Don't need a 'great' QB???

[Dibs]

I don't know whether that's an attemtped dodge of the original supposition or simply a continued semantic dalliance ignoring clear evidence. But instead of debating that, let me introduce some objectivity into the original debate that contradicts the original poster's conclusions.

 

A) Among the past 6 Super Bowl Winning Quarterbacks, 3 have been journeymen Quarterbacks. Statistically speaking, over that span the whole of the 32 NFL teams have been just as likely win the Super Bowl with a journeyman Quarterback as they have been to win with a Quarterback assumed to be of any greater talent level.

 

B) Of the past 16 Super Bowls, half were won by teams playing in the Eastern Conference.

 

C) Of the past 6 Super Bowls, every single game was won by a team playing in a city located East of the Mississippi.

 

Just applying these objective facts to reach a conclusion on the likelihood of winning Super Bowls, it's perfectly objective to say that a team with a journeyman quarterback playing on an East Coast team today is infinitely more likely to win a Super Bowl than a great Quarterback playing for a West Coast team.

 

Also, we know for a fact that in recent times a journeyman QB is as likely to be among the Super Bowl winners as all the other Quarterbacks of any greater talent level in the game of football.

 

So using objective evidence instead of a subjective measure like "great QBs" we can prove that the original premise and conclusion are subject to irrefutable contradiction.

726447[/snapback]

Yes, I agree....it could all simply be coincidental. It is unlikely however that the well established premise of "great QBs win superbowls" would happen to have coincidental evidence supporting it. You have listed a few coincidences regarding SB trends from a pool of potential thousands of possibilities...i.e. teams with animal logos, teams starting with the letter 'B', teams North/South/West/East of 'any' point on the map...etc, etc, etc. The fact you found some is expected. Great coincidence backing up an established(for decades) theory is unexpected & therefore not likely(though still possible).

 

Your point 'A' is disingenuous. It is totally correct & implies contradiction to my point....but does not, in fact, contradict it. You are saying the odds for all of the teams combined whereas I am saying that half the SBs are won by 1 of 6 QBs each year & half won by the other 26 QBs.

Also, we know for a fact that in recent times a journeyman QB is as likely to be among the Super Bowl winners as all the other Quarterbacks of any greater talent level in the game of football.

Hmmm, based on the last 6 years, Yes....but there are so many more journeyman QBs than others so if you have one of them, so too does 19 other teams.

One of those 20 will win 50% of the Superbowls.

One of the other 12 will win the other 50% of the Superbowls.

I don't care about the odds of a journeymen winning the superbowl, I care about the odds of MY journeyman winning the SB.

 

Is it just me?????

Do people not read the posts properly????

Surely I have spelt out the concept clearly & straightforward enough & enough times on this thread that is should be easily understood.

 

Another way of explaining the concept.....

It's like the AFC having 6 teams & the NFC having 26 & both putting 1 conference champion into the superbowl each year.(therefore each having a 50% chance to win). You would rather have a team in the AFC wouldn't you?.......AFC = 'Truly great' QBs. NFC = non-'Truly great' QBs

 

I do not like writing such long posts but.....It's not that hard to understand, is it?

[MadBuffaloDisease]

As the old adage says, offense sells tickets, defense wins championships. You can win with a journeyman or a great QB. But without a great defense, you ain't winning.

[dave mcbride]

It might be possible to turn that argument completely around. It seems that the term "great QB" is most often bestowed upon those who end up on the winning sidelines Super Bowl Sunday, which simply follows the fan hysteria of attributing an inordinate amount of any team's success or failure to that single position.

 

Along those lines you've identified Kurt Warner and Brett Favre under your measures as "Great QBs". It might be more prudent to say that another season at Arizona and Green Bay respectively could go far in dulling both their shines to the point that in retirement they may not be looked upon so glowingly. I could also list MVP QBs who are hardly "great", but simply beneficiaries of systems that fit their skillsets ideally. You might start with Rick Gannon as a for instance, and there are solid arguments along the same lines about a few of those among the Super Bowl winners you list too.

