McD Posted January 26, 2011 Author Posted January 26, 2011 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 My OP still isn't wrong. Defense wins and you dont NEED a franchise QB to win do you? I did not back myself into a corner stating the defenses win EVERY SINGLE TIME, ALL THE TIME! No, no... and that was lame trying to act like I did. As for Trent, I said he wasn't a franchise QB... and? Is there an issue with that observation? Could we have won with Trent if we had a great D... would he have been better? Sure... I never said we or he couldn't be better. We all (I'll consider you a good football fan) know that you need to have some common sense with this. The best O or D in the league will struggle if it has the polar opposite on the other end. But I'll take a Top 10 D with an avg O over a Top 10 O with an avg D.
KOKBILLS Posted January 26, 2011 Posted January 26, 2011 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. I'm curious...Exactly what about Fitz's Career 14-23 record as a starter has you convinced he's a winner? Just saying...He's had some good games and some not so good Games...He's improved, but he's been up and down since he made his debut in St Louis...I really don't see any evidence that he can be a consistent winning QB in the NFL...He's had 37 Starts...That's enough time to form an opinion...I'm just surprised SO many around here are convinced he's going to get better and not level off...
Delete This Account Posted January 26, 2011 Posted January 26, 2011 (edited) My OP still isn't wrong. Defense wins and you dont NEED a franchise QB to win do you? I did not back myself into a corner stating the defenses win EVERY SINGLE TIME, ALL THE TIME! No, no... yes, and yes. defenses win ... PERIOD! did someone else write that in the subject line, or might those have been your tippy-tappy fingers? As for Trent, I said he wasn't a franchise QB... and? Is there an issue with that observation? Could we have won with Trent if we had a great D... would he have been better? Sure... I never said we or he couldn't be better. We all (I'll consider you a good football fan) know that you need to have some common sense with this. The best O or D in the league will struggle if it has the polar opposite on the other end. But I'll take a Top 10 D with an avg O over a Top 10 O with an avg D. evidently, you've left yourself open to so many "well buts," that it's impossible to figure out what it is you're arguing for or against. so to make clear, what you're actually arguing is this: "defenses win ... MUCH OF THE TIME! and offenses also win ... COMMMA! (but i'd prefer a good defense.)" hey, just trying to keep things straight. jw Edited January 26, 2011 by john wawrow
PDaDdy Posted January 26, 2011 Posted January 26, 2011 THE ANSWER IS SO OBVIOUS IT'S COMICAL!! I think the best plan for a championship team it BOTH. Seriously ...BOTH. We have seen great defenses falter. We have seen great QBs go down in flames. Most of the good teams out there have a great defense and a franchise QB. Sprinkle in some talent here and there on offense year to year and you've got a perennial play off team. To be sure this is not the only way. It is however an approach that often leads to success. I have no idea how to get statistics on this but I would imagine teams that truly have both are usually only beat by other teams that have both.
Delete This Account Posted January 26, 2011 Posted January 26, 2011 THE ANSWER IS SO OBVIOUS IT'S COMICAL!! I think the best plan for a championship team it BOTH. Seriously ...BOTH. We have seen great defenses falter. We have seen great QBs go down in flames. Most of the good teams out there have a great defense and a franchise QB. Sprinkle in some talent here and there on offense year to year and you've got a perennial play off team. To be sure this is not the only way. It is however an approach that often leads to success. I have no idea how to get statistics on this but I would imagine teams that truly have both are usually only beat by other teams that have both. no, you're wrong ... oops, sorry, was just anticipating mcd's next response. jw
PDaDdy Posted January 26, 2011 Posted January 26, 2011 I'm curious...Exactly what about Fitz's Career 14-23 record as a starter has you convinced he's a winner? Just saying...He's had some good games and some not so good Games...He's improved, but he's been up and down since he made his debut in St Louis...I really don't see any evidence that he can be a consistent winning QB in the NFL...He's had 37 Starts...That's enough time to form an opinion...I'm just surprised SO many around here are convinced he's going to get better and not level off... Live and learn. Generally smart QBs get better as time goes on. Fitz is one of the smartest ever according to education and wonderlick score. Fitz will actually have the benefit of an entire off season as the starter. Buffalo has an offensive mind running the show for the first time in YEARS. We have WRs that have stepped up and shown their worth during a year where we were obviously trying to see what we had. Again with an entire off season and guys coming back healthy like Parrish and the promising rookie Easley we have more optimism at that position than we have had since Moulds had a running partner in Price and later Evans.
McD Posted January 26, 2011 Author Posted January 26, 2011 yes, and yes. defenses win ... PERIOD! did someone else write that in the subject line, or might those have been your tippy-tappy fingers? eEvidently, you've left yourself open to so many "well buts," that it's impossible to figure out what it is you're arguing for or against. sSo to make clear, what you're actually arguing is this: "defenses win ... MUCH MOST OF THE TIME! and offenses also win ... COMMMA! (but iI'd prefer a good defense.)" hHey, just trying to keep things straight. jw I didn't realize I had to spell everything out for you, you seem like a big boy. Funny how you left out that I said you don't need a franchise QB... which you dont. But you'll argue that too (comma) right? Lol... Is this a discussion board? I opted to view other people's arguments and even accepted some views all while defending my own position where there was no acceptance. I'm good with that, I'm a big boy. Fixed you up above too.... since we're being all grammatically correct.
Maddog69 Posted January 26, 2011 Posted January 26, 2011 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 But, as you point out, it works both ways. With a better QB (and thus better overall offense) we would score more points, taking pressure of the defense and forcing the opposing offense to have to score more points. This would force the opposing offense to pass more, thus helping our Rush defense to look better on paper and also providing more chances for INTs. As you say, no unit on the team works in a vacuum. We should be trying to find elite talent on either side of the ball.
Delete This Account Posted January 26, 2011 Posted January 26, 2011 I didn't realize I had to spell everything out for you, you seem like a big boy. Funny how you left out that I said you don't need a franchise QB... which you dont. But you'll argue that too (comma) right? Lol... Is this a discussion board? I opted to view other people's arguments and even accepted some views all while defending my own position where there was no acceptance. I'm good with that, I'm a big boy. Fixed you up above too.... since we're being all grammatically correct. i'm no genious, never pretended to be. earlier in this thread, you suggested Rodgers wasn't a franchise quarterback because what had he done? well, in two years, he's led the Packers to the playoffs both times, last year doing so by overcoming a bad defense. this year, with a solid defense, he's led them to a Super Bowl, or was that Kyle Matthews completing all those passes and running for all those first downs? it's open for debate as to what the bills should do with the No. 3 pick. a quarterback might be one option. improving the defense a better option, perhaps. no one's arguing that point with you. however, what makes all of these pages so humorous is when you open the thread by stating categorically and undeniably, that defenses win ... PERIOD! that's an absolute that makes it easy for you to be made sport of. you're wrong. deal with it. jw
Bangarang Posted January 26, 2011 Posted January 26, 2011 Live and learn. Generally smart QBs get better as time goes on. Fitz is one of the smartest ever according to education and wonderlick score. Fitz will actually have the benefit of an entire off season as the starter. Buffalo has an offensive mind running the show for the first time in YEARS. We have WRs that have stepped up and shown their worth during a year where we were obviously trying to see what we had. Again with an entire off season and guys coming back healthy like Parrish and the promising rookie Easley we have more optimism at that position than we have had since Moulds had a running partner in Price and later Evans. What we saw last year is the absolute best Fitz will be in the NFL.
Mr. WEO Posted January 26, 2011 Posted January 26, 2011 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. As someone who picks single games to make a point, it's curious that you leave out the Steelers come from behind win against the great Ravens defense the week before--where Big Ben led his team to 24 second half points (10 in the last 4 minutes). Again, BR's career as QB speaks for itself. He's a great QB. Rodgers has the bonus of a very good defense, but he is playing extremely well. The last time these two teams met in '09, BR passed for over 500 yards. You can't credibly place Fitz on either team and expect the same performance-especially citing the quality of the defense. It's a completely unconvincing argument in whatever point you're trying to make about the relative unimportance of a top caliber QB.
McD Posted January 26, 2011 Author Posted January 26, 2011 no, you're wrong ... oops, sorry, was just anticipating mcd's next response. jw No, actually I've seen THAT defense/response to my posts quite a bit. I've presented my case, and gave evidence to it as well, but most people here have just been bitter about that, lol. Nothing I can do about that John. Also, take a gander as to when I posted this. It was soon after (minutes I think) the Divisional games. If Im not mistaken, I wrote this because of another thread going on and on about the playoff QB's. I sat there watching ALL of the supposed superstar/franchise QB's go down, and who was it that took them down? Defense, defense and more defense.
PDaDdy Posted January 26, 2011 Posted January 26, 2011 (edited) What we saw last year is the absolute best Fitz will be in the NFL. What makes you think that? I provided VERY plausible and dare I say it almost guaranteed reasons for his continued growth. What do you present to the contrary other than the myriad of backup and spot duty starts that he has had through his career???? Edited January 26, 2011 by PDaDdy
Delete This Account Posted January 26, 2011 Posted January 26, 2011 No, actually I've seen THAT defense/response to my posts quite a bit. I've presented my case, and gave evidence to it as well, but most people here have just been bitter about that, lol. Nothing I can do about that John. Also, take a gander as to when I posted this. It was soon after (minutes I think) the Divisional games. If Im not mistaken, I wrote this because of another thread going on and on about the playoff QB's. I sat there watching ALL of the supposed superstar/franchise QB's go down, and who was it that took them down? Defense, defense and more defense. right, the Jets vaunted defense went down, picked apart by a better offensive team in the Steelers. and for all the praise the Bears defense received, it couldn't slow down Rodgers. i see the point you're trying to make jw
McD Posted January 26, 2011 Author Posted January 26, 2011 i'm no genious, never pretended to be. earlier in this thread, you suggested Rodgers wasn't a franchise quarterback because what had he done? well, in two years, he's led the Packers to the playoffs both times, last year doing so by overcoming a bad defense. this year, with a solid defense, he's led them to a Super Bowl, or was that Kyle Matthews completing all those passes and running for all those first downs? it's open for debate as to what the bills should do with the No. 3 pick. a quarterback might be one option. improving the defense a better option, perhaps. no one's arguing that point with you. however, what makes all of these pages so humorous is when you open the thread by stating categorically and undeniably, that defenses win ... PERIOD! that's an absolute that makes it easy for you to be made sport of. you're wrong. deal with it. jw Defenses do win. I've supported that fact. Deal with it John. Thye comment on Rodgers was to a post raving about all he had accomplished and THAT was why he was considerd a franchise QB to them... my response was "what has he done to warrant that"? Fairly simple. Do I personally think Rodgers is franchise? I think he's well on his way and is playing lights out right now. Still here John.
Delete This Account Posted January 26, 2011 Posted January 26, 2011 Still here John. keep up, you're like five posts behind. jw
McD Posted January 26, 2011 Author Posted January 26, 2011 right, the Jets vaunted defense went down, picked apart by a better offensive team in the Steelers. and for all the praise the Bears defense received, it couldn't slow down Rodgers. i see the point you're trying to make jw And the point can be made that the better defensive team won as well (Pitt ranked #2, NYJ #3 in overall D and Pit ranked #1, NYJ #6 in scoring D) AND won by scoring the game winning points... next?
CosmicBills Posted January 26, 2011 Posted January 26, 2011 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 John, you continue to bring a breath of fresh (and inspired) air to this board. I know this is off topic for the thread, but thanks for continuing to contribute here.
PDaDdy Posted January 26, 2011 Posted January 26, 2011 right, the Jets vaunted defense went down, picked apart by a better offensive team in the Steelers. and for all the praise the Bears defense received, it couldn't slow down Rodgers. i see the point you're trying to make jw Another way to state that is that Pittsburgh's vaunted defense took down the Jets and made them play from behind all game. The Bears were undone by Green Bays stifling defense who also took out their QB and effectively any chance of victory. Quit being obtuse. Again the answer is both. Great defense AND a franchise QB.
Recommended Posts