Quarterback driven league
-
I can't believe I'm agreeing with you.
The Seahawks do not go to the playoffs without Russell Wilson's 100+ QB rating and ability to escape pressure.
3300 yards, 26 TD's, 9 int's, and a 65 % is damn good QB-ing.
Yup damn good... not dominant.. or elite... just damn good. Other apt descriptors? Efficient... complementary... game-managing...
Divide the season yardage by 16 and you get 206 YPG. Dominant? Even add in the 30-ish YPG Wilson rushed for and you are shy of 250.
Brady? Won three SB's as a complementary QB averaging under 240 ypg. Since then he has won zero, but his yards are up.
No one wins simply because they have the "best" QB.
No one wins simply because they have the "best" QB.
Well, all of the best QB's have won Super Bowls (minus Marino)
-
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.
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.
-
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. -
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.Todays NFL, even more so then 10 years ago
Don't let the Mensa boys see that you don't know "than" from "then"
-
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.
-
Todays NFL, even more so then 10 years ago
Don't let the Mensa boys see that you don't know "than" from "then"
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"
-
I think there's many people who know more about football that dont have a menstrual card.
-
I think there's many people who know more about football that dont have a menstrual card.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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.
You harp on the same thing over and over and over so much I swear you are driven by estrogen.
You harp on the same thing over and over and over so much I swear you are driven by estrogen.
You harp on the same thing over and over and over so much I swear you are driven by estrogen.
-
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"
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login