Another reason for going with tackles over qb's.

[PDaDdy]

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.

 

 

I'm sort of with you. I think there are some decent options at QB in this draft that if we had a decent line I would have no problem with drafting. The problem is we don't have a decent line. Many of us have lost focus and the real answer is wwe need both. The argument is about in which order. My point is if you don't have a good "foundation", the offensive line, the team your "building" will suffer. Why put a nice penthouse, the QB, on a building that is going to collapse because the foundation isn't sound.

[thebandit27]

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.

 

I'm not here to do your research for you, clown. I've done more than my share already.

 

But just for kicks, you should learn to use a toolbar, since the stats here show that--among tackles that played at least 75% of the snaps for their team, he ranked 19th in the NFL:

 

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

 

In 2008, you have to drop the menu down to 60%, since he didn't play as much, but he ranks 18th:

 

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

 

I know this is tough stuff, this newfangled internet stuff, but click around, you'll get it.

 

And, so you know, Peter King of SI.com considers that site to be the best analysis of OL play that the internet has to offer. I respect Mr. King, so I follow the site.

[stinky finger]

The Superbowl QB's didn't get hurt with lower round LT's protecting them. Get the damn QB in here and the lines will get better immediately

Really? Who? McNabb? Bradford? Clausen? Which one of these can't miss guys do you want prancing behind our deficient OL?

 

You expect these guys to make our OL better. That's laughable.

[tennesseeboy]

Really? Who? McNabb? Bradford? Clausen? Which one of these can't miss guys do you want prancing behind our deficient OL?

 

You expect these guys to make our OL better. That's laughable.

Actually if we aren't going to fix the offensive line the guy you want in the backfield is Vick. At least he can run for his life, and like Flutie, draw the attention of the defensive front seven as a legitimate running threat. In fact, even if we do get two good tackles in the draft, Vick would probably be the best guy to take us to the playoffs next year.

 

Neither Clausen nor Bradford are going to be anybody's vision of the future.

[stinky finger]

Actually if we aren't going to fix the offensive line the guy you want in the backfield is Vick. At least he can run for his life, and like Flutie, draw the attention of the defensive front seven as a legitimate running threat. In fact, even if we do get two good tackles in the draft, Vick would probably be the best guy to take us to the playoffs next year.

 

Neither Clausen nor Bradford are going to be anybody's vision of the future.

I'm on record as saying so as well (Vick). Not that he's the answer, but he's the type. And he won't cost much. He might be the perfect stopgap until we implement new schemes on both sides of the ball.

 

There's no quick fix.

[PDaDdy]

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?

 

No it is not what I am saying. We need to get a LT AND fix the line. Those are two separate statements. One is towards the goal of the other but is not all that is necessary to achieve that goal. It's not my fault that you make assumptions about what I said instead of just reading and understanding what I said.

 

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.

Really? How about the only stat that matters like win loss record? What about first down conversion? What about passer rating?...right thought so.

 

 

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?

 

ANNNNNN. Wrong I said a GOOD strong arm QB CAN have an effect and dictate some coverages. The opposite of this example is noodle arm checkdown edwards. Defenses didn't have to worry about the deep pass or him threading the needle and played accordingly.

 

How do I evaluate a good line? I told you ...www.nfl.freakin.com. Look at oline stats and you will see. I've already been through the yards/carry thing with Indy. They run just enough to keep the defense honest. In the super bowl as some like to keep referencing they averaged 5. something yds per carry. Is that more like it for you? When did I say sack numbers didn't determine a good or bad line. Of course it is a significant indicator! DUH. Not every sack is the lines fault and not every avoided sack is to their credit either but it's usually a decent indicator.

 

 

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.

Soo....you don't think he would have done even better with competent line play that day? He had a great game individual numbers wise with 5 sacks. Imagine his numbers with 2 sacks or even zero? How did his win loss numbers look that day?

 

 

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.

 

What really lost the game for GB is that they scored fewer points than AZ. That is the reason for every loss ever in the NFL. Don't forget that. Did you stop to consider that perhaps if Mr Rogers felt more comfortable in his neighborhood and wasn't sacked 5 times previously he would have delivered that ball in a more calm and importanly accurate fashion to Mr Jennings. No direct correlation but certainly plausible and something to think about.

 

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.

 

I never asserted that you said any QB we draft will start right away. THAT is my point. YOU CAN'T GUARANTEE THAT...you can't even guarantee that he will eventually play like Manning or Brees, or Rogers or Roethlisberger. If you can't make that guarantee don't use them as examples for why we don't need a LT first. I, on the other hand, have given real world examples that are not based on the cream of the crop or probowl LTs. Merely competent ones that along with a good line, one helps the other, can allow a QB and RBs perform up to their potential. Once that is in place you need your good QB that you, we all, are so desperate for.

 

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.

 

Let's just look to the last years for a line making a QB better.

 

Matt Ryan - Atlanta Great protection and #2 running game in the league 2008. Rookie QB makes the play offs. 2009 injuries and poor running game...no play offs

 

Joe Flacco - Baltimore Great running game and protection. 2008 Rookie QB makes the play offs. 2009 To much is given to flacco to fast and they try to become more of a passing team. Fluke prevents them from making the play offs a second year

 

Mark Sanchez - NY RIFE with rookie mistakes, turn overs and dumbed down game plan NY makes the AFC championship on the strength of it's o-line providing protection and #1 running game in the league if I am not mistaken and great defense.

 

How about those 3 examples off the top of my head? A first round QB is TOO big on an investment to risk putting him behind a suspect offensive line. NO ONE and I mean NO ONE can give me an example of a rookie QB that succeeded with a terrible offensive line like ours. The last thing I want to see is a promissing rookie QB prospect like a Bradford or Claussen get killed and ruined here in Buffalo like David Carr, Joe Harrington and other s got ruined playing behind bad lines. It's not worth the risk. I'm not buying the Porsche until I have a garage to protect it.

[JPS]

HEY HEY....someone who gets it! Kudos to you!

Can we just agree that we suck at both positions and by draft, trade or FA, they need to get better? It's a bogus debate. If we go Bradford/Charlie Brown, Bulaga/LeFevour or McNabb/Okung, all make sense and we'll all get warm fuzzies. Just let it go.

[JohnC]

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.

 

What you conveniently leave out in this absurd discussion of OTs vs qbs is that the better teams have immensely more quality players on their rosters than the less successful teams. No surprise. The issue isn't necessarily taking one of the two top rated qbs so much as who do you take when your draft turn comes up. Will Clausen or Bradford be on the board when our 9 spot comes up? There is a good possibility that they won't.

 

Bringing up Cleveland as an example of having a quality LT and still not being a successful team is beyond being ludicrous. Are you aware how bereft of talent that team is? The Broncos were not a dynamo team when they had the canon armed and mush personality of Cutler. Do you want to know why they failed? Their defense was abysmal.

 

Brees was a second round pick and he has been a sterling performer. Kurt Warner played in the Arena league and in Europe and he will be in the HOF. Brady was a low round draft pick. I can go on and on about the different routes to getting a good qb and being a successful team.

 

You have been following the Bills for a long time. I'm sure you understand how bad this roster is and that it is going to be a long process to be competitive. As far as participating in the playoffs the odds are that it won't happen in Ralph's lifetime.

 

What I want from this new front office is simply drafting smartly and making sound personnel decisions. After an extended period of time the Bills might be fortunate to get out of the category of being a silly organization with an embarrassing owner.

[PDaDdy]

Can we just agree that we suck at both positions and by draft, trade or FA, they need to get better? It's a bogus debate. If we go Bradford/Charlie Brown, Bulaga/LeFevour or McNabb/Okung, all make sense and we'll all get warm fuzzies. Just let it go.

 

 

100% on point. We do suck at both positions. Despite all the crazy arguments and points MOST of us know this is the case. For the rational people it's just a matter of which one we get first.

[PDaDdy]

What you conveniently leave out in this absurd discussion of OTs vs qbs is that the better teams have immensely more quality players on their rosters than the less successful teams. No surprise. The issue isn't necessarily taking one of the two top rated qbs so much as who do you take when your draft turn comes up. Will Clausen or Bradford be on the board when our 9 spot comes up? There is a good possibility that they won't.

 

Bringing up Cleveland as an example of having a quality LT and still not being a successful team is beyond being ludicrous. Are you aware how bereft of talent that team is? The Broncos were not a dynamo team when they had the canon armed and mush personality of Cutler. Do you want to know why they failed? Their defense was abysmal.

 

Brees was a second round pick and he has been a sterling performer. Kurt Warner played in the Arena league and in Europe and he will be in the HOF. Brady was a low round draft pick. I can go on and on about the different routes to getting a good qb and being a successful team.

 

You have been following the Bills for a long time. I'm sure you understand how bad this roster is and that it is going to be a long process to be competitive. As far as participating in the playoffs the odds are that it won't happen in Ralph's lifetime.

 

What I want from this new front office is simply drafting smartly and making sound personnel decisions. After an extended period of time the Bills might be fortunate to get out of the category of being a silly organization with an embarrassing owner.

 

 

Well said. I agree with everything except time to play offs. There is a scenario where we could be a play off team in 2010. Yes I know it will take a bit of luck and a lot of hard work but it is not impossible. I really believe that.

[JohnC]

Well said. I agree with everything except time to play offs. There is a scenario where we could be a play off team in 2010. Yes I know it will take a bit of luck and a lot of hard work but it is not impossible. I really believe that.

 

What miraculous scenario do you have in mind? Taking psychedelic drugs is only a temporary solution to the ugliness of the world. LOL The Bills can be a better team and still fall behind the more developed divisional opponents.

[thebandit27]

No it is not what I am saying. We need to get a LT AND fix the line. Those are two separate statements. One is towards the goal of the other but is not all that is necessary to achieve that goal.

 

 

Really? How about the only stat that matters like win loss record? What about first down conversion? What about passer rating?...right thought so.

 

Won-loss was better in the 2nd half...of course that might have had something to do with the fact that the defense stopped allowing opponents to gain over 300 yards and score 30+ points per game (happened 4 times in the first 8 weeks, once in the last 8 weeks...the one game in which they lost...might've helped).

 

Regarding his passing #s...you be the judge:

 

First 8 games 164/260 (63.1%), 2,255 yds, 16 TDs, 5 INTs, Average QB Rating of 106.013, YPA of 8.67

Last 8 games 186/281 (66.2%), 2,179 yds, 14 TDs, 2 INTs, Average QB Rating of 102.738, YPA of 7.75

 

Yeah, you're right, HUGE difference

 

ANNNNNN. Wrong I said ca GOOD strong arm QB CAN have an effect and dictate some coverages. The opposite of this example is noodle arm checkdown edwards. Defenses didn't have to worry about the deep pass or him threading the needle and played accordingly.

 

So, what you said is that a good QB can dictate what the defense can do? I'd call that a huge impact. Where exactly do we differ on this point?

 

How do I evaluate a good line? I told you ...www.nfl.freakin.com. Look at oline stats and you will see. I've already been through the yards/carry thing with Indy. They run just enough to keep the defense honest. In the super bowl as some like to keep referencing they averaged 5. something yds per carry. Is that more like it for you? When did I say sack numbers didn't determine a good or bad line. Of course it is a significant indicator! DUH. Not every sack is the lines fault and not every avoided sack is to their credit either but it's usually a decent indicator.

 

NFL.com bases everything on QB hits and sacks, which is an indicator for sure, but not all-encomassing. You seem to be willing to admit this, but unwilling to submit to the idea that the QB can have just as much of an effect on the opponents' success in rushing the passer as the LT.

 

And in case you forgot, you said that sack numbers don't determine a good or bad line when I started rattling off the most sacked QBs in the NFL, calling each example an "exception".

 

Once again, you seem to want to use one game (the Superbowl) as a rebuttal to the idea that the Colts couldn't run the ball all year long. I cannot make it any simpler for you: they were DEAD LAST IN YARDS PER CARRY. That's not an indication that they barely ran the ball (I suppose that argument would hold water if we were discussing yards per game, but we're not), it's an indication that they couldn't run when they tried. It's not like teams were stacking the box against them, they weren't a good running team...please attempt to process the meaning of this instead of just refuting it with a blanket statement like "they didn't need to run".

 

Soo....you don't think he would have done even better with competent line play that day? He had a great game individual numbers wise with 5 sacks. Imagine his numbers with 2 sacks or even zero? How did his win loss numbers look that day?

 

Better? You want the guy to do better than throw for over 400 yards and 5 TDs? Honestly, how much better could he have played? He was pretty darn good. As far as won/loss, are you saying that the fact that he played well is a moot point since Green Bay didn't win? I don't think that's true. It shows he can play the position in spite of poor line play.

 

What really lost the game for GB is that they scored fewer points than AZ. That is the reason for every loss ever in the NFL. Don't forget that. Did you stop to consider that perhaps if Mr Rogers felt more comfortable in his neighborhood and wasn't sacked 5 times previously he would have delivered that ball in a more calm and importanly accurate fashion to Mr Jennings. No direct correlation but certainly plausible and something to think about.

 

No, I didn't consider that, since it makes no sense. He didn't have that problem the rest of the game, or the rest of the season for that matter, so why on that particular play would the defensive pressure cause him to wilt, when there was nobody near him? That's as poor an excuse as possible. He missed the throw to an open WR, who (in all likelihood) would have scored and won the game for GB. Just missed it, it happense, but yes, that play would have won the game. When you have a chance to win the game and don't, that's referred to as "losing" the game. If you want to argue semantics, go find an language arts board.

 

I never asserted that you said any QB we draft will start right away. THAT is my point. YOU CAN'T GUARANTEE THAT...you can't even guarantee that he will eventually play like Manning or Brees, or Rogers or Roethlisberger. If you can't make that guarantee don't use them as examples for why we don't need a LT first. I, on the other hand, have given real world examples that are not based on the cream of the crop or probowl LTs. Merely competent ones that along with a good line, one helps the other, can allow a QB and RBs perform up to their potential. Once that is in place you need your good QB that you, we all, are so desperate for.

 

How can you, of all people, tell me that you'll guarantee that a guy will start at LT from day one? You can't. That's absurd. You don't know what LT the team would draft, have no idea how he'd perform during training camp or in the preseason, haven't the slightest idea as to how he'd adapt to life in the NFL...it's absolutely no less of a crapshoot than a rookie QB. For you to assert otherwise is pompous and ridiculous.

 

You have never given any example of how a good OL made an otherwise ineffective QB better. Not once. Don't spout to me about real-world examples if you can't actuall provide any.

 

Let's just look to the last years for a line making a QB better.

 

Matt Ryan - Atlanta Great protection and #2 running game in the league 2008. Rookie QB makes the play offs. 2009 injuries and poor running game...no play offs

 

Joe Flacco - Baltimore Great running game and protection. 2008 Rookie QB makes the play offs. 2009 To much is given to flacco to fast and they try to become more of a passing team. Fluke prevents them from making the play offs a second year

 

Mark Sanchez - NY RIFE with rookie mistakes, turn overs and dumbed down game plan NY makes the AFC championship on the strength of it's o-line providing protection and #1 running game in the league if I am not mistaken and great defense.

 

How about those 3 examples off the top of my head? A first round QB is TOO big on an investment to risk putting him behind a suspect offensive line. NO ONE and I mean NO ONE can give me an example of a rookie QB that succeeded with a terrible offensive line like ours. The last thing I want to see is a promissing rookie QB prospect like a Bradford or Claussen get killed and ruined here in Buffalo like David Carr, Joe Harrington and other s got ruined playing behind bad lines. It's not worth the risk. I'm not buying the Porsche until I have a garage to protect it.

 

 

Ryan made that line better. They lost 3 of their 5 starters from 2007 and filled in with backups (save for LT, where the team drafted Sam Baker, who started 6 games--and finished 4 of them). Ryan's quick delivery and decisiveness was more responsible for the drastic reduction in sacks allowed than any personnel changes. By the way, that same line, with a healthy Sam Baker, allowed 19 sacks in the 13 games that Ryan started (1.46 per game) vs. 8 in the 3 games that Chris Redman played (2.67 per game). Wonder why the difference...probably the same reason that Buffalo averaged almost a full sack-and-a-half difference when Ryan Fitzpatrick played vs. when Trent Edwards played. The guy takes fewer sacks. By the way, Atlanta's "poor" running game averaged 2.7 ypg fewer than Minnesota's vaunted attack, and actually bested the Vikings in yards-per-carry. If 1,800+ yards, 15 TDs, and ranking 4th in the NFL in # of runs of over 20 yards is "poor", then sign me up for "poor"!

 

What the heck are you talking about? Baltimore made the playoffs this year (do you watch football?). By the way, that all-world line that you want to credit for Flacco's success gave up 36 sacks in 2009 (up from 33 in 2008), but Baltimore--as a team--finished tied for 12th in the NFL in team YPA (10 of the top 12 teams in this category made the playoffs...including Baltimore!), and team QB rating went from below 80.0 to 87.4.

 

I already gave you an example of a rookie: Matt Ryan. You wonder why guys like Joey Harrington couldn't succeed? How about because the Falcons team with Harrington in 2007 gave up 30 more sacks than Ryan's 2008 team...that's why. And it isn't because Atlanta decided to start a bunch of backups on the OL instead of the guys that started the previous year (like former UDFA Tyson Clabo and league journeyman Harvey Dahl, both of whom never started a game in the league in 11 combined NFL seasons prior to 2008), it's because they got a QB that knows what to do with the football.

[PDaDdy]

What miraculous scenario do you have in mind? Taking psychedelic drugs is only a temporary solution to the ugliness of the world. LOL The Bills can be a better team and still fall behind the more developed divisional opponents.

 

 

Injuries aside our defense was good enough. I know, stop the run blah blah. Our crappy offense really put the screws to our defense and the injuries ....well...the injuries...most in the league for 3 years running or something like that. The move to the 3-4 should actually make not only the defense better but the offense as well as we will actually get some practice against and hopefully learn how to beat a 3-4 defense.

 

Offense we are a good line and QB away from success. Getting a blue chip LT, a great RT prospect for when Brad Butler gets hurt week 2 and getting some gel time for the rest of the guys can make us a competent young unit with nothing but upside.

 

Throw in a veteran free agent QB, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WITH A STRONG ARM, and all of a sudden we look like a real team. There are MANY MANY MANY things to nitpick but there are just a couple really big things wrong with this team. They are also things that have created compounding problems in other areas. Fix a couple things and there will be this synergistic effect where other things miraculously don't appear as bad as we thought.

[JohnC]

Injuries aside our defense was good enough. I know, stop the run blah blah. Our crappy offense really put the screws to our defense and the injuries ....well...the injuries...most in the league for 3 years running or something like that. The move to the 3-4 should actually make not only the defense better but the offense as well as we will actually get some practice against and hopefully learn how to beat a 3-4 defense.

 

Offense we are a good line and QB away from success. Getting a blue chip LT, a great RT prospect for when Brad Butler gets hurt week 2 and getting some gel time for the rest of the guys can make us a competent young unit with nothing but upside.

 

Throw in a veteran free agent QB, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WITH A STRONG ARM, and all of a sudden we look like a real team. There are MANY MANY MANY things to nitpick but there are just a couple really big things wrong with this team. They are also things that have created compounding problems in other areas. Fix a couple things and there will be this synergistic effect where other things miraculously don't appear as bad as we thought.

 

In your best case scenario name the team or teams in our division in which we will pass next year? All three teams have their franchise qb in place and all have a more complete roster than we do. The Bills are in the beginning of a rebuilding process. The rest of the division are at a more advanced stage, to put it kindly.

[DanInUticaTampa]

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.

 

And if the QBs suck, we are **** out of luck?

 

Someone already said it.... we need to fix both positions.

[Geno Smith's Arm]

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.

 

Rookie left tackles that play great are as rare as the great first year QB's!

Get a QB in and developing as soon as possible. If you can't patch together a line that is DECENT, let him sit for a year and learn the ropes. EASY. TIME EFFICIENT!

 

The only good argument against not drafting a QB with the first pick is "that none of this years crop is worthy". We will have to wait and see after these guys have gone to the combine, or thrown for teams, etc.

 

Some guys would rather have a linebacker than a QB. Jeezus!

[tennesseeboy]

I'd rather have McLain than Clausen. That's what we face this year. Would I rather have McLain than Joe Montana or Peyton Manning? HELL NO.

 

Quarterbacks aren't fungible. Neither are linebackers.

[PDaDdy]

Rookie left tackles that play great are as rare as the great first year QB's!

Get a QB in and developing as soon as possible. If you can't patch together a line that is DECENT, let him sit for a year and learn the ropes. EASY. TIME EFFICIENT!

 

The only good argument against not drafting a QB with the first pick is "that none of this years crop is worthy". We will have to wait and see after these guys have gone to the combine, or thrown for teams, etc.

 

Some guys would rather have a linebacker than a QB. Jeezus!

 

 

Especially considering the last 2 or 3 years I think that severa rookie LTs and some RTs have played great. That doesn't even include a bunch more that are just starters and doing just fine. Woods and Levitre didn't play great but they were serviceable average players that didn't suck their first year.

 

If you haven't heard, there is a trend in the NFL where high first round rookie QBs play their first year. Matter of fact other than Philip Rivers I can't think of a top 10 pick QB who hasn't started by sometime in their first year in the last several years. Even teams with better pieces in place and fewer holes can't afford to get a high pick QB and keep him on the bench for 2 or 3 years while they rebuild the o-line and give it time to gel. What makes you think we are so good that we can afford the luxury of getting some risky QB prospect and squirrel away that nut on the bench for a couple years?

 

The reality in today's NFL is that guy is going to play his first year. Do you want to expose a rookie QB candidate to the kind of pressures, hits and sacks he would have to suffer through in Buffalo with our ****ty line?

[PDaDdy]

Won-loss was better in the 2nd half...of course that might have had something to do with the fact that the defense stopped allowing opponents to gain over 300 yards and score 30+ points per game (happened 4 times in the first 8 weeks, once in the last 8 weeks...the one game in which they lost...might've helped).

 

Regarding his passing #s...you be the judge:

 

First 8 games 164/260 (63.1%), 2,255 yds, 16 TDs, 5 INTs, Average QB Rating of 106.013, YPA of 8.67

Last 8 games 186/281 (66.2%), 2,179 yds, 14 TDs, 2 INTs, Average QB Rating of 102.738, YPA of 7.75

 

Yeah, you're right, HUGE difference

 

The defense not allowing the opposing offense to get 300 yds per game and score 30+ could also have to do with a more efficient offense. It's a yin and yang unfortunately and one side of the ball helps the other. Ball security, fewer drive killing sacks, fewer costly turn overs. I am interested where you got your stats. It seems funny to me that Rogers can throw for almost the exact same number of TDs and yards reduces his turnovers by more than 50%, increases his completion percentage, his sack number drops dramatically yet his QB rating is actually lower.

 

SOUNDS FISHY TO ME!!!!

 

So, what you said is that a good QB can dictate what the defense can do? I'd call that a huge impact. Where exactly do we differ on this point?

 

Huge impact are your words not mine. Sorry pal but you can't put words in my mouth. Stop assuming more to what I have said. Take it at face value, don't hurt yourself trying to infer something I didn't intend and then railing against it like I said it. That's in your head.

 

NFL.com bases everything on QB hits and sacks, which is an indicator for sure, but not all-encomassing. You seem to be willing to admit this, but unwilling to submit to the idea that the QB can have just as much of an effect on the opponents' success in rushing the passer as the LT.

 

Nope wrong again. I said an effect. "Huge effect" are your words. Again I have not stated this. Please stop making things up that I have not said and then trying to prove them wrong.

 

And in case you forgot, you said that sack numbers don't determine a good or bad line when I started rattling off the most sacked QBs in the NFL, calling each example an "exception".

 

You just don't read what people write do you? You infer exaclty what you want and then try to shoot down some imaginary point that nobody made. What I said is that there are some QBs who are the exception that perform well numbers wise DESPITE all of the sacks they and their line give up. Roethlisberger because he is a freak and almost can't be tackled and Rogers is apparently just that tough to hang in there and be that good. See how that says NOTHING about sacks not being an indicator of a good or bad line? For the record so you can't get confused again, yes, generally high sacks indicate poor pass protection. There are many other factors but certainly generally that is the case.

 

Once again, you seem to want to use one game (the Superbowl) as a rebuttal to the idea that the Colts couldn't run the ball all year long. I cannot make it any simpler for you: they were DEAD LAST IN YARDS PER CARRY. That's not an indication that they barely ran the ball (I suppose that argument would hold water if we were discussing yards per game, but we're not), it's an indication that they couldn't run when they tried. It's not like teams were stacking the box against them, they weren't a good running team...please attempt to process the meaning of this instead of just refuting it with a blanket statement like "they didn't need to run".

 

SOOOO the fact that when they decided to run in the superbowl and averaged over 5+ yards a carry against a good Greg Williams defense was just a fluke? You said "they couldn't run when they tried.". Well in the super bowl they made up their mind and tried! How much more simple could that be? I seriously and honestly don't get what it is you are missing there. And for the record the only reason I have harped on the superbowl is because DarthICE started about 6 thread in the last 48 hours all attacking the same point from different angles about why we need a QB first. I could give a **** about the superbowl because it is too small of a sample size. Most good teams with good records that have good QBs have a good line in front of them. Most teams that have good records have good lines. See the common thread? A good line. Of course there are always a handful of exceptions but this doesn't disprove the rule. You should know this. Arguing that o-line isn't VERY important is just plain dumb. For the record as you will see I have never made the opposite argument. I have never said that a QB good isn't very important. That would also be dumb as hell.

 

Better? You want the guy to do better than throw for over 400 yards and 5 TDs? Honestly, how much better could he have played? He was pretty darn good. As far as won/loss, are you saying that the fact that he played well is a moot point since Green Bay didn't win? I don't think that's true. It shows he can play the position in spite of poor line play.

 

Yes better. As in won the game for one...and his astounding numbers yes COULD HAVE BEEN EVEN BETTER!!! If you take your dragster that needs a good tuneup to the track and set the track record.....YOU COULD HAVE DONE EVEN BETTER IF THE CAR WAS TUNED UP! Hopefully you understand that or I am REALLY REALLY wasting my time with this back and forth. Yes it does show as I said that Aaron Rogers is an exception not the standard. He is a QB that is able to succeed even with a ****ty line in front of him....So what does this mean for us? Draft Aaron Rogers for me and I will glady chose a QB over making the line better and getting a solid LT to help achieve that goal.

 

No, I didn't consider that, since it makes no sense. He didn't have that problem the rest of the game, or the rest of the season for that matter, so why on that particular play would the defensive pressure cause him to wilt, when there was nobody near him? That's as poor an excuse as possible. He missed the throw to an open WR, who (in all likelihood) would have scored and won the game for GB. Just missed it, it happense, but yes, that play would have won the game. When you have a chance to win the game and don't, that's referred to as "losing" the game. If you want to argue semantics, go find an language arts board.

 

Makes sense to me. Tom Brady from the 2008 superbowl agrees. QB pressures, sacks and hits don't negatively impact a QBs performance? ROFLOL. If that is indeed what you are trying to say and that didn't play some factor in Rogers blowing his load early and too far to Jennings, what a joke! Didn't you just insinuate that that was the case. I guess I really am wasting my time trying to educate and provide logical supporting arguments for my points.

 

 

How can you, of all people, tell me that you'll guarantee that a guy will start at LT from day one? You can't. That's absurd. You don't know what LT the team would draft, have no idea how he'd perform during training camp or in the preseason, haven't the slightest idea as to how he'd adapt to life in the NFL...it's absolutely no less of a crapshoot than a rookie QB. For you to assert otherwise is pompous and ridiculous.

 

What it is is confidence in my philosophy. I am willing to put myself out there and make a claim that I am willing to live or die by. All you do is try to show me examples of exemplary veteran QBs that have been able to succeed without great lines of LTs and use that as some ridiculous justification of getting A FREAKIN ROOKIE QB who will be able to do the same. That is absurd. Do you expect us to buy that leap of logic? That is insulting that you think others are so dumb as to by that line of reasoning. What I attempted to do was give people in your camp the opportunity to say "I stand by my desire to get a QB and Bradford, Claussen, XYZ will be a star in this league and be the type of QB that can succeed with a poor line in front of him as a rookie." BUT, of course you can't say that so your academic argument of QB first is completely worthless because you can't identify a rookie QB candidate with that kind of skill. So don't bother me with that BS until you can do so.

 

You have never given any example of how a good OL made an otherwise ineffective QB better. Not once. Don't spout to me about real-world examples if you can't actuall provide any.

 

Open up your eyes. I am pretty darn sure it was this thread but , Big Ben of about 2005 when he won his first a super bowl had a phenomenal line, running game, pass protection AND SOUL CRUSHING DEFENSE. Didn't the kid throw about 20 passes total to win a super bowl? Hello....Trent Dilfer in Baltimore with 2000yrd rusher Jamal Lewis. Matt Ryan last year with great protection and the #2 rushing game in the league. Joe Flacco last year as I already stated. Defense was also a big part there too. Mark Sanchez this year with the number one rushing team in the league and good protection that got a rookie QB who made plenty of mistakes to the AFC championship game. Chew on those for a while. I'm sure you can find others if you take the time to see what the norm is instead of trying to find exceptions to it.

 

 

Ryan made that line better. They lost 3 of their 5 starters from 2007 and filled in with backups (save for LT, where the team drafted Sam Baker, who started 6 games--and finished 4 of them). Ryan's quick delivery and decisiveness was more responsible for the drastic reduction in sacks allowed than any personnel changes. By the way, that same line, with a healthy Sam Baker, allowed 19 sacks in the 13 games that Ryan started (1.46 per game) vs. 8 in the 3 games that Chris Redman played (2.67 per game). Wonder why the difference...probably the same reason that Buffalo averaged almost a full sack-and-a-half difference when Ryan Fitzpatrick played vs. when Trent Edwards played. The guy takes fewer sacks. By the way, Atlanta's "poor" running game averaged 2.7 ypg fewer than Minnesota's vaunted attack, and actually bested the Vikings in yards-per-carry. If 1,800+ yards, 15 TDs, and ranking 4th in the NFL in # of runs of over 20 yards is "poor", then sign me up for "poor"!

 

ROFLOL. right....He was in there blocking for the #2 rushing attack in 2008. Suuuuure he made the line better. Again the theme is good offensive line = pass protection and ability to run the ball when they so chose. Are you talking 2008 or 2009 season. 2009 season had a turf toe Matt Ryan and a busted up amazing RB in Micheal Turner. As went their line and running game so went their season. Edwards vs Fitzpatrick is a good example to discuss. Do you think we took fewer sacks because Ryan Fitzpatrick is a superstar QB who makes the line better .....or because Trent Edwards gobbles rooster-a-doodle-do and makes the line that much worse? I know the answer. Hopefully you do to.

[PDaDdy]

What the heck are you talking about? Baltimore made the playoffs this year (do you watch football?). By the way, that all-world line that you want to credit for Flacco's success gave up 36 sacks in 2009 (up from 33 in 2008), but Baltimore--as a team--finished tied for 12th in the NFL in team YPA (10 of the top 12 teams in this category made the playoffs...including Baltimore!), and team QB rating went from below 80.0 to 87.4.

 

You're right Baltimore did make the play offs this year. If I said they didn't, my bad I screwed that one up. As was discussed Baltimore tried to put more on Flacco's shoulders and pass more. I have brought this up in the past but it doesn't sinkn in to people. If you drop back to pass more often you expose your QB to more hurries, hits and sacks. How good does Baltimore's line look with that rushing attack that dominates? Starting to see the theme. Great line, good rushing attack good defense can all be a young QBs best friends

 

I already gave you an example of a rookie: Matt Ryan. You wonder why guys like Joey Harrington couldn't succeed? How about because the Falcons team with Harrington in 2007 gave up 30 more sacks than Ryan's 2008 team...that's why. And it isn't because Atlanta decided to start a bunch of backups on the OL instead of the guys that started the previous year (like former UDFA Tyson Clabo and league journeyman Harvey Dahl, both of whom never started a game in the league in 11 combined NFL seasons prior to 2008), it's because they got a QB that knows what to do with the football.

 

 

You mean with Harrington after he was destroyed and had his career and confidence ruined in Detroit? You mean that Joey Harrington? Just want to make sure we are talking about the same guy.