OL or QB?

[GrudginglyPessimistic]

I think the clear correct answer is NEITHER.

 

Don't get me wrong. I think it is a question worth asking and even answering as it is an interesting question since the answers do reveal something about team building philosophy. However, it is the clear recognition that this is a TEAM game and the winners are separated from the losers by their ability to actually build and keep together a team which picks up for each other (unless the QB you pick happens to be more than a mere mortal which they all were last time I checked even Joe Montana who is probably the best I ever saw).

 

The great TEAMs are separated from the good teams because they in fact were TEAMs that somehow developed an elevated level of consistent play which made them better than the rest for a significant period of time.

 

Those who want to claim it is simply a great QB that is the essential element need look no further than their non-example of Peyton Manning (who is a non-example because if your strategy depends on being able to pick him then fuggaboutit since a QB of this quality comes along once in a decade or so).

 

Manning was simply incapable of delivering an SB win to his team until Indy put the team over the top with the completion of the puzzle by getting a D-minded motivational wizard like Dungy. Even merely was the missing puzzle piece to build upon having a great GM, outstanding running from Edggerin and a host of fill-ins, the acquisition of Sanders to make the Cover 2 work, an outstanding kicker in Vanderjagt, and a zillion other puzzle pieces that proved essential to get this team an SB just once.

 

Likewise looking at one of the other best ever QBs Brady, does your team building strategy really depend upon somehow scarfing up a QB of his quality after you and every other team in the league passed on him 6 or so times. Does it depend on the essential element of your stud QB who contractually could not be benched for a couple of years even by Bellichek and Weis getting a collapsed lung. Most of all does it depend upon this stud but young QB finding his way onto a true TEAM which was introduced together at the SB (they lucked into with a bizarre ref call) who picked up for each other when the young QB was clearly talented beyond all expectations but was an incomplete player no matter how good you want to claim he was.

 

IMHO, the key is actually having a winning owner (which the Bills do not consistently have and this is our prime problem as he miscalculated badly with his QB assessment leading to a handshake deal only he could make with Jimbo- the prime thing which has killed this team in its 0 for a decade playoff-less streak is that Ralph has exercised his ownership right to meddle and supercede his football experts in a fruitless search for the next Jimbo which has led to team killing mistakes on rushing TC, the Billy Joe Hobert disaster, over-committing to RJ, under-commiting (and then over paying DF), not quitting when we had a wash of one very good and one very bad season with Bledsoe and then mismanaging the development of JP.

 

Yes Virginia QB is important but it is far more likely to be important by producing a singular disaster (we have done this in a number of ways and witnessed the Harrington and other single handed team killing disasters that a singlular focus on QB usually brings).

 

I think the rule is that the answer to the question of which is more important OL or QB is that the clear answer is that it is neither as the best teams need an OL and QB who compliment each other (great QBs make a merely adequate and maybe even a sub-adequate OL very good and a very good OL can make an adequate and sometimes a sub-adequate QB good enough).

 

However, the general rule is that the great QB comes along once in a Manning/Brady/(RoboQB maybe) while and the false great QBs come along with far more Harrington/Leaf/Losman like frequency to make banking on getting a great QB a pretty silly strategy for team building.

 

This team needs to do something and pick somebody though and this I think is the most reasonable order based on reality:

 

1. Get a GM with proven talent and give him the reins- There are numerous candidates out there who were central as GM or HC to actually winning the SB and we appear to be trying to get one (this is good). Mr. Ralph actually has shown a willingness to give the car keys to a GM (TD) and actually his fault there was not doing even the fairly obvious checking and balancing TD needed.

 

2. Let the GM hire the HC of his choice. One of the big pieces of foolishness of Bills fans has recently been stupidly blaming the bad Jauron for our problems. Yes he was bad but he was not responsible for the majority of the 0 for the decade failure and merely replacing him is simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

 

3. One needs to do only 1 thing first so the QB vs. OL question is real. However, the simple reality is that this team and the entire league has a pretty clear record of doing fatal damage to a team with the QB focus and actually SB winning QBs can be found later in the draft. it really depends not on the individual but on the mix if you want to be real about this question.

 

Myself I like the trenches.

[Rock'em Sock'em]

Draft a franchise quartback if one is there. They don't come along too often. Otherwise LB and OL are the biggest holes to fill. I'd prefer LB in the draft and OL in FA.

[fansince88]

I think the clear correct answer is NEITHER.

 

Don't get me wrong. I think it is a question worth asking and even answering as it is an interesting question since the answers do reveal something about team building philosophy. However, it is the clear recognition that this is a TEAM game and the winners are separated from the losers by their ability to actually build and keep together a team which picks up for each other (unless the QB you pick happens to be more than a mere mortal which they all were last time I checked even Joe Montana who is probably the best I ever saw).

 

The great TEAMs are separated from the good teams because they in fact were TEAMs that somehow developed an elevated level of consistent play which made them better than the rest for a significant period of time.

 

Those who want to claim it is simply a great QB that is the essential element need look no further than their non-example of Peyton Manning (who is a non-example because if your strategy depends on being able to pick him then fuggaboutit since a QB of this quality comes along once in a decade or so).

 

Manning was simply incapable of delivering an SB win to his team until Indy put the team over the top with the completion of the puzzle by getting a D-minded motivational wizard like Dungy. Even merely was the missing puzzle piece to build upon having a great GM, outstanding running from Edggerin and a host of fill-ins, the acquisition of Sanders to make the Cover 2 work, an outstanding kicker in Vanderjagt, and a zillion other puzzle pieces that proved essential to get this team an SB just once.

 

Likewise looking at one of the other best ever QBs Brady, does your team building strategy really depend upon somehow scarfing up a QB of his quality after you and every other team in the league passed on him 6 or so times. Does it depend on the essential element of your stud QB who contractually could not be benched for a couple of years even by Bellichek and Weis getting a collapsed lung. Most of all does it depend upon this stud but young QB finding his way onto a true TEAM which was introduced together at the SB (they lucked into with a bizarre ref call) who picked up for each other when the young QB was clearly talented beyond all expectations but was an incomplete player no matter how good you want to claim he was.

 

IMHO, the key is actually having a winning owner (which the Bills do not consistently have and this is our prime problem as he miscalculated badly with his QB assessment leading to a handshake deal only he could make with Jimbo- the prime thing which has killed this team in its 0 for a decade playoff-less streak is that Ralph has exercised his ownership right to meddle and supercede his football experts in a fruitless search for the next Jimbo which has led to team killing mistakes on rushing TC, the Billy Joe Hobert disaster, over-committing to RJ, under-commiting (and then over paying DF), not quitting when we had a wash of one very good and one very bad season with Bledsoe and then mismanaging the development of JP.

 

Yes Virginia QB is important but it is far more likely to be important by producing a singular disaster (we have done this in a number of ways and witnessed the Harrington and other single handed team killing disasters that a singlular focus on QB usually brings).

 

I think the rule is that the answer to the question of which is more important OL or QB is that the clear answer is that it is neither as the best teams need an OL and QB who compliment each other (great QBs make a merely adequate and maybe even a sub-adequate OL very good and a very good OL can make an adequate and sometimes a sub-adequate QB good enough).

 

However, the general rule is that the great QB comes along once in a Manning/Brady/(RoboQB maybe) while and the false great QBs come along with far more Harrington/Leaf/Losman like frequency to make banking on getting a great QB a pretty silly strategy for team building.

 

This team needs to do something and pick somebody though and this I think is the most reasonable order based on reality:

 

1. Get a GM with proven talent and give him the reins- There are numerous candidates out there who were central as GM or HC to actually winning the SB and we appear to be trying to get one (this is good). Mr. Ralph actually has shown a willingness to give the car keys to a GM (TD) and actually his fault there was not doing even the fairly obvious checking and balancing TD needed.

 

2. Let the GM hire the HC of his choice. One of the big pieces of foolishness of Bills fans has recently been stupidly blaming the bad Jauron for our problems. Yes he was bad but he was not responsible for the majority of the 0 for the decade failure and merely replacing him is simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

 

3. One needs to do only 1 thing first so the QB vs. OL question is real. However, the simple reality is that this team and the entire league has a pretty clear record of doing fatal damage to a team with the QB focus and actually SB winning QBs can be found later in the draft. it really depends not on the individual but on the mix if you want to be real about this question.

 

Myself I like the trenches.

Well said.Correct me if I'm wrong but are you saying focus on building by keeping the pieces that you have and developing the players into a team? I believe we are seeing that this year. Call me insane but I feel if we take the positives we have and add to them in the draft Bills will become a team. Over the last few years the team would build by letting the glimmers of hope they had go in FA. Had we kept them we would have had a team.

[VADC Bills]

Draft a franchise quartback if one is there. They don't come along too often. Otherwise LB and OL are the biggest holes to fill. I'd prefer LB in the draft and OL in FA.

Agreed. I would spend most of the draft picks building our lines on both sides of the ball. I like LB McLain in the 1st. The rest of the picks should be OL and DL picks. Lets draft for size, strength and speed. Most importantly let draft people for there natural positions, no more tweeners. If Clausen or Pike happen to be available I might go for one but a FA QB would give us a better chance to win quickly.

[thewildrabbit]

Hey Joe, look at who you are talking to...thewildrabbit, who is the same guy that said this:

So what do you expect...lmao

And your the same guy who defended Dick Jauron for countless pages in one thread...lmao

 

I consider the source when I see a post of yours and realize you just like to argue over nothing most of the time and still don't understand why I made that statement about Joe Montana, which BTW, you took out of context.

 

I think its great that you show how dense you are every time you post, I'm proud I made that statement and strongly believe it.

 

QUOTE (thewildrabbit @ Sep 4 2009, 06:16 PM) If Joe Montana had played for Detroit or the Cardinals in the 80's the guy would have become just another obscure has-been.

 

My point about Montana was that he played for a HoF head coach and started in the best offensive scheme for pro football for the last 30 years. The west coast offense has been copied successfully over and over to produce some of the best teams and QB's in NFL history.

 

You really think that if Montana had gone to a scrub team in the 80's with a bad O line, that they would have gone to the super bowl and won it 4 times and built the best offense the NFL has even seen?

[sharper802]

Whats more important?

 

Let the debate begin!

OLB then OL then QB

[thewildrabbit]

This is either just ignorant or a bald-faced lie. Tom Brady MADE that OL what it is. It was the same OL that got Drew Bledsoe killed. Brady comes in and changes how it looks ENTIRELY. That's not a coincidence. And then, when Brady was out last year, Cassell was among the MOST sacked QBs in the league. Sorry, your argument is weak at best.

Another poster who likes to take things out of context, my post stated this:

 

The Patriots and Colts have two of the best O lines in the NFL and you may have never heard of their linemen because Payton Manning / Tom Brady and their receivers get all the press. Both those QB's are two of the least sacked QB's in the NFL because they both have decent experienced offensive lines.

 

I never compared Bledsoe to Brady, or stated the O line doesn't look better with Brady behind it. Again, some of you guys are obsessed with sack stats. Seriously, what do sacks mean if the guy is still able to get his team to a winning record.

 

So he took more sacks then Tom Brady does, well yeah, he was learning to play pro football.

The point about Cassell is that he started the season horrifically and ended up taking the team to 11-5 record, and looked so good at the end of the season he was offered a huge contract by another team. He was a player who never played college ball, these statements seem lost on a few of you.

[Peter]

bull ****.

 

See: The NE offensive line that protected (er I mean KILLED) Bledsoe and Brady in the same year. First few games = dreadful. Rest of season = Super Bowl.

 

A good QB (Brady, Roethlisberger, Ryan) can make an average to bad OL look like the Hawgs. A bad QB (Bledsoe, and innumerable others) can make a average to good OL look like hot stacks of dung.

 

As I recall, Bledsoe was hurt on a play when he was running up the sideline.

 

 

He also helped win a game for them in the playoffs that year.

[McBeane]

Easy. Suh.

[iinii]

Whats more important?

 

Let the debate begin!

Chicken? Egg?

[Alphadawg7]

I think its great that you show how dense you are every time you post, I'm proud I made that statement and strongly believe it.

 

QUOTE (thewildrabbit @ Sep 4 2009, 06:16 PM) If Joe Montana had played for Detroit or the Cardinals in the 80's the guy would have become just another obscure has-been.

 

My point about Montana was that he played for a HoF head coach and started in the best offensive scheme for pro football for the last 30 years. The west coast offense has been copied successfully over and over to produce some of the best teams and QB's in NFL history.

 

You really think that if Montana had gone to a scrub team in the 80's with a bad O line, that they would have gone to the super bowl and won it 4 times and built the best offense the NFL has even seen?

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA...You dont have a CLUE about what you are talking about...News flash Eintstein...Montanna WENT TO A SCRUB TEAM named the 49ers...Let me show you how stupid that statement is:

 

In the 3 years before the drafted Joe the 49ers record was 14-34, including going 1-15 the year before they drafted Joe dumbass...in 1979, Joe had only 23 pass attempts as the backup QB his rookie year. Year two, he didnt get a chance to start until after mid season and they finished 6-10. In year 3, his FIRST year as a full time starter to begin the year, he led the 49ers to a 13-3 record and a SUPER BOWL win where he was the Super Bowl MVP...this is a team that won ONE GAME 3 years earlier when they drafted him!!!

 

They were garbage BEFORE he got there, and he won his first Super Bowl for them in his THIRD year (which was his FIRST year he entered the season as the starting QB) and that was WITHOUT Jerry Rice as he hadnt been drafted yet!!! Not to mention, he took KC at the end of his career to the AFC Championship game...as the rest of your quote said he was a bust in KC when he played two years, both getting them to the playoffs and once to the AFC championship game...

 

I have seen some dumb things on here, but you proudly proclaiming Joe Montana would have been "some obscure has been" if he was drafted by these other teams (who were in better shape than the 49ers at the time Joe was drafted) is by far the dumbest thing EVER posted on here...you defending it now is even dumber...congratulations on achieving a level of supreme stupidity the may never be topped...

[GrudginglyPessimistic]

Well said.Correct me if I'm wrong but are you saying focus on building by keeping the pieces that you have and developing the players into a team? I believe we are seeing that this year. Call me insane but I feel if we take the positives we have and add to them in the draft Bills will become a team. Over the last few years the team would build by letting the glimmers of hope they had go in FA. Had we kept them we would have had a team.

What I am saying is that rebuilding this team should start at the top by getting the best GM (one whp was integrally involved in building a past SB winner is likely a good candidate).

 

I then have that GM pick an HC that reflects his team building strategy and

 

3. he then takes the best and leaves the rest not only of the players but of the coaching staff and FO of the Bills.

 

I will provide my cut on who is a best (or developmental best) we should keep and whom we should let go.

[thewildrabbit]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA...You dont have a CLUE about what you are talking about...News flash Eintstein...Montanna WENT TO A SCRUB TEAM named the 49ers...Let me show you how stupid that statement is:

 

In the 3 years before the drafted Joe the 49ers record was 14-34, including going 1-15 the year before they drafted Joe dumbass...in 1979,

 

They were garbage BEFORE he got there,

This entire section of your post is irrelevant...What the 49ers did before 1979 is irrelevant because BILL WALSH didn't take the job as head coach until that year!!!!

 

BTW, who is Eintstein...Montanna?

[thewildrabbit]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA...You dont have a CLUE about what you are talking about...News flash Eintstein...Montanna WENT TO A SCRUB TEAM named the 49ers...Let me show you how stupid that statement is:

 

In the 3 years before the drafted Joe the 49ers record was 14-34, including going 1-15 the year before they drafted Joe dumbass...in 1979, Joe had only 23 pass attempts as the backup QB his rookie year. Year two, he didnt get a chance to start until after mid season and they finished 6-10. In year 3, his FIRST year as a full time starter to begin the year, he led the 49ers to a 13-3 record and a SUPER BOWL win where he was the Super Bowl MVP...this is a team that won ONE GAME 3 years earlier when they drafted him!!!

 

They were garbage BEFORE he got there, and he won his first Super Bowl for them in his THIRD year (which was his FIRST year he entered the season as the starting QB) and that was WITHOUT Jerry Rice as he hadnt been drafted yet!!! Not to mention, he took KC at the end of his career to the AFC Championship game...as the rest of your quote said he was a bust in KC when he played two years, both getting them to the playoffs and once to the AFC championship game...

 

I have seen some dumb things on here, but you proudly proclaiming Joe Montana would have been "some obscure has been" if he was drafted by these other teams (who were in better shape than the 49ers at the time Joe was drafted) is by far the dumbest thing EVER posted on here...you defending it now is even dumber...congratulations on achieving a level of supreme stupidity the may never be topped...

And yet again you show how truly dense you are because you refuse to understand what others are saying. I'll try and go slow so you may get it, maybe not though as your pretty darn dense. You completely dismissed everything I stated about Bill Walsh because your so fixated that someone might be saying Joe Montana might be something other then a SB winning QB.

 

What the 49ers did before 1979 is irrelevant because BILL WALSH didn't take the job as head coach until that year!!!!

You know Bill Walsh, the HoF head coach who invented the "west coast offense". My point about Montana was that he played for a HoF head coach and started in the best offensive scheme for pro football for the last 30 years. The west coast offense has been copied successfully over and over to produce some of the best teams and QB's in NFL history.

 

Just some of the QB's to win with the west coast offense John Elway-Brett Farve-Joe Montana-Steve Young-Rich Gannon-Matt Hasslebeck-Donavon McNabb-Aaron Rodgers.

 

Just to point out Rich Gannon didn't fair well in the old system until Jon Gruden got to Oakland with the west coast offense.

 

Let me give you a hint as to why I made the statement about Montana, take a long hard look at Steve Young and what he did at Tampa Bay on a crap team, behind a crap O line. Both years the Buc's went 2-14 with Young as QB. What would have happened had Steve Young stayed on that Tampa Bay team instead of going to the 49ers, would anyone even remember him?

Young's record as starter was 3–16. In his 19 games, he threw for only 11 touchdowns with 21 interceptions while completing fewer than 55% of his passes.

[8-8 Forever?]

A good QB can make plays with a bad line. A bad QB will suck no matter what kind of line he plays with.

 

Need both, unfortunately. The two positions hardest to draft accurately and the two needed the most. Gosh it stinks to be a bills fan. Gonna be a long time before this team is any good.

[cale]

For the Buffalo Bills, it is a Left Tackle.

 

With that being said, how is this Pike kid from Cincy? He looks like a pretty good QB at a #5 school, and the offense looks very pro-like.

 

I admit to knowing nothing about college football, but he looks like a pretty good prospect from a colder weather/ northern climate school.

 

I don't watch much college football but I like what little I've seen of Pike. He isn't very mobile - he'd get killed behind this line. But his frame is big enough to take a licking and keep on tickin'...

 

I'd rather draft/sign a LT first.

 

C

[Alphadawg7]

And yet again you show how truly dense you are because you refuse to understand what others are saying. I'll try and go slow so you may get it, maybe not though as your pretty darn dense. You completely dismissed everything I stated about Bill Walsh because your so fixated that someone might be saying Joe Montana might be something other then a SB winning QB.

 

What the 49ers did before 1979 is irrelevant because BILL WALSH didn't take the job as head coach until that year!!!!

You know Bill Walsh, the HoF head coach who invented the "west coast offense". My point about Montana was that he played for a HoF head coach and started in the best offensive scheme for pro football for the last 30 years. The west coast offense has been copied successfully over and over to produce some of the best teams and QB's in NFL history.

 

Just some of the QB's to win with the west coast offense John Elway-Brett Farve-Joe Montana-Steve Young-Rich Gannon-Matt Hasslebeck-Donavon McNabb-Aaron Rodgers.

 

Just to point out Rich Gannon didn't fair well in the old system until Jon Gruden got to Oakland with the west coast offense.

 

Let me give you a hint as to why I made the statement about Montana, take a long hard look at Steve Young and what he did at Tampa Bay on a crap team, behind a crap O line. Both years the Buc's went 2-14 with Young as QB. What would have happened had Steve Young stayed on that Tampa Bay team instead of going to the 49ers, would anyone even remember him?

Young's record as starter was 3–16. In his 19 games, he threw for only 11 touchdowns with 21 interceptions while completing fewer than 55% of his passes.

