DolfanISS
Perennial All-Pro
I don’t think anyone is advocating for having a Blake Bortles level QB.
The Super Bowl as a proxy for the Finheaven War
- Thread starter Feverdream
- Start date
I don’t think anyone is advocating for having a Blake Bortles level QB.
This agrees with a research I came across a while ago... the Winning% autocorrelation from year to year in the NFL... The results concluded that there was some correlation from one year to the next, low correlation when adding a 1 year lag(ie. winning% 2 seasons ago vs. this season) and virtually no correlation with a 2year lag.
If I get some time, I might try and replicate this but splitting the data between top passing teams and top defensive teams to see what that would look like.
DolfanISS
Perennial All-Pro
I think Philip Rivers is another example. Not the turnover machine we have seen recently but the good enough to keep but never good enough to win with or bad enough to bottom out type. That franchise has been in hell for years IMO.
phins_4_ever
E12 FH Tailgate Gang
I don't even think you guys know what you are arguing about. Making the playoffs depends on more than just your own team's performance. For one we had a dry spell with Marino. I think we missed the playoffs for 4 or 5 years in a row at the end of the 80s (with Marino).
And then there were also years we made the playoffs with a 9-7 record with Marino yet we missed the playoffs with a 9-7 and 10-6 record with Fiedler at QB.
As a matter of fact through a good portion of the 90s we were the team you hate so much: a 9- to 10-win team stuck in purgatory lala land WITH a franchise QB. The difference: a 9-7 and 10-6 record almost guaranteed you a playoff spot in the 90s. That has changed in the 2000s. I believe in 2003 we were the first team ever to miss the playoffs with a 10-6 record.
If you don't remember the Marino years you need to go back and revisit them. After his early success from 1986 on we had once a 12-win season - once in 14 years. And then we had a bunch of 8-win seasons, a whole lotta 9-win seasons, a few 10-win seasons and one or two 11-win seasons. Not much different than the Fiedler years.
After that we had **** crap everywhere: we neither had a dominant D for any significant time, no QBs, no OL, no running game. No coaching. No FO worth ****. Nada. But when it comes to either Franchise QB and nothing else or mediocre QB and running game and D our own history shows that there is very little difference.
The only question is: in today's NFL with salary cap which could have the better sustainability chance?
SkapePhin
☠️ Banned ☠️
- Joined
- May 20, 2002
- Messages
- 43,879
- Reaction score
- 12,965
A franchise QB is a starting point and an end point. It's flatly obvious when you look around the league. Which are the teams that make the playoffs and win playoff games year in and year out? It's the ones with their QB situation settled.
You all are trying to convince yourselves that it's OK to pass on a top QB prospect in the draft, when OUR OWN history shows how it can wreck an ENTIRE DECADE.
Draft Brees in 2001, the entire 00s and 10s might be different. Sign Brees in 2006, Saban might still be here winning Super Bowls instead of National Championships. Draft Aaron Rodgers in 2005, the same. Draft Matt Ryan in 2008, Parcells formula might have worked.
The QB decision can make or break a franchise for decades. Yes, it requires a competent coaching staff to develop the QB and build a decent team around them, but it ultimately comes down to that position because the QB, more than any other player on the field, is largely responsible for what happens on any given play.
If you hit on a QB, it gives you the ability to build a team that competes year in and year out. If you don't, then you are spinning wheels in sub .500 purgatory.
Not to mention that all the talent in the world is wasted without good coaches/schemes/gameplans.
Aaron Rodgers still has that uncanny skill set that can’t be taught. He has never lost it
but over the last 3 years he has just missed an incredible amount of layups. It’s what keeps him and the packers out of it imo
that and they’ve struggled to re create a vertical passing game since losing jordy
but over the last 3 years he has just missed an incredible amount of layups. It’s what keeps him and the packers out of it imo
that and they’ve struggled to re create a vertical passing game since losing jordy
Rick Cartman
It is what it is
While i agree with you that getting a QB is all that matters, but only one of those franchises has a SB since that draft and it's mainly because the QB they drafted played out of his mind that postseason.
I wouldnt want to speak for him, but Im pretty certain he didnt imply that getting a QB is all that matters.
phins_4_ever
E12 FH Tailgate Gang
But what is a franchise QB?
Where Aikman, Young and Montana franchise QBs? Most people say yes because they won Superbowls. But were Marino and Kelly franchise QBs? They didn't win anything.
How about Philip Rivers? Andy Dalton? They were considered - at one point or another - franchise QBs and they may still be.
You are throwing out names without looking at their history. Rodgers was a severely flawed QB coming out of college. He was able to sit 3 years behind Favre while they worked out the kinks. You think he would have been successful here?
Brees - again - was a second round pick. He was a project. He sucked his first 3 years at San Diego. Once he finally got it the Chargers already got Rivers and committed financially to Rivers. Brees really came into his won once he was in NoLa.
