Kultarr Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 General point, but you can prove anything by looking at one example. The way to win is by passing - Stl in 1999. You need a highly drafted QB to win - Pit 2005. You don't - Bal 2000. There is no one recipe to winning a Superbowl. It helps to look at trends and not individual examples. There are a couple subtle problems here. Both Baltimore and Pittsburgh were QB'd by 1st round picks to their SB victories. Plummer is also a high pick taken in the 2nd round. Colts, Giants, Bears, Jags, and Bengals were other playoff teams also with 1st round QBs this year. That's (roughly - others may want to quibble about injuries or whatever) 50% of the playoff teams. BTW, the Bills have a 1st round QB on their roster. They had 2 1st rounders the year before. The Steelers were certainly not a team built around Big Ben. What I take from the Denver example is that you don't need first rounders on your OL. They start an UDFA TE at LT, and no one on the Denver board is clamoring to replace him. Schemes and continuity - that's how to build a line. Yes, Pit and Sea do have a lot of high picks on their lines, but they also have a tremendous amount of continuity. I think all three of those teams have had four of five starters in place since 2001. You know how many starters we've had in place since 2001? Zero. Like Bill said, I disagree. One cannot make chicken salad out of chicken sh--. Continuity sounds great, but it does not mean one continues to play the same sad cast of untalented players upfront while getting a parade of QBs killed behind their atrocious blocking. Again, the Steelers were not built around Big Ben. Big Ben was dropped into a team that was already there and just needed some decent play out of the QB position to get back to the winning side. The Steelers have a great line and some very special, versatile skills players. They also continue to have an excellent defense. Getting a QB that could make some positive plays and not constantly turn the ball over was the last piece of the puzzle. As for the QB question, if Marv sees something in Cutler that he absolutely can't live without and doesn't see anything near that in Losman, then I could live with a QB pick. 602650[/snapback] I believe that drafting Cutler would be a huge mistake. Did you see this guy in the Senior Bowl, btw? He was very unimpressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Were it not for the talent of superstars such as Hoestetler, Doug Williams, Rypien, and Dilfer, their respective teams would have been lucky to win wild card slots. As a matter of fact, I think that Kurt Warner deserves the bulk of the credit for the Rams superbowl win. He carried Orlando Pace on his back. 602629[/snapback] Are you honestly trying to tell me Orlando Pace deserves more of the credit for the Rams' Super Bowl win than Kurt Warner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Are you honestly trying to tell me Orlando Pace deserves more of the credit for the Rams' Super Bowl win than Kurt Warner? 603030[/snapback] Of course. It isn't even remotely close. Pace is still a pro-bowler. Warner is a journeyman. Pace is going straight to the Hall of Fame. Truthfully, it is hard for me to believe that you are being serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Of course. It isn't even remotely close. Pace is still a pro-bowler. Warner is a journeyman. Pace is going straight to the Hall of Fame. Truthfully, it is hard for me to believe that you are being serious. 603040[/snapback] Quick sand, Bill...quick sand. BTW, OF COURSE, you're right here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Of course. It isn't even remotely close. Pace is still a pro-bowler. Warner is a journeyman. Pace is going straight to the Hall of Fame. Truthfully, it is hard for me to believe that you are being serious. 603040[/snapback] Obviously, Pace has contributed to the Rams over a longer period of time than did Warner. But during the one year they won the Super Bowl, Warner's dominant play was the biggest single factor in that team's success. Warner was named the NFL MVP that year, and rightfully so. How many Super Bowls do you think the Bills would have gone to without Jim Kelly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 (edited) Unless your defense is as good as Baltimore's in 2000, you're not winning any Super Bowl rings without superior QB play. Usually to get that level of play you have to spend some money and/or a high draft pick. How well would Pittsburgh have done with Tommy Maddox at QB? 590892[/snapback] did you vote 8 times in the poll? Edited February 15, 2006 by slothrop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Quick sand, Bill...quick sand. BTW, OF COURSE, you're right here. 603044[/snapback] Gotcha Brother. I am gonna leave this alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Bills just saved cap money by signig our emergency QB as a coach Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortured Soul Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 There are a couple subtle problems here. Both Baltimore and Pittsburgh were QB'd by 1st round picks to their SB victories. Plummer is also a high pick taken in the 2nd round. Colts, Giants, Bears, Jags, and Bengals were other playoff teams also with 1st round QBs this year. That's (roughly - others may want to quibble about injuries or whatever) 50% of the playoff teams. BTW, the Bills have a 1st round QB on their roster. They had 2 1st rounders the year before. The Steelers were certainly not a team built around Big Ben. Like Bill said, I disagree. One cannot make chicken salad out of chicken sh--. Continuity sounds great, but it does not mean one continues to play the same sad cast of untalented players upfront while getting a parade of QBs killed behind their atrocious blocking. Again, the Steelers were not built around Big Ben. Big Ben was dropped into a team that was already there and just needed some decent play out of the QB position to get back to the winning side. The Steelers have a great line and some very special, versatile skills players. They also continue to have an excellent defense. Getting a QB that could make some positive plays and not constantly turn the ball over was the last piece of the puzzle. I believe that drafting Cutler would be a huge mistake. Did you see this guy in the Senior Bowl, btw? He was very unimpressive. 602752[/snapback] I'm not sure what your first point is arguing - that you do or do not need a 1st round QB. I believe every team has a certain set of circumstances that make a certain year their year. I think it's a mistake to look at past teams to try to isolate the variable that causes them to succeed, because doing that leaves out two very important factors - luck and injuries. Were the Steelers led by Big Ben? Maybe, maybe not. I give him more credit than most people on this board do, but I'm open to others' opinions. I did not see Cutler, but I wouldn't trust one game anyway. All I was saying is if Marv and the good people at OBD determine it's the right move and Losman was a mistake, then OK by me. Continuity is one part of it (the main part I think). Schemes are the other part. Denver and New England start low round picks or UDFA's on their line. The Patriots threw a rookie 3rd round LT (100th overall) in this year, playing alongside another rookie, and they had little trouble adjusting. Is it just that the Patriots have a scouting department that much better than ours? Maybe - I think that's the most frightening scenario, because that gives us the least chance to compete with them. But I think that it's a whole lot of factors that cause the Patriots and Broncos' lines to be better than ours. One thing it defintely isn't though, is their reliance on high draft picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Quick sand, Bill...quick sand. BTW, OF COURSE, you're right here. 603044[/snapback] Yeah, I'm obviously going out on a limb by saying the NFL MVP may have had something to do with his team's success that year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kultarr Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 I'm not sure what your first point is arguing - that you do or do not need a 1st round QB. That is the point. The QB debaters often say things like, "A team needs a great QB and the only way to get one is to draft one. Jay Cutler's stock went up because he practiced well before the Senior Bowl, we have to draft him!" Then the other side attacks that with "Well, what about the Ravens or Rams or Hostetler? Tom Brady wasn't a 1st rounder." It's endless. And very boring. This is a team sport and way too much emphasis is aforded the QB position in general. It's plainly obvious a team needs a QB that can manage the game and make plays rather than mistakes. A team doesn't need Dan Marino to win and win a Super Bowl. Continuity is one part of it (the main part I think). Schemes are the other part. <snip> One thing it defintely isn't though, is their reliance on high draft picks. 603286[/snapback] What I'm saying is you need all 3. You have to have talent first. The talent has to fit the system. The Bills have neither of these, IMO. They have a collection of bargain bin talent, rejects, and underachievers. Further these guys were brought in apparently because of their low price, which is correlated to their overall talent, and not on what they could do within "the system." Heck, the Bills under MM didn't really even have an offensive identity. Are we a vertical passing team? Smashmouth? Pulling and trapping? Zone blocking? Finesse and up tempo? Nobody knows. This is diametrically opposed to teams like New England and Denver. Once the table is set properly, then it is going to take a bit of time to get the line working as a unit. Consistency and schemes, in the absence of players with the necessary talents, just means a longer period of losing. You can assemble the greatest cast of skills players going, but if you can't get it blocked up front, you won't win. Just ask a Colts fan. (Their line has talent and is generally good, by the way. They just had a tough day against LeBeau's packages.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tortured Soul Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 It's endless. And very boring. 603761[/snapback] Gotcha. I agree with that. What I'm saying is you need all 3. You have to have talent first. The talent has to fit the system. The Bills have neither of these, IMO....This is diametrically opposed to teams like New England and Denver. Once the table is set properly, then it is going to take a bit of time to get the line working as a unit. Consistency and schemes, in the absence of players with the necessary talents, just means a longer period of losing. 603761[/snapback] Hypothetically, if we took the five members of Denver's or New England's offensive lines, having never played together and without the tutaledge of Belichik and Shanahan (and his staff), do you think they would be any better than what we have? I don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kultarr Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 Hypothetically, if we took the five members of Denver's or New England's offensive lines, having never played together and without the tutaledge of Belichik and Shanahan (and his staff), do you think they would be any better than what we have? I don't. 603784[/snapback] Now, that is an excellent question. And, I would agree. Those lines were put together with an offensive system already in mind. Their lines are not made up of Pro Bowlers. They were built with guys that had the talents to do what is needed in that system. Turn back the clock and throw those same players into the wrong system or a situation of system du jour, and they most likely look like rabble. We don't really even have to look that far -- Trey Teague was a starter at LT for the Broncos before becoming the Bills C. There is no question the Bills offense will change this year after the house cleaning. It already essentially has. What will be interesting is how the Bills new brain trust addresses getting the right talent for the new systems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 Now, that is an excellent question. And, I would agree. Those lines were put together with an offensive system already in mind. Their lines are not made up of Pro Bowlers. They were built with guys that had the talents to do what is needed in that system. Turn back the clock and throw those same players into the wrong system or a situation of system du jour, and they most likely look like rabble. We don't really even have to look that far -- Trey Teague was a starter at LT for the Broncos before becoming the Bills C. There is no question the Bills offense will change this year after the house cleaning. It already essentially has. What will be interesting is how the Bills new brain trust addresses getting the right talent for the new systems. 603807[/snapback] it will be 3 years by the time they are close to getting the "right" players- just about time to fire the coach and move in a different direction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 Its not always that the players do not have the talent, sometimes the coaching and management do not have the right players to run "their systems" Who knows, in the right system Mike Williams may be a pro bowl player (probably not, but who really knows) A good coach and GM will develop a system that will work with the players they have, or bring in players that will work with the system they want to run. That is how a team becomes successful and wins games Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 Who knows, in the right system Mike Williams may be a pro bowl player (probably not, but who really knows) 603815[/snapback] The Patriots, at least, put toughness and intelligence ahead of athleticism. In fact, I'd say that any blocking system requires tough OL. I don't know that I'd put Mike Williams in that category. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kultarr Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 it will be 3 years by the time they are close to getting the "right" players- just about time to fire the coach and move in a different direction 603812[/snapback] You could be correct, unfortunately. There is a chance that they can get it turned around quicker than that. Salvage a couple projects, draft some studs, sign a couple average or above free agents and things might turn around fairly quickly and really start to come together in 3 years. Your point is taken about the revolving door coaching staff concept. I've wondered if Gregg Williams was shown the door prematurely and might not have become a pretty good head coach given a better chance. (The late hiring date, roster purge, some really bad assistants, lame duck contract, burning his 1st rounder on a guy that would never play for him, etc., the guy sure looked like he was completely jinxed.) I guess we'll find out when GW gets his 2nd stint someplace else... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turftoe Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 I believe that drafting Cutler would be a huge mistake. Did you see this guy in the Senior Bowl, btw? He was very unimpressive. 602752[/snapback] Philip Rivers tore up the Senior Bowl and was MVP. If I remember correctly, Losman kind of stunk it up. Does this mean Rivers is a way better QB? Charley Whitehurst looked better than Cutler, but there is no way that you can tell me he is better than Cutler. I think Cutler, in the right setting (like Roethlisburger in Pittsburgh) could turn out to be the best QB in this draft. I agree that there are other pressing needs on this team, but, If your QB is subpar then you better have a super duper defense. No one player can kill you more than a poor QB. I suspect that Levy and the coaching staff are not quite ready to give up on Losman, especially since Modrak played a hand in drafting him. Unless the Bills are absolutely gaga over the guy, he likey will be playing for someone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderweb Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Were it not for the talent of superstars such as Hoestetler, Doug Williams, Rypien, and Dilfer, their respective teams would have been lucky to win wild card slots. As a matter of fact, I think that Kurt Warner deserves the bulk of the credit for the Rams superbowl win. He carried Orlando Pace on his back. 602629[/snapback] Wow, Kurt must be stronger than we thought. Good points..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Are you honestly trying to tell me Orlando Pace deserves more of the credit for the Rams' Super Bowl win than Kurt Warner? 603030[/snapback] This is a joke....right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts