DolfanISS
Perennial All-Pro
The Jaguars are a prime example of a team with a great D and run game but no QB. That was a very short window they had.
I don’t think anyone is advocating for having a Blake Bortles level QB.
The Jaguars are a prime example of a team with a great D and run game but no QB. That was a very short window they had.
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.That could easily happen. Marino and the Dolphins also went deep into the playoffs the year after the Superbowl appearance in 1984. But after next year the question mark will rule.
No one should be arguing that getting a QB is all that matters.
At least Marino was consistently in the playoffs. The Big D / No QB teams didn’t even make the playoffs much and only won a single playoff game in that span. And once that D broke down, the party was over and it was just a playoff desert from there.
We’ve seen both strategies in action so I don’t understand why people want to continue to watch a product that doesn’t even make the playoffs except once every decade instead of one that gets to the playoffs every year.
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?
Not to mention that all the talent in the world is wasted without good coaches/schemes/gameplans.This debate will go on forever,
My two cents.......you need balance. Yes I want us to draft a QB this year and build around him. To think all you need is a QB tho is foolish. You need a whole team but having a great QB gives you a lot of options. Draft the QB but give him the help he needs.
No one should be arguing that getting a QB is all that matters.
I wouldnt want to speak for him, but Im pretty certain he didnt imply that getting a QB is all that matters.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.
But what is a franchise QB?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.
Draft Matt Ryan in 2008, Parcells formula might have worked.
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.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.
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.
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.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.