timstep Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 Forgive me, this has been on mind awhile... There is an interesting Freakonomics article from 2012 that dissects the "defenses win championships" idea pretty solidly. A snippet: "There have been 427 NFL playoff games over the last 45 seasons. The better defensive teams have won 58 percent of them. The better offensive teams have won 62 percent of the time. (Again, the winning team is sometimes better both offensively and defensively, which explains why the total exceeds 100 percent.) That’s a slight edge to the offense, but again, pretty even." Another interesting bit: "But maybe the phrase “defense wins championships” is supposed to mean is that defense is somehow more necessary than offense. Maybe a team can prevail with a middling offense, but not with a middling defense. As it turns out, that doesn’t hold up, either. Three times the Super Bowl champion ranked in the bottom half of the league in defense; only twice did it rank in the bottom half in offense." On the flip side, the list of "game manager" (i.e. sub-par) QBs to win championships is very small - Rex Grossman in 2007, Trent Dilfer in 2000. Lose a championship? Stan Humphries. Neil O'Donnell. Kerry Collins. Consider the rule changes in recent years - are they there to help defenses or offenses? Now look at this upcoming weekend: Brady vs. Luck Rodgers vs. Wilson Two of the best veteran QBs, both who have rings, vs. two the best young QBs, one who already has a ring. The QBs who lost last weekend - Manning, Flacco, Newton, Romo. I'm pretty sure if you look at the final 4, the final 8, of the last 15 years, the majority of those teams are lead by franchise QBs, not journeyman, not projects, not retreads. The point? Just like our Great Lakes brethren in Cleveland, it doesn't matter if the Bills have a top 5 defense, a young star wide receiver, good RBs, a good line, until their is a legitimate franchise quarterback under center, this team will be on the outside looking in. It does not matter if the Bills defense is #1 under Ryan. It matters that this team find a legitimate, young, franchise QB to lead this team. Anything else is a waste of time and will not move the franchise forward.
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 Dilfer Flacco Hostetler SB Winners yet not "Super Star" great QB's !!! Defense, Defense, Defense
timstep Posted January 15, 2015 Author Posted January 15, 2015 Dilfer Flacco Hostetler SB Winners yet not "Super Star" great QB's !!! Defense, Defense, Defense So you'd rather hitch your wagon to an occasional blip on the radar than accept history and reality? This is why we can't have nice things.
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 (edited) Joe Flacco has won a lot of in season and post season games, YET he is not considered a top 10 QB. Had Baltimore kept Dilfer, he too could have won more post season games. I DO NOT WANT a gunslinger that forces the team into a one dimensional offense! lastly Russel Wilson is not a gunslinger. In fact he's the opposite Edited January 15, 2015 by BillsFan-4-Ever
l< j Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 Dilfer Flacco Hostetler SB Winners yet not "Super Star" great QB's !!! Defense, Defense, Defense As the ever wise Elmo says, one of these things is not like the other. kj
DC Tom Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 The better offensive teams have won 62 percent of the time. (Again, the winning team is sometimes better both offensively and defensively, which explains why the total exceeds 100 percent.) That’s a slight edge to the offense, but again, pretty even. Asinine analysis. If the team with the better offense AND defense wins, how do you credit that to "a slight edge to the offense." Either eliminate those from the data sample, or adjust for score relative to season averages (i.e. do offensive teams win because the score more, or do defensive teams win because they give up less?)
QCity Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 The point? Just like our Great Lakes brethren in Cleveland, it doesn't matter if the Bills have a top 5 defense, a young star wide receiver, good RBs, a good line, until their is a legitimate franchise quarterback under center, this team will be on the outside looking in. It does not matter if the Bills defense is #1 under Ryan. It matters that this team find a legitimate, young, franchise QB to lead this team. Anything else is a waste of time and will not move the franchise forward. That's absolutely right, and I think most fans here understand that (there's a few that still don't get it). I disagree with the "Anything else is a waste of time" statement however -- you still need other players. Ultimately the Ryan era will be defined on what QB we are able to acquire in the next few years.
timstep Posted January 15, 2015 Author Posted January 15, 2015 Joe Flacco has won a lot of in season and post season games, YET he is not considered a top 10 QB. Had Baltimore kept Dilfer, he too could have won more post season games. I DO NOT WANT a gunslinger that forces the team into a one dimensional offense! lastly Russel Wilson is not a gunslinger. In fact he's the opposite Franchise does not equal gunslinger. Bills don't need Brett Farve. Flacco has been inconsistent, but he's been a top 10 QB based on statistics, and has an excellent post-season record. There is nothing wrong with a good defense. You're right, it's just that, aside from a few exceptions, they go to waste without a franchise QB. Asinine analysis. If the team with the better offense AND defense wins, how do you credit that to "a slight edge to the offense." Either eliminate those from the data sample, or adjust for score relative to season averages (i.e. do offensive teams win because the score more, or do defensive teams win because they give up less?) If you read the article, they did analyze regular season numbers. And it's essentially a wash, meaning having a great defense is a 50/50 proposition. That's absolutely right, and I think most fans here understand that (there's a few that still don't get it). I disagree with the "Anything else is a waste of time" statement however -- you still need other players. Ultimately the Ryan era will be defined on what QB we are able to acquire in the next few years. Agree on "you still need other players," but only a to a degree. A high-caliber QB can elevate the players around him. How many Hall-of-Fame WRs and RBs has Brady played with on his SB teams? How about Eli Manning? or Russell Wilson? Or Big Ben? I would argue that after the QB, the number one priority is not the weapons, but the protection.
Pneumonic Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 It's a QB driven league where, if you don't have a top QB, you need to get extraordinarily lucky to win come playoff time. That is, if you also get lucky enough to make it that far. Admittedly, having an excellent defense betters the odds in either case.
D. L. Hot-Flamethrower Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 My problem with this is, we don't have a franchise QB, are not likely to have one soon... and so what do you do...quit! These things are not black and white propositions. It is possible to win with a great team and an adequate QB. This part is indisputable. There are a couple of models that work. One is the franchise QB and a good team. The other is a great team and adequate QB. We have to work towards the second and if we find a so-called franchise guy along the way-Great.
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 Do you consider Big Ben a top 10 QB? I don't and yet he's been on the wining end more than he has not. Brady and Co won Super Bowls when they had a balanced offense. When he's a passer they lose.
Dorkington Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 Ok, so who is "franchise/elite" that we can realistically get? If that person isn't available, then I think it's a good thing we have a strong D, and hopefully we can improve the rest of the team around our middling QBs to give ourselves a chance.
Green Lightning Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 So you'd rather hitch your wagon to an occasional blip on the radar than accept history and reality? This is why we can't have nice things. So the Seahawks are a blip?
timstep Posted January 15, 2015 Author Posted January 15, 2015 My problem with this is, we don't have a franchise QB, are not likely to have one soon... and so what do you do...quit! These things are not black and white propositions. It is possible to win with a great team and an adequate QB. This part is indisputable. There are a couple of models that work. One is the franchise QB and a good team. The other is a great team and adequate QB. We have to work towards the second and if we find a so-called franchise guy along the way-Great. Well, then it becomes, do you want to chase a veteran (like Denver did with Manning) or start with a rookie? I'd rather start with a rookie, but we're out that ballgame until 2016, because the odds of hitting another Russell Wilson this year are poor thanks to an already weak QB draft class. You could chase Cutler, but that seems like a lost cause. The guy isn't a 4-year vet in need of a new view, he's pretty much reached his peak. Someone might kick the tires on Sam Bradford or RGIII, but the injuries just keep mounting for those two. As a stop-gap for 1-2 years, Bills are probably looking at Brian Hoyer (aka Ryan Fitzpatrick 2.0), Kirk Cousins, either Josh McCown or Mike Glennon (one of whom will be cut when they draft Winston), or one of many other back-up/wannabes.
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 you mean the odds of missing another Russell Wilson. The Bills passed on him
timstep Posted January 15, 2015 Author Posted January 15, 2015 So the Seahawks are a blip? Did I say that? Are you inferring he's not a franchise QB? He's ridiculous efficient, is a dangerous runner, has a good arm and is in another championship game. If the Bills had drafted Wilson, I don't know he would have developed the same way, but he's far better than any QB who has been on the Bills roster since Jim Kelly, and yes, I'm including Bledsoe.
Luka Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 Your stats merely tell you that you have to have a good TEAM to win the Super Bowl. This isn't about having a franchise QB because you know what? When a guy is on a good team with talent all around him, he more often than not develops into a franchise QB. You really think Brady would still be in the league if he had played on a team like the current Bucs or Titans? Why do you think Kelly despised the idea of coming to Buffalo? The QB has to have a good TEAM around him to win football games consistently. Period.
timstep Posted January 15, 2015 Author Posted January 15, 2015 you mean the odds of missing another Russell Wilson. The Bills passed on him The shoulda, woulda and coulda's with this team and the draft are astounding. I still remember screaming at my car radio when they passed on Nick Mangold to draft John McCargo. A team that had just let Trey Teague go in favor of Melvin Fowler. Every team has plenty of what-ifs when it comes to the draft, but few teams have been hurt as badly by those decisions as the Bills in the 15 years.
Recommended Posts