You are trying to make an argument for trading up from the #5 spot but do not bring up any supportive arguments for that. You bring up any QB who either was drafted low in the 1st round or later, QBs who succeeded with their second team etc.
All your arguments actually support the "build the team first and do not overspend" reasoning as highlighted in your sentence
While I am a "trade down and build the team first" kinda guy I don't mind if we grab a QB with our 5th. But I am totally opposed to overspending and trade up and give up valuable draft capital for one player when we still have so many needs.
PS: thanks for having a good and calm debate over this issue.
The thing I loved most about Marino was that, even if we were down 14 with 5 mins left in the game, I believed he would bring us back.
I miss that.
And I think more than stats or trophies, that that is what defines whether a QB is a "franchise" QB. The ability to inspire others to believe you can make things happen against all odds.
I miss that.
And I think more than stats or trophies, that that is what defines whether a QB is a "franchise" QB. The ability to inspire others to believe you can make things happen against all odds.
JJM_7
Active Roster
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2008
- Messages
- 4,086
- Reaction score
- 1,790
If you go by simple stats provided by NFL.com and you consider top 5 production to be elite, here is how the four teams that played this past weekend performed during the season:
KC
Elite: QB, offense, passing game
Top 10: running game, defense
TEN
Elite: running game
Top 10: QB, offense
Top 12: passing game, defense
SF
Elite: running game, defense
Top 10: QB, offense
Top 12: passing game
GB
Elite: QB, passing game
Top 10: offense, defense
Top 12: running game
So the two teams that made it to the Super Bowl have either the combination of an elite QB + offense + passing game OR an elite defense + running game.
And all four teams at least had top 12 production in all categories. Which reaffirms the idea of having balance as a football team. You can't be elite or top 10 in certain areas of your team but then be really terrible in others.
It’s going to be interesting to see an elite QB/offense vs. and elite defense/running game in the SB. It's the perfect matchup.
ETA: Also interesting that the difference between the Titans and the Niners was that SF had an elite defense. And it showed yesterday when Tennessee couldn't generate any pass rush against Mahomes.
KC
Elite: QB, offense, passing game
Top 10: running game, defense
TEN
Elite: running game
Top 10: QB, offense
Top 12: passing game, defense
SF
Elite: running game, defense
Top 10: QB, offense
Top 12: passing game
GB
Elite: QB, passing game
Top 10: offense, defense
Top 12: running game
So the two teams that made it to the Super Bowl have either the combination of an elite QB + offense + passing game OR an elite defense + running game.
And all four teams at least had top 12 production in all categories. Which reaffirms the idea of having balance as a football team. You can't be elite or top 10 in certain areas of your team but then be really terrible in others.
It’s going to be interesting to see an elite QB/offense vs. and elite defense/running game in the SB. It's the perfect matchup.
ETA: Also interesting that the difference between the Titans and the Niners was that SF had an elite defense. And it showed yesterday when Tennessee couldn't generate any pass rush against Mahomes.
Last edited:
I think winning a Super Bowl involves alot of luck, at least more than most people believe. Injuries, huge rosters, huge coaching staffs... You really need to get hot at the right time to even have a shot and when you get to the actual game, you might be the better team and still lose because of a fluke play. Thats just how football works. Very short 16 games seasons and single elimination playoffs... This is filled with variance and I think I wouldnt be way off stating that 50% of the time, the better NFL team in any given season didnt end up actually winning the SuperBowl. It is what it is.
IMO, making the playoffs year in and year out is the goal, it gives you a shot at the lotto consistently. For a team starting from scratch, scoring points is what most correlates to winning games, I dont see how trying to precisely focus on that aspect of your team as you build its foundation could be frowned upon. Hell I think they should focus even more on the passing game because, within the offense, it is the part most correlated to scoring points. Within the passing game, the thing most correlated to passing success is QB and the Fins happen to be in position to secure one, a position they wont be in in the near future if the FO and CS are any good.
Is it the only part necessary? Hell no, but its the most expensive one, and Fins are in a spot where it'll be the least expensive for them to grab one. Then solidifying the OL for your passing game will inevitably help out your running game by default. Having a strong passing game helps you score more points and also allows you to deal with **** happens scenarios. You could have the best running game in the NFL, but if for some reason you're sleeping in the 1st quarter of a game and fall behind 24-0, you are ****ed.
I know Im basically repeating myself over and over again. Are there multiple ways to win a SB? Absolutely! But the best way to make the playoffs year in and year out is by having a stable, strong passing offense. Once you have that, everything suddenly becomes much easier.
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2016
- Messages
- 13,434
- Reaction score
- 16,350
While I agree with what you say, let's make Philbin the HC of all 4 teams and convince me they'd make they playoffs.
JJM_7
Active Roster
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2008
- Messages
- 4,086
- Reaction score
- 1,790
I mean, I didn't get into grading their coaching staffs because that's a completely different analysis. It's obvious that having a good to great head coach makes a difference as well. Just ask the Texans.