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

[thebandit27]

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 is was their franchise QB carrying the rock!

 

They were last in the NFL in ypc and ypg bro, that doesn't happen if you can run the ball well...you can dismiss that all you like, but the fact of the matter is that they couldn't run the ball during the season.

 

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 handful of exceptions and give me stats and I'll find stats on the rest. Deal?

 

Dude, pointing out that 5 of 12 playoff QBs ranked in the top 10 most sacked QBs in the NFL this season is not pointing out an exception, it's pointing out a very significant percentage. Don't get pissy with me just because it flies in the face of your argument. Perhaps the self-proclaimed "king of stats" would care to go to some of his famed great lenghts? Because from where I sit, you are indeed the king of something, but it sure isn't stats...

 

So basically you're agreeing with me in that a team need both a line and a QB? Atlanta? Houston? bad QB play...not sure I agree with that especially considering Pro Bowl Matt Schaub.

 

Well, since I already said as much, yeah, I do think you need both. One more time for you: my issue is that you don't need to wait until you have a great OL to get a great QB. And, just so you know, Matt Ryan ranked 20th in the league in QB rating (80.9) and 21st in YPA (6.5), a significant dropoff from 2008's numbers (87.7 and 7.9, respectively)...so yeah, I'd say his play hindered the team.

 

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 2 exceptions. A little lesson in logic this means you can then infer that eveyone 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.

 

Already did it in my first post of this thread...I'll bet this sounds familiar: Big Ben, Romo, Rodgers, Favre, and McNabb were all in the top 10 most sacked QBs in the NFL in 2009. Only one of those teams had a running game that ranked in the top dozen in the league, and all the others were very close (or worse) than Buffalo's...that's not exactly indicative of great line play. My leg work is done, now do something other than pound your chest.

 

So bring your A-game, Mr. Daddy...by my count, I'm waaaaaay ahead.

[Guest dog14787]

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.

 

 

I hear were your coming from and I understand the desire for the next Jim Kelly. Myself personally, I like Tebow, to me he might be that guy. I suppose everybody has someone in particular they really like, but I still feel like our group of QB's is an intriguing one and we have to many glaring needs to spend another high draft choice on someone who probably won't play for at least a year.

[PDaDdy]

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.

 

 

Imagine that! A successful GREAT QB had a good line in front of him. That never happens!

[PDaDdy]

They were last in the NFL in ypc and ypg bro, that doesn't happen if you can run the ball well...you can dismiss that all you like, but the fact of the matter is that they couldn't run the ball during the season.

 

Hey bro. Check out the fact that nfl.com has Indy ranked as the #1 O-line in the league. While you're at it bra...take a look at how they ran the ball in the super bowl....LOL.

 

Dude, pointing out that 5 of 12 playoff QBs ranked in the top 10 most sacked QBs in the NFL this season is not pointing out an exception, it's pointing out a very significant percentage. Don't get pissy with me just because it flies in the face of your argument. Perhaps the self-proclaimed "king of stats" would care to go to some of his famed great lenghts? Because from where I sit, you are indeed the king of something, but it sure isn't stats...

 

So your basically talking about 4 of your 5 teams also ranking in the top 1/3 in the league in passing attempts right? Teams with great QBs you are talking about? So basically teams that pass the ball a lot? It proves my point. And yes I AM the king of stats. I'm not going to spend a whole day compiling stats on 28 - 30 teams just because some jack ass has challenged me when you have proven that there are only a handful of exceptions. Again logic and inference applied tells us the the rest of the teams you want stats on disprove your exception.

 

 

Well, since I already said as much, yeah, I do think you need both. One more time for you: my issue is that you don't need to wait until you have a great OL to get a great QB. And, just so you know, Matt Ryan ranked 20th in the league in QB rating (80.9) and 21st in YPA (6.5), a significant dropoff from 2008's numbers (87.7 and 7.9, respectively)...so yeah, I'd say his play hindered the team.

 

Already said as much? I actually had already said as much and my arguments are consistent with that belief. You claim to think that offensive line play is also important and you need both a QB AND a line but then your argument and line of reasoning points to successful teams that choose not to run the ball as often being examples of bad lines. You contradict yourself.

 

Some more flawed logic is your assessment of the Falcons. Matt Ryan's numbers weren't up to his previous years par but I would hardly say it is because he was a bad QB or had a bad year however you want to put it. Atlanta went from #2 in rushing in 2008 to #15 in 2009. Micheal Turner multiple games lost due to an ankle injury anyone? Do you think that this might have been an issue? NAH, looking at QB rating in a vacuum is the only way to judge QB play and team performance right? Oh wait...you do think O-line is equally as important but continually try to provide proof to the contrary. What a joke.

 

Already did it in my first post of this thread...I'll bet this sounds familiar: Big Ben, Romo, Rodgers, Favre, and McNabb were all in the top 10 most sacked QBs in the NFL in 2009. Only one of those teams had a running game that ranked in the top dozen in the league, and all the others were very close (or worse) than Buffalo's...that's not exactly indicative of great line play. My leg work is done, now do something other than pound your chest.

 

So bring your A-game, Mr. Daddy...by my count, I'm waaaaaay ahead.

 

First of all learn to count. So let me get this straight. You're again saying that in today's nfl which is a passing league, teams that pass a lot subject their QBs to more sacks and pressures? Yes they do. So does the fact that all of the teams with the exception of the Vikings ranked in the bottom half of rushing attempts? Is this due to the fact that they couldn't rush the ball as you assert or is it due to the fact that, AGAIN, today's nfl is a passing league and their teams had great QBs so they passed?

 

So....ya continue to bring it Mr A** Bandit.

[nostyle126]

a) His arm strength pales in comparison to Brees and Manning

b) He has no balls

c) Manning and Brees had better numbers for the same number of starts and time to develop

a) It really doesn't. Brees and Manning hardly have cannons.

b) Agreed. Gotta coach him back to being ballsy.

c) Both were given better supporting casts and coaching to help them along, and Brees STILL almost fell off the face of the football earth until Rivers decided to hold out his rookie year.

[JohnC]

 

One of the first moves Marv Levy made in getting a free agent qb was signing Craig Nall. Another move he made acting as a GM, excuse me, a facilitator, was draft a safety, Whitner, instead of taking a now an all-pro DT Ngata. The aged owner brought in Marv Levy after the Donahoe tenure because he said he knew him and trusted him. Foolishness layed on top of more foolishness.

[thewildrabbit]

good points...but as to sanchez and big ben...remember that the Jets has used two drafts to upgrade their offensive line before drafting sanchez. D'brick, Mangold, the acquisition of Fanaca were major upgrades (as well as getting some very good running backs) that helped Sanchez become successful. Pittsburgh always had good offensive line and good smashmouth runners, so Big ben was successful partially as a result of all the pieces being there when he came in.

Plus the fact that Big Ben had a dominate running game his first two years with the Steelers, the team rallied around the "Bus" Jerome Bettis for that SB win.

 

That gave Ben time to develop behind a decent line, its only recently that the Steelers started passing more and running less. That O line of the Steeler's is still way better then Buffalo's, despite the fact that Ben holds the ball longer then he should and takes sacks as a result.

 

 

The Vikings are a perfect example of what to do in building a team, and then go looking for a QB. Build the two lines and defense, draft a top RB and all they needed was a QB. So once they did find someone decent he would have time to make throws and a ground game to help carry the team so all the pressure isn't on just the QB.

[Meark]

Drew's first couple years sucked but his last 2 years in San Diego were great. He averaged over 3300yds and 25 TDs. That is an important middle part to the story. Matter of fact Drew's 3rd year as a starter was a 27 TD year. Wake me when we see that kind of potential in Edwards....YAWN!!!!

 

Um.. he was off to a good start before getting killed in AZ.. I'm not a huge Trent Dreadwards fan.. just saying..

[The Jokeman]

I posted this elsewhere:

 

 

63.0 QB Rating 12 TDs 20 INTs 53.8% 162.9 yards per game 26 sacks in 15 games

59.9 QB Rating 10 TDs 19 INTs 54.6% 185.7 yards per game 24 sacks in 10 games

61.0 QB Rating 13 TDs 20 INTs 53.3% 226.7 yards per game 20 sacks in 10 games

70.4 QB Rating 07 TDs 08 INTs 56.1% 163.0 yards per game 12 sacks in 10 games

 

Quickly tell me which of the 3 was Mark Sanchez, which was Josh Freeman and which was Matt Stafford? Times up. I listed them in order and Sanchez had the worse statistically year yet his team did best, why? Perhaps because he wasn't ask to do as much on offense in part because of the Jets strong running game and why do the Jets have a strong running game? In part because they drafted D'Brickashaw Ferguson and Nick Mangold in 2006. Oh and that 4th QB listed, that was Trent Edwards' stats from his rookie year.

[iinii]

David Klinger, Ryan Leaf, Dan McGwire, JP, Jemarcus Russell, Matt Leinert, Tim Couch, David Carr, Akili Smith, Cade McNown- yeah it so important to always take your QB FIRST

 

BTW the Chargers drafted LT first, Brees second

 

this thread is laughable

laughable

[RuntheDamnBall]

I posted this elsewhere:

 

Quickly tell me which of the 3 was Mark Sanchez, which was Josh Freeman and which was Matt Stafford? Times up. I listed them in order and Sanchez had the worse statistically year yet his team did best, why? Perhaps because he wasn't ask to do as much on offense in part because of the Jets strong running game and why do the Jets have a strong running game? In part because they drafted D'Brickashaw Ferguson and Nick Mangold in 2006. Oh and that 4th QB listed, that was Trent Edwards' stats from his rookie year.

Interesting perspective, and for me that really tells the story of why a few people love(d) Edwards and why a lot of us saw much to prove.

 

Evident just within those stats is the notion that Trent didn't make a lot of mistakes (the reason many loved him) but that he also was not willing to take as many chances (the reason I didn't love him). It proved to be his undoing, and many of the rest of us, including some at OBD, saw what Trent was not seeing. I think he improved in the first few games of '08, in part due to the schedule. However, once he met Adrian Wilson he was pretty much doomed to rely on his more conservative tendencies -- tendencies of course favored by the departed Coach Skeletor.

 

You can argue, and I'll agree with you, that Trent could have grown to trust himself more, but I'd argue that the same coaching staff that would have benefited from Trent maturing gave him a sh-- sandwich to work with at OL. This, too, reinforced his worst aspects, and caused him to look to dump off the ball even when he had decent protection.

[The Jokeman]

Interesting perspective, and for me that really tells the story of why a few people love(d) Edwards and why a lot of us saw much to prove.

 

You can argue, and I'll agree with you, that Trent could have grown to trust himself more, but I'd argue that the same coaching staff that would have benefited from Trent maturing gave him a sh-- sandwich to work with at OL. This, too, reinforced his worst aspects, and caused him to look to dump off the ball even when he had decent protection.

Indeed, I think the former regime made some big mistakes thinking that Trent was going to improve by blowing up the O-line. I also think the last coaching staff didn't develop an offense around Trent's strengths. I've stated it numerous times but think Trent's an ideal WCO QB. Give him a strong TE and WRs that move the chains and he could still be an above average QB in my eyes. I mean if I was Nix I'd seriously see what Lee Evans could bring. I'd love to trade him to Oakland for Zach Miller and a 2nd day draft pick. Yet it would leave a big hole at WR so might want to secure someone there first. I mean look back at the first two games of 2009, Trent was playing rather well and then lost Derek Schouman and soon fell apart. It's not that Schouman was a great TE but he was a guy Edwards was building a chemistry with as pretty sure he had close to 10-12 catches in those first two games.

[PDaDdy]

Indeed, I think the former regime made some big mistakes thinking that Trent was going to improve by blowing up the O-line. I also think the last coaching staff didn't develop an offense around Trent's strengths. I've stated it numerous times but think Trent's an ideal WCO QB. Give him a strong TE and WRs that move the chains and he could still be an above average QB in my eyes. I mean if I was Nix I'd seriously see what Lee Evans could bring. I'd love to trade him to Oakland for Zach Miller and a 2nd day draft pick. Yet it would leave a big hole at WR so might want to secure someone there first. I mean look back at the first two games of 2009, Trent was playing rather well and then lost Derek Schouman and soon fell apart. It's not that Schouman was a great TE but he was a guy Edwards was building a chemistry with as pretty sure he had close to 10-12 catches in those first two games.

 

 

ARGH...You want to trade one of the FEW bright spots on the team to get a TE for Trent??? That is a bad idea period much less saying getting rid of him would somehow help Trent by getting yet another 5 yd or less check down option. Well I will say this. Given the fact that Trent has the balls and the arm of a hamster Lee Evan's speed and ability to stretch the field is wasted. That's the answer. Get rid of good weapons because our QB is unable to utilize them. Lee Evans is a .50 bullet. The answer isn't to replace him with BBs for Edwards pop gun arm. The answer.... IS TO GET A BIGGER GUN!!!!

[T master]

The Chargers got lucky to draft Brees in the second round, after every other team passed on him. I don't think they would have traded him if not for his injury, so getting LT for a HOF career, and ending up with Rivers after trading Brees certainly proves that the Chargers are a smart team compared to most when it comes to personnel. However, it was Brees who got the SB win as game MVP playing for the Saints, while the Chargers still have not gotten into a SB since they traded Drew in 2006.

 

 

BRAVO DUDE Nicely Put

[Alphadawg7]

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."

 

I dont know what draft you watched or what reports you read, but most thought Brees was a steal for SD in the 2nd and thought they made out really well trading the #1 pick (Vick) and instead coming away with LT and Brees...

[sharper802]

Brees is proof ... that his original team gave up on him too early, using the No. 1 overall pick on another quarterback just three years later. If Phillip Rivers hadn't held out of training camp, no telling whether or not Brees would have even gotten another chance to start in San Diego.

 

Brees is also proof that drafting a first-round QB isn't the only way to win a Super Bowl, since the Saints signed him as a free agent. Out of this year's final four teams, the Jets and Colts started their own #1 picks, Vikings and Saints didn't.

 

And Brees is proof of one more thing: when a good QB isn't pressured -- isn't even HIT in the entire second half -- he can pick defenses apart. Thank the Saints' offensive line, which featured four of their own draft picks, for that.

Translation keep Trent draft O-line!!!!!!

[trolls_r_us]

the day Trent is released or the Bills trade for a QB (who will start, not back up a fraidy cat sissy) is going to be an AMAZING FREAKING DAY!

 

I would rather he just be released outright. Best for Trent. I'm just looking out for his career.

 

Plus the thought of watching Trent play QB for the Bills already makes me want to scream.

 

Jauron is gone, now we need to cut his QB and be done with the milktoast era of Bills football.

[8-8 Forever?]

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."

 

SD got Brees when once he was an accomplished NFL winning QB. Drafting and starting a rookie QB next year dooms the bills to several more years (probably their last in WNY) of abject mediocrity. Not me. Go get McNabb, Garcia or Vick and win some damn games before I die.

[nostyle126]

As I've stated earlier in this thread, I still believe Trent can develop into a good QB. Having said that, I also agree with the above post. We need a veteran NOW to help stabilize the franchise in the short term. If we can pick up a McNabb or even a Garcia it would be a necessary short term step in the right direction.

[timba]

When a franchise quarterback is available, you definitely take them. That doesn't mean you start them right away. Especially in the Bills situation. You don't want to ruin the kids confidence before he gets a chance to grasp the nfl game. Finish off the O-line and bring in a veteran qb to teach him the ropes.