McD

Wait no longer... how did you get "THAT'S ALL" you need to win is a great defense? I can't remember ever saying that. If I did, I WOULD be an idiot. Instead, I did say that good defenses WIN period. Again, tell me how in the hell that's wrong? Take a look at the tale of the tape in scoring per game on O and D: 9 of the top 12 top defenses were in the playoffs, while only 7 of the top 12 offenses amde the dance. Defense does win, and we need it terribly. Are you going to jump on here and dispute that? (please, oh please do!)

Man this thread is like Rasputin! I read a lot of posts... Let me tell you I NEVER backed down from my original statement. Not once. Defense DOES WIN... you guys clamoring about your "franchise QB's" are getting a LOT of leeway since you go from everything from Brady to Sanchez (ranked #27) is a franchise QB. And both Rodgers and Roethlisraper (who I think are both franchise QB's in my mind) won their games because of defensive scores! So... what IS a "franchise QB then? I dunno, but if Cutler and/or Sanchez would have won, you would have said they too were franchise My point IS valid and it's awesome thet the top 2 defenses (avg score against) are still playing, but yet my point is NOT valid?? How is that possible?

Definately not an idiot, but the genious part has merit.

Depends on the formation they go with but you cant go wrong with the BPA at DE, DT or even LB if it o fits what they're trying to do. The question with the QB is... how much better a QB are we going to get over Fitz?

As GB showed us... a good O-Line means you can plug in almost any serviceable RB and get good production from him. The reason Denver had 247 RB's run for 1,000 yds was because of their O-line. Yes... LB, TE and DL def need to be a priority in FA and the draft.

KW is solid, but after that I justy don't know. However that shows again how badly we need lots of D. Will they all be "hits"? no, but the more shots we ahve the better our chances. People here might not be sold on Fitz and I agree he's not a franchise QB, but he's solid and will be better with a better O-line and a better D. We need at least a RT and TE, but we need DT, DE, LB (2) and of course another CB and possibly S if/when Whitner bolts. Dont forget we had Trent in there for a few games which hurts our offensive stats.

Actually I went simple because it seems that's all people want. When I present evidence, it's tossed aside (must be too confusing to them), so I resort to keeping it simple. Again, it's not a simple thing, but my point is that we need a damned D! People want to keep arguing about a QB, when that's a no **** argument... but again... tell me where there's one just lying around? I'd love one, but it's not happening right now... AND the only way to get to the SB is to make the playoffs.. we are closer as an O to get there, but on D we're HORRENDOUS! Get a D, lots and lots of D.

What?!?! He didn't make our O better? Did you watch any games this year? The O was lightyears better with Fitz under Center. Another simple to the point fact... Defenses won both Conference title games yesterday. not only held the opposition to under their avg scoring, BUT also scored the winning points in each game, lol... Don't hate me because of the facts peeps... just embrace them!

There's plenty of logic. Just because you choose to be ignorant and not read and or see them is your issue not mine. Here's a quick no **** fact for you. Scoring Defense Rankings (PPG) 1. Pitt (14.5) 2. GB (15.0) 28. B-Lo (26.6) Scoring Offense Rankings 10. GB (24.3) 12. Pitt (23.4) 28. B-Lo (17.7) Somehow the teams with the two BEST scoring Defenses are in the SB... no logic there at all. I included the Bills totals there as well. As you can see, if Pitt or GB had Buffalo's "high scoring attack" led by Fitz, they'd still be outscoring their opponents because their defense kicks ass. The same would be true if Buffalo had a kick ass defense like Pitt or GB, we'd be outscoring our opponents even with Fitzmagic. Do we still need to upgrade the QB position? Sure, no argument, but upgrade the D first. It's pretty "logical" that we do.

