answer to real debate: Oline or QB

[GOBILLS!!!!!]

there has been a huge debate over the last year or so on which is more important: the oline or qb: and i have the answer for you....it can be both in different situations..... in the process of trent being benched it really got me thinking of this question and what the answer is......the truth is that you should first build the oline to be able to protect your young quarterback so he can learn and be brought up, which is the best thing to do but that isnt always the case. with trent its obvious that he had a "slim" amount of talent but it was basically unobtainable because he couldnt develop behind a bad oline....on the otherhand people believe that with a good quarterback you dont even need a good oline and that is true as well. if you have an already developed quarterback and put him behind a s**tty oline there is a good chance you will still succeed in this league....i.e warner and rapelisberger. to sum it up you need a good oline to develop a qb but if u have an already good qb u do not always need one....it can go both ways

[mrags]

My opinion is this.. IF you have a good OL, and some other talent on the team. Like a real starting WR and a solid #2 along with a decent running game then you can get along with having a .500 type QB because you rely on making time, a solid run game, WRs getting open and making plays to make the subpar QB look better. All that and a top 15 defense will get you to 9-11 wins. (look at Rapelishbergers first season ans super bowl victory) but if your defense is bottom 15 and you don't have an OL or good WRs then your best option might be to take a career QB. Take Manning for example. The team was horrible. The Colts built the team around him and his strenghts. The other option is Brady on the Pats and how he was originally protected from making young mistakes because the rest of the team was already in place. As the years went on, the Pats managed to build the rest of the team around Brady. Either way you can pull it off. It just depends if you have a QB in the draft available to you that you believe can lead this franchise from day one with or without players around him. If you think Locker is that guy (or anyone else coming into the draft this year) then you take him. If not, you right the ship by fixing the OL and DL first and take an average QB and hope he learns along with the rest of the team. I'd like a face of this franchise to be our new QB, but if he's not there, then you take the best OT available and build your team around the lines. At least until you have more weapons. Either way, we should be spotted for a QB or OT with our first pick of the upcoming draft and they should be starting the first day of camp.

[Dr. Trooth]

Could make a case ither way.

 

Granted... the oline ain't good. Brings to mind when Rob Johnson was the QB and Flutie took over. Everyone was bitchin how bad the oline was... Porky Parker, Ruben Brown, Fina... yada yada. But, Flutie comes in and you noticed the difference right away. Sure he was more mobile, but the big noticable difference was his total awareness and pocket presence. He knew where the rush was, knew when to step up and when to get rid of the ball, or bail. Last year, when Fitz was in you could see a similar difference. Just better awareness and pocket presence... even though he doesn't have a strong arm. Today, plug in Peyton Manning or Drew Brees as the Bills QB and you'd see a huge difference behind the same oline... simply because of their awareness and pocket presence. So... get the QB first... the rest will fall into place. When a team gets a franchise QB, the owner won't tolerate GM and coach that won't protect his investment. The Bills had Kelly before they fortified the oline. There was a lot of incentive to protect him.

[DrFishfinder]

It all starts,

or stops,

with the offensive line.

[PastaJoe]

It all starts,

or stops,

with the offensive line.

 

Agreed, the mistake was this year. They should have tried to trade down in the 1st round, and use the additional pick(s) to draft tackles, and give them a year to get experience before they draft a QB. Without some free agent signings next year, a rookie QB is going to get killed.

[Guest dog14787]

It all starts,

or stops,

with the offensive line.

 

 

On the same token if you see your franchise QB, you draft him.

 

This has to be so disheartening for RW, he must be thinking wow, I may never see my team do well again at this rate,

[GOBILLS!!!!!]

Could make a case ither way.

 

Granted... the oline ain't good. Brings to mind when Rob Johnson was the QB and Flutie took over. Everyone was bitchin how bad the oline was... Porky Parker, Ruben Brown, Fina... yada yada. But, Flutie comes in and you noticed the difference right away. Sure he was more mobile, but the big noticable difference was his total awareness and pocket presence. He knew where the rush was, knew when to step up and when to get rid of the ball, or bail. Last year, when Fitz was in you could see a similar difference. Just better awareness and pocket presence... even though he doesn't have a strong arm. Today, plug in Peyton Manning or Drew Brees as the Bills QB and you'd see a huge difference behind the same oline... simply because of their awareness and pocket presence. So... get the QB first... the rest will fall into place. When a team gets a franchise QB, the owner won't tolerate GM and coach that won't protect his investment. The Bills had Kelly before they fortified the oline. There was a lot of incentive to protect him.

you only want to get the QB first if you are not planning on developing them...if u try and bring one along regardless of talent you are not going to go far with no line...but if u bring in a talented vet u can get away with it

Edited September 20, 2010 by GOBILLS!!!!!

[Thurman#1]

there has been a huge debate over the last year or so on which is more important: the oline or qb: and i have the answer for you....it can be both in different situations..... in the process of trent being benched it really got me thinking of this question and what the answer is......the truth is that you should first build the oline to be able to protect your young quarterback so he can learn and be brought up, which is the best thing to do but that isnt always the case. with trent its obvious that he had a "slim" amount of talent but it was basically unobtainable because he couldnt develop behind a bad oline....on the otherhand people believe that with a good quarterback you dont even need a good oline and that is true as well. if you have an already developed quarterback and put him behind a s**tty oline there is a good chance you will still succeed in this league....i.e warner and rapelisberger. to sum it up you need a good oline to develop a qb but if u have an already good qb u do not always need one....it can go both ways

 

 

Sorry, but you forgot one more case.

 

You can draft a QB, NOT an already developed one, when you have a lousy OL and develop the OL over the next few years as the QB also develops, and let him learn under fire. This is actually the most common way over the long long years, as it's the way that Peyton Manning, Jim Kelly, Troy Aikman, Joe Montana, Matt Ryan, and many many others have developed.

 

It has the advantage that QB and OL will reach maturity around the same time. The other advantage is that you don't have to have anything decent to start. Make the QB your first priority and then immediately turn your attention to the OL.

[The Dean]

It all starts,

or stops,

with the offensive line.

 

 

Sure it does. But there are QBs who can do far more than Trent behind a poor OL. Aaron Rodgers and Big Ben are two that immediately come to mind. They had a margin of success with very poor offensive lines, at one time or another. Kurt Warner did OK with a garbage line, too.

 

The answer to the original question is: Both.

[tennesseeboy]

The interesting thing this year is that we didn't address EITHER the clear deficiencies in the offensive line nor the problem at qb. We were not aggressive in free agency or trade (Vick, McNabb, McNeil, Gaither, Terrell Owens) to address our needs nor in the draft (Bulaga or Clausen) nor even on the waiver wire. So for us it just doesn't matter.

 

Going forward? I'd say draft either the best quarterback or the best OT available with the first round and look careful at available qb's and ot's through the rest of the draft.

[auburnbillsbacker]

Great qbs make OLs and WRs look good. The Packers line prior to this season was very poor, but Favre and Rodgers made the offense function despite the poor play. The Bills OL looked horrible under Rob Johnson, but looked good under Flutie. The Steelers won a super bowl with Big Ben despite having a below average OL. On the other hand the Browns have struggled with one of the better lines in the league. The Bills need to draft a QB in April. QBs take longer to develop than lineman, so the Bills need a QB to develop ASAP. If the Bills find a good one, you will be shocked how good our OL and WRs look.

Edited September 20, 2010 by auburnbillsbacker

[The Dean]

The interesting thing this year is that we didn't address EITHER the clear deficiencies in the offensive line nor the problem at qb. We were not aggressive in free agency or trade (Vick, McNabb, McNeil, Gaither, Terrell Owens) to address our needs nor in the draft (Bulaga or Clausen) nor even on the waiver wire. So for us it just doesn't matter.

 

Going forward? I'd say draft either the best quarterback or the best OT available with the first round and look careful at available qb's and ot's through the rest of the draft.

 

 

For what it's worth, the Bills did make an attempt to get McNabb, from what I have been told. They also were trying to get Gaither, but were scared away. None of us know what else they may have tried to do.

 

As for Vick. No thanks.

[bkc]

It depends on a lot of things Ideally a good o line would help a qb development but we will be picking top 5 this year so if a qb is there we have to take one. People still say bell is going to be good. K mitchell said on twitter he thinks he will be a solid left tackle. If that is the case things are not a dark as they seem today .

 

 

[DrFishfinder]

Agreed, the mistake was this year. They should have tried to trade down in the 1st round, and use the additional pick(s) to draft tackles, and give them a year to get experience before they draft a QB. Without some free agent signings next year, a rookie QB is going to get killed.

Any QB would eventually get killed.

[ChasBB]

The answer to the debate is "It depends". Trent is probably a more accurate thrower than Ryan and if you were to take Trent and put him behind an All-Pro OL, he'd probably look pretty damned good. However, we don't have the luxury of an All-Pro OL -- not even close. So, you need a QB who can improvise -- a guy who can move around in the pocket and who isn't afraid to throw the ball into tight coverage when he is being hurried. That guy is Ryan. Given the OL we have now, I want Fitz to be our QB. Is he the answer long term? That's too early to tell. People think Fitz is this aged career backup when in fact he is only a year older than Edwards and has only been in the league an additional two years -- most of which were not spent playing to any significant degree. Trent has more game starts now than Fitz does.

 

Game Starts for Edwards (Total of 32 Starts)

2007.......9 starts as Rookie

2008.......14 starts

2009.......7 starts

2010.......2 starts

 

Game Starts for Fitzpatrick (Total of 23 Starts)

2005.......3 starts as Rookie (Rams)

2006.......0 starts (Rams)

2007.......0 starts (Bengals)

2008.......12 starts (Bengals)

2009.......8 starts (Bills)

2010.......0 starts (Bills)

 

I think each QB made a few additional APPEARENCES in games they didn't start, but this clearly shows that Trent has had more starting opportunities than Fitz.

 

The argument can be made that Edwards had to suffer a different OC each year, but things were not so much better for Fitzpatrick, either. Fitz has had to endure an enormous amount of change in his relatively short career, too. Maybe Fitz is really the one who can benefit from a guy like Chan Gailey rather than Edwards, who just doesn't seem to have the needed toughness for this league. Fitz might just become a fixture at QB in Buffalo if he can turn this team around this season. It could happen.

Edited September 20, 2010 by ChasBB

[Beerball]

there has been a huge debate over the last year or so on which is more important: the oline or qb: and i have the answer for you....it can be both in different situations..... in the process of trent being benched it really got me thinking of this question and what the answer is......the truth is that you should first build the oline to be able to protect your young quarterback so he can learn and be brought up, which is the best thing to do but that isnt always the case. with trent its obvious that he had a "slim" amount of talent but it was basically unobtainable because he couldnt develop behind a bad oline....on the otherhand people believe that with a good quarterback you dont even need a good oline and that is true as well. if you have an already developed quarterback and put him behind a s**tty oline there is a good chance you will still succeed in this league....i.e warner and rapelisberger. to sum it up you need a good oline to develop a qb but if u have an already good qb u do not always need one....it can go both ways

[This is an automated response]

 

This thread is in direct violation of points 1 & 3 of the new board what you can and can't talk about policy. Please delete this thread before it is physically removed from the premises. Thank you for your cooperation.

[RealityCheck]

I don't know why everyone has to beat this subject to death. This is a team sport, and the relationship between an o-line and it's Qb are no different. You cannot have championship level success without exceptional performance, trust, and communication between them. Don't BS that you can win a Super Bowl with mediocrity at either one, it's just not possible. One line of thought that I happen to agree with is that you can have a better chance of success at the QB or RB positions a behind a great line than the other way around. The Bills are a shining example of this. Take the top 16 lines in football and plug our backfield into it. One of them gets 1500 yards easy. Let's be honest. How many qbs in the league would have the ability to win consistently behind our line. I can think of only 5. 5 out of 32 is a poor %. NOT the recipe for success in my opinion. It's one thing to have 0 talent at qb like we have, but to also have no talent on the lines to top it off......PATHETIC. If your honest with yourselves, our guards aren't exactly setting the world on fire. To claim that they are some kind of bright spot is delusional right now. They need to get a lot better.

[DrFishfinder]

On the same token if you see your franchise QB, you draft him.

Agreed. But if you play him behind the current OL, he's more likely to end up being in a body cast than in the HOF.

 

Great qbs make OLs and WRs look good. The Packers line prior to this season was very poor, but Favre and Rodgers made the offense function despite the poor play. The Bills OL looked horrible under Rob Johnson, but looked good under Flutie. The Steelers won a super bowl with Big Ben despite having a below average OL. On the other hand the Browns have struggled with one of the better lines in the league. The Bills need to draft a QB in April. QBs take longer to develop than lineman, so the Bills need a QB to develop ASAP. If the Bills find a good one, you will be shocked how good our OL and WRs look.

If he doesn't end up in a body cast, first.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

there has been a huge debate over the last year or so on which is more important: the oline or qb: and i have the answer for you....it can be both in different situations..... in the process of trent being benched it really got me thinking of this question and what the answer is......the truth is that you should first build the oline to be able to protect your young quarterback so he can learn and be brought up, which is the best thing to do but that isnt always the case. with trent its obvious that he had a "slim" amount of talent but it was basically unobtainable because he couldnt develop behind a bad oline....on the otherhand people believe that with a good quarterback you dont even need a good oline and that is true as well. if you have an already developed quarterback and put him behind a s**tty oline there is a good chance you will still succeed in this league....i.e warner and rapelisberger. to sum it up you need a good oline to develop a qb but if u have an already good qb u do not always need one....it can go both ways

 

So here's another viewpoint: Maybe the two are directly related and both point at the QB in a way I don't recall seeing discussed here before.

 

I've been reading Kirwan's "Take your Eye Off the Ball" (fantastic read in my opinion). He discusses the need to call the OL protections on each play then goes on to discuss how on some teams, the very experienced center will call the protections in response to his own read on the D and the specific play. But for other teams or the same team with a less experienced center, that responsibility falls more to the QB to call the protections for the OL.

 

We've talked about how Trent seems to really struggle with reading a 3-4 D. Sometimes the last two games, the O-line has looked analogous to a "blown coverage" in my view....it wasn't always that the OTs weren't executing assignments, it looked as though *there was an unblocked player no one had picked up*. That got me wondering: who is calling the protections for our OL?

 

Is it possible that Trent has been responsible for calling the protections for the O-line, and that one reason they blow so badly is his confusion with 3-4 D extends to the protections he's supposed to call? Could this be possible?

[PromoTheRobot]

It's both. The Oline is bad but even when they gave Trent time he checked down.

 

PTR