Canadian Bills Fan Posted February 9, 2010 Posted February 9, 2010 Bottom line is this, Manning and Brees throw for 300+ yards almost on a weekly basis. When is the last time a Bills QB threw for 300 yards? Wasnt it AVP????
Bill from NYC Posted February 9, 2010 Posted February 9, 2010 Technically, Wolford was drafted three years after Kelly, but actually joined the Bills first in 1986. (Semantics -- he was here for minicamp of his rookie season, while Kelly and Hull didn't sign until training camp. You already know this, I'm sure, but others might not.) Jim Ritcher and Joe Devlin were the vets on that line, along with Jones. And that lesson: Wolford and Ritcher were both first-round picks, Jones and Devlin second-rounders ... Thank you for this Lori!!! Imo, it is also quite indicative of the difference between cold weather teams and dome teams. The Jets are a shining example. People point to Sanchez (yeah, he did improve as the season went along, blah, blah, blah....) but he is more the reason that they didn't go all the way this year than the reason for their success. Much of this season he was horrid, yet they still came very close to a superbowl appearance. Cold weather teams need to be more basic than fancier dome teams. Looking at all of the great ones (and I really do mean all of them), these teams were far more basic than the idiotic offenses/defenses the Bills employ, let alone the difference in talent. Going as far back as the Steel Curtain vs. the great Dallas teams of that day, the Steelers were able to outmuscle them on both sides. The bottom line imo is that we can talk all day, but until the Bills are strong, tough and talented up front we will continue to lose, and us Bills fans will probably have yet more abstract conversations about such things as whether or not Lil Donte Whitner isn't really so bad. Thanks again and like I said....this is simply my opinion.
Canadian Bills Fan Posted February 9, 2010 Posted February 9, 2010 Wow I just found out the NFL record for most passing yards in a game is 554 by N. Van Brocklin for the Rams in 1951. Thats crazy!!! Thats 1/8th of what Peyton Manning thre for this year!
thewildrabbit Posted February 9, 2010 Posted February 9, 2010 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. I agree that the Bills need to solidify the offensive line asap. The Bills stole a scrub QB from the Packers and decided to throw him into the fire to see what he do...no way the Bills draft a QB this year and he doesn't start . Two thoughts on this, should the Bills draft a named QB in the draft with that 9th pick it might just give the front office/marketing the "exicitement" to sell out games again this year. The Bills could still use that 9th pick on a QB and still look for tackles in rounds 2-7. Let's just hope this new staff of draft experts knows the difference between an average player and a great player
thewildrabbit Posted February 9, 2010 Posted February 9, 2010 If Kelly had signed here as a rookie, it would have been QB first ... and he might not have survived long enough to make it to a Super Bowl. Bills QBs were sacked 139 times from 1983-85, including 60 in 1984. Excellent point So many posters here just don't understand how important the offensive line is to a QB and how well he performs.
thebandit27 Posted February 9, 2010 Posted February 9, 2010 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. I'm having a flashback to the movie Gladiator, when Quentis says to Maximus "People should know when they're conquered"... As someone that wants to pin my argument down to "pointing out exceptions", you're going to point to 1 game (a losing effort, by the way) to prove to me that the Colts ran the ball well last season? Even though they were DEAD LAST in the NFL in rushing? Awesome! King of stats, I salute you. I'm aware of NFL.com's o-line rankings. If Indy had the best line in football, why can't they run the ball? Could they possibly have the #1 rating because they allowed very few stats and knockdowns during the season? Could that have to dow with the fact that they have a QB that knows when to get rid of the ball and avoid taking hits? Nah, I'm sure it's because they dominate at the point of attack, right King? 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. A smarter person would have also looked at sacks per passing attempt, but that's apparently way past your analytical ability. The highest in the game belonged to Pittsburgh (.093), Green Bay (.092), and Jacksonville (.086)--two playoff teams and one 7-9 team, which ranked 18th, 10th, and 23rd in passing attempts, respectively (where you pulled your crappola about the teams I listed ranking in the top 1/3 in passing attempts I'll never know). The lowest belonged to Indy (.029), New England (.030), and Tennessee (.031)--two playoff teams and one 8-8 team, which ranked 2nd, 5th, and 28th in passing attempts, respectively. Even for the "King" of stats (hah!), that should show that there's absolutely no correlation between passing attempts and sacks allowed. I mean, sheesh, the Raiders ranked 26th in the NFL in pass attempts and allowed the 3rd-most sacks in the game. Logic and inference are nice analytical tools when used properly, but when applied incorrectly (as in, when your analysis completely belies the facts presented) they can make you look rather foolish. 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. To point out that a QB can succeed without a great line is not a contradiction. It's a statement in support of the idea that you don't need to have the OL in place before you get the QB...how is that not clear? Your arguments are consistent alright, consistently devoid of any facts that support your assertions, which I will continue to point out until you provide some. You wanna talk contradictions? How about a guy that refuses to support his point referring to himself as the "King of stats"? 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. So, in other words, the QB didn't play as well, and the team won fewer games? Yep, sounds like it makes sense to me. Blame it on Turner if you'd like, but Atlanta went 4-2 without him in the lineup (including 4-0 when Matt Ryan played...the 2 losses featured Chris Redman at QB). The only joke in this discussion is you're inability to understand what you see. For example: did you know that Atlanta went 2-3 in games that Turner rushed for over 100 yards in 2009? Or that the team went 3-1 in his 4 lowest rushing outputs of the season? Probably not, because if you did, you probably wouldn't contradict yourself by blaming Atlanta's failures on the lack of a running game when it was obvious to everyone on the planet that teams were loading up to stop the run and forcing Ryan to beat them...when he couldn't the team suffered. Tough to understand, I know, but try, you'll come around. 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? Let's see, I recall saying that the Colts couldn't run the ball, but I don't remember saying that these teams couldn't. I do, however, remember saying that none of those teams ran the ball more effectively than Buffalo (save for Dallas), either in ypc or ypg. So while it's very neat that you want to put words in my mouth, I'd just as soon stick to the facts in this discussion. So....ya continue to bring it Mr A** Bandit. Ah yes, name-calling...you're point is getting stronger with every post.
Lori Posted February 9, 2010 Posted February 9, 2010 Bottom line is this, Manning and Brees throw for 300+ yards almost on a weekly basis. When is the last time a Bills QB threw for 300 yards? Wasnt it AVP???? Losman, at Houston, November 2006.
Offside Number 76 Posted February 9, 2010 Posted February 9, 2010 If Kelly had signed here as a rookie, it would have been QB first ... and he might not have survived long enough to make it to a Super Bowl. Bills QBs were sacked 139 times from 1983-85, including 60 in 1984. Except the Bills picked Tony Hunter before Jim Kelly in 1983. It would have been QB second. But your point is still right.
PDaDdy Posted February 9, 2010 Posted February 9, 2010 I'm having a flashback to the movie Gladiator, when Quentis says to Maximus "People should know when they're conquered"... As someone that wants to pin my argument down to "pointing out exceptions", you're going to point to 1 game (a losing effort, by the way) to prove to me that the Colts ran the ball well last season? Even though they were DEAD LAST in the NFL in rushing? Awesome! King of stats, I salute you. Indeed you should know when you are conquered. You should also brush up on your reading comprehension because it is severely lacking. Let's play the I never said game....I never said the Colts ran the ball well last season. This is a sad desperate attempt of a man beaten. Fabricate a point that I didn't make and then attack it. Nice try but no dice chump. Apparently you also have a problem with short term memory loss. I said that today's nfl is a passing league and teams with great QBs like Manning CHOOSE to pass more. They don't do so out of necessity. Apparently that leap of logic is beyond you no matter how I have tried to educate you. Wow that is a good one ...now you're accusing me of trying to use a small number of exceptions to disprove the rule? That is rich. I guess then that that is an admission that your previously attempted tactic was not valid and your argument BS. Score one for me. Again for the record ...please point where I said the Colts ran the ball well last season? I won't hold my breath because people like you are about trying to win a stupid argument than discover truth and have no integrity to answer direct questions. I expect the usual "make up a question and answer mine first response" all the while not answering mine on this one. And yes.....you should salute me. I'm aware of NFL.com's o-line rankings. If Indy had the best line in football, why can't they run the ball? Could they possibly have the #1 rating because they allowed very few stats and knockdowns during the season? Could that have to dow with the fact that they have a QB that knows when to get rid of the ball and avoid taking hits? Nah, I'm sure it's because they dominate at the point of attack, right King? You're still kind of thick but I'll try to get through. Answer me this question? Do you understand the difference between choosing not to run the ball vs can't run the ball? That should be enough to give the normal guy a clue but being thicker than most I'm sure I'll have to elaborate for you. Passing league, passing team, more passes, less running. Get it? Do you understand that those rankings are based on a multitude of stats some passing related, some rushing related and some QB ball retention related? #1 o-line is #1 o-line. As I have said and backed up with my points you need both a QB and a line. You can't have the #1 ranked line with a bad line. I DON'T CARE WHO YOUR QB IS!!! Next you'll take the loser "I can't admit I am beaten" approach by questioning the "ruler" when things don't "measure" up the way you like. YOU are a bunch of contradictions. You claim to have the wisdom to understand that QB and o-line are important but then all of your arguments attack this concept and minimize the importance of the o-line by pointing out exceptions to the rule. I on the other hand am able to back up my point without taking a single shot at a QB. That is because my supporting arguments are consistent with my beliefs and stated views while you pretend to understand the importance of the line but then consistently minimize that importance with your arguments. A smarter person would have also looked at sacks per passing attempt, but that's apparently way past your analytical ability. The highest in the game belonged to Pittsburgh (.093), Green Bay (.092), and Jacksonville (.086)--two playoff teams and one 7-9 team, which ranked 18th, 10th, and 23rd in passing attempts, respectively (where you pulled your crappola about the teams I listed ranking in the top 1/3 in passing attempts I'll never know). The lowest belonged to Indy (.029), New England (.030), and Tennessee (.031)--two playoff teams and one 8-8 team, which ranked 2nd, 5th, and 28th in passing attempts, respectively. Even for the "King" of stats (hah!), that should show that there's absolutely no correlation between passing attempts and sacks allowed. I mean, sheesh, the Raiders ranked 26th in the NFL in pass attempts and allowed the 3rd-most sacks in the game. Logic and inference are nice analytical tools when used properly, but when applied incorrectly (as in, when your analysis completely belies the facts presented) they can make you look rather foolish. It is a small mind that can only weight two potential factors to explain what they see. A person with a brain is going to realize YES there is a correlation, not a mathematical formula applied to sacks and attempts. A 5th grader could see that the more you pass the more sacks, hurries and pressures you expose your QB too. A multitude of factors including QB ball retention, how quickly your WR can get open, how good your line is at protection are to be considered here. Does this help to explain the potential difference in you smorgasbord of stats your provided as proof of nothing? Let me elaborate even further. Good lines help to drive the sack to pass attempt ration down. Bad lines can drive it up. When a team does most of their passing in a game is also relevant. Do you pass early to get ahead...or do you pass when you are behind to catch up. Let me explain that for you because you have demonstrated problems here. If you are passing early teams still have to respect the run game. Defenses are less likely to focus as much attention to the pass. If you are passing late because you are behind defenses will bring the house because they know you have no choice? Get it? Don't bother. I know you don't have the integrity to answer a direct question. Hope you don't feel too foolish. To point out that a QB can succeed without a great line is not a contradiction. It's a statement in support of the idea that you don't need to have the OL in place before you get the QB...how is that not clear? Your arguments are consistent alright, consistently devoid of any facts that support your assertions, which I will continue to point out until you provide some. You wanna talk contradictions? How about a guy that refuses to support his point referring to himself as the "King of stats"? Some of the terms are getting too fluid here to hold your feet to the fire. You were not talking about QBs succeeding without a "great" line. Effectively you said get your QB first as it is more important than o-line. You then attempted to point out a group of QBs that you thought were in the play offs and succeeded despite poor line play. The difference here is that you did not say great, good or even average. You tried to provide examples of POOR line play. It is this strategy that I have attacked. If this was supposedly just in support of the get your QB first idea it failed miserably. It became a look at this small group of QBs that I think succeeded despite poor line play. There are always exceptions but again it doesn't invalidate the rule. You don't sell someone an extended warranty by telling them your product sucks and it will break without it! You don't try to sell someone on the idea that the QB is most important by saying offensive line is not important. This is what you argued despite your contradictory statement that you think o-line is important. So, in other words, the QB didn't play as well, and the team won fewer games? Yep, sounds like it makes sense to me. Blame it on Turner if you'd like, but Atlanta went 4-2 without him in the lineup (including 4-0 when Matt Ryan played...the 2 losses featured Chris Redman at QB). The only joke in this discussion is you're inability to understand what you see. For example: did you know that Atlanta went 2-3 in games that Turner rushed for over 100 yards in 2009? Or that the team went 3-1 in his 4 lowest rushing outputs of the season? Probably not, because if you did, you probably wouldn't contradict yourself by blaming Atlanta's failures on the lack of a running game when it was obvious to everyone on the planet that teams were loading up to stop the run and forcing Ryan to beat them...when he couldn't the team suffered. Tough to understand, I know, but try, you'll come around. SWEET ...trap set and sprung. Let me get this straight. Sooo.. Atlanta went 4-0 with Matt Ryan and no Micheal Turner but the Falcons lost according to you due to bad QB play? -LOL...way to dispute your own point that the Falcons lost due to bad QB play!!!! Cheers...another point for me. This may be a news flash for you. Do you know that Altanta has more than 1 RB? GOSH...yes they do. You have done much to minimize the importance Micheal Turner in your post. Could it be that the most important reason for their drop in rushing rank was poor offensive line play? OH GOD NO! You mean the offensive line not getting the job done in the running game could have been more of a factor than supposedly bad QB play which your own stats without Turner refute? Score another for me! To throw you a bone. Matt Ryan was injured a good portion of the year with some foot thing too. So he might not have been up to 2008 form either. Let's see, I recall saying that the Colts couldn't run the ball, but I don't remember saying that these teams couldn't. I do, however, remember saying that none of those teams ran the ball more effectively than Buffalo (save for Dallas), either in ypc or ypg. So while it's very neat that you want to put words in my mouth, I'd just as soon stick to the facts in this discussion. Not that I know what teams you are referencing in this section but your statement seems to be you remember what you did and didn't say. Hooray for you. Please elaborate on what words I have put in your mouth. Ah yes, name-calling...you're point is getting stronger with every post. I'll remember that "BRO"
thebandit27 Posted February 9, 2010 Posted February 9, 2010 Indeed you should know when you are conquered. You should also brush up on your reading comprehension because it is severely lacking. Let's play the I never said game....I never said the Colts ran the ball well last season. This is a sad desperate attempt of a man beaten. Fabricate a point that I didn't make and then attack it. Nice try but no dice chump. Apparently you also have a problem with short term memory loss. I said that today's nfl is a passing league and teams with great QBs like Manning CHOOSE to pass more. They don't do so out of necessity. Apparently that leap of logic is beyond you no matter how I have tried to educate you. Yes, you've tried to educate me, and because I see through your BS, apparently I'm the one that's desperate. Dude, it's really simple to understand. Indy was DEAD LAST in the NFL in yards per game AND yards per carry...that doesn't happen, especially the latter, if you have a good running game. You yourself tried to justify your assertion using the Superbowl as an example...and I'm apparently the one with short-term memory loss? Wow that is a good one ...now you're accusing me of trying to use a small number of exceptions to disprove the rule? That is rich. I guess then that that is an admission that your previously attempted tactic was not valid and your argument BS. Score one for me. Again for the record ...please point where I said the Colts ran the ball well last season? I won't hold my breath because people like you are about trying to win a stupid argument than discover truth and have no integrity to answer direct questions. I expect the usual "make up a question and answer mine first response" all the while not answering mine on this one. And yes.....you should salute me. Um, yes. When you try to use the Superbowl (one game) to prove that the Colts can run the ball well, that's exactly what that is. the Colts couldn't run the ball this season. Simple statement, there's really nothing to argue there...I don't even know why that's being discussed, except that I used it to support the assertion that they don't have a great OL. For the record, post #99 implies strongly that you think the Colts can run the ball well...here's a direct quote: 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! But go ahead and question my integrity all you want... You're still kind of thick but I'll try to get through. Answer me this question? Do you understand the difference between choosing not to run the ball vs can't run the ball? That should be enough to give the normal guy a clue but being thicker than most I'm sure I'll have to elaborate for you. Passing league, passing team, more passes, less running. Get it? Do you understand that those rankings are based on a multitude of stats some passing related, some rushing related and some QB ball retention related? Quite clearly...a team that averages 3.2 ypc cannot run the ball. A team like Dallas, that averages over 5 ypc and still throws all game CAN run the ball...do you see the distinction, or do I have to elaborate for you? #1 o-line is #1 o-line. As I have said and backed up with my points you need both a QB and a line. You can't have the #1 ranked line with a bad line. I DON'T CARE WHO YOUR QB IS!!! Next you'll take the loser "I can't admit I am beaten" approach by questioning the "ruler" when things don't "measure" up the way you like. So since we're playing this game, show me where I said Indy had a bad OL? I thought that what I said was that they couldn't run the ball...hmmm...are you making things up again? I do remember saying that the OL is going to look a lot better when the QB knows when to get rid of the ball, how to make the correct reads, how to avoid pressure, etc....but as far as me saying that Indy has a bad line...nope, never happened. Who's integrity was in question again? YOU are a bunch of contradictions. You claim to have the wisdom to understand that QB and o-line are important but then all of your arguments attack this concept and minimize the importance of the o-line by pointing out exceptions to the rule. I on the other hand am able to back up my point without taking a single shot at a QB. That is because my supporting arguments are consistent with my beliefs and stated views while you pretend to understand the importance of the line but then consistently minimize that importance with your arguments. Only to those that read selectively. The simplicity of my argument is apparent to even the most elementary reader: the QB is more important than the OL, so he should be taken first. Don't wait until your OL is good, because you can succeed with a great QB before you have a great OL. The fact that I have to repeat the crux of this for you for the 13th time in this very thread is more than disturbing. Every single argument that I've made is consistent with this...I'm really not sure where your confusion lies. Pointing out the statistically significant portion of teams to which this statement applies hardly qualifies aa taking shots at the OL in general. If that's what you think, you're far too sensitive. It is a small mind that can only weight two potential factors to explain what they see. A person with a brain is going to realize YES there is a correlation, not a mathematical formula applied to sacks and attempts. A 5th grader could see that the more you pass the more sacks, hurries and pressures you expose your QB too. A multitude of factors including QB ball retention, how quickly your WR can get open, how good your line is at protection are to be considered here. Does this help to explain the potential difference in you smorgasbord of stats your provided as proof of nothing? A correlation occurrs when a direct relationship exists between to measurable factors. As I showed to you with numbers, your more passes = more sacks is in absolutely no way a direct correlation. Some teams throw a lot more than others, and only a certain percentage of those give up more sacks. Some teams throw way less than others, and yet a certain percentage of those give up lots of sacks. This is what's called mutual exclusivity...as in they're not directly related. It's not a difficult concept to grasp...tell you what, if you can show me a direct relationship (which would be the first time in this thread that you've shown anything of statistical significance) between the two, I'll believe you. You don't have to wait for me to do the same for my stance, as I've already given you the numbers. Let me elaborate even further. Good lines help to drive the sack to pass attempt ration down. Bad lines can drive it up. When a team does most of their passing in a game is also relevant. Do you pass early to get ahead...or do you pass when you are behind to catch up. Let me explain that for you because you have demonstrated problems here. If you are passing early teams still have to respect the run game. Defenses are less likely to focus as much attention to the pass. If you are passing late because you are behind defenses will bring the house because they know you have no choice? Get it? Don't bother. I know you don't have the integrity to answer a direct question. Hope you don't feel too foolish. Did you come up with all of that by yourself? You must be so proud. None of what you said changes the facts. Some teams have higher sacks per pass attempts than others. Some of those teams pass often (i.e. Green Bay), others not so much (i.e. Oakland)...your soliloquy was eloquent, but oh-so-useless in light of the facts. I'll remember that "BRO" I supposed I should keep going, but this is getting boring (and below academic, if you ask me). So I'll close by saying just a few things: (1) if you find the term "bro" offensive enough to hurl a sexual-preference slur in response, get help. (2) if you're going to debate someone, and you choose to start by calling yourself the "king of stats", it wouldn't hurt to occasionally bring a statistic into the discussion (3) questioning someone's integrity in one sentence, then denying that you said something that you clearly said in the following sentence, can severly damage your credibility...I'd refrain from doing that in the future if I were you.
PDaDdy Posted February 9, 2010 Posted February 9, 2010 Yes, you've tried to educate me, and because I see through your BS, apparently I'm the one that's desperate. Dude, it's really simple to understand. Indy was DEAD LAST in the NFL in yards per game AND yards per carry...that doesn't happen, especially the latter, if you have a good running game. You yourself tried to justify your assertion using the Superbowl as an example...and I'm apparently the one with short-term memory loss? I tried to educate but apparently you aren't capable of understanding the difference between can't run and choosing to pass. Um, yes. When you try to use the Superbowl (one game) to prove that the Colts can run the ball well, that's exactly what that is. the Colts couldn't run the ball this season. Simple statement, there's really nothing to argue there...I don't even know why that's being discussed, except that I used it to support the assertion that they don't have a great OL. The superbowl is indeed one example of the fact that they can run when they want to. Poor to bad running teams don't all of a sudden produce over 5yds/carry in the biggest game on the planet. I really don't know why we are arguing this either. #1 ranked line in the NFL is #1 ranked line in the NFL. PERIOD...END OF STORY....NO DISCUSSION NECESSARY. Sorry to be a jerk but your opinion is completely worthless and you are beyond education if you can't acknowledge this fact. Again the weak tactic of questioning the "ruler" when you don't like the "measurement" is tired and shows little integrity. For the record, post #99 implies strongly that you think the Colts can run the ball well...here's a direct quote: 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! But go ahead and question my integrity all you want... Quite clearly...a team that averages 3.2 ypc cannot run the ball. A team like Dallas, that averages over 5 ypc and still throws all game CAN run the ball...do you see the distinction, or do I have to elaborate for you? MAN....reading comprehension really is a big issue with you isn't it. Do you understand the difference between "can" and "did"? My WHOLE point is that the Colts are "capable" of running the ball just fine/well but chose to pass. NFL, passing league, good qb, team passes....never mind that has probably already fallen through the sieve that is your brain. Speaking of integrity ... how about answering those questions I asked? So since we're playing this game, show me where I said Indy had a bad OL? I thought that what I said was that they couldn't run the ball...hmmm...are you making things up again? Bad o-lines can't run the ball is your assertion is it not? If your answer is "yes" then you have said in effect Indy has a bad line. If your answer is "no" then your stats of their regular season ypc is completely irrelevant in the discussion of whether they have a bad line or not. POW....score one for me again. Again Mr Integrity, answer this question directly....Yep, figured you wouldn't.....either way you answer it directly contradicts at least one point you have already tried to make. I do remember saying that the OL is going to look a lot better when the QB knows when to get rid of the ball, how to make the correct reads, how to avoid pressure, etc....but as far as me saying that Indy has a bad line...nope, never happened. Who's integrity was in question again? REALLY??? Do I have to point out again that disparaging their running game and attributing their #1 ranking to Peyton Manning's ability to get rid of the ball IS NOT a glowing endoresment of the Colts' line. Therefore, the inference that you feel that they are not a good line. PLEASE...PLEASE...PLEASE take this opportunity to set me straight and be a man and tell me that despite those remarks you think they have a good line. Only to those that read selectively. The simplicity of my argument is apparent to even the most elementary reader: the QB is more important than the OL, so he should be taken first. Don't wait until your OL is good, because you can succeed with a great QB before you have a great OL. The fact that I have to repeat the crux of this for you for the 13th time in this very thread is more than disturbing. Every single argument that I've made is consistent with this...I'm really not sure where your confusion lies. Pointing out the statistically significant portion of teams to which this statement applies hardly qualifies aa taking shots at the OL in general. If that's what you think, you're far too sensitive. There is that short term memory loss again and contradictory points. Let's clear it all up for me. YOU TELL ME WHAT LINES YOU THINK ARE GOOD????? This will remove all doubt because all you do is point out things that you believe make the various lines discussed look bad including the Colts. Again given your lack of integrity I do not expect a definitive answer. A correlation occurrs when a direct relationship exists between to measurable factors. As I showed to you with numbers, your more passes = more sacks is in absolutely no way a direct correlation. Some teams throw a lot more than others, and only a certain percentage of those give up more sacks. Some teams throw way less than others, and yet a certain percentage of those give up lots of sacks. This is what's called mutual exclusivity...as in they're not directly related. It's not a difficult concept to grasp...tell you what, if you can show me a direct relationship (which would be the first time in this thread that you've shown anything of statistical significance) between the two, I'll believe you. You don't have to wait for me to do the same for my stance, as I've already given you the numbers. Apparently you have no idea WHAT a correlation is if you use the phrase "direct relationship" Here is a link for the dictionary.com definition. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/correlation Short term memory loss is really an issue for you. I would suggest St John's Wort. As I have said it is a small mind that can only weigh 2 factors that might influence sacks per attempt. Did you come up with all of that by yourself? You must be so proud. None of what you said changes the facts. Some teams have higher sacks per pass attempts than others. Some of those teams pass often (i.e. Green Bay), others not so much (i.e. Oakland)...your soliloquy was eloquent, but oh-so-useless in light of the facts. What is it you are trying to say with this drivel? Be clear man. I supposed I should keep going, but this is getting boring (and below academic, if you ask me). So I'll close by saying just a few things: (1) if you find the term "bro" offensive enough to hurl a sexual-preference slur in response, get help. (2) if you're going to debate someone, and you choose to start by calling yourself the "king of stats", it wouldn't hurt to occasionally bring a statistic into the discussion (3) questioning someone's integrity in one sentence, then denying that you said something that you clearly said in the following sentence, can severly damage your credibility...I'd refrain from doing that in the future if I were you. Blah blah blah. Typical discussion and search for knowledge that has gone nowhere. I don't think there was anything of value in this entire thread which does truly make it a waste of time. No knowledge gained or shared. Keep believing that the QB is more important than having a good offensive line. For me, it's order of operation or putting up a building. You need a firm foundation in the o-line to make any of the rest of it worth it. That being said as I have not once provided any negative statements about the QB. QB is VERY important but you will not get to the promised land without a good o-line. I DON'T MEAN STELLAR OR PROBOWLER AT EVERY POSITON. Just at least good. Then again I'm sure that you attribute the Jets success to the heroics of Mark Sanchez not the 3 probowlers on their o-line. I'm sure there is some rare exception you will cling to to say this strategy isn't the way to go ...but then again your opinion has proven to be sketchy at best. The o-line is like a set of tires on the best race car. If your tires aren't good enough you won't be first on race day no matter how much horse power the engine has. No matter how good the suspension. So I'll close by saying: 1) Taking offense is at the discretion of the one offended. I have no idea what would make you or anyone previous think to address me as "bro" as we are not siblings or friends. 2) "Lighten up Francis" I am the King of Stats...get used to it. When I use them they don't even refute my statements. I don't say something is good or important and then provide stats to the contrary. 3) Already explained the difference between "can" and "did" hope it was educational. For the record you basically refused to answer pretty much all of my questions thus proving your lack of integrity. Keep it classy bandit
thebandit27 Posted February 9, 2010 Posted February 9, 2010 I tried to educate but apparently you aren't capable of understanding the difference between can't run and choosing to pass. [a whole bunch of BS] Keep it classy bandit Another 5,000 words without one drop of support for your stance...awesome. "Bro" is a pronoun (much like "dude" or "man"--I'm relatively sure you're familiar with these also exotic terms) often used to address someone of a similar ilk (i.e. a fellow Bills fan). If you're offended enough by that to make sexual slurs, then as I said, you're far too sensitive and need help. Either that, or perhaps you ought to admit that you over-reacted to a debate with a juvenile slur. You may as well call yourself the King of Cars, Camels, Movies, Furniture, and a million other things in addition to Stats, since they all have one thing in common: you haven't used them in this thread. I also don't find it prudent to say something like "sorry to be a jerk" and then go on to do the exact things for which you chastise someone else (i.e. refuse to respond to a point and follow up by lobbing a different question back at me, dismissing every fact as an exception, etc.). If you're sorry for being a jerk, there's a simple answer to that: don't be one. I personally don't care how much of a jerk you act like, it's a free country, but you sound like a fool when you say that in light of your diction. Sorry I can't be quite as classy as lobbing a sexual preference slur in your direction...hope that doesn't dissappoint you. As for the rest of the debate, go on believing as you will. The points I've made are clear and well supported enough to let them stand on their own.
trolls_r_us Posted February 9, 2010 Posted February 9, 2010 the thing about football is that people over think it and act like it takes some sort of genius to figure it out. It's truly simple: good QB=playoffs Period. No "yeah buts...." Without a QB you have NO CHANCE which is why the Bills have stunk since Bledsoe had 1 good year. Fitzpatrick, Edwards and Brohm is EASILY the worst QB trio in the NFL. Try to name one worse.
Guest dog14787 Posted February 9, 2010 Posted February 9, 2010 Bottom line is this, Manning and Brees throw for 300+ yards almost on a weekly basis. When is the last time a Bills QB threw for 300 yards? Wasnt it AVP???? When was the last time we had a good O-line including top notch pass catching TE's????
DasNootz Posted February 9, 2010 Posted February 9, 2010 Over the past decade 26 QBs have been taken in the first round. As many have flamed out than have been meaningful in the NFL. It's all a crapshoot. 2000 18 – Jets: Chad Pennington 2001 1 – Atlanta: Michael Vick 2002 1- Texans: David Carr 3 – Lions: Joey Harrington 32 – Redskins: Patrick Ramsey 2003 1 – Bengals: Carson Palmer 7 – Jaguars: Byron Leftwich 19 – Ravens: Kyle Boller 22 – Bears: Rex Grossman 2004 1 – Giants: Eli Manning 4 – Chargers: Philip Rivers 11 – Steelers: Ben Roethlisberger 22 – Bills: JP Losman 2005 1 – 49ers: Alex Smith 24 – Packers: Aaron Rodgers 25 – Redskins: Jason Campbell 2006 3 – Titans: Vince Young 10 – Cardinals: Matt Leinart 11 – Broncos: Jay Cutler 2007 1 – Raiders: Jamarcus Russell 22 – Browns: Brady Quinn 2008 3 – Falcons Matt Ryan 18 – Ravens Joe Flacco 2009 1 – Lions: Matt Stafford 5 – Jets: Sanchez 17 – Bucs: Josh Freeman
DasNootz Posted February 9, 2010 Posted February 9, 2010 the thing about football is that people over think it and act like it takes some sort of genius to figure it out. It's truly simple: good QB=playoffs Period. No "yeah buts...." Without a QB you have NO CHANCE which is why the Bills have stunk since Bledsoe had 1 good year. Fitzpatrick, Edwards and Brohm is EASILY the worst QB trio in the NFL. Try to name one worse. Oakland has Russel, Charlie Frye and Bruce Gradkowski... not only are they worse, but they cost more too.
Guest dog14787 Posted February 9, 2010 Posted February 9, 2010 the thing about football is that people over think it and act like it takes some sort of genius to figure it out. It's truly simple: good QB=playoffs Period. No "yeah buts...." Without a QB you have NO CHANCE which is why the Bills have stunk since Bledsoe had 1 good year. Fitzpatrick, Edwards and Brohm is EASILY the worst QB trio in the NFL. Try to name one worse. Try to name a worse line then our 09 O-line yet you want to evaluate our QB's that tried to play behind it, makes allot of sense. Even so, TE is almost .500 career , Fitzpatrick has won 9 of his last 12 games and Brohm is still a mystery, but has a big portion of the Bills fan base behind him.
Recommended Posts