 

You are either too stupid or too dense to talk to anymore about this. Anyone who wants to proclaim Joe Montana a "systems" quarterback is not worth the time. I bet you that you didnt even watch football long enough to even see him play...You are probably not even old enough to have been watching football in his hey day which does adds to how stupid you are trying to even argue it...

 

One last thing on how stupid your posts are...if Joe Montana would have been an "obsure has been" if not for Bill Walsh's system, why did he go to KC at the END of his career and take them to the AFC championship game in his first year and back to the playoffs his second year when they werent running the west coast offense and had light years less talent on that offense than the 49ers did at that time?

 

Now you want to point at Steve Young too and say he is a system QB by throwig out his stats from his frist 2 years in the league in which he played on what is regarded as one of the worst teams in NFL histroy?

 

Man, just stop already...like I said before, you have reached a supreme level of stupidity with this argument that may never be topped.

[thewildrabbit]

Now you want to point at Steve Young too and say he is a system QB by throwig out his stats from his frist 2 years in the league in which he played on what is regarded as one of the worst teams in NFL histroy?

Before you call others stupid and dumb, either learn to spell or get a spell checker.

 

 

The entire point of this thread is OL or QB, and so many posters here have stated that any good QB can overcome an inferior O Line.

 

I'm pointing out that Steve Young was horrid at Tampa Bay for two years behind a crappy O line and on a crappy team, doesn't this reinforce my point that an O line is important?

 

Both years the Buc's went 2-14 with Young as QB,Young's record as starter was 3–16. In his 19 games, he threw for only 11 touchdowns with 21 interceptions while completing fewer than 55% of his passes.

 

It also reinforces my point I made about Joe Montana playing on a bad team, you just refuse to acknowledge it.

[thewildrabbit]

One last thing on how stupid your posts are...if Joe Montana would have been an "obsure has been" if not for Bill Walsh's system, why did he go to KC at the END of his career and take them to the AFC championship game in his first year and back to the playoffs his second year when they werent running the west coast offense and had light years less talent on that offense than the 49ers did at that time?

FYI,Joe was traded to the Chiefs in 1993, to an already playoff team where Marty Schottenheimer was head coach and all they really lacked was a decent QB, the starter in 1992 was Dave Krieg. The Chiefs were hoping that Montana would take them to the SB, he didn't.

 

KC 1989 8 7 1 .533 2^nd in AFC West - - - - KC 1990 11 5 0 .688 2^nd in AFC West 0 1 .000 Lost to Miami Dolphins in Wild Card Game. KC 1991 10 6 0 .625 2^nd in AFC West 1 1 .500 Lost to Buffalo Bills in Divisional Game. KC 1992 10 6 0 .625 2^nd in AFC West 0 1 .000 Lost to San Diego Chargers in Wild Card Game. KC 1993 11 5 0 .688 1^st in AFC West 2 1 .667 Lost to Buffalo Bills in AFC Championship. KC 1994 9 7 0 .563 2^nd in AFC West 0 1 .000 Lost to Miami Dolphins in AFC Wild-Card Game. KC 1995 13 3 0 .813 1^st in AFC West 0 1 .000 Lost to Indianapolis Colts in AFC Divisional Game. KC 1996 9 7 0 .563 2^st in AFC West - - - - KC 1997 13 3 0 .813 1^st in AFC West 0 1 .000

 

Try and understand why I'm saying, I never stated Montana was a bad QB. I stated in other posts he was one of the legends of football and one of the greatest QB's to ever play the game.

 

If he had gone to Tampa Bay, Detroit, St Louis or any other crap team in the 80's, I highly doubt they win a SB, much less get there.

[Alphadawg7]

Try and understand why I'm saying, I never stated Montana was a bad QB. I stated in other posts he was one of the legends of football and one of the greatest QB's to ever play the game.

 

If he had gone to Tampa Bay, Detroit, St Louis or any other crap team in the 80's, I highly doubt they win a SB, much less get there.

 

No, that is NOT what you are saying and have stood by the statement that Joe Montana would have been an "obsucre has been" had he gone somewhere else. You have time and time again attributed ALL of his success to Bill Walsh and the west coast offense.