Another reason for going with tackles over qb's.

[Mr. WEO]

You are correct....so what is your point? We need another QB...everyone agrees on that. The smart people understand that whoever we get at QB will amount to jack **** without a line to keep them on their feet....PLEASE....PLEASE tell me about the 2 teams in the superbowl this year and how they had non 1st rd LTs. Then also tell me which of these QBs in the draft will play like Peyton or Drew to make your "the QB makes the line better" scenario a reality!!!!

 

I'm waiting.

How about some of the other LTs in the playoffs--all teams that had a shot at the SB?

 

It's not all about having a Brees or Manning. How about an Aaron Rogers, a Big Ben, even a Flacco? Cleveland has a perrenial Pro Bowler at LT---so what? Denver has one. And?

 

Look, you can't turn a morbidly obese 7th round TE into a Pro Bowl QB. However............that same guy can easily become "one of the best" at LT. Nuff said.

[DarthICE]

How about some of the other LTs in the playoffs--all teams that had a shot at the SB?

 

It's not all about having a Brees or Manning. How about an Aaron Rogers, a Big Ben, even a Flacco? Cleveland has a perrenial Pro Bowler at LT---so what? Denver has one. And?

 

Look, you can't turn a morbidly obese 7th round TE into a Pro Bowl QB. However............that same guy can easily become "one of the best" at LT. Nuff said.

 

Ouch more facts to hit the LT crew with.

[PDaDdy]

How about some of the other LTs in the playoffs--all teams that had a shot at the SB?

 

It's not all about having a Brees or Manning. How about an Aaron Rogers, a Big Ben, even a Flacco? Cleveland has a perrenial Pro Bowler at LT---so what? Denver has one. And?

 

Look, you can't turn a morbidly obese 7th round TE into a Pro Bowl QB. However............that same guy can easily become "one of the best" at LT. Nuff said.

 

 

You have the intelligence of a flea if you think you can easily make probowl LTs out of undrated TEs. How did that work out for us this year turning crap into a probowl LT?...Ya thought so. You were probably one of those idiots claiming that practice squad/development guy XYZ could come in and do as good a job. MORONS!!!! They have been proven wrong. And for all of your sour grapes, whiny baby bashing, Peters MADE YET ANOTHER PROBOWL...so...SUCK IT! You are wrong that he sucked but you won't have the integrity to admit it. You all know better than all the coaches, GMs and fellow players that Peters didn't deserve it! You guys are jokes and your opinions mean less than nothing because they are not objective and factual.

 

Again you people are clueless. Let me straighten some things out for you guys.

 

1) The offensive line is comprised of LT LT C RG RT. The LT is not the sole player on the line and is not solely responsible for it's performance. (Should have been obvious but I guess I assumed to high a level of basic knowledge)

 

2) Although not probowlers their lines did a sufficient job protecting their QBs to allow them to do their job. (Again I assumed the obvious that it was common knowledge that not everyone that is good makes it to the probowl. AGAIN LT does not equal the entire o-line)

 

3) I agree it's not all about Brees and Manning but some jackass keeps referencing the two teams in the super bowl only.

 

4) Aaron Rogers discussed to death by me in other threads he and Big Ben actually have mediocre lines. This one is a bit more complicated so I will try to keep it simple for you.

 

4a) Aaron Rogers and Big Ben have HUGE arms. The deep threat or ball in tight window threat helps to dictate defensive coverage and how many rush the passer

 

4b) How much better did the packers get as a team after the talk with the offensive line regarding protection and sacks. See how the line makes the QB and the team better? (You probably still don't but I tried)

 

4c) Big Ben is a freak of nature huge QB that refuses to go down. Again not your normal run of the mill QB. His unique toughness and ability to elude the rush make him and his line better.

 

5) And Flacco....he has a pretty good line!!!!...DUH

 

AGAIN....I will put this out there and expand it for you. ...FIND ME A ROOKIE QB IN THIS DRAFT THAT IS GUARANTEED TO PLAY LIKE AARON ROGERS, BIG BEN, PEYTON MANNING OR DREW BREES AND I AM ALL FOR DRAFTING THEM!!!!....Oh wait...can't find anyone that you will guarantee that will play at that level to minimize any short comings of their line....I can honestly say I am NOT surprised. Let's take it down a notch....find me a guy in the draft that you guarantee will wplay like any one of those guys at some point in their career and I am all for drafting them....OH wait....still no one you will put that guarantee on? Big surprise.

 

Get a solid LT that involves little risk ....make the line better and allow them to gel as a whole and then get a free agent QB in here and BANG....SURPRISE all of a sudden we are contenders again in ONE FREAKIN' YEAR!!! Hell...even get the QB of the future to groom to be ready to play in 2 or 3 years.

 

Problem solved.

[thebandit27]

Yes you are missing something. A probowl LT does not a great QB make. A LT's job is to protect the blind side of a right handed QB to allow them to be the best they can be. If your QB sucks, your QB sucks no matter how much time he has. They are COMPLETELY separate issues in that respect.

 

The point being the QB can't do his job effectively if the line doesn't do their's. People in favor of the QB first keep pointing out RARE exceptions like Manning and Brees who are MULTI year veteran, few times in a generation, QBs. As I have said before...find me a rookie in the draft that can play like that day 1 and I'll agree with the "get a better QB to make the line better with same personnel" crowd. YOU KNOW THAT GUY DOESN'T EXIST! Secondly if you can point to ONE GUY in this draft that you GUARANTEE will play like Peyton Manning and Drew Brees by their 3rd or 4th year....draft that guy!... YOU KNOW THAT GUY DOESN'T EXIST!

Sooooo...the sane thing to do with little risk is to draft a LT. Fix the line to allow whoever you have at QB AND your RBs to be the best that they can be! Hopefully that clears it up.

 

Wait a minute here, you're chastising people for wanting a rookie QB because he can't be guaranteed to be a franchise QB, but then you go ahead and assume that drafting a LT guarantees a "fixed" OL? And why is that such a lower risk than a QB? Didn't you just say that no QB can do his job if the LT can't block? If I used your logic, taking the wrong LT is at least as big a risk to my team's success as taking the right QB without a good LT to protect him, wouldn't you say?

[tennesseeboy]

Actually I didn't post to argue the selection of a qb over an LT (although I believe our first pick should be an LT this year given our needs and the quality of players who will most likely be available at the position) I was speculating that in building an offensive line one should not just consider the 5 guys on the field but also the likelihood (I'm not sure of this but it seems that offensive linemen in general seem to get hurt a lot). of injury that every effort should be made to have quality back ups.

 

The qb/LT thing is kind of a dead horse. Some think line, some think qb. I'm in the line category partly because I'm not all that impressed with the two qb's being discussed.

[PDaDdy]

Wait a minute here, you're chastising people for wanting a rookie QB because he can't be guaranteed to be a franchise QB, but then you go ahead and assume that drafting a LT guarantees a "fixed" OL? And why is that such a lower risk than a QB? Didn't you just say that no QB can do his job if the LT can't block? If I used your logic, taking the wrong LT is at least as big a risk to my team's success as taking the right QB without a good LT to protect him, wouldn't you say?

 

 

Look at the previous drafts of high pick QBs vs LTs and you will have your answer The Mike Williams bust is a RARITY!!! The NFL landscape is littered with first round QBs that have busted and doomed their teams for the obligatory 3 or 4 years while they figure out he is NOT the guy. I would have thought this was obvious but apparently I have assumed to much lately.

[PDaDdy]

Actually I didn't post to argue the selection of a qb over an LT (although I believe our first pick should be an LT this year given our needs and the quality of players who will most likely be available at the position) I was speculating that in building an offensive line one should not just consider the 5 guys on the field but also the likelihood (I'm not sure of this but it seems that offensive linemen in general seem to get hurt a lot). of injury that every effort should be made to have quality back ups.

 

The qb/LT thing is kind of a dead horse. Some think line, some think qb. I'm in the line category partly because I'm not all that impressed with the two qb's being discussed.

 

 

Yet another good point. No only do a good portion of our starters sucks our depth is EVEN WORSE!

[thebandit27]

Again you people are clueless. Let me straighten some things out for you guys.

 

1) The offensive line is comprised of LT LT C RG RT. The LT is not the sole player on the line and is not solely responsible for it's performance. (Should have been obvious but I guess I assumed to high a level of basic knowledge)

 

2) Although not probowlers their lines did a sufficient job protecting their QBs to allow them to do their job. (Again I assumed the obvious that not every that is good makes it to the probowl. AGAIN LT does not equal the entire o-line)

 

3) I agree it's not all about Brees and Manning but some jackass keeps referencing the two teams in the super bowl only.

 

4) Aaron Rogers discussed to death by me in other threads he and Big Ben actually have mediocre lines. This one is a bit more complicated so I will try to keep it simple for you.

 

4a) Aaron Rogers and Big Ben have HUGE arms. The deep threat or ball in tight window threat helps to dictate defensive coverage and how many rush the passer

 

4b) How much better did the packers get as a team after the talk with the offensive line regarding protection and sacks. See how the line makes the QB and the team better? (You probably still don't but I tried)

 

4c) Big Ben is a freak of nature huge QB that refuses to go down. Again not your normal run of the mill QB. His unique toughness and ability to elude the rush make him and his line better.

 

5) And Flacco....he has a pretty good line!!!!...DUH

 

AGAIN....I will put this out there and expand it for you. ...FIND ME A ROOKIE QB IN THIS DRAFT THAT IS GUARANTEED TO PLAY LIKE AARON ROGERS, BIG BEN, PEYTON MANNING OR DREW BREES AND I AM ALL FOR DRAFTING THEM!!!!....Oh wait...can't find anyone that you will guarantee that will play at that level to minimize any short comings of their line....I can honestly say I am NOT surprised. Let's take it down a notch....find me a guy in the draft that you guarantee will wplay like any one of those guys at some point in their career and I am all for drafting them....OH wait....still no one you will put that guarantee on? Big surprise.

 

Get a solid LT that involves little risk ....make the line better and allow them to gel as a whole and then get a free agent QB in here and BANG....SURPRISE all of a sudden we are contenders again in ONE FREAKIN' YEAR!!! Hell...even get the QB of the future to groom to be ready to play in 2 or 3 years.

 

Problem solved.

 

What you've done here is called a mis-step.

 

1) Obviously, there are 5 players on the line. So tell me how one player at LT is going to make the line so much better when, by your own admission, it's about 5 guys working together...

 

2) So now it's not about having a good OL, it's about having a "sufficient" OL. Like, give up 50 sacks sufficient (GB)? Or maybe 47 sacks sufficient (GB)? That is not "sufficient", it's bad.

 

3) Brees and Manning are simply examples of why a great QB can succeed with average OL personnel. There not the only ones that do this, as I've pointed out to you in the past.

 

4a) So it sounds like you're saying that the QB's arm strength can dictate what the defense can and can't do, right? So then, if the QB can do these things (which by the way is exactly what guys like Manning and Brees do, which is why some people mention them in this thread), why is it so important to have this awesome OL in front of him? It sounds like maybe you agree that QB play can affect the defenses ability to get to him, so why argue so fervently otherwise?

 

4b) I see. So a stern-talking-to is what made the GB line give up fewer sacks in down the stretch? Wow, good stuff. You don't by chance, have a link to what the GB coaches said, do you? Maybe we could play that for Buffalo's OL and all would be solved! Where was that speach for the playoff game vs. Arizona, when they gave up 5 sacks (including the one on the game's decisive play)?

 

So perhaps, instead of screaming about guarantees, you'd like to offer your own? Find me one LT that is guaranteed to keep my QB from getting injured and I'll agree with you.

[Pirate Angel]

Its not a matter of going with a QB over a LT its whos available when where on the clock. There are only 2 QBs worth a first round pick, and about 5 teams ahed of us could possible go with the option of a QB. We most likely will grab one in RD 3

[thebandit27]

Look at the previous drafts of high pick QBs vs LTs and you will have your answer The Mike Williams bust is a RARITY!!! The NFL landscape is littered with first round QBs that have busted and doomed their teams for the obligatory 3 or 4 years while they figure out he is NOT the guy. I would have thought this was obvious but apparently I have assumed to much lately.

 

You can be as condescending as you like, it doesn't make you right.

 

Since you challenged, let's look at it:

 

1999: John Tait, Matt Stinchcomb, Luke Pettigout, L.J. Shelton, Aaron Gibson

I count 1 above-average tackle (Tait), 2 journeymen-at-best (Shelton and Pettigout), and 2 guys that never had a career.

 

2000: Chris Samuels, Stocker McDougle, Chris McIntosh

I see 1 stud (Samuels) and 2 unarguable busts

 

2001: Leonard Davis, Kenyatta Walker, Jeff Backus

I’ve got 1 average tackle (Backus), 1 non-factor at tackle that had to be moved to guard (Davis), and 1 bust (Walker)

 

2002: Mike Williams, Bryant McKinnie, Levi Jones, Marc Columbo

I label 1 above-average tackle (Jones), 2 average tackles (McKinnie and Columbo), and 1 bust (Williams)

 

2003: Jordan Gross, George Foster, Kwame Harris

My take? 1 above-average tackle (Gross) and 2 busts that lost their jobs within 2 years

 

2004: Robert Gallery, Vernon Carey

Here we go, 1 big bust (Gallery) and 1 average tackle (Carey)

 

2005: Jammal Brown and Alex Barron

This one’s easy, 1 stud (Brown) and 1 bust (Barron)

 

2006: D’Brickashaw Ferguson

I'll say above-average.

 

2007: Joe Thomas, Levi Brown, Joe Staley

1 pro bowler (Thomas), 1 average (Staley), 1 below average (Brown)

 

To early for 2008? Methinks not: Jake Long, Ryan Clady, Chris Williams, Branden Albert, Gosder Cherilus, Jeff Otah, Sam Baker, Duane Brown

2 pro bowlers (Long & Clady), 2 average (Otah, Brown), 1 injury problem (Baker), 3 non-factors-at-best (Albert, Williams, Cherilus)

 

Definitely too early for 2009 IMO.

 

Now let's do QBs:

 

1999: Couch, McNabb, A. Smith, McNown, Culpepper

2 pro bowlers (McNabb, Culpepper) and 3 busts

 

2000: C. Pennington

I'll say above-average

 

2001: M. Vick

Average at best (Brees was 1st pick of 2nd round this year)

 

2002: D. Carr, J. Harrington, P. Ramsey

3 busts, IMO

 

2003: C. Palmer, B. Leftwich, K. Boller

1 pro bowler (Palmer), 1 average (Leftwich had some good years in Jax), and 1 bust

 

2004: E. Manning, P. Rivers, B. Roethlisberger, J. Losman

3 pro bowlers (including 2 superbowl winners) and 1 bust

 

2005: A. Smith, A. Rodgers, J. Campbell

1 pro bowler (Rodgers) and 2 average QBs (Smith came around last year, and I think Campbell has played well, under the circumstances in Washington)

 

2006: V. Young, M. Leinart, J. Cutler

I'll go 2 above-average (Young and Cutler) and 1 non-factor

 

2007: J. Russell, B. Quinn

I'll say 1 bust and 1 average-at-best

 

2008: M. Ryan, J. Flacco

1 pro bowler and 1 above-average

 

Again, too early for 2009.

 

So, to me, it looks about the same for boom vs. bust rates at the 2 positions...what say you?

[JohnC]

long time reader, haven't posted much but...

 

For all of you who think that it's necessary for the Bills to fix the LT position before fixing the QB situation...I may be missing something, and if you can convince me otherwise go ahead, but can anybody tell me how many winning seasons we had with Jason Peters? how many pro-bowl seasons we got out of our QB with Jason Peters? how many 300 yard passing games we had with Jason Peters?

 

You can't judge an OL by any particular player. The OL as a UNIT for the Bills has been been hideously bad for a very long time. A lot of people think that by drafting a talented LT with our first pick our line is going to be healed. It is not. The RT position is inadequate, even if Butler returns to health, and there is a good probability that Woods is not going to be the same player he was. It is not unusual that his type of serious injury could take two years before his leg regains its original strength.

 

How about our DL? If the coaching staff goes to the 3-4 scheme then the DL has to add players which fit that scheme. The point I'm making is that there are so many needs that one player, whether it is the LT or even new face qb, is not going to make an appreciable difference. The reality of this flawed franchise is that this team is in a rebuilding mode which is going to take more than a few years, assuming that mostly smart personnel decisions are made.

 

It is going to take more than a couple of drafts before the roster is restored to respectability. Whether it is the qb position or LT position or any other position it is going to take a number of successful picks before this franchise becomes a relevant franchise.

[Calgary_JG]

We need both, nobody should dispute that (except some rhodes scholars on here who are either related to TE or who he's got some incriminating photos of) but given an opportunity to draft a QB of the future or a LT of the future, give me the QB anyday.

 

Anybody who thinks that drafting a LT carries less risk than drafting a QB is drinking the Michael Oher cool aid and forgets that some of the biggest busts in draft history have been LTs. Remember Mike "sure thing" Williams?

 

The Bills have done a terrible job of evalutating first round talent in the last ten years. At this point we can only hope that the decision this staff makes plays more than 3 years in a Bills uniform. But if they make that pick a QB it'll be a hell of a lot easier to turn on the TV in September with a Bills jersey on.

[PDaDdy]

What you've done here is called a mis-step.

 

1) Obviously, there are 5 players on the line. So tell me how one player at LT is going to make the line so much better when, by your own admission, it's about 5 guys working together...

 

I'm glad it is obvious to you. It wasn't obvious to those that have myopically made this about LTs and QBs on super bowl teams. I am glad you get it though. Never said one guy is going to make the line so much better. I said it will make it better and anyone who we put in at QB better. Seems you made what is called a mis-step here!

2) So now it's not about having a good OL, it's about having a "sufficient" OL. Like, give up 50 sacks sufficient (GB)? Or maybe 47 sacks sufficient (GB)? That is not "sufficient", it's bad.

 

Not sure where you are getting this from of trying to make it the focus of my points. We don't currently have a sufficiently good line. We definitely need a good one if not a great one! Are you talking about Green Bay early in the season when they were giving up 4 sacks a game or the Green Bay later in the season that was giving up 1 sack a game? (Not sure about the exact numbers but you get the point....well....I hope you get the point. The team and QB got better when the line got better. And yes...to begin the season they were bad and Aaron Rogers was not all he could be.

 

3) Brees and Manning are simply examples of why a great QB can succeed with average OL personnel. There not the only ones that do this, as I've pointed out to you in the past.

 

First of all the illusion that Peyton Manning had average personnel is complete crap. Speaking of mis-steps please explain to me how the regular season #1 ranked offensive line in the NFL by nfl.freakin.com is average. PLEASE explain that to me. As I have said in the past there are a RARE and small group of QBs that can succeed with poor line play. To be honest Brees and Manning haven't even proven to fit into that category because they have good, and in the case of Indy, the #1 o-line in the game. This has been pointed out to YOU in the past. Rogers and Big Ben are the only ones mentioned that you could say suffered from poor line play.

 

4a) So it sounds like you're saying that the QB's arm strength can dictate what the defense can and can't do, right? So then, if the QB can do these things (which by the way is exactly what guys like Manning and Brees do, which is why some people mention them in this thread), why is it so important to have this awesome OL in front of him? It sounds like maybe you agree that QB play can affect the defenses ability to get to him, so why argue so fervently otherwise?

 

I don't know why you would need an "awesome" line in front of them. Your word "awesome" not mine. They do need a line good enough to allow them to be the best that they can be though. This should be obvious. Due to the careful wording of my statement also 100% true

 

4b) I see. So a stern-talking-to is what made the GB line give up fewer sacks in down the stretch? Wow, good stuff. You don't by chance, have a link to what the GB coaches said, do you? Maybe we could play that for Buffalo's OL and all would be solved! Where was that speach for the playoff game vs. Arizona, when they gave up 5 sacks (including the one on the game's decisive play)?

 

Thank you for proving my point. Your great example of look how badly Rogers and his team sucked when the line sucked. Case closed. Poor line play lost the game for the packers. I guess you don't watch sports center because the "talk" and focus on preventing sacks was well publicized and apparently effective regardless of not knowing the intimate details of what was discussed in the players only meeting.

So perhaps, instead of screaming about guarantees, you'd like to offer your own? Find me one LT that is guaranteed to keep my QB from getting injured and I'll agree with you.

 

That is a retarded request for a guarantee. What I will do is give you the same guarantee that you are unwilling to make about a QB. I will guarantee that whoever we draft at #9 at LT will be start day 1 and be a solid LT that will make our line better and help to protect the blind side of our QB. Since I never made silly comparisons about probowl once in a lifetime LTs making bad QBs better I can reasonably make my guarantee. Others on the other hand have used the examples of 2 of the best ever in Peyton and Drew.

 

In addition I have attempted to lift the veil of ignorance and inform people that o-line play does not come down to LT. Others continually use the how many pro bowl LTs were in the super bowl so their entire o-line was mediocre due to this fact and it was the QB making the line look better. I have not made such a stupid claim in reverse regarding LTs.

 

 

Good LT's make the line better. Good lines make the QB and the RBs better. Pretty simple stuff there.

 

You can't exactly say the same regarding QBs. GREAT or AWESOME QBs make their line better and can make the RBs slightly better. But we are talking GREAT or oddly unique like GREAT mobility or size and refusal to get tackled by anything under 275lbs.

[PDaDdy]

You can be as condescending as you like, it doesn't make you right.

 

Since you challenged, let's look at it:

 

1999: John Tait, Matt Stinchcomb, Luke Pettigout, L.J. Shelton, Aaron Gibson

I count 1 above-average tackle (Tait), 2 journeymen-at-best (Shelton and Pettigout), and 2 guys that never had a career.

 

2000: Chris Samuels, Stocker McDougle, Chris McIntosh

I see 1 stud (Samuels) and 2 unarguable busts

 

2001: Leonard Davis, Kenyatta Walker, Jeff Backus

I’ve got 1 average tackle (Backus), 1 non-factor at tackle that had to be moved to guard (Davis), and 1 bust (Walker)

 

2002: Mike Williams, Bryant McKinnie, Levi Jones, Marc Columbo

I label 1 above-average tackle (Jones), 2 average tackles (McKinnie and Columbo), and 1 bust (Williams)

 

2003: Jordan Gross, George Foster, Kwame Harris

My take? 1 above-average tackle (Gross) and 2 busts that lost their jobs within 2 years

 

2004: Robert Gallery, Vernon Carey

Here we go, 1 big bust (Gallery) and 1 average tackle (Carey)

 

2005: Jammal Brown and Alex Barron

This one’s easy, 1 stud (Brown) and 1 bust (Barron)

 

2006: D’Brickashaw Ferguson

I'll say above-average.

 

2007: Joe Thomas, Levi Brown, Joe Staley

1 pro bowler (Thomas), 1 average (Staley), 1 below average (Brown)

 

To early for 2008? Methinks not: Jake Long, Ryan Clady, Chris Williams, Branden Albert, Gosder Cherilus, Jeff Otah, Sam Baker, Duane Brown

2 pro bowlers (Long & Clady), 2 average (Otah, Brown), 1 injury problem (Baker), 3 non-factors-at-best (Albert, Williams, Cherilus)

 

Definitely too early for 2009 IMO.

 

Now let's do QBs:

 

1999: Couch, McNabb, A. Smith, McNown, Culpepper

2 pro bowlers (McNabb, Culpepper) and 3 busts

 

2000: C. Pennington

I'll say above-average

 

2001: M. Vick

Average at best (Brees was 1st pick of 2nd round this year)

 

2002: D. Carr, J. Harrington, P. Ramsey

3 busts, IMO

 

2003: C. Palmer, B. Leftwich, K. Boller

1 pro bowler (Palmer), 1 average (Leftwich had some good years in Jax), and 1 bust

 

2004: E. Manning, P. Rivers, B. Roethlisberger, J. Losman

3 pro bowlers (including 2 superbowl winners) and 1 bust

 

2005: A. Smith, A. Rodgers, J. Campbell

1 pro bowler (Rodgers) and 2 average QBs (Smith came around last year, and I think Campbell has played well, under the circumstances in Washington)

 

2006: V. Young, M. Leinart, J. Cutler

I'll go 2 above-average (Young and Cutler) and 1 non-factor

 

2007: J. Russell, B. Quinn

I'll say 1 bust and 1 average-at-best

 

2008: M. Ryan, J. Flacco

1 pro bowler and 1 above-average

 

Again, too early for 2009.

 

So, to me, it looks about the same for boom vs. bust rates at the 2 positions...what say you?

 

 

I say that I hate to nit pick but I really don't agree with a bunch of your assessments. Bryan McKinney? You mean the guy that was in the probowl this year and skipped practices? That Bryan McKinney is average? This speaks to the heart of my issue with your assessment. He is not only above average he is elite. For me elite means pro bowl starter. Sorry if you use a different measuring stick. You also point out guys like Kwame Harris that lost their job after two years but was a 16 game starter in his 3rd AND 4th year. Show some integrity and don't try to fool people and hope they don't actually check your statements.

 

I also mentioned BUSTS ...nothing to do with average, slight above average, lukewarm whatever. It makes your point look a little less like a stretch when you try to critique the players skill level. BUST QBs vs BUST LTs. That's all I said. That's my point 100%. Addressing anything else is not refuting my point. And sorry I don't trust your assessment about talent grades but I would consider looking at lifetime grades from nfl scouting reports.

 

I think when focusing on what I said BUSTS specifically that my point is proven. Many more bust QBs than LTs in the first round of the draft.

[2003Contenders]

Well, it depends on the QB, too. If the Bills were to acquire a veteran QB (say McNabb for the sake of argument), then I would agree that his presence would in and of itself make the OL better. However, an inexperienced QB (say a rookie) behind a patchwork OL could spell doom for both the short term as well as the long term. It's really a catch-22. I would say, assuming that we are unable to address the QB position in free agency or trade, I would rather invest the high pick on an OL than a QB. Of course, if the team can find a LT via trade or free agency...

[thebandit27]

I say that I hate to nit pick but I really don't agree with a bunch of your assessments. Bryan McKinney? You mean the guy that was in the probowl this year and skipped practices? That Bryan McKinney is average? This speaks to the heart of my issue with your assessment. He is not only above average he is elite. For me elite means pro bowl starter. Sorry if you use a different measuring stick. I also mentioned BUSTS ...nothing to do with average, slight above average, lukewarm whatever. It makes your point look a little less like a stretch when you try to critique the players skill level. Sorry I don't trust your assessment but I would consider looking at lifetime grades from nfl scouting reports.

 

I think when focusing on what I said BUSTS specifically that my point is proven. Many more bust QBs than LTs in the first round of the draft.

 

Oh yeah, McKinnie's elite alright...just look at the #s:

 

http://profootballfocus.com/by_position.ph...&numgames=1

 

He's pretty far from elite. That site, which does more individual OL analysis than any other reference available, ranks him the 33rd best OT in the league, by performance:

 

http://profootballfocus.com/by_position.ph...&numgames=1

 

Elite my rear end!

 

Now, you may choose to evaluate players differently, but go back and look at the #s, just as many busts at OT as there are as QBs. If you disagree, show me where.

[PDaDdy]

Well, it depends on the QB, too. If the Bills were to acquire a veteran QB (say McNabb for the sake of argument), then I would agree that his presence would in and of itself make the OL better. However, an inexperienced QB (say a rookie) behind a patchwork OL could spell doom for both the short term as well as the long term. It's really a catch-22. I would say, assuming that we are unable to address the QB position in free agency or trade, I would rather invest the high pick on an OL than a QB. Of course, if the team can find a LT via trade or free agency...

 

 

Clear headed statement. Some, possibly including myself, at times forget the big picture. But this also echos a statement of mine. People keep pointing out a rare few exception VETERAN QBs that can make their lines better than they are. As I have said many times.....find me a rookie in the draft that can do the same thing and I will be all for drafting THAT SPECIFIC rookie in the draft. I have even gone so far as to say if you see a rookie QB in the draft that will eventually turn into that DRAFT HIM...Of course no one is able to make that claim and stand by it.

[Green Lightning]

No it didn't. the QB play sucked and has since Kelly retired.

 

 

 

We were in the playoffs with Rob Johnson and Flutie. If it wasn't for the illegal kickoff return, we would have been in the big game with Johnson, who I recall, sucked. Rest of the team was pretty good. To all who are clamoring for a first round quaterback, tell me how the Hell you see any of them worthy of the 9th pick? Let's get a player that can help us on day one and actually play full time. I'm sick of projects. But no....many of you want to pick a Tebow, et al. Great. Our new QB can dodge the lame Maybin when the back-ups practice.

[PDaDdy]

Oh yeah, McKinnie's elite alright...just look at the #s:

 

http://profootballfocus.com/by_position.ph...&numgames=1

 

He's pretty far from elite. That site, which does more individual OL analysis than any other reference available, ranks him the 33rd best OT in the league, by performance:

 

http://profootballfocus.com/by_position.ph...&numgames=1

 

Elite my rear end!

 

Now, you may choose to evaluate players differently, but go back and look at the #s, just as many busts at OT as there are as QBs. If you disagree, show me where.

 

 

Well I didn't know that the previously unheard of site profootballfocus was gospel on LT ranking. Another little misdirection that you threw in there is you included ALL tackles not LTs AND it doesn't limit to starters. Even according to this site, not pro scouting grades, that McKinney is the 2009 8th best and 2008 7th best starting LT. Nice try at deception though

 

How about you do us a favor and find the ONLY rankings that matter from nfl scouts which I think is scouts.com or something. Then maybe I'll at least CONSIDER your argument. That being said ...uh PROBOWL....let me say it again PROBOWL. You Peters haters are all alike anyway. Whaannnnn whaaannn whaaaan. I hate Peters. He made the probowl yet A-FREAKIN-GAIN so the probowl must mean nothing because it refutes my cockamamie beliefs.

[thebandit27]

I'm glad it is obvious to you. It wasn't obvious to those that have myopically made this about LTs and QBs on super bowl teams. I am glad you get it though. Never said one guy is going to make the line so much better. I said it will make it better and anyone who we put in at QB better. Seems you made what is called a mis-step here!

 

 

Not sure where you are getting this from of trying to make it the focus of my points. We don't currently have a sufficiently good line. We definitely need a good one if not a great one! Are you talking about Green Bay early in the season when they were giving up 4 sacks a game or the Green Bay later in the season that was giving up 1 sack a game? (Not sure about the exact numbers but you get the point....well....I hope you get the point. The team and QB got better when the line got better. And yes...to begin the season they were bad and Aaron Rogers was not all he could be.

 

 

 

First of all the illusion that Peyton Manning had average personnel is complete crap. Speaking of mis-steps please explain to me how the regular season #1 ranked offensive line in the NFL by nfl.freakin.com is average. PLEASE explain that to me. As I have said in the past there are a RARE and small group of QBs that can succeed with poor line play. To be honest Brees and Manning haven't even proven to fit into that category because they have good, and in the case of Indy, the #1 o-line in the game. This has been pointed out to YOU in the past. Rogers and Big Ben are the only ones mentioned that you could say suffered from poor line play.

 

 

 

I don't know why you would need an "awesome" line in front of them. Your word "awesome" not mine. They do need a line good enough to allow them to be the best that they can be though. This should be obvious. Due to the careful wording of my statement also 100% true

 

 

 

Thank you for proving my point. Your great example of look how badly Rogers and his team sucked when the line sucked. Case closed. Poor line play lost the game for the packers. I guess you don't watch sports center because the "talk" and focus on preventing sacks was well publicized and apparently effective regardless of not knowing the intimate details of what was discussed in the players only meeting.

 

 

That is a retarded request for a guarantee. What I will do is give you the same guarantee that you are unwilling to make about a QB. I will guarantee that whoever we draft at #9 at LT will be start day 1 and be a solid LT that will make our line better and help to protect the blind side of our QB. Since I never made silly comparisons about probowl once in a lifetime LTs making bad QBs better I can reasonably make my guarantee. Others on the other hand have used the examples of 2 of the best ever in Peyton and Drew.

 

In addition I have attempted to lift the veil of ignorance and inform people that o-line play does not come down to LT. Others continually use the how many pro bowl LTs were in the super bowl so their entire o-line was mediocre due to this fact and it was the QB making the line look better. I have not made such a stupid claim in reverse regarding LTs.

 

 

Good LT's make the line better. Good lines make the QB and the RBs better. Pretty simple stuff there.

 

You can't exactly say the same regarding QBs. GREAT or AWESOME QBs make their line better and can make the RBs slightly better. But we are talking GREAT or oddly unique like GREAT mobility or size and refusal to get tackled by anything under 275lbs.

 

1) Unless I missed something, you said this:

 

Sooooo...the sane thing to do with little risk is to draft a LT. Fix the line to allow whoever you have at QB AND your RBs to be the best that they can be! Hopefully that clears it up.

 

Does that not mean that with a new LT, the line will be "fixed"? If not, then what did you mean, and why didn't you say it?

 

2) Look at Rodgers' performance in the 1st half of the season vs. the 2nd half, there's almost no difference in his #s, so you're theory about him getting so much better as the line improved is incorrect, I'm afraid.

 

3) It's only complete crap if you ignore everything else, like the rushing stats. You yourself admitted that a QB has a huge effect on how much pressure a D can put on him. That being the case, how should we evaluate the Colts' blocking? As you know, we've been through the whole lowest-yards-per-carry in the league argument, which you choose to dismiss as irrelevent (since it doesn't prove your point). You won't look at high sack numbers to determine what's a bad line, you won't look at low yards-per-carry to determine what's a bad line, so tell me, how should we evaluate it?

 

4) Arizona got 5 sacks and all kinds of pressure on Rodgers in the playoffs, and he still threw for over 400 yards and 5 TDs...I'd say he's pretty much "being all he can be" just fine...even with a bad line.

 

5) If you really want to talk about what lost the game for GB, perhaps you could dig deep into your memory and recall the mis-fire on the deep ball to an open Greg Jennings one play prior to the deciding play? I'd say that play cost GB the game at least as much as the poor protection that Rodgers overcame to have a monster game.

 

6) Ah, I see. My request is "retarded", but your request for a Peyton Manning-like guarantee is totally rational? You've got to be kidding. Also, show me where I guaranteed that the QB would start right away? I thought that the point of been trying to make, through several discussions with you, that you somehow continue to miss, is that getting the right QB should trump getting a LT in terms of importance.

 

Look man, there's never going to be a perfect situation to throw a rookie QB into the game. He's going to have to fight through difficulties. He's going to have to overcome the fact that his protection may not be the greatest in the world. The truth about QBs, IMO, is that a guy either has the ability to play in the league or he doesn't. It shouldn't be that tough to figure out, even if he struggles right away.

 

Show me one case where a good OL made poor QBing better, and I'll agree with you. Until then, it's not me that's kidding themselves.