Armando: Finding a QB is more important than victories | Page 4 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Armando: Finding a QB is more important than victories

How can you not agree, the Dolphins won 9 games in 2005 still shifting QB's and entered the next season again with that QB question mark. They'll never be a legitimate consistent team until they get a legitimate consistent Quarterback.
 
dreamwalker said:
here is something to think about a serviceable quarterback can win the big one-sure.

But how many of them has lead a dynasty?

Anyone up for a team thats one and done?
Click to expand...

How about Bob Greise, yes I know blasphemy but does anyone think he is a HOFer if he had played on any other team?

Or Fran Tarkenten, the guy was a great scrambler and made things happen but he was not a great QB.

More recently you could argue that Troy Aikman was only a good QB on a great team and the same could be said for Phil Simms.

The problem is that QBs get all the credit so once a good QB is associated with a great team they become known as great QBs.
 
You know, I was going to let the issue drop but VManis nailed it. How many "great" quarterbacks were do designated because of the team and situation in which they found themselves?

I concur about the Greise point. So, too, with Aikman and Simms. I could also make the same argument about Montana and even -- heresy alert! -- Tom Brady. These guys were/are hardworkers who hit the right system at the right time. They led exceptional teams who made them better along the way.

A great team can make a decent quarterback great whereas a great quarterback can only lift an average team so high.

Teams, not quarterbacks, define dynasties. Dynasties define quarterbacks, not the other way around.
 
SpurzN703 said:
You're either in first place, or no place.

Winning is why you play the game.
Click to expand...

If you're not first, you're last.

RickyBobby-1.jpg
 
I do agree with Armando, which is rare because I still think he's a tool. But, he's right. Just like having Lemon start last year when Beck was benched. It does you know good to start Lemon when you know he's not the future.

The good thing this year, we don't have a Frerotte or Culpepper or Trent Green. We have McCown who probably already knows is not the future. But two potential "future" guys behind him. So by default, we will find out pretty easily without shooting for the "win first" mentality. The only way that would be derailed is if McCown played out of mind and the defense above their heads and somehow ended up 10-6. I doubt that will happen, though I wouldnt be upset if it did. I'm tired of the losing like everyone else, but if we're not gonna win I want us to find a QB.
 
PerfectFinz72 said:
I do agree with Armando, which is rare because I still think he's a tool. But, he's right. Just like having Lemon start last year when Beck was benched. It does you know good to start Lemon when you know he's not the future.

The good thing this year, we don't have a Frerotte or Culpepper or Trent Green. We have McCown who probably already knows is not the future. But two potential "future" guys behind him. So by default, we will find out pretty easily without shooting for the "win first" mentality. The only way that would be derailed is if McCown played out of mind and the defense above their heads and somehow ended up 10-6. I doubt that will happen, though I wouldnt be upset if it did. I'm tired of the losing like everyone else, but if we're not gonna win I want us to find a QB.
Click to expand...

Yep but the problem is, if lemon came in and put in a bunch of wins we would have found our quarterback. If beck had put up a bunch of wins we would have found our quarterback. Heck if they found a scrub on the waiver wire and he put up a bunch of wins.... at the same time no one put up wins so of course we didnt find a quarterback,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom