So much for the NEED to have a "franchise QB"...

[McD]

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.

 

Way to jump in... 10 pages later. I didn't BLAME the QB's... if anything I blamed their D, which wasn't up to par. He's the thing... I don't think that Brady or Manning LOST the game... I think that the Jets defense WON the game... my entire point EXACTLY! Lol, I love when people can prove my point without me even saying anything... awesome! What's with the man crush on Cutler? Why is he a franchise QB and Fitz isn't (going by numbers and all)?

[McD]

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.

 

Man, no wonder your name and avatar is Gumby... you're so damned flexible. Ok... I NEVER changed my stance. I have always wanted a defensive player taken first because Luck (the "obvious savior") isn't there and Newton, nor Mallett should be picked that high. What I did say was that I'd be ok to trade back and get a Newton/Mallett for the right pick. And, if we can get some additional D players as well, then you tell me why it isn't a win-win? Of course, what does Newton/Mallett do for you right now? I dont think they give you much for a few years, BUT I'm ok with that IF we use the trade down scenario and pick up additional picks that can be used to fill our gaping holes on D, while letting them get seasoned behind Fitz. So.. I'm looking for ADDITIONAL D picks and you say I'm changing my stance, lol...

 

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

 

Very well stated... brief and to the point. Luck isn't there... our D needs lots of help.

[McD]

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

 

Now this is pretty funny. Did you read the article? It's filled with the author mentioning time and time again how HE determined to use statistics based upon what HE thought was best.

 

Here's one of his comments:

 

* Why top 16? I wanted to cover the top half of the first round, and anything below that gets distorted. For example, if a No. 20 overall quarterback starts and plays well (but not on a Pro Bowl level) for only 4-5 seasons, is he considered a bust? A top-16 quarterback would be, but a guy who is taken No. 20 isn't expected to be a perennial Pro Bowler or anything.

 

OMG, that's hilarious!!! A guy taken 4 spots later in the 1st round isn't expected to be an impact player, lol are you serious?!?!

 

What you're reading is his own agenda... lol too funny. He lists BJ Raji as TBA... he had a very good year in his second season. I's label him "ok" AT WORST. So maybe the info is a year dated, so I'll cut him some slack.

 

C'mon man!

Edited January 21, 2011 by McD

[McD]

As far as this post goes, out of the final 4 teams... There is 1 team in the Top 10 in O (GB at #9 in yds against per game, and #10 in scoring O), but ALL 4 are kick ass on D... 4 of the Top 6 on scoring D, and 4 of the Top 9 in yds against per game.

[Alphadawg7]

Now this is pretty funny. Did you read the article? It's filled with the author mentioning time and time again how HE determined to use statistics based upon what HE thought was best.

 

Here's one of his comments:

 

* Why top 16? I wanted to cover the top half of the first round, and anything below that gets distorted. For example, if a No. 20 overall quarterback starts and plays well (but not on a Pro Bowl level) for only 4-5 seasons, is he considered a bust? A top-16 quarterback would be, but a guy who is taken No. 20 isn't expected to be a perennial Pro Bowler or anything.

 

OMG, that's hilarious!!! A guy taken 4 spots later in the 1st round isn't expected to be an impact player, lol are you serious?!?!

 

What you're reading is his own agenda... lol too funny. He lists BJ Raji as TBA... he had a very good year in his second season. I's label him "ok" AT WORST. So maybe the info is a year dated, so I'll cut him some slack.

 

C'mon man!

 

LOL...this from the guy who provides articles that have zero relvance on any level to the rate of which a position busts while claiming its proof.

 

As far as this article goes, what the author is stating is that the GRAY area of what is considered a BUST starts to blur the deeper you go in a draft, even the first round. A perfect example is our own Donte Whitner...because of how early in the first we drafted him many around here consider him a bust. However, had we traded down to the bottom half of the round and took him he wouldnt be considered a bust by nearly as many people here and wouldnt be so hated by so many Bills fans.

