Well, I would say because there was also ample evidence that Josh Freeman was not that guy and in fact light years away from being that guy. I was surprised the Vikings signed him at all, because I thought his tenure in Tampa showed he did not have what it takes to ever be an NFL QB and couldn't even be trusted to be steady enough for a backup role. But clearly the Vikings management and I disagree on that evaluation. I'm inclined to think Jennings is good and the problems are largely the team's fault, but I'm curious: is Percy Harvin THAT good? Assuming Greg Jennings is pretty good and not a GB system product, why did Percy Harvin play so much better than Greg Jennings is? Perhaps the answer is that AP was better, but since one imagines that AP was better due to better team play, that verges on circular.
I think Josh is a victim of coaching. He had that one great season, but never had any serious injuries to throw him off correct? Doesn't everything have to be in his mind at this point? How do you play well for a year then just lose it without breaking something?
Percy Harvin is basically a running back in a receiver's body. He can run routes and catch like a receiver, but when he's in the open field he can juke and move like a running back, so he gets a lot of missed tackles on him. This leads to his biggest weakness - becasue he's built like a receiver and plays like a running back, he can't stay healthy. Another reason why Harvin looked so good last year compared to how Jennings looks this year is the receiving corp last year was so bad that Harvin got an inordinate amount of passes thrown his way.
I hate this statement getting thrown around. I think it's one of the most misguided ideas in the NFL. Peyton Manning is a prime example that although QB's are important, there are greater positions that affect the overall chance of winning a superbowl. On the other end, Kurt Warner is a good example of what happens when you have a serviceable QB with good players around him. In my opinion, two good guards, a RB that can catch well out of the backfield, 2 sure handed WR's, and a solid KR/WR is what makes a good offense. Defense has been and will always be the number one decider of championships. I'm looking forward to the first team that takes a Moneyball approach to the game and starts looking at things other than, "He's an athletic QB who makes the back shoulder throw with ease."
Misguided? You just listed six positions considered collectively as an alternative to having a pro-bowl caliber QB, so how can you say this league isn't QB driven? Look at your own example - when Kurt Warner won the superbowl he threw 41 touchdown passes that year. That's not servicable, that's all-pro. The reason people say this is a QB-driven league is because if you don't have a competent QB everything else has to be above-average in order to compete in the playoffs. Look at a team like the Packers. Over the past several years, they've had a bad offensive line, no running game, decent receivers, a slightly above-average defense, and a shaky kicker, yet because they have Aaron Rodgers they've been in the playoffs every year since he's been the starter. As much as you can do such a thing in football, trying to find a pro-bowl caliber QB above else really is the Moneyball method to building a team.
You just called the signal caller behind the greatest show on turf a serviceable QB. And apparently you think guard is a more important position on the O Line than tackle or center.
Yes I called the guy who was brought out of the Arena League a serviceable QB. It wasn't Warner running all those routes or dumping the ball off to one of the best RB's to play the game... The way that offense ran you could have stuck just about any starter in the league right now and you would have had zero drop-off. I'd take two high end guards over two high end tackles any day of the week.
Wait, what? By that rationale Joe Montana wasn't that good considering the caliber of talent around him. And honestly if you believe that about an O-Line I'm going to go ahead and guess you've never put on a helmet but are instead another armchair qb with an idiotic idea you're trying to pass off as being revolutionary. I'm sure you impress the other guys at the bar with your forward thinking.
Do you always have to be so smug and condescending? Yes I played football all through high school. Was part of 5 straight championships and a consecutive winning streak that went for almost 6 years. I was recruited by a few DII schools and probably would have played through college if I didn't make some horrible life choices. My Uncle was also the football coach for Lafayette for a couple decades. Montana was a good QB. Just like Marino was a good QB and Elway. When did Elway win a championship? When he had a RB that could catch out of the backfield, an above average defense, and a couple good lineman. When did Marino win a championship? Never. Who never had a running back or an above average defense? I could go down the list of "elite" QB's that have won with that formula (Roethlisberger) as well as bums like Trent Dilfer and Joe Flacco. "Franchise QB's" are a made up thing. Having some once in a lifetime QB and not much more doesn't guarantee anything. Peyton Manning is the greatest example of this. If this was a QB driven league he should have 5 or 6 rings by now. He's had some of the best skill players of all time on his team and he's racked up a ridiculous amount of records for his position, yet he's has one ring he won when facing that powerhouse QB known as Rex Grossman...