725588[/snapback]

brett favre is hands down the best qb i've ever seen play -- better than montana, better than brady, better than elway. perhaps he hasn't won as many super bowls, but all those spectacular regular season performances have to count for something. what he does in his late-unitas years will not put a damper on his career. have you watched him play much?

 

as for gannon, he had a great 5 year run; it may be the case that his coaches never played him enough before then.

[AKC]

Yes, I agree....it could all simply be coincidental.  It is unlikely however that the well established premise of "great QBs win superbowls" would happen to have coincidental evidence supporting it.  I do not like writing such long posts but.....It's not that hard to understand, is it?

726481[/snapback]

 

My original premise earlier in the string might be worth, as you suggest, going back to read- I believe that fans and the media feed the false premise that the QB is of some much greater importance than other players on the team, and history simply proves this to be wrong IMO. For instance, on the Ravens winning team I'd say their QB was probably not more than maybe the 17th or 18th most skilled player at his position among their starters, and easily no higher on the scale of importance to their win.

 

The bottom line is that teams need someone to lead the sales of their jerseys, the media needs someone to glorify or vilify on film every week and the fans need to believe they understand the game by overscrutinizing the people they watch who handle the ball. I just disagree with the sum of those things being the critical elements to winning the game of football as it's played in the NFL.

[AKC]

brett favre is hands down the best qb i've ever seen play -- better than montana, better than brady, better than elway. perhaps he hasn't won as many super bowls, but all those spectacular regular season performances have to count for something. what he does in his late-unitas years will not put a damper on his career. have you watched him play much?

 

as for gannon, he had a great 5 year run; it may be the case that his coaches never played him enough before then.

726489[/snapback]

 

Any fan of the game has to recognize and admire Favre's grit and leadership skills- but at the same time it's hard to imagine any QB who's considered superior at his position who threw more god-awfully advised balls into trouble areas. It happened that Favre fell to the better side of the roullette roll in some of those seasons, but having seen enough QB's I considered "great" and recognizing that the normal outcome of the type of QB'ing Favre has done on most Sundays results in a bad outcome for the majority, I simply can't quite get to the "great" moniker with him. But hey, I could be wrong. And that's the out for any subjective based argument. There's no such way to get out of the fact that if you want to improve your chances of winning the Super Bowl these days you'd go far in your quest signing with an East Coast team- unlike the odds on some guage of the play of a team's QB this would actually give you a far greater shot at the Lombardi.

[Dibs]

My original premise earlier in the string might be worth, as you suggest, going back to read- I believe that fans and the media feed the false premise that the QB is of some much greater importance than other players on the team, and history simply proves this to be wrong. For instance, on the Ravens winning team I'd say their QB was probably not more than maybe the 17th or 18th most skilled player at his posiiton among their starters.

 

The bottom line is that teams need someone to lead the sales of their jerseys, the media needs someone to glorify or vilify on film every week and the fans need to believe they understand something about the game by overscrutinizing the people they wacth who handle the ball. I just disagree with the sum of those things being the critical elements to winning the game of football as it's played in the NFL.

726492[/snapback]

I thought your original posts premise was a very good point....that is why I altered my list down to 'truly great' QBs(from 'great' QBs. What I meant by that was the QBs who pretty much are certain HOFers(based on obvious ability) regardless of weather they win a SB or not. That is how I arrived at 9 SB wins in the last 18 years.(Elway, Brady, Favre, Young, Montana.)

Again, I'm not saying you cannot win with a non-'truly great'. I'm saying that a non-'truly great' will win 50% of the time.

I'm sick of re-writing this so I'll cut & paste my point again....

 

50% of superbowls are won by 'truly great' QBs.

50% are won by non 'truly great' QBs

That means that each year the superbowl will be won by either...

1 of the 6 'truly great' QBs that are in the league that year

or...

1 of the other 26 QBs

This means....

If you don't have a 'truly great' QB you have a 50% chance to be the one team from 26 to win(on average)

If you do have one, you have a 50% chance to be the one team from 6 to win(on average)

 

I agree with your point on the media but that does not counter the concept.

You might disagree with my premise but....unless you disagree with those 5 QBs I listed as being 'truly great'....or you disagree with the concept that up to 6 QBs in the league each year(by the end of there careers) would be considered 'truly great'.....you do not have an argument. All I have done is extrapolate the odds from those two suppositions.

[Dibs]

There's no such way to get out of the fact that if you want to improve your chances of winning the Super Bowl these days you'd go far in your quest signing with an East Coast team- unlike the odds on some guage of the play of a team's QB this would actually give you a far greater shot at the Lombardi.

726493[/snapback]

Do you knowingly use spurious logic like this or do you not understand it is not a logical argument. I explained how this premise is incorrect in a previous post. #21

[AKC]

unless you disagree with those 5 QBs I listed as being 'truly great'....or you disagree with the concept that up to 6 QBs in the league each year(by the end of there careers) would be considered 'truly great'.....you do not have an argument.  All I have done is extrapolate the odds from those two suppositions.

726499[/snapback]

 

I absolutely do- but my position is based upon my own opinion that the QB on most teams isn't the most important player.

 

Just as it would be tough for me to consider a knuckleballer one of the "great pitchers" in baseball, I think even successful system QBs can't realistically crest the "great" tag. On the other hand I'll give you John Elway as a great QB because he actually WAS a QB- all the throws, a full career and success even with lesser talent on some of his teams. You've got my vote on that one.

[Dibs]

I absolutely do- but my position is based upon my own opinion that the QB on most teams isn't the most important player.

 

Just as it would be tough for me to consider a knuckleballer one of the "great pitchers" in baseball, I think even successful system QBs can't realistically crest the "great" tag. On the other hand I'll give you John Elway as a great QB because he actually WAS a QB- all the throws, a full career and success even with lesser talent on some of his teams. You've got my vote on that one.

726502[/snapback]

I understand your possition now.

(& fair enough too)

You don't accept that 9 of the last 18 were won by 'truly great' QBs....perhaps just 2?(Elways)

Also that there would be at best 2 'truly great' QBs in the league in any given year.

Yes...totally....with those figures to play with my hypothesis totally breaks down(not logical to base things on so few figures)

If however we defer to the average opinion....saying, say, a 95% agreeance by analysts on who was 'truly great' at the QB position my hypothesis holds very true.

[Pyrite Gal]

I understand your possition now.

(& fair enough too)

You don't accept that 9 of the last 18 were won by 'truly great' QBs....perhaps just 2?(Elways)

Also that there would be at best 2 'truly great' QBs in the league in any given year.

Yes...totally....with those figures to play with my hypothesis totally breaks down(not logical to base things on so few figures)

If however we defer to the average opinion....saying, say, a 95% agreeance by analysts on who was 'truly great' at the QB position my hypothesis holds very true.

726511[/snapback]

 

 

I think part of the problem here is the context which is provided by the originsl subject line and post. I think it is clear that a team WANTS a great QB if they can get one (well duh!), but I think your original list in another thread and then an expansion of this list to create a larger sample of SB achieving SBs and even conference final achieving QBs demonstrates that though a team WANTS a great QB, they do not NEED one to get to:

 

the conference finals certanly (which most folks would define as success in a seaso unless winning it all is their unreasonable goal for success(

getting to the SB evem if you lose probably (even if Jimbo lost 4 SBs he deserved the HOF nod) and,

even winning the SB (one's chances are much better with a great QB but even with your own finding of many winners being merely average it is clear that the answer to your subject line is no you don;t NEED a great QB though having one is a great thing.

[Dibs]

I think part of the problem here is the context which is provided by the originsl subject line and post.  I think it is clear that a team WANTS a great QB if they can get one (well duh!), but I think your original list in another thread and then an expansion of this list to create a larger sample of SB achieving SBs  and even conference final achieving QBs demonstrates that though a team WANTS a great QB, they do not NEED one to get to:

 

the conference finals certanly  (which most folks would define as success in a seaso unless winning it all is their unreasonable goal for success(

getting to the SB evem if you lose probably (even if Jimbo lost 4 SBs he deserved the HOF nod) and,

even winning the SB (one's chances are much better with a great QB but even with your own finding of many winners being merely average it is clear that the answer to your subject line is no you don;t NEED a great QB though having one is a great thing.

726525[/snapback]

You are right. I didn't realize how misleading my thread title was to my point until you mentioned it. I am obviously not saying having a great QB is the only way to win the SB.

I am not contending anywhere on this thread what might constitute as success(for player or team). What I simply contend is that if you want to win the SB you have a 4 times better chance if you have a 'great' or 'truly great' QB.

Since winning a SB is the ultimate achievement for a club it therefore makes sense that they strive to find a QB of the caliber mentioned.

[Orton's Arm]

I believe that fans and the media feed the false premise that the QB is of some much greater importance than other players on the team, and history simply proves this to be wrong IMO.

If you're Peyton Manning or Tom Brady or one of the other really good quarterbacks, you're bringing home a larger paycheck than any player at any other position. Quarterback is the highest paid position because it produces the highest impact.

 

The view you seem to be arguing against is that having a good QB is better than having good players at the other 21 positions. However, nobody on this thread actually believes that having a good quarterback is a sufficient condition to winning the Super Bowl. Dibs isn't even arguing that good quarterback play is a necessary condition to win. He's just saying that if you don't have a quarterback, it's really tough to hoist the Lombardi Trophy.

 

Dibs' analysis of Super Bowl winners dovetails nicely with what Dwight Adams told us about how you build a team. "When you start a NFL team, start with a QB(we had one in Kelly), then build and keep your offensive line in contact" Dwight Adams Q&A

 

Dwight Adams wasn't exactly some ignorant fan blinded by the glamor of the quarterback position. But unlike you, he's not trying so hard to avoid this error that he makes the opposite mistake. As a football man with deep insight into the game, Adams understands that you really make it tough on yourself if you don't have a quarterback.

 

Sure, the Ravens won the game with Dilfer. But with the Ravens, Dilfer compiled a QB rating and yards per pass that were comparable to Bledsoe's work in 2003 - 2004. So Dilfer wasn't the disaster some people made him out to be.

 

In addition to a Bledsoe-like quarterback, the Ravens had an absolutely dominant defense. To attain a Ravens-like defense, we'd have to upgrade both starters at DT. And both starters at DE. Fletcher is a good MLB, but he's not the same player Ray Lewis was in his prime. So he needs to be upgraded, as does Jeff Posey. Clements and McGee aren't as good as the Ravens' CBs were. Until Whitner proves himself, you could say the same about our safeties. Assuming Whitner works out, and assuming Spikes fully recovers from his injury, then that's just nine defensive positions the Bills will need to upgrade to have a defense as good as the Ravens of 2000. Yes, if the Bills do all that, and if we get Jonathan Ogden as our LT, and a 2000 yard rusher of a RB, then we could get away with having a Trent Dilfer at QB.

[OCinBuffalo]

As the old adage says, offense sells tickets, defense wins championships.  You can win with a journeyman or a great QB.  But without a great defense, you ain't winning.

726483[/snapback]

 

I was gonna post that but u beat me to it. The only thing I would add in between o and d is "special teams wins games". At least we have that going for us .

[Pyrite Gal]

If you're Peyton Manning or Tom Brady or one of the other really good quarterbacks, you're bringing home a larger paycheck than any player at any other position.  Quarterback is the highest paid position because it produces the highest impact. 

 

The view you seem to be arguing against is that having a good QB is better than having good players at the other 21 positions.  However, nobody on this thread actually believes that having a good quarterback is a sufficient condition to winning the Super Bowl.  Dibs isn't even arguing that good quarterback play is a necessary condition to win.  He's just saying that if you don't have a quarterback, it's really tough to hoist the Lombardi Trophy. 

 

Dibs' analysis of Super Bowl winners dovetails nicely with what Dwight Adams told us about how you build a team.  "When you start a NFL team, start with a QB(we had one in Kelly), then build and keep your offensive line in contact"  Dwight Adams Q&A

 

Dwight Adams wasn't exactly some ignorant fan blinded by the glamor of the quarterback position.    But unlike you, he's not trying so hard to avoid this error that he makes the opposite mistake.  As a football man with deep insight into the game, Adams understands that you really make it tough on yourself if you don't have a quarterback. 

 

Sure, the Ravens won the game with Dilfer.  But with the Ravens, Dilfer compiled a QB rating and yards per pass that were comparable to Bledsoe's work in 2003 - 2004.  So Dilfer wasn't the disaster some people made him out to be. 

 

In addition to a Bledsoe-like quarterback, the Ravens had an absolutely dominant defense.  To attain a Ravens-like defense, we'd have to upgrade both starters at DT.  And both starters at DE.  Fletcher is a good MLB, but he's not the same player Ray Lewis was in his prime.  So he needs to be upgraded, as does Jeff Posey.  Clements and McGee aren't as good as the Ravens' CBs were.  Until Whitner proves himself, you could say the same about our safeties.  Assuming Whitner works out, and assuming Spikes fully recovers from his injury, then that's just nine defensive positions the Bills will need to upgrade to have a defense as good as the Ravens of 2000.  Yes, if the Bills do all that, and if we get Jonathan Ogden as our LT, and a 2000 yard rusher of a RB, then we could get away with having a Trent Dilfer at QB.

726531[/snapback]

 

Just do not forget that while stats tell a lot of the story about performance of a player in this sport, that this sport primarily makes big bucks from casual, fairweather or distracted by life (this is the majority of football watchers rather than the relatively true blue fanatic fans like myself, you, and the other folks who use this board heavily).

 

The highest paid players are not merely those who produce a positive impact on the field in the game, but the highest paid players are those that produce the most impact entertaining the masses.

 

I think it is a mistake to simply reach the conclusion that QBs are the highest paid because they have the biggest impact on the game. They do have a great impact and our prominent as they have their heads up when they handle the ball on almost all offensive playsand are readily identifiable.

We Americans have small brains and want action action action and rather than understanding complexities of team performance, w much rather would focus on one person or star.

 

QBs are the highest paid because they are one of the best marketing opportunites in a game where the players heads are obscured by helmets. Through the QB Club and other activities the best performing QBs have marketed the heck out of the position.

 

If one is simply looking to rank the absolute value or determine the absolute importance of players, salary is a useful indicator but is not a perfect analogy for game performance.

[OCinBuffalo]

If you're Peyton Manning or Tom Brady or one of the other really good quarterbacks, you're bringing home a larger paycheck than any player at any other position.  Quarterback is the highest paid position because it produces the highest impact. 

 

The view you seem to be arguing against is that having a good QB is better than having good players at the other 21 positions.  However, nobody on this thread actually believes that having a good quarterback is a sufficient condition to winning the Super Bowl.  Dibs isn't even arguing that good quarterback play is a necessary condition to win.  He's just saying that if you don't have a quarterback, it's really tough to hoist the Lombardi Trophy. 

 

Dibs' analysis of Super Bowl winners dovetails nicely with what Dwight Adams told us about how you build a team.  "When you start a NFL team, start with a QB(we had one in Kelly), then build and keep your offensive line in contact"  Dwight Adams Q&A

 

Dwight Adams wasn't exactly some ignorant fan blinded by the glamor of the quarterback position.    But unlike you, he's not trying so hard to avoid this error that he makes the opposite mistake.  As a football man with deep insight into the game, Adams understands that you really make it tough on yourself if you don't have a quarterback. 

 

Sure, the Ravens won the game with Dilfer.  But with the Ravens, Dilfer compiled a QB rating and yards per pass that were comparable to Bledsoe's work in 2003 - 2004.  So Dilfer wasn't the disaster some people made him out to be. 

 

In addition to a Bledsoe-like quarterback, the Ravens had an absolutely dominant defense.  To attain a Ravens-like defense, we'd have to upgrade both starters at DT.  And both starters at DE.  Fletcher is a good MLB, but he's not the same player Ray Lewis was in his prime.  So he needs to be upgraded, as does Jeff Posey.  Clements and McGee aren't as good as the Ravens' CBs were.  Until Whitner proves himself, you could say the same about our safeties.  Assuming Whitner works out, and assuming Spikes fully recovers from his injury, then that's just nine defensive positions the Bills will need to upgrade to have a defense as good as the Ravens of 2000.  Yes, if the Bills do all that, and if we get Jonathan Ogden as our LT, and a 2000 yard rusher of a RB, then we could get away with having a Trent Dilfer at QB.

726531[/snapback]

 

Jeez, the posts are long on this one - don't be discouraged though. Not every issue can be explained, discussed and resolved in a sound bite! Especially not when the topic/posters demand that we compare: 15 years of history, Decent Vs. Good Qbs, Sick Defense compensating for mediocre QB play, etc.

 

It appears to me that the folks who complain most about long posts are the same guys who never back up their positions with reasoned arguments, or, they define the problem but never offer a reasonable solution, i.e., whatever you are saying gets met with ("Yeah but we don't have a O line") without any suggestion as to how we obtain said O Line. Moreover, they never address the specifc points that were just made.

 

If I undertand you properly - essentially you are saying that:

1. Quarterbacks make more money based on supply and demand

2. A great, not good, QB is vey helpful but not necessary to win a SB

3. Even an average NFL QB will most likely need to play the best season in his career to win a SB

4. Upgraded players on D can compensate for sub-great performance at QB

5. Not sure - it depends on your spelling( I think you mean contract not contact) - but I think: get a decent O line, but, more importantly, keep it together.

 

My response to you is:

1. I Agree. But Holcomb sucks. (Sorry. I couldn't help it )

2. I Agree. However, the x factor here is real time QB decisions, not stats(i.e. Phil Simms). Believe me. When I lived in Tampa, (used to be easy ticket to get from a scalper fo 50% face value by the 2nd quarter) I saw Dilfer make decisions that actively lost games, as opposed to winning them or at least making him a non-factor. In contrast, Phil Simms played Bill Parcells Frankenstein Football(in 1986 when that used to work), and acutally had the discipline to stick with it no matter what.

3. I Agree. Jeff Hostetler and Mark Rypien played the games of their lives(and got lucky to match), which means they made hardly any mistakes. They did not dazzle us with 300+ yd passing games to beat us in the Super Bowls.

4. I Agree with the premise. But I disagree with your conclusions. How do we know for certain that we haven't already upgraded at DT(McCargo and Triplett)? Regarding DE, how do we know for certain that taking off the leash we have had on Schobel, and, Kelsay dropping weight so that he can finally play like he was born to, won't allow both to be our starters, and good, for a long time? Clearly we have the linebackers we need, for now and later. We were, long term, weak at D back, and have effectively addressed that through the draft/releases/FA.

5. Dwight is right. However, your emphasis is wrong! Cycling O lineman year in and year out, not the QB, is the biggest mistake we have made. No one can ever get used to what the other guy is gonna do if that guy isn't around next year, or tomorrow, for that matter. Never mind the fact that the "good" O lines I have been around personally(college), and in bars/airplanes/hotels(college and pros) are practically gay for each other when it comes to team unity and pride of their unit. Seriously - u should see the Eagles O line guys out together - it's enough to set off your GAYDAR. Can't be gay with the new guy - he might not understand. The K-Gun O line didn't need to be awesome individual players(they weren't) - just fairly effective as a unit(they were).

 

Anti-Hypocrite Check: #5 has clearly been a problem and therefore is clearly defined.

My solution is as follows:

1. Hire a teaching coach that will demand that his assistants teach players the necessary fundamental and/or high level techniques and demand adherence to those techniques in practice and in games without exception. Do not spend good teaching time tinkering with paper skill sets and/or schemes and/or our players' heads and/or coming up with backyard Statue of Liberty plays.

2. Bring in a conditioning coach whose program will ensure, if nothing else, that WM doesn't need to be "rested" on third downs - or any time - and that our defense does not give up large runs in the third and forth quarter.

2. Demand that all coaches, captains, and other veteran players lead, not drive.

 

Expected Result: We will improve/develop the guys we have as a unit rather than constantly cycling in new people for the Mularky(Bullsh!t) System to devour. As such, our guys will have a winning attitude, and, as such, will have the strength and stamina to out hustle the other team.

 

Wait, didn't we do all that already???

 

I like the coaching (read: teaching players and then leading them) family tree idea, as well. Success breeds success, with regard leadership(read: winning).

[dave mcbride]

Any fan of the game has to recognize and admire Favre's grit and leadership skills- but at the same time it's hard to imagine any QB who's considered superior at his position who threw more god-awfully advised balls into trouble areas. It happened that Favre fell to the better side of the roullette roll in some of those seasons, but having seen enough QB's I considered "great" and recognizing that the normal outcome of the type of QB'ing Favre has done on most Sundays results in a bad outcome for the majority, I simply can't quite get to the "great" moniker with him. But hey, I could be wrong. And that's the out for any subjective based argument. There's no such way to get out of the fact that if you want to improve your chances of winning the Super Bowl these days you'd go far in your quest signing with an East Coast team- unlike the odds on some guage of the play of a team's QB this would actually give you a far greater shot at the Lombardi.

726493[/snapback]

 

re the ints, you could say it about last season and his second season as a starter, but by and large he has not been an INT machine. Indeed, his td-int ratio over his career is exceptional -- 396/255 (and 376/226 before last year's anomaly). also, in the seasons 2001-2002, the pack went 12-4 each season largely on his back alone. they had a decent defense, but by and large the

offense was all him. with a normal qb, they were a 7-9 team.

 

also, from 1992-2004--13 straight seasons--the pack never had a losing record. that's staggering, and favre, who started playing in 1992 for the pack, was the lone constant. last year was their first losing season the pack has had with him.

 

He's been a great playoff qb as well, and has been flat out robbed a couple of times. 4th and 26 for philly in 03 and the jerry rice obvious-fumble-that-was-called-a-fumble in 98 cost him 2 opportunities to play in championship games, games the pack may well have won.

 

also, GB is east of the mississippi.

[AKC]

 

also, GB is east of the mississippi.

726632[/snapback]

 

I knew he was a Cherry Picker ;-)

 

Always one of my favorite QBs to watch, but I like to watch Jake Plummer play too! He's making a mistake playing this year IMO. I understand his drive and desire to win, but he' sliding now into the second year of "waiting too long" to hang it up.

[MadBuffaloDisease]

I was gonna post that but u beat me to it. The only thing I would add in between o and d is "special teams wins games". At least we have that going for us  .

I was going to make special mention of the special teams, but you got it covered.

[AKC]

Quarterback is the highest paid position because it produces the highest impact. 

 

726531[/snapback]

 

If you believe that absolute nonsense there's no reason for you and I to discuss the game of football. I've done us both a favor and added you to my "Ignore" list.

[Orton's Arm]

5. Dwight is right. However, your emphasis is wrong! Cycling O lineman year in and year out, not the QB, is the biggest mistake we have made. No one can ever get used to what the other guy is gonna do if that guy isn't around next year, or tomorrow, for that matter. Never mind the fact that the "good" O lines I have been around personally(college), and in bars/airplanes/hotels(college and pros) are practically gay for each other when it comes to team unity and pride of their unit. Seriously - u should see the Eagles O line guys out together - it's enough to set off your GAYDAR. Can't be gay with the new guy - he might not understand. The K-Gun O line didn't need to be awesome individual players(they weren't) - just fairly effective as a unit(they were).

For a guy with only 28 posts, your contribution here is absolutely amazing. Even if one of this group's "elite" had written that post, I'd still say it was one of their better ones.

 

I won't argue about--or even let myself think about--the topic of whether the solid offensive line you're talking about is more important than a solid quarterback play. A question like that is like asking, "Is it more important to avoid constantly clinging to a woman, or to avoid telling her you still live with your mother at the age of 30"? If you make either mistake, odds are she's going to reject you. Likewise, a team which lacks either an offensive line or a quarterback is probably not going to win the Super Bowl. The Bills have lacked both these things ever since the days of Kent Hull and Jim Kelly.