Casey D Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 I'm not saying it's easy like going to the grocery store, but the odds are if you have a franchise QB and an average defense, you're going farther than having not having a franchise QB and a great defense. And history bares that out. Likely true, but it probably is easier to build a team with a great defense and an average QB than finding a franchise QB.
The Big Cat Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 Let's put it another way: Who was worst 2014 quarterback in the NFL that could win a Super Bowl with an outstanding defense? Tannehill? Dalton? Kapernick? Orton? Or is it Russell Wilson? Is he the baseline?
timstep Posted January 15, 2015 Author Posted January 15, 2015 No question, but every wasted pick on a failed QB has the opportunity cost of not getting a good player that, as you say, are easier to find. If you do that consistently, like the Redskins, you still don't have a QB and the rest of your team sucks too. But what's the upshot of not doing it? Since the Bills last playoff appearance, how many years has the Bills offense outranked the defense? My guess is not many? My guess is that the Bills have had a better overall defense more years than they have a better overall offense, and what has that gotten them? Two 9-7 seasons and no playoffs. So all you do by not doing it is continue the mediocrity.
FireChan Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 Let's put it another way: Who was worst 2014 quarterback in the NFL that could win a Super Bowl with an outstanding defense? Tannehill? Dalton? Kapernick? Orton? Or is it Russell Wilson? Is he the baseline? Wilson is a great QB who doesn't have to throw a lot. He's not the "baseline."
timstep Posted January 15, 2015 Author Posted January 15, 2015 So what do you do? Exhaust all available resources on landing a QB even though the chances of doing so are piss poor or try to build a complete team and take an opportunistic approach to landing a QB? Yes, because choosing the other path has been played out with no success for this franchise, and rare success for others.
billsfan1959 Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 I'm not saying it's easy like going to the grocery store, but the odds are if you have a franchise QB and an average defense, you're going farther than having not having a franchise QB and a great defense. And history bares that out. My point was, of course having a franchise QB, or even a good QB, gives you better odds for success; however, for all those people clamoring for the Bills to get one (or complaining about not having found one already) - which franchise QB should they get or should have already gotten? Anyone can state a problem. Offer a solution.
FireChan Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 My point was, of course having a franchise QB, or even a good QB, gives you better odds for success; however, for all those people clamoring for the Bills to get one (or complaining about not having found one already) - which franchise QB should they get or should have already gotten? Anyone can state a problem. Offer a solution. Cutler.
billsfan1959 Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 Likely true, but it probably is easier to build a team with a great defense and an average QB than finding a franchise QB. Agreed. I do not see the opportunity for the Bills to have a top QB in the near future. So, while they are trying to find one or develop one, keep building the defense, while overhauling the offensive line and building a strong running game.
timstep Posted January 15, 2015 Author Posted January 15, 2015 Wilson is a great QB who doesn't have to throw a lot. He's not the "baseline." Russell, in terms of passing statics was 15th in total yards in 2014, 19th in attempts, 16th in TDs, He pretty much in the middle of the pack. However, he was 29th in INTs (he didn't turn it over) and was sacked 1 out every 95 attempts (10th best in league). When people talk about a "game manager," Wilson is the best possible version, because he's mobile, young and only going to get better.
Jauronimo Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 Yes, because choosing the other path has been played out with no success for this franchise, and rare success for others. There were two choices there, tim. Yes isn't an answer.
billsfan1959 Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 Cutler. I won't disagree with you there. He is about the only QB available who can, more often than not, give you top 10 QB caliber performances.
The Frankish Reich Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 Let's put it another way: Who was worst 2014 quarterback in the NFL that could win a Super Bowl with an outstanding defense? Tannehill? Dalton? Kapernick? Orton? Or is it Russell Wilson? Is he the baseline? Well, the Niners almost won with Kaep, so I'd say that's the baseline. But you have to remember how well Kaep was playing that year, before defenses had enough film on him to make the necessary adjustments. I know folks here are often in denial about the need for at least a good (Flacco, Wilson so far, although he's still improving) QB. That's why we see so many Dilfer references--Dilfer was the law subpar QB to win a SB, and that was a long, long time ago. So while in our situation I love the Rex "we're gonna go from very good to dominant on defense" strategy, as long as we have an Orton or a 2013 EJ at QB that amounts to "we should make the playoffs ". Not "we will make or win the Super Bowl"
Casey D Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 But what's the upshot of not doing it? Since the Bills last playoff appearance, how many years has the Bills offense outranked the defense? My guess is not many? My guess is that the Bills have had a better overall defense more years than they have a better overall offense, and what has that gotten them? Two 9-7 seasons and no playoffs. So all you do by not doing it is continue the mediocrity. I think that is an oversimplification. Over the last 15 years the team has lacked talent generally, in signigicant part because of a lot of bad drafts. The team has been bad on both sides of the ball. Only quite recently has the talent level increased, mostly on defense. With some tweaks to the OL, this is likely a playoff team with poor/average QB play. I agree to go the final step and be a big threat in the playoffs, they need to have a good, if not great QB-- someone like a Flacco or Rivers. Cutler. Yuck... that's the problem. You reach for an expensive mediocrity and you get nowhere fast.
BuffOrange Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 My bad, I misstated on Grossman, he did GET to a SB. The statistics in the Freakonomics articles are for 45 years worth of stats, choosing anecdotal examples at a time when defenses could maul WRs and TEs at the line, as opposed the current NFL, is not really relevant. Without anecdotal examples the Belicheat avatar would have 7,900 fewer posts. That's no fun. Let's put it another way: Who was worst 2014 quarterback in the NFL that could win a Super Bowl with an outstanding defense? Tannehill? Dalton? Kapernick? Orton? Or is it Russell Wilson? Is he the baseline? Good ? I'd say Tannehill is in the ballpark. But the defense would have to be pretty outstanding.
timstep Posted January 15, 2015 Author Posted January 15, 2015 There were two choices there, tim. Yes isn't an answer. Draft multiple QBs every year until you find a franchise QB. I don't care about the "What about the rest of the team!" argument. That argument has produced nothing. That argument has failed for 15 years. It's radical and crazy and nobody will ever do it, but accepting mediocrity has grown tiresome.
Casey D Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 Without anecdotal examples the Belicheat avatar would have 7,900 fewer posts. That's no fun. Good ? I'd say Tannehill is in the ballpark. But the defense would have to be pretty outstanding. I don't know. The Dolphins defense has been quite good, and the team is stuck at 8-8. Tannehill is the picture of average.
Chuck Wagon Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 Pointing to Dilfer as trying to prove you can win with a subpar QB is asinine. First off, that was one of the best defenses of all time. Second, that was 14 years ago. The rules have changed dramatically. QBs are almost untouchable now and WRs can't be hit until they've been allowed to come down with the ball. If someone doesn't understand why those things would increase the need for a legit QB there's no purpose in arguing with them, pure and simple they don't get it.
FireChan Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 I think that is an oversimplification. Over the last 15 years the team has lacked talent generally, in signigicant part because of a lot of bad drafts. The team has been bad on both sides of the ball. Only quite recently has the talent level increased, mostly on defense. With some tweaks to the OL, this is likely a playoff team with poor/average QB play. I agree to go the final step and be a big threat in the playoffs, they need to have a good, if not great QB-- someone like a Flacco or Rivers. Yuck... that's the problem. You reach for an expensive mediocrity and you get nowhere fast. Cutler is pre-Super Bowl run Flacco.
Casey D Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 Draft multiple QBs every year until you find a franchise QB. I don't care about the "What about the rest of the team!" argument. That argument has produced nothing. That argument has failed for 15 years. It's radical and crazy and nobody will ever do it, but accepting mediocrity has grown tiresome. Please don't say things like "accepting mediocrity." Nobody "accepts that" and it makes you come off like you are more discerning than everyone else. You have an idea, it is interesting. It is not likely-- IMO-- to lead anywhere except an awful team with all the wasted picks you propose. But it is different.
Luka Posted January 15, 2015 Posted January 15, 2015 Of course there are multiple factors, and many things have to align like the right coach, and scheme, and surrounding players. But if you swapped Orton and Luck this year, do you think the Bills would be better and the Colts would be worse, or that the skill level and physical ability of those players plays not part in the overall success of the team? I don't even understand your point, which makes sense, because anyone who has watched Big Ben and doesn't think the guy is a franchise QB is defying reality. I don't mean in a player for swap sense. I mean, if Brady was drafted by a bad team, do you think he's still Brady? To develop a QB, you have to have a good team around him. In our case, it's the line that is the weak link. If they can fix that, I think even EJ can develop. He has certainly shown flashes. But when your team is inconsistent, it tends to make you inconsistent as a QB.
Recommended Posts