 

Not really that complicated as to why he focused on first half of the first round to compare busts. And in case you havent noticed, we are picking in the top 16, so this is relevant information in relation to the caliber of players we will draft at number 3. Again, you just refuse to accept facts because if you did then your 11 page rant would be worthless.

 

Keep peddling your unsubstantiated claims though, sure you will get someone to believe them.

[Haplo848]

I'd just like to say that as important as a good QB is, it's not all-important. The NFL has been going in cycles. This year, the top 4 teams are all about defense. The year before, it was all offense, with Brees and the Saints winning it all, but Manning and Brady putting up good shows as well. The year before, it was the Steelers and their defense. They year before that, it was offense once again. It really depends on the year.

[CosmicBills]

"Bollocks! Bollocks! Bollocks!"

Dude, you need to seek some relief. Maybe a girlfriend. Or a boyfriend. Something, anything to get you to calm down and start thinking rationally. Seriously, your posts in this are the ramblings of either a very bored (and tired) man or one who shouldn't own anything sharper than a butter knife.

 

You titled your thread "Defense wins ... PERIOD" then go on to say that you never said that. Awesome. Your posts in this thread have more flip flops than a tropical resort.

 

Damn ... it must be Friday with lines like that.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Wait, help me out here, Lv-Bills. What does "Franchise QB" mean to you? I don't mean to pick nits, I really want to know.

I don't think anyone would argue that one needs good QB'ing to win several superbowls. Maybe great QB. Let's look under the hood.

From your list (I'm taking the quotes off so it will come through if you reply) first I'm going to take out the dupes:

 

'Lv-Bills' timestamp='1295505380' post='2090949'

10 New Orleans - Franchise QB

09 Pittsburgh - Franchise QB (2x: 06)

08 NY Giants - Franchise QB 58% completions, 3.4% INTs, 6.8 YPA, QB rating 80.2. I thought stats like that showed a QB wasn't good enough to be a "franchise guy"?

07 Indy - Franchise QB

05 Patriots - Franchise QB (3x '04, '02)

03 Tampa Bay - Defense (Brad Johnson had an 18yr career, 72-53, 61.7% comp, 2.8% INTs, 6.7 YPA, QB rating 82.5. He had a career year in '02.

Help me understand: how come Manning is a franchise QB, but Tampa won on defense? B'cuz he was a 9th rnd pick and got passed around?)

01 Baltimore - Defense (Dilfer was 6th overall in the 1st round of his draft)

00 Rams - Franchise QB (Rams benched Warner 3 years later and traded him in 5. Is that Franchise QB stuff?)

99 Denver - Franchise QB (2x, '98)

97 Green Bay - Franchise QB

 

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.

end quote

 

What we have is 10 different QB winning over a 14 year span.

Of those, 3 were late- round draft picks of whom little was expected. Two were tossed out pretty soon after.

1 was a "first round bust"

1 has stats that aren't "good enough" to be a starting QB for us.

That would seem to leave 6 franchise QB on the list (5 drafted in the 1st round).

 

I don't know what this means.

If 32 teams are trying to find Mr Franchise, perhaps championship teams need to put a lot of other ingredients into the mix and Mr Franchise is just one?

Or does it mean franchise guys are really really hard to find if only 5 "true franchise QB" won (some multiple times) in 13 Superbowls?

 

*shrug*

[CosmicBills]

Wait, help me out here, Lv-Bills. What does "Franchise QB" mean to you? I don't mean to pick nits, I really want to know.

I don't think anyone would argue that one needs good QB'ing to win several superbowls. Maybe great QB. Let's look under the hood.

From your list (I'm taking the quotes off so it will come through if you reply) first I'm going to take out the dupes:

 

'Lv-Bills' timestamp='1295505380' post='2090949'

10 New Orleans - Franchise QB

09 Pittsburgh - Franchise QB (2x: 06)

08 NY Giants - Franchise QB 58% completions, 3.4% INTs, 6.8 YPA, QB rating 80.2. I thought stats like that showed a QB wasn't good enough to be a "franchise guy"?

07 Indy - Franchise QB

05 Patriots - Franchise QB (3x '04, '02)

03 Tampa Bay - Defense (Brad Johnson had an 18yr career, 72-53, 61.7% comp, 2.8% INTs, 6.7 YPA, QB rating 82.5. He had a career year in '02.

Help me understand: how come Manning is a franchise QB, but Tampa won on defense? B'cuz he was a 9th rnd pick and got passed around?)

01 Baltimore - Defense (Dilfer was 6th overall in the 1st round of his draft)

00 Rams - Franchise QB (Rams benched Warner 3 years later and traded him in 5. Is that Franchise QB stuff?)

99 Denver - Franchise QB (2x, '98)

97 Green Bay - Franchise QB

 

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.

end quote

 

What we have is 10 different QB winning over a 14 year span.

Of those, 3 were late- round draft picks of whom little was expected. Two were tossed out pretty soon after.

1 was a "first round bust"

1 has stats that aren't "good enough" to be a starting QB for us.

That would seem to leave 6 franchise QB on the list (5 drafted in the 1st round).

 

I don't know what this means.

If 32 teams are trying to find Mr Franchise, perhaps championship teams need to put a lot of other ingredients into the mix and Mr Franchise is just one?

Or does it mean franchise guys are really really hard to find if only 5 "true franchise QB" won (some multiple times) in 13 Superbowls?

 

*shrug*

Do you REALLY want to make the argument that Warner was not a Franchise QB? Really?

 

I just re-read you're post. It's even nuttier than I thought at first blush. Not only do you want to argue that Warner was not a Franchise QB, you're implying that because 10 different QBs won a ring over the past 14 years that it's easy to find a Franchise QB because everyone has one.

 

But you do realize that 7 of those 10 QBs are Hall Of Famers:

 

Drew Brees (he's borderline but a few more seasons at his rate he will be)

Big Ben

Peyton

Brady

Warner

Elway

Favre

 

 

Edited January 22, 2011 by tgreg99

[Delete This Account]

so, you're suggesting the bills shouldn't have cut Trent Edwards?

or Pete Gonzalez for that matter.

 

jw

Edited January 22, 2011 by john wawrow

[K Gun Special]

As far as this post goes, out of the final 4 teams... There is 1 team in the Top 10 in O (GB at #9 in yds against per game, and #10 in scoring O), but ALL 4 are kick ass on D... 4 of the Top 6 on scoring D, and 4 of the Top 9 in yds against per game.

 

 

yawn.

 

They also are two of the top 10 QBs in the league.

 

They also have 3 offenses in the top 10 for ball control. Part of that is having a good D that gets your O the ball,.... the other and more important part is that your O keeps the ball. Oh yea it also inflates your defensive stats!!!

 

You have the NFLs #4 passing attack - GB

 

You have the NFLs #4 rushing attack - NYJ

 

Pitt is the #11 rushing attack.

 

 

D is important, but you are on a kamikaze mission to disprove something that isnt true.

 

 

There are so few teams that have long term success using the Ravens/Jets mold based on great D and decent O wherein you dont need a great QB but a game manager. The problem is keeping 11 + guys on D who can play at that high of a level.

 

More teams have had success using the QB model which is find your franchise #1 guy, give him a few pieces and add a few playmakers on D. see pats, colts, GB. .. yea these teams havent had success this year.

 

But you can bet they will all be in the playoffs again next year and compete for the super bowl.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

I just COMPLETELY MIS-read you're post. It's even nuttier than I thought at first blush. Not only do you want to argue that Warner was not a Franchise QB, you're implying that because 10 different QBs won a ring over the past 14 years that it's easy to find a Franchise QB because everyone has one.

 

Fixed for you.

I'm really having trouble figuring out how what I wrote could be so completely misunderstood. I'll try to spell it out more simply.

 

1. The 14 SB cited were won by only 10 different QB

2. Of those 10, only 6 appear to meet most of the criteria of "Franchise QB" as commonly used on this board:

Drew Brees, Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Ben Roeth, John Elway, Brett Favre

(let's hold off on spluttering about Warner for a moment)

3. 32 teams are presumably seeking the all-important "Franchise Guy" who will cause multiple playoff and SB wins

4. In the last 14 years, apparently only 6 teams have found what they are seeking, that multiple-trip MAN - and only 5 by the conventional route of drafting a high 1st rounder

 

Therefore, either this elusive Franchise guy is DAMN HARD to find, or there's something else important that's really needed to go around him, and many a guy of potential "Franchise QB" skill goes unrecognized because he's surrounded by duds not studs.

 

I really am puzzled how one could read what I wrote and conclude that I'm arguing "it's easy to find a Franchise QB because everyone has one"

I may or may not be nutty (depends on who you ask), but I'd prefer to be so labeled by someone who understands what I'm saying b4 they dismiss it.

 

Now let's take on the Warner thing

 

Do you REALLY want to make the argument that Warner was not a Franchise QB? Really?

 

I'm trying to understand what TBDians mean when they use the term "Franchise QB". And according to that understanding, Warner is an undoubted HOF QB, but not "a Franchise guy".

If you walk on over to the neighboring "Franchise QB" thread where Finknottle bravely tacked the task of trying to get people to define -- let me abstract a couple of viewpoints, which I perceive as well put and representing the majority view here. Go judge for yourself if you like.

 

begin quoted material:

From Chas56: I'll take a stab at it: A franchise quarterback is the face of your franchise. When someone thinks of the Colts, it is, first and foremost, Peyton Manning that comes to mind. He is a quarterback that your franchise would pay top dollar to keep if his contract were up. He is an elite player who can, through both leadership and talent, get your team the win. He is The Man. When someone says we need to draft our franchise quarterback, they are saying is that we need to draft a kid that will become that man.

From Hplarrm: I do not think we should grace a QB with the franchise stamp until they are a proven winner and leader several times in a row. [once = event. Twice may be coincidence] You have to do it three times to make it a trend. (...)For me, franchise is not an episodic delineation, but really talks about a career. (…) Brad Johnson does not qualify for me as a franchise QB "merely" for leading TB to an SB win (..) Brady does not lose my designation of him as a franchise guy simply because he has lost 3 playoff games in a row (a pretty phenomenal record of failure actually which begins to at least raise some questions about his patina- questions which I think are easily answered by his previous record of success but legit questions begin to be raised).

From Dayman: Simply put...a franchise guy is a guy who you KNOW can get it done. So much so that if he doesn't get it done, it was not to be. If he has a terrible game in the playoffs you say "we'll get them next year" as opposed to "IDK about this guy in the playoffs. In short, a guy that wins the job for life. A guy who once he comes into his own...will not be challenged in a city until he falls off b/c of extreme old age or retires.

end quoted material

 

 

By those criteria, it would seem Kurt Warner may be a HOF QB, but no, he is not a "Franchise QB".

He got off the bench as a total unknown in StL and had 3 good years: 1 SB and 2 playoff appearances (3-0, 0-1, 2-1).

There were high expectations that the 1st SB appearance was the "start of a dynasty" only better than Bills or Broncs or '49ers.

That didn't pan out and Warner was perceived as not really "the Man" - a flash in the pan who made good with the right pieces, move on, let's replace him with a traded 6 round pick.

When Warner struggled in his 4th year (0-6), he was benched in favor of the new "Mr Franchise" (hey at least he was good enough to draft!) then traded.

 

Sadly for St Louis, it seems the "Franchise QB" was not the missing piece and they went "down the tubes" despite several years of quite high-quality QB play from Warner's replacement.

 

 

Warner probably cemented his HOF legacy by going back to the SB/playoffs with a 2nd team, but no, I would argue, he does not qualify as a "Franchise QB" according to the way the term seems to be used here. For example, he went 5-4 for NYG and was replaced by 1-6 Manning then sent out of town again, b'cause Manning was "the kid that will become that man".

 

 

According to same definition, Brad Johnson, who won a Superbowl, went to the playoffs 4 times with 3 different teams, 2x pro-Bowler, and 15 years in the league, is considered a quality NFL QB but a "career backup" rather than "The Man", a franchise guy.

 

 

Eli Manning, who has only won 1 Superbowl and been to the playoffs 4 times, is likewise "not it". He threw 25 INTs this past year (4.6%) and has won in the playoffs only 1x. He'll get another year to "turn it around" since last year's D sucked wet socks, but with career stats of 58% comp, 3.4% INT, 6.8 YPA, and rating 80.2 (similar to stats cited as "too inaccurate" to be a long term NFL starter by many here), another bad year and the Giants will be looking for Da Man.

 

 

 

If you read with your eyes and your brain, instead of by smacking your head into a brick, it'll hurt less. And you'll get more out of it. Promise.

....Hopeful!

Edited January 22, 2011 by Hopeful

[Sisyphean Bills]

Therefore, either this elusive Franchise guy is DAMN HARD to find, or there's something else important that's really needed to go around him, and many a guy of potential "Franchise QB" skill goes unrecognized because he's surrounded by duds not studs.

It's the ultimate team sport and the best team wins. Forget about all the hysteria swirling around the QB myopia, Hopeful.

 

Case: Archie Manning. That guy was a franchise QB. Surrounded by garbage teams in a dysfunctional mess of an organization and before free agency, he was doomed to pilot a ship that was sunk before it left the dock.

[benderbender]

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

One word: Sanchise

Edited January 22, 2011 by benderbender

[Hapless Bills Fan]

It's the ultimate team sport and the best team wins. Forget about all the hysteria swirling around the QB myopia, Hopeful.

 

Case: Archie Manning. That guy was a franchise QB. Surrounded by garbage teams in a dysfunctional mess of an organization and before free agency, he was doomed to pilot a ship that was sunk before it left the dock.

 

Agreed, Sisyphean. Team sport.

 

What I'm concluding from listening to this "Franchise QB" stuff is: what a Franchise QB really means to people, is really about perception.

A quality QB on a consistently winning team, or a QB who gets hyped up and talked about in the media as "the Savior" and "the Man", is perceived to be higher-quality than other QB who actually have better performance metrics, and who knowledgeable people look at and say "Oh, Good. Good!".

 

When I posted a list of recent 1st round picks and asked which were the franchise QB, folks picked Sanchez, Stafford, and Bradford as potential "Franchise Guys". Freeman was left off the list. Freeman IMO is a better QB IMO than Stafford or Sanchez but pundits have been picking the Lions to win and the Jets ARE winning. I think the win = better QB perception is why Freeman's quality seems more overlooked (at least to my perception)

 

Most of the teams in the league have a capable starting QB, some that are losing have really good QB and the W-L record doesn't necessarily reflect the quality of the QB.

 

It reflects the quality of the overall team.

[Sisyphean Bills]

Agreed, Sisyphean. Team sport.

 

What I'm concluding from listening to this "Franchise QB" stuff is: what a Franchise QB really means to people, is really about perception.

A quality QB on a consistently winning team, or a QB who gets hyped up and talked about in the media as "the Savior" and "the Man", is perceived to be higher-quality than other QB who actually have better performance metrics, and who knowledgeable people look at and say "Oh, Good. Good!".

 

When I posted a list of recent 1st round picks and asked which were the franchise QB, folks picked Sanchez, Stafford, and Bradford as potential "Franchise Guys". Freeman was left off the list. Freeman IMO is a better QB IMO than Stafford or Sanchez but pundits have been picking the Lions to win and the Jets ARE winning. I think the win = better QB perception is why Freeman's quality seems more overlooked (at least to my perception)

 

Most of the teams in the league have a capable starting QB, some that are losing have really good QB and the W-L record doesn't necessarily reflect the quality of the QB.

 

It reflects the quality of the overall team.

Well, the game of football has evolved into a passing game. Spread formations, the short passing game replacing the running game, etc.; and, of course, the QB is central to running a effective passing game. It is a key position, no doubt.

 

As far as the Bills, they aren't good enough as a team. The Bills scored over 30 points in 3 games last year and lost 2 of them. Fitz rose to the challenge this past year, but the offense isn't consistent and the defense was terrible. Is Fitz the long-term solution? Can he be a Rich Gannon, late bloomer? Or is he more of a Jay Fiedler? No one knows. But, he (or whoever takes the reigns next) will certainly need more talent around him if the Bills are going to be successful & compete for a Super Bowl.

[McD]

LOL...this from the guy who provides articles that have zero relvance on any level to the rate of which a position busts while claiming its proof. There's pleanty of relevance there, and check the % rates that the author "claims", they're not even accurate. Besides, the author of that article has to grab DE AND DT players just to TRY to prove HIS point, AND he has to grab onto 33 D players, while only 29 QB's. What I provided you were articles that were based upon MULTPLE sources, not just a single guy who's own numbers are skewed to set his own agenda.

 

As far as this article goes, what the author is stating is that the GRAY area of what is considered a BUST starts to blur the deeper you go in a draft, even the first round. A perfect example is our own Donte Whitner...because of how early in the first we drafted him many around here consider him a bust. However, had we traded down to the bottom half of the round and took him he wouldnt be considered a bust by nearly as many people here and wouldnt be so hated by so many Bills fans. The difference here is that Whitner (and a LOT of the D players you see on that list that you say "WHO the hell is that?") is they were taken by teams as reaches. Whitner wasn't rated there, so why should he be a bust when we all know he's nothing more than a #20? Ryan Leaf and most of the QB's on that board EARNED their BUST status. They were rated there, but just caved..

 

Not really that complicated as to why he focused on first half of the first round to compare busts. And in case you havent noticed, we are picking in the top 16, so this is relevant information in relation to the caliber of players we will draft at number 3. I call BS here, the author made it clear that there was a HUGE difference between 16 and 20, yet here you are trying to get me to see the relevance between 16 and 3?? Again, you just refuse to accept facts because if you did then your 11 page rant would be worthless (yet here you are STILL UNABLE to disprove the OP).

 

Keep peddling your unsubstantiated claims though, sure you will get someone to believe them. Here's the fun thing. Read the OP and then reply to that. Here are the facts.. 4 teams left correct? Yes. You still with me? Good. Of those 4 teams, there are 2 "franchise" QB's and 2 maybe, to almost, "franchise" QB's. Let's pretend that Cutler has stats WAY better than Fitz, who to most is NOT a "franchise QB", then we can (Lol) include him too. Then you have Sanchez who someday might reach that potential, but is still NOT a "franchise" QB. (yes, I know just because he was drafted in the 1st round make him a QB in your eyes... just like Heath Shuler, Jamarcus Russell and Ryan Leaf.. oh wait...) That gives you 4 teams with 3 "franchise QB's, however (still here?), ALL 4 teams remaining DO have a Top defense... FACT, no subjective. All in the top 10. Jay "franchise" Cutler ranked 16th, and Mark "franchise" Sanchez ranked 27th. FACTS. You're all bluster man, lol...

 

I have provided stats and facts... all you rebut is "you are funny McD, it isn't right because I said so, blah, blah, blah... It's humerous man. Team balance is huge, and QB play is the most important position on the field... no argument. But you cant group Cutler and Sanchez in the "franchise" QB role without giving Fitz his due. No... I don't think Fitz is a franchise QB, BUT his stats match up with those two, AND he did it with a less spectacular cast on both sides of the ball. Saying all of that, I will still say that we dont NEED a QB at #3... I'll say it again... NOT at #3.

 

BTW... check out the bolded **** above

 

It's the ultimate team sport and the best team wins. Forget about all the hysteria swirling around the QB myopia, Hopeful.

 

Case: Archie Manning. That guy was a franchise QB. Surrounded by garbage teams in a dysfunctional mess of an organization and before free agency, he was doomed to pilot a ship that was sunk before it left the dock.

 

Ahhhh, but IF he only had a good defense!

[McD]

yawn.

 

They also are two of the top 10 QBs in the league.

 

They also have 3 offenses in the top 10 for ball control. Part of that is having a good D that gets your O the ball,.... the other and more important part is that your O keeps the ball. Oh yea it also inflates your defensive stats!!!

 

You have the NFLs #4 passing attack - GB

 

You have the NFLs #4 rushing attack - NYJ

 

Pitt is the #11 rushing attack.

 

 

D is important, but you are on a kamikaze mission to disprove something that isnt true. I'm not wrong. Take a close look at home, the Bills will always remembered for having a great O with a "franchise QB", BUT will also be remembered for NOT winning a title because they didn't have the team D that we needed. We had an oppertunistic D then, but not a "punch you in the mouth D".

 

 

There are so few teams that have long term success using the Ravens/Jets mold based on great D and decent O wherein you dont need a great QB but a game manager. The problem is keeping 11 + guys on D who can play at that high of a level.

 

More teams have had success using the QB model which is find your franchise #1 guy, give him a few pieces and add a few playmakers on D. see pats, colts, GB. .. yea these teams havent had success this year.

 

But you can bet they will all be in the playoffs again next year and compete for the super bowl.

 

 

I love your bolded stuff above... nothing like skewing the facts to try to make a point, lol. "Well, the Bears have the top rated O when passing from the left side of the field, on grass, at night on Thursdays against left handed Safeties wearing two different shoes..." OMG man, really?

 

I wont even try to disprove ball control... that's HUGE, but moreso because of a great line and rushing attack.

[McD]

One last tidbit from our own Chan Gailey in a recent SI interview.

 

A Quarterback Summary (From Chan Gailey HC, Buffalo Bills)

 

"With all four of these guys, all you can do is go by what they have done. And so far, Ben is the only one of those four who has won the whole shebang. He's the one guy that has done it. The rest of them are trying to do it. And that's the true test of all these guys, and all quarterbacks.

 

"Aaron's been more through the fire than anyone except for Ben, because he's been around for a while. But with Cutler and Sanchez, it's the sort of thing where they're taking steps in their career. If they get to the next step, we'll find out even more about them. Sounds an AWEFUL lot like what I've been saying...

"At this level of the playoffs, you learn a lot about quarterbacks. If you're fragile and you have a bad game, it can hit you hard and affect you for a long time. It really can. If you don't handle it the right way, it can knock you back and knock your career back. But the guys still playing at this point in the playoffs, they get rewarded for playing well. The guys who take it all the way in the playoffs, and lead their team and get to the Super Bowl, those quarterbacks get rewarded. But there's only one guy that gets to do that every year.

 

"As well as they've four guys have played this year, don't let one other thing get lost in this, and that being there are four pretty good defenses playing this week. Between the Steelers, Jets, Packers and Bears, I'll bet you they're all in the top 10 on defense. [They're all in the top 9 in yards allowed.] That really helps a quarterback. You don't have to score 36 points a week to win. If he makes a mistake, he knows his defense will stop them and he'll get another chance. Not having to score every time he gets the ball, you can't imagine how much that helps a quarterback do his job.''

 

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/don_banks/01/20/chan-gailey-breakdown/index.html#ixzz1BojGKUW8

 

OMG... this is TOO damned funny. Any of you NOT understand the importance of the D yet?? We have Fitz... he can "manage" a game, and/or go out and win one himself from time to time... he's proven that with THIS Bills team. Load up the D and lets see what happens...

[papazoid]

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

here are one man's top rated defenses: (all of the Top 4 are still playing)

 

http://fantasysource.sportingnews.com/football/experts/freeview/brad-pinkerton/2011-01-20/early-2011-ranks-dst