Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Why you need a QB, but don't necessarily need a running game to win


Warhead36

Recommended Posts

I saw some interesting stats on NFL.com.

Of the 10 highest rated QBs in the NFL, 9 will make the playoffs. The only one that won't will be either Eli or Romo sits to pee, whoever loses this week. I'm also counting Schaub in this list as he'd obviously be starting if it weren't for injury.

I also looked at the ten teams with the best rushing attacks(looking at team rushing YPG). Of those ten, three are locks to make the playoffs in New Orleans, Houston, and San Francisco. All three of these teams, however, have top 10 rated QBs this year.

There are two other teams in the rushing list, Denver and Oakland, who may or may not make the playoffs. One of them obviously will, so really of the top 10 rushing teams in the league only ONE(maybe two if some fluky stuff goes down) will make the playoffs that didn't have a very good passing game to go with it.

In simple terms, if you can throw the ball effectively, you're basically a lock to be a playoff team. But if you can only run it, you're not as likely to be successful, although you still can.

How does this relate to us? Simple. We NEED to get a franchise QB so we can have a top flight passing game. A top flight passing game will make what's looking like a soon to be great running game even better, and will have us in the playoffs. Not addressing QB will reduce our chances of success big time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peyton Manning

Drew Brees

Tom Brady

Defense doesn't win championships anymore. The NFL has done everything in their power to maximize the passing game, in 2004 they pretty much accomplished that goal with the new rules for CBs. You NEED a topflight QB if you want to make it to the playoffs regularly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

btw, this is wrong.

The 2004 rules were not new. It was a change, yes, but it was a change in how the rules were enforced. You were never supposed to make contact with WRs downfield past 5 yards (unless incidental). It had been that way since the 80s, it was just inconsistently enforced. Now the rules are consistently enforced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

btw, this is wrong.

The 2004 rules were not new. It was a change, yes, but it was a change in how the rules were enforced. You were never supposed to make contact with WRs downfield past 5 yards (unless incidental). It had been that way since the 80s, it was just inconsistently enforced. Now the rules are consistently enforced.

Regardless of the how or why, it's had a huge impact on the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting stats indeed; I guess with the rule changes on hitting QBs and WRs, the league really is changing. An elite QB is becoming a necessity if you want to make the playoffs.

Saying that, I would still be happy if we traded down again this year, got some extra picks and upgraded other positions first (DB, OL, ILB, NT, WR) rather than blowing the lot to move up and get a franchise QB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It also helps to throw more TD than interceptions. Sounds obvious right but seriously more than over all turnover differential, this season this stat has mattered.

TD - Int = diff Team

45 - 7 = 38 Green Bay Packers

41 - 13 = 28 New Orleans Saints

36 - 11 = 25 New England Patriots

36 - 14 = 22 Detroit Lions

31 - 11 = 20 Dallas Cowboys

27 - 12 = 15 Atlanta Falcons

16 - 5 = 11 San Francisco 49ers

26 - 16 = 10 New York Giants

19 - 9 = 10 Houston Texans

24 - 15 = 9 New York Jets

20 - 12 = 8 Baltimore Ravens

19 - 11 = 8 Miami Dolphins

21 - 14 = 7 Cincinnati Bengals

20 - 13 = 7 Denver Broncos

21 - 15 = 6 Pittsburgh Steelers

20 - 14 = 6 Minnesota Vikings

20 - 14 = 6 Tennessee Titans

24 - 19 = 5 San Diego Chargers

20 - 16 = 4 Carolina Panthers

16 - 12 = 4 Cleveland Browns

22 - 21 = 1 Buffalo Bills

14 - 13 = 1 Seattle Seahawks

13 - 12 = 1 Indianapolis Colts

8 - 8 = 0 St. Louis Rams

20 - 22 = -2 Arizona Cardinals

17 - 19 = -2 Chicago Bears

18 - 22 = -4 Oakland Raiders

11 - 15 = -4 Jacksonville Jaguars

19 - 24 = -5 Philadelphia Eagles

18 - 23 = -5 Washington Redskins

13 - 18 = -5 Kansas City Chiefs

15 - 21 = -6 Tampa Bay Buccaneers

Notice this isn't about scoring more the most points in general. This is purely passing TD versus interceptions thrown. Notice that in the bottom half of that list there are no qualified teams for the post season and only two teams still alive going into week 17. If you simply look at the highest scoring teams the post season qualifiers aren't as concentrated at the top as this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having a great QB isn't the recipe for a Superbowl. The teams that win the most in the playoffs are the ones who most consistently control the LoS.

The great QBs that win Superbowls get great play from the guys on the LoS.

The effect of a great QB is felt most during the course of the regular season. A great QB gives you a large margin for error--he can win you games even when the rest of your team is making mistakes and/or not playing their best football. This adds up over a long term measure like a season, particularly when most of your opponents can't match your level QB play. But in the one and done atmosphere of the playoffs, a bad day at the LoS is usually fatal.

But it's always been true (and probably always will be) that you have to take your defense and running game with you when you hit the road in the winter for your toughest games. You've got to control that line. The level of QB play on the other side will match your own in the playoffs no matter how good it is. You need to win up front to get the edge.

Why did the Saints beat the Colts when the QBs were pretty much evenly matched? Because the Saints dominated the Colts on both sides of the LoS. Why did the Packers beat the Steelers? They dominated them on both sides of the LoS. Ditto for Steelers over Cardinals and Giants over Patriots in the years before that. If anything, the less effective QB won those Superbowls, largely because of their team's play at the line.

You can build a consistent playoff participant with only a great QB and a mediocre roster around them. But you won't win championships without a balanced roster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having a great QB isn't the recipe for a Superbowl. The teams that win the most in the playoffs are the ones who most consistently control the LoS.

The great QBs that win Superbowls get great play from the guys on the LoS.

The effect of a great QB is felt most during the course of the regular season. A great QB gives you a large margin for error--he can win you games even when the rest of your team is making mistakes and/or not playing their best football. This adds up over a long term measure like a season, particularly when most of your opponents can't match your level QB play. But in the one and done atmosphere of the playoffs, a bad day at the LoS is usually fatal.

But it's always been true (and probably always will be) that you have to take your defense and running game with you when you hit the road in the winter for your toughest games. You've got to control that line. The level of QB play on the other side will match your own in the playoffs no matter how good it is. You need to win up front to get the edge.

Why did the Saints beat the Colts when the QBs were pretty much evenly matched? Because the Saints dominated the Colts on both sides of the LoS. Why did the Packers beat the Steelers? They dominated them on both sides of the LoS. Ditto for Steelers over Cardinals and Giants over Patriots in the years before that. If anything, the less effective QB won those Superbowls, largely because of their team's play at the line.

You can build a consistent playoff participant with only a great QB and a mediocre roster around them. But you won't win championships without a balanced roster.

you basically proved the other guy's point with your example. Saints vs. Colts. Drew Brees vs. Peyton Manning. lesser QBs need not apply. does controlling the line of scrimmage help? yes. but you can't get in that position in the first place without a top-tier QB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can build a consistent playoff participant with only a great QB and a mediocre roster around them. But you won't win championships without a balanced roster.

The difference is, you can find ALL of those other pieces in free agency and the draft, EVERY year. Finding a franchise QB is a whole lot harder. If you have the opportunity to get a QB like Luck, it's worth the gamble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with the thread title. You need to be able to run the able effectively, especially around December and January if you expect to win championships. Sure, I agree that you need a good franchise quarterback, but you need a running game to make it all work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could the mods just combine all of these silly elite QB threads with minimal support in fact. I want to see Brees win a playoff game in the cold in Chicago and then have someone tell me that he doesn't need a running game.

These elite QB teams also have elite lines and elite receivers. Running games are a necessity often but you better have some great tackles to block a less than honest defense.

People who start threads like this make football sound like tennis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It also helps to throw more TD than interceptions. Sounds obvious right but seriously more than over all turnover differential, this season this stat has mattered.

TD - Int = diff Team

45 - 7 = 38 Green Bay Packers

41 - 13 = 28 New Orleans Saints

36 - 11 = 25 New England Patriots...

You absolutely hit the nail on the head. It's not necessarily about passing for success, it's about not making mistakes in the passing game. Take away Rex's ints and he is Eli, Romo sits to pee, Big Ben or Flacco. Someone certainly who can win effectively.

Rex has thrown a pick in 11 straight. Rogers has thrown picks in 11 of his last 26 games. Brady in 11 of his last 35 games.

After 8 years in the league, you can pretty much be assured that Rex cannot win consistently strictly because of his propensity to throw int's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can build a consistent playoff participant with only a great QB and a mediocre roster around them. But you won't win championships without a balanced roster.

MS has been going on about DL and OL since he got here, plus traded for 'game winner' McNabb and tried to trade up for Bradford. I think you and he see things in a very similar way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can twist stats all you want. Yes you need a qb, but you also must have a defense and running game imo. Take the Patriots the last 4 years.

2007 Lost to the Giants (a defense front beat them!!!)

2008 No Playoffs (11-5) with a back up qb

2009 Lost to the Raven!! (a defense team) NE was at home.

2010 Lost the Jets!!! (a defense team) NE again lost at home.

So yes maybe in the afc having a defense and a running game will beat NE again at home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

btw, this is wrong.

The 2004 rules were not new. It was a change, yes, but it was a change in how the rules were enforced. You were never supposed to make contact with WRs downfield past 5 yards (unless incidental). It had been that way since the 80s, it was just inconsistently enforced. Now the rules are consistently enforced.

Yep, those rules were created in 1978 and is pretty much why the record for the most yards passing in a season were set in 1979 and 1984. The contact rules were pretty much enforced even more strictly over that period than today.

---------- Post added December-27th-2011 at 01:37 PM ----------

Regardless of the how or why, it's had a huge impact on the game.

Actually the things that contributed most to the change were rules protecting the QB, not allowing the defense to get OL to jump and the more recent change that prevents defenders from laying out receivers in the act of catching. This year, the lack of practice arguably has hurt tackling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why did the Saints beat the Colts when the QBs were pretty much evenly matched? Because the Saints dominated the Colts on both sides of the LoS.

I don't remember the game in detail, but I do remember that the Saints FAILED to run the ball against the Colts, and it came down to Brees simply outdueling Manning the entire game until the Tracy Porter pick 6.

Why did the Packers beat the Steelers?

The Packers beat the Steelers because Ben had an awful game. Granted, one of the INTs was because he got crushed by someone (can't remember who), but he probably shouldn't have thrown that ball to begin with. I would say that the Packers offense made the Steelers defense a non-factor, but that I think was more a matter of outgameplanning them (they took Polamalu out of the game entirely) than any particular LOS domination.

Ditto for Steelers over Cardinals and Giants over Patriots in the years before that. If anything, the less effective QB won those Superbowls, largely because of their team's play at the line.

The Giants are definitely the example proving your point. Steelers to an extent too.

You can build a consistent playoff participant with only a great QB and a mediocre roster around them. But you won't win championships without a balanced roster.

Nobody doubts that. But people seem to think you can win championships with a balanced roster and a mediocre QB.

The thing about is that the Cardinals, with an absolutely dreadful roster outside Warner, was an absolute miracle throw and catch, one of the greatest in the history of football, away from winning the title. The Colts, even in 2009, probably weren't 3-13 bad sans Manning, but they were probably a 7-9 team with a replacement guy at QB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the title to the thread is a bit argumentative, but makes a good point about the importance of QBs nonetheless.

And based on what we can see a good QB will get you to the playoffs consistently, while a good running game or solid D might get you there 50% of the time.

So while I agree that we would need more pieces before being able to compete for championships, we don't even have the 1st piece.

Ultimately, we can spend years building the perfect team, having mediocre records and maybe a couple playoff years, and then drop the franchise QB into it and be successful, or we can get the QB, be a consistently solid team making the playoffs most years, and then build the team around them. Personally I'd take the latter option, since our franchise has hurt for success for 20 years. The end result is ultimately the same, the question is what do we address first?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom Brady's Oline could not handle the Giants Dline in the SuperBowl and couldn't handle the Jets pressure in last year's playoffs and he got bounced.

Drew Brees couldn't get on the field enough because Seattle ran the ball down the Saints throat and they got bounced.

Peyton Manning struggled for years vs the Pats D because he couldn't figure out their mix of coverage/pressure.

The running game and defense have not diminished in this game,imo.

We'll see what these passing games look like when the winds howling at 35 mph,the grounds froze and the snow is flying........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A franchise QB gives you a chance every year. That's really all you can ask for. Too many things have to go right to win a Super Bowl but with an elite QB, your team will be there come playoff time with a shot. After that, anything can happen. But without a QB you have no chance unless you have an all-time great D which is not something you can actually expect to build.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim Kelly and the Buffalo Bills, anyone? Kelly carried those teams to 4 straight but each time a better balanced team set them packing.

No, it's not all about the QB. It's all of the above.

First off, that just proves OP's point: a Franchise QB will get you to the playoffs consistently, even with a weak run game and/or defense.

And secondly, just going to the playoffs would be considered an improvement from where we are now, and our defense ISN'T weak, and neither is our run game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's how I see it.

During the regular season, the magic question is "Can you score 30?". If you can score 30 against the bottom 25 defenses, then depending on your schedule, you can almost assuredly go 12-4.

But when you get to the playoffs, new questions arise. "Can you score 30 against the top 7 defenses?" and "Can you stop the other team from scoring 30?" Become far more important.

A franchise QB will almost assuredly guarantee you success in the regular season because it answers question one, but it does not necessarily answer questions 2 and 3, which is why the better all around teams go farther in the tournament.

So we must ask ourselves question one, "Can we score 30?" If the answer were yes, I would say we upgrade defense and running game. But the answer is most certainly NOT yes. We rarely score 25. So we start with our QB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The passing game is dominant right now. The best way to stop it is to pressure the passer and force mistakes or to simply keep the ball away from them and force them to execute a lot of plays when they do get it. A strong running game that produces points matched with defense that doesn't allow big plays will force the opposing passing offense to play error free football which is not the strength of s passing game. The other is to have a powerful offense of your own matched with a killer pass rush that forces turnovers. If you have to get into a shoot out it helps to have the cleaner of the two gunslingers in the 4th Qtr.

The running game isnt dead but it's not as strong as a passing game right now. It helps the defense more than it puts points on the board in most cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...