Vicious Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Trent Dilfer is a major exception. I see no reason in pointing that out. Excellent QB's raise your chances of winning a superbowl more than the line does. Look at the Vikings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herrmag Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Trent Dilfer is a major exception. I see no reason in pointing that out. Excellent QB's raise your chances of winning a superbowl more than the line does. Look at the Vikings. You brought him up, didn't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Coaching plays a big role as well. The team has a different attitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicious Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 You brought him up, didn't you? Yeah, I did. It just goes to show how rare it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailGreen28 Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 OTOH, there's very little difference between Tom Brady and Patrick Ramsey when they have no time to throw. I really think O-lines make the QB. Not the other way around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herrmag Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Yeah, I did. It just goes to show how rare it is. Valid argument, but we miss the defense in that argument. There's a number of things that matter. When Pitt won their ring, they were good on both sides. Rothlesbirger (misp) was okay, but they could run the ball. While Romo sits to pee is GOOD, TO helps a lot. There's never one thing that will win a ring. It's a combo of things. QB's don't win SB's alone. Marino is ringless. Elway didn't win rings without Davis. Silly to say one position will do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arsenic Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Jason Candle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Quarterback is the most important position on the field. Ah. A believer. QB Theory: If you have one, you will win. If you build a team around him, you will fly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsFTW Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Look at the QBs who have won Super Bowls since 1990:1990-Phil Simms -Very solid career. Not a HOFer, but a very good QB. You mean Jeff Hostetler, right? But him and Dilfer both benefited from the best defenses in the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 It is stating the obvious to say that the QB is the most important player on the field but he is not the ONLY one. People always like to simplify things and look at the pieces as though they function in a vacuum. The oft repeated observation that "football is a team sport" is not appreciated for how deep and vital it truly is. The synergy between all the various elements, a QB and his line, coaches and players, offense and defense, the D front and secondary, etc., etc., allows an almost infinite number of variable combinations, and no one design is right and the others all wrong. A great O can mask a mediocre D -- a great D can carry a weak O -- great coaching can get more production from mid-range talent. Monk went to the Jets, Montana went to the Chiefs, on and on and on, you can think of a hundred examples of great players that moved and were not able to recapture that success they experienced before. Jason would not being looking as good as he is without Zorn but Zorn would not look like a budding star without Jason's willingness to BE coached. It overlooks the interaction between them to try and assign all the credit to one or the other. These discussions sound like the blind men and the elephant sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frunobulax Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 It's such a huge breath of fresh air from the Patrick Ramsey days. Are you blaming it all on Ramsey?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouvan59 Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 OTOH, there's very little difference between Tom Brady and Patrick Ramsey when they have no time to throw. I really think O-lines make the QB. Not the other way around. The difference is that Tom Brady knows how to buy time by stepping up in the pocket or rolling out when the pressure comes. Ramsey never feels the rush. Almost without fail all great QBs have that knack. It's what kept Drew Bledsoe from the HOF. He had the physical tools to do it but it's no coincidence that both Dallas' and New England's lines were considered horrible when he was in there and as soon as he left all of a sudden became formidable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ouvan59 Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Are you blaming it all on Ramsey?! A good portion of it is on Ramsey. Does anybody remember how a mediocre QB in Tim Hasselbeck was able to come in and make the line look good just by stepping up in the pocket? Spurrier's protection schemes were horrible but it masked the fact that Ramsey was horrible avoiding the rush. Spurrier got blamed for it (and he deserved a lot of it) and Ramsey got a pass for the most part. But if you look at the numbers Ramsey was sacked at almost double the rate (8.9% of pass attemps) as Hasselbeck (5.0%) or Shane Matthews (3.7%) were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCMONEY Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 I think the Skins are running the ball with success. Running the ball will create better pass protection. It kills me when folks keep saying JC or any QB has to go through progressions. Well in order to do that, you have to have blocking. I don't think anyone can go through 3 or 4 progressions when there's no blocking. I've always maintained that Jason can be a solid QB if given the oppurtunity. It just so happens that the Skins are winning now but I think they have to stay with players and a system for a set time before they keep changing. Hopefully this all works out and the Skins make a run to the playoffs and possible Superbowl! :2cents: :point2sky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 If you want to know how important the QB is to teams winning, look at all the teams that have gotten past the first round of the playoffs the past 4 seasons. With the exception of the Rex Grossman led Bears, every team has had an outstanding QB or at the very least, one that was on a tremendous hotstreak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HereComesTheDiesel44 Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 For the most part, though, you look back at players such as Tony Banks, Jeff George, Shane Matthews, Danny Wuerffel, and the degraded Brunell of 2006 and you don't have a difficult time seeing how from the outside in the Redskins were not looked at as a serious contender. I just threw up in my mouth a little Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonnyJ Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?t=128319Don't worry, I take it as a compliment bulldog wrote this in that thread of yours, Zoony: http://www.extremeskins.com/showpost.php?p=1866491&postcount=139 Ah. A believer. QB Theory: If you have one, you will win. If you build a team around him, you will fly. bulldog is truly one of the most respected members of this board (and rightfully so). Getting his endorsement of QB Theory is like a politician getting a key endorsement from a highly influential member of the party. Our ranks are growing, guys. I don't know about you two, but I'm watching the experiment up in Patriot-land with a keen eye. It's hard to tell how that's going, what with the incredibly soft schedule and the bye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zCommander Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 I am not going to read the whole thread but will go off on just the title here: It's the QB coach (a.k.a Zorn) Stupid!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 As always, there is no simple answer.Excellent QB play will elevate production of all on the offense. Excellent line play will allow good QB and RB production. Excellent defense will allow teams to stay in the game and win by fieldgoals. Excellent playcalling will only work if there is proper execution. Excellent execution in all phases wins championships. Right, Tom. You can add the coaching factor to your list. Campbell's career was on the bubble until Zorn got here. Patrick Ramsey had a better record than Campbell as a starter until Zorn got here. Maybe all that Ramsey lacked was Zorn's talent with QBs. It's hard to understand the need of so many fans to oversimplify the game of football while others want to suggest it's like rocket science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COWBOY-KILLA- Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 He didn't just wake up one morning and learn to be a QB. I disagree.....It's the Zman Stupid. Without the zman our QB doesn't take the necessary steps forward. So It's the coach stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 I don't know about you two, but I'm watching the experiment up in Patriot-land with a keen eye. It's hard to tell how that's going, what with the incredibly soft schedule and the bye. Why bother? If you are able to look at the Redskins "experiment" this year and see it as evidence for your simplistic theory, we, your opponents, have no doubt you will see it in "Patriot-land" no matter what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jweisk1 Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 thanks for pointing out the obvious....whats next, are you going to tell me that the team who scores the most points wins! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonnyJ Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Why bother? If you are able to look at the Redskins "experiment" this year and see it as evidence for your simplistic theory, we, your opponents, have no doubt you will see it in "Patriot-land" no matter what happens. God is in the MACHINE! :excited: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNumberOne Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Ah. A believer. QB Theory: If you have one, you will win. If you build a team around him, you will fly. I've barely read the whole thread, but I've participated in some of these debates in the past. Few sports are as much team-oriented as football. It may be a lot harder to win without a "good QB" but it's definitely not impossible. It may take a lot of other pieces clicking very well. The evidence that everyone knows obviously comes from the 2000 Ravens. The reality of the Redskins with Rypien in 1991 was also that the OL was completely dominant. The sack statistics and the fact that we had one of the least mobile QBs known to man (haha) should bear that statement out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 I've barely read the whole thread, but I've participated in some of these debates in the past.Few sports are as much team-oriented as football. It may be a lot harder to win without a "good QB" but it's definitely not impossible. It may take a lot of other pieces clicking very well. The evidence that everyone knows obviously comes from the 2000 Ravens. The reality of the Redskins with Rypien in 1991 was also that the OL was completely dominant. The sack statistics and the fact that we had one of the least mobile QBs known to man (haha) should bear that statement out. 1- stick to the salary cap era 2- you become an NFL GM, you worry about the stars and moons and sun alligning to the point where you can assemble one of the best defenses in the history of the game, all under the salary cap. Me, I'll become a GM and focus on finding "that guy" behind center. Who's going to have better success? 3- The "Dilfer is a terrible QB" argument is just not true. Dilfer was a fine QB- a game manager. Very similar to what we saw out of Collins last year. REmember, that team sucked with Tony Banks. It wasn't until Dilfer took over that they really made their run. 4- Pointing to one or two or even three teams that have managed to enjoy some measure of success with an average QB out of the last 120 teams to have made the playoffs is, you'll have to pardon me, not much evidence of anything other than the QB does matter- moreso than anything. ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.