Rise of the Contrarian Teams?

[Mikie2times]

With QB/WR/CB contracts making up such large % of the cap. That's if you're even lucky enough to be in that position with a QB. Now put yourselves in the shoes of teams that don't have a clear QB. Do you really try and model teams like Buffalo? It took us 20 years to find a QB and plenty of wasted draft capital in the process. The league is always evolving and I can't help but think we are at a crossroads with the way teams go about building.

 

We saw Baltimore take Lamar with this type of mindset.  They had no intention of running a traditional NFL offense. Ironically, they very well could end up paying a traditional franchise QB price tag. Then New England last year. Both franchises really did not place a big focus on the traditional passing game. Spend resources in areas other teams aren't. Run the football and play great defense. This has been enough to allow playoff appearances by both teams but that is as far as it's gotten. Perhaps that's as far as it can go.

 

All I know is if I'm in the AFC right now I'm looking at about a dozen teams that have a nuclear bomb and I don't know if my goal is to keep up with that arms race. I think I have a better chance fighting this battle differently.  

 

Is this something you expect we will see championed by more teams in the coming years? More teams essentially reverting back to more of a traditional football strategy? 

[DCofNC]

I have been calling for the Bills to do it for 10 years, then they landed Allen and I still think it’s the way to go.  Build the Rex Ryan “Bully”.  Go Big on O, take advantage of the teams that got small and fast to counter the  passing teams.  Pound them into submission and torch them over the top.  There’s never been a time that it made more sense.  To an extent, that’s what Tenn and Indy have done, now imagine them with Josh at QB, good gawd.  It’s what Carolina did when they went 15-1 with Tess Ginn as their best WR.  NE is trying to do it, but they don’t have the deep threat. 
 

Side watch out for the Raiders if they get their run game rolling, they are built to beat pretty much anyone with that O.  They should have great balance. 

[BullBuchanan]

There's an opportunity for it. In some games, like poker, you want to be doing what other players aren't doing. I don't see any reason we couldn't see a shift in football, except that it's hard to switch philosophy drastically year to year. The patriots have been able to do it, but not too many other teams. the rise of wide open passing offenses has led to an emphasis on smaller and more nimble players.

That can certainly be exploited if a team was able to pair a big bruising back with a competent offense and a great defense. That's been the Titans model. Unfortunately for them, i think they just ran into bad timing in the league. They're good enough to win lots of games, but not win the ones they need to. If they can add some wrinkles to their offense, maybe it'll be enough.

[4merper4mer]

7 minutes ago, KzooMike said:

With QB/WR/CB contracts making up such large % of the cap. That's if you're even lucky enough to be in that position with a QB. Now put yourselves in the shoes of teams that don't have a clear QB. Do you really try and model teams like Buffalo? It took us 20 years to find a QB and plenty of wasted draft capital in the process. The league is always evolving and I can't help but think we are at a crossroads with the way teams go about building.

 

We saw Baltimore take Lamar with this type of mindset.  They had no intention of running a traditional NFL offense. Ironically, they very well could end up paying a traditional franchise QB price tag. Then New England last year. Both franchises really did not place a big focus on the traditional passing game. Spend resources in areas other teams aren't. Run the football and play great defense. This has been enough to allow playoff appearances by both teams but that is as far as it's gotten. Perhaps that's as far as it can go.

 

All I know is if I'm in the AFC right now I'm looking at about a dozen teams that have a nuclear bomb and I don't know if my goal is to keep up with that arms race. I think I have a better chance fighting this battle differently.  

 

Is this something you expect we will see championed by more teams in the coming years? More teams essentially reverting back to more of a traditional football strategy? 

Based on the evolving rules and the ratings driven by them I think this is an uphill battle.  Given that, teams don’t have an immediate alternative so I think your premise has some merit.  I don’t think it will work but I could see a team trying it.  IMO an NFC team might be a better candidate given the gap at QB might be small enough there to allow them a playoff berth.  They won’t have a weekly gauntlet of Allen, Mahomes, Burrow etc.  Get to the playoffs with the contrarian style and go from there.  It sounds crazy but I see Detroit as a viable candidate..

 

One team seems to be trying to “middle” this.  Indy.  It failed in 21 because Carson Wentz sucked really bad.  I think they were trying to get ok QB played and they failed.  They’re trying again.

[Richard Noggin]

It CAN work, and HAS worked, every now and then. It might become less likely to work, however, as dynamic, QB-driven attacks proliferate. As @4merper4mer points out, though, there is some opportunity in the near future for an NFC team to pull off this approach. In a one-game Super Bowl, they might catch one of those AFC QBs on an off-night, or be able to disrupt them just enough. Doing that for two or three consecutive playoff games, to get out of the AFC tourny, is far less likely. 

 

[Allen2D̶i̶g̶g̶s̶TBD]

Teams like the Titans, Colts, Ravens, and Browns have been able to run dominantly because defenses have shifted to smaller defensive tackles to get more of a pass-rush in a qb-driven league.

[Governor]

The Pats usually shift resources/money as certain positions become more or less expensive over time. 

[billybrew1]

58 minutes ago, KzooMike said:

With QB/WR/CB contracts making up such large % of the cap. That's if you're even lucky enough to be in that position with a QB. Now put yourselves in the shoes of teams that don't have a clear QB. Do you really try and model teams like Buffalo? It took us 20 years to find a QB and plenty of wasted draft capital in the process. The league is always evolving and I can't help but think we are at a crossroads with the way teams go about building.

 

We saw Baltimore take Lamar with this type of mindset.  They had no intention of running a traditional NFL offense. Ironically, they very well could end up paying a traditional franchise QB price tag. Then New England last year. Both franchises really did not place a big focus on the traditional passing game. Spend resources in areas other teams aren't. Run the football and play great defense. This has been enough to allow playoff appearances by both teams but that is as far as it's gotten. Perhaps that's as far as it can go.

 

All I know is if I'm in the AFC right now I'm looking at about a dozen teams that have a nuclear bomb and I don't know if my goal is to keep up with that arms race. I think I have a better chance fighting this battle differently.  

 

Is this something you expect we will see championed by more teams in the coming years? More teams essentially reverting back to more of a traditional football strategy? 

Other teams getting great QBs is just complete BS. For 20+ years we have waited for a QB and now that we finally have one, everybody else is finding one. There used to be two, three QBs in the league, Now that we have one, it’s just BS that’s all!

Total BS!

[Governor]

1 minute ago, billybrew1 said:

Other teams getting great QBs is just complete BS. For 20+ years we have waited for a QB and now that we finally have one, everybody else is finding one. There used to be two, three QBs in the league, Now that we have one, it’s just BS that’s all!

Total BS!

I wonder how many of today’s QB’s would be great in the old league with the old rules.

 

Probably 2 or 3.

[hjnick]

1 hour ago, KzooMike said:

With QB/WR/CB contracts making up such large % of the cap. That's if you're even lucky enough to be in that position with a QB. Now put yourselves in the shoes of teams that don't have a clear QB. Do you really try and model teams like Buffalo? It took us 20 years to find a QB and plenty of wasted draft capital in the process. The league is always evolving and I can't help but think we are at a crossroads with the way teams go about building.

 

We saw Baltimore take Lamar with this type of mindset.  They had no intention of running a traditional NFL offense. Ironically, they very well could end up paying a traditional franchise QB price tag. Then New England last year. Both franchises really did not place a big focus on the traditional passing game. Spend resources in areas other teams aren't. Run the football and play great defense. This has been enough to allow playoff appearances by both teams but that is as far as it's gotten. Perhaps that's as far as it can go.

 

All I know is if I'm in the AFC right now I'm looking at about a dozen teams that have a nuclear bomb and I don't know if my goal is to keep up with that arms race. I think I have a better chance fighting this battle differently.  

 

Is this something you expect we will see championed by more teams in the coming years? More teams essentially reverting back to more of a traditional football strategy? 

 

With the rise of the MEGA QB contact, unless the QB is ELITE, IMO it is not worth it to pay the QB.

 

I would love to see a team treat the QB role like teams do right now for the RB role.  Keep drafting QBs and play the best one that you have.  Once they get close to the QB getting to his 5th year, trade him for a boat load of picks.  Spend that 40+ million on making the rest of the offense and defense strong.

[FireChans]

2 hours ago, KzooMike said:

With QB/WR/CB contracts making up such large % of the cap. That's if you're even lucky enough to be in that position with a QB. Now put yourselves in the shoes of teams that don't have a clear QB. Do you really try and model teams like Buffalo? It took us 20 years to find a QB and plenty of wasted draft capital in the process. The league is always evolving and I can't help but think we are at a crossroads with the way teams go about building.

 

We saw Baltimore take Lamar with this type of mindset.  They had no intention of running a traditional NFL offense. Ironically, they very well could end up paying a traditional franchise QB price tag. Then New England last year. Both franchises really did not place a big focus on the traditional passing game. Spend resources in areas other teams aren't. Run the football and play great defense. This has been enough to allow playoff appearances by both teams but that is as far as it's gotten. Perhaps that's as far as it can go.

 

All I know is if I'm in the AFC right now I'm looking at about a dozen teams that have a nuclear bomb and I don't know if my goal is to keep up with that arms race. I think I have a better chance fighting this battle differently.  

 

Is this something you expect we will see championed by more teams in the coming years? More teams essentially reverting back to more of a traditional football strategy? 

I mean, you have to rate your chances of just getting lucky vs putting together a super team sans QB.

 

When you look at the history of the NFL, particularly in the last 20 years, there are a handful of teams without “elite” QB’s that won titles. Some of them had good teams with solid QB’s who got hot, some had incredible defenses with bad QB’s. 
 

Would the Giants have been better off trying to find a better QB than Eli? A guy who, outside of two historic playoff runs, was maybe a little bit better than Derek Carr level QB? Is there a universe where a little less luck has Eli being a better version of Jimmy G who got his team close but ultimately lost to the better QB?

 

Joe Flacco has as many Super Bowls as Russell Wilson, but he wasn’t the same caliber of QB. Joe Flacco wasn’t close to as good as Rivers and Rivers never sniffed a SB.

