A Coach is only as good as his Quarterback...

[go_fins]

IMO, Saban is an excellent coach, but he may be done in by his personnel decision in regards to a single position. It is the position that makes good coaches legends, or good coaches failures..

The decision to trade for Culpepper may be the one decision that keeps him from building a Superbowl Champion in Miami, or the time to do it.. In the past, a coach was afforded more time and room for error.. In today's NFL, you have a short time, and if you goof at this position, you are done.

Without Brady, Bellicheck likely wouldnt have 4 rings on his hand, or even a job in Massachusetts at the moment.

Shula, the winningest coach in NFL history, yet also the benefactor of 3 consecutive Hall of Fame QBs.. Coincidence?

Unless Saban gets lucky, he might end up having to build a dynasty in some other city.. He needs either to catch lightning from some young gun in the draft, or hope for the miraculous return of the 2004 Daunte Culpepper.. If not, he will end up like every other coach without a QB.. Fired.

One of the best posts I've read in a long time. If Saban would have taken Drew Brees we would all be singing his praises, but instead Culpepper has made him look like an A-hole. Saban is a great coach, but he needs players that can translate that into performance on the field. Next year we will see improvement. We really need to get lucky in the draft or somewhere, anywhere. We need a QB that play consistently for a year. Let's examine some of the last Superbowl teams. Steelers-Seahawks, Pats-Eagles, Pats-Panthers, Bucs-Raiders, Pats-Rams. All those teams got good productivity from their QB's. Saban needs to have solid play from his QB and it's not looking like Culpepper is going to regain his old form after yet another setback to his knee. Let's hope Saban can hit on a freak free agent or draft pick.

 

[Bonedoc7777]

this is the best post i may have ever read, the league is all about the QB now, we just need to find the right guy, this is what we get for having a marino

 

[malzj]

I don't think there's a qb in the league that would be succesfull with the way the O-line played yesterday and the first few games.

Getting a better QB would be a plus but overall... me just need a better team.

 

[emocomputerjock]

One of the best posts I've read in a long time. If Saban would have taken Drew Brees we would all be singing his praises, but instead Culpepper has made him look like an A-hole. Saban is a great coach, but he needs players that can translate that into performance on the field. Next year we will see improvement. We really need to get lucky in the draft or somewhere, anywhere. We need a QB that play consistently for a year. Let's examine some of the last Superbowl teams. Steelers-Seahawks, Pats-Eagles, Pats-Panthers, Bucs-Raiders, Pats-Rams. All those teams got good productivity from their QB's. Saban needs to have solid play from his QB and it's not looking like Culpepper is going to regain his old form after yet another setback to his knee. Let's hope Saban can hit on a freak free agent or draft pick.

In all honesty, if I had to make the decision between a QB with a jacked up shoulder, and one with a not-so-good knee, I'd take the guy who could throw the ball instead of the guy with the damage to his throwing arm. Especially if one was more expensive than the other. I wanted Brees, but after I heard we had signed Culpepper, and why, it made sense. Honestly, Brees is a quarterback having an incredible season, and in hindsight it was a mistake to let him go. The one thing you'll never hear from any fan, and from any reporter for that matter, is that when the decision was placed before them, without the benefit of hindsight, that they'd make the same decision the Dolphins did. Get a motivated player, without an issue with his throwing arm (let's ignore the can't move in the pocket and lying about being hurt issues for a moment), and skip what would seem to be the obviously riskier move.

I wish we could have known then what we know now. Brees is a perfect fit for this offense, with his ability to play the short game like no other and our OL troubles. We don't have him though, and we have to proceed and do what's best for the teams future with what we have.

 

[PhinFan0202]

In all honesty, if I had to make the decision between a QB with a jacked up shoulder, and one with a not-so-good knee, I'd take the guy who could throw the ball instead of the guy with the damage to his throwing arm. Especially if one was more expensive than the other. I wanted Brees, but after I heard we had signed Culpepper, and why, it made sense. Honestly, Brees is a quarterback having an incredible season, and in hindsight it was a mistake to let him go. The one thing you'll never hear from any fan, and from any reporter for that matter, is that when the decision was placed before them, without the benefit of hindsight, that they'd make the same decision the Dolphins did. Get a motivated player, without an issue with his throwing arm (let's ignore the can't move in the pocket and lying about being hurt issues for a moment), and skip what would seem to be the obviously riskier move.

I wish we could have known then what we know now. Brees is a perfect fit for this offense, with his ability to play the short game like no other and our OL troubles. We don't have him though, and we have to proceed and do what's best for the teams future with what we have.

What sucks the most about the situation is that at the time it seemed like the right move. This was the descision that destroyed our season as contenders this year and has probably set us back another year or so. At the time it seemed like it was all right but it's obvious we got ripped a new one on this. If we just picked up Brees we could have got an interior linemen with the 2nd that we spent for Dante.

 

[Dolfan984]

What sucks the most about the situation is that at the time it seemed like the right move. This was the descision that destroyed our season as contenders this year and has probably set us back another year or so. At the time it seemed like it was all right but it's obvious we got ripped a new one on this. If we just picked up Brees we could have got an interior linemen with the 2nd that we spent for Dante.

there was a big $ issue.

you don't know that having daunte sets us back for years. as far as I know he's the franchise guy for the time being

 

[PhinFan0202]

there was a big $ issue.

you don't know that having daunte sets us back for years. as far as I know he's the franchise guy for the time being

It set us back this year and it might even set us back next year because who knows when he's going to be 100%. The issue was that they didn't want to give him the amount of money he was asking for so he bolted.

 

[Desides]

No you weren't reading this thread, you were reading his stats. That's what bashes him.

I don't subscribe to the "what have you done for me lately" mentality, particularly when it comes to injured players.

 

[Dolfan984]

It set us back this year and it might even set us back next year because who knows when he's going to be 100%. The issue was that they didn't want to give him the amount of money he was asking for so he bolted.

I'm pretty sure he demanded to be traded. What other choice do we have next year besides seeing if Culpepper can be the guy or not? It's not like it's a 0% chance he'll come back to form.

 

[unifiedtheory]

I think having a great QB helps but isn't always necessary. But I also think it cuts both ways. A great QB is only as good as the offensive schemes he's ordered to run, the players surrounding him, the quality of the coaching, etc.

There have been Superbowl champs that had good but not great QB's:

Baltimore - Trent Dilfer
Tampa Bay - Brad Johnson
Washington - Mark Rypien
NY Giants - Jeff Hostetler

I could go on, but you get the idea.

I think Saban is capable of being a Superbowl coach down the road. If we make that assumption then perhaps the real question is whether we think Daunte or Joey are good enough QB's.

Actually, if you look at Mark Rypien's numbers the year he won the Super Bowl you'd be surprised. Did he have a great career? No, but in 1991 (I'm old, I remember that season) he was STELLAR. I can still recall him hitting TONS of long passes that year.

Mark Rypien, 1991: 249 COMP. 421 ATT. (59.1% in an era when 60% was VERY good, especially playing in that style of offense), 3564 YARDS, 28 TD, 11 INT. He had a YPA of 8.5 (very good) and a passer rating of 97.9 and he made the Pro Bowl.

Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer played on teams with historically good defenses, as did Jim McMahon.

Even the Hostetler led Giants were a bit of anomaly. They were #2 in total defense, had a veteran team and they ran the ball a LOT.

There have been 40 Super Bowls played. 24 of them were started and won by a current Hall of Fame quarterback. I consider Brady and Favre sure-fire Hall of Famers so that puts the number of Super Bowls won by current or sure bet Hall of Fame quarterbacks at 28.

70% of the 40 Super Bowls have been won by Hall of Fame quarterbacks.

There are numerous "non Hall of Fame" quarterbacks that won the Super Bowl that I don't consider "anomalies" because they had good careers but just did not make it to the Hall. Stabler, Plunkett (2 times), Theismann and Simms were all pretty damn good players.

The only "anomalies" in the theory of "you DON'T need a great quarterback to win a Super Bowl" are McMahon, Doug Williams, Jeff Hostetler, Mark Rypien, Kurt Warner, Brad Johnson, Trent Dilfer and Ben Roethlisberger.

I discussed Rypien earlier. I don't put him in the "anomaly" category because he had a GREAT year when he won it. Warner is in the same category.

Like I stated earlier, McMahon, Johnson and Dilfer played on teams with historic defenses. You did not need a great QB on those teams.

I guess the point I am trying to make (finally) is that to win a Super Bowl you need a very good/Hall of Fame quarterback (that has been done 82.5% of the time), a quarterback who had an MVP/career season (that has been done 2.5% of the time) or a historic defensive team (this has been done 7.5% of the time) or have circumstance, like a very good defense, some luck (wide right) or something else weird (last years Steelers).

I'd rather go with the odds and 82.5% of a chance sounds like a good bet to me.

 

[jlfin]

IMO, Saban is an excellent coach, but he may be done in by his personnel decision in regards to a single position. It is the position that makes good coaches legends, or good coaches failures..

