NFL Week 14: Where have you gone Neil O'Donnell?

So a team without a top quarterback can't make the playoffs? Or are you saying they can't get far past that without one?

 

So the "new NFL" is how new? Newer than 2001 (Ravens) or 2003 (Bucs), I guess.

 

BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT TRENT DILFER!!!!! TRENT DILFER!!!

 

And, like clockwork, the guy who lives in the exceptions and holds them as the gospel truth chimes in.....

 

Generally speaking, teams with top quarterbacks win Super Bowls.

Nothing NEW about it, though.

 

I'm wondering about his definition of lose, too. The Broncos are 8-4 and look like they are going to the playoffs with Kyle Orton at quarterback. The Jaguars with David Garrard or the Dolphins with Chad Henne will probably get the other wild card spot in the AFC over the Steelers with Ben Roethlisberger.

Oh, and the Bengals are going to win the AFC North by running the ball and playing defense. Carson Palmer may be a big name, but he is not playing like an elite quarterback this year. Not even close.

Are any of those teams going to win the Super Bowl? I don't think so. But they aren't losing right now.

Meanwhile the Saints are fifth in the league in rushing. The Vikings have Adrian Peterson. The Colts stink out loud running the ball, but they have Peyton Manning. How many teams can put as much on their quarterback as Indy puts on Manning?

 

The NFL is mediocre and watered down enough that making the playoffs is a very minimal standard for what most people would consider winning.

But because, once again you are being the technical, semantical, overbearing self - let's rephrase it -- how many of those shitbag teams with shitbag quarterbacks are being picked to win, or even get to, the Super Bowl?

Who are poeple picking for the Super Bowl?

Saints - Big-time quarterback
Colts - Big-time quarterback
Patriots - Big-time quarterback
Chargers - Big-time quarterback
Vikings - Big-time quarterback

It really isn't a very arguable point.

 

When people quote something as "new gospel" that is neither new nor gospel . . . yeah, you point out the exceptions.

QB has been the most important position for, oh, 60something years. But teams with stout defenses don't need HOF QBs to win.

Just a stupid absolute in a sports world where nothing is absolute.

And outside of the Patriots---who had a hell of a defense and a kicker that never missed in the clutch---the Super Bowls won by those QBs are . . .

Saints: ZERO
Colts: ONE
CHARGERS: ZERO
VIKINGS: ONE (12 years ago).

Sure, people are picking them. But if Peyton had a Lombardi for every one that had been picked for him in advance, he'd have more than Montana.

 

Yes. The "new" NFL is post this era, which many hold onto as proof that you can win with crap at the QB station. That scheming and coaching will push a team over the top.

Not the way the passing rules are anymore. Not when breathing on a wide receiver or looking at him crosseyed draws a flag. Not when waving your arms at the QB while on the ground near him is roughing the passer.

Have a stud QB or plan on losing. The NFL has drastically changed since Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer led their teams to wins. It was already on its way at that point.

It's Brady, Roethlisberger, or a Manning to win it all since then. It's Brees, Philip Rivers, and Favre as the leading contenders to replace them this year and beyond. It's been creeping in since the 1990s. Used to be a great team was needed to win it all. Now it's so hard to build a great team.

Since 1997 it's been Favre, Elway (2), Warner, Dilfer, Brady (3), Brad Johnson, Big Ben, and the Mannings. (I question whether Troy Aikman belongs in the class as these guys. He was a good QB for a great team. These guys minus Dilfer and Johnson and maybe Eli can make any team an instant contender.)

Get a guy like that or lose. Sad thing is, getting these guys is as much luck as anything else. Favre, look how Minnesota got him. Brady was a sixth-rounder who might never have got a shot if not for Bledsoe's injury. Warner is the ultimate rags-to-riches story. Drew Brees was rejected by the Dolphins after being cut by the Chargers. Even Peyton Manning was considered by many a coin-flip choice with Ryan Leaf when he came out.

 

And once again, Zag has to resort to name-calling rather than just making his point. I asked TSP for his definition of losing in his comment. Not your definition.

Twoback and I have had this discussion before, so maybe I understand his overall point better. He thinks teams try too hard to establish the run and blames the Steelers' loss this pat Sunday on that approach. I think teams should still try to be balanced and that giving Rashard Mendenhall the ball 20 times against the 31st-ranked run defense in the NFL was a reasonable approach.

Let's see if Zag can actually respond to this in a civil manner, or is he just gunning to get another NFL thread locked.

 

Interesting piece on E.J. Henderson's future:

http://www.twincities.com/ci_13946019?source=most_viewed

 

Your first argument is stupid, why - because great quarterbacks win super bowls a helluva lot more than teams built on great defense with mediocre offenses.

Yes, there are those two exceptions - and they are two exceptions almost in the entire Super Bowl era....

So while it is not an absolute -- it is pretty damn close - you ain't winning a Super Bowl without an elite quarterback.

That is why Brady has three, Manning and Manning each have one, Roethlisberger has two, and Warner has one -- that's eight of the last ten and the five before that it was Elway, Aikman and Steve Young....