Zulu Cthulhu Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 Can the mods please close this exercise in BS?
billsfreak Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 To somewhere in this multi layered thread to which this applies, I felt a sudden compulsion to respond after watching franchise qbs in action. If how a player performs in big games is a factor in how they are viewed than if Jay Cutler = Franchise QB Caleb Hanie > Jay Cutler Ryan Fitzpatrick => Caleb Hanie Ryan Fitzpatrick = Franchise QB Draft defense, Acquire more defense in FA, Improve defense side coaching √(did that) playoffs next year. I really like Fitz, but have never thought of him as a starting QB in the NFL that can lead a team into the playoffs, much less a Franchise QB. You comparing him to Caleb Hanie, just strenghtens that argument. Look the fact is, that teams win Championships, not defense, QBs, Offense, but if any single position on a team is necessary for a championship run, it is without question the QB position.
McD Posted January 24, 2011 Author Posted January 24, 2011 (edited) Can the mods please close this exercise in BS? Yes... it should be closed. Here's a cool final thought on the matter from BJ Raji: "How fitting is it to be a Green Bay Packer and win the championship with defense? That sums it up right there," said the 337-pound Raji, who picked off Hanie for a TD that put Green Bay up 21-7. Link: http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Big-D-leads-Green-Bay-Packers-to-Big-D-06546564 Funny to see where this thread went, and so cool to see both games yesterday be decided with defensive TD's, lol... I guess great D isn't important to some, but I'll take in all day long. I really like Fitz, but have never thought of him as a starting QB in the NFL that can lead a team into the playoffs, much less a Franchise QB. You comparing him to Caleb Hanie, just strenghtens that argument. Look the fact is, that teams win Championships, not defense, QBs, Offense, but if any single position on a team is necessary for a championship run, it is without question the QB position. Actually he didn't compare him to Hanie anymore than he compared him to Cutler. He's comparing the positon of QB. No argument with the "team" winning championships, and the QB being important. Tell me where a fanchise QB is just hanging around right now? There isn't one, unless you all think that "single read" Newton is your man, or maybe "Drew II" Mallett...? Hell, who knows if they will be, BUT you're wanting to pull the trigger on an unknown when our weakest link (by far) on this team is team defense? Get a D... get a RT and get a TE, THEN lets evaluate the QB position. Maybe we can land some FA's on D so it will be of less importance to us on draft day, then you can all be happy with one of the above mentioned QB's being taken well ahead of where they should be. Edited January 24, 2011 by McD
JPicc2114 Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 Lets see... Big Ben, and Aaron Rodgers in the super bowl. Both are franchise QBs. So franchise QB + Defense = Superbowl
CosmicBills Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 (edited) I agree with the exception that I would say Rodgers is a franchise QB too. Funny thing is... I've been saying the SAME thing you just said this whole thread, but people just dont want to see it. No one sees it because your rambling, incoherent rants have no logic, no base in reality and change depending on the direction the wind is blowing at that given moment. This thread is one of epic hilarity ... and you keep on pressing on. It would be admirable if it was a simple trolling. But I think you actual believe you're making sense. That just makes it kind of sad. Edited January 24, 2011 by tgreg99
ReturnoftheBuffaloBeast23 Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 *Raises Hand* I have an answer for the class.. You need both.. You need a franchise QB to make your offensive pedestrian weapons make the opposing defense look terrible no matter how great of a defense ala Brady and Manning... You need a outstanding defense to make the opposing QB look pedestrian ala Brady and Manning... Was that a good answer (GOOD ANSWER)? Can we end this unending thread now (YES)? I think this thread got a lil outta control (DARN SKIPPY)... Fitz doesn't make oUr offense better he just runs it and its common knowledge our defense would't cut it in the matrix cuz they can't stop a bullet (great metaphor/double en-toudre). So we need BOTH!
Alphadawg7 Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 No one sees it because your rambling, incoherent rants have no logic, no base in reality and change depending on the direction the wind is blowing at that given moment. This thread is one of epic hilarity ... and you keep on pressing on. It would be admirable if it was a simple trolling. But I think you actual believe you're making sense. That just makes it kind of sad.
McD Posted January 24, 2011 Author Posted January 24, 2011 No one sees it because your rambling, incoherent rants have no logic, no base in reality and change depending on the direction the wind is blowing at that given moment. This thread is one of epic hilarity ... and you keep on pressing on. It would be admirable if it was a simple trolling. But I think you actual believe you're making sense. That just makes it kind of sad. There's plenty of logic. Just because you choose to be ignorant and not read and or see them is your issue not mine. Here's a quick no **** fact for you. Scoring Defense Rankings (PPG) 1. Pitt (14.5) 2. GB (15.0) 28. B-Lo (26.6) Scoring Offense Rankings 10. GB (24.3) 12. Pitt (23.4) 28. B-Lo (17.7) Somehow the teams with the two BEST scoring Defenses are in the SB... no logic there at all. I included the Bills totals there as well. As you can see, if Pitt or GB had Buffalo's "high scoring attack" led by Fitz, they'd still be outscoring their opponents because their defense kicks ass. The same would be true if Buffalo had a kick ass defense like Pitt or GB, we'd be outscoring our opponents even with Fitzmagic. Do we still need to upgrade the QB position? Sure, no argument, but upgrade the D first. It's pretty "logical" that we do.
akm0404 Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 Only franchise QB playing today is Rothlisbuerger. The other three are very overrated You are on drugs.
McD Posted January 24, 2011 Author Posted January 24, 2011 *Raises Hand* I have an answer for the class.. You need both.. You need a franchise QB to make your offensive pedestrian weapons make the opposing defense look terrible no matter how great of a defense ala Brady and Manning... You need a outstanding defense to make the opposing QB look pedestrian ala Brady and Manning... Was that a good answer (GOOD ANSWER)? Can we end this unending thread now (YES)? I think this thread got a lil outta control (DARN SKIPPY)... Fitz doesn't make oUr offense better he just runs it and its common knowledge our defense would't cut it in the matrix cuz they can't stop a bullet (great metaphor/double en-toudre). So we need BOTH! What?!?! He didn't make our O better? Did you watch any games this year? The O was lightyears better with Fitz under Center. Another simple to the point fact... Defenses won both Conference title games yesterday. not only held the opposition to under their avg scoring, BUT also scored the winning points in each game, lol... Don't hate me because of the facts peeps... just embrace them!
K Gun Special Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 There's plenty of logic. Just because you choose to be ignorant and not read and or see them is your issue not mine. Here's a quick no **** fact for you. Scoring Defense Rankings (PPG) 1. Pitt (14.5) 2. GB (15.0) 28. B-Lo (26.6) Scoring Offense Rankings 10. GB (24.3) 12. Pitt (23.4) 28. B-Lo (17.7) Somehow the teams with the two BEST scoring Defenses are in the SB... no logic there at all. I included the Bills totals there as well. As you can see, if Pitt or GB had Buffalo's "high scoring attack" led by Fitz, they'd still be outscoring their opponents because their defense kicks ass. The same would be true if Buffalo had a kick ass defense like Pitt or GB, we'd be outscoring our opponents even with Fitzmagic. Do we still need to upgrade the QB position? Sure, no argument, but upgrade the D first. It's pretty "logical" that we do. First, dont call it scoring defense, that generally refers to points scored BY the defense. Second, Funny how the Saints with the 20th best "scoring defense" won the Super Bowl with the BEST scoring offense. They even beat a team with a better scoring top 10 defense. Its not nearly as simple as you make it sound. Usually the teams that advance far into the playoffs are going to be in the top categories for Offense and/or Defense. Plenty of Offensive oriented teams have had success and won super bowls. They just usually have what are considered the best QBs around, regardless of stats. Ben is a good example, he does not put up the numbers but makes big plays -- there are quite a few players in the hall of fame with similar resumes.
CosmicBills Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 (edited) There's plenty of logic. Just because you choose to be ignorant and not read and or see them is your issue not mine. Here's a quick no **** fact for you. Scoring Defense Rankings (PPG) 1. Pitt (14.5) 2. GB (15.0) 28. B-Lo (26.6) Scoring Offense Rankings 10. GB (24.3) 12. Pitt (23.4) 28. B-Lo (17.7) Somehow the teams with the two BEST scoring Defenses are in the SB... no logic there at all. I included the Bills totals there as well. As you can see, if Pitt or GB had Buffalo's "high scoring attack" led by Fitz, they'd still be outscoring their opponents because their defense kicks ass. The same would be true if Buffalo had a kick ass defense like Pitt or GB, we'd be outscoring our opponents even with Fitzmagic. Do we still need to upgrade the QB position? Sure, no argument, but upgrade the D first. It's pretty "logical" that we do. Another hilarious response. Well done! Your thesis statement in your first post AND in the title is all you need is defense to win. To prove it you pointed to the Franchise QBs that got bounced in the early rounds and totally ignored the fact that every remaining team had Franchise QBs of their own. You also ignore the fact that Rodgers has been by far the hottest QB in the league over the past few weeks in addition to downplaying Big Ben's role in making Pittsburgh a consistent winner. When called out on that, you change your stance to say "QB is important too!". Then, a few posts later it's back to "D is all that matters!". Tell ya what. When you make up your mind what you believe, or when the two monkeys sumo wrestling in that noggin of yours stop arguing, let us know. Then we'll properly flame your utterly ridiculous position in this current thread. In the meantime consider this: both teams in the Super Bowl have great defenses. So if defense is all that matters, how do you pick a favorite in this game? By your logic, both teams would play to a draw ... but that's not going to happen. What will happen is the team that gets the better QB play on Feb. 6th is going to win the ring. Defense won't win this game. It'll be the play of the QB. Which will once again show how ridiculous your stance is. Cheers. Edited January 24, 2011 by tgreg99
McD Posted January 24, 2011 Author Posted January 24, 2011 First, dont call it scoring defense, that generally refers to points scored BY the defense. Second, Funny how the Saints with the 20th best "scoring defense" won the Super Bowl with the BEST scoring offense. They even beat a team with a better scoring top 10 defense. Its not nearly as simple as you make it sound. Usually the teams that advance far into the playoffs are going to be in the top categories for Offense and/or Defense. Plenty of Offensive oriented teams have had success and won super bowls. They just usually have what are considered the best QBs around, regardless of stats. Ben is a good example, he does not put up the numbers but makes big plays -- there are quite a few players in the hall of fame with similar resumes. Actually I went simple because it seems that's all people want. When I present evidence, it's tossed aside (must be too confusing to them), so I resort to keeping it simple. Again, it's not a simple thing, but my point is that we need a damned D! People want to keep arguing about a QB, when that's a no **** argument... but again... tell me where there's one just lying around? I'd love one, but it's not happening right now... AND the only way to get to the SB is to make the playoffs.. we are closer as an O to get there, but on D we're HORRENDOUS! Get a D, lots and lots of D.
K Gun Special Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 Actually I went simple because it seems that's all people want. When I present evidence, it's tossed aside (must be too confusing to them), so I resort to keeping it simple. Again, it's not a simple thing, but my point is that we need a damned D! People want to keep arguing about a QB, when that's a no **** argument... but again... tell me where there's one just lying around? I'd love one, but it's not happening right now... AND the only way to get to the SB is to make the playoffs.. we are closer as an O to get there, but on D we're HORRENDOUS! Get a D, lots and lots of D. Yes true. But a top flight/franchise QB is a more important piece than anyone you could get on D. The impact is greater. But without that player available, you will likely see the Bills address D. at #3. But really what position shouldnt they be upgrading? they arent really set at any position.
Ozymandius Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 The thinking that the offense is in much better shape than the defense is overrated. NFL.com has us as the 25th ranked offense and the 24th ranked defense... http://www.nfl.com/stats/team?seasonId=2010&seasonType=REG&Submit=Go Advanced statistics say we have the 26th ranked offense and 28th ranked defense.... http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teameff To me, there's really not much of a difference. We suck on both offense and defense.
McD Posted January 24, 2011 Author Posted January 24, 2011 Yes true. But a top flight/franchise QB is a more important piece than anyone you could get on D. The impact is greater. But without that player available, you will likely see the Bills address D. at #3. But really what position shouldnt they be upgrading? they arent really set at any position. KW is solid, but after that I justy don't know. However that shows again how badly we need lots of D. Will they all be "hits"? no, but the more shots we ahve the better our chances. People here might not be sold on Fitz and I agree he's not a franchise QB, but he's solid and will be better with a better O-line and a better D. We need at least a RT and TE, but we need DT, DE, LB (2) and of course another CB and possibly S if/when Whitner bolts. The thinking that the offense is in much better shape than the defense is overrated. NFL.com has us as the 25th ranked offense and the 24th ranked defense... http://www.nfl.com/stats/team?seasonId=2010&seasonType=REG&Submit=Go Advanced statistics say we have the 26th ranked offense and 28th ranked defense.... http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teameff To me, there's really not much of a difference. We suck on both offense and defense. Dont forget we had Trent in there for a few games which hurts our offensive stats.
K Gun Special Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 The thinking that the offense is in much better shape than the defense is overrated. NFL.com has us as the 25th ranked offense and the 24th ranked defense... http://www.nfl.com/stats/team?seasonId=2010&seasonType=REG&Submit=Go Advanced statistics say we have the 26th ranked offense and 28th ranked defense.... http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/teameff To me, there's really not much of a difference. We suck on both offense and defense. Yes, the offense only looked better bc it went from awful to bad. KW is solid, but after that I justy don't know. However that shows again how badly we need lots of D. Will they all be "hits"? no, but the more shots we ahve the better our chances. People here might not be sold on Fitz and I agree he's not a franchise QB, but he's solid and will be better with a better O-line and a better D. We need at least a RT and TE, but we need DT, DE, LB (2) and of course another CB and possibly S if/when Whitner bolts. Yea KW. and maybe WR bc we have so many. But even RB should be considered, we have spiller and a 30yr old D3 back. LB should be a priority and so should TE.
McD Posted January 24, 2011 Author Posted January 24, 2011 Yes, the offense only looked better bc it went from awful to bad. Yea KW. and maybe WR bc we have so many. But even RB should be considered, we have spiller and a 30yr old D3 back. LB should be a priority and so should TE. As GB showed us... a good O-Line means you can plug in almost any serviceable RB and get good production from him. The reason Denver had 247 RB's run for 1,000 yds was because of their O-line. Yes... LB, TE and DL def need to be a priority in FA and the draft.
Orton's Arm Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 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* I'll address the above list of QBs. You are right to say Brad Johnson had a career year in 2002. He was selected to the Pro Bowl that year, and his play was an important part of the reason why the Bucs won the Super Bowl. Kurt Warner was one of the best QBs to ever play the game. Over the course of his career, Peyton Manning has averaged 7.6 yards per pass attempt. Kurt Warner's career average is 7.9. Kurt Warner owns the record for the most, second-most, and third-most passing yards in a Super Bowl. He owns the record for the most passing yards in a single playoff season, and is tied with Joe Montana for the most TD passes in a single postseason. He has the highest career completion percentage of any NFL QB ever. Of the games Kurt Warner has played in, he's passed for over 300 yards 41.9% of the time. That's a higher percentage than any other NFL QB ever. He's tied with Peyton Manning and Ben Roethlisberger for most games with a perfect passer rating. He tied Dan Marino for the fastest player to reach 30,000 passing yards; accomplishing it in 114 games. He's second to Peyton Manning in average passing yards per game. Kurt Warner was not just good--he was first ballot Hall of Fame good. There were a few years when he was playing hurt. During that time, injuries clearly affected his performance. That's why the Rams let him go, and one of the reasons why the Giants benched him in favor of Eli Manning. But he came back with the Cardinals; averaging about 7.6 yards per attempt during his five years there. He played well enough to lead them to a Super Bowl appearance, despite that team's problems on the OL and on defense. As for Eli Manning: it's true that his career average is a solid but unspectacular 6.8 yards per attempt. But over the last two years, he's averaged 7.9 and 7.4 yards per attempt. That shows he can put up the type of numbers you'd expect from a franchise QB. He also played well in the 2007 playoffs. He completed 74% of his passes against the Bucs, with 2 TDs and no INTs. He completed 67% of his passes against the Cowboys, with another 2 TDs to go with no INTs. And against the Patriots in the Super Bowl, he played well enough to be elected the MVP. So let's look at that list again: 10 New Orleans - Franchise QB 09 Pittsburgh - Franchise QB 08 NY Giants - Franchise QB-level play 07 Indy - Franchise QB 06 Pittsburgh - Franchise QB 05 Patriots - Franchise QB 04 Patriots - Franchise QB 03 Tampa Bay - Pro Bowl-level QB play 02 Patriots - Franchise QB 01 Baltimore - Defense (Dilfer was mediocre) 00 Rams - Franchise QB 99 Denver - Franchise QB 98 Denver - Franchise QB 97 Green Bay - Franchise QB Totals: 11 of those Super Bowls were won by teams with franchise QBs. Two others were won by teams that received Pro Bowl level play or better from their QBs for that particular postseason, even though the QBs in question (Brad Johnson and Eli Manning) had not done enough over their careers to be considered franchise QBs. Only one out of those teams (out of 14 total) received less than Pro Bowl-level play from the QB position during the postseason in which they won the Super Bowl. That one team was the Ravens of 2000--a team that had one of the three best defenses in NFL history. Not to mention Jamal Lewis at RB, and an OL led by Hall of Fame-level LT in Ogden. The deeper into the postseason you go, the fewer weaknesses your opponents will tend to have. If you build a team that's defense only, or defense + run the ball, then sooner or later you'll run into teams like the current Steelers or Packers. Those teams also have very good defenses, so it will be hard for you to build a defense that's that much better than theirs. Plus, their defenses will probably shut down your running game, so there goes that source of offense. And, those teams will bring franchise QBs to the table. If you're not getting very good play from your own quarterback, odds are heavily against you being able to do enough other things well to offset the significant advantage a franchise QB gives those teams. Nearly every team on the above list followed the this model: a franchise QB + good offensive supporting cast + good defense. This year's Super Bowl winner will also adhere to that model.
McD Posted January 24, 2011 Author Posted January 24, 2011 Yes true. But a top flight/franchise QB is a more important piece than anyone you could get on D. The impact is greater. But without that player available, you will likely see the Bills address D. at #3. But really what position shouldnt they be upgrading? they arent really set at any position. Depends on the formation they go with but you cant go wrong with the BPA at DE, DT or even LB if it o fits what they're trying to do. The question with the QB is... how much better a QB are we going to get over Fitz?
Recommended Posts