 

IMO, teams that have a “good enough” QB should do exactly what they do in the NFL. Build the best possible team around them, hope they get some luck and string together a few wins in the postseason. Lamar is good enough.  Jimmy G was good enough (when healthy).

 

Every team can’t tank until they get a top 3 QB. Every team can’t punt on the season just because better QB’s exist. Look at the Raiders. Some folks say “why are they trading for Adams when they have the worst QB in the division?” And my response  would be, what else are they supposed to do? Just forfeit til Mahomes and Herbert retire?

The Bills are unique in the sense that we went from “no QB” to “great QB,” after 20 years of waiting. Most NFL teams don’t do that. Most teams eventually have starter quality QB’s over a period of 10 years, that can win games with a good enough team around them. The 49ers had Smith and Jimmy in the last 20. The Ravens had Flacco and Lamar. The Bengals had Palmer then Dalton then Burrow. Cowboys had Romo then Dak.

 

The Bills strategy is the exact strategy you don’t want. They would have been in the exact same boat Pre Josh Allen if they drafted a QB every year. Except they may have actually made the playoffs more than once.

Edited March 30, 2022 by FireChans

[Richard Noggin]

25 minutes ago, hjnick said:

 

With the rise of the MEGA QB contact, unless the QB is ELITE, IMO it is not worth it to pay the QB.

 

I would love to see a team treat the QB role like teams do right now for the RB role.  Keep drafting QBs and play the best one that you have.  Once they get close to the QB getting to his 5th year, trade him for a boat load of picks.  Spend that 40+ million on making the rest of the offense and defense strong.

In a vacuum, I can see the wisdom to this team-building strategy. Draft a QB annually and plug him (or a recently drafted prospect who outperforms him) into a loaded roster. Rinse (trade or release) and repeat to remain stocked with cap space and draft assets. 

 

But what coach/GM combo has the job security to willingly employ it? If said coach/GM combo has 40+ mill to work with in a given offseason, what is incentivizing them to NOT pursue EVERY possible scenario to bring in an ELITE QB? Or, to utilize premium draft assets to acquire one (either by drafting or by trading for one)? In a given offseason, by the time they potentially realize they're shut out of acquiring their QB savior, then they've missed out on many of the defensive and offensive FAs who could help to carry out the proposed plan for the rest of roster. And coaches/GMs don't often get more than one crack at the QB lottery. 

 

[NoSaint]

2 hours ago, DCofNC said:

I have been calling for the Bills to do it for 10 years, then they landed Allen and I still think it’s the way to go.  Build the Rex Ryan “Bully”.  Go Big on O, take advantage of the teams that got small and fast to counter the  passing teams.  Pound them into submission and torch them over the top.  There’s never been a time that it made more sense.  To an extent, that’s what Tenn and Indy have done, now imagine them with Josh at QB, good gawd.  It’s what Carolina did when they went 15-1 with Tess Ginn as their best WR.  NE is trying to do it, but they don’t have the deep threat. 
 

Side watch out for the Raiders if they get their run game rolling, they are built to beat pretty much anyone with that O.  They should have great balance. 

pittsburgh with power runners and deep threats was a great example. 
 

but the good examples that win most consistently are doing it with a qb with that framework still

 

as expensive as a qb is - 11 elite defenders, and a great line is even pricier and you’ll still be paying a qb fast if you have any success 

[DCofNC]

Just now, NoSaint said:

pittsburgh with power runners and deep threats was a great example. 
 

but the good examples that win most consistently are doing it with a qb with that framework still

 

as expensive as a qb is - 11 elite defenders, and a great line is even pricier and you’ll still be paying a qb fast if you have any success 

You are right on that, the question is, do you have to pay a QB or can you find a reasonable fit and keep rolling.  Tannehill got paid for executing what Tenn wanted.  Would Fitz have taken them just as far for 1/2, I would argue, yes.  Could they have gone to a Ryan this year? Probably.  
 

The counter point is the Colts who keep searching for a guy to get it done.  Anybody dumb enough to go w Wentz deserves the problems they had.

[Thurman#1]

7 hours ago, KzooMike said:

With QB/WR/CB contracts making up such large % of the cap. That's if you're even lucky enough to be in that position with a QB. Now put yourselves in the shoes of teams that don't have a clear QB. Do you really try and model teams like Buffalo? It took us 20 years to find a QB and plenty of wasted draft capital in the process. The league is always evolving and I can't help but think we are at a crossroads with the way teams go about building.

 

We saw Baltimore take Lamar with this type of mindset.  They had no intention of running a traditional NFL offense. Ironically, they very well could end up paying a traditional franchise QB price tag. Then New England last year. Both franchises really did not place a big focus on the traditional passing game. Spend resources in areas other teams aren't. Run the football and play great defense. This has been enough to allow playoff appearances by both teams but that is as far as it's gotten. Perhaps that's as far as it can go.

 

All I know is if I'm in the AFC right now I'm looking at about a dozen teams that have a nuclear bomb and I don't know if my goal is to keep up with that arms race. I think I have a better chance fighting this battle differently.  

 

Is this something you expect we will see championed by more teams in the coming years? More teams essentially reverting back to more of a traditional football strategy? 

 

 

I think you mis-state how the Ravens approached Jackson. There's no particular reason to think they weren't intending to run a traditional NFL offense with a bit more running. Not that year, of course, but they have moved in that general direction ever since, towards developing Lamar as a guy with more and more traditional pocket abilities and chances every year. 

 

Using a baby-friendly QB system the QB's rookie year and working him towards a full pocket system is nothing new. Balt and NE both are working their QBs towards a full traditional system with a few twists and bells and whistles. It's not all that new. More QB runs is a newer development, and we've done it ourselves, but it works incredibly well with a functional and dangerous pocket pass game but not quite so well without it.

 

Lamar Jackson only had eleven more runs than Josh did last year.

 

I don't think there's ever been a guy not using primarily a pocket passing system who's won a Super Bowl. Plenty have tried. A few have come pretty close, not least Jackson and the Ravens in 2019, but also Slash with the Steelers, Mike Vick, and I think a few others qualify depending on what you mean by "close". But none have managed it. 

 

We've seen some QBs who weren't very good win Lombardis. After Simms' injury, Hostetler managed to get the Giants a trophy. But Hostetler was working a traditional system. Same with guys like Doug Williams, Dilfer, etc. All were running from traditional systems.

 

We'll see teams try alternative ways when they can't get a guy who can succeed in a pocket passing system. You can't just give up. But if those same teams get  a chance to bring in a guy with the ability to operate from the pocket, IMO they'll do it in a second once they decide their athletic guy can't develop into efficient use of pocket passing.

 

 

Edited March 30, 2022 by Thurman#1

[Ethan in Cleveland]

6 hours ago, Governor said:

I wonder how many of today’s QB’s would be great in the old league with the old rules.

 

Probably 2 or 3.

Probably would depend on how you define great. I think it would be near impossible for guys like Jackson and Murray to survive the style of football played from the 70’s until the early 200’0’s.  Then again those defenses never saw the speed and running ability of some of these QBs. Accuracy numbers are higher now but I think those numbers are inflated because of the number of WR screens and easy completions QBs get now including the shovel pass and little touch pass they do on Jet sweeps.

[cage]

6 hours ago, hjnick said:

 

With the rise of the MEGA QB contact, unless the QB is ELITE, IMO it is not worth it to pay the QB.

 

I would love to see a team treat the QB role like teams do right now for the RB role.  Keep drafting QBs and play the best one that you have.  Once they get close to the QB getting to his 5th year, trade him for a boat load of picks.  Spend that 40+ million on making the rest of the offense and defense strong.

 

Isn't that the strategy that we mostly navigated through the drought?  Fitzpatrick and Tyrod scream out as the types of QB that it could theoretically work with.  We had the best rushing attack in the league for a few years with Shady + Tyrod.  But we ended up with .500 teams with just Tyrod barely making playoffs once, because of Dalton/Boyd heroics.... and then 1 and done in playoffs.  

 

I think the strategy could get you to a fringe wild-card team, but not much further.  Even if they had beaten Jacksonville in playoffs, I have a hard time believing they had any shot at winning SB

Edited March 30, 2022 by cage

[SoTier]

9 hours ago, Richard Noggin said:

It CAN work, and HAS worked, every now and then. It might become less likely to work, however, as dynamic, QB-driven attacks proliferate. As @4merper4mer points out, though, there is some opportunity in the near future for an NFC team to pull off this approach. In a one-game Super Bowl, they might catch one of those AFC QBs on an off-night, or be able to disrupt them just enough. Doing that for two or three consecutive playoff games, to get out of the AFC tourny, is far less likely. 

 

 

I agree.   I think that the key to the success of a "contrarian" offense would still be having a good QB just not an elite one.  Lamar Jackson would be a good example of the kind of QB needed: he's smart and a great leader even if he's not a great passer.   He is so good, however, that he will probably command top QB money.  The advantage that Baltimore has, however, is that they have their QB and can build around his unusual skill set.

 

I think that SF under Garappolo is another good example.  Garappolo had the lowest percentage of downfield throws of all NFL QBs in 2021.  SF's biggest problem has been that Garappolo can't stay healthy.   Mike McDaniel, former SF assistant, seems to be trying to build a similar short pass/heavy run offense in Miami with Tua.

 

Both Pittsburgh and Indianapolis are going to try contrarian offenses this coming season.   The Steelers made the playoffs with Roethlisberger barely able to throw.  Now they've added Trubisky who might be good enough to actually give them some playoff success.   Matt Ryan isn't in his prime any more, but he seems capable of doing what Wentz failed to do: get the Colts into the playoffs.   He's not going to make the stupid plays that lost the Colts games that Wentz did in 2021, allowing the Colts' runners and defenders to carry the load.

 

The biggest drawback for contrarian offenses finding success, IMO, is juggling all the moving pieces.   These teams need to have a strong running game, which also means a strong OL, to control the ball and make the most of their possessions.   They also need to have strong defenses to limit higher powered offenses' ability to move the ball and score.  Even then, they may have a hard time going toe-to-toe with the Bills or Chiefs when Allen or Mahomes are on their games.

[hondo in seattle]

Good topic...   Something I've wondered about myself.  There aren't not enough Joshes and Patricks for all 32 teams.   So in the absence of a franchise QB, what do you do?  How do you win?

 

On the one hand, if you want to build a running offense you need a running back.  It's not the glory days of the rushing attack anymore.  Most of the best athletes nowadays become WRs and CBs.  College football doesn't produce Jim Browns, OJs, Walter Paytons, and Barry Sanders like it used to.

 

On the other hand...

 

In 1975, the OJ-led Bills scored 30 points a game against defenses better equipped to stop the run that today's Ds.  RB-centric offenses can score points.

 

As Sun Tzu said, “So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong, and strike at what is weak.”  Today's defenses are built to stop the pass.  Good RBs, particularly power backs, can thrive in this environment by attacking the weakness of contemporary defenses.  

 

Imagine getting a QB on the cheap who isn't all-around great but does throw a nice deep ball.  So you complement your running game with some speedy receivers to stretch the field and discourage the opposing defense from loading the box.  

 

If I was a GM, I don't think I'd bet my career on a run-first offense.  But it would be interesting to watch a GM/HC combo who did.  

 

 

Edited March 30, 2022 by hondo in seattle

[SoTier]

8 hours ago, hjnick said:

 

With the rise of the MEGA QB contact, unless the QB is ELITE, IMO it is not worth it to pay the QB.

 

I would love to see a team treat the QB role like teams do right now for the RB role.  Keep drafting QBs and play the best one that you have.  Once they get close to the QB getting to his 5th year, trade him for a boat load of picks.  Spend that 40+ million on making the rest of the offense and defense strong.

 

So, you think that the Bills should have traded Allen rather than extending him?    Right.  In case you didn't notice, great/good QBs don't come along nearly as frequently as great/good RBs come along.  The Jests haven't had an elite QB since Joe Namath retired more than 40 years ago, and it's not for not using resources to find one.  The Bears haven't had a QB better than average in decades.  The Bills went almost 20 years without having even a good QB. 

 

The problem with your plan is that if your current QB on his rookie contract isn't so obviously good that you absolutely want to keep him no matter what the price, why would some other team be willing to give you a proverbial "boat load of picks" for him?  The Jests didn't get a boatload of picks for Darnold.   The Browns aren't going to get a boatload of picks for Mayfield. 

 

FTR, teams seldom trade their RBs coming off their rookie contracts.  They simply let them walk in free agency if they aren't willing to re-sign at reasonable prices. 

 

 

8 hours ago, FireChans said:

I mean, you have to rate your chances of just getting lucky vs putting together a super team sans QB.

 

When you look at the history of the NFL, particularly in the last 20 years, there are a handful of teams without “elite” QB’s that won titles. Some of them had good teams with solid QB’s who got hot, some had incredible defenses with bad QB’s. 
 

Would the Giants have been better off trying to find a better QB than Eli? A guy who, outside of two historic playoff runs, was maybe a little bit better than Derek Carr level QB? Is there a universe where a little less luck has Eli being a better version of Jimmy G who got his team close but ultimately lost to the better QB?

 

Joe Flacco has as many Super Bowls as Russell Wilson, but he wasn’t the same caliber of QB. Joe Flacco wasn’t close to as good as Rivers and Rivers never sniffed a SB.

 

IMO, teams that have a “good enough” QB should do exactly what they do in the NFL. Build the best possible team around them, hope they get some luck and string together a few wins in the postseason. Lamar is good enough.  Jimmy G was good enough (when healthy).

 

Every team can’t tank until they get a top 3 QB. Every team can’t punt on the season just because better QB’s exist. Look at the Raiders. Some folks say “why are they trading for Adams when they have the worst QB in the division?” And my response  would be, what else are they supposed to do? Just forfeit til Mahomes and Herbert retire?

The Bills are unique in the sense that we went from “no QB” to “great QB,” after 20 years of waiting. Most NFL teams don’t do that. Most teams eventually have starter quality QB’s over a period of 10 years, that can win games with a good enough team around them. The 49ers had Smith and Jimmy in the last 20. The Ravens had Flacco and Lamar. The Bengals had Palmer then Dalton then Burrow. Cowboys had Romo then Dak.

 

The Bills strategy is the exact strategy you don’t want. They would have been in the exact same boat Pre Josh Allen if they drafted a QB every year. Except they may have actually made the playoffs more than once.

 

The Bills strategy prior to the firing of Russ Brandon in 2018 was to maximize profits rather than winning football games, so they hardly present a blueprint for how to build a winning football team.   Even so, they drafted first round QBs in 2004 and in 2013 and again in 2018. 

[papazoid]

there are all kinds of ways to build a winning team (playoffs).....but in todays game, there is only one predominant way that wins it all (SB)

 

the #1 surest way is start with an elite passing QB.....running qb's  like lamar jackson  and kyler murray have a hard time coming back from behind

 

the cleveland browns offense was stacked with talent...but held back by mediocre qb play......so that model is flawed (surround your qb with talent)

 

is it a coincedence that the top 5 teams favored to win the next SB have Josh, Brady, Mahomes, Rodgers and Stafford as their QB's.....i think not.

 

the so called contrarian way esposed in this thread....is a complete waste of time. i applaud what denver and cleveland did to right the ship....anything other than elite QB play (top 10) is spinning your wheels.

 

the Bills got lucky....no one....and i mean no one thought Josh would become the best player in the league. dont matter now, enjoy the ride

[SoCal Deek]

I’ll approach the debate a bit differently. Since the Bills already have a top QB under contract, is it really that hard to teach the OL to run block? The statistical difference between a great and below average running game is something less than 3 feet per attempt. I said the same thing last offseason…can we not work even a little bit on opening a crack or two so we can pick up that extra three feet on a somewhat regular basis. I mean after all….why not? 

[Tanoros]

11 hours ago, billybrew1 said:

Other teams getting great QBs is just complete BS. For 20+ years we have waited for a QB and now that we finally have one, everybody else is finding one. There used to be two, three QBs in the league, Now that we have one, it’s just BS that’s all!

Total BS!

Lol! Well atleast we very well could have the best of the bunch 😉

48 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I’ll approach the debate a bit differently. Since the Bills already have a top QB under contract, is it really that hard to teach the OL to run block? The statistical difference between a great and below average running game is something less than 3 feet per attempt. I said the same thing last offseason…can we not work even a little bit on opening a crack or two so we can pick up that extra three feet on a somewhat regular basis. I mean after all….why not? 

Well the hiring of Kromer is hopefully the signal that this is what McDermott is thinking too. 

[mabden]

With the rule changes over the years favoring the offensive side of the game, this is now a passing league and a QB, was and still is, it's most important position.  The combo of QB/WR (take advantage of the rules) followed by CB/DE (counter to the rules) are where teams are putting their money.  

 

The Bill's top 4 players (money wise) are QB, DE, WR, CB. (Allen, Miller, Diggs, White)

 

NE seems to be going in the opposite direction.  Weak armed QB, no WR weapon to throw to, and let their top CB (exposed by Diggs) walk.  Their top DE (jodun) was exposed by Allen as second rate.  Their strategy of run the ball/play great defense may have got them to the playoffs, but no further and all indications are they won't make the payoffs this year.

 

Buffalo, on the other hand, is considered the favorite to make and win the SB.

[T master]

The new age NFL is all about the air attack but every team that wins the big game has had a above average RB leading their running game & even though the so called "Experts" say that you can have a running game or back by comity i disagree .

 

Especially with teams like the Bills that play in the elements you need a at least decent running game as a compliment to open up the passing game if you don't i think you will fall short . Even the greatest show on turf (The Rams) had Marshall Faulk .

 

The 90's Bills wouldn't have been able to do wha they did with out Thurman I believe the run game needs to be a part of a championship team maybe not as big as it was lets say in the 70's & 80's but it is still a need in todays NFL in order to win the big game .

[SCBills]

8 minutes ago, T master said:

The new age NFL is all about the air attack but every team that wins the big game has had a above average RB leading their running game & even though the so called "Experts" say that you can have a running game or back by comity i disagree .

 

Especially with teams like the Bills that play in the elements you need a at least decent running game as a compliment to open up the passing game if you don't i think you will fall short . Even the greatest show on turf (The Rams) had Marshall Faulk .

 

The 90's Bills wouldn't have been able to do wha they did with out Thurman I believe the run game needs to be a part of a championship team maybe not as big as it was lets say in the 70's & 80's but it is still a need in todays NFL in order to win the big game .

 

I think our coaches seem very aware that we need to bolster the run game, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it needs to be done by investing heavily in the RB position.  

 

-Upgraded one OG spot with Roger Saffold

-Brought back the rest of the Starting OL that played well down the stretch

-Hired one of the best OL coaches in the league, Kromer

 

Also:

 

-Dawkins regained his form late last year after battling covid effects, twice, during the season. 

-Brown is now in his second year and we surely are expecting to see a jump in his level of play.   

-Bates looks to have been signed as a starter, and he played very well in the final stretch of the season when given opportunity.

-Potentially more 12 personnel looks with Knox/Howard.

 

This starting five offensive line has the potential to be the best line McDermott has had in his time here.  

 

I'm not saying we couldn't go RB in the 3rd Round or later.. There are some intriguing speed backs and receiving backs we seem to be looking at, but even if we stand pat... there's reason to believe Singletary/Johnson/Moss will look that much better due to a (hopefully) stronger OL.  

[OldTimer1960]

13 hours ago, DCofNC said:

I have been calling for the Bills to do it for 10 years, then they landed Allen and I still think it’s the way to go.  Build the Rex Ryan “Bully”.  Go Big on O, take advantage of the teams that got small and fast to counter the  passing teams.  Pound them into submission and torch them over the top.  There’s never been a time that it made more sense.  To an extent, that’s what Tenn and Indy have done, now imagine them with Josh at QB, good gawd.  It’s what Carolina did when they went 15-1 with Tess Ginn as their best WR.  NE is trying to do it, but they don’t have the deep threat. 
 

Side watch out for the Raiders if they get their run game rolling, they are built to beat pretty much anyone with that O.  They should have great balance. 

Really nice observation.  
 

Team’s try to copy successful models or counter those models.  One example was way back when the league had been moving to larger DBs and Washington went the other way and got small, quick fast “Smurf” receivers that the bigger DBs struggled to stay with.

 

As you pointed out, Tenn, Indy and now NE have moved to run-heavy offenses with two TEs.  That counters, to some degree, the smaller faster pass rush specialists that teams have loaded up on to compete with the high flying pass offenses.  By running clock, they keep the ball away from the opponent.

[FireChans]

1 hour ago, mabden said:

With the rule changes over the years favoring the offensive side of the game, this is now a passing league and a QB, was and still is, it's most important position.  The combo of QB/WR (take advantage of the rules) followed by CB/DE (counter to the rules) are where teams are putting their money.  

 

The Bill's top 4 players (money wise) are QB, DE, WR, CB. (Allen, Miller, Diggs, White)

 

NE seems to be going in the opposite direction.  Weak armed QB, no WR weapon to throw to, and let their top CB (exposed by Diggs) walk.  Their top DE (jodun) was exposed by Allen as second rate.  Their strategy of run the ball/play great defense may have got them to the playoffs, but no further and all indications are they won't make the payoffs this year.

 

Buffalo, on the other hand, is considered the favorite to make and win the SB.

Lol the Pats drafted a QB in the first round and spent the most money ever on receiving targets. 
 

How are people so wrong

[Conlan58]

13 hours ago, Governor said:

I wonder how many of today’s QB’s would be great in the old league with the old rules.

 

Probably 2 or 3.

I'd say JPP can count them on one hand. 

[Buffalo Boy]

   When you play poker, do you hold onto mediocre cards if you know the other guy has good ones, hoping he doesn’t know how to use his better cards to his advantage? 
    It might work once in a while but it is a low percentage strategy. The NFL is set up as a passing league. Teams that make it their long term strategy to buck that trend are delusional.

[Coffeesforclosers]

Contrarian...more like too smart by half. With the way the rules are, it's harder and harder to win with size.  But the Pats keep trying.

[SoTier]

4 minutes ago, Buffalo Boy said:

   When you play poker, do you hold onto mediocre cards if you know the other guy has good ones, hoping he doesn’t know how to use his better cards to his advantage? 
    It might work once in a while but it is a low percentage strategy. The NFL is set up as a passing league. Teams that make it their long term strategy to buck that trend are delusional.

 

I think "contrarian" offenses result from teams making do with decent but not great QBs rather than intentionally trying to "swim against the current".  I think that  currrently includes SF, Indy, and Pitt among some others.   That seems probably how Miami intends to get the most from Tua before they decide whether to move on from him or not.

[Buffalo Boy]

5 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

I think "contrarian" offenses result from teams making do with decent but not great QBs rather than intentionally trying to "swim against the current".  I think that  currrently includes SF, Indy, and Pitt among some others.   That seems probably how Miami intends to get the most from Tua before they decide whether to move on from him or not.

    I would say that they are just making do while they find a QB. That is born out of necessity and not Contrarian strategy.

   Indy had their guy and he quit right as they were surrounding him with talent. They have been trying to find their guy since ( and May have with Ryan in the short term)

    Pittsburg should have cut Cheeseburger a few years ago but it is hard for that team to Embrace sucking.

[hjnick]

14 hours ago, Richard Noggin said:

In a vacuum, I can see the wisdom to this team-building strategy. Draft a QB annually and plug him (or a recently drafted prospect who outperforms him) into a loaded roster. Rinse (trade or release) and repeat to remain stocked with cap space and draft assets. 

 

But what coach/GM combo has the job security to willingly employ it? If said coach/GM combo has 40+ mill to work with in a given offseason, what is incentivizing them to NOT pursue EVERY possible scenario to bring in an ELITE QB? Or, to utilize premium draft assets to acquire one (either by drafting or by trading for one)? In a given offseason, by the time they potentially realize they're shut out of acquiring their QB savior, then they've missed out on many of the defensive and offensive FAs who could help to carry out the proposed plan for the rest of roster. And coaches/GMs don't often get more than one crack at the QB lottery. 

 

I agree with you. This would have to be a decision from the owner on down agreeing to this type to team building. 
 

And if/when you get a guy like Allen fall in your lap, it would take agreement from all 3 (owner, GM, and coach) to keep that QB and transition to a more ‘normal’ team configuration.

[hjnick]

9 hours ago, cage said:

 

Isn't that the strategy that we mostly navigated through the drought?  Fitzpatrick and Tyrod scream out as the types of QB that it could theoretically work with.  We had the best rushing attack in the league for a few years with Shady + Tyrod.  But we ended up with .500 teams with just Tyrod barely making playoffs once, because of Dalton/Boyd heroics.... and then 1 and done in playoffs.  

 

I think the strategy could get you to a fringe wild-card team, but not much further.  Even if they had beaten Jacksonville in playoffs, I have a hard time believing they had any shot at winning SB

I kinda see your point here, but before Beane, I never thought the Bills were ran well.  We kept taking RBs in the first round… took a texas lineman ( they all are weak).   

 

For this to work, you would need to focus on having a great defense and a offense to compliment it.

[TBBills]

Bills never tried hard enough to find a QB.

 

The only thing other teams learned from the Bills was that they had bad GMs.

Edited March 30, 2022 by TBBills

[hjnick]

6 hours ago, SoTier said:

 

So, you think that the Bills should have traded Allen rather than extending him?    Right.  In case you didn't notice, great/good QBs don't come along nearly as frequently as great/good RBs come along.  The Jests haven't had an elite QB since Joe Namath retired more than 40 years ago, and it's not for not using resources to find one.  The Bears haven't had a QB better than average in decades.  The Bills went almost 20 years without having even a good QB. 

 

The problem with your plan is that if your current QB on his rookie contract isn't so obviously good that you absolutely want to keep him no matter what the price, why would some other team be willing to give you a proverbial "boat load of picks" for him?  The Jests didn't get a boatload of picks for Darnold.   The Browns aren't going to get a boatload of picks for Mayfield. 

 

FTR, teams seldom trade their RBs coming off their rookie contracts.  They simply let them walk in free agency if they aren't willing to re-sign at reasonable prices. 

 

 

 

The Bills strategy prior to the firing of Russ Brandon in 2018 was to maximize profits rather than winning football games, so they hardly present a blueprint for how to build a winning football team.   Even so, they drafted first round QBs in 2004 and in 2013 and again in 2018. 

I consider Allen to be Elite, so I would keep him and build around him, just like Beane is doing.  Just like the best coaches frame their gameplans to the players they have, I would do the same as a GM or owner. 
 

If you have an elite QB, ride that guy till he retires, if not, then you have to come up with a plan to put the best field on the team.

 

In regard towards the picks, If the QB you want to trade isn’t good, you’re not going to get much. Darnold hasn’t shown he can play, wentz got traded the first time for a 2nd and a third.
 

Cleveland in their ineptitude blundered the whole Mayfield situation.  should have traded Mayfield earlier before Watson (or at same time). Cleveland has no leverage now.

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

18 hours ago, KzooMike said:

With QB/WR/CB contracts making up such large % of the cap. That's if you're even lucky enough to be in that position with a QB. Now put yourselves in the shoes of teams that don't have a clear QB. Do you really try and model teams like Buffalo? It took us 20 years to find a QB and plenty of wasted draft capital in the process. The league is always evolving and I can't help but think we are at a crossroads with the way teams go about building.

 

We saw Baltimore take Lamar with this type of mindset.  They had no intention of running a traditional NFL offense. Ironically, they very well could end up paying a traditional franchise QB price tag. Then New England last year. Both franchises really did not place a big focus on the traditional passing game. Spend resources in areas other teams aren't. Run the football and play great defense. This has been enough to allow playoff appearances by both teams but that is as far as it's gotten. Perhaps that's as far as it can go.

 

All I know is if I'm in the AFC right now I'm looking at about a dozen teams that have a nuclear bomb and I don't know if my goal is to keep up with that arms race. I think I have a better chance fighting this battle differently.  

 

Is this something you expect we will see championed by more teams in the coming years? More teams essentially reverting back to more of a traditional football strategy? 

 

Baltimore is the one who's leaned into it really well.  The goal is very much what it was with Buffalo and Tyrod - Run the ball, don't turn it over.  WR route tree isn't crazy extensive and they send you deep a lot.  

 

The majority of other teams in this space have had QBs that were in the 2nd or 3rd tier, and they run the outside zone shanahan offense.  Build a strong line on both sides and be hard to play against.  Tennessee, New England, Philadelphia, Indianapolis, Cleveland, San Francisco, Cincinnati, Los Angeles Rams, etc.  The Rams upgraded their QB to get over the hump to win a super bowl.  Cleveland did that this year - but a year off away from football, a possible suspension, all the baggage that he comes with.  Going to be tough.  Denver will probably work a similar style as well under Hackett, but I don't see the defense being as good.  

[LABILLBACKER]

8 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

I’ll approach the debate a bit differently. Since the Bills already have a top QB under contract, is it really that hard to teach the OL to run block? The statistical difference between a great and below average running game is something less than 3 feet per attempt. I said the same thing last offseason…can we not work even a little bit on opening a crack or two so we can pick up that extra three feet on a somewhat regular basis. I mean after all….why not? 

That's why they hired Kromer.

[billsfan89]

This is still a QB-driven league. But I do think having a traditional bullying ground game is important. I know teams like to use short passes to set up longer passes but running the ball has so many positives to it. 

 

The first thing running the ball does is helps the offensive line wear down the opposing defenses line. Pass blocking allows the D-line to be the aggressor. By running the ball well you control the line of scrimmage so much better. Running the ball is also so critical in controlling the time of possession and holding leads. You need a strong running game to run a great four-minute offense. That helps you take away late-game possessions from opposing teams. Finally running the ball well keeps your QB safer by opening up play-action passes and taking the ball out of the QB's hands. 

 

It's insanely hard to sustain success with an everything but the QB approach. Keeping together an elite defense is hard to do beyond a few years and then having to keep together elite offensive non-QB talent is also tremendously difficult to do so consistently. It is possible but when you have an elite QB it is a consistent and sustainable advantage.