Yes... it should be closed. Here's a cool final thought on the matter from BJ Raji: "How fitting is it to be a Green Bay Packer and win the championship with defense? That sums it up right there," said the 337-pound Raji, who picked off Hanie for a TD that put Green Bay up 21-7. Link: http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Big-D-leads-Green-Bay-Packers-to-Big-D-06546564 Funny to see where this thread went, and so cool to see both games yesterday be decided with defensive TD's, lol... I guess great D isn't important to some, but I'll take in all day long. Actually he didn't compare him to Hanie anymore than he compared him to Cutler. He's comparing the positon of QB. No argument with the "team" winning championships, and the QB being important. Tell me where a fanchise QB is just hanging around right now? There isn't one, unless you all think that "single read" Newton is your man, or maybe "Drew II" Mallett...? Hell, who knows if they will be, BUT you're wanting to pull the trigger on an unknown when our weakest link (by far) on this team is team defense? Get a D... get a RT and get a TE, THEN lets evaluate the QB position. Maybe we can land some FA's on D so it will be of less importance to us on draft day, then you can all be happy with one of the above mentioned QB's being taken well ahead of where they should be.

I agree with the exception that I would say Rodgers is a franchise QB too. Funny thing is... I've been saying the SAME thing you just said this whole thread, but people just dont want to see it.

Not really since the better D won, AND the franchise QB needed a DEFENSIVE TD to win... PLUS... a no name QB came in and did what the "supposed franchise QB" couldn't... HENCE my original statement about the NEED for a franchise QB. Anything else out of you?

Lol... I think the point is sooo many people keep yapping about Cutler is a franchise QB, but he couldn't do anything against the Packers, and Hanie comes in and almost pulls it out.

Lol... this is "logical"? What if my Defense overpowers your Offense? Now where is your arguement? Of course there's more than O vs D. I think a fair breakout would be 40% O, 40% D and 20% ST, if you want to just look at on the field variables. Lots of hole there... LOTS! Again... this wasn't supposed to be an O vs D thread. It's commonly known that you need playmakers on both sides of the ball and need to be balanced with very good overall offenses, defenses and Special Teams. I feel we're pretty good at QB, not great and there's no QB to take at #3. We have gaping holes on D though... GAPING! That's wher we need to focus our sights on the draft. We either stay at #3 and pick up a Fairley/Bowers/Dareus, or if they can trade back and get additional picks and still get their savior at QB, that's ok too... but... hit the D as much as you can through FA and the draft!

Awesome stuff!

One last tidbit from our own Chan Gailey in a recent SI interview. A Quarterback Summary (From Chan Gailey HC, Buffalo Bills) "With all four of these guys, all you can do is go by what they have done. And so far, Ben is the only one of those four who has won the whole shebang. He's the one guy that has done it. The rest of them are trying to do it. And that's the true test of all these guys, and all quarterbacks. "Aaron's been more through the fire than anyone except for Ben, because he's been around for a while. But with Cutler and Sanchez, it's the sort of thing where they're taking steps in their career. If they get to the next step, we'll find out even more about them. Sounds an AWEFUL lot like what I've been saying... "At this level of the playoffs, you learn a lot about quarterbacks. If you're fragile and you have a bad game, it can hit you hard and affect you for a long time. It really can. If you don't handle it the right way, it can knock you back and knock your career back. But the guys still playing at this point in the playoffs, they get rewarded for playing well. The guys who take it all the way in the playoffs, and lead their team and get to the Super Bowl, those quarterbacks get rewarded. But there's only one guy that gets to do that every year. "As well as they've four guys have played this year, don't let one other thing get lost in this, and that being there are four pretty good defenses playing this week. Between the Steelers, Jets, Packers and Bears, I'll bet you they're all in the top 10 on defense. [They're all in the top 9 in yards allowed.] That really helps a quarterback. You don't have to score 36 points a week to win. If he makes a mistake, he knows his defense will stop them and he'll get another chance. Not having to score every time he gets the ball, you can't imagine how much that helps a quarterback do his job.'' Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/don_banks/01/20/chan-gailey-breakdown/index.html#ixzz1BojGKUW8 OMG... this is TOO damned funny. Any of you NOT understand the importance of the D yet?? We have Fitz... he can "manage" a game, and/or go out and win one himself from time to time... he's proven that with THIS Bills team. Load up the D and lets see what happens...

