Nfl Qb Position: Absolute Or Relative?

[BigNastyFish]

Seems to me there are quite a few folks around these parts that believe it's 100% essential to have a top-shelf "franchise QB" on your team to have a any chance of winning consistently and challenging for playoffs and titles.

I think we all realize the QB position in the NFL is right at the top of positional importance -- but I'm not sold on the fact you cannot play winning team football with anything less than a top 5 QB talent.

For me, I remember the Marino days when we had the greatest talent EVER at the position (IMO) and yet -- no Championships. Last year I think Mahomes was the BEST QB in the league and yet -- didn't make the SB.

Beyond that, Aaron Rogers has been the dominant QB talent in the league (IMO) over the past 7-10 years -- but only 1 championship.

So the question is -- can we build an excellent TEAM that's capable of playing consistent winning football with QB play that's highly efficient and productive -- but not to the point where every outcome is hinged on his "greatness?"

My take = it's still very much a TEAM game and of course the QB position is important. However, I still believe a QBs game is directly linked to the type/quality of organization he plays in -- and more specifically the (a) coaching, (b) system/scheme and (c) supporting cast he's surrounded by.

Bottom line IMO -- there has to be more than one "golden boy" we can win with -- yes?

 

[Rick Cartman]

Seems to me there are quite a few folks around these parts that believe it's 100% essential to have a top-shelf "franchise QB" on your team to have a any chance of winning consistently and challenging for playoffs and titles.

I think we all realize the QB position in the NFL is right at the top of positional importance -- but I'm not sold on the fact you cannot play winning team football with anything less than a top 5 QB talent.

For me, I remember the Marino days when we had the greatest talent EVER at the position (IMO) and yet -- no Championships. Last year I think Mahomes was the BEST QB in the league and yet -- didn't make the SB.

Beyond that, Aaron Rogers has been the dominant QB talent in the league (IMO) over the past 7-10 years -- but only 1 championship.

So the question is -- can we build an excellent TEAM that's capable of playing consistent winning football with QB play that's highly efficient and productive -- but not to the point where every outcome is hinged on his "greatness?"

My take = it's still very much a TEAM game and of course the QB position is important. However, I still believe a QBs game is directly linked to the type/quality of organization he plays in -- and more specifically the (a) coaching, (b) system/scheme and (c) supporting cast he's surrounded by.

Bottom line IMO -- there has to be more than one "golden boy" we can win with -- yes?

If the last ten years have shown us anything, you need a historically good defense or an elite level QB to win a title. The one exception to this Philly last year.

 

[Danny]

Seems to me there are quite a few folks around these parts that believe it's 100% essential to have a top-shelf "franchise QB" on your team to have a any chance of winning consistently and challenging for playoffs and titles.

I think we all realize the QB position in the NFL is right at the top of positional importance -- but I'm not sold on the fact you cannot play winning team football with anything less than a top 5 QB talent.

For me, I remember the Marino days when we had the greatest talent EVER at the position (IMO) and yet -- no Championships. Last year I think Mahomes was the BEST QB in the league and yet -- didn't make the SB.

Beyond that, Aaron Rogers has been the dominant QB talent in the league (IMO) over the past 7-10 years -- but only 1 championship.

So the question is -- can we build an excellent TEAM that's capable of playing consistent winning football with QB play that's highly efficient and productive -- but not to the point where every outcome is hinged on his "greatness?"

My take = it's still very much a TEAM game and of course the QB position is important. However, I still believe a QBs game is directly linked to the type/quality of organization he plays in -- and more specifically the (a) coaching, (b) system/scheme and (c) supporting cast he's surrounded by.

Bottom line IMO -- there has to be more than one "golden boy" we can win with -- yes?

You don't need a top 5 QB in order to win but it sure helps. Having said that, it's hard to win with a bottom half QB. Take Tannehill for example. Too many things had to be right in order for him to play well. The O-line needed to be good and the WR's had to be good and the running game needed to be effective. Any of those things not working normally meant Tannehill would not have a good game. I believe is easier to find one top QB than to find another 21 good starters. It's just simple math.

 

[Pachyderm_Wave]

You can't keep a championship caliber team together in the era of free agency. Your window for competing for a championship is 1-2 years based on nothing but the quality of your roster.

The reason you need a franchise quarterback is not because it guarantees you a superbowl. Nothing guarantees that. But it's the most important piece to give the biggest window possible to compete for championships. An 8, 10, 12 year window. You can rebuild your roster several times over in this window. As long you have an elite quarterback, you will be competing for superbowls in the NFL.

Competing for one. That's the key words.

 

[Phinatic8u]

You can't keep a championship caliber team together in the era of free agency. Your window for competing for a championship is 1-2 years based on nothing but the quality of your roster.

The reason you need a franchise quarterback is not because it guarantees you a superbowl. Nothing guarantees that. But it's the most important piece to give the biggest window possible to compete for championships. An 8, 10, 12 year window. You can rebuild your roster several times over in this window. As long you have an elite quarterback, you will be competing for superbowls in the NFL.

Competing for one. That's the key words.

Bingo

Getting that guy under center is the most important thing a team can do, not messing around with busts or old vets. Have to get an elite qb on a rookie contract to build around quickly to win a title.

 

[Phindog]

You can't keep a championship caliber team together in the era of free agency. Your window for competing for a championship is 1-2 years based on nothing but the quality of your roster.

The reason you need a franchise quarterback is not because it guarantees you a superbowl. Nothing guarantees that. But it's the most important piece to give the biggest window possible to compete for championships. An 8, 10, 12 year window. You can rebuild your roster several times over in this window. As long you have an elite quarterback, you will be competing for superbowls in the NFL.

Competing for one. That's the key words.

Prime example Pittsburgh and New England. They constantly shed players and dont skip a beat.

 

[BigNastyFish]

You don't need a top 5 QB in order to win but it sure helps. Having said that, it's hard to win with a bottom half QB. Take Tannehill for example. Too many things had to be right in order for him to play well. The O-line needed to be good and the WR's had to be good and the running game needed to be effective. Any of those things not working normally meant Tannehill would not have a good game. I believe is easier to find one top QB than to find another 21 good starters. It's just simple math.

We certainly need more proficiency and consistency from the QB position than Thill provided. That's an easy fact IMO. However, I'm not sure the Miami Dolphins ever got the best out of Ryan (which still may not have been good enough) due to less than stellar coaching, a scheme that many times didn't seem to maximize his strengths, and for sure a pretty consistently inferior OL. Bottom line -- it was apparent Ryan was not the kind of dude who call pull the wagon on his own -- but he was (for the most part) in a pretty $hitty situation IMO.

I just don't believe it's possible to evaluate a QBs NFL production in a vacuum -- his results are definitely linked to the team etc. I mean Shula got to the SB with David Woodley! I know it was a different era -- but using a players talents correctly is still a cornerstone to winning.

That said, all things being equal -- the better player wins. And having the best QB on the field is always a bonus. I'm just not sure it's essential to winning. But crap QB play (erratic mistake prone bone headed) will kill you every time.

I guess my bottom line point is -- if the Org is up to the challenge of being "elite" (one of the best) then we don't have to land the next "greatest QB ever" to turn this program around and become a serious, consistent contender.

 

[BigNastyFish]

Take Brady as an example and put him in a bad case scenario out of college -- including crap coaching crap cast and...

I don't believe for an instant he ever had the type of chops to really carry a team that stinks.

Yet he's highly productive in the right system and has consistently had the benefit of excellent OL play

and some really good supporting cast members -- regardless if they've been plugged in and out.

I'll go back Archie Manning and the absolute disaster he had to deal with.

Put that dude with Bill Walsh and no one would ever talk about Montana!

:)

 

[BigNastyFish]

You can't keep a championship caliber team together in the era of free agency. Your window for competing for a championship is 1-2 years based on nothing but the quality of your roster.

The reason you need a franchise quarterback is not because it guarantees you a superbowl. Nothing guarantees that. But it's the most important piece to give the biggest window possible to compete for championships. An 8, 10, 12 year window. You can rebuild your roster several times over in this window. As long you have an elite quarterback, you will be competing for superbowls in the NFL.

Competing for one. That's the key words.

Right. That's the prevailing "wisdom" and I don't disagree.

I just think the term "franchise QB" is relative to the franchise the QB plays in (at least more often than not).

There are the transcendent talents who can play in any situation -- but there's only 1 or 2 in history IMO.

The balance are QBs with excellent talent who also have the right chemistry around them to shine.

No doubt we need a PLAYER @QB -- and I'm all for the best we can get.

I just hope the Org now has the capacity to ID and develop the "right player" for the role.

And I seriously hope there's MORE than 1 target.

 

[superphin]

Take Brady as an example and put him in a bad case scenario out of college -- including crap coaching crap cast and...

I don't believe for an instant he ever had the type of chops to really carry a team that stinks.

Yet he's highly productive in the right system and has consistently had the benefit of excellent OL play

and some really good supporting cast members -- regardless if they've been plugged in and out.

I'll go back Archie Manning and the absolute disaster he had to deal with.

Put that dude with Bill Walsh and no one would ever talk about Montana!

:)

This is probably applicable to 100% of QB's, look at Drew Brees in 2014,2015, and 2016 or Marino 1986-89. No QB can do it all.

 

[Pachyderm_Wave]

I'll go back Archie Manning and the absolute disaster he had to deal with.

Put that dude with Bill Walsh and no one would ever talk about Montana!

I agree with that for sure.

 

[foozool13]

You need a top 10 QB to be a contender on a year to year basis.

Otherwise, yeah, you can once in a while make a run here and there like Minny or Jags did.

 

[BigNastyFish]

This is probably applicable to 100% of QB's, look at Drew Brees in 2014,2015, and 2016 or Marino 1986-89. No QB can do it all.

My point is -- there are dudes who can function effectively in less than ideal situations...

Brady is NOT one of them IMO.

But let's be real -- they all have professional level players around them. But a truly great QB can shine on his own in pretty much any situation. Doesn't mean he's going to win championships over TEAMS that are significantly better -- just means he can carry his team way beyond their "relative level."

Those dudes are exceedingly rare. And I guess some think Tua might be a guy like that? I'm very unsure on that given the superior program he plays in -- loaded with talent etc.

How good would he look in a less than ideal situation? Does the quality of the program and supporting cast "tilt" his evaluation in a positive way? How would he react when things are not so good around him? I think those factors are often overlooked and/or discounted.

Not saying the kid couldn't get it done. But its conjecture either way...

 

[russianbear]

Seems to me there are quite a few folks around these parts that believe it's 100% essential to have a top-shelf "franchise QB" on your team to have a any chance of winning consistently and challenging for playoffs and titles.

I think we all realize the QB position in the NFL is right at the top of positional importance -- but I'm not sold on the fact you cannot play winning team football with anything less than a top 5 QB talent.

For me, I remember the Marino days when we had the greatest talent EVER at the position (IMO) and yet -- no Championships. Last year I think Mahomes was the BEST QB in the league and yet -- didn't make the SB.

Beyond that, Aaron Rogers has been the dominant QB talent in the league (IMO) over the past 7-10 years -- but only 1 championship.

So the question is -- can we build an excellent TEAM that's capable of playing consistent winning football with QB play that's highly efficient and productive -- but not to the point where every outcome is hinged on his "greatness?"

My take = it's still very much a TEAM game and of course the QB position is important. However, I still believe a QBs game is directly linked to the type/quality of organization he plays in -- and more specifically the (a) coaching, (b) system/scheme and (c) supporting cast he's surrounded by.

Bottom line IMO -- there has to be more than one "golden boy" we can win with -- yes?

Here's the issue....you state the claim "it's 100% essential to have a top-shelf "franchise QB" on your team to have a any chance of winning consistently and challenging for playoffs and titles."

Then the counter-point you present is the inverse. "These teams had a superstar QB but didn't...etcetcetc"

Aaron Rodgers & Dan Marino consistently won and led their teams to contention. Virtually any great QB does the same. Aaron Rodgers has a SB and the Packers are a contender every year. Of course it's a team game. You basically need a top 10 defense to even make it in the playoffs.

As it's been stated earlier...a franchise QB is the absolute, without a doubt most important position on a football team. If your plan is to build a great team with "good" qb play, well....GTFO of Miami because it's a loser's formula. At best you'll put together an elite team that can stay together a year or two before FA requires you to split them up.

JMO

 

[cuzinvinny]

Like I stated a month ago, the franchise QB's ( who can take the whole offense on their shoulders and with inadequate players surrounding them still achieve unexpected levels of success) would be the ideal situation but not the only one with the legitimate ability to bring success to the Organization and thus understood in the equation of getting our next QB.

Though not "Franchise" labeled but having talent and the skills, arm strength and accuracy, leadership and desire on a level of being able to depend upon on a regular or consistent basis though not that one man show, is what may be more in the realistic and accessible area of our future choices.
High Quality not necessarily franchise type..

Bob Griese, Bradshaw, Plunkett, (for the old timers) Foles (for the yutes )
to name a few.
They were not the Marinos, Manning, Kelly's, Montana, Brady's but with the proper surroundings can be even more efficient.

We had are Dream come true with the many years of being privileged and spoiled in watching one of the greatest of all time, Marino...and we ain't getten another one in this life time so you get the best you can while understanding that there is NO magic Lamp to help, its the real world folks...