So much for the NEED to have a "franchise QB"...

[Orton's Arm]

Got it EA.. no issues there. I went on just straight up #'s. getting down to the nitty gritty is good by me. It's when you see a guy throwing for 86 yds in a playoff game that you question his worth. I'll again add this though... he barely hit 50% of his passes... and had barely more TD's than Int's. Serious question... do you think those rule changes made that much of a difference. It' would be interesting to see those by Era. . . .

 

not trying to bash Hoss, but he's not a franchise QB)

In the offense Bradshaw operated in, the emphasis was on the running game and on the deep passing game. If the defense focused on stopping the run, the quarterback was supposed to burn them deep. And if the defense focused on stopping the deep passes, the offensive coordinator was supposed to call a lot of running plays. That style of offense is going to result in a lower completion percentage than would a West Coast offense, at least assuming the quarterbacks in question provide equal levels of play. Using yards per attempt seems like a fairer way of comparing quarterbacks who focus on short, high percentage throws against quarterbacks such as Bradshaw whose job it was to throw longer, lower percentage, higher reward-type passes.

 

That said, one could make the argument that a running back who gets exactly four yards every single carry, with no variation, is more valuable than a running back who gets 0 yards per carry four times out of five, and 20 yards per carry one time out of five. The feast or famine nature of the second running back's carries will kill a lot of drives, whereas the predictability of the first guy will let you sustain drives. One could use similar logic to argue that 7.2 yards per pass attempt from a West Coast quarterback is more valuable than 7.2 yards per attempt from a Steelers of the '70s quarterback, because the West Coast quarterback is going to give you less variation. That reduced variation is going to show up in his higher completion percentage.

 

You made what may or may not be a good point with respect to Bradshaw's poor TD/INT ratio. The Steelers had a good running game, so it's possible they just ran the ball a lot whenever they got close to the endzone. Something like that would make Bradshaw's TD/INT ratio look worse than it should have for something that wasn't his fault. To account for this, I decided to ignore the question of TD passes completely, and look at the question of INTs per pass attempt. Bradshaw threw 210 INTs in 3901 pass attempts, for an INT rate of 5.4%. By way of comparison, Joe Montana threw 139 INTs in 5391 pass attempts, for an INT rate of 2.6%--less than half the interception rate of Bradshaw! Roger Staubach threw 109 INTs in 2958 pass attempts, for an INT rate of 3.7%. Trent Edwards has thrown 30 INTs in 927 attempts, for an INT rate of 3.2%. Jeff Hostetler threw 71 INTs in 2338 attempts, for a rate of 3.0%. Clearly, Bradshaw was not very impressive when it came to avoiding INTs.

 

It's also worth noting that not only did Staubach have a much lower INT percentage than Bradshaw, but he also had a significantly higher yards per attempt. (7.7 for Staubach, 7.2 for Bradshaw.) I think we can safely agree that Bradshaw was noticeably inferior to quarterbacks like Staubach and Montana. As you pointed out yourself, Bradshaw's stats were also helped by the significant amount of talent the Steelers had on offense. I think it's safe to conclude that the Steelers of the '70s won those Super Bowls because of their Steel Curtain defense, and because of their Hall of Fame receivers, and their Pro Bowlers on the offensive line, and their very good RB corps, and the fact that Bradshaw sometimes came up very big, especially in the postseason. The Steelers of the '70s were a lot like the Cowboys of the '90s, in that both teams were so strong on both sides of the ball that it's difficult to use them to support arguments about whether offense or defense is more important. Someone that thinks a Super Bowl winner should have a Hall of Fame QB can point to Troy Aikman, someone who thinks the offensive line is most important can point to the Cowboys' ridiculously good OL, someone who thinks it's the skill positions can point to Michael Irvin, Jay Novacek, Emmitt Smith, and Alvin Harper; and someone who thinks defense is most important can point to the Cowboys' extremely good defense!

[Mr. WEO]

In the offense Bradshaw operated in, the emphasis was on the running game and on the deep passing game. If the defense focused on stopping the run, the quarterback was supposed to burn them deep. And if the defense focused on stopping the deep passes, the offensive coordinator was supposed to call a lot of running plays. That style of offense is going to result in a lower completion percentage than would a West Coast offense, at least assuming the quarterbacks in question provide equal levels of play. Using yards per attempt seems like a fairer way of comparing quarterbacks who focus on short, high percentage throws against quarterbacks such as Bradshaw whose job it was to throw longer, lower percentage, higher reward-type passes.

 

That said, one could make the argument that a running back who gets exactly four yards every single carry, with no variation, is more valuable than a running back who gets 0 yards per carry four times out of five, and 20 yards per carry one time out of five. The feast or famine nature of the second running back's carries will kill a lot of drives, whereas the predictability of the first guy will let you sustain drives. One could use similar logic to argue that 7.2 yards per pass attempt from a West Coast quarterback is more valuable than 7.2 yards per attempt from a Steelers of the '70s quarterback, because the West Coast quarterback is going to give you less variation. That reduced variation is going to show up in his higher completion percentage.

 

You made what may or may not be a good point with respect to Bradshaw's poor TD/INT ratio. The Steelers had a good running game, so it's possible they just ran the ball a lot whenever they got close to the endzone. Something like that would make Bradshaw's TD/INT ratio look worse than it should have for something that wasn't his fault. To account for this, I decided to ignore the question of TD passes completely, and look at the question of INTs per pass attempt. Bradshaw threw 210 INTs in 3901 pass attempts, for an INT rate of 5.4%. By way of comparison, Joe Montana threw 139 INTs in 5391 pass attempts, for an INT rate of 2.6%--less than half the interception rate of Bradshaw! Roger Staubach threw 109 INTs in 2958 pass attempts, for an INT rate of 3.7%. Trent Edwards has thrown 30 INTs in 927 attempts, for an INT rate of 3.2%. Jeff Hostetler threw 71 INTs in 2338 attempts, for a rate of 3.0%. Clearly, Bradshaw was not very impressive when it came to avoiding INTs.

 

It's also worth noting that not only did Staubach have a much lower INT percentage than Bradshaw, but he also had a significantly higher yards per attempt. (7.7 for Staubach, 7.2 for Bradshaw.) I think we can safely agree that Bradshaw was noticeably inferior to quarterbacks like Staubach and Montana. As you pointed out yourself, Bradshaw's stats were also helped by the significant amount of talent the Steelers had on offense. I think it's safe to conclude that the Steelers of the '70s won those Super Bowls because of their Steel Curtain defense, and because of their Hall of Fame receivers, and their Pro Bowlers on the offensive line, and their very good RB corps, and the fact that Bradshaw sometimes came up very big, especially in the postseason. The Steelers of the '70s were a lot like the Cowboys of the '90s, in that both teams were so strong on both sides of the ball that it's difficult to use them to support arguments about whether offense or defense is more important. Someone that thinks a Super Bowl winner should have a Hall of Fame QB can point to Troy Aikman, someone who thinks the offensive line is most important can point to the Cowboys' ridiculously good OL, someone who thinks it's the skill positions can point to Michael Irvin, Jay Novacek, Emmitt Smith, and Alvin Harper; and someone who thinks defense is most important can point to the Cowboys' extremely good defense!

Excellent work, as always, Arm

[Rayzer32]

Here is another reason a franchise QB is so important in winning a championship. Of the teams to have won most of the past 10 SBs, no of them have had a real stud at the RB position, thus making the QB play much more important when opposing defenses know you have to rely primarily on the passing game. Here is a list of the RBs from the Patriots, Steelers, Colts and Saints SB winning teams. Parenthesis are number of winning SBs they played in.

 

NE - JR Redmond(1), Antowain Smith(2), Kevin Faulk(3), Mike Cloud(1), Larry Centers(1), Corey Dillon(1), Cedric Cobbs(1)

Pittsburgh - Jerome Bettis(1), Willie Parker(2), Mewelde Moore(1), Gary Russell(1)

Indianapolis - Dominic Rhodes, Joseph Addai

New Orleans - Pierre Thomas - only had 9 carries, Reggie Bush - only had 5 carries, Mike Bell - had 2 carries.

 

Now to this year we have for the two teams...

 

Pittsburgh - Rashaard Mendenhall, Mewelde Moore.

Green Bay - Brandon Jackson, James Starks.

 

I will say that Pittsburgh has always had a tough defense, but without stud RBs, the QB needs to manage the game. Ben sucked in 06, but he played great in 09.

