PDA

View Full Version : Mark Kriegel on Tim Tebow



vettesplus
12-02-2011, 04:06 PM
A very interesting article

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/sports-nfl/20111202/Kriegel-Tim-Tebow-Denver-Broncos-NFL/

wayninja
12-02-2011, 04:13 PM
It's always funny to hear guys who lectured us about the importance throwing mechanics etc now lecture us about how that stuff doesn't mean anything.

catfish
12-02-2011, 04:18 PM
It's always funny to hear guys who lectured us about the importance throwing mechanics etc now lecture us about how that stuff doesn't mean anything.

That article reads as a very eloquent digesting of crow IMO

lgenf
12-02-2011, 09:34 PM
It just seems like another way for someone to calc how to really gauge Tebows yds without it relying solely on passing yards

Which seems like a better measure to me, but the league and ESPN like their calcs and so those are what we are stuck listening to

vettesplus
12-03-2011, 12:03 AM
i guess as tt keeps proving himself on the field, all the calculations that the "experts" put together really don't apply to this kid!!!

Chef Zambini
12-03-2011, 11:19 AM
i guess as tt keeps proving himself on the field, all the calculations that the "experts" put together really don't apply to this kid!!!BINGO! now they have to INVENT new stats to explain the tebow phenominon.
stats are for losers.
winners look at the won-loss column.
losers employ stats to justify their emotions.

Ravage!!!
12-03-2011, 11:26 AM
BINGO! now they have to INVENT new stats to explain the tebow phenominon.
stats are for losers.
winners look at the won-loss column.
losers employ stats to justify their emotions.

Not exactly. A very good QB can play on a bad team, and lose. That doesn't mean he played poorly and didn't do his job well.

Just as we've seen bad QBs play on winning teams. There were some VERY VERY bad QBs that won Super Bowls in Washington. Rypien was a terrible QB. Doug WIlliams was NOT a good QB. Dilfer and Johnson weren't good QBs.

There were some posters on here that defended Vince Young for a long time because of his Win/Loss record....telling us all that his record "PROVED" what a good QB he is/was.

But the fact is, all these QBs look good when the defense is keeping the other team only scoring low points. But what happens when their defenses don't keep teams from scoring? They lose.

I'll agree that stats are NEVER the end of the discussion, and purely just the start of them. But the Win/Loss category, is just another stat line that does NOT tell the story of how well or how badly the QB played.

Chef Zambini
12-03-2011, 11:45 AM
for WINNERS there is only ONE stat line that matters.

Dreadnought
12-03-2011, 03:06 PM
Not exactly. A very good QB can play on a bad team, and lose. That doesn't mean he played poorly and didn't do his job well.

Just as we've seen bad QBs play on winning teams. There were some VERY VERY bad QBs that won Super Bowls in Washington. Rypien was a terrible QB. Doug WIlliams was NOT a good QB. Dilfer and Johnson weren't good QBs.

There were some posters on here that defended Vince Young for a long time because of his Win/Loss record....telling us all that his record "PROVED" what a good QB he is/was.

But the fact is, all these QBs look good when the defense is keeping the other team only scoring low points. But what happens when their defenses don't keep teams from scoring? They lose.

I'll agree that stats are NEVER the end of the discussion, and purely just the start of them. But the Win/Loss category, is just another stat line that does NOT tell the story of how well or how badly the QB played.

Brad Johnson was a very good QB, just not a great one. Thats OK; you don't need a great QB to win.

Northman
12-03-2011, 03:07 PM
Brad Johnson was a very good QB, just not a great one. Thats OK; you don't need a great QB to win.

Indeed. You can win at least one SB with a average to good QB but you need a very good defense to pull it off. But generally to win multiple SB's you need an elite QB.

Dreadnought
12-03-2011, 03:12 PM
Indeed. You can win at least one SB with a average to good QB but you need a very good defense to pull it off. But generally to win multiple SB's you need an elite QB.

Terry Bradshaw won four. I would rate him as average-to-good at the very most. Phil Simms was not great, nor Bob Griese, nor Eli Manning, nor Marc Wilson, nor Jim Plunkett...etc. etc. All very good, not great.

I would say Dilfer and D. Williams are special in that they both were bottom 10 guys in the League when they won. Both were seriously chump QB's and won anyways.

wayninja
12-03-2011, 03:14 PM
I'm starting to question the conventional wisdom of what an 'elite' QB is. I'd rather have a guy that I can almost always depend on to come back to tie/win late in a game rather than someone who puts up 300+ yards in the first 3 quarters but can't drive the nail into the coffin.

Northman
12-03-2011, 03:17 PM
Terry Bradshaw won four. I would rate him as average-to-good at the very most. Phil Simms was not great, nor Bob Griese, nor Eli Manning, nor Marc Wilson, nor Jim Plunkett...etc. etc. All very good, not great.

I would say Dilfer and D. Williams are special in that they both were bottom 10 guys in the League when they won. Both were seriously chump QB's and won anyways.

Well, with Bradshaw, Simms, and Plunkett it was a entirely different era so when you look across the board they were all along the same lines as Montana, Elway, in terms of QB ratings, completion percentage, etc. Cant remember how good the Dolphins D was with Griese but Eli had a very defense when he won so again you can get it done with guys like that but generally its going to take a more rounded team effort especially on the defensive side to get it done.

catfish
12-03-2011, 03:17 PM
I'm starting to question the conventional wisdom of what an 'elite' QB is. I'd rather have a guy that I can almost always depend on to come back to tie/win late in a game rather than someone who puts up 300+ yards in the first 3 quarters but can't drive the nail into the coffin.

I have heard it said that qb's lose you more games than they win you. If all Tebow is able to do is control the clock and not turn it over that is 90% of what it takes to be an above average QB. I think I read that every turn over in a game means your team is 20% less likely to win. Look at the Jets game, 2 teams more or less equal on both sides of the ball, game decided by a pick 6

Dreadnought
12-03-2011, 03:19 PM
Well, with Bradshaw, Simms, and Plunkett it was a entirely different era so when you look across the board they were all along the same lines as Montana, Elway, in terms of QB ratings, etc. Cant remember how good the Dolphins D was with Griese but Eli had a very defense when he won so again you can get it done with guys like that but generally its going to take a more rounded team effort especially on the defensive side to get it done.

I don't buy the different era argument, North. Still a 100 yard field, 11 guys per side, ten yards for a first down, 4 downs, etc.

Northman
12-03-2011, 03:21 PM
I don't buy the different era argument, North. Still a 100 yard field, 11 guys per side, ten yards for a first down, 4 downs, etc.

