The bad and the ugly Buffalo edition

[ronjon1990]

31 minutes ago, Jeremy408 said:

Or what about Doug Pederson he's turned 2 franchises around.

But yeah, rightly analyzed: they were brought here on the premise that the patriot way works outside of NE. Now it turns out that the patriot way doesn't work in NE.

Bingo. Winner, winner, chicken dinner. 

Now we just gotta hope Mark sees the same when we're still getting wrecked in a few weeks. 

[Jeremy408]

6 minutes ago, ronjon1990 said:

Bingo. Winner, winner, chicken dinner. 

Now we just gotta hope Mark sees the same when we're still getting wrecked in a few weeks. 

I wonder if the patriots moving on from Belichick this off-season somehow convince is Mark Davis that he was wrong as well. 

[big_palooka]

1 hour ago, Jeremy408 said:

Or what about Doug Pederson he's turned 2 franchises around.

But yeah, rightly analyzed: they were brought here on the premise that the patriot way works outside of NE. Now it turns out that the patriot way doesn't work in NE.

The Patriot way, like any other way, only works when you have a QB. 

Pederson had QBs. Good Caron Wentz and has inherited Trevor Lawrence. I think he's better that McDaniels, but don't think he'd have done much with Carr in this situation by comparison. Hindsight, he was more the type Davis probably needed post Gruden.  

[big_palooka]

41 minutes ago, ronjon1990 said:

Only to a degree. 

Bad coaching staffs fail with greatQBs all the time- Bill O with Watson. 

Good staffs win with good QBs- McVay went to SBs with Goff and Stafford. 

But good job trying to keep pushing the "Wins are a QB stat, Joshy Daddy just needs his elite QB and he'll show app you haters!" narrative. 

A- for creativity, for sure. 

Man.... you can't engage in any discourse without thinking I'm trying to defend McDaniels can you? Has zero to do with him, but keep pushing your narrative sweetheart. 

There are outliers, sure. I'm talking consistency. If you have a franchise QB, you'll compete. 

Wins are not a QB stat, I've never pushed that. But you damn sure have a better shot at winning and being competitive with a good one. 

Coaching matters, but great QBs mask a lot of their deficiencies. Raiders would put more W's on the board with Rodgers than JImmy G. Coaching can suck and a QB can be great. Both things can be true.

And finding great coaching. Truly great coaching is rare. The McVeys and Andy Reids of the world are hard to come by. 

[BackinBlack]

3 hours ago, big_palooka said:

You basically hit the nail on the head while trying to say something else here. 

Bottom line.... franchises are only as good as their QBs. They make or break coaches and organizations. QBs are the difference in being a consistent playoff performing or struggling franchises.

The reason the AFC East was down for decades of Pats dominance. The Pats had the QB. Dolphins could never replace Dan Marino. The Bills, Jim Kelly. Now both have franchise guys. The Jets are still trying to replace Joe Namath. 

The teams that have the elite signal callers will flourish. They will consistently make the playoffs and have a shot at winning it all. 

Also, their coaching staffs will flourish and get jobs elsewhere. But without a QB, they typically crash and burn. You see it with the Patriot guys. Andy Reids guys over the years. Then you have the McVey and Shannahan guys. Success in GB, Cincy, Miami where they landed QBs. Saleh struggling with the Jets. 

And average QBs only get you average results. Dak in Dallas as example. 

To elevate the franchise, you have to land a franchise QB. The Raiders had Carr and he took the team to respectable a few years. But he was another in a long line of Chad Pennington's and Andy Dalton's. Until the Raiders get that dude, the franchise will not change. 

The Raiders are the Bills before Allen. The Bengals before Burrow. A down franchise in need of LIFE at the QB spot. The rest will fall in line if you have that piece. 

 

So it is all the QB?
the bad drafting doesn’t matter anymore as said yesterday?

[NickButera]

2 minutes ago, BackinBlack said:

So it is all the QB?
the bad drafting doesn’t matter anymore as said yesterday?

I'd says 75% is on the QB. And not meaning wins, but your foundation for success. Look at Jax or Miami recently, bad teams who drafted a great QB (not top 3 elite but still) and even though everything else looked like drama around the team, eventually success got put together. 

It's easy to find a team with a great QB that is successful. It is hard to find a Great QB who isn't successful. It happens maybe once or twice a year? Compared to the multitude of great QB's who are on successful teams. 

[BackinBlack]

Giants with Eli is to me build a great D, and just hope your average QB has a couple great games.
I do not think Eli was much better than DC, but you need to evaluate him for his play to get into this discussion.

I understand he won 2 super bowls, so he the goat. But his Ds were setting him up. 
Eli play above average, and the giants would have a chance, Eli would need to make 1 or 2 plays a game as well. 

Consistently made the playoffs cause of their D, not their QB, years they won it, Eli was able to string together some good games, but it was still the D.

-
Carr with Raiders 7- and 60 or something, i posted it yesterday, when scoring less than 20.
2-0 with the saints. 
-

it is not all the QB unfortunately. 

[ronjon1990]

1 hour ago, big_palooka said:

Man.... you can't engage in any discourse without thinking I'm trying to defend McDaniels can you? Has zero to do with him, but keep pushing your narrative sweetheart. 

There are outliers, sure. I'm talking consistency. If you have a franchise QB, you'll compete. 

Wins are not a QB stat, I've never pushed that. But you damn sure have a better shot at winning and being competitive with a good one. 

Coaching matters, but great QBs mask a lot of their deficiencies. Raiders would put more W's on the board with Rodgers than JImmy G. Coaching can suck and a QB can be great. Both things can be true.

And finding great coaching. Truly great coaching is rare. The McVeys and Andy Reids of the world are hard to come by. 

Having a great QB isn't a quick fix- look at Houston and how the Patriot Way derailed them despite having a QB that was a consensus top 5 QB in the league. Green Bay was ridiculously inconsistent, considering they had possibly the best QB ever based on physical talent. Expensive QBs typically hurt franchises. 

You're skipping over that part and handwaving away that successful systems have shown glimpses of being top tier without elite QB talent. Simply stating "Oh, see, we just need a QB!" ignores that. 

Reid, McVay, Carroll, the Harbaughs, Campbell, Shanahan, Rivera, Fox, Reich, JDR, Gruden...you say "outliers", but it's really not that uncommon for teams to show some competitive spark that a top QB would put over the top. Some don't even need that. You don't need a franchise QB to compete, you need a good roster and competent coaching. A franchise QB isn't fixing that on their own (see LA Chargers, Cincinnati Bengals, etc.). 

The Patriot Way we imported, apparently, needs the absolute best to have any hopes of success, and simply having the best doesn't even cut it (see: Houston). I was curious about it and dug- Bill Belichick without Tom Brady has a losing record by almost a full season (currently standing at 79-89 and this season doesn't look so hot for him to catch up. That honestly surprised me, because it's usually been considered cliché to talk about Bill riding Tom's coattails. I figured he was still at least above .500. 

Again, and let me drive this point home, if a system requires a great QB to look competent, it's not a viable system. And the system we have didn't just rely on a great QB, it relied on the greatest ever and his relative benevolence in contract negotiations. 

Maybe you're not saying an All-Time great QB is all we need for Josh to look competent, but it sure feels a lot like you're trying to pigeonhole Josh and his Patriot Way into the conversation by saying a QB would change the fortunes and he'd look like a genius because, well, every other franchise has to have that- and that just isn't true. Plenty of other franchises have looked better than the Patriots and teams under the Belicheck tree without an All-Time QB at the helm. 

The Seahawks, under Carroll, have shown an ability to field a solid team without a top tier QB. Yes, a top tier QB puts them over the top, but the base upon which that QB would operate isn't an embarrassment without him. 

The Chiefs did it. They very well could have won a SB with Alex Smith. Take away Mahomes, anyone wanna bet Reid isn't still winning double digits most years while looking for his next QB? Proven commodity, he is. 

The Rams did it constantly with Goff and now Stafford- though to be fair it looks like the chickens are coming home to roost after they punted on drafting for so long and I don't know that their system is viable long term. 

San Francisco hardly needs a QB. 

The Ravens have a RB at QB and have remained successful despite actively not even trying to help their (Q)RB as a QB. 

Take away the great QBs, franchise consistency falls on coaches and the FO to actually know what they're doing. It's not impossible, or even particularly uncommon. But it sure seems that way with the system brought in by Josh and Dave. 

[BackinBlack]

4 minutes ago, NickButera said:

I'd says 75% is on the QB. And not meaning wins, but your foundation for success. Look at Jax or Miami recently, bad teams who drafted a great QB (not top 3 elite but still) and even though everything else looked like drama around the team, eventually success got put together. 

It's easy to find a team with a great QB that is successful. It is hard to find a Great QB who isn't successful. It happens maybe once or twice a year? Compared to the multitude of great QB's who are on successful teams. 

No doubt great QB helps. It is the most important position in football. 
But Miami also went out and got the most explosive player in the nfl to help their Qb, and made a number of moves to be the fastest team, that helps. 
Jax is extremely young, and had a number of draft picks, ill give Lawrence props though.

I don’t think either of them make the playoffs with our roster though (Lawrence may), and then people are throwing out the bust term, by year 2 or 3.

[MrOaktown_56]

3 hours ago, big_palooka said:

You basically hit the nail on the head while trying to say something else here. 

Bottom line.... franchises are only as good as their QBs. They make or break coaches and organizations. QBs are the difference in being a consistent playoff performing or struggling franchises.

The reason the AFC East was down for decades of Pats dominance. The Pats had the QB. Dolphins could never replace Dan Marino. The Bills, Jim Kelly. Now both have franchise guys. The Jets are still trying to replace Joe Namath. 

The teams that have the elite signal callers will flourish. They will consistently make the playoffs and have a shot at winning it all. 

Also, their coaching staffs will flourish and get jobs elsewhere. But without a QB, they typically crash and burn. You see it with the Patriot guys. Andy Reids guys over the years. Then you have the McVey and Shannahan guys. Success in GB, Cincy, Miami where they landed QBs. Saleh struggling with the Jets. 

And average QBs only get you average results. Dak in Dallas as example. 

To elevate the franchise, you have to land a franchise QB. The Raiders had Carr and he took the team to respectable a few years. But he was another in a long line of Chad Pennington's and Andy Dalton's. Until the Raiders get that dude, the franchise will not change. 

The Raiders are the Bills before Allen. The Bengals before Burrow. A down franchise in need of LIFE at the QB spot. The rest will fall in line if you have that piece. 

 

Then lets tank ffs

[NCOUGHMAN]

2 hours ago, big_palooka said:

The Patriot way, like any other way, only works when you have a QB. 

Pederson had QBs. Good Caron Wentz and has inherited Trevor Lawrence. I think he's better that McDaniels, but don't think he'd have done much with Carr in this situation by comparison. Hindsight, he was more the type Davis probably needed post Gruden.  

Jmd has his qb in jimmy no excuses with the best and most expensive wr core. Brand new shiny rook te that’s the next gronk. He needs to get tray’s speed incorporated in the offense team are just playing us under knowing we can’t take the top off

[big_palooka]

36 minutes ago, BackinBlack said:

So it is all the QB?
the bad drafting doesn’t matter anymore as said yesterday?

Of course drafting and roster construction matter. But you have to have the QB to make it go consistently. 

That is my point, the teams that consistently make and compete in the playoffs have QBs. 

The next tier of average signal callers will get you to the playoffs every few years, but you won't compete.

The last tier, you're hoping to get lucky. 

[big_palooka]

22 minutes ago, MrOaktown_56 said:

Then lets tank ffs

Honestly, that is the move. And it should have happened year 1. Instead, they went all in on an average QB and bad roster and now have to sleep in the bed they made.

 

Edited September 19, 2023 by big_palooka

[BackinBlack]

1 minute ago, big_palooka said:

Of course drafting and roster construction matter. But you have to have the QB to make it go consistently. 

That is my point, the teams that consistently make and compete in the playoffs have QBs. 

The next tier of average signal callers will get you to the playoffs every few years, but you won't compete.

The last tier, you're hoping to get lucky. 

Fair enough, I’m stuck because I obviously understand having an elite Qb helps tremendously. It just happens that those teams don’t just throw away draft picks the way we do 🤣

It’s basically just anything other than maybe the top 3 or 4 QBs and you’re going to need help. Yes can sneak into playoffs here and there but if your team is bad you’ll lose quickly in playoffs. 
 

it’s why I don’t want to change head coaches / gms, cause it’ll then be another 2 years of gutting and getting their own guys. 
 

consistency, starts at the top. When you’re changing schemes every 2 years, tough to be consistent. Patrick Mahommes, has had essentially 1 O his entire career, although him winning without Tyreek has a massive statement too.

[big_palooka]

16 minutes ago, NCOUGHMAN said:

Jmd has his qb in jimmy no excuses with the best and most expensive wr core. Brand new shiny rook te that’s the next gronk. He needs to get tray’s speed incorporated in the offense team are just playing us under knowing we can’t take the top off

Jimmy G is a QB he's familiar with. It's not his QB. And no, not trying to make excuses for JMD. He's now tied to the decision to bring in Jimmy G. He could have easily went cheap on Stidham or another vet. 

They attempted to trade to the #1 overall pick for a QB first. And there were a few other things in the works. Jimmy G was the last ditch effort and had familiarity with them. Highly doubt he was the first, second or third choice. 

Edited September 19, 2023 by big_palooka