I think they will try to stay versitle and run both. Moats seems like more of a threat at the 3-4, but I think he can still be effective in the 4-3. What will be interesting to me is... will they feel "good" about their D with Williams and maybe Stroud on the inside, and Troup, Johnson and Carrington, etc at DE? If they do I can see either a trade down or Patrick Peterson in our future...

Just awesome. Here's to you Mike Hamby!

Hopefully Wanny uses his knowledge and pull to get some top flight D players in here...

I love your bolded stuff above... nothing like skewing the facts to try to make a point, lol. "Well, the Bears have the top rated O when passing from the left side of the field, on grass, at night on Thursdays against left handed Safeties wearing two different shoes..." OMG man, really? I wont even try to disprove ball control... that's HUGE, but moreso because of a great line and rushing attack.

I have provided stats and facts... all you rebut is "you are funny McD, it isn't right because I said so, blah, blah, blah... It's humerous man. Team balance is huge, and QB play is the most important position on the field... no argument. But you cant group Cutler and Sanchez in the "franchise" QB role without giving Fitz his due. No... I don't think Fitz is a franchise QB, BUT his stats match up with those two, AND he did it with a less spectacular cast on both sides of the ball. Saying all of that, I will still say that we dont NEED a QB at #3... I'll say it again... NOT at #3. BTW... check out the bolded **** above Ahhhh, but IF he only had a good defense!

As far as this post goes, out of the final 4 teams... There is 1 team in the Top 10 in O (GB at #9 in yds against per game, and #10 in scoring O), but ALL 4 are kick ass on D... 4 of the Top 6 on scoring D, and 4 of the Top 9 in yds against per game.

Now this is pretty funny. Did you read the article? It's filled with the author mentioning time and time again how HE determined to use statistics based upon what HE thought was best. Here's one of his comments: * Why top 16? I wanted to cover the top half of the first round, and anything below that gets distorted. For example, if a No. 20 overall quarterback starts and plays well (but not on a Pro Bowl level) for only 4-5 seasons, is he considered a bust? A top-16 quarterback would be, but a guy who is taken No. 20 isn't expected to be a perennial Pro Bowler or anything. OMG, that's hilarious!!! A guy taken 4 spots later in the 1st round isn't expected to be an impact player, lol are you serious?!?! What you're reading is his own agenda... lol too funny. He lists BJ Raji as TBA... he had a very good year in his second season. I's label him "ok" AT WORST. So maybe the info is a year dated, so I'll cut him some slack. C'mon man!

Man, no wonder your name and avatar is Gumby... you're so damned flexible. Ok... I NEVER changed my stance. I have always wanted a defensive player taken first because Luck (the "obvious savior") isn't there and Newton, nor Mallett should be picked that high. What I did say was that I'd be ok to trade back and get a Newton/Mallett for the right pick. And, if we can get some additional D players as well, then you tell me why it isn't a win-win? Of course, what does Newton/Mallett do for you right now? I dont think they give you much for a few years, BUT I'm ok with that IF we use the trade down scenario and pick up additional picks that can be used to fill our gaping holes on D, while letting them get seasoned behind Fitz. So.. I'm looking for ADDITIONAL D picks and you say I'm changing my stance, lol... Very well stated... brief and to the point. Luck isn't there... our D needs lots of help.

Way to jump in... 10 pages later. I didn't BLAME the QB's... if anything I blamed their D, which wasn't up to par. He's the thing... I don't think that Brady or Manning LOST the game... I think that the Jets defense WON the game... my entire point EXACTLY! Lol, I love when people can prove my point without me even saying anything... awesome! What's with the man crush on Cutler? Why is he a franchise QB and Fitz isn't (going by numbers and all)?