But different talent level as far as speed, adjustment in rules, etc.

wayninja
12-03-2011, 03:27 PM
Indeed. You can win at least one SB with a average to good QB but you need a very good defense to pull it off. But generally to win multiple SB's you need an elite QB.

To be fair, to win multiple superbowls, you typically have to have several elite skill players and can't really afford to be bad-terrible at anything.

Northman
12-03-2011, 03:34 PM
To be fair, to win multiple superbowls, you typically have to have several elite skill players and can't really afford to be bad-terrible at anything.

Well, of course but history has shown that really Elite QB's are going to multiple SB's with their franchises.

Dreadnought
12-03-2011, 03:35 PM
But different talent level as far as speed, adjustment in rules, etc.

All of which apply to every team equally. I just don't believe that the modern game is that different. There is real break that occurs in 1981 (modern contact rules), but the change is across the board. QB's who were good before 1981 remained good. I would say it true that there is less difference between the top QB's and the bottom nowadays than there once was. The bad QB's of the 50's-80's are truly awful, off the charts bad by modern standards. There is no comparison now, because there are too many more guys who can play decently - I suspect because the college game produces many more good passers

Northman
12-03-2011, 03:37 PM
All of which apply to every team equally. I just don't believe that the modern game is that different. There is real break that occurs in 1981 (modern contact rules), but the change is across the board. QB's who were good before 1981 remained good. I would say it true that there is less difference between the top QB's and the bottom nowadays than there once was. The bad QB's of the 50's-80's are truly awful, off the charts bad by modern standards. There is no comparison now, because there are too many more guys who can play decently - I suspect because the college game produces many more good passers

Dont know mate, the last 20 years doesnt really support that mantra. Sure, some of the bottom dwelling QB's can get regular season wins and occasionally make the playoffs but the truly great ones are winning SB's.

catfish
12-03-2011, 03:39 PM
Dont know mate, the last 20 years doesnt really support that mantra. Sure, some of the bottom dwelling QB's can get regular season wins and occasionally make the playoffs but the truly great ones are winning SB's.

or is it great teams are winning superbowls making their QB's regarded as elite?

wayninja
12-03-2011, 03:39 PM
Dont know mate, the last 20 years doesnt really support that mantra. Sure, some of the bottom dwelling QB's can get regular season wins and occasionally make the playoffs but the truly great ones are winning SB's.

That's a chicken and egg argument though. How many elite QB's are out there without rings?

Northman
12-03-2011, 03:40 PM
or is it great teams are winning superbowls making their QB's regarded as elite?

Not sure i follow you, can you explain further?

Dreadnought
12-03-2011, 03:40 PM
That's a chicken and egg argument though. How many elite QB's are out there without rings?

Fouts. Marino. Jim Kelly. Kosar (yes, I think he was that good). Tarkenton.

Philip Rivers :D

Lots of others

Northman
12-03-2011, 03:41 PM
That's a chicken and egg argument though. How many elite QB's are out there without rings?

Not many from what i can remember.

Northman
12-03-2011, 03:43 PM
Fouts. Marino. Jim Kelly. Kosar (yes, I think he was that good). Tarkenton.

Philip Rivers :D

Lots of others

Kelly doesnt have rings but he also lead his team to 4 SB's. Having a shot to win a championship is equally as important.

catfish
12-03-2011, 03:51 PM
Not sure i follow you, can you explain further?

meaning a team with 4 pro bowl recievers can make an average QB look great, where as a team with no recievers or O-line can make a great QB look crappy. For instance Phillip Rivers lead the league in YPA for what 3 years running with nothing to show for it...is he elite? What is the definition of "Elite" for a QB?

Northman
12-03-2011, 03:54 PM
meaning a team with 4 pro bowl recievers can make an average QB look great, where as a team with no recievers or O-line can make a great QB look crappy. For instance Phillip Rivers lead the league in YPA for what 3 years running with nothing to show for it...is he elite? What is the definition of "Elite" for a QB?

To me a Elite QB has to be able to pick up the slack when the rest of the team falls or to take ordinary support players and make them stars. Do i consider Rivers Elite? Not sure, he is up there but not sure i would put him in Elway, Montana, Brady, or Peyton Manning status.

wayninja
12-03-2011, 03:57 PM
Not many from what i can remember.

Hence it's a chicken/egg argument. You win multiples, it's easy to be called elite. Much harder to be called elite without rings.

Northman
12-03-2011, 03:59 PM
Hence it's a chicken/egg argument. You win multiples, it's easy to be called elite. Much harder to be called elite without rings.

Depends on how you look at said QB's. I have no problem calling a guy like Marino or Kelly elite despite the rings. Its all based on the players in question.

catfish
12-03-2011, 04:11 PM
Depends on how you look at said QB's. I have no problem calling a guy like Marino or Kelly elite despite the rings. Its all based on the players in question.

My issue is that "elite status seems to be a matter of perception any time someone has a great year they want to call them "elite" when in fact they may just be having a good year or have a better team around them

for example, both Manning brothers have won a superbowl. Is there any doubt that another QB could have stepped in and won Eli's SB? whereas the Colts are garbage without Peyton. What it boils down to in my mind is that while everyone wants to credit the QB for superbowl appearances more often than not it is a top tier defense combined with skill at elite positions that put the team in a place to win

wayninja
12-03-2011, 04:12 PM
My issue is that "elite status seems to be a matter of perception any time someone has a great year they want to call them "elite" when in fact they may just be having a good year or have a better team around them

for example, both Manning brothers have won a superbowl. Is there any doubt that another QB could have stepped in and won Eli's SB? whereas the Colts are garbage without Peyton. What it boils down to in my mind is that while everyone wants to credit the QB for superbowl appearances more often than not it is a top tier defense combined with skill at elite positions that put the team in a place to win

Spot on.

Dzone
12-03-2011, 04:14 PM
Frank Tripuka never won a title and he is in the Broncos Ring Of Fame and his # has been retired, so He had to be Elite, right? LOL

catfish
12-03-2011, 04:19 PM
Spot on.

let me follow it up with this post, It has the last 10 superbowls and where the overall defense and offense ranked. I was suprised how many teams without a top 10 offense were in the superbowl

http://firethewalrus.com/2011/01/26/the-best-offense-is-a-great-defense/

Northman
12-03-2011, 04:23 PM
My issue is that "elite status seems to be a matter of perception any time someone has a great year they want to call them "elite" when in fact they may just be having a good year or have a better team around them.

Yes, but that isnt me which is why i laugh at those who crown Brandon Lloyd an elite receiver after just one great year.


for example, both Manning brothers have won a superbowl. Is there any doubt that another QB could have stepped in and won Eli's SB?

Depends on the QB. For me, Eli made one great play in that game. One that i would say he wouldnt make 9 times out of 10. So depending on who you think could of filled in for Eli would determine for me of whether or not they could of done the same.


whereas the Colts are garbage without Peyton. What it boils down to in my mind is that while everyone wants to credit the QB for superbowl appearances more often than not it is a top tier defense combined with skill at elite positions that put the team in a place to win

Nah, i think you read too much into it frankly. Its not whether or not they give sole credit to the QB who makes it too multiple Super Bowls. But it cant be denied that those that do are a key component on those teams despite some of the surrounding talent on them.

At the end of the day for me as much as i want Tebow to be in the likes of guys i think are above and beyond the normal QB standards i frankly get tired of reading about how people think he is already a HOF QB because he's managed to win a few games. While he has had help from the defense he still has managed to step up when needed too to get it done but he also has a LOT of work to do if he wants to be a guy who can lead this team to multiple SB's.

Until Tim can prove that im still going to have my doubts that he is in the same league as other other guys i mentioned. I stated it before, if Denver manages to win a SB with Tebow i will be happy just because it is a win. But im looking at the bigger picture and the bigger picture is that to make it too more than just one SB and that takes a QB who can do everything required of the position.

catfish
12-03-2011, 04:37 PM
Yes, but that isnt me which is why i laugh at those who crown Brandon Lloyd an elite receiver after just one great year.



Depends on the QB. For me, Eli made one great play in that game. One that i would say he wouldnt make 9 times out of 10. So depending on who you think could of filled in for Eli would determine for me of whether or not they could of done the same.



Nah, i think you read too much into it frankly. Its not whether or not they give sole credit to the QB who makes it too multiple Super Bowls. But it cant be denied that those that do are a key component on those teams despite some of the surrounding talent on them.

At the end of the day for me as much as i want Tebow to be in the likes of guys i think are above and beyond the normal QB standards i frankly get tired of reading about how people think he is already a HOF QB because he's managed to win a few games. While he has had help from the defense he still has managed to step up when needed too to get it done but he also has a LOT of work to do if he wants to be a guy who can lead this team to multiple SB's.

Until Tim can prove that im still going to have my doubts that he is in the same league as other other guys i mentioned. I stated it before, if Denver manages to win a SB with Tebow i will be happy just because it is a win. But im looking at the bigger picture and the bigger picture is that to make it too more than just one SB and that takes a QB who can do everything required of the position.

the frustrating thing to me is people saying the only way to win a superbowl is with an elite QB, the best most proven way to win a superbowl is with a great defense and a solid slightly above average offense. In fact the only time you need a elite QB is if your defense sucks. By far the easier way is to draft for a top tier defense and build an offense that won't put them in a bad position.

It's how Tampa Bay won and Baltimore and Pittsburg(twice) and New York and even Green Bay's defense was MUCH better than its offense overall last year..there are actually only 2 QB's that have shown they can win with a non top 10 defense and that is Brady and Manning. Since I would consider them top 15 all time talents I would say the easier way would be to build defense and play ball control.

Hoping for a GOAT talent to walk in the door and solve all the problems is a great way to ensure no late playoff appearances for decades much less even a superbowl appearance

vettesplus
12-03-2011, 04:37 PM
That's a chicken and egg argument though. How many elite QB's are out there without rings?

only one comes to my mind, marino

Northman
12-03-2011, 04:40 PM
let me follow it up with this post, It has the last 10 superbowls and where the overall defense and offense ranked. I was suprised how many teams without a top 10 offense were in the superbowl

http://firethewalrus.com/2011/01/26/the-best-offense-is-a-great-defense/

Of course, the guys who have been to multiple SB's have also been ranked in the top 10 consistently as QB's.


Tom Brady- 6th, 10th, 9th, 1st
Kurt Warner- 1st, 3rd
Ben Roethlisberger- 3rd, 24th, 5th
Peyton Manning- 1st, 6th

catfish
12-03-2011, 04:42 PM
only one comes to my mind, marino

in that case here is your comprehensive list of Elite QB's ever

Bart Starr (MVP), 2 TDs
Super Bowl 2. Bart Starr (MVP), 1 TD
Super Bowl 3. Joe Namath (MVP), 0 TDs
Super Bowl 4. Len Dawson (MVP), 1 TD
Super Bowl 5. John Unitas (Chuck Howley), 1 TD
Super Bowl 6. Roger Staubach (MVP), 2 TDs
Super Bowl 7. Bob Griese (Jake Scott), 1 TD
Super Bowl 8. Bob Griese (Larry Csonka), 0 TDs
Super Bowl 9. Terry Bradshaw (Franco Harris), 1 TD
Super Bowl 10. Terry Bradshaw (Lynn Swann), 2 TDs
Super Bowl 11. Ken Stabler (Fred Biletnikoff), 1 TD
Super Bowl 12. Roger Staubach (Harvey Martin & Randy White), 0 TDs
Super Bowl 13. Terry Bradshaw (MVP), 4 TDs
Super Bowl 14. Terry Bradshaw (MVP), 2 TDs
Super Bowl 15. Jim Plunkett (MVP), 3 TDs
Super Bowl 16. Joe Montana (MVP), 1 TD
Super Bowl 17. Joe Theismann (John Riggins), 2 TDs,
Super Bowl 18. Jim Plunkett (Marcus Allen), 1 TD
Super Bowl 19. Joe Montana (MVP), 3 TDs
Super Bowl 20. Jim McMahon (Richard Dent), 0 TDs
Super Bowl 21. Phil Simms (MVP), 3 TDs
Super Bowl 22. Doug Williams (MVP), 4 TDs
Super Bowl 23. Joe Montana (Jerry Rice), 2 TDs
Super Bowl 24. Joe Montana (MVP), 5 TDs
Super Bowl 25. Jeff Hostetler (Ottis Anderson), 1 TD
Super Bowl 26. Mark Rypien (MVP), 2 TDs
Super Bowl 27. Troy Aikman (MVP), 4 TDs
Super Bowl 28. Troy Aikman (Emmitt Smith), O TDs
Super Bowl 29. Steve Young (MVP), 6 TDs
Super Bowl 30. Troy Aikman (Larry Brown), 1 TD
Super Bowl 31. Brett Favre (Desmond Howard), 2 TDs
Super Bowl 32. John Elway (Terrell Davis), 0 TDs
Super Bowl 33. John Elway (MVP), 1 TD
Super Bowl 34. Kurt Warner (MVP), 2 TDs
Super Bowl 35. Trent Dilfer (Ray Lewis), 1 TD
Super Bowl 36. Tom Brady (MVP), 1 TD
Super Bowl 37. Brad Johnson (Dexter Jackson), 2 TDs
Super Bowl 38. Tom Brady (MVP), 3 TDs
Super Bowl 39. Tom Brady (Deion Branch), 2 TDs
Super Bowl 40. Ben Roethlisberger (Hines Ward), 0 TDs
Super Bowl 41. Peyton Manning (MVP), 1 TD
Super Bowl 42. Eli Manning (MVP), 2 TDs
Super Bowl 43: Ben Roethlisberger (Santonio Holmes), 1 TD
Super Bowl 44: Drew Brees (MVP), 2 TDs
Super bowl 45: Aaron Rodgers


that's a list of what 20ish QB's, ever, that people are wanting to pin their future hopes on...granted I buy a powerball ticket every week, but that doesn't mean I'm not putting into my 401K too

Northman
12-03-2011, 04:43 PM
the frustrating thing to me is people saying the only way to win a superbowl is with an elite QB,

No one i know has said its the ONLY way to win a SB. But it is imperative to have an elite guy at the helm if you want to be competing consistently for championships. Baltimore and Tampa had two of the greatest defenses in the last decade yet only have 1 SB a piece. While they surely enjoy those it can hardly compare to what Pitt, Indy, and New England has done in the past decade.

catfish
12-03-2011, 04:44 PM
Of course, the guys who have been to multiple SB's have also been ranked in the top 10 consistently as QB's.


Tom Brady- 6th, 10th, 9th, 1st
Kurt Warner- 1st, 3rd
Ben Roethlisberger- 3rd, 24th, 5th
Peyton Manning- 1st, 6th

top ten in which category?

Northman
12-03-2011, 04:47 PM
in that case here is your comprehensive list of Elite QB's ever


Super Bowl 15. Jim Plunkett (MVP), 3 TDs
Super Bowl 16. Joe Montana (MVP), 1 TD
Super Bowl 17. Joe Theismann (John Riggins), 2 TDs,
Super Bowl 18. Jim Plunkett (Marcus Allen), 1 TD
Super Bowl 19. Joe Montana (MVP), 3 TDs
Super Bowl 20. Jim McMahon (Richard Dent), 0 TDs
Super Bowl 21. Phil Simms (MVP), 3 TDs
Super Bowl 22. Doug Williams (MVP), 4 TDs
Super Bowl 23. Joe Montana (Jerry Rice), 2 TDs
Super Bowl 24. Joe Montana (MVP), 5 TDs
Super Bowl 25. Jeff Hostetler (Ottis Anderson), 1 TD
Super Bowl 26. Mark Rypien (MVP), 2 TDs
Super Bowl 27. Troy Aikman (MVP), 4 TDs
Super Bowl 28. Troy Aikman (Emmitt Smith), O TDs
Super Bowl 29. Steve Young (MVP), 6 TDs
Super Bowl 30. Troy Aikman (Larry Brown), 1 TD
Super Bowl 31. Brett Favre (Desmond Howard), 2 TDs
Super Bowl 32. John Elway (Terrell Davis), 0 TDs
Super Bowl 33. John Elway (MVP), 1 TD
Super Bowl 34. Kurt Warner (MVP), 2 TDs
Super Bowl 35. Trent Dilfer (Ray Lewis), 1 TD
Super Bowl 36. Tom Brady (MVP), 1 TD
Super Bowl 37. Brad Johnson (Dexter Jackson), 2 TDs
Super Bowl 38. Tom Brady (MVP), 3 TDs
Super Bowl 39. Tom Brady (Deion Branch), 2 TDs
Super Bowl 40. Ben Roethlisberger (Hines Ward), 0 TDs
Super Bowl 41. Peyton Manning (MVP), 1 TD
Super Bowl 42. Eli Manning (MVP), 2 TDs
Super Bowl 43: Ben Roethlisberger (Santonio Holmes), 1 TD
Super Bowl 44: Drew Brees (MVP), 2 TDs
Super bowl 45: Aaron Rodgers


that's a list of what 20ish QB's, ever, that people are wanting to pin their future hopes on...granted I buy a powerball ticket every week, but that doesn't mean I'm not putting into my 401K too


Ive highlight the guys i think are elite based on my own personal view, i did away with some of the early guys because i never saw them play and cant speak on how good or bad they were.

Northman
12-03-2011, 04:48 PM
top ten in which category?

Passing.

catfish
12-03-2011, 04:51 PM
Passing.

qb rating then? or YP/a or overall passing offense?

catfish
12-03-2011, 04:56 PM
Ive highlight the guys i think are elite based on my own personal view, i did away with some of the early guys because i never saw them play and cant speak on how good or bad they were.

that is the largest part of my arguement. There are approximately 10 in the last 40ish years. How many QB's have been drafted in that time? 200? more? that gives you about a .5% chance on any given QB pick to get an elite guy, you then need to recognize that he is elite. assuming a QB doesn't prove himself as elite until approx year 4-5(rodgers is an abberation) that means you need to stick with each QB pick for 5 years to see if they show promise, if they flame out in year 4 you are back to square 1. I am not saying that an Elite qb cant win the superbowl, in fact once you have one it is the easiest way to win.I am simply saying the odds against you actually landing an elite QB are astronomical

Northman
12-03-2011, 04:57 PM
qb rating then? or YP/a or overall passing offense?

Overall passing.

wayninja
12-03-2011, 05:01 PM
This is just silly. I'd be thrilled to win 1 superbowl in the next 5-10 years. THRILLED. But we won't be happy unless we can win multiple superbowls?

Northman
12-03-2011, 05:02 PM
that is the largest part of my arguement. There are approximately 10 in the last 40ish years. How many QB's have been drafted in that time? 200? more? that gives you about a .5% chance on any given QB pick to get an elite guy, you then need to recognize that he is elite. assuming a QB doesn't prove himself as elite until approx year 4-5(rodgers is an abberation) that means you need to stick with each QB pick for 5 years to see if they show promise, if they flame out in year 4 you are back to square 1. I am not saying that an Elite qb cant win the superbowl, in fact once you have one it is the easiest way to win.I am simply saying the odds against you actually landing an elite QB are astronomical


But thats just how it is mate. While getting an elite QB is rare its still the standard for getting to multiple SB's. Even for guys like Brees and Rodgers i have no doubt they will at least make it back to another SB before their career is said and done. Meanwhile, the Dilfers, Johnsons, Delhommes, etc just fade away. And while it does take a few years to see if the QB you have can be the guy you definitely see signs of it in the first three years in their careers even if the team isnt winning.

Northman
12-03-2011, 05:02 PM
This is just silly. I'd be thrilled to win 1 superbowl in the next 5-10 years. THRILLED. But we won't be happy unless we can win multiple superbowls?

Who said i wouldnt be thrilled winning a Super Bowl? Did you not actually read what i wrote? Lets not be a moron here.

wayninja
12-03-2011, 05:10 PM
Who said i wouldnt be thrilled winning a Super Bowl? Did you not actually read what i wrote? Lets not be a moron here.


At the end of the day for me as much as i want Tebow to be in the likes of guys i think are above and beyond the normal QB standards i frankly get tired of reading about how people think he is already a HOF QB because he's managed to win a few games. While he has had help from the defense he still has managed to step up when needed too to get it done but he also has a LOT of work to do if he wants to be a guy who can lead this team to multiple SB's.

Until Tim can prove that im still going to have my doubts that he is in the same league as other other guys i mentioned. I stated it before, if Denver manages to win a SB with Tebow i will be happy just because it is a win. But im looking at the bigger picture and the bigger picture is that to make it too more than just one SB and that takes a QB who can do everything required of the position.

I guess I'm being a moron, but it seems to me that you are saying you'd be happy to win a superbowl because it's a win, but that Tebow still wouldn't be 'the guy' and that you'd only be satisfied with someone who you think can do it multiple times. Which again, is silly.

If Tebow wins a superbowl, hands down, he's our franchise guy in my mind.

Northman
12-03-2011, 05:13 PM
I guess I'm being a moron, but it seems to me that you are saying you'd be happy to win a superbowl because it's a win, but that Tebow still wouldn't be 'the guy' and that you'd only be happy with someone who you think can do it multiple times. Which again, is silly.


Its not silly to want to win more than one SB or at the very least have the opportunity to do so.

wayninja
12-03-2011, 05:14 PM
Its not silly to want to win more than one SB or at the very least have the opportunity to do so.

Not, wanting that is not silly. Dismissing the accomplishment in favor of getting a new QB after a superbowl win is.

Northman
12-03-2011, 05:20 PM
Not, wanting that is not silly. Dismissing the accomplishment in favor of getting a new QB after a superbowl win is.

I didnt say i would dismiss the accomplishment.

catfish
12-03-2011, 05:20 PM
But thats just how it is mate. While getting an elite QB is rare its still the standard for getting to multiple SB's. Even for guys like Brees and Rodgers i have no doubt they will at least make it back to another SB before their career is said and done. Meanwhile, the Dilfers, Johnsons, Delhommes, etc just fade away. And while it does take a few years to see if the QB you have can be the guy you definitely see signs of it in the first three years in their careers even if the team isnt winning.

I dunno I think focusing on multiple superbowls puts the team at a disadvantage as far as drafting goes. It skews the focus from what the team needs right now to become a playoff team to what the team might hypothetically need in order to win multiple superbowls.

The only comparison I can draw is from the buisness world. If I start a company doing local delivery I don't buy a plane because I will eventually need one to compete with UPS. I buy a truck because that is what I need to deliver to the customer base I have right now. Buying the plane puts me at a competitive disadvantage because I am spending capital (high draft picks) on an item that will do me no good until I expand my franchise to the point where it can make a difference.

I have no problem with people thinking this team needs a top 10 QB, and down the road they should probably attempt to get one if Tebow doesn't develop, but attempting to draft a qb on to a team that has glaring deficiencies on both sides of the ball is just a way to make sure your QB performs poorly. the next draft needs to focus on other positions and if next year goes poorly the team will be in a better position to draft a top 3 college QB.

Northman
12-03-2011, 05:23 PM
I dunno I think focusing on multiple superbowls puts the team at a disadvantage as far as drafting goes..

Whoa whoa, back up dude. Who says this is how teams focus on the draft? :lol:

Lets not go off on crazy tangents here. While teams do look for that particular QB who can be elite at his position teams still treat the draft as a way to build the team regardless. Dont mistake what gets said on a message forum as teh standard to what organizations actually do when it comes to building a team.

wayninja
12-03-2011, 05:26 PM
I didnt say i would dismiss the accomplishment.

Yes you did. You said that even if he won a SB, he wouldn't be in the same league as the other guys and implied that the larger picture requires a different QB that can do 'everything required of the position'.

That's the same thing as dismissing a SB win. Effectively what you are saying it's multiple SB wins or bust.

If I'm wrong and you aren't saying that, please clarify, I'm just going off of what you said above.

Northman
12-03-2011, 05:26 PM
I have no problem with people thinking this team needs a top 10 QB, and down the road they should probably attempt to get one if Tebow doesn't develop, but attempting to draft a qb on to a team that has glaring deficiencies on both sides of the ball is just a way to make sure your QB performs poorly. the next draft needs to focus on other positions and if next year goes poorly the team will be in a better position to draft a top 3 college QB.

Actually, you can do both Cat. Denver doesnt necessarily have to draft a QB in the first round. Techincally they could get lucky like NE did with Brady and draft a QB later who could turn out to be better than Tebow. Time will tell but just as you cant ignore the rest of the team you cant ignore the QB position either. If you have a QB and you dont think he is going to improve the way you need him too than ignoring that would be just as detrimental to the team than ignoring everything else.

Northman
12-03-2011, 05:30 PM
Yes you did. You said that even if he won a SB, he wouldn't be in the same league as the other guys and implied that the larger picture requires a different QB that can do 'everything required of the position'.

That's the same thing as dismissing a SB win. Effectively what you are saying it's multiple SB wins or bust.

If I'm wrong and you aren't saying that, please clarify, I'm just going off of what you said above.


Your totally wrong. Yes, i would be happy if Tebow won a SB with Denver. But,,,,,,(and pay attention here) I BELIEVE that if we did win a SB it wouldnt be BECAUSE of how great Tebow is. Right now we are winning more with a strong running game and great defense. Tebow is a "part" of that but it heavily favors the support he is getting in other aspects. When you look at the QB's who go to multiple SB's they play a LARGER role on those teams than Tebow does in Denver. At least right now. If Tebow can rise up to their level of play than that may change my stance, but not right now.

catfish
12-03-2011, 05:30 PM
Whoa whoa, back up dude. Who says this is how teams focus on the draft? :lol:

Lets not go off on crazy tangents here. While teams do look for that particular QB who can be elite at his position teams still treat the draft as a way to build the team regardless. Dont mistake what gets said on a message forum as teh standard to what organizations actually do when it comes to building a team.

I wasn't implying that the FO was doing such, rather that the people pushing to take a 1st round QB in the next draft were leaning that way. They are most likely the same ones who would then be bitching about the performance of the new QB.
I was simply trying to state that using high round draft picks every 2 years on a qb puts the team at a competitive disadvantage and if the team was 100% reliant on an elite QB for its future plans you can choose many QB's with a .5% payoff rate before it really ever pays off. So IMO the best route is to put together the best defense you can, attempt to get playmakers at WR, TE and RB positions and find a above average to good qb(top 12, much easier to find) and let the talent make him look good

wayninja
12-03-2011, 05:34 PM
Your totally wrong. Yes, i would be happy if Tebow won a SB with Denver. But,,,,,,(and pay attention here) I BELIEVE that if we did win a SB it wouldnt be BECAUSE of how great Tebow is. Right now we are winning more with a strong running game and great defense. Tebow is a "part" of that but it heavily favors the support he is getting in other aspects. When you look at the QB's who go to multiple SB's they play a LARGER role on those teams than Tebow does in Denver. At least right now. If Tebow can rise up to their level of play than that may change my stance, but not right now.

Your condescension isn't necessary. You need to clarify because you were unclear. Having said that, your clarification sucks. If, by some crazy miracle, we won the superbowl this year, you'd really go out and try to draft a 'more complete' QB than Tebow in next years draft? Really?

I'm not totally sold on Tebow myself, but I'm starting to think there isn't much Tebow can do besides transform into Aaron Rogers in order for you to think he's worth keeping.

Northman
12-03-2011, 05:46 PM
Your condescension isn't necessary. You need to clarify because you were unclear. Having said that, your clarification sucks. If, by some crazy miracle, we won the superbowl this year, you'd really go out and try to draft a 'more complete' QB than Tebow in next years draft? Really?

We arent winning the Super Bowl so lets not get ridiculous here.


I'm not totally sold on Tebow myself, but I'm starting to think there isn't much Tebow can do besides transform into Aaron Rogers in order for you to think he's worth keeping.

So neither of us is sold on Tebow yet you want to give me a bunch of grief because im not sold on him? Really? :lol:

wayninja
12-03-2011, 05:58 PM
We arent winning the Super Bowl so lets not get ridiculous here.

I did call it a miracle. I don't think it will happen any more than you, but we were playing with hypotheticals.


So neither of us is sold on Tebow yet you want to give me a bunch of grief because im not sold on him? Really? :lol:

I don't want to give you grief, I'm simply wondering why you'd want to ditch a QB that just won the SB because you don't think he could do it again. Again, I don't see it happening, but I see becoming sold really quickly if it did. Just not sure why that wouldn't sell you.

If we called Ryan Leaf out of retirement and he gave us a Lombardi trophy, I'd want to stick with him the next year. Maybe that's just a fundamental difference between us.

Northman
12-03-2011, 06:16 PM
I don't want to give you grief, I'm simply wondering why you'd want to ditch a QB that just won the SB because you don't think he could do it again. Again, I don't see it happening, but I see becoming sold really quickly if it did. Just not sure why that wouldn't sell you.

If we called Ryan Leaf out of retirement and he gave us a Lombardi trophy, I'd want to stick with him the next year. Maybe that's just a fundamental difference between us.


Well, again i think your totally missing my point here and obviously have not read enough of my posts "overall" of where my stance is. For me, its not about ditching, dumping, or trading Tebow if we win a SB. Its only about not becoming complacent because of it. As far as im concerned you milk this for as long as you can even going into next year. But you dont sit by and not try to upgrade the position in the meantime.

If we won a SB this year than of course i would want Denver to start Tebow next year (even if we dont win i believe he should be the starter next year). But there are still certain things that need to happen from the QB position longterm that clearly Elway (and myself and a few others) need to see to believe he can be THE guy.

A great example is Trent Dilfer. He was able to guide a team to a SB with an outstanding defense, great RB, and HOF TE. All he was asked to do was not lose games with turnovers, become a game manager much like what Tebow is doing now. But after the SB Billick was still not sold on Dilfer as his QB who could get it done when the rest of the team couldnt keep it up on their end.

The problem with Bmore is that they were dumb because they didnt ride that pony until they had another guy in place who could be an upgrade to Trent. Instead, they let Trent go and signed Grbac which was a dumb move. But had they kept Trent and at least kept using what was working and maybe draft a QB to learn than it would probably have panned out much better for them.

Fact is for me, im willing to ride this pony with Tebow and the option for as long as they can get away with it. But sooner or later its going to be stopped and sooner or later Tebow will have to showcase the ability to carry the team through the air and not just on the ground. If he cant do that then Denver needs to consider another option at his respective position.

karnage
12-03-2011, 06:39 PM
Well, again i think your totally missing my point here and obviously have not read enough of my posts "overall" of where my stance is. For me, its not about ditching, dumping, or trading Tebow if we win a SB. Its only about not becoming complacent because of it. As far as im concerned you milk this for as long as you can even going into next year. But you dont sit by and not try to upgrade the position in the meantime.

If we won a SB this year than of course i would want Denver to start Tebow next year (even if we dont win i believe he should be the starter next year). But there are still certain things that need to happen from the QB position longterm that clearly Elway (and myself and a few others) need to see to believe he can be THE guy.

A great example is Trent Dilfer. He was able to guide a team to a SB with an outstanding defense, great RB, and HOF TE. All he was asked to do was not lose games with turnovers, become a game manager much like what Tebow is doing now. But after the SB Billick was still not sold on Dilfer as his QB who could get it done when the rest of the team couldnt keep it up on their end.

The problem with Bmore is that they were dumb because they didnt ride that pony until they had another guy in place who could be an upgrade to Trent. Instead, they let Trent go and signed Grbac which was a dumb move. But had they kept Trent and at least kept using what was working and maybe draft a QB to learn than it would probably have panned out much better for them.

Fact is for me, im willing to ride this pony with Tebow and the option for as long as they can get away with it. But sooner or later its going to be stopped and sooner or later Tebow will have to showcase the ability to carry the team through the air and not just on the ground. If he cant do that then Denver needs to consider another option at his respective position.

I agree with you on the wait and see with Tebow approach....However, there is a major difference between Tebow and Dilfer....first Dilfer had 1500 total yards 12 tds and 14 Turn overs....he wasn't very good at being a game manager...the defense was just good enough to win regardless of his ineptitude.....Tebow while not flashy is still the driving force behind Denver's manage the clock and field position game plan via his ability to hit timely throws and be a major factor in a dominating run offense....Dilfer had 0 to do with Baltimore's ability to run he was as likely to turn it over as score even with what he had...

Northman
12-03-2011, 06:42 PM
I agree with you on the wait and see with Tebow approach....However, there is a major difference between Tebow and Dilfer....first Dilfer had 1500 total yards 12 tds and 14 Turn overs....he wasn't very good at being a game manager...the defense was just good enough to win regardless of his ineptitude.....Tebow while not flashy is still the driving force behind Denver's manage the clock and field position game plan via his ability to hit timely throws and be a major factor in a dominating run offense....Dilfer had 0 to do with Baltimore's ability to run he was as likely to turn it over as score even with what he had...

Valid points but i would say the trade off between Dilfer and Tebow is that Tebow can run, but Dilfer had Shannon which was his go to guy. So if Bmore needed a play on offense it was Dilfer to Sharpe as seen during the playoff run that year.

karnage
12-03-2011, 06:45 PM
Valid points but i would say the trade off between Dilfer and Tebow is that Tebow can run, but Dilfer had Shannon which was his go to guy. So if Bmore needed a play on offense it was Dilfer to Sharpe as seen during the playoff run that year.

Fair enough :salute:

wayninja
12-03-2011, 06:59 PM
Well, again i think your totally missing my point here and obviously have not read enough of my posts "overall" of where my stance is. For me, its not about ditching, dumping, or trading Tebow if we win a SB. Its only about not becoming complacent because of it. As far as im concerned you milk this for as long as you can even going into next year. But you dont sit by and not try to upgrade the position in the meantime.

If we won a SB this year than of course i would want Denver to start Tebow next year (even if we dont win i believe he should be the starter next year). But there are still certain things that need to happen from the QB position longterm that clearly Elway (and myself and a few others) need to see to believe he can be THE guy.

A great example is Trent Dilfer. He was able to guide a team to a SB with an outstanding defense, great RB, and HOF TE. All he was asked to do was not lose games with turnovers, become a game manager much like what Tebow is doing now. But after the SB Billick was still not sold on Dilfer as his QB who could get it done when the rest of the team couldnt keep it up on their end.


Fact is for me, im willing to ride this pony with Tebow and the option for as long as they can get away with it. But sooner or later its going to be stopped and sooner or later Tebow will have to showcase the ability to carry the team through the air and not just on the ground. If he cant do that then Denver needs to consider another option at his respective position.

That's cool, at least I understand what you are saying now. I don't think they want to continue with the option, I see fewer and fewer true option plays each week. I think they are slowly trying to ease TT into playing a more traditional offense and how well he will do is still up for debate and observation. I can agree that at this point, we don't know if TT will be the guy to run that offense. So far though, I like what I'm seeing. I see improvement and my gut tells me the kid isn't near the ceiling. If a superbowl win (or hell even making the playoffs) happens, that's enough for me to stop focusing so much on traditional stats and re-think the formula for winning and where a QB like Tebow can fit into it.

catfish
12-03-2011, 10:11 PM
That's cool, at least I understand what you are saying now. I don't think they want to continue with the option, I see fewer and fewer true option plays each week. I think they are slowly trying to ease TT into playing a more traditional offense and how well he will do is still up for debate and observation. I can agree that at this point, we don't know if TT will be the guy to run that offense. So far though, I like what I'm seeing. I see improvement and my gut tells me the kid isn't near the ceiling. If a superbowl win (or hell even making the playoffs) happens, that's enough for me to stop focusing so much on traditional stats and re-think the formula for winning and where a QB like Tebow can fit into it.

I think they will continue to run the spread option in the future, just leaning it more toward the pitch/shovel pass option with more pass plays. you get a pass catching TE(Aaron Hernandez) to release off his block and catch a shovel pass behind the line and you can gash a team all day long without your qb ever taking a hit. They haven't implemented a fraction of the passing wrinkles that can be run out of this offense yet

Joel
12-04-2011, 03:03 AM
Well, with Bradshaw, Simms, and Plunkett it was a entirely different era so when you look across the board they were all along the same lines as Montana, Elway, in terms of QB ratings, completion percentage, etc. Cant remember how good the Dolphins D was with Griese but Eli had a very defense when he won so again you can get it done with guys like that but generally its going to take a more rounded team effort especially on the defensive side to get it done.
The No Name Defence was pretty darned good; they allowed 7 points each to the Redskins and Vikings in their Super Bowls (the 'Skins only got that because of Garo Yepremians infamous ill-advised pass on a botched FG attempt; otherwise the Dolphins get a Super Bowl shutout.)

That said, I agree with Dreadnought on cross era comparisons; teams threw less, but passer ratings are averages so that doesn't matter much. Also, as he said, different talent levels are a double edged sword; the guys blitzing and covering may be smaller or slower, but so are the guys blocking and catching. Bob Hayes started for Dallas solely because he won the Olympic 100m, but he had hands like Flipper: Staubach's a HoFer anyway.

Well, of course but history has shown that really Elite QB's are going to multiple SB's with their franchises.
I can think of a few who didn't. Marino barely got to one, and the same was true of McNabb, who'd I also consider elite in his prime. Maybe (probably) I'm biased, but I'd put Warren Moon there, and his only playoff wins were wildcards. Heck, if the standard is "elite QBs go to multiple SBs" Steve Young doesn't qualify.

Meh. I'll just refer you to The Hidden Game of Footballs chapter on "The Glory, the Blame and the Ratings," which covers this topic well and at length, as well as "how the passer rating system works and why it doesn't."


or is it great teams are winning superbowls making their QB's regarded as elite?

Not sure i follow you, can you explain further?

Hence the old saw that only a great quarterback can win a Super Bowl. Define "great quarterback." One that wins a Super Bowl. A catch-22 that has nothing to do with wide receivers.
Seriously, beg, borrow or steal a copy of the above mentioned book, which covers this as well in the cited chapter.

When it was released, in 1987, Tarkenton owned every passing record except the single season TD record Marino broke his freakish sophomore year, and most folks figured he always would. Instead, Marino broke them all before he retired, and Favre broke them all again before HE retired. Between the three of them they have one SB victory. Absent that and the last two years of Elways career, FOUR HoF QBs would be 0-7 in Super Bowls (though if Elway doesn't win in '98 Favre has two.) Think Terry Bradshaws 4-0 record makes him better than any of them, or did the Steel Curtain, Franco Harris and John Stallworth make that irrelevant? If Namath doesn't guarantee the AFC will stop being so awful the NFC has to spot them the Colts, Steelers and Browns does anyone know or care who he is?

only one comes to my mind, marino
Then you should think much harder, because a number of truly great ones have been named (most notably, Tarkenton and Kelly, who have 7 SB losses between them.)

Valid points but i would say the trade off between Dilfer and Tebow is that Tebow can run, but Dilfer had Shannon which was his go to guy. So if Bmore needed a play on offense it was Dilfer to Sharpe as seen during the playoff run that year.
A comparison involving a third player is not valid. Tebows running ability is something he brings to the table; Shannon Sharpe was something Shannon Sharpe brought to the table.

The QB is probably the most important part of the equation because he is the most likely to win the game with a single play. He needs help from a receiver, but has several available to provide it. A running back can win the game with one play and only the line (on which the QB is equally reliant) but is much less likely to do so. Nevertheless, the QB is only the MOST important part of the equation; even if his value is 0, or even negative, all that matters is that the whole equation adds up to victory.

However, it is easier to achieve that final value by raising the value of the largest variable than by raising the value of all the other smaller ones. If we had 21 HoFers to put around him we could win a Super Bowl with Peyton, Tebow, Orton or me, but we're not likely to get that (though if we do no one will care how well Tebow does or doesn't play.) Given that fact, Tebow will have to step his game up to whatever level the talent we DO have requires to achieve victory, and right now that is still a pretty high level.

If Tebow and the rest of the team do not add up to a championship, or at least a fairly deep playoff run, within the next 2-3 years we will be looking for another QB. That may not even be fair to Tebow; he may be surrounded by total bums, but the way the League works the blame for failure will, rightly or wrongly, almost certainly fall on the quarterback. I like the progress he has made, and think he can quickly get to the necessary level, but he is clearly not there yet.

catfish
12-04-2011, 08:28 AM
The No Name Defence was pretty darned good; they allowed 7 points each to the Redskins and Vikings in their Super Bowls (the 'Skins only got that because of Garo Yepremians infamous ill-advised pass on a botched FG attempt; otherwise the Dolphins get a Super Bowl shutout.)

That said, I agree with Dreadnought on cross era comparisons; teams threw less, but passer ratings are averages so that doesn't matter much. Also, as he said, different talent levels are a double edged sword; the guys blitzing and covering may be smaller or slower, but so are the guys blocking and catching. Bob Hayes started for Dallas solely because he won the Olympic 100m, but he had hands like Flipper: Staubach's a HoFer anyway.

I can think of a few who didn't. Marino barely got to one, and the same was true of McNabb, who'd I also consider elite in his prime. Maybe (probably) I'm biased, but I'd put Warren Moon there, and his only playoff wins were wildcards. Heck, if the standard is "elite QBs go to multiple SBs" Steve Young doesn't qualify.

Meh. I'll just refer you to The Hidden Game of Footballs chapter on "The Glory, the Blame and the Ratings," which covers this topic well and at length, as well as "how the passer rating system works and why it doesn't."




Seriously, beg, borrow or steal a copy of the above mentioned book, which covers this as well in the cited chapter.

When it was released, in 1987, Tarkenton owned every passing record except the single season TD record Marino broke his freakish sophomore year, and most folks figured he always would. Instead, Marino broke them all before he retired, and Favre broke them all again before HE retired. Between the three of them they have one SB victory. Absent that and the last two years of Elways career, FOUR HoF QBs would be 0-7 in Super Bowls (though if Elway doesn't win in '98 Favre has two.) Think Terry Bradshaws 4-0 record makes him better than any of them, or did the Steel Curtain, Franco Harris and John Stallworth make that irrelevant? If Namath doesn't guarantee the AFC will stop being so awful the NFC has to spot them the Colts, Steelers and Browns does anyone know or care who he is?

Then you should think much harder, because a number of truly great ones have been named (most notably, Tarkenton and Kelly, who have 7 SB losses between them.)

A comparison involving a third player is not valid. Tebows running ability is something he brings to the table; Shannon Sharpe was something Shannon Sharpe brought to the table.

The QB is probably the most important part of the equation because he is the most likely to win the game with a single play. He needs help from a receiver, but has several available to provide it. A running back can win the game with one play and only the line (on which the QB is equally reliant) but is much less likely to do so. Nevertheless, the QB is only the MOST important part of the equation; even if his value is 0, or even negative, all that matters is that the whole equation adds up to victory.

However, it is easier to achieve that final value by raising the value of the largest variable than by raising the value of all the other smaller ones. If we had 21 HoFers to put around him we could win a Super Bowl with Peyton, Tebow, Orton or me, but we're not likely to get that (though if we do no one will care how well Tebow does or doesn't play.) Given that fact, Tebow will have to step his game up to whatever level the talent we DO have requires to achieve victory, and right now that is still a pretty high level.

If Tebow and the rest of the team do not add up to a championship, or at least a fairly deep playoff run, within the next 2-3 years we will be looking for another QB. That may not even be fair to Tebow; he may be surrounded by total bums, but the way the League works the blame for failure will, rightly or wrongly, almost certainly fall on the quarterback. I like the progress he has made, and think he can quickly get to the necessary level, but he is clearly not there yet.

I would agree to an extent, but it depends on where you think the other 21 players fall as far as the talent level, say your QB is a 5 out of 10(average) you would IMO get more bang for the buck by replacing a 2 or 3 out of 10 reciever with a 7 or 8 reciever (frees up entire pass game as defenses need to key on that individual) than you would replacing your 5 QB with a 7-8 QB....if that makes any sense. I think the QB is more important than the other players to how the team performs, but not markedly so. They are just the NFL chosen poster boys

Joel
12-05-2011, 07:28 PM
I would agree to an extent, but it depends on where you think the other 21 players fall as far as the talent level, say your QB is a 5 out of 10(average) you would IMO get more bang for the buck by replacing a 2 or 3 out of 10 reciever with a 7 or 8 reciever (frees up entire pass game as defenses need to key on that individual) than you would replacing your 5 QB with a 7-8 QB....if that makes any sense. I think the QB is more important than the other players to how the team performs, but not markedly so. They are just the NFL chosen poster boys
Believe it or not, I generally agree with you. It is just, like I say, the QB is the biggest SINGLE variable; you can get there improving the rest of the team instead, but it takes more improvement because the impact of any one other player is smaller. Think of it is like:

Team=5QB+3RB+3WR+7OL

Obviously oversimplified; I didn't include the D and lumped the WRs and offensive line together, but it will illustrate my point.

Assuming all else is equal, improving a 5 QB to a 7-8 increases the team value by 10-15 points. Improving a 2 WR to a 7 or a 3 to an 8 increases the team value by 15 points, which makes it as good or better than the QB improvement because the size of WR improvement is greater, even though the value of the POSITION is less. The same level of improvement would still be worth more at QB than any other one position. If you can improve the offensive line by the same amount its worth even more--but that's 5 guys, not one; the value of any one of them is only about 1.4 (still more than any almost any single position on offense EXCEPT QB.)