the taildragger

The Ravens' all-time MVP, Ray Lewis, is still with the team today...unfortunately, so is Kyle Boller.

Dilfer had a fine season in 2000. Despite their defense, they would not have won the SB with Tony Banks. While it's hypothetically possible for another QB to have performed as well or better than Dilfer, this does not alter the following facts (CHFF-style):

• 8 games into 2000, Dilfer took over for the great Tony Banks.
• In the previous 8 games, the Ravens averaged 16.75 ppg and had not scored a TD in 16 quarters.
• In the following 12 games, they averaged 24.5 ppg.
• The QB replacement directly represented a 46% increase in TEAM PRODUCTION...there is no better illustration of how valuable the position of QB is...and this is apparently the "exception" to the rule.

But what about that defense?
The D's domination was the clear result of a historically weak schedule:

• They allowed 3.7ppg in 9 games against 26th average offenses
• They allowed 14ppg in 11 games against 12th ranked offenses

When the Titans 14th ranked offense put up 23 on the great Ravens' D, it took a heroic 4th quarter effort from Dilfer to escape with the one-point victory. That game was the springboard to their championship run.

There are always exceptions to any rule, but in that particular season, Dilfer was absolutely more valuable than anyone else on the roster.

Was he alone more valuble than the entire defense (as glorified as it was)? of course not. That's obfuscation.

Bottom line: We've had this debate over the past week. I've seen it repeated elsewhere a million times. QBs are more important than any other position on the field -- BY A MILE.

Funny how we in NE like to fawn over a great hitter or pitcher, but we can't see past the rhetoric when it comes to the most important position in team sports.

dryheat44

The problem with your analysis is that the PPG is skewed by defensive touchdowns, and defensive turnovers to give the offense a short field. I remember a stretch of 3 wins that season where the Ravens didn't score an offensive touchdown. Matt Stover was their offensive MVP that year.

Dilfer was handed the keys, and told not to smash it up. He did that.

Not that I disagree with your conclusion, but you could have found better arguments.

__________________
When it's third and 10, you can have the milk drinkers and I'll take the whiskey drinkers every time. -- R.I.P. Max McGee

BelichickFan

Yeah, like Bledsoe and Brady under Belichick.

Bledsoe : 5-13, 28%
Brady : 77%

I know, the team got better around Brady. In that case,

2001

Bloedsoe 0-2
Brady 14-3

This is why I'm happy the Jets passed on a QB. Although they have a high bust potential, they also have a "turn the franchise around singlehandedly" potential.

Brady-To-Branch

Dilfer's RS QB rating (9 RS games) was a below average 76.6.

Here is his 2000 game log...

Dilfer 2000 Postseason:

Dilfer was a mediocre QB who played well enough for his team to win in 2000. But he has only been to the playoffs twice (1997, 2000) and hasn't played beyond the regular season since 2000.

The 2000 Giants were the worst NFC team to play in the SB. Their QB, Kerry Collins was hideous in SB XXXV. Moreover, if not for a late TD by Ron Dixon on a KO return, the Giants would have been the first team to be shutout in a SB.

I equate it to the NBA's Chicago Bulls. I firmly believe that you can't win a championship without a strong physical presence at center and power forward. Compare the Bulls with past NBA champions and their inside power game dosen't match up. The reason for their dynasty was Michael Jordan, a guard, and the greatest player in NBA history (please start another thread on a non-football board if you disagree, as I don't want this thread to be hijacked). From WK# 12 to SB 35, excluding a meaningless game against the Jets, the Ravens allowed no more than 10 points!

The 2000 Ravens had one of the best rushing attacks in the NFL...

ATT: 5th
YDS: 5th
TD: 9th
YPA: 8th

Meanwhile, the Ravens passing game wasn't very effective...

__________________
New England Patriots Super Bowl Champions:
2001 2003 2004

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

the taildragger

stover was the mvp huh?

the same defense that scored all those TDs was on the field before Dilfer took over...that does NOT account for the jump in production.

the taildragger

nice try.

my argument is not that Dilfer was a Hall of Famer, but that he was indeed the most valuable player on the team....not STOVER. Tony Banks had jamal lewis too.

I guess the message is still not getting through.

an 83 rating in the playoffs isn't good enough?...who were his receivers?

QB ratings are the absolute worst measurement of a QB's worth. Put PM in another offense and see what happens to his rating...same with Kurt "best rating ever" Warner.

the taildragger

another theory that gets casually tossed around...the "game manager" view of football.

we're talking about the QB postion right?

yeah, just go "manage the game" dude. good luck, go win the super bowl and don't screw up.

there's nothing EASY about it...the guy still has to touch the ball on every snap...he still has to set ever play in motion. If he's no good, it doesn't work.

It's time to stop pretending you can just get lucky and win a championship.

the taildragger

i'm starting to lose faith here.

I'm just not going to convert anyone who fails to understand the following key football concepts:
1. kickers are NEVER more valuable than quarterbacks.
2. this does not depend on who the kicker or QB are.
3. if you have Adam kicking but you have a lousy QB, you are not going to win games.
4. Great QBs make everyone on the team play better...including defensive personnel...this is a key concept...when an offense is clicking, it benefits the defense in a number of ways.
5. this is just one of 1000 reasons why QB ratings suck.

The premise of this thread is easily summed up in one sentence:

The Ravens changed their QB and averaged nearly 50% better team production in the 2nd half of the season on their way to a championship. This can't be explained away by defensive touchdowns or improved field goal kicking.

I'm really starting to lose faith here.

OldEnglandPatriot

I agree with you. And I agree that there is more to judging a quarterback than their rating. It's a 'passer' rating not a 'quarterback' rating isn't it?

the taildragger

thanks Old England -- I was starting to wonder if I was alone.

all I know is I look at that team and the "before" and "after" and the only thing separating the two is trent dilfer.

i'm not trying to put him in Canton, just trying to:
a. give the guy a little credit.
b. take the "exception" that supposedly DISproves the rule and make it PROVE the rule instead.

guys like Dilfer, B. Johnson, D. Williams repeatedly get slammed for falling into lucky situations and just letting people around them make plays....it's fool's logic and it's got to stop.

these guys were/are among the elite gridiron leaders who have ever played the game.

did John Elway win Super Bowls because he morphed into a mediocre game manager -- no, he won because he learned how to orchestrate the offense more effectively -- Shanahan taught him how to become a better QB -- he had the tools (those Denver teams in the 80s were very solid teams) he just needed the guidance.

I still haven't heard a definition of "game manager" that makes the position sound any less complex. I mean yeah, that's what they do, "manage the game" -- but people talk about it like it's autopilot.

there's an inbred paradigm in parts of patsdom that says every player counts equally...it's a great concept for the lockerroom, but it's also totally wrong and nobody actually believes it.

especially in the parity era, when relative to the rest of the team, the QB is even more valuable. Even Vrabel called it a "QB driven league." The only people who seem to still be fooled are the media and fanbase.