I very much doubt that Brandon Weeden or Terrell Pryor or Blaine Gabbert win a super bowl even with that team. Warner going to the arena league has more to do with scouting departments failing than him being bad. If he wasn't any good, why has Arizona been such a dumpster fire since he left? Great quarterback play papers over a lot of holes in a way no other position can. Tom Brady and Peyton Manning are singlehandedly keeping their teams afloat through injuries. Obviously they can't affect the game quite as much in the playoffs because everyone is a pretty good team at that point. A team with a great qb isn't usually going to beat a team with a good qb and a great supporting cast. Trent Dilfer is an outlier because he was riding one of the greatest defenses of all time, and he did play pretty competently that year. The Colts-Beats super bowl actually hurts your point because it shows how a great qb with a merely competent supporting cast beats a great team with a shaky qb, even when the weather suppresses the passing game.
The Bears should have won that game, but I'm going to play the "Superbowl where it was raining" card. I will however say that, for that one game, the Colts did line up exactly with what I've been saying. Perhaps I can amend my statement a little bit and say that, "A Franchise QB can get you close, but if you want to win, you need the other pieces in place." If you look over the recap from that game: Colts had a competent QB - Because of the rain Manning couldn't air it out like he had been doing all season, but he did enough to not lose. For what he put up all season, his numbers are paltry in comparison. Colts lost their starting Tackle to injury, but some how they still managed to rush for a combined 191yds. Colts leader in receptions that game? Their RB. Colts defense that game? 3 fumble recoveries, 2 INT's (one for a TD), and 1 sack.
No they shouldn't have. And that is coming from a Bears fan. The Colts were the superior team. The difference between that team and the Dilfer lead Ravens team is that, even though they both had tremendous defenses, Dilfer was steady and didn't make mistakes, and Grossman is a wannabe gunslinging scrub.
They also rushed the ball 40+ times to get those yards, and most of Addai's catches were checkdowns. One of those fumbles was a bad snap and another was a muffed kick. I'm not going to give too much credit to a team for intercepting Rex Grossman. 1 sack was a disappointment for a team whose only great defensive players were pass rushers.
I remember where I was when I watched that game, who was in the room, and the shitty TV I watched it on. Rex Grossman was the Colts Superbowl MVP. I get what Popped Cherries is saying and it does make sense. Look at the Chiefs. You replace the QB with any decent pocket passer, you're fine. You can't replace the RB, you can't replace the line, and you sure as fuck can't replace the defense.
Re: Re: 2013 NFL Season Now that the Bears aren't plagued with Grossman, its hysterical. I remember reading it the first time and almost being in tears, and then actually crying for real cause Rex was still the QB. My friends and I still bring up Sexy Rexy fastballs right between the eyes whenever we're playing catch. Nobody was better at bombs to nowhere, with receivers in a different area code, than circa 2006 Rex Grossman.
Grossman was an average/below average QB. He still won 13 games and went to a Superbowl. From 1995ish to the present, look through the Superbowl QB's and tell me what you see. Yes, there are some above average/great QB's, but I could argue that most of those teams fit into the mold that I'm talking about. On the flip side, there are some average/below average QB's that only got there because their team fit the mold I'm talking about. All I was originally trying to say is, people view QB's as a sacred cow position that you build a team around, when in fact the recipe for success in the NFL is based on plugging in an average QB and surrounding them with specific pieces on offense and an above average defense.
Flat_Rate makes my point. The way the league views QB's is so out of whack, there was serious talk to try and get BRETT FAVRE to come back and play. Forget the fact your interior O-line sucks, your defense is a sieve, and you are still splitting carries with Daryl Richardson, but by all means, focus on trying to get a 44 year old QB to play for your team...