thewildrabbit Posted December 17, 2011 Posted December 17, 2011 Here's more proof to my point. Let's take some of the top guys at each position. I've bolded the players with Super Bowl titles. Top Quarterbacks Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Ben Roethlisberger, Philip Rivers, Eli Manning With exception of Rivers, every single one of these guys has won at least one Super Bowl. Most have their teams in the playoffs on an almost yearly basis. Top Running Backs Adrian Peterson, Chris Johnson, Ray Rice, Arian Foster, Maurice Jones-Drew, Darren McFadden, Jamaal Charles, Frank Gore, Steven Jackson, LeSean McCoy, Fred Jackson Even when I look at more than TEN!!!! of the top running backs, I can't find even one Super Bowl title. Most of the guys on this list have never even PLAYED in a playoff game, much less sniffed a championship. What exactly has having Peterson done for Minnesota? Top Wide Receivers Andre Johnson, Calvin Johnson, Larry Fitzgerald, Brandon Marshall, Hakeem Nicks, Wes Welker, Roddy White, Miles Austin, Greg Jennings, Vincent Jackson, Reggie Wayne I had to really stretch the list to find some guys with rings (Jennings, Wayne). Most of the top guys have never gotten close. The Texans are going to their first playoff game this year, and that was with Johnson sidelined most of the season. Calvin Johnson has never even been to the playoffs. Even the Patriots lost their only appearance since signing Welker. Top Offensive Linemen: Tackles: Jake Long, Joe Thomas, D'Brickashaw Ferguson, Jordan Gross, Ryan Clady Guards/Centers: Logan Mankins, Nick Mangold, Jahri Evans, Carl Nicks, Ryan Kalil, Eric Wood, Kris Dielman, Chris Snee I'm as big a supporter of focusing on the line as anyone, but how many titles have Jake Long or Joe Thomas brought to Miami and Cleveland? How about playoff appearances? You can have a great blindside protector, but it means nothing if you don't have a good quarterback to protect. Even when you factor in the great lines of New England and New Orleans, this list is pretty bare of championships. Defensive Linemen Ends: Dwight Freeney, Julius Peppers, Jared Allen, Justin Tuck, Mario Williams, Trent Cole, John Abraham, Darnell Dockett, Osi Umenyura, Justin Smith Tackles: Jay Ratliff, Haloti Ngata, Casey Hampton, Vince Wilfork, Richard Seymour, Kevin Williams, Ndamukong Suh, Kyle Williams They say that it all comes down to the big guys up front. But I listed almost 20 of the games top defensive linemen, and only five have managed Super Bowl wins. Linebackers Patrick Willis, James Harrison, Brian Urlacher, Ray Lewis, Demarcus Ware, Clay Matthews, Brian Orakpo, Lamar Woodley, Jerod Mayo, Tamba Hali, Jon Beason, Terrell Suggs The best overall linebacker in football (Willis) will see his first playoff game this year. The best pass rusher (Ware) of the group has only been there a couple times. We've got a couple Steelers (Harrison, Woodley), Lewis and Matthews with titles, but that is it. Defensive Backs: Cornerbacks: Darrelle Revis, Nmandi Asomugha, Charles Woodson, Champ Bailey, Asante Samuel, Deangelo Hall Safeties: Troy Polamalu, Ed Reed, Adrian Wilson, Eric Berry Asomugha, considered by many to be the best shutdown corner in football, has never been to the playoffs. Its not just all about the players, you also need to take the coaching staff and other things into consideration. Look at the history of the NFL and look at each team and why they won a SB. Some have always been in good schemes with good coaching staffs and just needed to be lucky with injuries and plays. However, the Packers had 14 players on IR last season and still won a SB. The main reason there is Aaron Rodgers, no question! But its also a confluence of everything coming together. Good front office providing top personnel. Great coaching staff on offense with a WCO scheme and great play calling. A great DC in Dom Capers in calling a top 3-4 scheme. Coaches-players-front office-schemes The Eagles might arguably have more talent on the field then any other team in the NFL, but if it doesn't all come together, they just won't win. This Bills team drafting a top rated QB doesn't ensure anything as so many other variables are still in question. Currently this Bills team is bad, coaches-players-front office-schemes. Drafting a top QB won't accomplish anything, except sell more tickets
ny33 Posted December 17, 2011 Posted December 17, 2011 Its not just all about the players, you also need to take the coaching staff and other things into consideration. Look at the history of the NFL and look at each team and why they won a SB. Some have always been in good schemes with good coaching staffs and just needed to be lucky with injuries and plays. However, the Packers had 14 players on IR last season and still won a SB. The main reason there is Aaron Rodgers, no question! But its also a confluence of everything coming together. Good front office providing top personnel. Great coaching staff on offense with a WCO scheme and great play calling. A great DC in Dom Capers in calling a top 3-4 scheme. Coaches-players-front office-schemes The Eagles might arguably have more talent on the field then any other team in the NFL, but if it doesn't all come together, they just won't win. This Bills team drafting a top rated QB doesn't ensure anything as so many other variables are still in question. Currently this Bills team is bad, coaches-players-front office-schemes. Drafting a top QB won't accomplish anything, except sell more tickets That's a fair point. Brady hasn't won anything recently because Belichick's drafts have been terrible, worse than ours on some ways. Their defense hasn't been enough to get them titles. That being said, they wouldn't succeed at all if they didn't have Brady who, ironically, was a late-round pick. This Super Bowl will be interesting based on the fact that Baltimore, San Francisco, Houston and the Jets (not to mention teams that will likely lose in the first round, like Denver) will all be playoff teams with average quarterbacks and excellent defenses. If those teams get blasted out by teams like New England, Green Bay, or New Orleans, that will be further validation that teams cannot succeed in the playoffs without elite QB play.
robert cohen Posted December 17, 2011 Posted December 17, 2011 It about time some one noticed. I have been watching him for two years and he hasn't regressed he had no defense this year and then lost his running game when Cyrus Gray went down and any QB in that situation would "regress" if they had to carry the whole team. Have you watched the games, he isn't lost in the pocket and can make all the throws and can run like the wind. He way outperformed RG3 and is head shoulders above Jones and Barkely. The only QB better than him is Luck. This kid will be great in the NFL and in after 3 years he sucks I will say I was wrong. whatever ur smoking.. send some over.. i watch every major qb prospects games.. i have every single sports package out there and DVR the games of all the top qb prospects and was very intrigued by him at start of yr but all yr during most broadcasts they have called him somewhat of a disappointment. i am all for drafting a top flight QB but tannehill would be the equivalent to the edwards experiment... show flashes of being an NFL qb and be booed out of town by yr 3... id rather draft D and a WR than him and get a later round prject QB like keenum.. keenum wont succeed in NFL in a conventional offense but under gailey shotgun oriented system, he could be a steal and probably could be had a few rounds later and let us focus on D. only QB's worthy of an early pick are the top 3 and MAYBE jones depending where we end up drafting
BuffaloBillsMagic1 Posted December 17, 2011 Posted December 17, 2011 Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl. Fitz could also with a real good team and defense. Not with us.
robert cohen Posted December 17, 2011 Posted December 17, 2011 whatever ur smoking.. send some over.. i watch every major qb prospects games.. i have every single sports package out there and DVR the games of all the top qb prospects and was very intrigued by him at start of yr but all yr during most broadcasts they have called him somewhat of a disappointment. i am all for drafting a top flight QB but tannehill would be the equivalent to the edwards experiment... show flashes of being an NFL qb and be booed out of town by yr 3... id rather draft D and a WR than him and get a later round prject QB like keenum.. keenum wont succeed in NFL in a conventional offense but under gailey shotgun oriented system, he could be a steal and probably could be had a few rounds later and let us focus on D. only QB's worthy of an early pick are the top 3 and MAYBE jones depending where we end up drafting tannenhill also turned a lock of a 1st round WR in fuller into a mid round pick.. he had tons of weapons on O
Orton's Arm Posted December 17, 2011 Posted December 17, 2011 (edited) Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl. Fitz could also with a real good team and defense. Not with us. The Ravens of 2000 had a very good offensive line, led by a Hall of Fame-caliber LT in the form of Jon Ogden. They had a good running game in the form of Jamal Lewis, and a TE at or near Hall of Fame level in Shannon Sharpe. With the possible exception of Dareus, not one current Bills defensive player would be good enough to start for the Ravens of 2000. All four of their defensive linemen required a double-team, and offenses never had enough guys to double team all four at once! It was a ridiculously good defensive front! Their LB corps was led by Ray Lewis, and all three LBs were at or near a Pro Bowl level. They had two shutdown CBs to go along with safeties like Ed Reed. If you weren't at or near the Pro Bowl level, you couldn't start for that Ravens defense, at any position! And several of their guys weren't just Pro Bowl level--they were at or near Hall of Fame level! Which is easier: a) building a team like that, or b) acquiring a franchise QB (as nine of the last ten Super Bowl winners have done)? One last thing: even though that Ravens defense was one of the three best in NFL history, it resulted in just one Super Bowl win. The same could also be said about the defense the Bears had in 1985. The only time a core group of players has won multiple Super Bowls has been when that core group included a very good or elite QB. The 49ers of the '80s had Montana, the Cowboys of the '90s had Aikman, the Broncos of the late '90s had Elway, the Patriots of the 2000s had Brady. If you employ a strategy designed to win three or four Super Bowls, then getting a little unlucky might mean you win only one or two. But if the strategy you employ can result in only one Super Bowl win, then getting unlucky means you don't end up winning any Super Bowls at all. Teams which attempt to win Super Bowls by employing a Ravens-like strategy almost always fail. Edited December 17, 2011 by Edwards' Arm
Hater Posted December 17, 2011 Posted December 17, 2011 (edited) In the last 20 years only 4 team have won a Superbowl that didn't have a Franchise QB & only 4 of those teams with franchise QB where not 1st round picks, You said your in your mid 20's well I am in my 40's & I don't want to wait 20 more years, I want us to contend now I don't want to watch other teams Franchise QB go & win Superbowls while we have the back up's back up starting now your not guarantee to win a Superbowl with a 1st round QB of even with a franchise QB but those odds go up dramatically & your probably to young to remember Jim Kelly, we got there but didn't win & I don't want to be 80 sitting around like the old timers I know talking about " The good old days when we where winners" & since 2000 only 4 of our 1st RD picks are still with the team & that 4 is out of the last 5 we have drafted we can fill holes in later rounds there is always value in later rounds its time to stop waiting for a miracle to win & go out & do something to win or at least try because there is no little engine that could & Underdog doesn't save the day, you have to make your opportunity in order to win Edited December 17, 2011 by Matt183
corey g Posted December 17, 2011 Author Posted December 17, 2011 "My conclusions about all the qbs drafted since 1998 lead me to believe that many of you are approaching this topic all wrong. Would a franchise QB slove a lot of our problems? You bet. But you've been asking the wrong question all along when defining a franchise QB. For bills fans the question should be how many QBS in the NFL today could come into Buffalo without any other on field changes and win football games. I count 6 since 1998. That's right only 6. Both Mannings, Rodgers, Brady, Big Ben and Brees." -corey g Can't think of anything more illogical and reactionary than listing the leagues elite QB's and summarily proclaiming them good fits for our offense. I mean wtf??? I know you're only 25, e. that's just pathetic. I can totally believe you've been watching this board for a very long time. Scanning the poular threads, -guaging reactions. You bided your time and came up with the most lazy, benign, and non-confrontational thread imaginable. Way to walk into a room on your knees, kid. You'll have a nice life here at TBD agreeing with all the homers and (most of)the mods. That's a pretty safe course. Me? I call a spade a spade. "many of you are approaching this topic all wrong" I apperciate your opinion however insulting it may be. I do not consider my post a safe opinion, there are many on this board who scream to draft a QB no matter what. Even if it requires reaching for a player, so yes a true Franchise QB would solve our problems, but my point is that they aren't as easy to find as some believe. And I admitted that Flacco and these guys are on playoff teams, simply stated that they are managing games. The ravens are 0-3 when Ray Rice doesn't touch the ball at least 18 times, just 18. So when Flacco is asked to do more than manage a game they lose. And the Titans and Bengals are a combined 3-9 when their defenses give up more than 20 pts. Or when the QB may be asked to do more they lose, I love Tebow but his defense and running game deserve some credit, he isn't being allowed to make throws most of the game and still winning. And I don't think I need a stat to call Sanchez iffy. You seem to have the same tunnel vision the media does, where you attribute all success and failure to a QB. What a "safe" route to take, it allows you to go off at the mouth without thinking.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted December 17, 2011 Posted December 17, 2011 Can't think of anything more illogical and reactionary than listing the leagues elite QB's and summarily proclaiming them good fits for our offense. I mean wtf??? I know you're only 25, but that's just pathetic. I can totally believe you've been watching this board for a very long time. Scanning the poular threads, -guaging reactions. You bided your time and came up with the most lazy, benign, and non-confrontational thread imaginable. Way to walk into a room on your knees, kid. You'll have a nice life here at TBD agreeing with all the homers and (most of)the mods. That's a pretty safe course. Me? I call a spade a spade. You call a spade a spade. That's interesting.
Sisyphean Bills Posted December 17, 2011 Posted December 17, 2011 That's a fair point. Brady hasn't won anything recently because Belichick's drafts have been terrible, worse than ours on some ways. Their defense hasn't been enough to get them titles. That being said, they wouldn't succeed at all if they didn't have Brady who, ironically, was a late-round pick. The Patriots are rebuilding while winning though. They have had even more turnover than the Bills and are turning over their roster without having to bottom out.
mjt328 Posted December 17, 2011 Posted December 17, 2011 You've hit the ball out of the park, both with this post and your other posts in this thread. Everything you've written is spot-on accurate. I'd also like to reiterate that a typical NFL team will acquire a franchise-level QB about once every 45 - 50 years. A team that passes up a franchise QB in an effort to fill other needs first consigns itself to near-certain mediocrity for a very long time to come. (Presumably the next 45 years or so, assuming it will acquire new franchise QBs at the average pace for an NFL team.) I will also add another argument: because QB is the most important position on the field, QBs tend to be taken earlier, relative to their talent level, than players at any other position. This means that the best (or at least highest-rated) QBs will tend to go to the worst teams with the most holes. A team that waits to fill its other holes before taking a QB will not have access to the highest-rated QBs of the draft. Filling those other holes will reduce its draft position. Tom Brady is often cited as a franchise QB taken in the later rounds. But he was picked back in 2000. Since then, how many Tom Brady stories have there been? Since 2000, there has been only one franchise QB taken 33rd overall or later: Matt Schaub. (If I'm forgetting anyone, please let me know.) Assuming a typical NFL team drafts an average of 0.5 late round QBs per year, a team trying to find a franchise QB in the later rounds of the draft would have to wait an average of 160 years before succeeding. I would prefer not to have to wait 160 years for the rebuilding process to succeed, but that's just me. The argument has been made that a bad situation might spoil the development of a rookie QB. There might be some truth to this. However, I would argue that a lot of franchise QBs, such as Peyton Manning and Troy Aikman, began their careers in bad situations. I would also argue that the overwhelming majority of first round QB busts would not have become franchise QBs no matter what their situation had been. Does anyone seriously believe that Ryan Leaf, Joey Harrington, Jamarcus Russell, or Akili Smith could have rivaled Manning or Rodgers, had they been in better situations? That said, I hate the thought of a first round QB being set up to fail. One way to avoid that is by eschewing franchise QBs until the other pieces are in place. (A strategy that practically guarantees you will not draft a franchise QB or win a Super Bowl). Another strategy is to do what the Bengals did with Carson Palmer. As a rookie, Palmer was told he would be third string, and that nothing he could do would get him out of third string status during his rookie year. A reasonably solid, serviceable veteran, in the form of Jon Kitna, was the Bengals' starter that year. In Palmer's second year, he was anointed the starter, and Kitna was told there was nothing he could do to earn back the starting spot. A veteran QB will often outplay a first-time starter, so that decision avoided a Johnson/Flutie-style drama. More generally, the Bengals' process is how all rookie first round QBs should be brought along! Letting the rookie sit on the bench for a year also gives you an extra year to fix the team's other flaws. Exactly. What I gather from the thread originator's (corey g) argument, he is worried that we will "ruin" a potential franchise quarterback by bringing him to a bad team. I don't buy this and never have. If a quarterback is good enough, he will raise the level of the players around him. Not the other way around. David Carr is the most common example that people bring up when they argue against throwing a quarterback into the fire immediately. They say that he got sacked so much that he became shell-shocked and never recovered. Personally, I just don't think that Carr was very good - and I think he was going to be a disappointment no matter what situation he was brought into. He's never been more than a decent NFL backup. All the "experts" that touted him as great are just looking for excuses to why they were wrong.
corey g Posted December 17, 2011 Author Posted December 17, 2011 You can make that argument Mjt, it's valid. But what I also attempted to point out was that in my estimation only 6 QB in 13 years have been good enough to lift substandard talent IMHO. Those would be the ones I listed originally. This enforces my other point which was that a franchise lifting player is near impossible to find. And ad I believe you said even that would not make us a contender. Whether you subscribe to the ruining a QB theory or not I think we can agree that on the simplest level we need better football players. And reaching for a QB, which some, though not yourself, have advocated does not accomplish this. Best player available is the approach we must take, regardless of position. I love the debate and apperciate your decorum there are some folks on here who hurl insults just to try and get a rise out of people from their Mother's basement lol. You are not one of those folks and I apperciate it
Orton's Arm Posted December 17, 2011 Posted December 17, 2011 Exactly. What I gather from the thread originator's (corey g) argument, he is worried that we will "ruin" a potential franchise quarterback by bringing him to a bad team. I don't buy this and never have. If a quarterback is good enough, he will raise the level of the players around him. Not the other way around. David Carr is the most common example that people bring up when they argue against throwing a quarterback into the fire immediately. They say that he got sacked so much that he became shell-shocked and never recovered. Personally, I just don't think that Carr was very good - and I think he was going to be a disappointment no matter what situation he was brought into. He's never been more than a decent NFL backup. All the "experts" that touted him as great are just looking for excuses to why they were wrong. You and I are 98% of the way toward being on the same page. I think there should be some sensitivity to player development, which is why I favor a policy of never allowing a rookie QB to play, ever! I also think that once a team uses a very early draft pick on a QB, it should immediately look for ways to upgrade its receiving corps and (above all) its offensive line! (Assuming of course that upgrades are needed.) Take a guy like Steve Young. Tampa Bay seemed almost determined to do everything wrong with him. They started him as a rookie. Even though their offensive line was a sieve, they made almost no effort whatsoever to improve it in any way. Nor did they use their early picks on WRs or TEs. Instead, they squandered their early picks on defensive players--especially DBs--and a RB. Very TD/Marv/Jauron-like. All that stuff set Young's development back, which is why after two years in the league, the Bucs felt comfortable trading him away for a second round pick. Obviously the Tampa Bay fiasco didn't ruin Young, as he proceeded to prove! I realize most QBs are not Steve Young stories--the last such story was Steve Young himself! (Unless you want to count Rich Gannon.) It is ludicrous to imagine Harrington or Losman or almost any other first round bust rising to the level of Manning or Rodgers, regardless of how good a situation they'd been placed in. Likewise, Sanchez and the Jets is not an example of how a good situation can help a quarterback develop. It's an example of how a good situation can and is being used to hide the fact that Sanchez is nowhere near the level of Manning or Rodgers. Sanchez is the Jets' Trent Dilfer, except that the Jets don't have the same kind of defense the Ravens had back in 2000.
BB-Gun Posted December 17, 2011 Posted December 17, 2011 Bills don't keep enough of their good players Free agency will NEVER be a factor as long as Ralph is owner Take a look at the QBs on just about ALL the teams that have made the playoffs the last few years This team has made the playoffs ONCE since JIM KELLY retired - ONCE This team NEEDS a franchise QB more than any other team in the league and until they address it, they will continue to miss the playoffs year after year after year. I don't care if this team misses the playoffs the next 2 years in a row as long as you can see they are building something. Get a QB any way possible and stockpile the lines. Enough is enough already with this clueless organization. It does not matter if we had Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady. They have couple of bad games and some people on this board would be calling for their replacement. Bills fan are fickled.
Buffalo Barbarian Posted December 17, 2011 Posted December 17, 2011 tannenhill also turned a lock of a 1st round WR in fuller into a mid round pick.. he had tons of weapons on O Fuller was also injured, maybe you are watching too much and are over analyzing like many GMs and scouts do.
Toshiero Posted December 17, 2011 Posted December 17, 2011 We need to draft a QB and develop him while adding talent around him, that is what good franchises do. But good franchises also have quality guys in place to draft the right players, Buffalo doesn't have that.
HuSeYiN1978 Posted December 18, 2011 Posted December 18, 2011 I agree with this. The Pats are lower than they've been in 10 years and their defense might be the worst in the entire NFL. On the other hand, I feel the Jets are only a few players away from being a Super Bowl contender. The Jets are definitely not a few players away from the super bowl especially after seeing how they played and are still playing this year... They somehow just like the Bills also don't know how to keep their key players on the team and gain talent the year after but at the cost of losing talent... If there was such a thing as luck in this world then I believe the Jets have had it the past two years and maybe even this year but I think their luck is running out...
thewildrabbit Posted December 18, 2011 Posted December 18, 2011 (edited) That's a fair point. Brady hasn't won anything recently because Belichick's drafts have been terrible, worse than ours on some ways. Their defense hasn't been enough to get them titles. That being said, they wouldn't succeed at all if they didn't have Brady who, ironically, was a late-round pick. This Super Bowl will be interesting based on the fact that Baltimore, San Francisco, Houston and the Jets (not to mention teams that will likely lose in the first round, like Denver) will all be playoff teams with average quarterbacks and excellent defenses. If those teams get blasted out by teams like New England, Green Bay, or New Orleans, that will be further validation that teams cannot succeed in the playoffs without elite QB play. Not true at all, go back and look at the year Brady was knocked out for the entire season. In 2008 Bill Belichick took a back up QB who hadn't played a snap of football in a real game since high school in Matt Cassel and that 08 team went 11-5 My take on the Patriots and the reason they haven't been back to the SB recently is that other teams kept stealing away coordinators and FO personnel. The Last OC who was taken away was Josh McDaniels after that 08 season. Belichick must be pissed that every time he trains someone to be good in their job another team walks in and hires him away. Romeo Crennel the Patriots SB DC- Charlie Weis the Patriots SB winning OC in 2004- Eric Mangini was DB coach in 04- Josh McDaniels was QB coach in 04 Scott Pioli (Patriots GM & director of player personnel) to KC- Thomas Dimitroff (Patriots Director of college scouting) to the Falcons is a huge reason why the Patriots don't draft as well as they used to. Just look at the talent that Dimitroff has brought into that Falcon team Don't forget that 07 season where the patriots went 16-0 in the regular season, and they lost the SB because the Giants got extremely lucky on one pass play Edited December 18, 2011 by Fear the Beard
thewildrabbit Posted December 18, 2011 Posted December 18, 2011 We need to draft a QB and develop him while adding talent around him, that is what good franchises do. But good franchises also have quality guys in place to draft the right players, Buffalo doesn't have that. Look at how the current NY Jets GM built that team, the first thing he did was draft a top center and LT and build a power running game. Spending a high draft pick on a QB while the line is still crap is pointless and will waste a draft pick
Bill from NYC Posted December 18, 2011 Posted December 18, 2011 Look at how the current NY Jets GM built that team, the first thing he did was draft a top center and LT and build a power running game. Spending a high draft pick on a QB while the line is still crap is pointless and will waste a draft pick And the year before the Colts got Manning, they drafted LT Tarik Glenn and RT Adam Meadows in rounds 1 and 2. Still, if you think a QB will be great, it's rough to pass him up because they are just so rare. That said, the Bills need pass rush and a LT. They don't have credible OLB on the entire roster, and this is unimagineable imo.
Recommended Posts