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

[thebug]

Well done. I'll take my franchise Qb where GB took theirs and where NE got theirs. Let's first match their 'D' because offense has a lot of parts in place. Defense is a like wind barometer. I want a hurricane on my side.

 

 

You moron. Even a dog stops sniffing ass at some point. So you’re the guy, in such need of self affirmation, you’re going to follow the one you argue believes the earth is flat to the edge to convince him otherwise.

 

Then when you get there, your arguments are so distracted and maundering that you end up in name calling.

 

Maybe what your ultimately looking for is McD’s approval.

 

 

 

Hmm.

[Delete This Account]

You moron.

 

why hello.

 

Even a dog stops sniffing ass at some point.

you are correct.

 

So you’re the guy,

yes, but there are also other guys.

 

in such need of self affirmation,

we all need a little love.

you’re going to follow the one you argue believes the earth is flat to the edge to convince him otherwise.

lost you there.

 

Then when you get there,

the earth is not flat, so we shall never get there.

 

your arguments are so distracted and maundering

i'm a little distracted here. try sounding it out ... is it "murdering" or "maddening" or "mundane" or maybe "meandering" ... pardon me, because i now realize i'm interupting the point you were trying to make here, so let's move on.

 

that you end up in name calling.

me, the moron, of course.

 

Maybe what you're ultimately looking for is McD’s approval.

if by approval, you mean concession, you'd be pretty spot on.

 

jw

[akm0404]

Yeah, quarterbacks are the most important player on any team in any professional sport ever conceived. This is obvious. To think otherwise is lunacy.

[CosmicBills]

OMG!!! I LOVE this... you are all still hammering this, yet NOBODY seems to see that GB had what... 3 T.O's INCLUDING a defensive TD and it's still all about Aaron Rodgers huh?? Too damned funny. So Aaron gets all of those pts WITHOUT the D's help right?!?! You're a damend JOKE if you claim otherwise. What did GB have... 21 pts off of T.O's?? YEP.. it's ALL about the QB. Nice to see how the MVP voting is set up to make the QB the "man". Without the D, GB has no chance at tonights win. Funny thing is.. I think Rodgers had a hell of a game, but again... he DOES NOT have those chances without his D... NOT AT ALL...

 

And... so "FRANCHISE" Ben has the game in his hands... more than 2 minutes to go down and score... and yet....??? Here it is... for ALL of you franchise QB guys... here's his chance... and he does...................................NOTHING!!!! But... why does he do nothing? Because he's playing against a KICK ASS DEFENSE!! Lol... y'all are just too funny!

 

D.... D.... D.... D!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All Day long!

 

 

Did you NOT watch the Bills against the Steelers earlier this year?? If Stevie catches not one, but TWO perfectly thrown TD's from Fitz, the Bills win... Fitz has enough to win... now go get Marcel Dareus!

 

 

 

Why...? Because you say so? NEXT!

 

It's a great thing to have a franchise QB, BUT.... get a damned D first!

Wow ... I've never seen someone pwn themselves so blindly before. I really hope you're kept in a very padded room when you're not on the internet. Remember to breathe. Calm down. It's just the internet. It's okay to be proven wrong. Over and over and over and over and over again.

 

beat me to it tgreg99.

two points to make:

-- the steelers top-ranked defense couldn't win this game alone, as it needed far better quarterback play.

-- as good as the packers defense has been for much of this season, green bay wouldn't have reached the super bowl, never mind won it, without aaron rodgers.

 

jw

John, you're my hero!!!

[Austin_Bills_Fan]

Both defenses clearly were the difference in tonight's Super Bowl. Another great piece of evidence you can use to support your ridiculous thread title.

U

Uh, call me crazy but seems to me that the Packers defense won that game. Did you decide not to watch the final two minutes where the Pack's D shut down the great 2 time Superbowl winning Big Ben?

[reddogblitz]

To win the SB you need a good QB AND a good defense. One but not the other will render you an also ran.

[CosmicBills]

U

Uh, call me crazy but seems to me that the Packers defense won that game. Did you decide not to watch the final two minutes where the Pack's D shut down the great 2 time Superbowl winning Big Ben?

Crazy.

[thewildrabbit]

U

Uh, call me crazy but seems to me that the Packers defense won that game. Did you decide not to watch the final two minutes where the Pack's D shut down the great 2 time Superbowl winning Big Ben?

One could say that the Packers D had a better series in stopping the Steelers offense to end the game, nothing more, and that the Packers were lucky Big Ben didn't play well the entire game. It might have had something to do with losing their all pro center that helped get them to the SB, but then both teams suffered through injuries all season long.

 

Both Aaron Rodgers and HC Mike McCarthy stated that the stellar play of LT Chad Clifton and RT Brian Bulaga helped keep Rodgers upright and untouched most of that SB. Another note was the fact that the Packers felt their 3 & 4th WR's matched up well against the Steelers 3rd & 4th DB's, and they were right.

 

Mike McCarthy also credited Rodgers with his pin point accuracy, and his ability to run a very well scripted offensive game plan for that MVP performance. Both teams are almost mirror images of themselves in regards to defense and and style of QB play, clearly Rodgers played better then Big Ben in the SB.

 

 

Remember, it is a team game! Offense, defense and special teams all played an important part of the game for each team. If you could point to one player who's performance stood out above the rest of all the other players... well that guy won the MVP trophy, and a new car.

[Orton's Arm]

U

Uh, call me crazy but seems to me that the Packers defense won that game. Did you decide not to watch the final two minutes where the Pack's D shut down the great 2 time Superbowl winning Big Ben?

In the Super Bowl, Aaron Rodgers averaged 7.8 yards per pass attempt, threw for over 300 yards, and had 3 TDs to go with his 0 INTs. He did all this while going against what was arguably the best defense in the league. He did it despite his #1 WR and #1 TE going down with injuries.

 

If Rodgers doesn't do all that, the stop the Packers' defense made at the end of the game wouldn't have mattered. The Steelers' 25 points--none of which came off of turnovers--would have been enough to win. Likewise, if the Packers' defense hadn't made that stop at the end, Rodgers' performance wouldn't have been enough for a win. Like others have pointed out, it's a team sport.

 

It's been said that to win football games you have to run and stop the run. The Packers won the Super Bowl even though they didn't do either. But what they did do was to win the turnover battle by not turning the ball over on offense, and by playing opportunistically on defense. Plus their defense got some key stops, especially the one you mentioned at the end. But above all, they received a dominant performance from Aaron Rodgers. Replace Rodgers with Dilfer, and the Steelers roll right over the Packers.

[dave mcbride]

In the Super Bowl, Aaron Rodgers averaged 7.8 yards per pass attempt, threw for over 300 yards, and had 3 TDs to go with his 0 INTs. He did all this while going against what was arguably the best defense in the league. He did it despite his #1 WR and #1 TE going down with injuries.

 

If Rodgers doesn't do all that, the stop the Packers' defense made at the end of the game wouldn't have mattered. The Steelers' 25 points--none of which came off of turnovers--would have been enough to win. Likewise, if the Packers' defense hadn't made that stop at the end, Rodgers' performance wouldn't have been enough for a win. Like others have pointed out, it's a team sport.

 

It's been said that to win football games you have to run and stop the run. The Packers won the Super Bowl even though they didn't do either. But what they did do was to win the turnover battle by not turning the ball over on offense, and by playing opportunistically on defense. Plus their defense got some key stops, especially the one you mentioned at the end. But above all, they received a dominant performance from Aaron Rodgers. Replace Rodgers with Dilfer, and the Steelers roll right over the Packers.

Interestingly, the Steelers led in yards, total plays, rushing yards by a lot (usually highly indicative of victory), and time of possession. Turnovers weren't the difference; it was points off of turnovers (either lost or gained). The Steelers didn't "lose" any points off of turnovers because none of theirs occurred within FG range, but the Pack certainly capitalized. It's a stat that was pointed out to me years ago as almost always decisive, and in this game, it was extremely decisive. There was some luck involved too -- I can't believe that the Steelers didn't recover that initial punt muff prior to the Packers' first series. If they had, I suspect that they would have won the game. But they didn't, of course ...

[Orton's Arm]

Interestingly, the Steelers led in yards, total plays, rushing yards by a lot (usually highly indicative of victory), and time of possession. Turnovers weren't the difference; it was points off of turnovers (either lost or gained). The Steelers didn't "lose" any points off of turnovers because none of theirs occurred within FG range, but the Pack certainly capitalized. It's a stat that was pointed out to me years ago as almost always decisive, and in this game, it was extremely decisive. There was some luck involved too -- I can't believe that the Steelers didn't recover that initial punt muff prior to the Packers' first series. If they had, I suspect that they would have won the game. But they didn't, of course ...

I agree there's a correlation between running the ball and victory. Any time you have a correlation between A and B, one of the following must be true.

1) A causes B

2) B causes A

3) C causes A and B

4) Coincidence

 

If a team has the lead, it will tend to run the ball more to kill the clock. The opposite is true of teams that are behind. So does running the ball cause teams to win games? Or does having the lead cause teams to both run the ball and win games? I realize it's possible that the answer to the above is "a little of both." But that answer cannot be determined by a simple correlation between rushing yards over the course of the game and winning.

 

The New York Times performed a regression analysis which showed the following:

• A one SD improvement in passing offense was four times better than a one SD improvement in rushing offense.
  
• Of the above-described measurement of passing offense, 25% was based on your effectiveness at avoiding INTs, and the remaining 75% was based on their non-turnover related measurements of passing efficiency.
  
• The mirror image was true of defenses. Passing defense was four times more important than rushing defense; with 25% of the total importance of passing defense stemming from your ability to intercept passes.
  
• The above conclusions were made on a passing/rushing yards per play basis, not by determining the number of yards a team rushed or passed for over the course of the game.

 

All this being said, I agree that the turnovers, alone, wouldn't have killed Pittsburgh if they hadn't let those turnovers turn into Green Bay points. Green Bay was able to turn turnovers into points off turnovers because of the efficiency of its passing attack and its ability to avoid turnovers of its own.

[Mr. WEO]

I agree there's a correlation between running the ball and victory. Any time you have a correlation between A and B, one of the following must be true.

1) A causes B

2) B causes A

3) C causes A and B

4) Coincidence

 

If a team has the lead, it will tend to run the ball more to kill the clock. The opposite is true of teams that are behind. So does running the ball cause teams to win games? Or does having the lead cause teams to both run the ball and win games? I realize it's possible that the answer to the above is "a little of both." But that answer cannot be determined by a simple correlation between rushing yards over the course of the game and winning.

 

The New York Times performed a regression analysis which showed the following:

• A one SD improvement in passing offense was four times better than a one SD improvement in rushing offense.
  
• Of the above-described measurement of passing offense, 25% was based on your effectiveness at avoiding INTs, and the remaining 75% was based on their non-turnover related measurements of passing efficiency.
  
• The mirror image was true of defenses. Passing defense was four times more important than rushing defense; with 25% of the total importance of passing defense stemming from your ability to intercept passes.
  
• The above conclusions were made on a passing/rushing yards per play basis, not by determining the number of yards a team rushed or passed for over the course of the game.

 

All this being said, I agree that the turnovers, alone, wouldn't have killed Pittsburgh if they hadn't let those turnovers turn into Green Bay points. Green Bay was able to turn turnovers into points off turnovers because of the efficiency of its passing attack and its ability to avoid turnovers of its own.

The pick six excepted.

[Bill from NYC]

I agree there's a correlation between running the ball and victory. Any time you have a correlation between A and B, one of the following must be true.

1) A causes B

2) B causes A

3) C causes A and B

4) Coincidence

 

If a team has the lead, it will tend to run the ball more to kill the clock. The opposite is true of teams that are behind. So does running the ball cause teams to win games? Or does having the lead cause teams to both run the ball and win games? I realize it's possible that the answer to the above is "a little of both." But that answer cannot be determined by a simple correlation between rushing yards over the course of the game and winning.

 

There are exceptions. Cold weather teams play some games in which passing is less of an option. These teams should be better prepared to take advantage of their home field. The Bills are of course unable to do so, and this factors into their poor record year after year.

[Ramius]

In the Super Bowl, Aaron Rodgers averaged 7.8 yards per pass attempt, threw for over 300 yards, and had 3 TDs to go with his 0 INTs. He did all this while going against what was arguably the best defense in the league. He did it despite his #1 WR and #1 TE going down with injuries.

 

If Rodgers doesn't do all that, the stop the Packers' defense made at the end of the game wouldn't have mattered. The Steelers' 25 points--none of which came off of turnovers--would have been enough to win. Likewise, if the Packers' defense hadn't made that stop at the end, Rodgers' performance wouldn't have been enough for a win. Like others have pointed out, it's a team sport.

 

It's been said that to win football games you have to run and stop the run. The Packers won the Super Bowl even though they didn't do either. But what they did do was to win the turnover battle by not turning the ball over on offense, and by playing opportunistically on defense. Plus their defense got some key stops, especially the one you mentioned at the end. But above all, they received a dominant performance from Aaron Rodgers. Replace Rodgers with Dilfer, and the Steelers roll right over the Packers.

 

I think what we're seeing in football is the need to pass and rush the passer as key components to why teams are winning.

[JohnC]

There are exceptions. Cold weather teams play some games in which passing is less of an option. These teams should be better prepared to take advantage of their home field. The Bills are of course unable to do so, and this factors into their poor record year after year.

 

Bill, Constructing a team suited to your local environment isn't as much of a factor as you are indicating. What is important is the overall quality of the team. A good OL or DL is effective in cold and warmer climates. If you look at most of this year's participating playoff teams what they have in common is upper tier qb play.

 

Aaron Rodgers is a dynamic qb. Whether he is playing in brutally cold Green Bay in an outside stadium or if he played in Arizona in a climate controlled facility he would still be a dynamic qb and the deciding factor for any team, anywhere.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you on the importance of addressing the lines on both sides of the ball when rebuilding a demolished franchise like Buffalo. Obviously, that is fundamental. But the key to success is overall talent and most importanly the caliber of your qb. The qbs in last year's SB were Brees and Manning. The qbs in this year's SB were Rodgers and Roethlisberger. The Bills have Fitz. Enough said.

Edited February 9, 2011 by JohnC

[Turbosrrgood]

To win the SB you need a good QB AND a good defense. One but not the other will render you an also ran.

 

That's probably a good recipe most of the time.

 

However the Ravens won in 2000 with Trent Dilfer. And who can forget getting beat by, uhh, Jeff Hostetler.

 

I think its more of a matter of a team needing MANY good players at different positions. Marino was great, but never had much help around him. A superstar QB makes up for a lot of short comings, but you still need a solid TEAM to win the SB.

[Mr. WEO]

There are exceptions. Cold weather teams play some games in which passing is less of an option. These teams should be better prepared to take advantage of their home field. The Bills are of course unable to do so, and this factors into their poor record year after year.

The Bills play relatively very few games at home in bad/tough wintery weather. Their record is usually poor well before December.

[Bill from NYC]

Bill, Constructing a team suited to your local environment isn't as much of a factor as you are indicating. What is important is the overall quality of the team. A good OL or DL is effective in cold and warmer climates. If you look at most of this year's participating playoff teams what they have in common is upper tier qb play.

 

Aaron Rodgers is a dynamic qb. Whether he is playing in brutally cold Green Bay in an outside stadium or if he played in Arizona in a climate controlled facility he would still be a dynamic qb and the deciding factor for any team, anywhere.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you on the importance of addressing the lines on both sides of the ball when rebuilding a demolished franchise like Buffalo. Obviously, that is fundamental. But the key to success is overall talent and most importanly the caliber of your qb. The qbs in last year's SB were Brees and Manning. The qbs in this year's SB were Rodgers and Roethlisberger. The Bills have Fitz. Enough said.

 

Even if I overstate the factor (which is of course debatable), it is obvious that the Bills do continue to forfeit their home field advantage by fielding a small team with weak lines and even LBs. And, their best resources have been allocated to "skill positions."

 

QB is the most important position in football. This is a given. If Nix doesn't think there is a franchise qb available, I hope he drafts someone to make the team bigger and stronger, or else they will continue to lose. This too is a given.

[JohnC]

Even if I overstate the factor (which is of course debatable), it is obvious that the Bills do continue to forfeit their home field advantage by fielding a small team with weak lines and even LBs. And, their best resources have been allocated to "skill positions."

 

QB is the most important position in football. This is a given. If Nix doesn't think there is a franchise qb available, I hope he drafts someone to make the team bigger and stronger, or else they will continue to lose. This too is a given.

 

We are for the most part not disagreeing. Whether it is at home or away the Bills will continue to lose unless they close the talent gap with the rest of the teams. The most glaring example of your point of not being strong enough was the first Jets' game at home. The Jets OL was throwing around our DL like they were rag dolls and creating gaping holes. Sanchez hardly threw the ball because there was no need to. What made things even more embarrassing is that you could see during the games the opposing players yucking it up. After the game one of the Jets was asked a pro forma question by a media member if it was a tough game. The player chuckled and then simply said no.

 

On a sidenote. Is there really much difference in talent level between Josh Freeman and Cam Newton when comparing their college performances? The type of criticisms that Freeman received prior to the draft is the same type of criticisms that Newton is receiving. Freeman has had a profound elevating affect on the Bucs. I strongly believe that Newton can do the same for the Bills. There are a lot of position weaknesses that can be worked around. An inadequate startng qb is a position that can't be masked.

[Ramius]

We are for the most part not disagreeing. Whether it is at home or away the Bills will continue to lose unless they close the talent gap with the rest of the teams. The most glaring example of your point of not being strong enough was the first Jets' game at home. The Jets OL was throwing around our DL like they were rag dolls and creating gaping holes. Sanchez hardly threw the ball because there was no need to. What made things even more embarrassing is that you could see during the games the opposing players yucking it up. After the game one of the Jets was asked a pro forma question by a media member if it was a tough game. The player chuckled and then simply said no.

 

On a sidenote. Is there really much difference in talent level between Josh Freeman and Cam Newton when comparing their college performances? The type of criticisms that Freeman received prior to the draft is the same type of criticisms that Newton is receiving. Freeman has had a profound elevating affect on the Bucs. I strongly believe that Newton can do the same for the Bills. There are a lot of position weaknesses that can be worked around. An inadequate startng qb is a position that can't be masked.

 

I agree with you on the qB situation, but Newton is not the guy to take a risk on. Regarding Freeman, he started for almost 3 full years at K-State, compared to 1 for sCam.