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

[McD]

It is true that, in any sport, if your opponent scores no points, you can't lose. You may have been the first of our species to have pointed this out. College has not been wasted on you. Keep studying, though.

 

How that relates to your OP is a mystery. Crappy teams can shut out other teams. So what?

 

Lol... so NOW you see that we wasted 20 pages for something you already knew, but just kept fighting about?!?!? Lol! OK! This thread evolved, but it still focuses on defense, and the need for us to go draft a LOT of defense. Really I'm defending and standing my ground, nobody has yet to tell me we shouldn't draft D. So if you're the first let me hear why? I'm sure you have a good reason...

 

20!

 

Lets go for 100 Pages!

 

 

LOL @ WSS! Crazy huh?

Edited January 27, 2011 by McD

[thebug]

Check out the bolded

 

 

 

Thanks for knocking any credibility you had out of the water. Thanks for playing.

 

 

If I had any credibility, I would have skipped past this thread the moment I realized it was a joke.

Edited January 27, 2011 by thebug

[McD]

If I had any credibility, I would have skipped past this thread the moment I realized it was a joke.

 

Well stick around, I'm sure some will rub off on you eventaully with all of the scintillating posters we have here.

[thebug]

Well stick around, I'm sure some will rub off on you eventaully with all of the scintillating posters we have here.

 

 

Please don't use big words. Thank You.

[Mr. WEO]

Lol... so NOW you see that we wasted 20 pages for something you already knew, but just kept fighting about?!?!? Lol! OK! This thread evolved, but it still focuses on defense, and the need for us to go draft a LOT of defense. Really I'm defending and standing my ground, nobody has yet to tell me we shouldn't draft D. So if you're the first let me hear why? I'm sure you have a good reason...

 

 

 

 

LOL @ WSS! Crazy huh?

Fighting? Don't pat yourself on the back--this isn't much of a fight..

 

Anyway, this thread is about the NEED (none, per you) to have a "franchise QB". After 20 pages of verbal diarrhea, you finally encapsulate your argument regarding the overwhelming relative value of a great defense vs. a franchise QB by pointing out that teams that don't allow points scored never lose. This is an unexpectedly (and no doubt unintentionally) hilarious exclamation point you have placed on your thesis.

 

I think we should draft for defense this year--even though we have done that often over the past several years and have little show for it. The QB crew this year is looking far weaker than most everyone here predicted, so I'd pass in round one. However, if a guy like Luck (or Manning, Big Ben, etc) were available you would be a fool to pass.

 

How many years before you assemble your top defense-even assuming no misses in the draft and FA? 3? 5? You draft a top QB and you are better right away.

[McD]

Fighting? Don't pat yourself on the back--this isn't much of a fight..

 

Anyway, this thread is about the NEED (none, per you) to have a "franchise QB". After 20 pages of verbal diarrhea, you finally encapsulate your argument regarding the overwhelming relative value of a great defense vs. a franchise QB by pointing out that teams that don't allow points scored never lose. This is an unexpectedly (and no doubt unintentionally) hilarious exclamation point you have placed on your thesis.

 

I think we should draft for defense this year--even though we have done that often over the past several years and have little show for it. The QB crew this year is looking far weaker than most everyone here predicted, so I'd pass in round one. However, if a guy like Luck (or Manning, Big Ben, etc) were available you would be a fool to pass.

 

How many years before you assemble your top defense-even assuming no misses in the draft and FA? 3? 5? You draft a top QB and you are better right away.

 

It took you what 2-3 hours to come up with this worthless response? Check the very beginning of this... I had no problems with Luck, but after he was gone, EVERYONE was clamoring that we take Newton and or Mallett/Gabbert with our #3 because "by golly" he'd be our savior!! I said none of them are worth the #3 overall, and that we need to stock the D because we SUCK there. You're right, it might take time to get the D up to par, so what should we do... keep dragging it out by taking a single guy a year that MIGHT make a difference? Hell no, go LARGE on D as often as we can. Do we need some O? Sure. GO get me a TE and a RT. DO we need a QB? NO! I also siad I could see the thought process of trading down and getting more picks (for the purpose of getting more and more D players later) IF it was what they Bills (Chan) thought was good for the team. Newton at #10-15, with an additional 2nd and 3rd I could swallow as opposed to Newton at #3 holding a clipboard for 3 years, OR worse yet, throwing him in too soon and ruining him. This thread also went on and on because others wanted to try to hit me from all sorts of angles... AND? It was discussed and moved on. Did I ever stop mentioning the need for D?? Hell no! And I wont.