The decision to trade for Culpepper may be the one decision that keeps him from building a Superbowl Champion in Miami, or the time to do it.. In the past, a coach was afforded more time and room for error.. In today's NFL, you have a short time, and if you goof at this position, you are done.

Without Brady, Bellicheck likely wouldnt have 4 rings on his hand, or even a job in Massachusetts at the moment.

Shula, the winningest coach in NFL history, yet also the benefactor of 3 consecutive Hall of Fame QBs.. Coincidence?

Unless Saban gets lucky, he might end up having to build a dynasty in some other city.. He needs either to catch lightning from some young gun in the draft, or hope for the miraculous return of the 2004 Daunte Culpepper.. If not, he will end up like every other coach without a QB.. Fired.

Excuse me, but DON SHULA took a team to the SB that was quarterbacked by David Woodley and that offense featured nothing but average skill players in Tony Nathan (RB), Duriel Harris (WR) and Jimmy Cefalo (WR). They had a good FB in Aundra Franklin and some solid TE's in Bruce Hardy/Dan Johnson and Joe Rose. They were nothing special. The killer B's were much more consistent than our defense today even though they had arguably inferior talent.

 

[VManis]

Actually, if you look at Mark Rypien's numbers the year he won the Super Bowl you'd be surprised. Did he have a great career? No, but in 1991 (I'm old, I remember that season) he was STELLAR. I can still recall him hitting TONS of long passes that year.

Mark Rypien, 1991: 249 COMP. 421 ATT. (59.1% in an era when 60% was VERY good, especially playing in that style of offense), 3564 YARDS, 28 TD, 11 INT. He had a YPA of 8.5 (very good) and a passer rating of 97.9 and he made the Pro Bowl.

Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer played on teams with historically good defenses, as did Jim McMahon.

Even the Hostetler led Giants were a bit of anomaly. They were #2 in total defense, had a veteran team and they ran the ball a LOT.

There have been 40 Super Bowls played. 24 of them were started and won by a current Hall of Fame quarterback. I consider Brady and Favre sure-fire Hall of Famers so that puts the number of Super Bowls won by current or sure bet Hall of Fame quarterbacks at 28.

70% of the 40 Super Bowls have been won by Hall of Fame quarterbacks.

There are numerous "non Hall of Fame" quarterbacks that won the Super Bowl that I don't consider "anomalies" because they had good careers but just did not make it to the Hall. Stabler, Plunkett (2 times), Theismann and Simms were all pretty damn good players.

The only "anomalies" in the theory of "you DON'T need a great quarterback to win a Super Bowl" are McMahon, Doug Williams, Jeff Hostetler, Mark Rypien, Kurt Warner, Brad Johnson, Trent Dilfer and Ben Roethlisberger.

I discussed Rypien earlier. I don't put him in the "anomaly" category because he had a GREAT year when he won it. Warner is in the same category.

Like I stated earlier, McMahon, Johnson and Dilfer played on teams with historic defenses. You did not need a great QB on those teams.

I guess the point I am trying to make (finally) is that to win a Super Bowl you need a very good/Hall of Fame quarterback (that has been done 82.5% of the time), a quarterback who had an MVP/career season (that has been done 2.5% of the time) or a historic defensive team (this has been done 7.5% of the time) or have circumstance, like a very good defense, some luck (wide right) or something else weird (last years Steelers).

I'd rather go with the odds and 82.5% of a chance sounds like a good bet to me.

That's all fine and good but making the HOF isn't always an indication of how good a QB really is. When a team wins, the coach and QB are the first to get noticed even if they are not the main reason for the success. And the HOF like the pro bowl has a lot to do with reputation.

Like someone else pointed out Greise was not a dynamic QB that could carry a team on his shoulders. But he was the perfect QB for the way the Dolphin's played football. But had Bob played on another team that didn't have the success of the Dolphins there is no way he makes the hall.

So how many of those 28 QBs in the HOF are there because they played on superbowl teams and gained a reputation? Bradshaw and Namath for sure and a lot of people will argue that Aiken was the least valuable of the triplets. Eliminating those guys and it is only 18 of 40 superbowls won buy franchise QBs or around 45%.

 

[Syra39]

Lets not forget that these Quarterbacks played behind good offensive lines.

 

[Agent Mulder]

The QB is very important, but it all starts up front. If you have a awesome offensive line that pass block and run block well....and a strong defense line that stops the run and puts pressure on the QB....you win games. Just ask Dan Marino why he never won a Superbowl.

 

[Dredd1050]

Could C-Pep end up being Saban's Fiedler?

TWO Miami coaches passing on Brees! Go figure!