Alphadawg7 Posted February 12, 2009 Author Share Posted February 12, 2009 Great post...excellent assessment. But you posted great post to the very post he is disputing and now you are saying his disagreement is the excellent post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timba Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 I really think the problem is that we have been dealt such lousy qb play ever since Kelly retired that people have forgotten how much a franchise qb means to a team. I laugh when I hear people say "oh we just need a guy to manage a game". I do not want to settle for a game manager as my qb, I want a qb that will go into a hostile environment like Foxboro & make a play to win the game. Eventually, in the NFL you are going to need your qb to step up & win a game or two. You are kidding yourself if you do not think that. How many 4th quarter wins did Trent have to start the year? Question posed, I agree that a more cut throat QB [EDIT - wow me way to finish a thought...] would be great; however, the OP is about whether or not QB was our biggest problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted February 12, 2009 Author Share Posted February 12, 2009 You are combative, argumentative and you believe that you have to prove your point that your right every single time and if people don't agree with you, then you pout and argue some more. I think your popularity rating in here is just as impressive as G.W Bush Oh please...its a topic discussion thread, so because I DISCUSS the topic you want to label it as combative...sorry I dont just resort to the style of you "Magot", "The Janitor", and "Jillspet" and start slandering peeps on here and then move on to the next thread and do it all over again... Many times on here I have said great post to those who thought differently, I dont care if its right or wrong, just enjoy talking football...its the other posters who start the insults and combative approach...and guess what, it only happens when someone dare question the performance of the beloved Trent Edwards...its like blasphemy on here. I only get annoyed with jackoff posts like your usual... Funny, how my threads usually keep going and are generally full of football discussion with a few select trolls here and there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 The problem with this assessment is most of the examples he gives he is comparing the qbs in their prime to same guys in the tail end of the careers. Comparing a young healthy culpepper in Minn to the old has been gimp that played in detroit, a mid 90s brett favre to the washed up version who played in NY & a young Jeff garcia in SF to the Jeff Garcia that played in Tampa. Ask a Green Bay Packer fan who was the most important player on that Super Bowl team & ask a NYJ fan what was the single most thing that held the Jets back this year. I bet 9 out of 10 fans say Brett Favre in both scenerios. Actually, it was just easier to find some obvious examples that way. There are examples like Gannon and Elway that don't fit your simplistic explanation. Bledsoe had success very early and struggled in the middle and late. The landscape is endlessly varied and the terms are piss poorly defined, so I'm not going to argue with your obtuseness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 So, by this theory Daunte Culpepper is the guy that held the Lions back to 0-16 but was also the guy that was good enough to lead the Vikings to a #1 seed in the salary cap era. Trent Dilfer was the guy that held the Bucs back but led the Ravens to a Super Bowl victory. Brett Favre won a Super Bowl in Green Bay but also held them back in seasons they stunk as he held back the Jets. Jeff Garcia has been to 4 Pro Bowls and led the 49ers to the playoffs as well as Tampa but held back 5 teams including the 49ers and Tampa. Rex Grossman dragged the Bears to a Super Bowl and has also held the Bears back ever since. Neal O'Donnell led the Steelers and held back the Jets. Bledsoe led the Patriots and held back 3 teams including the Patriots. Kurt Warner led the Rams and Cardinals to the Super Bowl but held the New York Giants back. I can go on... Football is a team game. The modern game is about coaching as much as it is about players. In the old NFL, teams lined up 11 on 11 and the better team prevailed. If you had Jim Brown, you had a guy that was physically dominant, you gave him the ball, he ran over everyone, and you won games and championships. Now, talent is much more evenly distributed and evolved. (If you don't believe it look at all the worst-to-firsts, late season runs, and teams that nobody predicts doing very well over the last few years -- indeed, the Bills are the anomaly in that they are one of the few dysfunctional organizations that seems to find a way to blow it each and every year.) Modern football is about match-ups, exploiting weaknesses, game planning, systems, play calling, sets, formations, packages, clock management, proper technique, keeping the team focused. And, guess what? The QB doesn't do any of that. That's why you see guys like Grossman, Johnson, Delhomme, Gannon, Dilfer, Collins, Chandler, McNair, Bledsoe, O'Donnell, and Humphries "drag their teams" all the way to the Super Bowl in the salary cap era. It's why winning teams and franchises that stay in the hunt invest in and pay for good front offices and coaches. Excellent post. While i wont take away that you need good QB play (note, i said good QB play, not necessarily a good QB) to win a Super Bowl, it is much mroe important to build a team before searching for the elusive "franchise QB." Some QBs are simply that damn good out of college. Most aren't. So build a solid team and then go QB chasing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stenbar Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 LMAO...ok, so Farve would have stunk without Holmgren...and Vermiel is why the rams won...lol...geezus...this is just getting hysterically bizarre... Is that you Joaquin Phoenix? That and MArshall Faulk, Torry Holt, Isac Bruce, Orlando Pace....All better than MOST anyone else int the NFL at that time....The Qb is a key component but hardly THE reason... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Excellent post. While i wont take away that you need good QB play (note, i said good QB play, not necessarily a good QB) to win a Super Bowl, it is much mroe important to build a team before searching for the elusive "franchise QB." Some QBs are simply that damn good out of college. Most aren't. So build a solid team and then go QB chasing. Thanks, Ram. I think it is a better approach to fix what you can and transition where you have to. Chasing QBs is what the Bills have done since Jim Kelly retired and it has been a foolish strategy as evidenced by the results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted February 12, 2009 Author Share Posted February 12, 2009 Excellent post. While i wont take away that you need good QB play (note, i said good QB play, not necessarily a good QB) to win a Super Bowl, it is much mroe important to build a team before searching for the elusive "franchise QB." Some QBs are simply that damn good out of college. Most aren't. So build a solid team and then go QB chasing. Ok, if QB is so hard to fill, and we can all agree it usally takes 2 to 3 years for a QB to really progress, how does builiding a team first, then developing a QB make sense? Unless your only goal is to be a mediocre team during that stretch and be a mild thought to maybe make the playoffs (sound familiar), you are going to need a QB. You dont want your team peaking in other areas and then go and try and fill the hardest position on the field to fill... In todays Free Agency and salary cap era, a teams window of opportunity is generally 3 to 4 years...so if we spend 2 or 3 seasons building up a team and then finally go out and try to find the QB and develop him, then by the time we finally develop a QB over a few seasons, the window is likely closed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Oh please...its a topic discussion thread, so because I DISCUSS the topic you want to label it as combative...sorry I dont just resort to the style of you "Magot", "The Janitor", and "Jillspet" and start slandering peeps on here and then move on to the next thread and do it all over again... Many times on here I have said great post to those who thought differently, I dont care if its right or wrong, just enjoy talking football...its the other posters who start the insults and combative approach...and guess what, it only happens when someone dare question the performance of the beloved Trent Edwards...its like blasphemy on here. I only get annoyed with jackoff posts like your usual... Funny, how my threads usually keep going and are generally full of football discussion with a few select trolls here and there... awww sounds like someone's little feelings got hurt get upset, and pout, then call some one infantile names. ok junior, I think mommy needs to use the computer, it's time to clean your room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted February 12, 2009 Author Share Posted February 12, 2009 awww sounds like someone's little feelings got hurt get upset, and pout, then call some one infantile names. ok junior, I think mommy needs to use the computer, it's time to clean your room. Please, youre the king of obnoxious and insultive...actually, its a tie between you and senator...you two can figure out which of you is the Queen and which is the King... Thats like Courtney Love ragging on Amy Whinehouse for substance abuse...or Rob Johnson coaching JP on how not to take a sack... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pneumonic Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Of course it is a team game but those who disregard the importance of a top QB in this league must not watch the same football games that I do. This is indeed a QB driven league and teams without a top QB will go years, decades even, without even sniffing a shot at winning anything of significance. Sure there are exceptions but in today's NFL it's all about the QB position .... and defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Of course it is a team game but those who disregard the importance of a top QB in this league must not watch the same football games that I do. This is indeed a QB driven league and teams without a top QB will go years, decades even, without even sniffing a shot at winning anything of significance. Sure there are exceptions but in today's NFL it's all about the QB position .... and defense. I agree. You need a QB that's going to make things happen and big plays. Look back at SB XLIII. One play I think it was 3rd and long and the Cardinals had Big Ben trapped in the backfield. He was able to get loose, run around, and find a receiver for the first down. Or the TD to Santonio Holmes at the very end. To think that if you have a QB that "manages the game" and "doesn't make mistakes" and will go much over .500 is, IMHO, just plain wrong and delusional. You can coun't the teams on one hand who've won with this approach. I'm having a hard time thinking of any. If you're QB play sucks, then you suck. Right now, our QB play sucks, and we suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renfruzetz Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Using your stats: we are looking at 191 ypg passing, 12 TD's, 14.5 INT's and 32 sacks as a basic average? Compare that to QB "X" who compiled 206 ypg, 17 TD's, 15 INT's and 46 sacks. The sacks would nearly offset the ypg difference and INT's are virtually identical. Trent has a QB rating five points higher while not having as many TD's. Great argument except this mythical QB just won the Super Bowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordio Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Using your stats: we are looking at 191 ypg passing, 12 TD's, 14.5 INT's and 32 sacks as a basic average? Compare that to QB "X" who compiled 206 ypg, 17 TD's, 15 INT's and 46 sacks. The sacks would nearly offset the ypg difference and INT's are virtually identical. Trent has a QB rating five points higher while not having as many TD's. Great argument except this mythical QB just won the Super Bowl. Decent point but I will say this. If you watch Pittsburgh there are usually one or two plays in the game where big ben will make a play to keep the chains moving, keep a scoring drive going. You do not need your qb to throw for 300 yards every game but you will need a guy under center that needs to step up when the game is on the line. Tenn is a perfect example of this. All year I think everyone could agree that they had a game manager under center in Collins. They never asked him to make a