Om Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 OF, Joe Montana. Danny Wuerffel. You are unable to articulate any meaningful differences? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonnyJ Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 I have to admit. You're much better at posturing than you are at debate.You mean the fact that QBs in Bart Starr's day also were responsible for the duties that now belong to sideline coaches with help from the booth doesn't count for much with you? Empirical evidence? It isn't logical to you that the QB on a passing team is more important to his club than one on a running team whose job is mostly handoffs? What does this have to do with the relative importance of the QB position? Can you explain? The game's complexity affects all the positions as well as the coaching, not just the QB position True. But this additional responsibility does not offset the downgrading of importance to the position which happened when the play calling went to the sidelines. God is in the MACHINE!!! :excited: Thanks for showing your true colors, old man . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 OF,Joe Montana. Danny Wuerffel. You are unable to articulate any meaningful differences? Why should I? When I posed the Bradshaw question in the post to zoony, I explained it's relevance. Then, I explained it twice more in subsequent posts. I still don't have a response from anyone. All I'm asking is that you explain the relevance of your request just once. Show relevance and I'll give you a full, detailed answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 I do hope this goes on for a while, these threads are a great spectator sport in themselves. Om- +1 for the Mashism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCSaints_fan 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. 1991-Mark Rypien -Not the best career but was great for a short time. 1992, 93, and 95-Troy Aikman -HOFer. 1994-Steve Young -HOFer. 1996-Brett Favre -HOFer. 1997 and 98-John Elway -HOFer. 1999-Kurt Warner -Great but short career including a couple of MVPs. 2000-Trent Dilfer -The only real exception to the rule. 2001, 03, and 04-Tom Brady -Future HOFer. 2002-Brad Johnson. -Very solid QB for a long time. See Phil Simms. 2005-Ben Roethlisberger -Still young but has established himself as one of the top QBs in the game already. 2006-Peyton Manning -Future HOFer. 2007-Eli Manning -Inconsistent in the regular season but was great during the Giants playoff run. It's ALL about the QBs. Get a great QB and your chances go way up. All those teams had top ten defenses, too. In fact the only team to win it all without a top ten defense since the Oakland Raiders in '83 was the '06 Colts. And their defense stepped it up big time in the playoffs when Bob Sanders came back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Things every knowledgeable football fan should know: "It's all about the quarterback" "Football games are won and lost in the trenches" "It's all about ball control; gotta run the rock" "Run the football, stop the run...that's all there is to it" "Offense wins games, defenses win championships" "Offense is all about the O line" "The NFL is a coaches league" "The NFL is a passing league" "The turnover ratio rules" "Time of possession rules" "You can't pass the football in cold weather" "It takes four years years to develop a QB" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselPwr44 Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Things every knowledgeable football fan should know:"It's all about the quarterback" "Football games are won and lost in the trenches" "It's all about ball control; gotta run the rock" "Run the football, stop the run...that's all there is to it" "Offense wins games, defenses win championships" "Offense is all about the O line" "The NFL is a coaches league" "The NFL is a passing league" "The turnover ratio rules" "Time of possession rules" "You can't pass the football in cold weather" "It takes four years years to develop a QB" In your younger days, I bet you were one hell of a dodgeball player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 In your younger days, I bet you were one hell of a dodgeball player. Which of those truths you quoted about the game of football do you believe in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNumberOne Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 Which of those truths you quoted about the game of football do you believe in? What's funny is "the exception" is the whole point in disproving a "truth." A truth is not a TRUTH with an exception. Dilfer, 2000 Ravens. It's obviously not absolutely necessary to have a great QB to win a Super Bowl, the ultimate goal of any football team. That's the ultimate example. I could argue that Big Ben is also not a "great" but he had the benefit of a pretty good team around him (pretty good being my sarcastic understatement). And if we include playoff berths, I'll throw in Kordell Stewart. The Steelers are great for this, because their defenses have been so strong over the years, because teams win NFL games. And there are a lot of things interacting in that concept (defenses, OL, of course QB, coaching, etc). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robotfire Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 I love being able to talk about our quarterback and actually feel good about the present. For the record, I always believed he was the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted October 9, 2008 Share Posted October 9, 2008 What's funny is "the exception" is the whole point in disproving a "truth." A truth is not a TRUTH with an exception. I'm not that demanding. If the quarterback-is-the-dominant-factor crowd could offer evidence that what they believe is generally true, I'd happily allow a few exceptions. But, they have no evidence to offer. They give you the names of QBs who have won Super Bowls and think they've made their case merely by claiming that these names prove that the QB was the dominant factor. Their lists aren't as impressive when they get away from that format. Here's zoony's list of the top QBs from 2005 who were his solid bets to lead their teams to elite status in the future: Peyton Manning Michael Vick Tom Brady Ben Roethlisburger Carson Palmer Jake Delhomme Matt Hasselbeck Peyton is struggling to win this year. Vick was going nowere even before the suspension. Brady has been solid. Rothlesberger hasn't approached the level he played at in 2005. Carson Palmer, probably the best passer in the NFL, can't win. Delhomme, benched in 2006, is playing better this year. Hasselbeck's fortunes have been up and down. Zoony picked this list because they were All-Pros in 2005 to prove how outstanding QBs dominated the playoffs that year. Do they look outstanding now? That list looked like dynamite in 2005. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SearchHorizon Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Things every knowledgeable football fan should know:"Football games are won and lost in the trenches" "It's all about ball control; gotta run the rock" "Run the football, stop the run...that's all there is to it" "Offense wins games, defenses win championships" "Offense is all about the O line" "The NFL is a coaches league" "The NFL is a passing league" "The turnover ratio rules" "Time of possession rules" "You can't pass the football in cold weather" "It takes four years years to develop a QB" Based on your posts, you are suggesting that much of Skin's current success has to do with coaching. More specifically, that Zorn has much to do with Skin's turnaround than the quality of Skin's QB. I agree with that. I am not sure why some posters are even arguing that. On a side note, one thing posters in this thread seem to forget is that, last year, we had an inordinate number of injuries to our OL, in addition to our normal share of injuries to DL, cornerbacks, etc. Our success this year, I believe, has a lot more to do with the fact that we don't have a string of injuries at DL or OL. (If you go back to last year's game films, Skins were not doing that bad until the injury bug bit.) "Football games are won and lost in the trenches." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Based on your posts, you are suggesting that much of Skin's current success has to do with coaching. More specifically, that Zorn has much to do with Skin's turnaround than the quality of Skin's QB. I agree with that. I am not sure why some posters are even arguing that.On a side note, one thing posters in this thread seem to forget is that, last year, we had an inordinate number of injuries to our OL, in addition to our normal share of injuries to DL, cornerbacks, etc. Our success this year, I believe, has a lot more to do with the fact that we don't have a string of injuries at DL or OL. (If you go back to last year's game films, Skins were not doing that bad until the injury bug bit.) "Football games are won and lost in the trenches." Hey, SH We haven't heard from you for a while, have we? I'll tell you what's going on in this thread. For me, this is just the latest in my campaign to discredit a relatively small, but persistent crowd that includes Om, zoony and SonnyJ that offers a completely invalid argument in support of their notion that the QB factor dominates in weight when asking the question, what makes an elite team elite. I maintain that their argument is circular reasoning: They look at the list of super bowl winners and claim that nearly every QB on it was outstanding. Thing is, they have no way of objectively grading the QB's individual performance since it can't be separated from his teammates... offense, defense, special teams and coaches. They end up assuming the QB was outstanding because his team was successful. They even want to see the Redskins rise as evidence for their argument when it's just the opposite. It's like they think that Jason Campbell just showed up this season and it all clicked. Coaching and scheme had nothing to do with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 OF, The relatively small crowd that understands the impact of an elite quarterback in NFL football includes Om, zoony, SonnyJ, Vince Lombardi, Joe Gibbs, Bill Belichick, Bill Polian, your personal hero AJ Smith ... and just about every NFL coach or personnel man or longtime observer that you have apparently never heard. As to your continued cartoonish insistence that this is a black/white, all or nothing question, rock on. It's all you got, so run with it. As to your inability to understand the relevance of Montana/Wuerffel and insistence on hiding behind that to avoid answering the question, that's entirely understandable too. YOu're not much for intellectual honesty, but you're clearly bright enough to know that to give a meaningful answer to the question is to immediately undercut your untenable position. So keep obfuscating brother. Ya gotta dance with what brung ya. Here, couple more as a parting gift: Any difference between Patriot Drew Bledsoe and Tom Brady? How about Steve Young and Jeff Garcia? How about Drew Brees and Anthony Wright? How about Cowboy Drew Bledsoe vs. Tony Romo sits to pee? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morneblade Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 :munchout:Gotta admit, it's funny seeing OF making himself look like an idiot again. But I'm glad I'm not this dance. I'll just sit back and watch the fireworks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocnrik Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 the center of the field..the QB,RB,OL...The dl,mlb,saftey....that is why i dont like us using high draft picks on wr..if you have great players in the center you are bound to be a winner..I KNOW that was lame.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonnyJ Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 The relatively small crowd that understands the impact of an elite quarterback in NFL football includes...Vince Lombardi... Cripes, Om, didn't you read OF's post about how that old fossil Lombardi's statements about the QB don't apply to today's game because the QB isn't as important? Today's QB doesn't call his own plays and is just a robot programmed to run some coach's designated scheme and only brings to bear what that coach has taught him to do. I would think you would understand it by now - he sure as heck has convinced me . Here is the central fact of the NFL (and, presumably, life in general): God is in the MACHINE. :excited: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Om: The relatively small crowd that understands the impact of an elite quarterback in NFL football includes Om, zoony, SonnyJ, Vince Lombardi, Joe Gibbs, Bill Belichick, Bill Polian, your personal hero AJ Smith ... and just about every NFL coach or personnel man or longtime observer that you have apparently never heard.Unsupported assertion. Links to quotes please.As to your continued cartoonish insistence that this is a black/white, all or nothing question, rock on. It's all you got, so run with it.You are either overrating the value of the QB or you aren't. That's black or white. You can either present evidence for your position or you can't. That's black or white. Your argument for your position either makes sense or it doesn't. That's also black or white.As to your inability to understand the relevance of Montana/Wuerffel and insistence on hiding behind that to avoid answering the question, that's entirely understandable too.I told you three times, I'd answer your question if you would only tell me why you think it's relevant. YOu're not much for intellectual honesty...You don't know what it means.... but you're clearly bright enough to know that to give a meaningful answer to the question is to immediately undercut your untenable position.Crapola. I want you pinned down on why you think the question is relevant because I don't think you can deliver it without tripping up.Here, couple more as a parting gift:Any difference between Patriot Drew Bledsoe and Tom Brady? How about Steve Young and Jeff Garcia? How about Drew Brees and Anthony Wright? How about Cowboy Drew Bledsoe vs. Tony Romo sits to pee? Well, of course there is. So what? What is the relevance of your questions in this discussion? What does this have to do with the impact value of the QB position?Alright. Since it's likely you will duck these questions as well, I'll come clean. I think I know where you've gotten confused, but I wanted you on record trying to explain yourself. Let's work with the Bledsoe-Romo sits to pee situation. After Romo sits to pee entered, the Dallas offense suddenly became efficient. So, you are probably assuming that this is evidence of the unique importance of the QB position alone. It's not. It's equal evidence that the other ten parts of the Dallas offense were much better than they appeared to be with Bledsoe at QB. If the other ten parts had been lousy, the change to Romo sits to pee wouldn't have made much difference. In effect, you need to take your evidence and give the QB position half-credit when explaining the improvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 not really sure how you can use matt cassell as your main evidence to your theory. sure, it can help you build a case against belichick for being dumb enough to have a guy that hasn't started a game since college as his only back up to brady. i agree with the guy that says everyone wants to either over simplify the game or make rocket science out of it. imo, truth is, you put a healthy brady behind the worst o-line in the league, and you don't get the results you'd get if you put a crappy qb behind the best o-line in the league. of course, nothing is absolute when talking about these things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 OF,Feel free to duck this, but ... define the difference between Joe Montana and Danny Weurffel. bill walsh > steve spurrier jerry rice > rod gardner roger craig > trung canidate is that what you were looking for? edit: also, joe montana > danny weurffel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 :munchout:Gotta admit, it's funny seeing OF making himself look like an idiot again. But I'm glad I'm not this dance. I'll just sit back and watch the fireworks. I'm glad you showed up, MB. My opponents need your help. They ducked this question. If you can answer it for them, you can prove me wrong. Their side presents a list of Super Bowl winners and their QBs as evidence to support their position. They point to it and claim that all but a few on the list are outstanding QBs. Now, let's use Terry Bradshaw as an example of one of their prize QBs. Suppose I were to say that Bradshaw was not an outstanding QB. He was an average QB surrounded by outstanding talent, probably the best talent ever assembled on an NFL team. How would you go about proving me wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 Suppose I were to say that Bradshaw was not an outstanding QB. He was an average QB surrounded by outstanding talent, probably the best talent ever assembled on an NFL team. How would you go about proving me wrong? by saying stick to the salary cap era. unless you're talking about vince lombardi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 by saying stick to the salary cap era.unless you're talking about vince lombardi. Are you saying they have to duck the question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MD.C RedskinsFan Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 I'm not stupid :cry: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fansince62 Posted October 10, 2008 Share Posted October 10, 2008 what a silly thread. some obvious truths: - talent does not equate to success - on balance, at every position, one prefers greater talent to lesser talent. this includes QB. so, yea, Brady over a Weurffel is a no brainer. assuming, of course, that the stellar QB actually suits the system he is playing in (hmmmmm...was that an issue in DC for Campbell?) - hearing Redskins fans extol the virtues of stellar QBs is somewhat comical in the context of other threads in which they scream the praises of Joe Gibbs, who they proudly assert, has won SBs with different QBs none of whom were elite. - it is obvious that even among elite QBs not every one of them, by virtue of his presence and ability, was the necessary AND sufficient condition for victory. very clearly, Brady has been unable to manage this whenever the NE O-line or LB corps has suffered. McNabb only reached the SB when he was blessed with an elite wideout. it should be obvious that the consumate team sport requires execution from all parts. it is also obvious that the QB is involved in more aspects of the offense on any given play than any other position and therefore the most important position. he is the one making all the key decisions - certainly in the passing game. it stands to reason that a qaulity/elite QB is a vital factor to overall success. that said, with the rare exception of players like Elway (who also could not win Championships until surrounded with superior players like terrel davis)...what is the metric that one measures criticality by? was McMahon the key to the '85 bears offense or was Walter Payton? Did the Skins SB victory in '87 have its source in Doug William's or the phenomenal O-line play? how do you meaure this to quantitatively discriminate in any meaningful way in what is inherently a team sport? in my mind.....the argument can only go this far: having an upper echelon QB, in most cases, is a necessary condition to success. it is not, however, a sufficient condition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.