The "All You need is a good QB" fallacy---3 Counter Examples

[FireChan]

Nothing matters until you have a QB =/= All you need is a QB.

[PO16FFS]

Way to twist the point. He's saying you need more than a good QB to win.

 

And Im saying no. You need an elite QB to win consistently!

 

Playoffs last year:

 

AFC: Pats, Denver, Pitt, Indy, Cincy, Baltimore: Only big red from Cincy is not considered an elite QB

 

NFC: Seattle, Green Bay, Dallas, Carolina, Arizona, Detroit: Only Matt Stafford is not considered an elite QB

 

Both CIncy and Stafford lost first round

 

Playoffs 2014:

 

AFC: Denver, Pats, Cincy, Indy, KC, Chiefs: Once again Big Red from Cincy and Smith from Chiefs are not considered elite

 

NFC: Seattle, Carolina, Philly, Green Bay, San Fran, Saints: Foles and Kapernick ( although he had a great rookie year) are not considered elite

 

And sure enough: Chiefs lost first round as well as Cincy and Philly.

 

 

So only Kaepernick was the average QB who advanced passed the second round. And that team was stacked on defense.

 

BOOM! The myth of the myth is debunked!

Edited December 11, 2015 by fredex22

[H2o]

Yep........... The "Franchise QB" crowd's heads are going to explode.

[PromoTheRobot]

 

And Im saying no. You need an elite QB to win consistently!

 

Playoffs last year:

 

AFC: Pats, Denver, Pitt, Indy, Cincy, Baltimore: Only big red from Cincy is not considered an elite QB

 

NFC: Seattle, Green Bay, Dallas, Carolina, Arizona, Detroit: Only Matt Stafford is not considered an elite QB

 

Both CIncy and Stafford lost first round

 

Playoffs 2014:

 

AFC: Denver, Pats, Cincy, Indy, KC, Chiefs: Once again Big Red from Cincy and Smith from Chiefs are not considered elite

 

NFC: Seattle, Carolina, Philly, Green Bay, San Fran, Saints: Foles and Kapernick ( although he had a great rookie year) are not considered elite

 

And sure enough: Chiefs lost first round as well as Cincy and Philly.

 

 

So only Kaepernick was the average QB who advanced passed the second round. And that team was stacked on defense.

 

BOOM! The myth of the myth is debunked!

So what happened to the elite Luck and Flacco? Meanwhile Dalton plays at an elite level.

[ALF]

It helps to have a OC like Roman to get the most out of Kaep and Taylor.

 

With the exception of Brady and Bill, paying a franchise QB big money will short change other key positions.

[Nihilarian]

Having an "elite" franchise QB is the one true "must have" position on a team!

 

You can mostly get by with average players at almost every other position save the QB, as he touches the ball every offensive play. A few teams have won the SB with journeymen QB's who had a great season. But more often then not a great QB has led his team to the SB and won it.

 

Like others have stated it starts with having a complete team with no holes, good GM, coaches, players, schemes, game plans. Another big factor is keeping the injuries to a minimum or having a great amount of depth on the roster.

[H2o]

It helps to have a OC like Roman to get the most out of Kaep and Taylor.

 

With the exception of Brady and Bill, paying a franchise QB big money will short change other key positions.

Such is the cost now days though. Kaep got big money off of Harbaugh and Roman. Taylor could end up doing the same. Cutler, Flacco, Rodgers, Brees, Rivers, Brady, Wilson, Dalton, hell even Tannehill are making A LOT of $.

[Captain_Quint]

I would say elite is Brady and Rodgers. Manning from a few years ago.

 

Everyone else is good or very good, and may play at elite levels from time to time, but the benefit more from having a strong team around them.

[PO16FFS]

So what happened to the elite Luck and Flacco? Meanwhile Dalton plays at an elite level.

 

So you are disagreeing with history?

 

Man, every blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes.

[Talley56]

I might also point to the 49ers although they are an example of making the playoffs despite having a bad QB. Obviously, Colin Kaepernick is terrible as we've seen this year. Yet, not only were they in the playoffs every year Harbaugh was there but they were Superbowl contenders almost every year. Came within 3 points of winning it all one year.

[Chuck Wagon]

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

 

 

Exactly. Once you get your QB up into that pay stratosphere, you have to crush your draft picks to keep the pipeline of cheap talent. The Saints / Falcons / Chargers have done an incredibly bad job in the draft, leaving massive holes all over their rosters. It absolutely takes a good management team around a good QB, but if you don't have a good QB you'll be drafting top 10 instead of in the 20s more times than not.

[The Frankish Reich]

Well, first off the OP's framing of the question sets up a straw man that's easy to knock down. The common wisdom has never been "all you need is a good QB." As I've always heard it, the popular wisdom is "you can't win (particularly in the playoffs/Super Bowl) without a good (or even elite) QB." That's a very different proposition.

 

Now even that proposition is arguable -- so how do we define a good (or even elite) QB? Flacco was thought to be solid but hardly elite before that Super Bowl playoff run. Or try this: Alex Smith, the ultimate game manager you "can't win in the playoffs with." Alex Smith is 45-21 as a starter since 2011. If KC stays hot and makes the Super Bowl (not a ridiculous idea right now), and then gets a little lucky and wins it, all of a sudden people start considering him very good (or even elite). Same thing happened with Eli. Could happen with Tyrod. Won't ever happen with, say, Hoyer or Fitzy. But there's an awful lot of QBs who are one good/lucky playoff run away from getting dubbed "elite".

[PO16FFS]

OK, I changed my mind, please give me a Trent Dilfer. I love watching crappy football and low scoring affairs.

 

:sick:

 

I would hate to have Joe Flacco. I prefer Fitz! I would hate to have Eli Manning, give me Alex Smith. I would hate to have Andrew Luck give me any other.

[dave mcbride]

So what happened to the elite Luck and Flacco? Meanwhile Dalton plays at an elite level.

See my post above. It's about percentages over time. Both Luck and Flacco are elite (yes, I'd say that Flacco is given how he performs in the postseason) and have produced at a high level for years even if the team doesn't make it every year. Luck's teams have never not made the playoffs.

[PO16FFS]

See my post above. It's about percentages over time. Both Luck and Flacco are elite (yes, I'd say that Flacco is given how he performs in the postseason) and have produced at a high level for years even if the team doesn't make it every year. Luck's teams have never not made the playoffs.

Stop making so much sense!

[Alphadawg7]

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...

 

While I do agree with some of this, there are many counterpoint examples that say the opposite.

 

Exhibit A - Tom Brady - This guy has carried sub par teams for most of his career. He's rarely had the kind of offensive weapons mediocre QB's could capitalize on, and if anyone brings up Cassel then you are bringing up one of the rare seasons where Brady had Elite weapons across the offense. Most of his career his offensive weapons were subpar, including this year. If anyone thinks Edelman would be nearly as effective in places like Buffalo, Miami, Dallas, etc are delusional. Brady makes him better than average.

 

Exhibit B - Cam Newton - This guy is on a team that was supposed to struggle to 8-8 and has literally lost almost his entire offensive weapons outside Olsen. Once he lost his top WR in Benjamin, this team was a questionable team to even get to .500 this year. What he has done to elevate that team is remarkable.

 

Exhibit C - Donovan McNabb - Say what you want about McNabb, but what he accomplished in the league with the absolute joke of receivers to throw too almost his entire career is insane. He carried that franchise for more than a decade on his back.

 

Exhibit D - Aaron Rodgers - This guy carries a team that overall really isn't very impressive. The D is inconsistent, the O Line is terrible, the run game is hit or miss, and his WR's are not the same without Jordy. Yet this guy being on the roster makes the Packers essentially a perennial SB contender every year.

 

Exhibit E - Tony Romo - Say what you want about the guy, but the fact remains Dallas is a playoff team with him and top 5 pick team without him.

 

Exhibit F - Brett Farve - This guy took some pretty marginal teams pretty far, even as a reckless gunslinger at times.

 

Exhibit G - Russel Wilson - Here it comes, people are going to jump all over this and talk about the Elite D and Elite Run game that "makes" him good. The facts and statistics say just the opposite. Seattle has averaged more than 5 wins per season with him better than the 3 years before him. The D vastly improved once he improved the offense. And Lynch went from being a marginal RB statistically (career avg UNDER 4 yards per carry before Wilson) to a top RB averaging nearly 4.6 ypc once Wilson became the QB. And this year, the D has been suspect at best, Lynch has been hurt an ineffective while Wilson has put that team on his back and made a real case for league MVP right now along with Carson, Brady, and Cam.

 

So, the real truth is that you can NOT win with a bad QB, and you are not guaranteed to win with an Elite or very good QB. But having a very good or better QB sure as hells offsets a lot of other holes/weaknesses at other positions and makes it easier to win in todays NFL. It is hands down the single most important position in all of team sports, period. With a very good QB, you can be marginal in other areas and still have a shot to make the playoffs and be in the SB. However, with a bad or below average QB, you need to be just about perfect everywhere else on your roster like the Ravens who won with Dilfer. Lot easier to find one good QB then to find an entire roster of greatness everywhere else IMO.

See my post above. It's about percentages over time. Both Luck and Flacco are elite (yes, I'd say that Flacco is given how he performs in the postseason) and have produced at a high level for years even if the team doesn't make it every year. Luck's teams have never not made the playoffs.

 

Flacco Elite - Yes. His playoff and clutch performances, and with subpar weapons, has earned that title for him. I think he's the bottom echelon of the current Elite club in the NFL, but he's definitely in the upper tier of QBs playing right now.

 

Luck Elite - NOPE. He is a hyped machine. This guy has stunk in the playoffs (9 TDs to 12 INTS) over his 3 years, never a year with more TDs than INTs. He's been blown out of games as well. He was awful this year. Im tired of people crowning him Elite when he's literally been more Jake Plummer than John Elway in his career. Fantasy football nuts (I am admittedly one of them and a total junky) see gaudy point totals and think he's a god, but the reality is he has a long way to go before he's elite. He may very well get there, the kid has insane potential, but he has not made it into the Elite category yet when he turns the ball over like his name is Mark Sanchez, literally.

 

IMO: Elite QB's don't get to have terrible TD/INT ratios.

Edited December 12, 2015 by Alphadawg7

[FireChan]

 

While I do agree with some of this, there are many counterpoint examples that say the opposite.

 

Exhibit A - Tom Brady - This guy has carried sub par teams for most of his career. He's rarely had the kind of offensive weapons mediocre QB's could capitalize on, and if anyone brings up Cassel then you are bringing up one of the rare seasons where Brady had Elite weapons across the offense. Most of his career his offensive weapons were subpar, including this year. If anyone thinks Edelman would be nearly as effective in places like Buffalo, Miami, Dallas, etc are delusional. Brady makes him better than average.

 

Exhibit B - Cam Newton - This guy is on a team that was supposed to struggle to 8-8 and has literally lost almost his entire offensive weapons outside Olsen. Once he lost his top WR in Benjamin, this team was a questionable team to even get to .500 this year. What he has done to elevate that team is remarkable.

 

Exhibit C - Donovan McNabb - Say what you want about McNabb, but what he accomplished in the league with the absolute joke of receivers to throw too almost his entire career is insane. He carried that franchise for more than a decade on his back.

 

Exhibit D - Aaron Rodgers - This guy carries a team that overall really isn't very impressive. The D is inconsistent, the O Line is terrible, the run game is hit or miss, and his WR's are not the same without Jordy. Yet this guy being on the roster makes the Packers essentially a perennial SB contender every year.

 

Exhibit E - Tony Romo - Say what you want about the guy, but the fact remains Dallas is a playoff team with him and top 5 pick team without him.

 

Exhibit F - Brett Farve - This guy took some pretty marginal teams pretty far, even as a reckless gunslinger at times.

 

Exhibit G - Russel Wilson - Here it comes, people are going to jump all over this and talk about the Elite D and Elite Run game that "makes" him good. The facts and statistics say just the opposite. Seattle has averaged more than 5 wins per season with him better than the 3 years before him. The D vastly improved once he improved the offense. And Lynch went from being a marginal RB statistically (career avg UNDER 4 yards per carry before Wilson) to a top RB averaging nearly 4.6 ypc once Wilson became the QB. And this year, the D has been suspect at best, Lynch has been hurt an ineffective while Wilson has put that team on his back and made a real case for league MVP right now along with Carson, Brady, and Cam.

 

So, the real truth is that you can NOT win with a bad QB, and you are not guaranteed to win with an Elite or very good QB. But having a very good or better QB sure as hells offsets a lot of other holes/weaknesses at other positions and makes it easier to win in todays NFL. It is hands down the single most important position in all of team sports, period. With a very good QB, you can be marginal in other areas and still have a shot to make the playoffs and be in the SB. However, with a bad or below average QB, you need to be just about perfect everywhere else on your roster like the Ravens who won with Dilfer. Lot easier to find one good QB then to find an entire roster of greatness everywhere else IMO.

 

Flacco Elite - Yes. His playoff and clutch performances, and with subpar weapons, has earned that title for him. I think he's the bottom echelon of the current Elite club in the NFL, but he's definitely in the upper tier of QBs playing right now.

 

Luck Elite - NOPE. He is a hyped machine. This guy has stunk in the playoffs (9 TDs to 12 INTS) over his 3 years, never a year with more TDs than INTs. He's been blown out of games as well. He was awful this year. Im tired of people crowning him Elite when he's literally been more Jake Plummer than John Elway in his career. Fantasy football nuts (I am admittedly one of them and a total junky) see gaudy point totals and think he's a god, but the reality is he has a long way to go before he's elite. He may very well get there, the kid has insane potential, but he has not made it into the Elite category yet when he turns the ball over like his name is Mark Sanchez, literally.

 

IMO: Elite QB's don't get to have terrible TD/INT ratios.

This is really sad.

 

Guess who else had more INT's than TD's in the playoffs in their first three years? John Elway. Never had a year with more TD's than INT's in the playoffs in his first three years? John Elway.

 

Even more hilarious is the Jake Plummer remark. Yeah, Luck's third year was "literally" closer to Jake's 9 TD 24 INT 3 win third year than Elway's 22 TD 23 INT 11-5 year. I can see the resemblance!

 

The kid is having a down year. You should apply to First Take with your penchant for insane hyperbole.

[Formerly Allan in MD]

It's never been all you need. Bogus thread.

[BADOLBILZ]

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...

 

 

I'm not about discouraging discussion here on TSW.............but this is a really pointless and ill conceived thread.

 

As dave said........it's about winning over time. And the more trips to the tournament, the more chances to win it.

[earthtobrint]

Nothing matters until you have a QB =/= All you need is a QB.

 

 

This. You NEED a good QB to win the Super Bowl and/or win consistently. That does not mean if you have a good QB you will automatically win. It takes more than a QB but a good QB is a prerequisite. Without one, you're just spinning your wheels.

Edited December 12, 2015 by earthtobrint