[McD]

In the offense Bradshaw operated in, the emphasis was on the running game and on the deep passing game. If the defense focused on stopping the run, the quarterback was supposed to burn them deep. And if the defense focused on stopping the deep passes, the offensive coordinator was supposed to call a lot of running plays. That style of offense is going to result in a lower completion percentage than would a West Coast offense, at least assuming the quarterbacks in question provide equal levels of play. Using yards per attempt seems like a fairer way of comparing quarterbacks who focus on short, high percentage throws against quarterbacks such as Bradshaw whose job it was to throw longer, lower percentage, higher reward-type passes.

 

That said, one could make the argument that a running back who gets exactly four yards every single carry, with no variation, is more valuable than a running back who gets 0 yards per carry four times out of five, and 20 yards per carry one time out of five. The feast or famine nature of the second running back's carries will kill a lot of drives, whereas the predictability of the first guy will let you sustain drives. One could use similar logic to argue that 7.2 yards per pass attempt from a West Coast quarterback is more valuable than 7.2 yards per attempt from a Steelers of the '70s quarterback, because the West Coast quarterback is going to give you less variation. That reduced variation is going to show up in his higher completion percentage.

 

You made what may or may not be a good point with respect to Bradshaw's poor TD/INT ratio. The Steelers had a good running game, so it's possible they just ran the ball a lot whenever they got close to the endzone. Something like that would make Bradshaw's TD/INT ratio look worse than it should have for something that wasn't his fault. To account for this, I decided to ignore the question of TD passes completely, and look at the question of INTs per pass attempt. Bradshaw threw 210 INTs in 3901 pass attempts, for an INT rate of 5.4%. By way of comparison, Joe Montana threw 139 INTs in 5391 pass attempts, for an INT rate of 2.6%--less than half the interception rate of Bradshaw! Roger Staubach threw 109 INTs in 2958 pass attempts, for an INT rate of 3.7%. Trent Edwards has thrown 30 INTs in 927 attempts, for an INT rate of 3.2%. Jeff Hostetler threw 71 INTs in 2338 attempts, for a rate of 3.0%. Clearly, Bradshaw was not very impressive when it came to avoiding INTs.

 

It's also worth noting that not only did Staubach have a much lower INT percentage than Bradshaw, but he also had a significantly higher yards per attempt. (7.7 for Staubach, 7.2 for Bradshaw.) I think we can safely agree that Bradshaw was noticeably inferior to quarterbacks like Staubach and Montana. As you pointed out yourself, Bradshaw's stats were also helped by the significant amount of talent the Steelers had on offense. I think it's safe to conclude that the Steelers of the '70s won those Super Bowls because of their Steel Curtain defense, and because of their Hall of Fame receivers, and their Pro Bowlers on the offensive line, and their very good RB corps, and the fact that Bradshaw sometimes came up very big, especially in the postseason. The Steelers of the '70s were a lot like the Cowboys of the '90s, in that both teams were so strong on both sides of the ball that it's difficult to use them to support arguments about whether offense or defense is more important. Someone that thinks a Super Bowl winner should have a Hall of Fame QB can point to Troy Aikman, someone who thinks the offensive line is most important can point to the Cowboys' ridiculously good OL, someone who thinks it's the skill positions can point to Michael Irvin, Jay Novacek, Emmitt Smith, and Alvin Harper; and someone who thinks defense is most important can point to the Cowboys' extremely good defense!

 

Good stuff man.

[Delete This Account]

I provided input and fact... you provided nothing. I think the best you offered was "uh, uh".. like a 7 year old. Do you HAVE input, fact, objective observation? Of course I'd like this in football, not on a review of Brokeback Mountain and the like.

nothing? i provided attempts at humor in this thread, which some of the posters seemed to appreciate.

what is this objective observation crap ... my observation remains that you are wrong based on the subhead of this thread that you started.

brokeback mountain? ... more like broken record on your part.

 

and if you suggest that i've argued like a 7 year old, well, it turns out i should argue like a 5 year old, cause my point -- and that of others here -- stlll hasn't gotten through to you.

 

jw

Edited February 3, 2011 by john wawrow

[the_franchise]

Ben and Rodgers are both franchise QB's so to say you don't need one is like saying you don't need a solid left tackle. You need above average to solid players on both of the lines, a QB that can make the throws, and guys that can get it done at on both sides of the field at every other position. You need everything to have a great team, thus a team sport. You can rank positional need where ever you want but you don't win championships with 2 good players and scrubs filling out the rest of the roster.

[CosmicBills]

 

Both defenses clearly were the difference in tonight's Super Bowl. Another great piece of evidence you can use to support your ridiculous thread title.

[Delete This Account]

Both defenses clearly were the difference in tonight's Super Bowl. Another great piece of evidence you can use to support your ridiculous thread title.

beat me to it tgreg99.

two points to make:

-- the steelers top-ranked defense couldn't win this game alone, as it needed far better quarterback play.

-- as good as the packers defense has been for much of this season, green bay wouldn't have reached the super bowl, never mind won it, without aaron rodgers.

 

jw

[Stenbar]

beat me to it tgreg99.

two points to make:

-- the steelers top-ranked defense couldn't win this game alone, as it needed far better quarterback play.

-- as good as the packers defense has been for much of this season, green bay wouldn't have reached the super bowl, never mind won it, without aaron rodgers.

 

jw

This game wouldnt have been as close as it was had three perfectly thrown balls been butchered...

[dave mcbride]

In the offense Bradshaw operated in, the emphasis was on the running game and on the deep passing game. If the defense focused on stopping the run, the quarterback was supposed to burn them deep. And if the defense focused on stopping the deep passes, the offensive coordinator was supposed to call a lot of running plays. That style of offense is going to result in a lower completion percentage than would a West Coast offense, at least assuming the quarterbacks in question provide equal levels of play. Using yards per attempt seems like a fairer way of comparing quarterbacks who focus on short, high percentage throws against quarterbacks such as Bradshaw whose job it was to throw longer, lower percentage, higher reward-type passes.

 

That said, one could make the argument that a running back who gets exactly four yards every single carry, with no variation, is more valuable than a running back who gets 0 yards per carry four times out of five, and 20 yards per carry one time out of five. The feast or famine nature of the second running back's carries will kill a lot of drives, whereas the predictability of the first guy will let you sustain drives. One could use similar logic to argue that 7.2 yards per pass attempt from a West Coast quarterback is more valuable than 7.2 yards per attempt from a Steelers of the '70s quarterback, because the West Coast quarterback is going to give you less variation. That reduced variation is going to show up in his higher completion percentage.

 

You made what may or may not be a good point with respect to Bradshaw's poor TD/INT ratio. The Steelers had a good running game, so it's possible they just ran the ball a lot whenever they got close to the endzone. Something like that would make Bradshaw's TD/INT ratio look worse than it should have for something that wasn't his fault. To account for this, I decided to ignore the question of TD passes completely, and look at the question of INTs per pass attempt. Bradshaw threw 210 INTs in 3901 pass attempts, for an INT rate of 5.4%. By way of comparison, Joe Montana threw 139 INTs in 5391 pass attempts, for an INT rate of 2.6%--less than half the interception rate of Bradshaw! Roger Staubach threw 109 INTs in 2958 pass attempts, for an INT rate of 3.7%. Trent Edwards has thrown 30 INTs in 927 attempts, for an INT rate of 3.2%. Jeff Hostetler threw 71 INTs in 2338 attempts, for a rate of 3.0%. Clearly, Bradshaw was not very impressive when it came to avoiding INTs.

 

It's also worth noting that not only did Staubach have a much lower INT percentage than Bradshaw, but he also had a significantly higher yards per attempt. (7.7 for Staubach, 7.2 for Bradshaw.) I think we can safely agree that Bradshaw was noticeably inferior to quarterbacks like Staubach and Montana. As you pointed out yourself, Bradshaw's stats were also helped by the significant amount of talent the Steelers had on offense. I think it's safe to conclude that the Steelers of the '70s won those Super Bowls because of their Steel Curtain defense, and because of their Hall of Fame receivers, and their Pro Bowlers on the offensive line, and their very good RB corps, and the fact that Bradshaw sometimes came up very big, especially in the postseason. The Steelers of the '70s were a lot like the Cowboys of the '90s, in that both teams were so strong on both sides of the ball that it's difficult to use them to support arguments about whether offense or defense is more important. Someone that thinks a Super Bowl winner should have a Hall of Fame QB can point to Troy Aikman, someone who thinks the offensive line is most important can point to the Cowboys' ridiculously good OL, someone who thinks it's the skill positions can point to Michael Irvin, Jay Novacek, Emmitt Smith, and Alvin Harper; and someone who thinks defense is most important can point to the Cowboys' extremely good defense!

 

Actually, Aikman had a very low INT rate, especially in the Cowboys prime years: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/A/AikmTr00.htm . I recommend knocking off his first and last seasons and judging him on the seasons in between. He's not in the HOF because of those seasons. With regard to Aikman, I'll trust the ol' eyeball test: he was one of the most accurate passers I've ever seen, especially because he wasn't asked to be dink-and-dunk West Coast completion percentage stat padder.

 

Re: Bradshaw, yes, his numbers were quite high, but you might want to knock out his first couple of seasons when he was very weak. His INT rate his first season was 11 percent.

Edited February 7, 2011 by dave mcbride

[Saint Doug]

If anything, this game argues for the need of a franchise QB. No way GB wins it with a Dilfer-type QB.

[Buffalo Barbarian]

Are we really still running this thread You need a franchise QB ...and defense and a good running game to win superbowls.

[trolls_r_us]

can anyone actually still say with a straight face that Ryan Fitzpatrick could have won tonight's game?

 

Two of the best defenses in football, and Rogers tossed 3 TD for the win.

 

If anything maybe this will help the delusional awake from their fantasyland where the Bills are "fine" at QB.

 

Sure, if the goal is to go 8-8, they're cool. If the goal is to WIN a Super Bowl, then they are going to need to find a REAL QB in this draft. And there will be at least one. Maybe it's round 2, or 3, or 4 or 1... It's Nix's job to FIND ONE.

[McD]

OMG!!! I LOVE this... you are all still hammering this, yet NOBODY seems to see that GB had what... 3 T.O's INCLUDING a defensive TD and it's still all about Aaron Rodgers huh?? Too damned funny. So Aaron gets all of those pts WITHOUT the D's help right?!?! You're a damend JOKE if you claim otherwise. What did GB have... 21 pts off of T.O's?? YEP.. it's ALL about the QB. Nice to see how the MVP voting is set up to make the QB the "man". Without the D, GB has no chance at tonights win. Funny thing is.. I think Rodgers had a hell of a game, but again... he DOES NOT have those chances without his D... NOT AT ALL...

 

And... so "FRANCHISE" Ben has the game in his hands... more than 2 minutes to go down and score... and yet....??? Here it is... for ALL of you franchise QB guys... here's his chance... and he does...................................NOTHING!!!! But... why does he do nothing? Because he's playing against a KICK ASS DEFENSE!! Lol... y'all are just too funny!

 

D.... D.... D.... D!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All Day long!

 

can anyone actually still say with a straight face that Ryan Fitzpatrick could have won tonight's game?

 

Two of the best defenses in football, and Rogers tossed 3 TD for the win.

 

If anything maybe this will help the delusional awake from their fantasyland where the Bills are "fine" at QB.

 

Sure, if the goal is to go 8-8, they're cool. If the goal is to WIN a Super Bowl, then they are going to need to find a REAL QB in this draft. And there will be at least one. Maybe it's round 2, or 3, or 4 or 1... It's Nix's job to FIND ONE.

 

Did you NOT watch the Bills against the Steelers earlier this year?? If Stevie catches not one, but TWO perfectly thrown TD's from Fitz, the Bills win... Fitz has enough to win... now go get Marcel Dareus!

 

If anything, this game argues for the need of a franchise QB. No way GB wins it with a Dilfer-type QB.

 

Why...? Because you say so? NEXT!

 

It's a great thing to have a franchise QB, BUT.... get a damned D first!

[Delete This Account]

OMG!!! I LOVE this... you are all still hammering this, yet NOBODY seems to see that GB had what... 3 T.O's INCLUDING a defensive TD and it's still all about Aaron Rodgers huh?? Too damned funny. So Aaron gets all of those pts WITHOUT the D's help right?!?! You're a damend JOKE if you claim otherwise. What did GB have... 21 pts off of T.O's?? YEP.. it's ALL about the QB. Nice to see how the MVP voting is set up to make the QB the "man". Without the D, GB has no chance at tonights win. Funny thing is.. I think Rodgers had a hell of a game, but again... he DOES NOT have those chances without his D... NOT AT ALL...

 

And... so "FRANCHISE" Ben has the game in his hands... more than 2 minutes to go down and score... and yet....??? Here it is... for ALL of you franchise QB guys... here's his chance... and he does...................................NOTHING!!!! But... why does he do nothing? Because he's playing against a KICK ASS DEFENSE!! Lol... y'all are just too funny!

 

D.... D.... D.... D!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All Day long!

 

 

 

Did you NOT watch the Bills against the Steelers earlier this year?? If Stevie catches not one, but TWO perfectly thrown TD's from Fitz, the Bills win... Fitz has enough to win... now go get Marcel Dareus!

 

 

 

Why...? Because you say so? NEXT!

 

It's a great thing to have a franchise QB, BUT.... get a damned D first!

your comments above appear to be the last gasps of the logically addled and clinically blind. you hold so dear to whatever obtuse point you were attempting to make that it's now become evident that many of us here have come to the conclusion that the only point you've made is that of your own hard-headedness and unbending ability toward reason or what's plainly obvious.

you are like those who persistently argued the world is flat, that the sun revolves around the earth and that this automobile thing will never catch on.

 

but to your laughable retorts:

-- so you're saying that someone like, say, Trent Edwards as the Packers quarterback, would've won that game yesterday?

-- you've talked ad naseaum how the best defenses win. then why couldn't the steelers defense overcome Roethlisberger's struggles?

-- some of us did watch the bills game against the steelers, and likely had a different memory than yours. how the steelers defense "won" that game is arguable, considering the steelers themselves talked afterward of how they were already walking off the field when seeing Stevie Johnson alone in the end zone with the ball coming toward him. the defense didn't cause that drop. Stevie Johnson dropped it all on his own.

-- and you then completely contradict the initial point that you've been attempting to make with your last line.

 

after initially positing that D wins period, you have now come around to many others way of thinking by acknowledging that "it's a great thing to have a franchise QB."

that you elected to add a "BUT" is further proof that you don't get it. and perhaps, i don't either because this response may well be proof that i'm a bigger fool for continuing what's clearly become an exercise in pure, utter, 100-proof futility.

 

jw

Edited February 7, 2011 by john wawrow

[Beerball]

OMG!!! I LOVE this... you are all still hammering this, yet NOBODY seems to see that GB had what... 3 T.O's INCLUDING a defensive TD and it's still all about Aaron Rodgers huh?? Too damned funny. So Aaron gets all of those pts WITHOUT the D's help right?!?! You're a damend JOKE if you claim otherwise. What did GB have... 21 pts off of T.O's?? YEP.. it's ALL about the QB. Nice to see how the MVP voting is set up to make the QB the "man". Without the D, GB has no chance at tonights win. Funny thing is.. I think Rodgers had a hell of a game, but again... he DOES NOT have those chances without his D... NOT AT ALL...

 

And... so "FRANCHISE" Ben has the game in his hands... more than 2 minutes to go down and score... and yet....??? Here it is... for ALL of you franchise QB guys... here's his chance... and he does...................................NOTHING!!!! But... why does he do nothing? Because he's playing against a KICK ASS DEFENSE!! Lol... y'all are just too funny!

 

D.... D.... D.... D!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All Day long!

 

 

 

Did you NOT watch the Bills against the Steelers earlier this year?? If Stevie catches not one, but TWO perfectly thrown TD's from Fitz, the Bills win... Fitz has enough to win... now go get Marcel Dareus!

 

 

 

Why...? Because you say so? NEXT!

 

It's a great thing to have a franchise QB, BUT.... get a damned D first!

WOW!? We must have been watching different games. GB won this game because of Aaron Rodgers. Was GBs defense a big factor? Absolutely, but...without Rodgers that isn't a game. He has 100% responsibility for the offense, makes the line calls, makes the reads and he delivers the football where it belongs like we haven't seen in a few years. Personally I'd go back to Steve Young for comparisons.

 

One of the things that happens when you start threads like this, when you state absolutes, is that you are absolutely proven wrong. The best thing you could do right now is lock down this thread.

[Alphadawg7]

OMG!!! I LOVE this... you are all still hammering this, yet NOBODY seems to see that GB had what... 3 T.O's INCLUDING a defensive TD and it's still all about Aaron Rodgers huh?? Too damned funny. So Aaron gets all of those pts WITHOUT the D's help right?!?! You're a damend JOKE if you claim otherwise. What did GB have... 21 pts off of T.O's?? YEP.. it's ALL about the QB. Nice to see how the MVP voting is set up to make the QB the "man". Without the D, GB has no chance at tonights win. Funny thing is.. I think Rodgers had a hell of a game, but again... he DOES NOT have those chances without his D... NOT AT ALL...

 

And... so "FRANCHISE" Ben has the game in his hands... more than 2 minutes to go down and score... and yet....??? Here it is... for ALL of you franchise QB guys... here's his chance... and he does...................................NOTHING!!!! But... why does he do nothing? Because he's playing against a KICK ASS DEFENSE!! Lol... y'all are just too funny!

 

D.... D.... D.... D!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All Day long!

 

 

 

Did you NOT watch the Bills against the Steelers earlier this year?? If Stevie catches not one, but TWO perfectly thrown TD's from Fitz, the Bills win... Fitz has enough to win... now go get Marcel Dareus!

 

 

 

Why...? Because you say so? NEXT!

 

It's a great thing to have a franchise QB, BUT.... get a damned D first!

 

This has gotten comical...I love how you clearly skipped over my 3 posts on the previous page like this one I am about to paste below that show all your flip flopping (depending on what pointless rant you are on at the time) and all the times you contradict yourself throughout this thread. My favorite though is what I am going to repost yet again below:

 

"The best part is this...YOU defeat your own argument MANY times in this very thread and again in this very post. Every single time you say "If Luck was there you take him" is completely counter to your argument of "Defense wins...PERIOD!!!" and yet you dont even realize it. If defense wins period, then you still dont take Luck and go defense...but the TRUTH of the matter is that a franchise QB will make a BIGGER impact on this organization than a franchise DL right now...so clearly, "Defense wins...PERIOD!!!" is not an accurate stance and you clearly seem to know that as you would also take Luck (who is a QB) over a defensive player if he was there at #3..."

 

PS: In case you missed it, you are also getting pwned by JW, so maybe its time to just throw in towel McD...

[whodat]

So, down goes Manning, down goes Brees, down goes Flacco, down goes Vick, down goes Ryan, down goes Brady....

 

To all of you that think we NEED a QB at #3 this year (none worthy at #3), once again... here is a CLASSIC example of the need for a solid defense. This years defenses prove once again, that a top D is the tonic this team needs. It will give this team the attitude this team and city needs. You want to grab a QB in the third? Ok... no issues, but that better be after a selection of a DE/DT and a LB. Buddy... SOLIDIFY the D through the draft AND through FA. Don't bank on Merriman being "the man"... he's an unknown at this time. Go draft help, go pay the $$ for FA help... The O can use an RT an TE and some depth too... BUT... I hope you're paying attention this post season... D, D, D, D, D, D!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well done. I'll take my franchise Qb where GB took theirs and where NE got theirs. Let's first match their 'D' because offense has a lot of parts in place. Defense is like a wind barometer. I want a hurricane on my side.

 

your comments above appear to be the last gasps of the logically addled and clinically blind. you hold so dear to whatever obtuse point you were attempting to make that it's now become evident that many of us here have come to the conclusion that the only point you've made is that of your own hard-headedness and unbending ability toward reason or what's plainly obvious.

you are like those who persistently argued the world is flat, that the sun revolves around the earth and that this automobile thing will never catch on.

 

but to your laughable retorts:

-- so you're saying that someone like, say, Trent Edwards as the Packers quarterback, would've won that game yesterday?

-- you've talked ad naseaum how the best defenses win. then why couldn't the steelers defense overcome Roethlisberger's struggles?

-- some of us did watch the bills game against the steelers, and likely had a different memory than yours. how the steelers defense "won" that game is arguable, considering the steelers themselves talked afterward of how they were already walking off the field when seeing Stevie Johnson alone in the end zone with the ball coming toward him. the defense didn't cause that drop. Stevie Johnson dropped it all on his own.

-- and you then completely contradict the initial point that you've been attempting to make with your last line.

 

after initially positing that D wins period, you have now come around to many others way of thinking by acknowledging that "it's a great thing to have a franchise QB."

that you elected to add a "BUT" is further proof that you don't get it. and perhaps, i don't either because this response may well be proof that i'm a bigger fool for continuing what's clearly become an exercise in pure, utter, 100-proof futility.

 

jw

edited for content...mod

[DreReed83]

Looks like the franchise QB got the better of the best defense.

[Fan in San Diego]

Are we really still running this thread You need a franchise QB ...and defense and a good running game to win superbowls.

 

This is true, what we should be discussing, on the road to respectability as a football team, do we build up the defense first or get a QB first?