jupiterreef Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writ...rity/index.html All those have had GREAT QB'S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fewell733 Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 To poke a bit of a hole in this, two of the teams mentioned were the Steelers and Broncos. The Broncos have not had a single great QB since Elway. They haven't won any Super Bowls since then, but they have only had 1 losing season this millenium and been a playoff fixture. Likewise the Steelers have been a power over the last decade had multiple QBs, had a 13 win season with Kordell Stewart at QB of all things and a playoff team with Tommy Maddox. The Giants have been a power in the NFL since 1984, with only 2 seasons in that entire span with less than 6 wins. That despite 5 head coaches and 7 different QBs. Obviously, having a superstar at QB is a very good thing. It isn't the only thing though. Indeed, it is far more important to have superior management that acts proactively and makes good decisions about the talent at all levels of the team to maintain their success. After all, it is a process that requires great decision making. No team is immune to change. just to echo back a little of what you pointed out - the Broncos have no titles since Elway and the Steelers only have won once they had Roethlisberger and the Giants won with a non-bust 1st overall pick quarterback at the helm named Manning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphean Bills Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 just to echo back a little of what you pointed out - the Broncos have no titles since Elway and the Steelers only have won once they had Roethlisberger and the Giants won with a non-bust 1st overall pick quarterback at the helm named Manning. Right back at ya. Like I said, having a great QB helps. It is not the only thing. The great Eli Manning was struggling all year long. But, he had a good team around him. If it had been entirely on him, the Giants don't even make the playoffs, and Eli never becomes the "great" QB in those playoffs, and who knows. The same story can be said of Big Ben. He did some things on his first trip to the Super Bowl, but he was mostly just a passenger taking a ride while the other veterans led the way and did all the pedaling. One could even make the argument about Brady in his first Super Bowl season. Bledsoe started the season and Brady did a good job coming off the bench that year. They had an excellent defense and won the Super Bowl with special teams and defense. Brady has become a great QB over time, but he didn't start out throwing the ball 55 times a game and setting offensive scoring and passing records. Not even close. Find a Broncos fan that thinks the Broncos didn't ride Terrell Davis to those Super Bowl victories and get back to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsVet Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 The Giants have been a power in the NFL since 1984, with only 2 seasons in that entire span with less than 6 wins. That despite 5 head coaches and 7 different QBs. It's not hard to understand why the Giants have been good for a long time: their GM's who are supported by the Mara/Tisch families as ownership. George Young (79-97), Ernie Accorsi (98-07), Jerry Reese (07-present). Those guys knew what they were/are doing and four SB appearances with 3 titles proves that. I'm not sure there's an era with this good of GM's as the Giants have had since Young took over. As much as the NFL attempts to equalize payroll, they can't (as is suggested in the article) equal out the minds in the front office. It's why socializing anything never works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 How in the hell can you say parity is dead when the Cardinals went to the Super Bowl last year and almost beat the Steelers, the Titans went 14-2 with Kerry Collins at the helm (and now winless this year), the Dolphins went from 1-15 to 10-5 (and now back to losing). Denver is winning with Kyle Orton and a first year head coach in a season when everyone said they'd lose and SD would run away with the division. Cincinnati is doing awesome despite all their setbacks. You didn't read the article? The point is that there are exceptions here and there, but the overall trends all point to loss of parity. I agree. The Bills would be a better team if they had the same money that the Pats do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muggins Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 You didn't read the article? The point is that there are exceptions here and there, but the overall trends all point to loss of parity. I agree. The Bills would be a better team if they had the same money that the Pats do. I read the whole article. Parity doesn't mean that every team always has to be good. Obviously team management and coaching are a huge part of that. Again, the CARDINALS made the Super Bowl last year, the Dolphins went from 1-15 to Division winners, etc etc etc. So many examples. Just because there are bad teams doesn't mean parity is dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 BB watches FAs walk away from his team all the time. Doesn't seem to bother him or affect his team much. I take it BB is Bill Bellyache and not Buffalo Bills? But this makes my point. Patsies* have a good guy like Deon Branch leave and replace him with Randy Moss. Randy wants to play for Patsies* to have a better chance of getting what everyplayer wants, to win the Super Bowl. Not saying there's anything wrong with this, but it figures in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts