Adam

The biggest issue is understanding the quarterback's strengths and how that fits into what you are trying to do. What is a first rounder to one team isn't to another.

Because quarterbacks do so well under Ryan

If you have that much talent, you could make up for the lack of a great QB. You are vastly underrating Trent Dilfer- he got a bad reputation from spending most of his career with bad teams

lol I just shook my head at so many moves this offseason. Can't help it

Impossible. She's pretty smokin I don't see Ryan as a guy who pays much attention to detail. I also think the Dolphins will continue to develop- I think Crabtree can show a lot more than he did in San Fran, so if they sign him look out. The Jets boosting of their secondary makes their defense a lot better and as average as he is, Fitzpatrick was a huge upgrade for them. New England took a step back, but is still very good.

I see three major question marks at QB, an OL that isn't a strength which includes a guy who will make dumb mistakes. Watkins is as talented as any WR Buffalo has ever had, but has to prove it on the field. The secondary is a bit of a question mark and it looks like there is a question mark in the middle of the defense. All season, I see everyone talking about "Wait till Kiko is back" now we trade him for a running back......... Add to this, a coach who acts like he spends more time prepping material for a press conference than for a game. Rex Ryan is not detail oriented to succeed long term in this league. I have the Bills finishing fourth in the AFC East. Sorry......

Where is the option for Nickelback?

Won't happen. With Ryan here, I expect the sum to be far less than the parts. Incognito will take penalties when we need plays and our quarterbacks are attrocious. Hey- at least we have a running back!

9-7 at best

Agreed- and because he somehow got named MVP after the superbowl win, people forget that defense carried the Colts through the playoffs that year

If you want to believe that, it doesn't hurt me in the least. This has gotten a bit dull.....partly my fault

The argument is that quarterbacks are not assigned win/loss record, because it makes no sense. Win's and losses are the result of planning on the part of the coaches, as execution on the part of the players. It is a team stat than can no more be attributed to a quarterback, than to the Denver Brocos's center, who set the route in motion at last year's superbowl. I will concede that it is a talking point, but not an actual stat.

I'll inform the committees on sit on of your opinion. By the way, how many tickets would you like to buy and do you want a foam finger?

I actually think our offensive line was better during the first time we played them LOL, if you say so. It's pretty much called a stat by talking heads of TV and radio. Mark Golic wouldn't have a clue about how things works

I pretty much keep up on the rules. It's my job to know them. Win/loss record is not a player stat, nor should it be It is silly to look at Superbowl wins, agreed. I think the eye test is more accurate in this regard. However, I believe we win at least two with Aikman- he excelled at reading defenses, which was Kelly's flaw

I keep stats during games, for one thing

I really have to disagree on that- you could have a great quarterback stuck on a lousy team and he won't sniff a superbowl. I always believed that Ken O'Brien was a guy who could have done some really good things if he hadn't been stuck on the Jets. I also think if Boomer Esiason had played for the Bills in the early 90's, we'd have won a couple Superbowls- he should be in the Hall of Fame IMHO. Great quarterbacks are determined by a few things: 1. Accuracy- and I don't mean completion percentage (that means your receivers have talent and hold the ball) 2. Ability to read defenses (watch on film- how quickly do they progress through their reads) 3. Ability to manipulate the defense (look off safeties) 4. Ability to handle pressure (this is a limited skill, but needed) Much of this is subjective and some needs coach's film to see whatthe QB is doing Game statistics for one thing

Warren Moon should at least be in the discussion

Didn't Montana get knocked out of that game? And if you're judging QB's on stats and wins/losses, you're factoring in what other players do, more than what the QB does

Some would argue that they were a defensive oriented team, despite people always talking about the offenive personnel It's difficult to compare teams from different eras- especially with free agency altering everything so much

You are correct- by my understanding, the baseball pitcher has the W/L as more relevant, because the battle with the batters can be considered more 1 on 1 (you could make an argument against that). But its just something the media makes up to have a story

Yes, I saw you here and signed up. My life is about you lol

I do this professionally. They can claim anything they want to make a story. It doesn't make them right. Now you're done with this........

Wins and losses don't get attributed to the quarterback.

Actually, it was the 49ers that lost that game. Not Joe Montana.