play. What happens? In the playoffs, when they needed him to make a play it just was not there. They got bounced in the divisional round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bizell Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Decent point but I will say this. If you watch Pittsburgh there are usually one or two plays in the game where big ben will make a play to keep the chains moving, keep a scoring drive going. You do not need your qb to throw for 300 yards every game but you will need a guy under center that needs to step up when the game is on the line. Tenn is a perfect example of this. All year I think everyone could agree that they had a game manager under center in Collins. They never asked him to make a play. What happens? In the playoffs, when they needed him to make a play it just was not there. They got bounced in the divisional round. Excellent point about numbers not always telling the full story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Excellent point about numbers not always telling the full story. Kerry Collins is not a great "franchise QB," but he is better than many and good enough to win games including playoff games. He's started in a Super Bowl for crying out loud. As for this past year, the Titans were dominating the game up until Chris Johnson went down with an injury and left the game. Laying the blame on Kerry Collins for that is a coach potato view of the game where all one watches is the football and the guy holding it. Also, it is not true that Collins never made a play last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bizell Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Kerry Collins is not a great "franchise QB," but he is better than many and good enough to win games including playoff games. He's started in a Super Bowl for crying out loud. As for this past year, the Titans were dominating the game up until Chris Johnson went down with an injury and left the game. Laying the blame on Kerry Collins for that is a coach potato view of the game where all one watches is the football and the guy holding it. Imo he wasn't 'blaming him', he was pointing out the differences between a guy like BenRo and Kerry Collins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Imo he wasn't 'blaming him', he was pointing out the differences between a guy like BenRo and Kerry Collins. Yes, but what are the differences? Big Ben has won 2 Super Bowls and Collins hasn't. So, Ben makes plays and Collins doesn't. That's dumb. Of course, Collins made plays. Collins had bad luck in that his primary weapon went lame in the playoffs. If not for that, this whole argument is probably turned upside down and we're talking about how Collins is a better QB than Ben because the Titans won a Super Bowl. It just boils down to the same argument over and over. Not so long ago, the problem with this team was the QB. He was no good and got sacked too much and ran around too much and should just throw the ball away. On the other hand, if he didn't complete enough passes, he was no good either. How does one take this? Is the QB supposed to block for himself? Is he supposed to create a running game by wishful thinking? Is he supposed to teach the coaches how to design plays and correct their bad calls with audibles every snap? Is he supposed to run the routes and catch his own passes? Is he in the war room on draft day selecting defensive backs? But, to raise a doubt about this QB myopic view of football opens the door to straw men arguments, posturing, and wishful misrepresentation. For apparently, if you see more problems than simply the kid under center, you can't see that the kid under center has issues even if you've never stopped saying he had those issues even when the Polyannas were running around calling him Savior. Last offseason, some of the same people claiming QB play -- Trent Edwards is the QB -- is holding the team back now where throwing homophobic rhetoric around in defense of Edwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordio Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Yes, but what are the differences? Big Ben has won 2 Super Bowls and Collins hasn't. So, Ben makes plays and Collins doesn't. That's dumb. Of course, Collins made plays. Collins had bad luck in that his primary weapon went lame in the playoffs. If not for that, this whole argument is probably turned upside down and we're talking about how Collins is a better QB than Ben because the Titans won a Super Bowl. The point I am trying to make is that when the Titans needed Collins to make a play in the biggest game of the year he did not come thru. & once again you are comparing a younger Collins when he played for the Giants to a much older version of Collins in Tenn. Anybody that has a clue about football would never mistake Collins as a better qb then Big Ben. & they were up 10-7 when Johnson went down, I highly call that dominating the game although certainly having Johnson healthy would of increased the chances of a titans victory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted February 13, 2009 Author Share Posted February 13, 2009 Using your stats: we are looking at 191 ypg passing, 12 TD's, 14.5 INT's and 32 sacks as a basic average? Compare that to QB "X" who compiled 206 ypg, 17 TD's, 15 INT's and 46 sacks. The sacks would nearly offset the ypg difference and INT's are virtually identical. Trent has a QB rating five points higher while not having as many TD's. Great argument except this mythical QB just won the Super Bowl. The difference you are ignoring here as well as the poster who brought up Collins is that Pitt and Tenn have ELITE, dominating defenses coupled with a powerful running attack that can keep the score close where a few plays from the QB can pull out a win. Ben isnt asked to win games...he is there to balance the run game out and make plays when needed so his D and run game can run the clock out. The only way you can win in this league with such little production from your QB is with a dominating defense...we dont have that either...so we are not going to get very far unless Trent either takes a big leap forward or our D suddenly becomes a top 3 D.... And the idea of comparing Big Ben to Trent as if they are similar is just crazy...there isnt a team in the league that would even consider Trent over Ben... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts