The QB-centric NFL desperately needs a visionary

[Tyrod's friend]

10 hours ago, Blue on Blue said:

I can remember when the primary position in the NFL was running back.  Running backs are now paid on a par with kickers and punters.

Over time, the game became so QB-centric that a five-game starter in San Francisco becomes the league's richest player, until (weeks later) a QB with more career losses than wins becomes the league's richest player, until (a few months later) teams are scrambling to give away years of first round picks for any of four or five unproven college quarterbacks.

Could there/will there be a visionary (or a visionary coach/GM/owner troika) who envision a new way -- to draft, pay, trade and play the game on the field -- in such a way that leverages the a$$ets now devoted to QB into a competitively superior team with a totally different approach to the game?

I invite comments from any free thinkers out there who know way more about this game than I do, and who are sick of reading about hand size and how many years of first round draft picks it will cost us to see if Joe Schmoe from Kokomo State will ever pan out.  The game is over-due for a revolution.

I think the Rams are doing it differently. It starts with Sean McVeigh, with an MVP running back and an MVP defensive tackle. Goff is a trigger man, sure, but this is the second straight year they won't have a 1st round pick and it doesn't seem to be bothering them.  

[reddogblitz]

34 minutes ago, GreggTX said:

True dat. If you have a shortage of elite QB's, it makes the outcomes too predictable. QB will always be the most important position, but it doesn't have to be so ridiculous.

 

MAybe it isn't?

 

Keenum, Foles,Bottles  being 3 of the last 4 QBs standing.I

 

The era of the franchise QB may be fading. Where are the young ones?  The only 3 being Wilson, Newton, and Luck if he can stay healthy. They're all going to be 30 this year.  Wentz MAybe if he can recover.  Goff we'll see.

Edited April 5, 2018 by reddogblitz

[BadLandsMeanie]

11 hours ago, Blue on Blue said:

Could there/will there be a visionary (or a visionary coach/GM/owner troika) who envision a new way -- 

 

I agree with the premise of your post BOB.

 

We Bills fans of course feel it the most because we haven't had a qb in so long. So we know how futile it can be without a qb. And we know the future rides on how we solve that problem this year. It will determine our standing for years to come.

 

And still people right here who experience it year after year, will tell you that you are wrong. What are you going to do?

 

In sum of course there is a way to address it but they won't. It would take an owner who is skilled and smart at football and there are few or none. The owner has to do some of the long term planning because they fire GMs too quickly. And the new one comes and tears down everything So it has to be the owner.

 

And they fire the coaches even faster.

 

And coaches are all inbred and traditional and come from coaching "trees" just as our ancestor monkeys did. So everybody is trained and brought up the same way.

 

And then the coaches all rotate around so that our new coach is somebody's old coach. Over and over again.

 

Plus everyone is still making boatloads of money.  Maybe that is the main thing. No matter what they do they make money. Why tinker with that?

 

I have a whole post I coudl wrote about te Qb spot and how it coudl be handled way better maybe, but Im in no hurry to write it beause all it will get me is everybodyt calling me stupid. And i cvan get that with a short post and little effort.

 

Anyway I feel your pain and I agree with you. I just think it won't happen fast. So until it does the bills gotta get a qb!

 

 

 

[4merper4mer]

2 hours ago, jmc12290 said:

But that's where your argument fails.  Eliminate Brady/Peyton and the QB position is not so lopsidedly important.  It's just the most important position, just like pitchers and we are living in the era where some of the best to ever play are going strong.  You're basically saying the Jordan-era NBA is imbalanced because the shooting guards are too good.

 

I called your point ignorant because you said the QB-centricity of the NFL means you can't win in multiple ways.  That's not true AT ALL.  As evidenced by the vastly different styles in the last 5 Super Bowl Champions.  It's not "Get good QB, win the Super Bowl every year."

Then why in this thread did you give a one word answer:

 

No

 

to the question of whether even if the most genius of visionaries could lessen the critical nature of the QB?

 

Then why are teams willing to trade cadres of picks but only to move up for a QB?

[CamboBill]

16 hours ago, Blue on Blue said:

I can remember when the primary position in the NFL was running back.  Running backs are now paid on a par with kickers and punters.

Over time, the game became so QB-centric that a five-game starter in San Francisco becomes the league's richest player, until (weeks later) a QB with more career losses than wins becomes the league's richest player, until (a few months later) teams are scrambling to give away years of first round picks for any of four or five unproven college quarterbacks.

Could there/will there be a visionary (or a visionary coach/GM/owner troika) who envision a new way -- to draft, pay, trade and play the game on the field -- in such a way that leverages the a$$ets now devoted to QB into a competitively superior team with a totally different approach to the game?

I invite comments from any free thinkers out there who know way more about this game than I do, and who are sick of reading about hand size and how many years of first round draft picks it will cost us to see if Joe Schmoe from Kokomo State will ever pan out.  The game is over-due for a revolution.

 

Hmm .... I thought the Bills had such a visionary ... his name was Rex Ryan and it was called Bully Ball..   Just messing with you hehe ....but I did appreciate how Anthony Lynn designed an offence that was productive, with below average talent at QB.  There was a fair amount of Genius in his offense, and Shady's performance brought  me back to the 90s in a good way ... somewhat reminiscent of Marshall Faulk..  I used to love watching bruisers like Earl Campbell, Christian (The Nigerian Nightmare) Okoye, and Jerome (The Battering Ram) Bettis... where do you see RB Nicknames like that any more?  The days when  men were men and sheep were nervous ... no sissy wr screens then hehehe

 

Anyway I Agree with your sentiments, I miss the old NFL. Unfortunately the league believes bigger passing plays equates to higher TV ratings, so the game has gone there rule wise.  The reality is, with the current rule set, it is inevitable that at some point you will need to play catch up .... and 3 yard and a cloud of dust does not wok then.

 

Except in madden .... where visionary me ... puts in a run heavy offense and old school Tampa 2 defense ... and rocks the madden world.

 

Edited April 5, 2018 by CamboBill

[Thurman#1]

17 hours ago, Blue on Blue said:

I can remember when the primary position in the NFL was running back.  Running backs are now paid on a par with kickers and punters.

Over time, the game became so QB-centric that a five-game starter in San Francisco becomes the league's richest player, until (weeks later) a QB with more career losses than wins becomes the league's richest player, until (a few months later) teams are scrambling to give away years of first round picks for any of four or five unproven college quarterbacks.

Could there/will there be a visionary (or a visionary coach/GM/owner troika) who envision a new way -- to draft, pay, trade and play the game on the field -- in such a way that leverages the a$$ets now devoted to QB into a competitively superior team with a totally different approach to the game?

I invite comments from any free thinkers out there who know way more about this game than I do, and who are sick of reading about hand size and how many years of first round draft picks it will cost us to see if Joe Schmoe from Kokomo State will ever pan out.  The game is over-due for a revolution.

 

 

 

That wouldn't be a revolution. As the guy who mentioned Doug Marrone nicely pointed out, people who haven't been able to get a good QB have been desperately trying to do this since the league started. But only about 10% of all Super Bowls are won by any team not built around a top ten franchise QB, and that's out of the 2/3rds of the league's teams that at any one time don't have a franchise QB.

 

So when you have 66% of the league's teams winning 10% of the championships and the 33% that do have a franchise QB winning 90% of the championships, free-thinking isn't the way to go. The way to go is to find a way - almost any way - to join that 33%.

 

 

 

There are some areas in the NFL where a revolution could happen. The near-elimination of punting, for example. But not needing a franchise QB ain't one of those potentially fruitful lines of thought.

Edited April 5, 2018 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

7 hours ago, jmc12290 said:

But that's where your argument fails.  Eliminate Brady/Peyton and the QB position is not so lopsidedly important.  It's just the most important position, just like pitchers and we are living in the era where some of the best to ever play are going strong.  You're basically saying the Jordan-era NBA is imbalanced because the shooting guards are too good.

 

I called your point ignorant because you said the QB-centricity of the NFL means you can't win in multiple ways.  That's not true AT ALL.  As evidenced by the vastly different styles in the last 5 Super Bowl Champions.  It's not "Get good QB, win the Super Bowl every year."

 

 

It's absolutely true. Here are the QBs of the last five Super Bowl champions:

 

Carson Wentz (and no, they don't win it without Wentz. They build their team around a terrific QB and went 11-2 in the games he started.)

Tom Brady

Peyton Manning

Tom Brady

Russell Wilson

 

All five were top ten or twelve QBs.

 

Yeah, some of the teams were more defensive and others more offensive. That's been so through history. But all of them had a franchise QB. That has also been so through history. Around 90% of all SB winners had a top 10 - 12 QB, a franchise QB. There are a few exceptions. But they are very few. And if you want to achieve a goal, you don't model the most unsuccessful strategy to achieve that goal. You model the successful one.

 

And no, Manning wasn't awful the way people say. I give you that he wasn't what he had been. Not even close. But even with that shot arm they couldn't win without him. He had an elite QB mind and that was enough. The guy had three fourth quarter comebacks and three game-winning drives despite only playing 10 games. Yeah, he threw a lot of INTs imagining he still had the old Peyton's arm. But he still got thing things he needed to get done done. Yeah, the defense was the key factor. But how has that terrific defense done without Manning? How did they do that year when Osweiler was in the game?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 5, 2018 by Thurman#1

[row_33]

Jimmy G doesn’t bother me, it’s Kirk Cousins piracy that is curdling

 

where else can you go to finish 7-9

 

 

[BringBackOrton]

5 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

Then why in this thread did you give a one word answer:

 

No

 

to the question of whether even if the most genius of visionaries could lessen the critical nature of the QB?

 

Then why are teams willing to trade cadres of picks but only to move up for a QB?

Because the QB is the only position who touches the ball every play. It's the most important position. Like pitchers. 

[row_33]

1 hour ago, jmc12290 said:

Because the QB is the only position who touches the ball every play. It's the most important position. Like pitchers. 

 

Some years you can get away with a barely adequate QB, like the Ravens did a few times

 

 

[VABills]

I think we're entering the time of the Right Guard.  Put some on and you don't stink anymore.  

[BringBackOrton]

On 4/5/2018 at 5:01 AM, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

It's absolutely true. Here are the QBs of the last five Super Bowl champions:

 

Carson Wentz (and no, they don't win it without Wentz. They build their team around a terrific QB and went 11-2 in the games he started.)

Tom Brady

Peyton Manning

Tom Brady

Russell Wilson

 

All five were top ten or twelve QBs.

 

Yeah, some of the teams were more defensive and others more offensive. That's been so through history. But all of them had a franchise QB. That has also been so through history. Around 90% of all SB winners had a top 10 - 12 QB, a franchise QB. There are a few exceptions. But they are very few. And if you want to achieve a goal, you don't model the most unsuccessful strategy to achieve that goal. You model the successful one.

 

And no, Manning wasn't awful the way people say. I give you that he wasn't what he had been. Not even close. But even with that shot arm they couldn't win without him. He had an elite QB mind and that was enough. The guy had three fourth quarter comebacks and three game-winning drives despite only playing 10 games. Yeah, he threw a lot of INTs imagining he still had the old Peyton's arm. But he still got thing things he needed to get done done. Yeah, the defense was the key factor. But how has that terrific defense done without Manning? How did they do that year when Osweiler was in the game?

 

 

 

 

 

HoFers though.

 

Eliminate Brady, who is the GOAT, and Peyton, who is also considered of the GOATs, and the QB-centricity diminishes.  I''m not saying they aren't clearly the most important.  It's just that Brady and company have made it seem even more so than the reality of the other 30-31 teams.  

 

Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers and Big Ben are all very valuable and probably the three best QB's after Brady..  None have been to the Super Bowl in 5 years.  

[MAJBobby]

On 4/4/2018 at 8:48 AM, Blue on Blue said:

I can remember when the primary position in the NFL was running back.  Running backs are now paid on a par with kickers and punters.

Over time, the game became so QB-centric that a five-game starter in San Francisco becomes the league's richest player, until (weeks later) a QB with more career losses than wins becomes the league's richest player, until (a few months later) teams are scrambling to give away years of first round picks for any of four or five unproven college quarterbacks.

Could there/will there be a visionary (or a visionary coach/GM/owner troika) who envision a new way -- to draft, pay, trade and play the game on the field -- in such a way that leverages the a$$ets now devoted to QB into a competitively superior team with a totally different approach to the game?

I invite comments from any free thinkers out there who know way more about this game than I do, and who are sick of reading about hand size and how many years of first round draft picks it will cost us to see if Joe Schmoe from Kokomo State will ever pan out.  The game is over-due for a revolution.

 

Nope Rules are skewed to the QB. 

 

Until Rules change that is the most important asset on the football field 

[SoTier]

On 4/4/2018 at 12:03 PM, jmc12290 said:

Ignorant opinion.

 

The Seahawks, Broncos, Pats and Eagles all played vastly different styles of offense, defense and philosophy in the last 6 Superbowls.

 

Actually, the Seahawks had their best teams in Russell Wilson's first three seasons when they weren't QB-centric, but were primarily a running team with a strong defense.  When they became utterly QB-centric in 2017, they failed to make the playoffs. 

 

IMO, pro football has been QB-dependent since the 1960s with the rise of the AFL which emphasized scoring over defense.  It has become increasingly QB centric since the merger, but I think that the rise of fantasy football in recent decades has put unreasonable emphasis on putting up impressive stats rather than on winning games. It used to be that QBs used to be judged on whether their teams won or lost and whether they made the playoffs and won playoff games.  Stats were secondary.  That's all been turned on its head.

 

A QB like Tyrod Taylor is a "lousy" QB because he didn't put up big passing stats while starting for the Bills, although he played for a team with a run first philosophy with an average pass blocking OL and receivers at best.  OTOH, Kirk Cousins is the star of FA because he played in a heavy pass first offense that allowed him to put up big numbers despite the fact that the Redskins have exactly the same record as the Bills over the last 3 seasons (2015-2017: 24 wins, 24 losses, 1 9-7 record, 1 playoff appearance, 0 playoff wins). 

 

Meanwhile, Phillip Rivers has a record of 18-30 over the last 3 seasons with 1 9-7 record but 0 playoff appearances.  In fact, Rivers has exactly 1 more playoff win than either Taylor or Cousins despite having played in 6 playoff games in his entire 14 year career, and that win came in 2007.  San Diego has made the playoffs only once in the last 7 years, but many of the same fans who dump on Taylor don't criticize Rivers for his consistent lack of clutch play when the playoffs/playoff games have been on the line over the years.  Instead, they make excuses for him even when he throws INTs by the basketful (Rivers has thrown double digit INTs 10 times, including leading the league in INTs in 2014 and 2016).

 

 

[BringBackOrton]

1 minute ago, SoTier said:

 

Actually, the Seahawks had their best teams in Russell Wilson's first three seasons when they weren't QB-centric, but were primarily a running team with a strong defense.  When they became utterly QB-centric in 2017, they failed to make the playoffs. 

 

IMO, pro football has been QB-dependent since the 1960s with the rise of the AFL which emphasized scoring over defense.  It has become increasingly QB centric since the merger, but I think that the rise of fantasy football in recent decades has put unreasonable emphasis on putting up impressive stats rather than on winning games. It used to be that QBs used to be judged on whether their teams won or lost and whether they made the playoffs and won playoff games.  Stats were secondary.  That's all been turned on its head.

 

A QB like Tyrod Taylor is a "lousy" QB because he didn't put up big passing stats while starting for the Bills, although he played for a team with a run first philosophy with an average pass blocking OL and receivers at best.  OTOH, Kirk Cousins is the star of FA because he played in a heavy pass first offense that allowed him to put up big numbers despite the fact that the Redskins have exactly the same record as the Bills over the last 3 seasons (2015-2017: 24 wins, 24 losses, 1 9-7 record, 1 playoff appearance, 0 playoff wins). 

 

Meanwhile, Phillip Rivers has a record of 18-30 over the last 3 seasons with 1 9-7 record but 0 playoff appearances.  In fact, Rivers has exactly 1 more playoff win than either Taylor or Cousins despite having played in 6 playoff games in his entire 14 year career, and that win came in 2007.  San Diego has made the playoffs only once in the last 7 years, but many of the same fans who dump on Taylor don't criticize Rivers for his consistent lack of clutch play when the playoffs/playoff games have been on the line over the years.  Instead, they make excuses for him even when he throws INTs by the basketful (Rivers has thrown double digit INTs 10 times, including leading the league in INTs in 2014 and 2016).

 

 

They still had a terrific QB.  But yes, they played a much different style than the Pats or Broncos.

 

Tyrod was lousy because he got worse every year he played statistically and visibly.  If 2015 was his baseline, he'd probably still be a Bill. Unfortunately, it proved to be an anomaly.  Kirk's tape is much better than TT's.  

Ultimately, Tyrod is a QB that your OC schemes to hide.  Rivers and Cousins are QB's that your OC schemes as a guy in the offense who can put the team on his back.  

 

And the "average at best" receivers meme needs to die.  TT's top 3 WR's in his first two years are currently all in the top 32 of AAV WR contracts.  He had a really good unit, 2017 not included.

[billsfan89]

You can contend with a game manager as a QB if you have a great defense, good to great special teams unit, and a lot of talent surrounding the QB. Most recently Denver proved that you don't need a dynamic QB to win a Super Bowl. However, since 2000 only 3 teams have really accomplished a title without at least a top 10 QB (Ravens 2000, Tampa Bay 2002, and Denver 2015 only other one you can argue is Ravens 2012 but 2012 Joe Flacco had a good regular season and an amazing postseason.) 

 

So at best you have 4 teams out of 18 that won a Super Bowl without top 10 play at Quarterback. So if you look at the percentages not having a top 10 QB is a huge impediment to winning and contending consistently.  Even considering the fact that paying a QB close to 20% of your cap compromises other aspects of your roster it still is a tremendous advantage to have a top 10 QB considering how hard it is to have an effective and consistent offense without one. 

 

Tons of teams with a stacked roster but subpar QB's make the playoffs and some even win games or make it to the Super Bowl. But eventually, in the playoffs, you run into a team that has a top 10 QB and a capable defense and your team will more than likely lose. 

 

You also still run into cap issues even if you aren't paying a QB much. Your best defensive players and the best players in other parts of the offense will want to get paid sooner rather than later. So it isn't like building up the rest of the roster and going cheap on a QB is sustainable more so than paying a top QB a lot of money either. The cap, injuries, and players getting older will always make consistent contention almost impossible in the NFL. Unless you have the perfect storm like the Pats* where you have a top 3 QB willing to take less money, a HOF coach, and a consistently bad division then consistent contention will always be next to impossible to achieve. 

Edited April 7, 2018 by billsfan89