[CosmicBills]

Check out the bolded

 

 

 

Thanks for knocking any credibility you had out of the water. Thanks for playing.

Why only use the last 14 Super Bowls? Well, truthfully I'd say you only should use the last 10. The reason, which again you fail to discuss or accept, is that the rules of the game changed in the past 10 years (once again) to help the offenses and up scoring league wide. Thus, it's silly to look at stats from the 70s, 80s or 90s to try to prove a point about the current league.

 

It's like using deadball numbers in Baseball against the steroid era. It just doesn't work.

 

So again, the 3-0 you're talking about are worthless stats. Not just because 2 of those teams had Hall of Fame QBs (and none of the teams pitched a shut out), but also because their statistical relevance in today's league is worthless.

 

Again, that's a highly logical and coherent reason why the numbers you're using are flawed. Which just means you won't see it because you're incapable of thinking logically or rationally.

 

That and you're a giant troll just looking to cause a fuss. Hope that paper is going well. Remember, color inside the lines. INSIDE. Never out.

[Orton's Arm]

I think they should strive for both, BUT #1 defense has beaten those #1 offenses every time they've played. Everyone likes to just dismiss that though, so all good.

 

You make a "case" for Montana vs the Fish in '84. Fair enough, but you and I both know Terry Bradsahw isn't and never should've been considered a Hall of Famer let alone a "franchise QB"... Stats below:

 

Att. Comp. Pct. Yds. TD Int Rating

Career Total 3901 2025 51.9 27,989 212 210 70.9 FYI... Losman and Edwards BOTH have higher QB ratings than Bradshaw... each just over 75%, but I digress....

 

http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/member.aspx?PlayerId=31&tab=Stats

 

These are WORSE than Fitz by a WIDE margin... give Fitz that D and see what he can do. And, Bradshaw beat who at QB for Dallas in that game? Roger Staubach, a bonafide HoF'er and franchise QB.

 

Also, no mention of the Jeff Hosteletler led Giants beating our own Jim Kelly and the Bills in 1990.

 

So in 3 head-to-head meetings, you point out that 3 bonafide HoF QB's (Staubach, Marino, Kelly) lost to 1 bonafide HoF and franchise QB in Montana, a suspect HoF (and hardly franchise) QB in Bradshaw, and a career backup in Hostetler... OK. My point exactly.

 

I won't argue a point about a bonafide franchise QB being a great thing to have... that's a no **** statement, but as you see above you don't NEED one to win. To date the best D has beaten the best O head to head... there it is.. it's fact. There's no subjectivity to it.

 

 

Ok away from the "debate"

As for this year, it will be awesome to see who wins out. You have two of the best D's: #1 Pitt and #2 GB in ppg, and two of the best QB's playing: #3 Rodgers and #5 Big Ben QB rating speaking. Offense are similar too: #10 GB and #12 Pitt in ppg. So this looks like a damned good matchup all around. What will win it? ST's... a turnover.. crucial penalty... coaches?

 

 

 

Riddle me this... if a team scores 32 points a game will they ALWAYS win?

 

Now this... if a team doesn't allow a single point in a game will they EVER lose?

 

Jeopardy tune playing in background...

During the regular season, Bradshaw averaged 7.2 yards per attempt. That's not too shabby, especially considering Peyton Manning's career average is 7.6 yards per attempt in a different, more passer-friendly era. It's also worth noting that Bradshaw played at a high level once he got to the postseason. From Wikipedia:

 

In Super Bowl X following the 1975 season, Bradshaw threw for 209 yards, most of them to Lynn Swann, as the Steelers beat the Dallas Cowboys, 21-17. His 64-yard touchdown pass to Swann (that travelled roughly 70 yards in the air)-- which was released a split-second before defensive tackle Larry Cole flattened him causing a serious concussion—late in the fourth quarter is considered one of the greatest passes in NFL history.. . .

 

Before Super Bowl XIII, a Steelers-Cowboys rematch, Cowboys linebacker Thomas "Hollywood" Henderson famously ridiculed Bradshaw by saying, "He couldn't spell 'Cat' if you spotted him the 'c' and the 'a'." Bradshaw got his revenge by winning the Most Valuable Player award, completing 17 of 30 passes for a then-record 318 yards and four touchdowns in a 35-31 win.

 

In the second Super Bowl between the Cowboys and Steelers, the vaunted Steel Curtain defense had allowed Staubach and the Cowboys to score 31 points. Staubach's success against the Steel Curtain demonstrates that even a great defense can have a lot of trouble stopping an offense led by a franchise quarterback. Fortunately for the Steelers, Terry Bradshaw was able to bail them out with a franchise QB-level performance of his own; and led them to 35 points. That game demonstrated the importance of franchise QBs, even back in the '70s when DBs were allowed to murder WRs!

 

Jeff Hostetler is another guy who played a lot better in the postseason than in the regular season. From Wikipedia: "Perhaps most impressive about Hostetler was his ability to perform very well in the post-season. In five playoff games, he completed 72 of 115 passes (62.6 percent) for 1,034 yards, seven touchdowns, no interceptions, and a 112.0 passer rating while going 4-1." To describe Hostetler as a career backup is inaccurate: he was a starter for four years with the Raiders, and was elected to the Pro Bowl for one of those seasons.

 

Almost every Super Bowl winner has had either a franchise QB, or at very least a player like Jeff Hostetler who played at a Pro Bowl level or higher during his team's championship postseason. You can point to exceptions to that rule. The Ravens of 2000 won the Super Bowl without getting impressive play from the QB position. But those are very, very rare exceptions.

Edited January 28, 2011 by Edwards' Arm

[Orton's Arm]

Just to add to my earlier post: Bradshaw's career average was 7.2 yards per attempt; Peyton Manning's is 7.6 yards per attempt, and Trent Edwards' average is 6.5 yards per attempt. (Bear in mind that Bradshaw played during a different, less passer-friendly era.) Ryan Fitzpatrick's career average is 6.0 yards per attempt, and he averaged 6.8 yards per attempt this past season. The assertion that Fitzpatrick is at least as good as Bradshaw is not borne out by the stats.

[McD]

Why only use the last 14 Super Bowls? Well, truthfully I'd say you only should use the last 10. The reason, which again you fail to discuss or accept, is that the rules of the game changed in the past 10 years (once again) to help the offenses and up scoring league wide. Thus, it's silly to look at stats from the 70s, 80s or 90s to try to prove a point about the current league. (Right.. history means nothing, hence this entire thread means nothing... got it!)

 

It's like using deadball numbers in Baseball against the steroid era. It just doesn't work.

 

So again, the 3-0 you're talking about are worthless stats (It's the ONLY head to head stat we can use. Proves my point, you have nothing). Not just because 2 of those teams had Hall of Fame QBs (and none of the teams pitched a shut out), but also because their statistical relevance in today's league is worthless. (Again... just because you don't like it...?? You don't like it so its worthless, lol!)

 

Again, that's a highly logical and coherent reason why the numbers you're using are flawed. Which just means you won't see it because you're incapable of thinking logically or rationally. (I have talked about a lot of things on here and backed them up with stats... each time. Logically and rationally. You have done nothing but yap about my supposed intelligence and a coloring book... and you question my intelligence? Lol... OK!)

 

That and you're a giant troll (Really man... damn, my feelings are hurt... ha ha!) just looking to cause a fuss. Hope that paper is going well. Remember, color inside the lines. INSIDE. Never out.

 

 

More for you to write back about. Please feel free to talk football for at least a sentence or two before you go on about me, BUT PLEASE don't forget to write at least another paragraph about me that clearly shows who's trolling... bait, bait, bait....

[Buffalo Barbarian]

All right, time to wrap this thread up.

[McD]

During the regular season, Bradshaw averaged 7.2 yards per attempt. That's not too shabby, especially considering Peyton Manning's career average is 7.6 yards per attempt in a different, more passer-friendly era. It's also worth noting that Bradshaw played at a high level once he got to the postseason. From Wikipedia:

 

Got it EA.. no issues there. I went on just straight up #'s. getting down to the nitty gritty is good by me. It's when you see a guy throwing for 86 yds in a playoff game that you question his worth. I'll again add this though... he barely hit 50% of his passes... and had barely more TD's than Int's. Serious question... do you think those rule changes made that much of a difference. It' would be interesting to see those by Era.

 

 

 

In the second Super Bowl between the Cowboys and Steelers, the vaunted Steel Curtain defense had allowed Staubach and the Cowboys to score 31 points. Staubach's success against the Steel Curtain demonstrates that even a great defense can have a lot of trouble stopping an offense led by a franchise quarterback. (That game was a BLOWOUT by the time the Cowboys put up a few cheap TD's late in the game, ala Bills/Skins in SB XXVI) Fortunately for the Steelers, Terry Bradshaw was able to bail them out with a franchise QB-level performance of his own; and led them to 35 points. That game demonstrated the importance of franchise QBs, even back in the '70s when DBs were allowed to murder WRs!

 

Jeff Hostetler is another guy who played a lot better in the postseason than in the regular season. From Wikipedia: "Perhaps most impressive about Hostetler was his ability to perform very well in the post-season. In five playoff games, he completed 72 of 115 passes (62.6 percent) for 1,034 yards, seven touchdowns, no interceptions, and a 112.0 passer rating while going 4-1." To describe Hostetler as a career backup is inaccurate: he was a starter for four years with the Raiders, and was elected to the Pro Bowl for one of those seasons. (Hoss of course eventually became a starter, he won a SB. Teams were going to pony up some $$ for him, but he played finally as a starter for only 7 of his 15 seasons... not trying to bash Hoss, but he's not a franchise QB)

 

Almost every Super Bowl winner has had either a franchise QB, or at very least a player like Jeff Hostetler who played at a Pro Bowl level or higher during his team's championship postseason. You can point to exceptions to that rule. The Ravens of 2000 won the Super Bowl without getting impressive play from the QB position. But those are very, very rare exceptions.

 

All right, time to wrap this thread up.

 

I hear ya... over 9,500 views and 21 pages, lol... just silly

Edited January 28, 2011 by McD

[Zulu Cthulhu]

I don't agree with all your points McD, but I do admire your ability to rile up so many people.

[Orton's Arm]

The superbowl Chiefs belong in this conversation.

I did a little searching and found this. That KC defense you mentioned was listed as one of the best of all time.

 

One could dispute the order of the ranks however. In fact, I'm about to do exactly that! The Ravens of 2000 got listed at #3, one rank behind the Bears of '85. And yet, the Bears allowed 11.7 points per game during the regular season, whereas the Ravens allowed only 10.3. Not only that, but the Ravens offense was bad. It went five games straight without scoring a touchdown. It became somewhat less bad as the season went on, but was never comparable to the offense the Bears had in '85. Because of the Ravens' offense high number of 3-and-outs, the Ravens' defense was under a lot more pressure than was the Bears' defense of '85.

 

Another point to consider is that the NFL's rules were more passing-friendly and offense-friendly in 2000 than they'd been in 1985. For the Ravens defense to prevent 12% fewer points per game than the Bears' defense, despite the twin disadvantages of different rules and a significantly worse offense, says very good things about that Ravens defense indeed!

 

Not only that, but that Ravens defense got better in the postseason! They allowed only 3 points in the wildcard round of the playoffs. They faced the Titans in the divisional round. They allowed 10 points, but scored 7, which means they allowed 3 points net. They allowed 3 points in the AFC Championship Game. Then in the Super Bowl the Ravens defense did not allow any points to the Giants, whose only touchdown came on a kickoff return. Over the course of four postseason games, that works out to a net points allowed of just 2.25 points per game!! Granted, the '85 Bears defense also did better in the postseason, allowing a miserly 3.3 points per game. (And that's gross points allowed, because I wasn't able to subtract away the points the Bears' opponents scored on special teams or defense, or take into account whichever points the Bears' defense scored.)

[Rayzer32]

Riddle me this (I stole this line from you McD, is that okay?) Would you rather watch an NFL game where 60 pts were scored and your team won, or a 6-3 type of game, a-la the Bills and Browns last year, where your team lost? Screw the defense, people watching the sport want entertainment value, which in the NFL comes in the way of points scored. People pay to see offense, and the right offense can win championships just ask the fans in NE, Indy, NO, St. Louis. The Bills can draft more defense than offense again this year, but without an improvement on the offensive side of the ball, say OL, TE, QB, we aren't going to win many more games.

[McD]

I don't agree with all your points McD, but I do admire your ability to rile up so many people.

 

Lol... really not trying to rile people up, they just let themselves get that way

[McD]

Riddle me this (I stole this line from you McD, is that okay?) Would you rather watch an NFL game where 60 pts were scored and your team won, or a 6-3 type of game, a-la the Bills and Browns last year, where your team lost? Screw the defense, people watching the sport want entertainment value, which in the NFL comes in the way of points scored. People pay to see offense, and the right offense can win championships just ask the fans in NE, Indy, NO, St. Louis. The Bills can draft more defense than offense again this year, but without an improvement on the offensive side of the ball, say OL, TE, QB, we aren't going to win many more games.

 

First off... that game was UGLY!

 

I won't lie, I'd RATHER see a more open game for entertainment purposes, but if you ask me if I'd rather win 6-3 or lose 31-28? Ummm... I'll take the win thanks.

 

N.O's offense was killer that year... over 400 ypg on O. As far as NE in '01, their O and D were both bad... hell they were below avg in both O and D. In their other SB years they ranked #7 and #9 on D. St. Louis also had a top D the year they won the SB (ranked #6), and Indy's D played off the chain in the post season... they led all playoff teams in D, allowing only 238 ypg in 4 post season games.

 

Without an improvement on the offensive side of the ball, say OL, TE, QB, we aren't going to win many more games.

 

Give me a RT and a TE on O, but then give me a DT, DE, ILB and OLB X 2, and maybe another S (depending on what happens in FA) on D.

 

Almost all of those need to be doubled on D for depth... it's that bad.

[whodat]

All right, time to wrap this thread up.

 

Well now that we’ve covered all the bases and everyone knows the Chinese kid Hu is on first.

 

I’d like to know how I can transfer all this great information I’ve been compiling into beating the spread on the SB.

 

But with all this great information, I don’t know how to get to second base or who’s on second. I hear an inner voice telling me I don’t know is on third, who is back on first but what is on second. I don’t care. No he’s in between 2nd and 3rd.

 

Don’t get me started. Art Wander where are you?

 

Look the super bowl is just 9 days away. It’s time we focus a little of this to that. Together we formulate a considerable force of brain power. If we can come together, perhaps we will be mighty enough to defeat the spread!

[Alphadawg7]

Check the very beginning of this... I had no problems with Luck, but after he was gone, EVERYONE was clamoring that we take Newton and or Mallett/Gabbert with our #3 because "by golly" he'd be our savior!!

 

Are you off your meds or something? No wonder this thread is so long. Very few people here are demanding to take Gabbert or Newton #3, in fact most feel that at #3 the best player for us is a defensive guy based on who is likely to be available. But that doesnt mean "Defense wins...PERIOD!!!" on any plane of existence. It means that if your top guy on the board is a QB you take him, if its a DL guy, you take him...not rocket science, we need both.

 

With Luck not in, then I would look at the D at #3 as I personally don't see a QB I would like over one of the likely available other players at 3. That doesnt mean "Defense wins...PERIOD!!!" like you proclaimed...it means we need help on both sides, so rather than reach, take the higher graded player.

 

The best part is this...YOU defeat your own argument MANY times in this very thread and again in this very post. Every single time you say "If Luck was there you take him" is completely counter to your argument of "Defense wins...PERIOD!!!" and yet you dont even realize it. If defense wins period, then you still dont take Luck and go defense...but the TRUTH of the matter is that a franchise QB will make a BIGGER impact on this organization than a franchise DL right now...so clearly, "Defense wins...PERIOD!!!" is not an accurate stance and you clearly seem to know that as you would also take Luck (who is a QB) over a defensive player if he was there at #3...

Edited January 28, 2011 by Alphadawg7

[Alphadawg7]

Check the very beginning of this... I had no problems with Luck, but after he was gone, EVERYONE was clamoring that we take Newton and or Mallett/Gabbert with our #3 because "by golly" he'd be our savior!!

 

Lol... so NOW you see that we wasted 20 pages for something you already knew, but just kept fighting about?!?!? Lol! OK! This thread evolved, but it still focuses on defense, and the need for us to go draft a LOT of defense. Really I'm defending and standing my ground, nobody has yet to tell me we shouldn't draft D. So if you're the first let me hear why? I'm sure you have a good reason...

 

 

Um, you say in one post that everyone is clamoring for Gabbert or Newton, yet earlier on this very same page of this very same thread you say no one has yet to tell you that we shouldnt draft D...

 

I mean how is that even possible? How can evryone be telling you they want Newton/Gabbert at #3 and yet at the same time no one has yet to tell you we shouldn't go D at #3?

 

You say all kinds of things contradictory to your own previous comments to match whatever rant or arugment you are making at that moment multiple times (as so many have pointed out) in this ridiculously long thread...hmmm, maybe thats why its so long

Edited January 28, 2011 by Alphadawg7