Big Turk Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 (edited) This has been bandied about for a long time, and while it definitely is easier to win win a good QB, it isn't the be all end all. Exhibit A: Philip Rivers and San Diego. Rivers made the playoffs his first 4 years as a starter when the team was an offensive juggernaut finishing 1st, 5th, 2nd and 4th in the NFL in points per game. However the team has only made the playoffs once in the last 6 seasons(including this year where they are battling with the Browns for the 1 overall draft pick), including missing in 2010, a season where they inexplicably missed the playoffs after finishing the regular season #1 in both offense AND defense---a near impossible feat. Granted, some of this has been bad luck, as the Chargers have finished 9-7 3 times during this stretch, but only made the playoffs one season. They haven't been horrible, other than this year, finishing 8-8 and 7-9 the other 2 seasons, but it flies in the face of logic according to those saying that "all you need is a great QB". By any measure, Rivers HAS been great. Even this season, Rivers is completing over 67% of his passes, throwing 23 TDs vs 9 INT's, averaging over 300 yards per game with a good yards/attempt metric of 7.5 and a QB rating of 97.1. For his career, Rivers has a 95.8 QB rating, a very good 275 TD to 131 INT ratio(slightly over 2 TDs for every INT), a 7.8 Y/A, and a 65% completion percentage. There is nobody out there that can say Rivers isn't a very good, borderline elite QB, but yet his teams have missed the playoffs 5 of the last 6 seasons. Exhibit B: Matt Ryan and Atlanta. Ryan made the playoffs in 4 of his first 5 years as starter, missing out the one season with a 9-7 record. However, the last 3 years has seen Atlanta flailing, including this season where they started 5-0 and are tailing off fast, going 1-6 in their last 7 games, likely missing the playoffs for a 3rd straight season, barring a miraculous turnaround and a collapse by Seattle or Minnesota. Again, Ryan fits the definition of a good to very good QB...career numbers 64.3% completions, 5 straight seasons of more than 4,000 yards(I'm including this year, which is a mere formality if he doesn't get hurt, as he needs barely over 500 yards in the last 4 games), QB Rating of 90.8, Y/A of 7.2, 20 4th Quarter comebacks and 27 Game Winning Drives. Yet the team has been mostly awful the last 3 seasons going a combined 16-28. Again, this dispels the notion a good QB is "all you need". Obviously it isn't, or Atlanta would be in the playoffs every year. Exhibit C: Drew Brees and New Orleans. Brees has put up amazing, HOF worthy, if not record setting numbers in New Orleans, but this will be the 2nd straight season and 3rd in the last 4 years New Orleans will be outside looking in come January. In fact, while New Orleans has never finished lower than 6th in offense while Brees has been there, including 1st 5 times, they have only made the playoffs 5 of his 10 seasons. Brees is not simply a good or very good QB. He is an elite QB, every bit as elite as Brady or Manning has been. Since he has been at New Orleans(10 seasons including this year), he is completing 67.5% of his passes, thrown for an astounding 339 TDs versus only 153 INT(an AVERAGE of 34 TDs versus 15 INT for 10 seasons), led the league in passing yards 5 seasons, thrown for over 5,000 yards 4 seasons, led the league in completion percentage 3 seasons, including 2 seasons over 70%(absolutely ridiculous!), led the league in TD passes 4 times, has an excellent Y/A of 7.7 as his 10 year average, led the league in Yards per game 5 times, and has averaged over 300 yards per game for a SEASON 6 times, including the last 5 seasons straight(and counting), and has a 10 year AVERAGE in New Orleans of 306 yards per game. Brees QB Rating of 98.6 over the last 10 years has been one of the best in football and has led 21 4th quarter comebacks and 28 Game Winning Drives in his time there. These are elite, hall of fame numbers he is putting up, and yet its not enough the last 3 of the last 4 years, and hasn't been enough for 5 of the 10 seasons he has been there. You simply CANNOT play much better at his position than Brees has. People cannot simply say that "All you need is a great QB" anymore...it just isn't true. Yeah, it helps, but in the grand scheme of things its only a piece of the puzzle. A very important piece, no doubt, but just a piece nonetheless...together, these QBs have made 17 pro bowls and 1 all-pro appearance, and yet their teams have missed the playoffs 14 of 28 times...so basically you are looking at a 50% chance... Edited December 11, 2015 by matter2003
Sisyphean Bills Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 It's never been the only thing. A QB can cover some of the flaws on an otherwise good team, but no single player can fix a team that is mostly flawed. Taking Drew Brees: the guy is an amazing QB and fun as hell to watch, but that Saints team is horribly flawed. Their defense is unsound, undisciplined, and plays stupid. Watching a Saints game, I was convinced the secondary either had no idea what they were doing, all got lobotomies before the game, or were drunk and stoned. The Saints defense is pure garbage.
