McD Posted January 21, 2011 Author Posted January 21, 2011 All this proves is that QB is the most sought after and important position in the NFL, thus so many picks spent on QBs that teams are hoping can become a franchise type player. No, that's not quite true. While I'll agree it's the most important single position. It's not that there are a TON of picks on QB's, but it does mean that the % of QB's taken in the first round have been busts. Guess you need to re-read my question. I know you're on a rampage about not wanting to pick a QB, but that's not what I was asking. Lol, I wasn't replying to a question... you posted goofy faces as a response.
McD Posted January 21, 2011 Author Posted January 21, 2011 LMAO at your skewed attempt of listing a bunch "bust" lists that actually provided no information of any kind to how often a QB busts in relation to other players, specifically DL. So, here is a real report specifically addressing the myth that high draft pick QB's bust at a higher rate than high draft pick DL. Literally was the first one to pop up on google...isnt google great Link to real report about bust rates In case you refuse to read it, it actually shows DL have a higher bust rate than QB's...also, teams that hit with a QB go on to have a better winning percentage and more playoff appearances on average than teams that hit on DL. Here is the TRUTH about the QB bust rate: Its MISTAKENLY believed to be much higher than it is given the HIGH PROFILE nature of the QB position, the larger contracts, and the fact that you cant hide a busted QB as they touch the ball on every offensive play. Dfensive players can struggle without drawing as much attention like a QB. So there is all this misguided myths (see your entire history in the thread for example) that some how QB's bust more than any other position, and its simply not accurate. See above...clearly, this statement by you is something you decided to pull out of your back side considering its factually false. bull **** dude... you so lost the point of the entire thread. We DONT need a QB right now. We need a damn D! Tell me that we don't... I'm all ears on why we need a QB at #3 (esp since there is no Andrew Luck)? And I've said it before... I'm not sure if there's an amazing D player at #3, but moreso than a QB. I'd LOVE to trade down some and get even MORE players, but that prob wont happen. Again.. If we can trade back to #10 and get a Newton/Mallett/Gabbert type (if they're sold on him), AND get a few extra picks for the D I'm all for it. We both know a QB in this years draft doesn't help us for another 3 years Unless FItz gets hurt and he's thrust into the line-up, but even then he'll have to throw for 4,000 yds to keep up with all of the points the D will continue to give up.... Let's end the stupidity in this thread and kill the macho yelling by looking at recent champs: 10 New Orleans - Franchise QB 09 Pittsburgh - Franchise QB 08 NY Giants - Franchise QB 07 Indy - Franchise QB 06 Pittsburgh - Franchise QB 05 Patriots - Franchise QB 04 Patriots - Franchise QB 03 Tampa Bay - Defense 02 Patriots - Franchise QB 01 Baltimore - Defense 00 Rams - Franchise QB 99 Denver - Franchise QB 98 Denver - Franchise QB 97 Green Bay - Franchise QB You were saying??? Or, should I keep going with Aikman, Young, Aikman, Aikman, and so on??? While football is a team game, a franchise QB goes a long way helping teams win. Good teams without franchise QB's usually get shut down because teams can shut down their ability to run and force offensive coordinators to play the game scared. IE, Baltimore through the years. Almost all of these teams have franchise QB's. Other factors such as Terrell Davis in Denver helped. HOWEVER, Davis without a franchise QB would have been pretty easy to shut down in today's NFL. It's a QB driven game nowadays, and this list of champs pretty clearly, on an elementary level shows that most teams are set at QB when they've won the big one. Yay!! Good for you (clap, clap, clap!) Now go look at the defenses those teams had... top 10 most of them? You betcha. Good spin though.
McD Posted January 21, 2011 Author Posted January 21, 2011 When we picked Bruce #1 in '85, neither I nor anybody else thought "We are on our way!".........But, when Kelly came on board in '86, that is exactly what I and everybody else thought. And, we were! LOL!!!!! Are you serious!?!?! Ok... this is a no **** comment you made, BUT you forget to mention we also picked up Talley, Reed, Tasker, Hull... hell, half of our damned SB teams during the years immediately preceding and following Kelly. He was a "piece" a HUGE piece, but damn he wasn't everything. Offensive starters: QB Jim Kelly 1986 RB Thurman Thomas 1988 FB Jamie Mueller 1987 WR James Lofton 1990 WR Andre Reed 1985 TE Keith McKeller 1987 LT Will Wolford 1986 LG Jim Ritcher 1980 C Kent Hull 1986 RG John H. Davis 1987 RT Howard Ballard 1987 Defensive Starters: LDE Leon Seals 1987 NT Jeff Wright 1988 RDE Bruce Smith 1985 LOLB Cornelius Bennett 1987 LILB Shane Conlan 1987 RILB Ray Bentley 198? RILB Carlton Bailey 1988 ROLB Darryl Talley 1983 LCB Kirby Jackson 1987 LCB James E. Williams 1990 RCB Nate Odomes 1987 SS Leonard Smith 1989/90? FS John Hagy 1988 FS Mark Kelso 1985 Special Teams Starters: K Scott Norwood 198? P Rick Tuten 198? PR Al Edwards 1990 KR Don Smith 1987 This team wasn't "looking" for just a QB and then they were on their way... the whole damned team was just about overhauled during this span. I love how you all just think I don't believe the QB position is vital, lol...
1B4IDie Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) bull **** dude... you so lost the point of the entire thread. We DONT need a QB right now. We need a damn D! Tell me that we don't... I'm all ears on why we need a QB at #3 (esp since there is no Andrew Luck)? And I've said it before... I'm not sure if there's an amazing D player at #3, but moreso than a QB. I'd LOVE to trade down some and get even MORE players, but that prob wont happen. Again.. If we can trade back to #10 and get a Newton/Mallett/Gabbert type (if they're sold on him), AND get a few extra picks for the D I'm all for it. We both know a QB in this years draft doesn't help us for another 3 years Unless FItz gets hurt and he's thrust into the line-up, but even then he'll have to throw for 4,000 yds to keep up with all of the points the D will continue to give up.... Yay!! Good for you (clap, clap, clap!) Now go look at the defenses those teams had... top 10 most of them? You betcha. Good spin though. You did it McD! 10 pages! Out manned, out gunned, out of position and you're still belligerently defending that Defense is the only thing that matters. Even in the face of the many posters that have iterated and reiterated that there are only 1st round Franchise QBs left in the playoffs. You are a special breed and a true American hero. A tip of the hat sir. Edited January 21, 2011 by Why So Serious?
McD Posted January 21, 2011 Author Posted January 21, 2011 When we picked Bruce #1 in '85, neither I nor anybody else thought "We are on our way!".........But, when Kelly came on board in '86, that is exactly what I and everybody else thought. And, we were! You must be about 30... The Bills just came off of back to back 2-14 seasons. We needed EVERYTHING! Bruce was needed badly and helped lay the defensive foundation we needed. But, he alone wasn't taking us anywhere. If Kelly would have signed in '83-'84, HE would have laid the foundation first, but he too wouldn't have taken us anywhere without the rest of the pieces. Again... we need balance, and an upgrade of the D is more important than on O. You did it McD! 10 pages! Out manned, out gunned, out of position and you're still belligerently defending that Defense is the only thing that matters. WRONG, I've said it is our most important NEED now. Even in the face of the many posters that have iterated and reiterated that there are only 1st round Franchise QBs left in the playoffs. Even better than that, the top 4 of 9 defenses are still in it, and until Culter and Sanchez (with superior teams) play better than Fitz, they're not franchise QB's. You are a special breed and a true American hero. Why thank you kind sir! A tip of the hat sir. I still got it!
ReturnoftheBuffaloBeast23 Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 Can we just draft Killa Cam Newton and get it over with? The pushing and pulling goin on is a bit overbearing...
Alphadawg7 Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) bull **** dude... you so lost the point of the entire thread. We DONT need a QB right now. We need a damn D! Tell me that we don't... I'm all ears on why we need a QB at #3 (esp since there is no Andrew Luck)? And I've said it before... I'm not sure if there's an amazing D player at #3, but moreso than a QB. I'd LOVE to trade down some and get even MORE players, but that prob wont happen. Again.. If we can trade back to #10 and get a Newton/Mallett/Gabbert type (if they're sold on him), AND get a few extra picks for the D I'm all for it. We both know a QB in this years draft doesn't help us for another 3 years Unless FItz gets hurt and he's thrust into the line-up, but even then he'll have to throw for 4,000 yds to keep up with all of the points the D will continue to give up.... This was your reply to an article that directly proves your claims to be inaccurate? LOL No one around here lost the point of this thread except for you...the title of your thread even says "Defenses win...period!!!" Bottom line is this: Its much harder to win in todays NFL with a great D and below average or marginal QB (which Fitz is) then it is with a solid D and a great QB. For the record, I am in no way advocating taking a QB at #3, just addressing all your bold claims you seem to be making in this thread. In fact, I am fine if we go D at #3 and it may very well be the best pick for us, but we still need better play at QB before we ever become a contender. Edited January 21, 2011 by Alphadawg7
McD Posted January 21, 2011 Author Posted January 21, 2011 This was your reply to an article that directly proves your claims to be inaccurate? LOL I dont believe that for a second... you have one subjective article to my 6? Yeah, that holds water. No one around here lost the point of this thread except for you...the title of your thread even says "Defenses win...period!!!" And... it does. I haven't seen anyone disprove that yet. Bottom line is this: Its much harder to win in todays NFL with a great D and below average or marginal QB (which Fitz is) then it is with a solid D and a great QB. Ummmm... this year, both Chicago and the Jets are doing JUST THAT! For the record, I am in no way advocating taking a QB at #3, just addressing all your bold claims you seem to be making in this thread. In fact, I am fine if we go D at #3 and it may very well be the best pick for us, but we still need better play at QB before we ever become a contender. Most accuarate thing you said to date, no dispute.
shoretalk Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 Gailey's analysis of the 4 remaining quarterbacks clearly states that it takes a good defense to make a good quarterback. We are not picking a QB early - this Year's draft will all be about Ddddddd defense!
McD Posted January 21, 2011 Author Posted January 21, 2011 Gailey's analysis of the 4 remaining quarterbacks clearly states that it takes a good defense to make a good quarterback. We are not picking a QB early - this Year's draft will all be about Ddddddd defense! A good D can cover up a LOT of mistakes by the O, and even make statistically avg QB's like Cutler and Sanchez seem like "franchise" QB's to some.
thewildrabbit Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 A good D can cover up a LOT of mistakes by the O, and even make statistically avg QB's like Cutler and Sanchez seem like "franchise" QB's to some. The thing is, you could have a pro bowler at every position on D...who is going to call plays and set up the defense for the buffalo Bills, a guy still learning his job ....who might be a good DC at some point in the future? What really gets me is all you guys arguing over what position the Bills should select in the upcoming draft, does it really matter? Looking back at the last bunch of drafts and first round busts JP Losman-John McCargo-Aaron Maybin, Lynch is gone- 2nd round James Hardy and all the others that didn't pan out. You guys honestly think this team will select a decent player? Now Looking at Spiller at #9 last season, the supposed super star RB -14 games 17 rushes for 283 yards, pretty meager IMO. The 3 RB's taken after him all did better, plus the fact that the Bills were loaded at RB with Lynch and Jackson. Spiller is in the mold of Reggie Bush, who is mostly a 3rd down back and he never did learn how to block properly. Now that the Bills traded away M Lynch they will need another back to help out Jackson. The Bills went into last years draft stating that the O line was a priority, and came away with a 5th & 7th. The 7th was cut in pre season, and the 5th never saw the starting lineup. I have no faith in this staff to draft anyone who is any good at any position.with that #3 overall.
Hapless Bills Fan Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) Your list actually is better. The list I clicked into from the multi-list post was called biggest busts of all time. And, it's just really a popularity thing. Meaning the better you were known coming out of college, the bigger bust you were considered. And, that's why I asked how Andre Ware could be something like the 6th biggest bust of all time when he was drafted number 7 in the draft. Surely, there were washouts who were picked much higher than him. Your list is actually a little generous to the DTs. I would call Big Daddy a bust and not a hit. I think there are some questionable calls on both sides. There are a couple of QB listed as "hits" that I would say are "OK". As noted above, there is one DT hit that might be considered a bust by some. It's a thoughtful piece of work, and therein lies the flaw: the numbers are so small, that moving even one DL player from the "hit" to "bust" list equals things out (both 48%) and changes the conclusion that DT bust at a higher rate. Likewise labeling even one "OK" QB "Bust" (which I think is how most here regard Trent Dilfer) So I don't think one can properly conclude that DTs bust at a higher rate. One can grant 1st round QB don't bust significantly differently than other players, sure. Except......let's look again at his list of QB "Hits" or "OK" (not busts). Which of these QB would the discerning citizens of TBD rest content with? Would we really be happy with Eli Manning's 58% completion percentage, 6.8 YPA and 3.4% INT or would we say "cr*p, I thought we drafted a franchise QB, that's no better than Fitzpatrick"? Would we be happy with Kerry Collins (55.8% comp, 6.6 YPA, 3.2% INT) or Trent Dilfer (55.5%, 6.5 YPA, 3.2%) [listed as OK thus not part of the "bust" statistic], or would we say "whoa, they're even less accurate than Fitz, completely unacceptable for a starting QB"? I've heard slighting talk of Daunte Culpepper (Min during his era as an example of a champion team with poor QBing), Donovan McNabb, and Drew Bledsoe - we happy with them now? What about Vince Young - we happy with his million-dollar arm and his 10 cent head? Basically, I'm wondering if this list o' guys would fulfill the ideals this board holds in mind when they say "we must draft our franchise guy"??? Eli Manning Carson Palmer Michael Vick Peyton Manning Drew Bledsoe Donovan McNabb Matt Ryan Vince Young ("OK") Steve McNair Philip Rivers Kerry Collins Trent Dilfer ("OK") Jay Cutler Ben Roethlisberger Daunte Culpepper Edited January 21, 2011 by Hopeful
1B4IDie Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 I think there are some questionable calls on both sides. There are a couple of QB listed as "hits" that I would say are "OK". As noted above, there is one DT hit that might be considered a bust by some. It's a thoughtful piece of work, and therein lies the flaw: the numbers are so small, that moving even one DL player from the "hit" to "bust" list equals things out (both 48%) and changes the conclusion that DT bust at a higher rate. Likewise labeling even one "OK" QB "Bust" (which I think is how most here regard Trent Dilfer) So I don't think one can properly conclude that DTs bust at a higher rate. One can grant 1st round QB don't bust significantly differently than other players, sure. Except......let's look again at his list of QB "Hits" or "OK" (not busts). Which of these QB would the discerning citizens of TBD rest content with? Would we really be happy with Eli Manning's 58% completion percentage, 6.8 YPA and 3.4% INT or would we say "cr*p, I thought we drafted a franchise QB, that's no better than Fitzpatrick"? Would we be happy with Kerry Collins (55.8% comp, 6.6 YPA, 3.2% INT) or Trent Dilfer (55.5%, 6.5 YPA, 3.2%) [listed as OK thus not part of the "bust" statistic], or would we say "whoa, they're even less accurate than Fitz, completely unacceptable for a starting QB"? I've heard slighting talk of Daunte Culpepper (Min during his era as an example of a champion team with poor QBing), Donovan McNabb, and Drew Bledsoe - we happy with them now? What about Vince Young - we happy with his million-dollar arm and his 10 cent head? Basically, I'm wondering if this list o' guys would fulfill the ideals this board holds in mind when they say "we must draft our franchise guy"??? Eli Manning Carson Palmer Michael Vick Peyton Manning Drew Bledsoe Donovan McNabb Matt Ryan Vince Young ("OK") Steve McNair Philip Rivers Kerry Collins Trent Dilfer ("OK") Jay Cutler Ben Roethlisberger Daunte Culpepper Wow Hopeful. I always thought your name was ironic because most of your posts are so hopeless in their attitude for The Bills future. Now not only is Cam Newton or Ryan Mallet not good enough to QB the Bills, Daunte Culpeper in his prime, Jay Cutler, and Ben Roethlisburger may not be good enough for you either. You do understand an NFL QB is a human being not a comicbook super hero, right? Would the far majority of Bills fans rest assured that the QB position was in good hands if any of the players in your list were the QB of the Bills? The answer is yes.
djrocks Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 So, down goes Manning, down goes Brees, down goes Flacco, down goes Vick, down goes Ryan, down goes Brady.... To all of you that think we NEED a QB at #3 this year (none worthy at #3), once again... here is a CLASSIC example of the need for a solid defense. This years defenses prove once again, that a top D is the tonic this team needs. It will give this team the attitude this team and city needs. You want to grab a QB in the third? Ok... no issues, but that better be after a selection of a DE/DT and a LB. Buddy... SOLIDIFY the D through the draft AND through FA. Don't bank on Merriman being "the man"... he's an unknown at this time. Go draft help, go pay the $$ for FA help... The O can use an RT an TE and some depth too... BUT... I hope you're paying attention this post season... D, D, D, D, D, D!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! lol,your going to blame the QB's for their loses come on man be real. by the way of the 4 remaining teams left the only QB who is not a franchise QB is Sanchez. mark my words the true super star franchise QB's are Rogers and big ben,i guarantee you one and most likely both will be in the super bowl. to insinuate that you dont need a franchise QB to be a great team is a flat out stupid premise. do you really think it was bradys fault or manning's that they lost those games? well anyone who knows football knows the game knows that both teams defenses lost the games for their teams. indy's defense was decimated by injury and the pats had injuries and a very young inexperienced defense. it had nothing what so ever to do with their QB's.
gumby Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 10 pages of this...wow. Clear example of the evolution of a thread. The OP comes out boldly and declares Defense wins....PERIOD! Then changes his stance to acknowledge he'd be ok moving back in the draft to pick a QB if the Bills use the extra picks to get help for the D. Talk about "to have one's cake and eat it too". The bottom line is that the NFL is a Quarterback's league and the NFL wants it that way. Don't for a minute bring up the Ravens from a decade ago. It's not the same game anymore. Since then the NFL has implemented rule changes to protect to QB and free up the passing game. All this current post season is proving is that defensive coordinators are pretty sharp guys and have caught up with the changes. If defenses continue their upward projection in shutting down the offense the NFL will step in with more changes to open up the passing game. The NFL wants it to be a passing game so it will be a passing game. That's why it's imperative for the Bills to get a real QB. I'm not going to say if the Bills should get that guy through the draft or trade to bring someone in. All I do know is the sooner the Bills make a serious upgrade at QB the sooner they will start to compete in the league.
billsfreak Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) lol,your going to blame the QB's for their loses come on man be real. by the way of the 4 remaining teams left the only QB who is not a franchise QB is Sanchez. mark my words the true super star franchise QB's are Rogers and big ben,i guarantee you one and most likely both will be in the super bowl. to insinuate that you dont need a franchise QB to be a great team is a flat out stupid premise. do you really think it was bradys fault or manning's that they lost those games? well anyone who knows football knows the game knows that both teams defenses lost the games for their teams. indy's defense was decimated by injury and the pats had injuries and a very young inexperienced defense. it had nothing what so ever to do with their QB's. Ask anyone in the Jets organization and I guarantee you that they will think Sanchez is a franchise quarterback. They traded a bunch to move up in the first round to draft him, has won twice as many post season games than any QB in Jets history, and in his first two seasons he has two AFC Championship game appearances. If anything he is more of a franchise QB than Cutler is, but I would say all four of the QBs left are franchise QBs. Other than that item, your post is very accurate. Edited January 21, 2011 by billsfreak
Orton's Arm Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) bull **** dude... you so lost the point of the entire thread. We DONT need a QB right now. We need a damn D! Tell me that we don't... I'm all ears on why we need a QB at #3 (esp since there is no Andrew Luck)? And I've said it before... I'm not sure if there's an amazing D player at #3, but moreso than a QB. I'd LOVE to trade down some and get even MORE players, but that prob wont happen. Again.. If we can trade back to #10 and get a Newton/Mallett/Gabbert type (if they're sold on him), AND get a few extra picks for the D I'm all for it. We both know a QB in this years draft doesn't help us for another 3 years Unless FItz gets hurt and he's thrust into the line-up, but even then he'll have to throw for 4,000 yds to keep up with all of the points the D will continue to give up.... Yay!! Good for you (clap, clap, clap!) Now go look at the defenses those teams had... top 10 most of them? You betcha. Good spin though. I'll respond to the bolded text. We absolutely need a franchise QB right now, because we don't have one. That's far from being this team's only need. It's also worth noting that there are much weaker starters at other positions--such as RT--than at QB. But a franchise QB is the single most important upgrade you can make to your team and the single hardest to find. In another thread I looked at eleven years of data which shows that a new franchise QB enters the NFL on average less than once a year. An average NFL team acquires a new franchise QB on average once every 44 years. One could argue that my definition of franchise QB is more stringent than most people's. But even if a broader definition would lead one to conclude it was only once every 30 years or so, the point still remains that you absolutely have to take a franchise QB if you don't have one and there's a chance to get one. It does not matter what your other needs are, or even if the guy you have under center is or isn't respectable. Unless that guy is franchise--which Fitz clearly isn't--you absolutely have to go with the franchise QB in the draft. But like I said, franchise QBs appear less than once a year. There may not be any franchise QBs in the upcoming draft. If there are, Ponder has as good a chance as any other QB to be that franchise guy, and odds are he'll be available in the second round. There's no sense in wasting the 3rd overall pick on a QB who a) is likely going to be a bust, and b) whose presence on the roster will prevent the Bills from using some future early draft pick on a real QB should there be one available later. As for the poster who pointed out that nearly all the Super Bowl winners over the last decade or more have had franchise QBs: his point wasn't that a franchise QB, alone, will win you the Super Bowl. His point was that if you don't have a franchise QB, you will not win a Super Bowl unless you're the Ravens of 2000. Edited January 21, 2011 by Edwards' Arm
Alphadawg7 Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) Come on McD, you are too much. I find it hilarious that all you did was provide a bunch of all time bust lists, which are solely based on popularity coming out of college, as some kind of proof that first round QB's bust more than first round DL's. Then when I show you that its FACTUALLY not true with an actual REAL study on bust rates of these exact two positions you say: "I dont believe that for a second... you have one subjective article to my 6? Yeah, that holds water." The problem is, the so called "subjective" articles you listed have absolutely nothing in any way, shape, or form to do with bust rates and add absolutely no credibility to your claims on any plain of existence...while on the other hand, the one I provided you factually shows the statistics and the actual bust rates of highly drafted first round QB's and DL guys. And the results were conclusive that the bust rates are higher for highly drafted DL's than highly drafted QB's. It also shows the win rate higher for teams who HIT on a QB then a team how HIT on a DL. It also shows the teams who HIT on the QB make the playoffs more than teams who HIT on a DL. But of course, your only argument of the actual facts was "I am not buying it" because if you did then your entire 10 page flip flopping thread would be for nothing. Classic...keep up the good work Here is the link again to the article for anyone who still would like to see it: Link to FACTUAL article on the REAL bust rates between highly drafted QB and DL Edited January 21, 2011 by Alphadawg7
Adam Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 While a franchise QB isn't necessary to win, as it can act as a catalyst to bring an offense together and elevate the rest of the offensive unit. The Jets don't have one, although some argue that Sanchez will develop into one. Same as a franchise pass rusher can act as a catalyst the defense. I don't see a can't miss QB in the draft- I think Luck was a can't miss prospect
Orton's Arm Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 Ask anyone in the Jets organization and I guarantee you that they will think Sanchez is a franchise quarterback. They traded a bunch to move up in the first round to draft him, has won twice as many post season games than any QB in Jets history, and in his first two seasons he has two AFC Championship game appearances. If anything he is more of a franchise QB than Cutler is, but I would say all four of the QBs left are franchise QBs. Other than that item, your post is very accurate. I agree that if you asked someone in the Jets organization about Sanchez that they'd tell you good things about him. Whether those things represent an honest analysis, propaganda, or wishful thinking is not immediately clear. This past season Sanchez averaged 6.5 yards per pass attempt. Trent Edwards' career average is also 6.5 yards per attempt. The difference is that Sanchez has a great OL, a great running game, solid talent at the TE and WR positions, and an offensive coordinator who's apparently able to outthink Bill Belichick. For most of his starts with the Bills, Trent Edwards had none of those things except maybe the solid WR corps. If you're going to put the "franchise" label on Sanchez, he needs to put up franchise numbers. Which he hasn't, at least not in the regular season. I'll grant he's done well in the postseason--especially against the Patriots. In contrast, Jay Cutler's career average is 7.2 yards per attempt, and this past season he averaged 7.6 yards per attempt. This, despite the fact his offensive supporting cast/situation was worse than Sanchez's. To put that in perspective, Peyton Manning's career average is 7.6 yards per attempt. Earlier in this thread, someone mentioned Cutler as a "statistically average" quarterback. That couldn't possibly be more untrue: even Cutler's career average is closer to Manning's than to Edwards', and this season he's averaging exactly as many yards per attempt as Manning has over his career. "Statistically average" indeed!
Recommended Posts