Brees more proof....Always take your QB FIRST

[thebandit27]

Bandit, you presume "the right one" is available. If the next Peyton Manning drops to the Bills at No. 9, of COURSE they should take him ... but we've also seen what happens when a desperate team says, "We need a franchise QB," and reaches for a guy who can't fill those shoes. Once Roethlisomething's name came off the board in 2004, the Bills would have been better served to stay put and draft for value instead of panicking and trading up for Losman. That's the mistake I don't want them to repeat this year.

 

Make no mistake, Lori, I'm not saying that Buffalo needs to draft a QB this year. I'm simply taking issue with the idea that the OL needs to be in place before you get your franchise QB. I firmly believe that you get the most important piece of the puzzle first. Obviously, if they don't feel that the right guy is available at 9, they shouldn't take a QB just to take one. From that perspective, I agree with you. I'd hate to see them get it wrong again as well.

 

However, if a team--any team--has the choice between a potential franchise offensive lineman and a potential franchise QB (assuming they had a dire need at both positions...as Buffalo does), they should take the QB without hesitation.

 

Of course, I'm the guy that thinks that a team without a great QB should draft one every year until they find one...while it may seem excessive, I just happen to think it's that important.

[Guest dog14787]

No, 1 team out of 32 does not prove me wrong. Besides, the Jets had the same OL as last year, but they got better QB play this year, as a young Sanchez played better than an injured Favre, and they made the playoffs. And they lost to a team with a lesser OL and a better QB.

 

And as to their wins in the playoffs, it's not a coincidence that the Jets won 2 games in which Sanchez outplayed the opposing QBs (Palmer and Rivers).

 

As to Indy and NO, did they really have the best OLs, or do they just have QBs that know how to read a blitz, throw to a hot option, make blocking adjustments, get rid of the ball quickly, move effectively within the pocket, etc.? You think that if Indy really had one of the best OLs in the NFL they would have been dead last in rushing (both in ypc and ypg)? Is New Orleans line so much better than Buffalo's because they average 4.5 rushing yards per carry vs. Buffalo's 4.4?

 

 

Look at it this way, until we can protect our QB properly, the star QB you think is magically going to fix all of our problems isn't going to do squat until you give him a good O-line.

[PDaDdy]

I just want all of the "OL makes the QB" supporters to answer one question honestly:

 

Put any Bills QB since Jim Kelly behind either New Orleans' or Indy's o-line, and you think you get the same result?

 

Now, the corollary:

 

Put either Drew Brees or Peyton Manning behind Buffalo's o-line, and you think you get the same result?

 

I'm sure most of you already know my opinion on the subject, but just in case you don't, the answers are "NO" and "NO".

 

I've made the argument dozens of times on this board, and nobody's ever refuted it with any kind of evidence: look at the most sacked QBs in the league in 2009, and you'll see names like Rodgers, Roethlisberger, Romo, McNabb, and Favre in the top 10. All lead passing offenses that ranked in the top 10 in the NFL, and only 1 had a running game that ranked in the top 12 (Romo). The other running games all ranked within 4 rushing yards/game of Buffalo (save for Philadelphia, who's running game was significantly worse than Buffalo's).

 

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?sea...mp;d-447263-n=1

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?tab...mp;d-447263-n=1

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?tab...mp;d-447263-n=1

 

The bottom line, as I see it, is that a good QB can do things like make reads quickly, get rid of the ball quickly, adjust protection schemes, read blitzes, connect with a hot route, hit a receiver before it's obvious to the entire breathing world that he's open, etc. Great QBs do this regardless of the play of their OL, which leads me to believe that it's much more important to get the right QB than it is to prioritize getting a great OL before you get such a QB. My ideal example of this was the 2007 Falcons. They gave up 49 sacks and were a putrid 3-13. Had they prioritized getting an OL first, they would've missed out on drafting Matt Ryan, who was the single biggest contributor to their remarkable turnaround in 2008. Now, they also traded back into round 1 to draft LT Sam Baker (who started 7 games as a rookie), but clearly Atlanta made drafting a QB the priority. Ditto for Baltimore in 2007, who gave up 39 sacks (13 more than Buffalo) and lost their future HOF LT Jonathan Ogden to retirement. They went with a 5th round supplemental draft pick (Jared Gaither) at LT and traded out of the top 10 to draft Joe Flacco, and that worked out pretty well for them.

 

My point here is that getting the right QB should trump every other personnel move. You can have an outstanding OL, but sooner or later it's QB play that makes the difference. Sure, you'll see the occasional anomoly like this year's Baltimore-NE playoff game, but--overwhelmingly--the great QB wins when it matters, not the great OL.

 

Even take yesterday's game as an example. Which OL played better? To the naked eye, I would have said it was pretty even, but I'd give the edge to the Colts, since they clearly had better run blocking. But as far as stats are concerend, Indy rushed for an average of 5.21 ypc and Peyton Manning was never even knocked down. New Orleans rushed for 2.83 ypc and Brees suffered the games only sacked and was knocked down several other times. By all things measurable, Indy's OL played the better game. But Brees played better than Manning, and the Saints won.

 

It's a QB's league folks, and if a team has the chance to get the right one, they should do it, regardless of their OL situation.

 

EDIT: I'd also like to throw out the example of the 2007 Patriots vs. the 2008 Patriots. The 2007 team had Tom Brady and went 16-0 while allowing only 21 sacks (5 fewer than Buffalo's OL that year), while the 2008 team didn't have Brady and went 11-5 (5 fewer victories) and allowed 48 sacks (10 more than Buffalo) with the same OL as in 2007.

 

Now I'm certain there will be those of you that want to throw out every example, but before you do, please provide me with the example that proves your point.

 

 

We probably agree 95% but the devil is in the details and that last 5%. The NFL is a passing league now. Sacks can come along with that especially when you consider some of those QBs, like Farve, Rogers and Rethlisberger are known for holding on to the ball trying to extend the play. Another thing to consider is maybe half of those QBs were actually free agent pickups that found success with their second and sometimes 3rd team. Yet another thing to consider is that half or more of them WERE NOT FIRST ROUND PICKS!!!!!

 

It's yin and yang. You NEED both. If you see the next Favre, Manning, Brees, Roethlisberger or Rogers slam dunk in the draft...by all means draft him at #9 if he is there. I think if you are honest you will likely say that they aren't there in the draft. You can't just grab a QB because you need one and expect that there is a franchise guy in the first round when it is your turn to pick.

 

Again we agree on most everything just the order of operation.

[PDaDdy]

Make no mistake, Lori, I'm not saying that Buffalo needs to draft a QB this year. I'm simply taking issue with the idea that the OL needs to be in place before you get your franchise QB. I firmly believe that you get the most important piece of the puzzle first. Obviously, if they don't feel that the right guy is available at 9, they shouldn't take a QB just to take one. From that perspective, I agree with you. I'd hate to see them get it wrong again as well.

 

However, if a team--any team--has the choice between a potential franchise offensive lineman and a potential franchise QB (assuming they had a dire need at both positions...as Buffalo does), they should take the QB without hesitation.

 

Of course, I'm the guy that thinks that a team without a great QB should draft one every year until they find one...while it may seem excessive, I just happen to think it's that important.

 

 

Don't mean to be a jerk but that is EXACTLY why you shouldn't be a GM. You need to have good scouting and a good front office to do it efficiently instead of blowing picks for years and hoping to hit the lottery. This is what we did with Losman and Edwards. We took shots and picked guys that really didn't have what it takes and of course we have to wait 2+ years to see that each one is not the guy. If we are just taking guesses and picking a QB every year like the Lions picked WRs we could be in a world of hurt for the next 1o years.

 

If you are willing to bank on whatever QB falls to us is the next superstar...more power to you. Me? I would rather get a LT that will make our run game AND whatever QB we have back there better. Everyone including myself sometimes forgets that we also have free agency. There are a couple names out there that I would love to see in Buffalo. Along with a stud LT and some offensive ingenuity we are right back in the hunt!!!!! Bank on one of these QBs at #9 and we could likely be having the same discussion about a QB or LT 2 - 3 years from now

[thebandit27]

Look at it this way, until we can protect our QB properly, the star QB you think is magically going to fix all of our problems isn't going to do squat until you give him a good O-line.

 

It's not magic dude, it's called football. QBs succeed in this league without great protection...happens all the time. You've seen the numbers and know it's true, I don't have to re-hash them for you. I guess your definition of "isn't going to do squat" equates to making the playoffs (like the NFL's most sacked QB in 2009, Aaron Rodgers) or winning the Superbowl (like the NFL's 5th-most-sacked QB in 2008, Ben Roethlisberger)...I think I'd take that level of squat" over the current level of "squat". Just a personal preference.

[cash2cap]

I think what is worse is that when SD decided to trade away Brees, he had already proven himself with solid play on the NFL level. That fact that the Bills didnt get involved in the bidding was a joke. You trade our 1st round pick and your left testicle to get a young, proven, established NFL franchise QB. Its not like they are available all the time.

 

In 2001, Drew Brees was the "Colt McCoy" or "Tim Tebow" of this years' draft class. Obviously he was the second best QB prospect behind Vick, but unlike either Clausen or Bradford, whichever one you have ranked second this year, he had some limitations. He was only 6'0 tall and was not considered a "true first round"-worthy pick. In fact, when the Chargers took him with the first pick of the second round, I remember reading and hearing some experts accuse them of "reaching" at that early place in the draft, because they needed a QB so badly. Yeah sure, Brees was quite a "reach" wasn't he?

 

So just like with Joe Montana, Tom Brady, Brett Favre, Kurt Warner and Tony Romo, every team that had a first round pick in 2001 passed on Drew Brees. (Including the Saints!) And that simply amazes me because every year there are always at least 15 - 20 NFL teams that desperately need a true QB of the future. I understand the Ryan Leafs, Akili Smiths, Tim Couches and other classic first round QB busts make every NFL team gun-shy about investing so much money into first round QB's. But how can you not keep trying if you go 26 years between drafting Pro Bowl QB's like the Bills have?? (That is not a misprint - Kelly was drafted in 1983, and this past draft was 2009.) One Pro Bowl season out of Flutie and one Pro Bowl season out of Bledsoe, two QB's already past their prime, is not an "answer!" The Bills could have taken Brees with the number 21 pick of the 2001 draft instead of Nate Clements. What an absolute joke. Donahoe had Rob freakin' Johnson and had just decided to dump Flutie that April. And he passed on Brees. Along with every other team of course.

 

So now the Bills have another chance to draft Clausen or Bradford, or get even bolder if they are both drafted by their number 9 pick, and take McCoy or even Tebow there. Many experts and fans will mock them and call them idiots for reaching so far for McCoy or Tebow. But I would applaud them for "getting the QB first."

[thebandit27]

We probably agree 95% but the devil is in the details and that last 5%. The NFL is a passing league now. Sacks can come along with that especially when you consider some of those QBs, like Farve, Rogers and Rethlisberger are known for holding on to the ball trying to extend the play. Another thing to consider is maybe half of those QBs were actually free agent pickups that found success with their second and sometimes 3rd team. Yet another thing to consider is that half or more of them WERE NOT FIRST ROUND PICKS!!!!!

 

Umm, which ones? The teams that made the playoffs feature QBs that had at least one very successful season with their original teams:

 

Indy - Manning

SD - Rivers

NE - Brady

Cin - Palmer

Bal - Flacco

NYJ - Sanchez

NO - Brees (threw for 27 TDs and 7 INTs in his 3rd year w/ SD)

Min - Favre (ok, here's one...never played for Atlanta - got his start in GB)

GB - Rodgers

Ari - Warner (another one...never played for GB - got his start in St. L and won a SB)

Dallas - Romo

Phi - McNabb

 

And more than half were 1st round picks...andBrees was the first pick of the 2nd round.

 

It's yin and yang. You NEED both. If you see the next Favre, Manning, Brees, Roethlisberger or Rogers slam dunk in the draft...by all means draft him at #9 if he is there. I think if you are honest you will likely say that they aren't there in the draft. You can't just grab a QB because you need one and expect that there is a franchise guy in the first round when it is your turn to pick.

 

Never said they were...just took issue with the idea that the OL needs to be in place first...it doesn't.

[PDaDdy]

It's not magic dude, it's called football. QBs succeed in this league without great protection...happens all the time. You've seen the numbers and know it's true, I don't have to re-hash them for you. I guess your definition of "isn't going to do squat" equates to making the playoffs (like the NFL's most sacked QB in 2009, Aaron Rodgers) or winning the Superbowl (like the NFL's 5th-most-sacked QB in 2008, Ben Roethlisberger)...I think I'd take that level of squat" over the current level of "squat". Just a personal preference.

 

 

Good for you!!!! You are able to find the scant handful of exceptions. YAAAAAAAA. Now go back and find me the stats on the other 50 million teams in that time period that actually had at least average offensive lines.

[thebandit27]

Don't mean to be a jerk but that is EXACTLY why you shouldn't be a GM. You need to have good scouting and a good front office to do it efficiently instead of blowing picks for years and hoping to hit the lottery. This is what we did with Losman and Edwards. We took shots and picked guys that really didn't have what it takes and of course we have to wait 2+ years to see that each one is not the guy. If we are just taking guesses and picking a QB every year like the Lions picked WRs we could be in a world of hurt for the next 1o years.

 

I don't remember ever saying that I should be a GM. You apparently missed the point of that statement, which was to express--in an extremist fashion--how important it is to get the right QB. If you had to invest 5 years worth of first or 2nd round picks to get Peyton Manning, it'd be worth it to have an elite QB for the next 15 years...don't you think? It's hardly the same as spending a 1st round pick on a WR ever year...there's no comparison between the WR position and the QB position, especially when you watch Drew Brees win a Superbowl with a 7th round pick as his #1 WR.

 

If you are willing to bank on whatever QB falls to us is the next superstar...more power to you. Me? I would rather get a LT that will make our run game AND whatever QB we have back there better. Everyone including myself sometimes forgets that we also have free agency. There are a couple names out there that I would love to see in Buffalo. Along with a stud LT and some offensive ingenuity we are right back in the hunt!!!!! Bank on one of these QBs at #9 and we could likely be having the same discussion about a QB or LT 2 - 3 years from now

 

Again, I've never said that they had to spend the #9 pick on a QB...ever. All I said was that if the choice comes down to getting the franchise QB now or waiting until the OL is fixed (which some posters seem to think--erroneously--is a necessity), then it's a no-brainer. Get the QB. I think that the OP's point is that if Buffalo felt like McCoy or Tebow were that guy, then there's no point in waiting...get him now. I happen to agree that it's not a great investment at the #9 pick this season, but I understand if they did it...because that's how important the right QB is to a team.

[Bill from NYC]

And the Colts and Jets are proof that you do not. The Colts drafted OTs in the 1st and 2nd Rounds before the took Manning. The Jets built an all star OL before they took Sanchez.

[Canadian Bills Fan]

The bottom line, as I see it, is that a good QB can do things like make reads quickly, get rid of the ball quickly, adjust protection schemes, read blitzes, connect with a hot route, hit a receiver before it's obvious to the entire breathing world that he's open, etc. Great QBs do this regardless of the play of their OL, which leads me to believe that it's much more important to get the right QB than it is to prioritize getting a great OL before you get such a QB. My ideal example of this was the 2007 Falcons. They gave up 49 sacks and were a putrid 3-13. Had they prioritized getting an OL first, they would've missed out on drafting Matt Ryan, who was the single biggest contributor to their remarkable turnaround in 2008. Now, they also traded back into round 1 to draft LT Sam Baker (who started 7 games as a rookie), but clearly Atlanta made drafting a QB the priority. Ditto for Baltimore in 2007, who gave up 39 sacks (13 more than Buffalo) and lost their future HOF LT Jonathan Ogden to retirement. They went with a 5th round supplemental draft pick (Jared Gaither) at LT and traded out of the top 10 to draft Joe Flacco, and that worked out pretty well for them.

 

 

Could not agree more...

[thebandit27]

Good for you!!!! You are able to find the scant handful of exceptions. YAAAAAAAA. Now go back and find me the stats on the other 50 million teams in that time period that actually had at least average offensive lines.

 

Or you could stop being a smart-aleck and go back and read the post where I detail how the FIVE MOST SACKED QBS FROM 2009 all lead passing offenses that ranked in the top 10 and made the playoffs, and how 4 of them did it with running games no better than Buffalo's.

 

Or you could pretend to believe what you're saying by providing some data to back up your end of the argument, just as I've done.

 

Or you could do the absolute least amount of work, and look at teams like Cleveland, Tennessee, Atlanta, Houston, NYG, Carolina, and Tampa Bay, all of whom ranked in the top 15 o-lines in the NFL in 2009, and couldn't make the playoffs because they got sub-standard QB play.

 

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?arc...e&Submit=Go

 

Now, how about you back up your end of the argument?

[ChasBB]

We're not going QB in the first. The switch to 3-4 nixed that...

I have to agree. While QB is an issue -- and some would argue the most important issue -- it just isn't. We have serviceable quarterbacks, but we are severely depleted at LB and some other key positions and must address these in order to be competitive.

[Lori]

I think what is worse is that when SD decided to trade away Brees, he had already proven himself with solid play on the NFL level. That fact that the Bills didnt get involved in the bidding was a joke. You trade our 1st round pick and your left testicle to get a young, proven, established NFL franchise QB. Its not like they are available all the time.

SD didn't trade Brees. He signed with New Orleans as a free agent before the 2006 season ... and the Bills weren't in the market, because they already had Losman and Holcomb.

 

(I'll let you pick which smiley best depicts the consequences of that decision):

[PDaDdy]

Umm, which ones? The teams that made the playoffs feature QBs that had at least one very successful season with their original teams:

 

Indy - Manning

SD - Rivers

NE - Brady

Cin - Palmer

Bal - Flacco

NYJ - Sanchez

NO - Brees (threw for 27 TDs and 7 INTs in his 3rd year w/ SD)

Min - Favre (ok, here's one...never played for Atlanta - got his start in GB)

GB - Rodgers

Ari - Warner (another one...never played for GB - got his start in St. L and won a SB)

Dallas - Romo

Phi - McNabb

 

And more than half were 1st round picks...andBrees was the first pick of the 2nd round.

 

Ok apparently "maybe half" was not clear enough. I should have said maybe a quarter didn't find success with their first team. Romo didn't actually play somewhere else he was just an undrafted free agent. You list does bring up something very interesting though. 7 of the 12 QBs were first round picks. Of those 7, FIVE were drafted in the top 5 picks. 2 of them first overall with McNabb actually being #2.

 

Never said they were...just took issue with the idea that the OL needs to be in place first...it doesn't.

 

Another reason why I am glad you provided the list. How many of those QBs had good offensive lines in front of them? Indy was #1 overall and New Orleans was #4 overall. Getting the picture? Those 2 I knew by heart but it looks like the worst and only suspect offensive line in that list of QBs is Green Bay and they improved significantly during the second half of the season.

[PDaDdy]

I don't remember ever saying that I should be a GM. You apparently missed the point of that statement, which was to express--in an extremist fashion--how important it is to get the right QB. If you had to invest 5 years worth of first or 2nd round picks to get Peyton Manning, it'd be worth it to have an elite QB for the next 15 years...don't you think? It's hardly the same as spending a 1st round pick on a WR ever year...there's no comparison between the WR position and the QB position, especially when you watch Drew Brees win a Superbowl with a 7th round pick as his #1 WR.

 

Let's not play the game. I never said you wanted to be GM. I just stated a good reason why you shouldn't be one based on your extremist statement. If all it took was drafting QBs 5 years in a row to get Peyton manning every team would do the same. Unfortunately a QB like Manning comes along once a generation and they go #1 overall. 5 years of drafting QBs in the first and or second though might position you nicely for the #1 overall pick for a while ala the Lions. Maybe you could get lucky and your extremist approach to make a point might have merit.

 

You are right picking a QB is nothing like picking a WR. But constantly blowing draft picks on the same position hoping to hit the lottery is a recipe for failure. I know you were just trying to make an extreme point. This is just my extreme rebuttal to that point.

 

Again, I've never said that they had to spend the #9 pick on a QB...ever. All I said was that if the choice comes down to getting the franchise QB now or waiting until the OL is fixed (which some posters seem to think--erroneously--is a necessity), then it's a no-brainer. Get the QB. I think that the OP's point is that if Buffalo felt like McCoy or Tebow were that guy, then there's no point in waiting...get him now. I happen to agree that it's not a great investment at the #9 pick this season, but I understand if they did it...because that's how important the right QB is to a team.

 

I think I get the specifics of your purely academic point. Unfortunately they are rarely useful in the real world. So, I'll give you your academic point but it is nearly useless in the real world because no team is presented with the option of "in this draft you have the choice of a franchise QB or a valuable o-lineman" It is a gamble to be sure and a good portion of your successful play off QBs actually had good lines as rookies. Something to think about

[CarolinaBill]

I am a firm believer that it is having the talent and being in the right situation. Not only did everybody pass on Brees in the draft, but they passed on him in free agency too. Sometimes it is the right place at the right time. Brees would not be Brees if he was in buffalo or Miami.

yup

[K-9]

I still don't understand why so many insist on thinking that building a team is a linear process. It isn't. Far from it. Once again, for at least the 15th time since Scott was nice enough to provide this forum, I offer the wisdom of Bill Polian. And he's not alone in his thinking. IF and it's a big IF you had your druthers, this is the order of positional importance for building a team:

 

1.) QB - great ones are the hardest position to find and if you have a chance to grab one it's a no brainer.

 

2.) DE - need a great one to consistently apply pressure to opposing QBs. Disrupting the opposing QB's timing is the name of the game as success in the passing game depends on timing. Pressures lead to more TOs than sacks so grabbing an elite DE means you don't have to devote other defensive assets in order to apply pressure. When you HAVE to do that, the opposing O is at an advantage because it's easier to exploit matchups.

 

3.) OLT - to protect your franshise QB from those elite DEs. 'Nuff said.

 

4.) RB - a great RB takes a lot of pressure off a QB when he can routinely rush for 4+, keep you in manageable down/distance (a HUGE advantage because defenses HAVE to respect that).

 

5.) WR - an elite WR to be your QB's "go to" guy when he absolutely has to have it.

 

As I said, it's not a linear process. If the Bills feel an OT ranks higher than other positions, grab him. It it's the DE, grab him. If it's the QB, grab him.

 

Buttom line is, ALL things being equal in terms of player rankings at the above positions (let's say they're all rated an 8, blue chippers who can't miss) you take the QB. EVERY time. Again, that's the book of Polian.

 

If you have to reach at ANY position you're doing yourself a disservice. It very may well end up that the Bills have a defensive player rated highest when their turn comes and it wouldn't surprise me if they took one if he was rated higher on their board than the next OT or QB.

 

The idea is to grab "football players." On a team that doesn't have many of them, I look for them to take the best player available. With the possible exception of another DB. We should take comfort in the fact that, given our MANY needs across several positions, we are in a position to get the BPA while at the same time fulfilling a need spot.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[PDaDdy]

Or you could stop being a smart-aleck and go back and read the post where I detail how the FIVE MOST SACKED QBS FROM 2009 all lead passing offenses that ranked in the top 10 and made the playoffs, and how 4 of them did it with running games no better than Buffalo's.

 

So passing offense QBs take sacks? NO....you don't say? Perhaps because they drop back to throw more than the other teams their QBs are exposed to more pressures and sacks? Is that what you are saying? Do you mean like Mike Martz a brilliant offensive mind got his QB's killed because of how often they had to pass and hold on to the ball to be successful? Do you mean these passing teams that COULD RUN THE BALL AND DO IT WELL but chose to pass because they were even better at the passing game? Indy did lose but did you see how successful they were at running the ball. OH WAIT...I forgot it was their franchise QB carrying the rock in the super bowl!

 

Or you could pretend to believe what you're saying by providing some data to back up your end of the argument, just as I've done.

 

So you find a handful of exceptions you can provide stats on and I am supposed to find stats on the other 30 teams over the last 5 years. Riiiiiiiiiight. I am king of stats. I often go to great lengths to provide stats. I'm just not going to spend half a day compiling stats on the general rule not your exceptions. Tell you what..you find me more than a couple of exceptions and give me stats and I'll find stats on the rest. Deal?

 

Or you could do the absolute least amount of work, and look at teams like Cleveland, Tennessee, Atlanta, Houston, NYG, Carolina, and Tampa Bay, all of whom ranked in the top 15 o-lines in the NFL in 2009, and couldn't make the playoffs because they got sub-standard QB play.

 

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?arc...e&Submit=Go

 

Now, how about you back up your end of the argument?

 

 

So basically you're agreeing with me in that a team need both a line and a QB? Show me a playoff team with a bad line and then look at the rest that had good one. Atlanta? Houston? bad QB play...not sure I agree with that especially considering Pro Bowl Matt Schaub.

 

How about you do your own leg work? Go find me a list of teams that made the playoffs that didn't have AT LEAST an average line and I'll show you your 1 exceptions. A little lesson in logic this means you can then infer that everyone else had at least an average to an above average line. This is the group of teams defining the rule that you so enthusiastically can find 2 exception to.

 

Don't play the game. You'll lose.

[Bob in STL]

Anyone remember if we had OL like Ballard, Hull and the rest of the SB OL before we drafted Kelly?

 

when Kelly was signed we had Ritcher and Devlin on the OL. Two good players, both were playing guard at the time.

 

We brought in Kent Hull with Kelly, that same year. We also drafted Woolford in the first round, after we got Kelly, and plugged him into the starting line up. Ballard came a year later. Then we picked up John Davis from Plan B FA and he replaced the aging Devlin. We also drafted Glenn Parker (3rd round) and then John Fina (1st round) in later years. The both started their careers as backups and then became solid starters. Polian took care of the OL

 

Bottom line: Kelly had a much better OL in his first year as a Bill then the entire pile of crap we have had over the last decade. At the peak, Woolford, Ballard, Hull and Ritcher had all made Pro Bowl appearances. This line was big, strong and athletic enought to run the no-huddle on a full time basis.