Quarterback driven league

dawg2fan

@walterwhite said:

Since the first Super Bowl in 1966 there have been 48 Super Bowls.

43 of them have been won by HALL OF FAME, MVP, OR PRO BOWL QB'S multiple times.

Star, Namath, Dawson, Unitas, Staubach, Stabler, Greise, Bradshaw, Montana, Rypien, Simms, Aikman, Young, Favre, Warner, Brady, Big Ben, E. Manning, P. Manning, Rogers, Brees, Flacco, Wilson.

Sweet. Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson, Jim Plunkett, and Doug Williams won with a running game.

4/48 Super Bowl were won without good QB's. Gotcha OP.

Yes, but if you truly evaluate those winning QBs, you will find that they had complete teams (at least while they were winning). When you look at some of the big names today such as Rothlesburger, Eli Manning, Flacco, Wilson, why are they not winning? Football is the one sport where it is all about being a complete team. A great QB and no Oline, wont get it done. A great Oline and no QB wont get it done. A pathetic Dline and the best QB wont get it done unless you have Aaron Rodgers and even he can only do so much. Again, football is about having a complete team and all of those QBs mentioned above had complete teams.

WalterWhite

@tour2ma said:
No one wins simply because they have the "best" QB.

Well, all of the best QB's have won Super Bowls (minus Marino)

mohican

@walterwhite said:

Since the first Super Bowl in 1966 there have been 48 Super Bowls.

43 of them have been won by HALL OF FAME, MVP, OR PRO BOWL QB'S multiple times.

Star, Namath, Dawson, Unitas, Staubach, Stabler, Greise, Bradshaw, Montana, Rypien, Simms, Aikman, Young, Favre, Warner, Brady, Big Ben, E. Manning, P. Manning, Rogers, Brees, Flacco, Wilson.

Sweet. Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson, Jim Plunkett, and Doug Williams won with a running game.

4/48 Super Bowl were won without good QB's. Gotcha OP.

Doug WIlliams might not have been a "franchise" quarterback, but during that Superbowl he, and the Redskin receivers were superb and clearly outmatched Denver.

StocktonShorts

If you think the QB is just "1 of 22" and has no more importance than other players on the field, then nobody can help you. You're lost. No position is more important, and it's not even close.

Todays NFL, even more so then 10 years ago, is all about the QB. The rules are designed for the QB to score points. Passing yards and points have never been higher. If your QB can't sling it then he better be able to hurt the other team with his feet. If he has neither of those abilities then you you're not going to win a Super Bowl with that guy.

dawg2fan

@walterwhite said:

Well, all of the best QB's have won Super Bowls (minus Marino)

And Marino may have been the best QB ever. He never won a SB because he never had a really good D.

The Gipper

@dawg2fan said:
And Marino may have been the best QB ever. He never won a SB because he never had a really good D.

What did someone say about "Balance"? Perfect example.

bbedward

@dawg2fan said:
And Marino may have been the best QB ever. He never won a SB because he never had a really good D.

All he ever wanted was the D

Tour2ma

@walterwhite said:
Well, all of the best QB's have won Super Bowls (minus Marino)

Really?

When did Dan Fouts win his? Fran Tarkenton? Jim Kelly?

Bleacher says there are 50 of them... I did not bother to look.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1025782-50-greatest-quarterbacks-never-to-win-a-super-bowl

Manzier

Lets be honest, players(qb's especially) get elevated to god status as soon as they win a SB. Some deserve it and some dont.

A great quarterback certainly CANT win a Super Bowl with an average team, but an average quarterback could win one with a great TEAM.(and then he might be declared great)(or get paid like it).

But a great QB definitely improves your odds. I see QB's who "statistically" were average to below average, but they won SuperBowls and are considered GREAT!

And I see QB's who had long, successful careers and statistically were great, but they never won a SB and, therefore are considered "ok"

So, if WINNING defines great. Then you gotta give Hoyer space, because he's winning.

And if STATISTICS define great. Then you gotta say "average" qb's have won a lot of SB's.

WinstonLegthigh

@stocktonshorts said:

Todays NFL, even more so then 10 years ago

Don't let the Mensa boys see that you don't know "than" from "then"

The Gipper

@walterwhite said:

Well, all of the best QB's have won Super Bowls (minus Marino)

How do you define "best"? Of the Top 20 in career QB rating, over half of them have never won SB.

Of the Top 20 QBs in career TD passes, over half of them have never won a SB.

Of the Top 20 QBs in career completions, over half of them have never won a SB.

Of the Top 20 QBs in career passing yards, over half of them have never won a SB.

So, like I said, how do you define "best QBs" Or does you criteria sound like this:

Of all the QBs that have won Super Bowls, all of them have won Super Bowls.

Just curious.

StocktonShorts

@winstonlegthigh said:
Don't let the Mensa boys see that you don't know "than" from "then"

You use "Than" when talking options, comparing one thing to another "Stockton is smarter THAN you"

You use "Then" when talking chronologically, a period of time like "Even more so THEN 10 years ago"

bbedward

I think there's many people who know more about football that dont have a menstrual card.

StocktonShorts

@bbedward said:
I think there's many people who know more about football that dont have a menstrual card.

Well if any of those people think Brian Hoyer is a Franchise QB, then they would never be up for a Menstrual Card.

The Gipper

@stocktonshorts said:
Well if any of those people think Brian Hoyer is a Franchise QB, then they would never be up for a Menstrual Card.

You harp on the same thing over and over and over so much I swear you are driven by estrogen.

StocktonShorts

@the-gipper said:
You harp on the same thing over and over and over so much I swear you are driven by estrogen.

When you say the truth and you are met with resistance then you repeat the truth. Over and Over.

Manzier

@stocktonshorts said:

When you say the truth and you are met with resistance then you repeat the truth. Over and Over.

And, on that note.....

You harp on the same thing over and over and over so much I swear you are driven by estrogen.

Ibleedbrown

@stocktonshorts said:

You use "Than" when talking options, comparing one thing to another "Stockton is smarter THAN you"

You use "Then" when talking chronologically, a period of time like "Even more so THEN 10 years ago"

Those are both comparisons ya wingnut. You were comparing todays NFL to the NFL of 10 years ago.

And you're referring to yourself in the 3rd person now.

Tighten up there slick.

StocktonShorts

@ibleedbrown said:

Those are both comparisons ya wingnut. You were comparing todays NFL to the NFL of 10 years ago.

And you're referring to yourself in the 3rd person now.

Tighten up there slick.

Oh boy.

When talking chronologically you use THEN. Comparison of two eras is chronological. Now is better THEN the past.

Zombo

@stocktonshorts said:

Oh boy.

When talking chronologically you use THEN. Comparison of two eras is chronological. Now is better THEN the past.

That's not right. You don't use then just because you referring to time, if it is a comparison, you use "than"

"Now is better THAN the past"

"I took a shower THEN I pissed"

http://www.grammar-monster.com/easily_confused/than_then.htm

Not quite as tricky as Champagne/Champaine

Zombo