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

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

I think its more reasonable to say a Franchise QB can be a product of a stout defense. I am pretty sure Fouts was technically a better QB than Bradshaw, but the steel curtain propelled him to legendary status even though he only completed about 51% over his career and Fouts, typically an afterthought, completed near over 58% threw for a lot more yards and TD's over about the same duration.

 

That said, is the actual question, can Ryan Fitzpatrick be the guy? I personally think he earned the right to go into next year as the undisputed starter. If he continues improving, let it ride, if not then come april 2012 draft a QB in round 1.

 

In the mean time spend this #3 to get a difference maker on D.

[Orton's Arm]

Well done. Let me remind you of one interesting footnote following Baltimore's SB win and one reason they didn't repeat. Billick traded for a rising star, strong armed Qb with some prolific passing stats named Elvis Grbac. They promptly dumped Dilfer and struggled with Grbac until he quit out of frustration just 2 years later with the Ravens unable to make the playoffs and their offense reduced to a turnover machine. As it turns out, he was missing the intangibles required to play the position.

 

Finding a franchise QB can be a roll of the dice. Maybe what we should start looking for is a winning Qb instead. So with that in mind, how good would Manning have looked with this supporting cast. There is a lot of subjection and uncertainty. No one knows for sure until you have him in place with some semblance of a supporting cast.

 

I am one of those who hasn't given up on Ryan Fitzpatrick. I think he's a winner.

Thanks for the compliment.

 

I agree that Baltimore significantly overestimated the benefits Grbac would bring, and may well have underestimated what Trent Dilfer had brought to the table. Grbac was released after just one season with the Ravens.

 

But not every free agent QB signing will turn out to be another Elvis Grbac. A few years ago the New Orleans Saints signed Drew Brees despite concerns that had been raised about his injuries. That decision worked out very well for them!!

 

There are both Elvis Grbac and Drew Brees stories at every position on the field. Nearly a decade ago, the Atlanta Falcons traded away a first round pick for Peerless Price. That decision didn't work out so well for them! Jonas Jennings and Nate Clements weren't the players San Francisco had been hoping for when it signed them. Nor was Cornell Green the RT Nix had been hoping for when he acquired him. Marcellus Wiley's career went downhill after he left Buffalo, and he did not turn out so well for the Chargers or (especially) the Cowboys. The Ravens' acquisition of Grbac was not much different than those.

 

The problem with evaluating a player at any position is that a football team is like a machine: the success or failure of one of the machine's components directly affects the productivity of other, related parts. A WR could say that his play would look a lot better if he had a better QB and if the OL blocked better. An offensive lineman could tell you that his blocking would look better if the quarterback did a better job of moving around in the pocket/being aware, and of getting rid of the ball faster. That OL might even add that it would be nice if the receivers got open faster. Similarly on defense, a DL could say that he'd have better stats if the secondary could hold its coverage longer, and if the other defensive linemen did a better job of attracting double teams.

 

Fitz has thrown a lot of inaccurate passes. To me as a fan, those passes look like they're his fault. But it's theoretically possible that those passes would have been spot-on had the WR run exactly the route he should have. Chan and Buddy will doubtless be able to figure out which plays to blame on Fitz, and which to blame on the WRs. But my own impression here is that despite Fitz's other virtues--and they are many--he isn't a particularly accurate passer. That's something that can and should be evaluated now, as opposed to waiting until some future time when his supporting cast is exemplary.

 

When evaluating a player--whether a potential draft pick or someone already on your roster--you should make a list of the qualities you want, and then determine the extent to which the player in question provides those qualities. Fitz gets high marks for his ability to read defenses, on-field generalship, leadership, and other important things, but low scores for accuracy. You don't need to surround Fitz with a top-10 supporting cast to determine that! Nor will improving his supporting cast make him into something he's not (an accurate QB).

 

There are plenty of reasons why drives can stall. Holding penalties. Runs that get stuffed. Receivers dropping passes. A few bad play calls. A QB who sometimes throws very inaccurate passes creates one more thing to go wrong, and one more reason for drives to stall. A QB who's accurate 90% of the time has a 1/100 chance of throwing two inaccurate passes in a row. A QB who's accurate 75% of the time has a 1/16 chance of throwing two inaccurate passes in a row. Obviously, the second QB is going to stall a lot more drives than the first!

[Bill from NYC]

There were no weaknesses on that defense, which was one of the three best in NFL history.

 

Just curious.....who do you think the other two were?

[CosmicBills]

Definately not an idiot, but the genious part has merit.

I write comedy and couldn't have written a better line if I had tried. This sums up this entire thread.

 

Wait no longer... how did you get "THAT'S ALL" you need to win is a great defense? I can't remember ever saying that. If I did, I WOULD be an idiot. Instead, I did say that good defenses WIN period. Again, tell me how in the hell that's wrong? Take a look at the tale of the tape in scoring per game on O and D: 9 of the top 12 top defenses were in the playoffs, while only 7 of the top 12 offenses amde the dance. Defense does win, and we need it terribly. Are you going to jump on here and dispute that? (please, oh please do!)

You need to learn to read your own thread titles.

[McD]

I write comedy and couldn't have written a better line if I had tried. This sums up this entire thread.

 

Glad I can amuse you, lol. That's just typo's from "fast fingers"...

 

The one thing this shows is you're really not looking at the content of the thread, you're just looking for ANY little thing to try to delfect your ignorance of the OP.

 

Awesome!!!

[CosmicBills]

Glad I can amuse you, lol. That's just typo's from "fast fingers"...

 

The one thing this shows is you're really not looking at the content of the thread, you're just looking for ANY little thing to try to delfect your ignorance of the OP.

 

Awesome!!!

Your thread title says, and I quote, "Defenses win.... PERIOD!". Yet, there has only been one Super Bowl winner in over a decade that has won with defense alone. Thems the facts. And they make everything you're saying subsequent to that thesis statement laughable backtracking.

 

What you're really arguing (now) is that the Bills are good enough with Fitz and shouldn't draft a QB at 3 because there are none worth that high of a pick. While I don't share your belief that Fitz is the answer at QB (or good enough to lead this team to a Super Bowl win without a Raven-esque defense to back him up), I do agree that you don't reach for a QB unless he has the goods to be a franchise caliber player. And in light of the Bills deficiencies all over the field, building up the front 7 is not a bad way to go. But that doesn't make you profound. There isn't a fan on here that's arguing against that. They're arguing the rest of the bollocks you're spewing about defense being the end all be all of championship teams.

 

At the end of the day, as the playoffs have proven once again, this is a QB driven league. The winner of this Super Bowl will be decided by who gets the better QB play -- NOT by the defenses. Both defenses are good. Both defenses will make plays. The difference will come down to Rodgers vs Ben. The smart money is on Rodgers who has been the hottest QB in the league the past month and a half and has taken the number 6 seeded, bruised and battered Packers to the Super Bowl. If they didn't have Rodgers, they wouldn't even be in the playoffs let alone the Super Bowl EVEN WITH THEIR DEFENSE.

 

Everything else you're saying is pointless blather not based in logic, reason or facts.

Edited January 26, 2011 by tgreg99

[McD]

You need to learn to read your own thread titles.

 

Defense wins.... defense wins... defense wins... I'm not wrong. Please oh exulted one tell me how I'm wrong?

 

You're argument will be winning the SB. Correct? My argument is that in general you need a good D to win in this league. in oreder to get to the SB, you need to WIN in the playoffs, in order to WIN in the playoffs you need to get there, in order to get there you need to WIN in the regular season. We got our ass handed to us because our D sucked. Give this team an avg NFL defense and we are 7-9/8-8. Give this team a good/great defense and this team has a shot at the playoffs. I'm tired of all of the "we NEED to draft Mallett/Newton because they have the potential to be a great QB". I call BS on that. We have a good QB, who might get worse, or could be great. I'd love to see Fitz on a team like Pitt/GB... all of a sudden with that great D, he would somehow be a franchise QB. Hmmmmm....??? Give Fitz another year, get him a RT and a TE... that's all we need on O to get better, but on D we need 2 DL's and 2 LB's. We could also lose 1 or 2 of our S's to FA, so we will prob go there to. That's at least 5 needs on D... an area we suck at... load up the damned D!

 

How about you talk football and actually add something constructive to this thread?

[benderbender]

Your thread title says, and I quote, "Defenses win.... PERIOD!". Yet, there has only been one Super Bowl winner in over a decade that has won with defense alone. Thems the facts. And they make everything you're saying subsequent to that thesis statement laughable backtracking.

 

What you're really arguing (now) is that the Bills are good enough with Fitz and shouldn't draft a QB at 3 because there are none worth that high of a pick. While I don't share your belief that Fitz is the answer at QB (or good enough to lead this team to a Super Bowl win without a Raven-esque defense to back him up), I do agree that you don't reach for a QB unless he has the goods to be a franchise caliber player. And in light of the Bills deficiencies all over the field, building up the front 7 is not a bad way to go. But that doesn't make you profound. There isn't a fan on here that's arguing against that. They're arguing the rest of the bollocks you're spewing about defense being the end all be all of championship teams.

 

At the end of the day, as the playoffs have proven once again, this is a QB driven league. The winner of this Super Bowl will be decided by who gets the better QB play -- NOT by the defenses. Both defenses are good. Both defenses will make plays. The difference will come down to Rodgers vs Ben. The smart money is on Rodgers who has been the hottest QB in the league the past month and a half and has taken the number 6 seeded, bruised and battered Packers to the Super Bowl. If they didn't have Rodgers, they wouldn't even be in the playoffs let alone the Super Bowl EVEN WITH THEIR DEFENSE.

 

Everything else you're saying is pointless blather not based in logic, reason or facts.

 

+1

[McD]

Your thread title says, and I quote, "Defenses win.... PERIOD!". Yet, there has only been one Super Bowl winner in over a decade that has won with defense alone. Really.... I said THAT huh? So, your take is that what I mean is that a team doesn't need to even play O right to win right? OMG man get a grip! Thems the facts. And they make everything you're saying subsequent to that thesis statement laughable backtracking. Again, tell me where in the hell am I backtracking???

 

What you're really arguing (now) is that the Bills are good enough with Fitz and shouldn't draft a QB at 3 because there are none worth that high of a pick. True... I said that from the beginning. Amazing that you can deduce that I say that a team doesn't even need top play offense, but that you didn't figure out that I dont think Fitz is a franchise QB, but that I think we can win with him IF we had a real D. While I don't share your belief that Fitz is the answer at QB (or good enough to lead this team to a Super Bowl win without a Raven-esque defense to back him up), I do agree that you don't reach for a QB unless he has the goods to be a franchise caliber player. And in light of the Bills deficiencies all over the field, building up the front 7 is not a bad way to go. But that doesn't make you profound. There isn't a fan on here that's arguing against that. They're arguing the rest of the bollocks you're spewing about defense being the end all be all of championship teams. You have your opinion, I'll have mine. The point here is this... WE (*&^%$ING SUCK ON D! We will NOT win or get into the playoffs to even have a shot at ever playing in the SB again without a great D!

 

At the end of the day, as the playoffs have proven once again, this is a QB driven league. The winner of this Super Bowl will be decided by who gets the better QB play -- NOT by the defenses. Both defenses are good. Both defenses will make plays. The difference will come down to Rodgers vs Ben. Ok... in BOTH championship games the game came down to defensive scores. The smart money is on Rodgers who has been the hottest QB in the league the past month and a half and has taken the number 6 seeded, bruised and battered Packers to the Super Bowl. If they didn't have Rodgers, they wouldn't even be in the playoffs let alone the Super Bowl EVEN WITH THEIR DEFENSE.

 

Everything else you're saying is pointless blather not based in logic, reason or facts.

 

At the end of the day, as the playoffs have proven once again, this is a QB driven league. The winner of this Super Bowl will be decided by who gets the better QB play -- NOT by the defenses. Both defenses are good. Both defenses will make plays. The difference will come down to Rodgers vs Ben. The smart money is on Rodgers who has been the hottest QB in the league the past month and a half and has taken the number 6 seeded, bruised and battered Packers to the Super Bowl. If they didn't have Rodgers, they wouldn't even be in the playoffs let alone the Super Bowl EVEN WITH THEIR DEFENSE.

 

Everything else you're saying is pointless blather not based in logic, reason or facts.

 

The game will come down to JUST the QB? I guess nobody else on O counts towards thier success??

Edited January 26, 2011 by McD

[Mr. WEO]

Defense wins.... defense wins... defense wins... I'm not wrong. Please oh exulted one tell me how I'm wrong?

 

You're argument will be winning the SB. Correct? My argument is that in general you need a good D to win in this league. in oreder to get to the SB, you need to WIN in the playoffs, in order to WIN in the playoffs you need to get there, in order to get there you need to WIN in the regular season. We got our ass handed to us because our D sucked. Give this team an avg NFL defense and we are 7-9/8-8. Give this team a good/great defense and this team has a shot at the playoffs. I'm tired of all of the "we NEED to draft Mallett/Newton because they have the potential to be a great QB". I call BS on that. We have a good QB, who might get worse, or could be great. I'd love to see Fitz on a team like Pitt/GB... all of a sudden with that great D, he would somehow be a franchise QB. Hmmmmm....??? Give Fitz another year, get him a RT and a TE... that's all we need on O to get better, but on D we need 2 DL's and 2 LB's. We could also lose 1 or 2 of our S's to FA, so we will prob go there to. That's at least 5 needs on D... an area we suck at... load up the damned D!

 

How about you talk football and actually add something constructive to this thread?

 

The best Defense throughout this whole season belonged to a team that didn't make the playoffs. After their "defense wins championships" SB win, the Ravens would win only 1 playoff game until drafting Flacco 7 years later--despite consistently top 10 ranked defenses.

 

A great defense is obviously an asset, but not a necessity to win a championship.

 

I like Fitz, but to suggest that his ability would improve by having a better defense is a stretch. The D's job is to get the field as fast as possible. Fitz in no way would turn into Rodgers or Big Ben on those teams. If that's what your argument has evolved into, then you're way off course. You should watch those two QBs play sometime. SB is your next opportunity.

[McD]

The best Defense throughout this whole season belonged to a team that didn't make the playoffs. After their "defense wins championships" SB win, the Ravens would win only 1 playoff game until drafting Flacco 7 years later--despite consistently top 10 ranked defenses.

 

A great defense is obviously an asset, but not a necessity to win a championship.

 

I like Fitz, but to suggest that his ability would improve by having a better defense is a stretch. The D's job is to get the field as fast as possible. Fitz in no way would turn into Rodgers or Big Ben on those teams. If that's what your argument has evolved into, then you're way off course. You should watch those two QBs play sometime. SB is your next opportunity.

 

I LOVE that you brought up SD having the "best D" not making the playoffs... they ALSO had the "best O" too, AND a franchise QB that led the league with 4,700 yds, and was 2nd in QB rating. The 2010 Chargers were an anomoly. A bigger indicator of them not making the playoffs was that they were tied for 9th worst with -6 turnovers. Of the top worst 20 teams with turnovers, only 3 teams made the playoffs... the Saints (-6), the Colts (-4), and the 7-9 Seahawks with (-9).

[Bronc24]

It sure helps.

[McD]

I like Fitz, but to suggest that his ability would improve by having a better defense is a stretch. The D's job is to get the field as fast as possible. Fitz in no way would turn into Rodgers or Big Ben on those teams. If that's what your argument has evolved into, then you're way off course. You should watch those two QBs play sometime. SB is your next opportunity.

 

I don't think it's a stretch at all. I think when you play from behind, as the Bills have done almost all year, you make yourself predictable thus giving the opposition a chance to go after you (proactive). When the game is tied, or you have the lead, you dictate play and the opposition has to be reactive to what you do. How many times has Fitz HAD to force a ball because he had to play from behind? or, because the D knows you have to throw, Fitz has to face a blitz and/or nickel/dime packages? That happens when you're behind a lot more than when you have the lead. A good D keeps teams in games. Fitz's stats will not "jump through the roof, but I'm certain they would be better with a better D. people harp on Big Ben... and they should he's a helluva QB, but he didn't "win" that game for them. His D did. The Jets D kept him to 133 yds 0 TD's, 2 Int's, and a 35.5 QB rating, he was also sacked twice. If the Steelers D doesn't return the fumble for a score, this would be a different argument.

[CosmicBills]

The game will come down to JUST the QB? I guess nobody else on O counts towards thier success??

That's a broad generalization of the concept at hand. But it's on par with the rest of your analytical skills demonstrated throughout this thread.

[McD]

That's a broad generalization of the concept at hand. But it's on par with the rest of your analytical skills demonstrated throughout this thread.

 

Why because you can't break it down? You don't really offer anything other than your opinion... and that's cool, no offense there. I'm not the one "hanging my hat" on a single player to win. Let's talk about a "broad" generalization... most of you are saying we need a franchise QB and will include Cutler and Sanchez rated #16 and #27 in the league... talk about BROAD. I'm keeping it pretty tight actually both defense reamining are top 6 in ypg, and both are #'s 1 and 2 in D in ppg. C'mon man!

[Delete This Account]

Why because you can't break it down? You don't really offer anything other than your opinion... and that's cool, no offense there. I'm not the one "hanging my hat" on a single player to win. Let's talk about a "broad" generalization... most of you are saying we need a franchise QB and will include Cutler and Sanchez rated #16 and #27 in the league... talk about BROAD. I'm keeping it pretty tight actually both defense reamining are top 6 in ypg, and both are #'s 1 and 2 in D in ppg. C'mon man!

so, to wit, you think the bills should have stuck with Trent Edwards?

 

or, you are arguing that the Bills were prime Super Bowl contenders in both 2003 and '04 when their defense ranked 2nd in the NFL in yards allowed. did Bledsoe's decline and Gregg Williams questionable tactics (in '03) have anything to do with the fact that neither team made the playoffs?

 

would not have better quarterback play, particularly in the 2004 finale against the Steelers, when Bledsoe inexplicably dropped back at his own 15 was sacked and fumbled, not have made a difference?

 

you've backed yourself into such a corner it appears that you've left yourself no way out without having to acknowledge you are in some ways mistaken.

 

c'mon, man.

 

jw

[McD]

so, to wit, you think the bills should have stuck with Trent Edwards?

 

or, you are arguing that the Bills were prime Super Bowl contenders in both 2003 and '04 when their defense ranked 2nd in the NFL in yards allowed. did Bledsoe's decline and Gregg Williams questionable tactics (in '03) have anything to do with the fact that neither team made the playoffs?

 

would not have better quarterback play, particularly in the 2004 finale against the Steelers, when Bledsoe inexplicably dropped back at his own 15 was sacked and fumbled, not have made a difference?

 

you've backed yourself into such a corner it appears that you've left yourself no way out without having to acknowledge you are in some ways mistaken.

 

c'mon, man.

 

jw

 

Wrong.

 

Edwards was, and still is a ****ty QB, but he would have been better with a better D sure. The '04 Bills were #2 in yds allowed per game, and #9 in pts allowed, but were not even close to avg on O... as they were ranked #25. If they were just avg they would have made the playoffs easily. The Bills were 9-7 that year, the last time we even sniffed the playoffs.

 

Funny that you think that I need to say I'm mistaken. I'm not mistaken. This isn't mathematics with a single absolute outcome. Sure, you could say facts are skewed and there are inaccuracies on either side of this debate, but we press on. If you want to say I'm mistaken, then we're all mistaken. Ok, you're input has been acknowledged. Please fell free to add more. Back to your comment about Bledsoe being sacked. You sure that wasn't just awesome D by Pitt? Seems like the D made a play as opposed to Bledsoe throwing an incomplete pass.

[Delete This Account]

Wrong.

 

Edwards was, and still is a ****ty QB, but he would have been better with a better D sure. The '04 Bills were #2 in yds allowed per game, and #9 in pts allowed, but were not even close to avg on O... as they were ranked #25. If they were just avg they would have made the playoffs easily. The Bills were 9-7 that year, the last time we even sniffed the playoffs.

 

Funny that you think that I need to say I'm mistaken. I'm not mistaken. This isn't mathematics with a single absolute outcome. Sure, you could say facts are skewed and there are inaccuracies on either side of this debate, but we press on. If you want to say I'm mistaken, then we're all mistaken. Ok, you're input has been acknowledged. Please fell free to add more. Back to your comment about Bledsoe being sacked. You sure that wasn't just awesome D by Pitt? Seems like the D made a play as opposed to Bledsoe throwing an incomplete pass.

but by your obtuse logic, the bills D should've won that game alone and not put it in Bledsoe's hands to begin with.

 

also, the title of your thread reads, and i quote: "So much for the NEED to have a franchise QB ... (Defenses win ... PERIOD)" leads me to wonder. and after all, you had suggested i should "fell" (there you go being a genious again) free to add more.

 

let me fellow (heh, heh) with this:

you acknowledge above that you don't consider Trent Edwards to be a franchise quarterback. and yet you discount literally any probability that the bills, with a top defense, could win a Super Bowl with him at the helm because, after all, you contend that a defense wins ... PERIOD!, right?

 

so doesn't that dispute your point?

actually, let me back up ... what was your point?

 

jw

Edited January 26, 2011 by john wawrow

[Adam]

The way the defense helps the offense is two-fold

 

1) it can take pressure off them. The offensive players perform better when they know they don't have to put 40 points on the board to win.

 

2) If you are only good enough to score on every four possessions, the defense can increase the number of opportunities to possess the ball by forcing a punt or getting a turnover.

 

Now that is simple and everyone knows that of course, but it is fact- and it does work the other way, as well. No unit on the team performs in a vacuum. With a better defense, Fitzpatrick will put up better numbers, but once we get to that stage, he will have to be replaced with an upgrade or we won't take the next step

[Delete This Account]

Scoring more points than opponent wins ... PERIOD!

 

jw