Maddog69 Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 I've been saying for years that success does not happen strictly as a result of one component. Sustained success in the NFL requires all facets of the game to be strong. That said, a having a great QB will make up for deficiencies in other areas and will bring some level of success. But saying "All you need is a QB" is not accurate.
NOVABillsFan Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 In my opinion - You need a decent T E A M to win. You don't need a gunslinger to rack up yards. You need a solid run game, a better than average defense and a reliable QB who at times can win when the has to throw late in games.
dave mcbride Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 (edited) This has been bandied about for a long time, and while it definitely is easier to win win a good QB, it isn't the be all end all. Exhibit A: Philip Rivers and San Diego. Rivers made the playoffs his first 4 years as a starter when the team was an offensive juggernaut finishing 1st, 5th, 2nd and 4th in the NFL in points per game. However the team has only made the playoffs once in the last 6 seasons(including this year where they are battling with the Browns for the 1 overall draft pick), including missing in 2010, a season where they inexplicably missed the playoffs after finishing the regular season #1 in both offense AND defense---a near impossible feat. Granted, some of this has been bad luck, as the Chargers have finished 9-7 3 times during this stretch, but only made the playoffs one season. They haven't been horrible, other than this year, finishing 8-8 and 7-9 the other 2 seasons, but it flies in the face of logic according to those saying that "all you need is a great QB". By any measure, Rivers HAS been great. Even this season, Rivers is completing over 67% of his passes, throwing 23 TDs vs 9 INT's, averaging over 300 yards per game with a good yards/attempt metric of 7.5 and a QB rating of 97.1. For his career, Rivers has a 95.8 QB rating, a very good 275 TD to 131 INT ratio(slightly over 2 TDs for every INT), a 7.8 Y/A, and a 65% completion percentage. There is nobody out there that can say Rivers isn't a very good, borderline elite QB, but yet his teams have missed the playoffs 5 of the last 6 seasons. Exhibit B: Matt Ryan and Atlanta. Ryan made the playoffs in 4 of his first 5 years as starter, missing out the one season with a 9-7 record. However, the last 3 years has seen Atlanta flailing, including this season where they started 5-0 and are tailing off fast, going 1-6 in their last 7 games, likely missing the playoffs for a 3rd straight season, barring a miraculous turnaround and a collapse by Seattle or Minnesota. Again, Ryan fits the definition of a good to very good QB...career numbers 64.3% completions, 5 straight seasons of more than 4,000 yards(I'm including this year, which is a mere formality if he doesn't get hurt, as he needs barely over 500 yards in the last 4 games), QB Rating of 90.8, Y/A of 7.2, 20 4th Quarter comebacks and 27 Game Winning Drives. Yet the team has been mostly awful the last 3 seasons going a combined 16-28. Again, this dispels the notion a good QB is "all you need". Obviously it isn't, or Atlanta would be in the playoffs every year. Exhibit C: Drew Brees and New Orleans. Brees has put up amazing, HOF worthy, if not record setting numbers in New Orleans, but this will be the 2nd straight season and 3rd in the last 4 years New Orleans will be outside looking in come January. In fact, while New Orleans has never finished lower than 6th in offense while Brees has been there, including 1st 5 times, they have only made the playoffs 5 of his 10 seasons. Brees is not simply a good or very good QB. He is an elite QB, every bit as elite as Brady or Manning has been. Since he has been at New Orleans(10 seasons including this year), he is completing 67.5% of his passes, thrown for an astounding 339 TDs versus only 153 INT(an AVERAGE of 34 TDs versus 15 INT for 10 seasons), led the league in passing yards 5 seasons, thrown for over 5,000 yards 4 seasons, led the league in completion percentage 3 seasons, including 2 seasons over 70%(absolutely ridiculous!), led the league in TD passes 4 times, has an excellent Y/A of 7.7 as his 10 year average, led the league in Yards per game 5 times, and has averaged over 300 yards per game for a SEASON 6 times, including the last 5 seasons straight(and counting), and has a 10 year AVERAGE in New Orleans of 306 yards per game. Brees QB Rating of 98.6 over the last 10 years has been one of the best in football and has led 21 4th quarter comebacks and 28 Game Winning Drives in his time there. These are elite, hall of fame numbers he is putting up, and yet its not enough the last 3 of the last 4 years, and hasn't been enough for 5 of the 10 seasons he has been there. You simply CANNOT play much better at his position than Brees has. People cannot simply say that "All you need is a great QB" anymore...it just isn't true. Yeah, it helps, but in the grand scheme of things its only a piece of the puzzle. A very important piece, no doubt, but just a piece nonetheless...together, these QBs have made 17 pro bowls and 1 all-pro appearance, and yet their teams have missed the playoffs 14 of 28 times...so basically you are looking at a 50% chance... Excellent post. That said, I think the obvious rejoinder is that a good QB offers you the chance to get you to the playoffs 50 percent of the time. A team without a franchise QB tends to go a lot less. Of course, you need good players too, and the Falcons and Saints have been plagued by some terrible defenses. SD always seems to have a ton of injuries. A better metric, I think, is the record of teams for which these QBs have started for over the long haul: Rivers: 91-65; 5 playoff appearance in 10 years Ryan: 72-50; 4 playoff appearances in 7 seasons (8 if you include this one, but the jury is still out) Brees: 90-63 with the Saints; 121-91 overall; 5 playoff appearances in 10 years with NO; 6 playoff appearances in 14 seasons total (including this one) The Bills record since 2001 (the onset of the post-Flutie era; Flutie [38-28] is arguably the last playoff-worthy QB they've had): 95-141; 0 playoff appearances Edited December 11, 2015 by dave mcbride
PO16FFS Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 How many times have Brady, Manning, Roethlisberger, Rodgers made the playoffs? How many times have young QB's like Newton, Wilson and Luck made the playoffs? So yes a good QB is NOT A FALLACY!
Blokestradamus Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 I think the recent emphasis on making the passing game 'easier' has made having that stud QB less integral to success. Obviously you'd rather have Tom Brady than Kirk Cousins but it's never been easier to be a productive QB in the NFL. With that being the case, the more complete roster you can surround that QB with, the better. You need diverse personnel to keep things from being predictable, to be able to play in all weathers, to be competitive against different strengths/weaknesses, to be able to play in different situational circumstances. You need at least one strong suit and enough to supplement it. As the saying goes; there's more than one way to skin a cat.
papazoid Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 it's never been the "only" thing.....it's just the most important thing.
The Big Cat Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 It's not a quarterbacks league. It's a quarterback's league. And that quarterback's name is Tom Brady. The apostrophe makes all the difference.
Gordio Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 it's never been the "only" thing.....it's just the most important thing. This. You get the QB in place & than you build around. Yes you need a team around that QB, but if you don't have an above average QB pulling you really have a minute chance of winning big in this league. Look at the top teams this year. NE/Cinci/Denver in the AFC & Arizona/Carolina/Green Bay/Seatle in the NFC. The only team that doesn't have a top 10 QB is Denver right now. It is not a coincidence.
PromoTheRobot Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 (edited) How many times have Brady, Manning, Roethlisberger, Rodgers made the playoffs? How many times have young QB's like Newton, Wilson and Luck made the playoffs? So yes a good QB is NOT A FALLACY! Way to twist the point. He's saying you need more than a good QB to win. Edited December 11, 2015 by PromoTheRobot
metzelaars_lives Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 (edited) Dude come on. No one ever said that the order of how good teams are each year is the exact same as the ranking of the best QB's. But by and large, there is a high correlation- higher than there was 20 years ago. And those three examples are poor ones: the Chargers have been absolutely decimated by injuries. As long as they get healthy, Rivers alone gets them to 8-8/9-7 next season. Matt Ryan isn't even that good, we are starting to find out. He is a big reason they are in a tailspin. And Drew Brees is in the twilight of his career and playing with one of the worst rosters in the entire league. In his prime, he won a Super Bowl with a team that wasn't that great, which would be a classic example to nullify your argument. Way to twist the point. He's saying you need more than a good QB to win. He's right. If the OP's point is that people say "ALL" you need is a good QB then of course that is not the case. But no one has ever said that. What you need is a good/great QB, a competent roster and to avoid major injuries. But there can be no underscoring the value of a good QB, I'm sorry. it's never been the "only" thing.....it's just the most important thing. Exactly. Look back over the last 20 years and tell me what has happened more: a great QB winning a Super Bowl with an average/competent roster or a complete team wining a Super Bowl with competent/"game managing" QB play. Edited December 11, 2015 by metzelaars_lives
Captain_Quint Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 There was a window of time where this was true. The problem now is the contract. Once you find a QB and pay him 20mil a year, he either has to perform like Brady or Manning (rare talent to make their RBs and WRs better) or you cant afford to pay the playmakers around them.
metzelaars_lives Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 There was a window of time where this was true. The problem now is the contract. Once you find a QB and pay him 20mil a year, he either has to perform like Brady or Manning (rare talent to make their RBs and WRs better) or you cant afford to pay the playmakers around them. Hooper drives the boat, chief.
Al Czervik Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 There was a window of time where this was true. The problem now is the contract. Once you find a QB and pay him 20mil a year, he either has to perform like Brady or Manning (rare talent to make their RBs and WRs better) or you cant afford to pay the playmakers around them. Totally agree! (Thanks for saving me the post )
MikeSpeed Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 You don't need a snowplow to plow a Walmart parking lot, you can use a shovel, but it certainly makes things easier.
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 One of the problems is once you get that great QB, his rookie contract expires, sign him to a new one, based on what he's making, you no longer can afford to put great to very good talent around him. so his abilities decline. Brady, Manning, Rodgers, but the rest of the supposed elite QB's not so much. Think we're going to see that in Seattle as they can no longer afford the rest of their good players. In Ryan's case, do have to start questioning, is he a real good QB or maybe he wasn't as good as people thought and that's really the issue? Either way, I do think he's still better than say a Brian Hoyer type. WRT Atlanta, 5-0, start followed by 1-6, sounds like the Bills' from what was it five or six years ago. Maybe that's really Trent Edwards in disguise playing QB down there.
NOVABillsFan Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 (edited) Weren't there numerous polls before TT on who people would like to see in Buffalo? I am pretty sure Brees, Rivers and possibly Ryan were on that list. Fans here wanted a big arm to pass the ball because it is a passing league. We can see now how that turned out. Edited December 11, 2015 by NOVABillsFan
PlayoffsPlease Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 It takes a great QB and great management. It is much easier to build the non-QB portion of the team when you draft in the top 10 every year, and only have $5 million tied up in a QB. Once teams tie $20 mm in a QB it gets much harder. The Ravens and Saints are examples of this problem. But when all is said and done, in the last dozen years, only Big Ben, Peyton, Brady and Flacco have represented the AFC in the super bowl
Recommended Posts