Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl. Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl. Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl.

[rightwinger]

Are you purposely stupid, or are you just too dumb to understand? I did not say that teams fall in love with their QBs. How many times do I have to say it? My point is that people are in love with the QB position! If they happen to like a particular QB, then all things good in the world come from him, no matter how poorly he might play. Any failures will be blamed on other people. If they don't like the QB, every single thing he accomplishes will credited to someone else, while he is blamed for every shortcoming the team experiences.

This is not a difficult concept.

Sure, fans end up doing the same thing. But no, I'm not talking about fans being in love with their quarterback. I'm talking about damn near everyone. The owners who make offers, the coaches who chase after players, and the fans too. Most people over emphasize the QB position, as if it is the only position that matters, with everyone else being stage fillers.

Same way that people can absolutely love Tim Tebow.

Oh shit, are you for realz!?! This is a business? Here, all this time, I thought the NFL was a social club.

Of course it's a business decision. That doesn't mean anything, though. People make bad business decisions every single day. People make business decisions based on all the wrong priorities every single day. Just because it's a business decision does not make it an inherently correct or perfect decision.

That may be true, but it's just as irrelevant as everything else you've been saying. Nick Foles was a very good quarterback. He had alot of success. If he was Peyton Manning, his stats would be worshiped on high. But he's only Nick Foles. The Eagles don't credit him with his own success. They credit the surrounding cast. Foles got alot of the blame for any little thing that didn't go well.

I don't question the fact that Luck is a very good quarterback, and before the end of his career he'll probably be among the truly few great QBs of his generation. But ultimately using him as your example is question begging. You assume that the QB position is the most important, and use Luck as the example to prove it. But you justify crediting Luck as being the one carrying the team, based on the assumption that the QB position is the most important position.

Yet Peyton remains one of the best QBs in the league. Peyton's real struggles boil down to the same weaknesses that have plagued him his entire career finally catching up to him and being too easily understood by opponents. Peyton has always been too arrogant, too aggressive in tough situations, too predictable when the chips are down, and too dependent on trickery and deception. Peyton is a great QB, but he has his worst moments against the toughest defenses, which is why for all his Ws, he's never been able to be a truly championship level player. The guy can land the football on a dime from 50 yards out. To this day he can still do that. And he's pretty damn clever. Mind you, I'm no Peyton fan. His obsession with trickery has always annoyed me.

In truth, a QB and receiver make each other better. It's complementary talent. Luck's receivers make him better, and he makes them better. Even if the receivers are getting the better side of the deal in this particular case, it's completely unjustified to give Luck all the credit.



I bet if you go ask receivers like Anquan Boldin, Michael Irvin, Randy Moss, and Jerry Rice would certainly disagree with the QB being the most important position. Just get the ball within a 10 yard radius, and they'd take care of the rest. Hell, I'd bet if you gave him a few cocktails and asked Michael Irvin, he'd tell you that Troy Aikman wasn't really as great as everyone thinks he was.

Peyton won a super bowl and handled that good Bears defense just fine.

You win some, you lose some. Super Bowls aren't some kind of entitlement. The fact that he even won one at all is pretty amazing. I suffered through Donovan mcnabb not being able to win ANY big games. I WISH I could say he won only 1 out of 3.

Peyton is one of the all time great QBs. His lack of performance in big games keeps him from being the greatest

Right, but he still won a super bowl. And against a pretty good defense too.

you fail to mention that he won that superbowl against a very good defense ONLY because that defense was on the field all day long because journeyman rex grossmen, finally showed his true colors in that game on how shitty a quarterback he was constantly overthrowing to his receivers with passes that were way off target.

when you have a defense that is on the field all day long because you have an offense that has constant three and outs,of course you're going to play well.

I dont care if that was the 1985 Bears defense that was playing that day.If that defense is on the field all day long like they were,eventually they are going to get tired and worn out in the second half like they did and not be effective anymore.

The 1985 Bears defense was effective in that superbowl because they were not on the field all day long in that game charlie.lol

The Bears got to the superbowl that year because their defense and special teams carried them.well their luck ran out on them that day and was not able to carry them anymore because Grossmans true colors as a quarterback were exposed.

Im not even sure Grossman still plays anymore or not.Thats how he has faded off into the sunset since then.lol

The other two superbowls he played in,when he had to face top notch competition facing a future hall of famer Drew Brees and Wilson who there is no reason not to believe is this generations Tom Brady,he choked.

sure facing a quarterback who was a shitty one,he was able to beat,but against top notch competion,he sucked.

He is a clone of Dan Marino.Puts up impressive statisitics and numbers during the regular season,but in BIG game against top notch competition,he panicks.

He had a chance to tie the game in the final two minutes of the superbowl against the saints.

what did he do when the game was on the line in a big game against top notch competition? panic and throw a pick six.

what did he do against the seahawks in the superbowl against top notch competition again? throw a pick six again.Pick six manning goes into meltdown mode when he has to face top notch competition in big games just as his idol Dan Marino did.No wonder Marino was his idol.

Many people consider the 91 Eagles defense to be the best ever because the offense that season was so bad that the defense spent more time on the field than any of the other historically great defenses in NFL history.

So don't give me that shit about tired defenses.

I have seen the same thing in the past

A defense that is making stop after stop but gets a three and out when the offense gets the ball. Theyend up giving up a lot more yards than a defense that sits while the offense has an eight minute drive

 

[SwimExpert]

Yep I'm just a fanboi. Along with every single NFL team owner and general manager that recognizes the same, based on the fact that the QB is the highest paid position in the NFL BY FAR.

Just because an idea is common does not mean it is accurate. It used to be not that long ago that a QB was not necessarily the highest paid person on the team. A top QB like Peyton Manning, sure. But really, the top pay went to whomever was the most valuable individual on the team. It might be your HB. It might be your outstanding DE who obliterates offensive lines. Hell, before a recent trade DT Haloti Ngata was about to be the Ravens' highest paid player this coming season. Do you think Trent Dilfer was the highest paid member of his team when they won that Super Bowl?

Contracts in the NFL are all negotiated out. If Billy is willing to pay $100 million for a QB, it doesn't matter how foolish it might be, the fact of the matter is that it's going to take more than $100 million for Jimmy to get that same player. And it's going to end up raising the price for other QBs who might not be as good but are still decent. It only takes a small portion of the whole to create an inflationary snowball. A player's contract is substantially effected by his agent's ability to negotiate the best contract he can squeeze out for his client. And a big part of that negotiation is going to reference other players around the league in the same position. You come up with a figure based on current contracts, then you press for an even greater amount. A good negotiator will press the envelope because it is better to create inflationary value than it is to try catching up to inflationary value.

QBs are being inflated nowadays in the NFL. Ben Roethlisberger just signed a new contract, comparable to his rival Joe Flacco's stratospheric contract. Big Ben is undoubtedly has been a more accomplished, more capable QB than Flacco. But his previous contract was signed several years ago, before the recent rampant QB price inflation. Only now is he getting a "big payday" contract, which really is not so "big" all of a sudden, considering that it's become the "going rate."

The irony here is that while you use the fact that "teams are willing to pay" as the foundation of your argument, the truth is that teams aren't willing and don't expect to be able to pay. Nobody expects these QBs to actually receive as much money as their contracts suggests. Everyone expects these contracts to be renegotiated. Joe Flacco is entering his 3rd year of a 6 year contract. The Ravens will not be able to retain him for the second half of the contract if Flacco doesn't agree to a renegotiated deal.

And you know damn well that dilfer wasn't winning that super bowl without that defense. You probably wouldn't even have been in it to begin with.

That's my point exactly! It's not about the fucking quarterback! It's a god damned team sport! Why didn't Kerry Collins win Superbowl 35 for the Giants when he was the superior quarterback? Because it's a team sport! Why did the Ravens put up 34 points in that game? Because it's a team sport! You think the QB is the end all and be all, so why the hell even play the game? Why not simply have two QBs go out and throw 10 balls at a target, and whoever hits the target the most wins the game? Why not? Because that's not the game! Trent Dilfer has one Super Bowl ring. That's equal to Peyton Manning. If the quarterback is the end-all-be-all, then does that mean that Peyton is only as good as Trent Dilfer? Why doesn't Peyton Manning have more rings? Why does Terry Bradshaw have the same four rings as Joe Montana when Montana was undoubtedly the superior QB? Why doesn't Troy Aikman have more rings than Tom Brady when Aikman was undoubtedly the superior QB? Why doesn't Jim Kelly have any rings when Kelly was Peyton Manning before there was Peyton Manning?

Your insistence that the QB is so all important make is you who doesn't understand football. All you can say is "Well, because....QUARTERBACK!" Yet you turn right around and contradict yourself by continually pointing out that Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl because of the rest of the team.

 

[HUGGY]

Yep I'm just a fanboi. Along with every single NFL team owner and general manager that recognizes the same, based on the fact that the QB is the highest paid position in the NFL BY FAR.

Just because an idea is common does not mean it is accurate. It used to be not that long ago that a QB was not necessarily the highest paid person on the team. A top QB like Peyton Manning, sure. But really, the top pay went to whomever was the most valuable individual on the team. It might be your HB. It might be your outstanding DE who obliterates offensive lines. Hell, before a recent trade DT Haloti Ngata was about to be the Ravens' highest paid player this coming season. Do you think Trent Dilfer was the highest paid member of his team when they won that Super Bowl?

Contracts in the NFL are all negotiated out. If Billy is willing to pay $100 million for a QB, it doesn't matter how foolish it might be, the fact of the matter is that it's going to take more than $100 million for Jimmy to get that same player. And it's going to end up raising the price for other QBs who might not be as good but are still decent. It only takes a small portion of the whole to create an inflationary snowball. A player's contract is substantially effected by his agent's ability to negotiate the best contract he can squeeze out for his client. And a big part of that negotiation is going to reference other players around the league in the same position. You come up with a figure based on current contracts, then you press for an even greater amount. A good negotiator will press the envelope because it is better to create inflationary value than it is to try catching up to inflationary value.

QBs are being inflated nowadays in the NFL. Ben Roethlisberger just signed a new contract, comparable to his rival Joe Flacco's stratospheric contract. Big Ben is undoubtedly has been a more accomplished, more capable QB than Flacco. But his previous contract was signed several years ago, before the recent rampant QB price inflation. Only now is he getting a "big payday" contract, which really is not so "big" all of a sudden, considering that it's become the "going rate."

The irony here is that while you use the fact that "teams are willing to pay" as the foundation of your argument, the truth is that teams aren't willing and don't expect to be able to pay. Nobody expects these QBs to actually receive as much money as their contracts suggests. Everyone expects these contracts to be renegotiated. Joe Flacco is entering his 3rd year of a 6 year contract. The Ravens will not be able to retain him for the second half of the contract if Flacco doesn't agree to a renegotiated deal.

And you know damn well that dilfer wasn't winning that super bowl without that defense. You probably wouldn't even have been in it to begin with.

That's my point exactly! It's not about the fucking quarterback! It's a god damned team sport! Why didn't Kerry Collins win Superbowl 35 for the Giants when he was the superior quarterback? Because it's a team sport! Why did the Ravens put up 34 points in that game? Because it's a team sport! You think the QB is the end all and be all, so why the hell even play the game? Why not simply have two QBs go out and throw 10 balls at a target, and whoever hits the target the most wins the game? Why not? Because that's not the game! Trent Dilfer has one Super Bowl ring. That's equal to Peyton Manning. If the quarterback is the end-all-be-all, then does that mean that Peyton is only as good as Trent Dilfer? Why doesn't Peyton Manning have more rings? Why does Terry Bradshaw have the same four rings as Joe Montana when Montana was undoubtedly the superior QB? Why doesn't Troy Aikman have more rings than Tom Brady when Aikman was undoubtedly the superior QB? Why doesn't Jim Kelly have any rings when Kelly was Peyton Manning before there was Peyton Manning?

Your insistence that the QB is so all important make is you who doesn't understand football. All you can say is "Well, because....QUARTERBACK!" Yet you turn right around and contradict yourself by continually pointing out that Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl because of the rest of the team.

That's a hell of a lot of words without coming to or making a discernible point.

 

[Toro]

The most important position in football is the QB. It's the position that influences the game more than any other, and its most difficult to win a SB without a very good QB than any other position.

 

[rightwinger]

The most important position in football is the QB. It's the position that influences the game more than any other, and its most difficult to win a SB without a very good QB than any other position.

I have rooted for the Giants for 50 years. I have seen the difference between having a good quarterback and a bad quarterback

You may be able to hide a bad quarterback with a good D and a running game but it will only get you so far

In todays pass happy league a running back is an afterthought. A good quarterback is required to win. Every team knows it

 

[Paulie]

Yep I'm just a fanboi. Along with every single NFL team owner and general manager that recognizes the same, based on the fact that the QB is the highest paid position in the NFL BY FAR.

Just because an idea is common does not mean it is accurate. It used to be not that long ago that a QB was not necessarily the highest paid person on the team. A top QB like Peyton Manning, sure. But really, the top pay went to whomever was the most valuable individual on the team. It might be your HB. It might be your outstanding DE who obliterates offensive lines. Hell, before a recent trade DT Haloti Ngata was about to be the Ravens' highest paid player this coming season. Do you think Trent Dilfer was the highest paid member of his team when they won that Super Bowl?

Contracts in the NFL are all negotiated out. If Billy is willing to pay $100 million for a QB, it doesn't matter how foolish it might be, the fact of the matter is that it's going to take more than $100 million for Jimmy to get that same player. And it's going to end up raising the price for other QBs who might not be as good but are still decent. It only takes a small portion of the whole to create an inflationary snowball. A player's contract is substantially effected by his agent's ability to negotiate the best contract he can squeeze out for his client. And a big part of that negotiation is going to reference other players around the league in the same position. You come up with a figure based on current contracts, then you press for an even greater amount. A good negotiator will press the envelope because it is better to create inflationary value than it is to try catching up to inflationary value.

QBs are being inflated nowadays in the NFL. Ben Roethlisberger just signed a new contract, comparable to his rival Joe Flacco's stratospheric contract. Big Ben is undoubtedly has been a more accomplished, more capable QB than Flacco. But his previous contract was signed several years ago, before the recent rampant QB price inflation. Only now is he getting a "big payday" contract, which really is not so "big" all of a sudden, considering that it's become the "going rate."

The irony here is that while you use the fact that "teams are willing to pay" as the foundation of your argument, the truth is that teams aren't willing and don't expect to be able to pay. Nobody expects these QBs to actually receive as much money as their contracts suggests. Everyone expects these contracts to be renegotiated. Joe Flacco is entering his 3rd year of a 6 year contract. The Ravens will not be able to retain him for the second half of the contract if Flacco doesn't agree to a renegotiated deal.

And you know damn well that dilfer wasn't winning that super bowl without that defense. You probably wouldn't even have been in it to begin with.

That's my point exactly! It's not about the fucking quarterback! It's a god damned team sport! Why didn't Kerry Collins win Superbowl 35 for the Giants when he was the superior quarterback? Because it's a team sport! Why did the Ravens put up 34 points in that game? Because it's a team sport! You think the QB is the end all and be all, so why the hell even play the game? Why not simply have two QBs go out and throw 10 balls at a target, and whoever hits the target the most wins the game? Why not? Because that's not the game! Trent Dilfer has one Super Bowl ring. That's equal to Peyton Manning. If the quarterback is the end-all-be-all, then does that mean that Peyton is only as good as Trent Dilfer? Why doesn't Peyton Manning have more rings? Why does Terry Bradshaw have the same four rings as Joe Montana when Montana was undoubtedly the superior QB? Why doesn't Troy Aikman have more rings than Tom Brady when Aikman was undoubtedly the superior QB? Why doesn't Jim Kelly have any rings when Kelly was Peyton Manning before there was Peyton Manning?

Your insistence that the QB is so all important make is you who doesn't understand football. All you can say is "Well, because....QUARTERBACK!" Yet you turn right around and contradict yourself by continually pointing out that Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl because of the rest of the team.

This is all well and good. But Flacco is not Trent dilfer. Flacco may not be one of the top 5 QB in the league but he's not a middle of the pack overhyped QB like say, dalton. I'm not saying that EVERY QB should be highest paid. Clearly we would give Watt more money than whatever loser is throwing passes on a given Sunday in Houston right now, for example. My point is that when you DO have a QB at least as good as Flacco is, you pay him and build around him. If he continues to fail to get to the super bowl for a little while then you make the decision that it's time to move on. But the problem is he wins enough that you make the playoffs so you aren't going to get a high 1st rd pick and get a prospect in the draft unless you get lucky and grab a Brady or a Wilson in a later round. But you certainly aren't going to pay a WR more than him, I'll tell you that. He's proven he can win without needing a Calvin Johnson and a Dez Bryant out wide.

This all being said, I'm not a fanboi so much that I would take Flacco right now in philly instead of having a shot to see what Mariota could do for our offense.

Basically, I think you're just missing my point.

 

[SwimExpert]

I have seen the difference between having a good quarterback and a bad quarterback

The difference between a good _________ and a bad _________ is always very evident.

You may be able to hide a bad quarterback with a good D and a running game but it will only get you so far

No, not far. Just a Super Bowl victory.

In todays pass happy league

That says it all, doesn't it? At best, we have a case of preference, and that is it.

a running back is an afterthought.

You say this as if it justifies itself. If two teens run off and have sex, condoms might be an afterthought. Doesn't mean that magic will stop the girl from getting pregnant. Or prevent either of them from catching the other's STD.

A good quarterback is required to win. Every team knows it

Sure. A good quarterback. But good receivers are also required. Good offensive linemen are required. A good secondary is required. A good coach is required. A good running back is required. I good kicker is required. A good return specialist is required. A good ST squad is required. Winning requires you to be good at every level, but then have one or two things where you end up being great, and where you leverage that to your advantage. One dimensional minds like you get hung up on the quarterback being great. So much so that when the QB isn't great, you believe he's great just because the team won.

It doesn't matter how great a QB is, he can't catch the ball for a mediocre receiver.

 

[rightwinger]

I have seen the difference between having a good quarterback and a bad quarterback

The difference between a good _________ and a bad _________ is always very evident.

You may be able to hide a bad quarterback with a good D and a running game but it will only get you so far

No, not far. Just a Super Bowl victory.

In todays pass happy league

That says it all, doesn't it? At best, we have a case of preference, and that is it.

a running back is an afterthought.

You say this as if it justifies itself. If two teens run off and have sex, condoms might be an afterthought. Doesn't mean that magic will stop the girl from getting pregnant. Or prevent either of them from catching the other's STD.

A good quarterback is required to win. Every team knows it

Sure. A good quarterback. But good receivers are also required. Good offensive linemen are required. A good secondary is required. A good coach is required. A good running back is required. I good kicker is required. A good return specialist is required. A good ST squad is required. Winning requires you to be good at every level, but then have one or two things where you end up being great, and where you leverage that to your advantage. One dimensional minds like you get hung up on the quarterback being great. So much so that when the QB isn't great, you believe he's great just because the team won.

It doesn't matter how great a QB is, he can't catch the ball for a mediocre receiver.

I'm sorry....I really tried

But you are making no sense at all

 

[SwimExpert]

I have seen the difference between having a good quarterback and a bad quarterback

The difference between a good _________ and a bad _________ is always very evident.

You may be able to hide a bad quarterback with a good D and a running game but it will only get you so far

No, not far. Just a Super Bowl victory.

In todays pass happy league

That says it all, doesn't it? At best, we have a case of preference, and that is it.

a running back is an afterthought.

You say this as if it justifies itself. If two teens run off and have sex, condoms might be an afterthought. Doesn't mean that magic will stop the girl from getting pregnant. Or prevent either of them from catching the other's STD.

A good quarterback is required to win. Every team knows it

Sure. A good quarterback. But good receivers are also required. Good offensive linemen are required. A good secondary is required. A good coach is required. A good running back is required. I good kicker is required. A good return specialist is required. A good ST squad is required. Winning requires you to be good at every level, but then have one or two things where you end up being great, and where you leverage that to your advantage. One dimensional minds like you get hung up on the quarterback being great. So much so that when the QB isn't great, you believe he's great just because the team won.

It doesn't matter how great a QB is, he can't catch the ball for a mediocre receiver.

I'm sorry....I really tried

But you are making no sense at all

Yes, that kind of thing can happen when your mind is only capable of one dimensional thinking and you're faced with multi faceted reasoning.

 

[rightwinger]

I have seen the difference between having a good quarterback and a bad quarterback

The difference between a good _________ and a bad _________ is always very evident.

You may be able to hide a bad quarterback with a good D and a running game but it will only get you so far

No, not far. Just a Super Bowl victory.

In todays pass happy league

That says it all, doesn't it? At best, we have a case of preference, and that is it.

a running back is an afterthought.

You say this as if it justifies itself. If two teens run off and have sex, condoms might be an afterthought. Doesn't mean that magic will stop the girl from getting pregnant. Or prevent either of them from catching the other's STD.

A good quarterback is required to win. Every team knows it

Sure. A good quarterback. But good receivers are also required. Good offensive linemen are required. A good secondary is required. A good coach is required. A good running back is required. I good kicker is required. A good return specialist is required. A good ST squad is required. Winning requires you to be good at every level, but then have one or two things where you end up being great, and where you leverage that to your advantage. One dimensional minds like you get hung up on the quarterback being great. So much so that when the QB isn't great, you believe he's great just because the team won.

It doesn't matter how great a QB is, he can't catch the ball for a mediocre receiver.

I'm sorry....I really tried

But you are making no sense at all

Yes, that kind of thing can happen when your mind is only capable of one dimensional thinking and you're faced with multi faceted reasoning.

No, seriously

Your logic is in a world of its own. I don't see anyone else on this thread who can understand what you are babbling about

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Are you purposely stupid, or are you just too dumb to understand? I did not say that teams fall in love with their QBs. How many times do I have to say it? My point is that people are in love with the QB position! If they happen to like a particular QB, then all things good in the world come from him, no matter how poorly he might play. Any failures will be blamed on other people. If they don't like the QB, every single thing he accomplishes will credited to someone else, while he is blamed for every shortcoming the team experiences.

This is not a difficult concept.

Sure, fans end up doing the same thing. But no, I'm not talking about fans being in love with their quarterback. I'm talking about damn near everyone. The owners who make offers, the coaches who chase after players, and the fans too. Most people over emphasize the QB position, as if it is the only position that matters, with everyone else being stage fillers.

Same way that people can absolutely love Tim Tebow.

Oh shit, are you for realz!?! This is a business? Here, all this time, I thought the NFL was a social club.

Of course it's a business decision. That doesn't mean anything, though. People make bad business decisions every single day. People make business decisions based on all the wrong priorities every single day. Just because it's a business decision does not make it an inherently correct or perfect decision.

That may be true, but it's just as irrelevant as everything else you've been saying. Nick Foles was a very good quarterback. He had alot of success. If he was Peyton Manning, his stats would be worshiped on high. But he's only Nick Foles. The Eagles don't credit him with his own success. They credit the surrounding cast. Foles got alot of the blame for any little thing that didn't go well.

I don't question the fact that Luck is a very good quarterback, and before the end of his career he'll probably be among the truly few great QBs of his generation. But ultimately using him as your example is question begging. You assume that the QB position is the most important, and use Luck as the example to prove it. But you justify crediting Luck as being the one carrying the team, based on the assumption that the QB position is the most important position.

Yet Peyton remains one of the best QBs in the league. Peyton's real struggles boil down to the same weaknesses that have plagued him his entire career finally catching up to him and being too easily understood by opponents. Peyton has always been too arrogant, too aggressive in tough situations, too predictable when the chips are down, and too dependent on trickery and deception. Peyton is a great QB, but he has his worst moments against the toughest defenses, which is why for all his Ws, he's never been able to be a truly championship level player. The guy can land the football on a dime from 50 yards out. To this day he can still do that. And he's pretty damn clever. Mind you, I'm no Peyton fan. His obsession with trickery has always annoyed me.

In truth, a QB and receiver make each other better. It's complementary talent. Luck's receivers make him better, and he makes them better. Even if the receivers are getting the better side of the deal in this particular case, it's completely unjustified to give Luck all the credit.



I bet if you go ask receivers like Anquan Boldin, Michael Irvin, Randy Moss, and Jerry Rice would certainly disagree with the QB being the most important position. Just get the ball within a 10 yard radius, and they'd take care of the rest. Hell, I'd bet if you gave him a few cocktails and asked Michael Irvin, he'd tell you that Troy Aikman wasn't really as great as everyone thinks he was.

Peyton won a super bowl and handled that good Bears defense just fine.

You win some, you lose some. Super Bowls aren't some kind of entitlement. The fact that he even won one at all is pretty amazing. I suffered through Donovan mcnabb not being able to win ANY big games. I WISH I could say he won only 1 out of 3.

Peyton is one of the all time great QBs. His lack of performance in big games keeps him from being the greatest

Right, but he still won a super bowl. And against a pretty good defense too.

you fail to mention that he won that superbowl against a very good defense ONLY because that defense was on the field all day long because journeyman rex grossmen, finally showed his true colors in that game on how shitty a quarterback he was constantly overthrowing to his receivers with passes that were way off target.

when you have a defense that is on the field all day long because you have an offense that has constant three and outs,of course you're going to play well.

I dont care if that was the 1985 Bears defense that was playing that day.If that defense is on the field all day long like they were,eventually they are going to get tired and worn out in the second half like they did and not be effective anymore.

The 1985 Bears defense was effective in that superbowl because they were not on the field all day long in that game charlie.lol

The Bears got to the superbowl that year because their defense and special teams carried them.well their luck ran out on them that day and was not able to carry them anymore because Grossmans true colors as a quarterback were exposed.

Im not even sure Grossman still plays anymore or not.Thats how he has faded off into the sunset since then.lol

The other two superbowls he played in,when he had to face top notch competition facing a future hall of famer Drew Brees and Wilson who there is no reason not to believe is this generations Tom Brady,he choked.

sure facing a quarterback who was a shitty one,he was able to beat,but against top notch competion,he sucked.

He is a clone of Dan Marino.Puts up impressive statisitics and numbers during the regular season,but in BIG game against top notch competition,he panicks.

He had a chance to tie the game in the final two minutes of the superbowl against the saints.

what did he do when the game was on the line in a big game against top notch competition? panic and throw a pick six.

what did he do against the seahawks in the superbowl against top notch competition again? throw a pick six again.Pick six manning goes into meltdown mode when he has to face top notch competition in big games just as his idol Dan Marino did.No wonder Marino was his idol.

Many people consider the 91 Eagles defense to be the best ever because the offense that season was so bad that the defense spent more time on the field than any of the other historically great defenses in NFL history.

So don't give me that shit about tired defenses.

your in denial.nice game of dodgeball.

 

[Paulie]

I have seen the difference between having a good quarterback and a bad quarterback

The difference between a good _________ and a bad _________ is always very evident.

You may be able to hide a bad quarterback with a good D and a running game but it will only get you so far

No, not far. Just a Super Bowl victory.

In todays pass happy league

That says it all, doesn't it? At best, we have a case of preference, and that is it.

a running back is an afterthought.

You say this as if it justifies itself. If two teens run off and have sex, condoms might be an afterthought. Doesn't mean that magic will stop the girl from getting pregnant. Or prevent either of them from catching the other's STD.

A good quarterback is required to win. Every team knows it

Sure. A good quarterback. But good receivers are also required. Good offensive linemen are required. A good secondary is required. A good coach is required. A good running back is required. I good kicker is required. A good return specialist is required. A good ST squad is required. Winning requires you to be good at every level, but then have one or two things where you end up being great, and where you leverage that to your advantage. One dimensional minds like you get hung up on the quarterback being great. So much so that when the QB isn't great, you believe he's great just because the team won.

It doesn't matter how great a QB is, he can't catch the ball for a mediocre receiver.

Jesus Christ man. No one is saying you don't need other pieces on the team to be good. But what were ALL saying besides you, is that you start with the QB and build around him. Not everyone has that luxury because not everyone has one worth building around, but the teams that don't would pay one that is worth it over any other player.

aaron Rodgers is more valuable than JJ Watt. Aaron Rodgers is more valuable than Calvin Johnson. Just come to terms with it.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

I remember brad Johnson winning a super bowl too. Who again, wouldn't have had a shot in hell without that defense.

I remember brad Johnson winning a super bowl too. Who again, wouldn't have had a shot in hell without that defense.

amazing how you can accept these facts but you cant that manning chokes against top notch competition in BIG games when he faces a GOOD quarterback.You're obviously a Manning worshipper. wah wah wah.

seeing how this thread is no longer about Dilfer,Im otta here.

 

[HUGGY]

I have seen the difference between having a good quarterback and a bad quarterback

The difference between a good _________ and a bad _________ is always very evident.

You may be able to hide a bad quarterback with a good D and a running game but it will only get you so far

No, not far. Just a Super Bowl victory.

In todays pass happy league

That says it all, doesn't it? At best, we have a case of preference, and that is it.

a running back is an afterthought.

You say this as if it justifies itself. If two teens run off and have sex, condoms might be an afterthought. Doesn't mean that magic will stop the girl from getting pregnant. Or prevent either of them from catching the other's STD.

A good quarterback is required to win. Every team knows it

Sure. A good quarterback. But good receivers are also required. Good offensive linemen are required. A good secondary is required. A good coach is required. A good running back is required. I good kicker is required. A good return specialist is required. A good ST squad is required. Winning requires you to be good at every level, but then have one or two things where you end up being great, and where you leverage that to your advantage. One dimensional minds like you get hung up on the quarterback being great. So much so that when the QB isn't great, you believe he's great just because the team won.

It doesn't matter how great a QB is, he can't catch the ball for a mediocre receiver.

I'm sorry....I really tried

But you are making no sense at all

Yes, that kind of thing can happen when your mind is only capable of one dimensional thinking and you're faced with multi faceted reasoning.

No, seriously

Your logic is in a world of its own. I don't see anyone else on this thread who can understand what you are babbling about

High likelyhood Dood lives in WA or CO or CA. I can almost hear the gurggling of the water bong as I try to frame a point to his posts.

Face it...More peeps are going to be smokin the Ganja out in puiblic.

 

[Montrovant]

Are you purposely stupid, or are you just too dumb to understand? I did not say that teams fall in love with their QBs. How many times do I have to say it? My point is that people are in love with the QB position! If they happen to like a particular QB, then all things good in the world come from him, no matter how poorly he might play. Any failures will be blamed on other people. If they don't like the QB, every single thing he accomplishes will credited to someone else, while he is blamed for every shortcoming the team experiences.

This is not a difficult concept.

Sure, fans end up doing the same thing. But no, I'm not talking about fans being in love with their quarterback. I'm talking about damn near everyone. The owners who make offers, the coaches who chase after players, and the fans too. Most people over emphasize the QB position, as if it is the only position that matters, with everyone else being stage fillers.

Same way that people can absolutely love Tim Tebow.

Oh shit, are you for realz!?! This is a business? Here, all this time, I thought the NFL was a social club.

Of course it's a business decision. That doesn't mean anything, though. People make bad business decisions every single day. People make business decisions based on all the wrong priorities every single day. Just because it's a business decision does not make it an inherently correct or perfect decision.

That may be true, but it's just as irrelevant as everything else you've been saying. Nick Foles was a very good quarterback. He had alot of success. If he was Peyton Manning, his stats would be worshiped on high. But he's only Nick Foles. The Eagles don't credit him with his own success. They credit the surrounding cast. Foles got alot of the blame for any little thing that didn't go well.

I don't question the fact that Luck is a very good quarterback, and before the end of his career he'll probably be among the truly few great QBs of his generation. But ultimately using him as your example is question begging. You assume that the QB position is the most important, and use Luck as the example to prove it. But you justify crediting Luck as being the one carrying the team, based on the assumption that the QB position is the most important position.

Yet Peyton remains one of the best QBs in the league. Peyton's real struggles boil down to the same weaknesses that have plagued him his entire career finally catching up to him and being too easily understood by opponents. Peyton has always been too arrogant, too aggressive in tough situations, too predictable when the chips are down, and too dependent on trickery and deception. Peyton is a great QB, but he has his worst moments against the toughest defenses, which is why for all his Ws, he's never been able to be a truly championship level player. The guy can land the football on a dime from 50 yards out. To this day he can still do that. And he's pretty damn clever. Mind you, I'm no Peyton fan. His obsession with trickery has always annoyed me.

In truth, a QB and receiver make each other better. It's complementary talent. Luck's receivers make him better, and he makes them better. Even if the receivers are getting the better side of the deal in this particular case, it's completely unjustified to give Luck all the credit.



I bet if you go ask receivers like Anquan Boldin, Michael Irvin, Randy Moss, and Jerry Rice would certainly disagree with the QB being the most important position. Just get the ball within a 10 yard radius, and they'd take care of the rest. Hell, I'd bet if you gave him a few cocktails and asked Michael Irvin, he'd tell you that Troy Aikman wasn't really as great as everyone thinks he was.

Peyton won a super bowl and handled that good Bears defense just fine.

You win some, you lose some. Super Bowls aren't some kind of entitlement. The fact that he even won one at all is pretty amazing. I suffered through Donovan mcnabb not being able to win ANY big games. I WISH I could say he won only 1 out of 3.

Peyton is one of the all time great QBs. His lack of performance in big games keeps him from being the greatest

Right, but he still won a super bowl. And against a pretty good defense too.

you fail to mention that he won that superbowl against a very good defense ONLY because that defense was on the field all day long because journeyman rex grossmen, finally showed his true colors in that game on how shitty a quarterback he was constantly overthrowing to his receivers with passes that were way off target.

when you have a defense that is on the field all day long because you have an offense that has constant three and outs,of course you're going to play well.

I dont care if that was the 1985 Bears defense that was playing that day.If that defense is on the field all day long like they were,eventually they are going to get tired and worn out in the second half like they did and not be effective anymore.

The 1985 Bears defense was effective in that superbowl because they were not on the field all day long in that game charlie.lol

The Bears got to the superbowl that year because their defense and special teams carried them.well their luck ran out on them that day and was not able to carry them anymore because Grossmans true colors as a quarterback were exposed.

Im not even sure Grossman still plays anymore or not.Thats how he has faded off into the sunset since then.lol

The other two superbowls he played in,when he had to face top notch competition facing a future hall of famer Drew Brees and Wilson who there is no reason not to believe is this generations Tom Brady,he choked.

sure facing a quarterback who was a shitty one,he was able to beat,but against top notch competion,he sucked.

He is a clone of Dan Marino.Puts up impressive statisitics and numbers during the regular season,but in BIG game against top notch competition,he panicks.

He had a chance to tie the game in the final two minutes of the superbowl against the saints.

what did he do when the game was on the line in a big game against top notch competition? panic and throw a pick six.

what did he do against the seahawks in the superbowl against top notch competition again? throw a pick six again.Pick six manning goes into meltdown mode when he has to face top notch competition in big games just as his idol Dan Marino did.No wonder Marino was his idol.

Many people consider the 91 Eagles defense to be the best ever because the offense that season was so bad that the defense spent more time on the field than any of the other historically great defenses in NFL history.

So don't give me that shit about tired defenses.

Who are these many people who consider the 91 Eagles the best defense ever?

 

[Montrovant]

There are a number of reasons the QB is considered the most important position in football. Consider this one : other than the center, who generally doesn't do much with it, the QB will touch the ball more than any other player. They are also generally considered the leaders of the offense, if not the team in general.

Football is absolutely a team sport, and the QB position may not be as important an individual position as, say, the goalie in hockey, but it is almost undeniably the most important single position in the league. There are teams who get by with sub-par QB play because of great defense and/or running games, but they are the exceptions. And as the league has moved more toward passing, the QB has become more and more important.

 

[rightwinger]

There are a number of reasons the QB is considered the most important position in football. Consider this one : other than the center, who generally doesn't do much with it, the QB will touch the ball more than any other player. They are also generally considered the leaders of the offense, if not the team in general.

Football is absolutely a team sport, and the QB position may not be as important an individual position as, say, the goalie in hockey, but it is almost undeniably the most important single position in the league. There are teams who get by with sub-par QB play because of great defense and/or running games, but they are the exceptions. And as the league has moved more toward passing, the QB has become more and more important.

Beyond basic skills, the QB needs to be a field general, reading defenses, changing plays at the line of scrimmage, adapting and reacting once the ball is snapped

No other player impacts the game as much

 

[Paulie]

Peyton won a super bowl and handled that good Bears defense just fine.

You win some, you lose some. Super Bowls aren't some kind of entitlement. The fact that he even won one at all is pretty amazing. I suffered through Donovan mcnabb not being able to win ANY big games. I WISH I could say he won only 1 out of 3.

Peyton is one of the all time great QBs. His lack of performance in big games keeps him from being the greatest

Right, but he still won a super bowl. And against a pretty good defense too.

you fail to mention that he won that superbowl against a very good defense ONLY because that defense was on the field all day long because journeyman rex grossmen, finally showed his true colors in that game on how shitty a quarterback he was constantly overthrowing to his receivers with passes that were way off target.

when you have a defense that is on the field all day long because you have an offense that has constant three and outs,of course you're going to play well.

I dont care if that was the 1985 Bears defense that was playing that day.If that defense is on the field all day long like they were,eventually they are going to get tired and worn out in the second half like they did and not be effective anymore.

The 1985 Bears defense was effective in that superbowl because they were not on the field all day long in that game charlie.lol

The Bears got to the superbowl that year because their defense and special teams carried them.well their luck ran out on them that day and was not able to carry them anymore because Grossmans true colors as a quarterback were exposed.

Im not even sure Grossman still plays anymore or not.Thats how he has faded off into the sunset since then.lol

The other two superbowls he played in,when he had to face top notch competition facing a future hall of famer Drew Brees and Wilson who there is no reason not to believe is this generations Tom Brady,he choked.

sure facing a quarterback who was a shitty one,he was able to beat,but against top notch competion,he sucked.

He is a clone of Dan Marino.Puts up impressive statisitics and numbers during the regular season,but in BIG game against top notch competition,he panicks.

He had a chance to tie the game in the final two minutes of the superbowl against the saints.

what did he do when the game was on the line in a big game against top notch competition? panic and throw a pick six.

what did he do against the seahawks in the superbowl against top notch competition again? throw a pick six again.Pick six manning goes into meltdown mode when he has to face top notch competition in big games just as his idol Dan Marino did.No wonder Marino was his idol.

Many people consider the 91 Eagles defense to be the best ever because the offense that season was so bad that the defense spent more time on the field than any of the other historically great defenses in NFL history.

So don't give me that shit about tired defenses.

Who are these many people who consider the 91 Eagles the best defense ever?

Many people was just hyperbole really. But there was a really great breakdown done of the best defenses in history and they used a number of comprehensive metrics to fine tune the rankings. They came to the conclusion based on these metrics that the 77 Falcons and the 91 Eagles, while not having the sexiest stats of least yards or points allowed among the teams in the list, still came out as the best because of the fact that their offensive counterparts kept them on the field so long those seasons that the dominating numbers that they DID put up should actually hold a little more weight than just the typical conclusion that the least amount of points and yards should equal the best defense.

 

[Paulie]

Not only that but also accounting for the quality of offenses they faced during their respective seasons as well.

 

[Paulie]

But that's all just opinion still regardless. You could also say yeah that's great but they didn't win Super Bowls and the Bears, steelers, and Ravens did.