves in a position to finally address the most important position in football.  Maybe at least once every twenty-five years, you ought to try and get a good one.

 

What happens next year if the Bills pass once again at drafting qb early and Watson and Mahomes play well, as does Rosen and Mayfield and one or two others, eventually.  How will the fan base handle this?

 

I fully agree we need to draft a QB.  No doubt about this.  But the cost of moving up to ???? from 21st will be steep.  Let's see how they handle it.  I would rather not go into the season with Peterson and a rookie. 

 

[PolishDave]

12 minutes ago, nedboy7 said:

 

I fully agree we need to draft a QB.  No doubt about this.  But the cost of moving up to ???? from 21st will be steep.  Let's see how they handle it.  I would rather not go into the season with Peterson and a rookie. 

 

 

Peterson is going to be a Superstar!

 

So good that people will get his name wrong.

 

Sorry, just had to.. 

Edited February 18, 2018 by PolishDave

[SoTier]

It's not a "chicken or egg" scenario. A team should always have an eye out for promising OLers in the draft, but excellent players at all the OL positions can frequently be found outside of the first round ... and even as UDFAs as Jason Peters has shown. 

 

Besides, the Bills OL is not nearly as bad as it has been in the past nor as bad as it looked in 2017 (despite PFF's statistical claims to the contrary).   Improved play designs and blocking schemes that better suit the current OLers' talents better is likely to make the OL better.  Miller had a horrible year last year, but as a young OLer, he might rebound as he was decent in 2016.  If Glenn can get healthy and the Bills keep him, then they can move Dawkins over to RT to replace Mills.  With Incognito at LG, all they'll need is solid center, which might be Groy.  The Bills would then need to add youth and depth on the OL, but they could fill that with Day 2 or 3.  The Bills OL isn't a great OL, but it was serviceable in both 2015 and 2016 with most of the same players.

 

Quality QBs, OTOH, aren't often found outside of the top ten of the first round, seldom found in the bottom half of the first round, and rarely found outside of the first round.  Currently, there are a handful of non-first rounders as legitimate starters in the NFL: Tom Brady, Drew Brees, Russell Wilson, Andy Dalton, Kirk Cousins, Case Keenum, Derek Carr, Dak Prescott, and Jimmy Garoppolo.  Of those, the first three are great QBs.  Dalton and Cousins are good ones.  The others have shown promise but need to either improve their play or prove that their short-term success is sustainable. 

 

So, when a team has or acquires a high first round pick and they don't have Aaron Rodgers or Matt Ryan under center, then they should seriously look at the QBs available in the draft.  That doesn't mean that they have to draft one because as 2013 proved, sometimes all the QBs available are duds or the one you want is gone as in 2004.  They have to be open to taking one if they think that one of the kids available can be the next Aaron Rodgers or Matt Ryan, however, even if they have an Andy Dalton under center (which is why I would be uncomfortable in signing Cousins -- his contract will preclude the Bills from drafting a younger prospect for most of the length of his contract).  

 

One thing the Bills cannot do is draft a first round QB just to appease the fan base which is what I think they did in both 2004 and 2013.  Drafting the wrong guy is much more costly than passing on a good one because teams commit to that first rounder for 3-5 years.  If you think not, consider that they could have drafted Aaron Rodgers if they hadn't traded up for JP Losman the year before.