For discussion..QB, team, system.

[LithoMan]

There is no absolute answer.

To be a great team, you need a QB who is unflappable and who rises to the occassion under pressure. You need a quarterback who can make quick decisions and throw the ball to the open man which is a lot easier said than done.

I saw someone mention that Brady wouldn't be effective without his defense or Oline.

But in 2001 the Patriots had a terrible Oline. They had a rookie at LT and were mediocre to poor everywhere else. That's why Bledsoe had been so ineffective in his last few years here.

Anyway, Brady came in and with his quick release and decision making.......HE made the Oline look much better than they ever had before.

So a truly great QB CAN actually make the team around him better. Just like a great point guard can make his teammates better in basketball.

BTW....The Patriots defense was ranked 24th out of 31 teams in 2001.

The thing is that people don't understand greatness. Statistical achievements do NOT make you great. Getting the job done in big spots is what defines (or should define) true greatness.

Michael Jordan wasn't great b/c he led the league in scoring every year. MJ was great b/c he constantly lifted the team on his back and CARRIED THEM TO VICTORY. He was great b/c he was always at his best in the big spots. More than anything, it's his buzzer-beating shots that define MJ. I mean, did that guy EVER miss a shot with the game on the line???

Unfortunately Dolphins fans will never accept that b/c of what it would mean about their beloved Dan Marino.

Your going to define your jackass QB, by comparing him to MJ? Ok.. thats about assinine. In BB, one guy is all it takes to make a team. Witness Shaq in Miami. Did they win it all, hell no. And MJ didnt win it all, until when??? But, there is no doubt MJ was the best scoring player to ever play in the NBA.

Ya, I'll remember your little speech on your "great" QB when it comes the season, and he's running for his life, like a punk, when the pass rush is on, and he throws another one of his infamous INT's. Just to watch that crap D, your words, not mine, win the game again for him. But, ya, it is alllllllll Brady, I forgot.

 

[LithoMan]

Marino moved better than any QB to ever paly the game. That is why he was sacked so rarely! He would rather throw 3 straight balls out of bounds to help the field position game than to run around and be sacked more than any other QB in history!(Elway) The pocket is where the qb belongs and that is where Marino was the best. Bruce Smith has said he liked to sack Marino more than anybody else b/c you get so close so many times, you hit him w/ the ball get him to the ground and then you look up and the ball is 30 yds down field!

Walsh said it him self, Something to the effect of Marino's mobility and feet were under appreciated, and that he knew how to move in the pocket to buy time better than anybody, rather than leave the pocket. He raved at the mobility Marino had and the knowlege of the pocket! I magine Marino in SF those years?????????? The OL was horrible and JJ took the audible away from marino, that ledd to escalating sack #s'!

I agree, it's called stepping up, something you see rarely anymore. There aren't QB's who could disect a coverage and throw the ball as fast as Marino. But, his OL wasn't crap, his OL was excellent. I dont know why you think that line was crap...

That's why I got a kick out of the one guy, trying to say Brady has a quick release, now that was hilarious...

 

[LithoMan]

That's a good article..but it still deals with a team that has good supporting cast which feeds into my "that helps make a QB" thesis. Brady can stay focus down field because rarely does his OL allow him to get hit..even when he shifts with the OL, you can feel the pressure somewhat stay calm because of the trust. A good OL in this case actually allows a qb to develope these senses that are reported here. In the Monday night game against Miami, Brady felt what our Qb's left last year and it affected his play. That's to be expected, it's hard to do much when the D is in Your face. Actually, everytime Brady plays the phin his passing rating goes down. He's like 58% against the phins..so if every team played him like us, he wouldn't have been the center piece of that story. :goof:

Exactly... Thats what I've been talking about. Brady dont handle pressure well.. Instead of tossing the ball away, he throws it up for grabs, and when you dont have a TO, Andre Johnson, or Chris Chambers type, that will go up and fight for the ball, what happens. INT baby. I hear he (Brady) is so bright, but I seem him as a dipsheet that doesn't know what his receivers can do. When you dont have a true legit #1 to throw the ball up for, then why are you doing it? Sure, it's easy when the D cant cover 4 #2 guys's on the field, but when they can, Brady goes to sheet, when that pass rush eats him up.

 

[suhawk]

So if that's the case..if our team's OL is improved, our Running game improves, and a proven scheme with good receivers, will that translate to better QB play.

I believe that the factors you mention will translate to better QB play. Here's why:

1) OL play ++ -> more time for QB to throw the ball
2) Running Game ++ -> Takes pressure off QB since he doesnt have to carry the game on his back. Forces the Defence to play up in the box which should create more passing opportunities.
3) Proven scheme -> certainly wont hinder our QB play

The resl question is though - HOW much better will this make our QB play. I don't know if it will be enough to turn us into a truly potent offence.


Cheers

 

[Maynard the Hammer]

But that's Brady in that system, if you put him in Norv's system as played here, is he as successful? The Griese example is a great analysis..when put in this situation, he had problems, put back in a WCO he excelled again. So I'm starting to believe the right system for the right players and tweated to take advantage of what those players do best. AJ is from a WCO system (Philly), ran kind of like Linehan's system. He played well with a great supporting cast, he comes here, our supporting cast, schemes, OC wasn't as great and the results were completely different. He regressed and tried to force the issue, which didn't bode well for him. Now we have an experienced OC, who O seems to work toward AJ's strength, strong armed QB with some skills throwing wise. So one part of the puzzle is solved to me. Now the most important parts. OL, is it where it needs to be? Everything, and I mean everything starts there. Our passing attack and running attack hinges on the OL abilities to open holes and hold their blocks when passing. Linehan's O relies on atleast 4 seconds in the passing game. Culpepper stood back there for awhile before launching some of his bombs, he had plenty of time to find receivers. The thread of thier receivers allowed big holes in the running game. We are somewhat different in that our receivers are good but not as dangerous, we don't have Moss. Our RB's seem to be a better group than last year's, (that goes without saying almost). Having said that I think Linehan will be more balance with this team, until, of course, he gets a sense of what our strenghts are. We maybe suited, personnel wise, more for running than passing. If that's the case, AJ or Gus should have a easier time passing. Play action is a great tool in giving extra time to the QB to fine a receiver.

thats why i never understood why feidler was in the Norv Turner system. that system needs the QB to hit the sideline outs at 15 yds. and keep the D honest with the play action deep ball. although feidler had a nice play action move, he could do none of those things.

he was set up for failure, because the system didnt fit his strengths.

the mistake DW made his entire career is that he tried to mold his players to his style and it really never worked.

 

[Megatron]

thats why i never understood why feidler was in the Norv Turner system. that system needs the QB to hit the sideline outs at 15 yds. and keep the D honest with the play action deep ball. although feidler had a nice play action move, he could do none of those things.

he was set up for failure, because the system didnt fit his strengths.

the mistake DW made his entire career is that he tried to mold his players to his style and it really never worked.

Yup.

 

[PhinBeck]

I'm watching QB challenge, again..man I'm bored. Anyway they have Marino, Elway, Boomer, Kosar, and Simms sitting and talking about whether you have to be a top pick to be a good qb and win a super bowl..and their answer is no. Bottom line they said You have to have a supporting cast, good system, and a chance. Of course the Steve Young from tampa to SF was pointed out as a part of their argument as we've done. So if that's the case..if our team's OL is improved, our Running game improves, and a proven scheme with good receivers, will that translate to better QB play. Listening to them, yes, but a lot of you guys don't seem to agree based on the argurements about AJ. Who's right you guys or them..please explain..and guys no one liners..let's really talk this out.

I agree with you, but as I have said to the opposition, it isnt a cut or dry argument for either side. A good supporting cast can go a long way in helping an inexperienced qb, but it goes only so far. The qb still has to make the right reads and the right decisions. Jay had a supporting cast but for a myriad of reasons, consistency, durability, lack of arm strength, he could never get over the hump. A qb still has to have talent and the mental aptitude and composure. What the lack support does effect more is the lack of support can really hamper a less than elite qb. Very good qbs cannot succeed when 2/3 of the offense and the coaching are not functioning. Trent Green would not have had success nor looked good last year, neither Bulger, Collins, Pennington, Delhomme and others for that matter. The elite qbs would have looked better and made more pl;ays, but wouldnt have made us a winning team IMO. HOWEVER, having a supporting cast does not guarentee a qbs success.

 

[MDFINFAN]

I believe that the factors you mention will translate to better QB play. Here's why:

1) OL play ++ -> more time for QB to throw the ball
2) Running Game ++ -> Takes pressure off QB since he doesnt have to carry the game on his back. Forces the Defence to play up in the box which should create more passing opportunities.
3) Proven scheme -> certainly wont hinder our QB play

The resl question is though - HOW much better will this make our QB play. I don't know if it will be enough to turn us into a truly potent offence.


Cheers

That's what I'm looking for, if indeed our OL is improved in both rushing and passing, then we get to see if this makes a big difference in QB play. Very few QB's at this level can't play the game. The NFL, supposively only take the best of the best. So if all these factors are in the team's favor, it would stand to reason that the QB should be free, to a certain extend, to do what a QB is suppose to do. In our case if our QB's are any good, they should play better behind and with better players supporting them, with a OC who's proven that he can adjust to situations, put the best play in for the type of player he has, and has shown that his O can be successful in this league.

 

[GRYPHONK]

There is no absolute answer.

To be a great team, you need a QB who is unflappable and who rises to the occassion under pressure. You need a quarterback who can make quick decisions and throw the ball to the open man which is a lot easier said than done.

I saw someone mention that Brady wouldn't be effective without his defense or Oline.

But in 2001 the Patriots had a terrible Oline. They had a rookie at LT and were mediocre to poor everywhere else. That's why Bledsoe had been so ineffective in his last few years here.

Anyway, Brady came in and with his quick release and decision making.......HE made the Oline look much better than they ever had before.

So a truly great QB CAN actually make the team around him better. Just like a great point guard can make his teammates better in basketball.

BTW....The Patriots defense was ranked 24th out of 31 teams in 2001.

The thing is that people don't understand greatness. Statistical achievements do NOT make you great. Getting the job done in big spots is what defines (or should define) true greatness.

Michael Jordan wasn't great b/c he led the league in scoring every year. MJ was great b/c he constantly lifted the team on his back and CARRIED THEM TO VICTORY. He was great b/c he was always at his best in the big spots. More than anything, it's his buzzer-beating shots that define MJ. I mean, did that guy EVER miss a shot with the game on the line???

Unfortunately Dolphins fans will never accept that b/c of what it would mean about their beloved Dan Marino.

So are you saying it was Brady who won that SB? Are you sure it wasn't the defense that shut down the "Greatest show on turf"?

If I remember correctly didn't Brady go something like 3/11 in the 2nd half with 2 of those throws coming on the last posession.

He had 18td's in 15 games that year. It wasn't his producing points that got them that far.

I am not dissing Brady just clearly showing it wasn't superstar Brady that won the big show as you claimed Dan didn't.

It is a team sport and Brady sure as heck didn't win that SB. The 2nd one against Delhomme he did. But the 1st one he was pretty much anoemic on offense it was that defense that won it and that helped carry the team that whole season.

I don't care what their defensive rank was. However, I do care about how many PPG they were giving up. You could give up 700 yards a game but if you are only giving up 10 ppg then you are the better defense. Out of curiousity how many PPG did they give up that year.

 

[PYPER]

So are you saying it was Brady who won that SB? Are you sure it wasn't the defense that shut down the "Greatest show on turf"?

Nope, that's not what I'm saying.

The defense absolutely won that game. The MVP voters missed a real opportunity b/c if ever there was a game where a collective unit deserved to share the MVP award, that was it. It would have been so appropriate considering this team's MO.

If I remember correctly didn't Brady go something like 3/11 in the 2nd half with 2 of those throws coming on the last posession.

I don't remember his specific stats for the second half but they couldn't have been good. You have to remember that 2001 was Brady's first year starting. The coaching staff was not going to entrust the entire offense on such a young player. Throughout the entire season, Belichick & Weis, designed game plans to protect him. They were very conservative. Run on first, run on second, pass on 3rd.

The only time they would open up the offense is when they absolutely had to. And in EVERY single one of those occassions, Brady game through big time. That's why every knowledgeable Pats fan knew this kid was special when the rest of the world thought he was just a "system QB". Perhaps the most amazing thing was how little offensive talent he was surrounded with. They only had two WR's, no TE's, a patchwork Oline.....I'm not sure there's another QB in the history of the game, let alone the current era that could have even led that team to the playoffs.

He had 18td's in 15 games that year. It wasn't his producing points that got them that far.

He only started 14 regular season games in 2001 and in those 14 games the Patriots averaged over 25 pts a game. Not too shabby. Being that he was a young QB, Weis usually called runs in the red zone. A.Smith ran for 12 TD's that year.

But statistics don't do Tom Brady justice. The thing about Brady is that he ALWAYS steps his game up in the big spots. I mean not all situations in a game have equal importance to determining the outcome of that game. Some situations are simply much more important. This is where Brady excells. Unfortunately, he does seem to coast at times when he perceives the situation to be of less importance. It could also have something to do with the playcalling in those situations but I'm pretty sure it has a lot to do with Brady as well.

There was a study done on another website (maybe football outsiders or something) that broke down Brady's and Manning's stats situationally. They discovered that Brady's QB ranking was over 20 points higher on possessions where the Patriots took the ball while either tied or trailing by one score. Whereas it was much lower when they were either up big or down big.

The exact opposite was the case with Manning. Manning's best stats were when he was either up or down by two scores or more.

They also pointed out that 32 of Mannings 49 TD's came in a six game stretch where he played defenses that all ranked amongst the bottom 10 in the league. In the 10 games against quality defenses, he had a modest but respectable 17 TD's.

I am not dissing Brady just clearly showing it wasn't superstar Brady that won the big show as you claimed Dan didn't.

It is a team sport and Brady sure as heck didn't win that SB.

He may not have won that Super Bowl by himself, but he certainly did WIN that Super Bowl. He was handcuffed most of that game by an overly conservative game plan. Yet, when the coaching staff finally decided to lean on him and let him win the game, he came through, just like he had in every other similar opportunity he had that year. In the situations where he absolutely had to step up and make a play....He did.

The 2nd one against Delhomme he did. But the 1st one he was pretty much anoemic on offense it was that defense that won it and that helped carry the team that whole season.

Yeah, he played great against the Panthers and like I said, I agree he shouldn't have won the MVP vs the Rams. It should have been given to the entire defense.

I don't care what their defensive rank was. However, I do care about how many PPG they were giving up. You could give up 700 yards a game but if you are only giving up 10 ppg then you are the better defense. Out of curiousity how many PPG did they give up that year.

If you don't care what the defensive rank was then you can't use Miami's defensive rank in your argument to defend Marino. It goes both ways. You like to point out that the '84 Dolphins had the 19th rated defense. Great....The 2001 Patriots had the 24th rated defense.

Both defenses were much better in the pts allowed department.

The Patriots gave up 17 PPG that year which I believe ranked 6th or 7th. Not too shabby.

Last point:
Marino played for two of the greatest coaches the NFL has ever known. One of them is the winningest coach in NFL history and the other is likely to join him in the Hall of Fame one day. Combined those coaches won FOUR Super Bowls WITHOUT Marino. Yet neither man could ever win a Super Bowl with Dan Marino.

Look at Dan Marino's performances in some of those games. Can you honestly tell me that he didn't contribute heavily in many of those losses.

I realize you guys want to blame everybody else for those defeats but take a look at some of the decisions and throws that Marino made in those games. He threw way too many picks and generally was at his worst. That's not what a great QB does.

Marino's sole claim to fame is statistical achievment. Well sheet, Andre Ware, Ty Detmer, and Kliff Klingsbury lit up college football with some amazing stats. Does that make them three of the best college QB's of all time??? Hell no....

Marino was a good and perhaps even very good QB. But his name does not belong any where near the Top 5 to ever play the game.

 

[PhinSoldia]

Well let's look at this logically.

Trent Dilfer
Brad Johnson

Not great QB'S

Tom Brady- He's not a top pick nor is he a franchise QB. However, the guy is mr clutch and he has a nice supporting cast.

Elway didnt get his SB till Terell Davis was a 2000 yard rusher
Marino never got a SB.

Manning is still searching for a ring.

Some posters are just naive when it comes to the QB position. The QB gets too much blame and credit.

People will always say that all Marino needed was a RB. Yet they don't factor in that he had an O-line, WR'S and a decent defense. The only reason I mention this is because Feeley had a collapsing defense, no O-line and no RB yet they wanna throw him to the curve.

If what u needed was a top QB to be successful then Manning and Marino would have a bunch of rings.

But the fact is simple. You need to surround your QB with talent.

Would Brady be as successful without his defensE or his Oline?
Will Culpepper be as successful without Moss?
Where would Peyton be without Marvin and James?
Would Dilfer had won that SB without Lewis and CREW?

All those answers are simple. They are all no.


You need talent around your QB more then you need a top QB.

you raise an interesting question though will Culpepper will be successful with out him? I disagree with you..on one note....Peyton Establishes other people...James wont be as good without peyton,

 

[jason_taylor]

You have to be at least smart. AJ might have had a lot going against him last year. He didn't show signs of beeing smart w/ the ball however. He was wreckless/carelss w/ the ball. A younger version of Bledsoe IMO.

ok 1 question was he wreckless /careless/with the ball the last what 6 or 7 games ? huh ? no ints in those last 6-7 games and they knew he had no running game that is bull to call him reckless and careless if so he would have thrown ints the last few games in the season right ? so with a better ol that was starting to gel at the end of the season and now some very great rbs and another wr in boston and gilmore and the others that was still learning the game we shall see how wreckless and careless he his :evil:

 

[djfresh47]

thats why i never understood why feidler was in the Norv Turner system. that system needs the QB to hit the sideline outs at 15 yds. and keep the D honest with the play action deep ball. although feidler had a nice play action move, he could do none of those things.

he was set up for failure, because the system didnt fit his strengths.

the mistake DW made his entire career is that he tried to mold his players to his style and it really never worked.

The problem with getting by with average players whose weaknesses are more noticeable than there strengths is exactly what you posted is gonna happen. When Jay played well he was a "caretaker," and not there to win the game, but rather not to lose the game. I hate that idea in a Qb, perhaps the team didn't adjust to Fiedler's strengths which was handing the ball off to Ricky 40 times a game, but than other fans believe that was the reason Ricky quit, because Dave was trying to do what it took to win. Coaches need to adjust to players, but players need to adjust to coaches also. I hate excuses for any player, they didn't play well it's on them, perhaps the coaches didn't put him in the right situation but, it was the player on the field. Just to use a comparision, would anyone blame Randy McMichaels wife for getting in the way of Randy McMichael when he threw her, allegedly?

 

[BlueFin]

Again that unit had just come off a superbowl, they were good enough. The D at that time was never great, not until JJ entered the picture.

No, they were two years removed from a Superbowl and Arnsparger was gone.

The defense sucked.

 

[GRYPHONK]

Nope, that's not what I'm saying.

The defense absolutely won that game. The MVP voters missed a real opportunity b/c if ever there was a game where a collective unit deserved to share the MVP award, that was it. It would have been so appropriate considering this team's MO.




I don't remember his specific stats for the second half but they couldn't have been good. You have to remember that 2001 was Brady's first year starting. The coaching staff was not going to entrust the entire offense on such a young player. Throughout the entire season, Belichick & Weis, designed game plans to protect him. They were very conservative. Run on first, run on second, pass on 3rd.

Nice response!!

However, I never used Miami's defensive rank as an argument that was someone elses argument:D

However, no matter how much one may be able to knock Bray you can't take away his 3 out of 4 SB'S. He always seems to make those clutch plays.

In a time where faNs get glamoured and wowed by the Peyton Mannings, Daunte Culpepper's of the league it is nice to know that the Jake DElhommes are semi getting it done and the Tom Bradys are getting it done.

It seems as though statistically and draft wise you are better off not being a top pick lol.

I think GM'S and teams miss the ball right now. Teams are too one sided.

It is a team sport u always need a supporting cast around you.

Taylor would not be as successful had Madison and Surtain been such great cover corners. Surtain wouldn't have been so successful had Tyalor an dthe front 7 not been so good etc...

I iwll say this, I still don't think Brady is a franchise QB, However, right now there is no other QB I wold want leading my team if I was down by 6 with 5 mins left in the 4th quarter.

Now a days, u don't need that great QB. You simply need that QB that won't blow the game and who will make that 1 throw a game that needs to be made, that 1 special play a game that needs to be made. That's why guys like Brady are special. They may not have a great game but in the 4th when u need him to he usually always comes up with the big play. Delhomme did too the year they went to the SB.

That's one reason I always liked Fiedler. No Matter how bad he played, he always had us in position to tie or win late in the game. I always felt like there was a chance somehow. I am not putting him on Brady's level. Now whether he made something happen or not is a different story. But e always gave us a chance. Whether some fans will admit that or not:goof: