But those players were still part of those teams and each ended up being a huge reason why they won. Eli made the plays that counted. Had he not, then it wouldn't have matter what the DLine did in that game, as they still would have lost. It was Eli who made the throws, not Strahan, Osi and the rest. So yes, I do understand it's a team game, but your argument is flawed as is mine and that's unavoidable when you're talking about TEAM sports. But it still doesn't change the fact that the QB position is the most important one and, therefore, a QB's performance must be evaluated differently. You simply cannot win consistently, and definitely not as consistently as the persons I named, if you don't have an adequate QB. As it stands now, I'd take anyone on that list before Cousins because they're proven winners and Cousins isn't . . . yet. We don't know if he ever will be. It it's the fourth quarter of a football playoff game or SB, I'll gladly take the guy who has won in that situation before than someone who hasn't. In other words, I know Eli can win a big game in the fourth quarter. I know Flacco can do the same. I don't know that about Cousins yet because we haven't even seen him in a truly big game with everything on the line. To deny that matters is just being biased and argumentative. I don't see why calling someone lower second tier, and especially when I used the word "maybe," is being turned into this. Cousins is a good QB, but I don't think he's shown anything outside of some really decent numbers to warrant people being all in on him just yet. This whole back-and-forth has got to be the biggest overreaction. You'd think I said Cousins sucks. I have repeatedly, in this thread in fact, said the opposite. I think he's very good. I just don't think he's worth some of the dollar amounts I'm hearing . . . not yet at least.
Brady had won three SB's (and was the MVP in two of them) and still had people saying he might just be a game manager and saying it was the defenses that won those championships. That didn't change until 2007, which coincided with his first league MVP. Go figure. But even with all his greatness, Brady has never once taken the field all by himself. He needed ten other guys on offense to make plays and a whole defensive unit to do the same. Football is the quintessential team sport. Nonetheless, the QB position is the most important of all positions and if your team is going to win long term (or at all), then that position must be solid (with Trent Dilfer being one of the very few exceptions). And every single one of the guys I named has won multiple SB's and/or playoff games. That's not luck, nor is it solely because of the guys around them. Each of them made many crucial plays, and NE fans should know that better than any other group. As lucky as we want to say those throws were, they were still plays that Eli made, for example.
Go to the Dungy thread and look at Tony's graphic that shows what Manning was working with for the better part of his career and answer for me why he couldn't win with some of those teams. He's regarded as one of the greatest of all-time. So again, it's not solely individual talent (I agree with you), but individual talent matters a great deal still, especially at the QB position.
But just to illustrate how this is all a matter of opinion anyway: Carson Palmer and Cousins are in no way better than Ben (when he's healthy). Matt Ryan, after one MVP trophy, is not a top tier guy. He's definitely second tier. Cam Newton is still in some people's top tier for the same reason you likely put Ryan in yours. Trevor Siemien has not done much more than Bortles in the league, so why is Bortles in the last tier by himself? I could think of at least two or three more QB's that should be right along with him.
>In other words, I know Eli can win a big game in the fourth quarter. I know Flacco can do the same. I don't know that about Cousins yet because we haven't even seen him in a truly big game with everything on the line. To deny that matters is just being biased and argumentative.
Anecdotes aren't a good basis for a theory.
>Cousins is a good QB, but I don't think he's shown anything outside of some really decent numbers to warrant people being all in on him just yet. This whole back-and-forth has got to be the biggest overreaction. You'd think I said Cousins sucks.
He's around top 15 in my ranking, and I think that's fair. I don't see him going much higher.
>Football is the quintessential team sport.
Nah, it's more than that. It's the quintessential melding of economic (scouting, development, roster building), political (coaching), and militaristic (players doing complementary jobs, aka displaying chemistry) components in a game that doesn't involve life or death. I refuse to accept a single player, no matter how great, can influence a team's success rate all the way to the Super Bowl. Going back to a classic argument, I'll use Joe Montana as an example. I refuse to believe he's the GOAT (or way, before everyone agreed Tom Brady took the mantle) simply because his team won a lot of Super Bowls. He was *good*. There were lots of good QBs. If you could swap players around and re-run the data, you might find out he was less special than everyone thought. Anecdotes do not make truth for me.
Truth is not something we'll know, but I'd rather pursue it with some subjectivity than rely on poor methods of objectivity.
>Go to the Dungy thread and look at Tony's graphic that shows what Manning was working with for the better part of his career and answer for me why he couldn't win with some of those teams.
The Colts were kind of a garbage franchise. Average talent acquisition at best. Average to poor coaching. Dungy was an overrated coach because everyone liked him, and his pride n joy years (where he supposedly proved his level of expertise) were with a team loaded with future Hall of Famers on defense (or darn close).
The Colts had some receiving weapons, although no one on the level of a Julio Jones or AJ Green. They had a good running game for around half the time that Manning was there (Edge wasn't always on top of his game, and he was injured at times, and they never had anyone besides Edge).
Peyton Manning is definitely one of the best QBs of all time, his Super Bowl success be damned. Super Bowls are what matter for teams, not players.
>Matt Ryan, after one MVP trophy, is not a top tier guy. He's definitely second tier.
Eh, kind of agreed. I made some changes after I first created the ranking. I am not using the typical tiers though, as I found the use of more tiers to be helpful in sorting.
>Cam Newton is still in some people's top tier for the same reason you likely put Ryan in yours.
I don't think scrambling QBs are a winning style, so I don't value his play very highly. If you look at games where teams make him beat them through the air, he's simply not that good.
>Trevor Siemien has not done much more than Bortles in the league, so why is Bortles in the last tier by himself?
I got lazy at the end. I have seen enough of Bortles to say he's awful. Siemien I haven't seen quite enough of yet, and being young, I'm still going to give him some benefit of the doubt. Surely there were some other lower tier guys I could have added to the ranking, but you have to stop somewhere. I didn't see any other names jumping out at me that deserved a ranking.