PatsWSB47
Pro Bowl Player
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2007
- Messages
- 16,656
- Reaction score
- 9,741
Yep, that blows the point right out of the water, lol. Try again
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.
Yep, that blows the point right out of the water, lol. Try again
You made a stupid comment, own up, move on.
Do you read or watch anything beyond Patsfans? The majority of the country including most sports analysts all make the point about the quarterback handling the ball on all offensive plays. Pretty much none of them try to compare a centers value to a quarterbacks. Who gets paid the most? Why? The only stupid comment was made by you.
Grow up.
Huh? What was stupid about me pointing it out?
Shut up with the "teenage fanboy/girl" schtick already. It's lame.
Archie Manning?? Now you're just embarrassing yourself. Archie Manning never played in the postseason, never had a winning record, and never received an MVP vote. He epitomized losing like no other quarterback in the history of the league.
Again, the postseason. Marino was a great regular season quarterback. He was a bad postseason quarterback. He was playing against other quarterbacks who also played in that "tougher climate" and he lost every time.
The Patriots lost SB 52 because Belichick inexplicably sat his best DB. Butler played virtually 100% of defensive snaps up to that SB.
DB is a position group, right? You think it's best for the team to sabotage that position group in the most important game of the season? Still that position group is not as important as the quarterback. Say Butler plays and Brady sits... you think that game is even remotely competitive?
And Becky is the prettiest girl in middle school... good grief.
"Team Bill" doesn't exist, it's a figment of Brady fanboy's imaginations.
You're citing the most extreme example possible. The Texans were not a good running team, they couldn't stop the run, or pass, and their passing game was their only functional operation. Were their special teams any good? I don't know but it hardly matters. What's your point? Watson's great on a bad team so quarterbacks don't matter? That's really stupid. The Texans weren't much better in '19 and they won their division and a playoff game.
So you’re saying if Deshaun Watson goes to a better team he’d win more… pretty much proves my point.
I'm saying an elite quarterback like Watson can significantly (and immediately) impact the fortunes of a team. Tennessee or San Francisco could have won a Super Bowl with Watson. Tannehill played so poorly from the quarterback position that he lost a playoff game virtually all by himself. Garoppolo is clearly holding SF back with his choking brand of quarterbacking. Aside from a handful of teams with elite quarterbacks already, Watson makes every other team better (with no changes otherwise to their rosters).
Stafford is capable of elite quarterbacking so he's not some bum from Eastern Illinois. The Rams are a good example because they hadn't won a Super Bowl since the last time they had an elite quarterback. They should have won the SB in '18 but their quarterback was a stiff. Stafford put them over the top (and they lucked out with a cupcake opponent).
Firstly, specialists don't win championships. Secondly, you're putting a quarterback up against position groups. MVPs don't go to position groups, they go to individual players, and there's a reason why a majority of league and SB MVPs are quarterbacks.
An elite offensive line can significantly (and immediately) impact the fortunes of a team. Cincinnati or Arizona could have won a Super Bowl with an offensive line. The Bengal's and Cardinal's offensive lines played so poorly that they failed to win a ring virtually because of that position group.
Apparently Nick Foles, Joe Flacco and Trent Dilfer are capable of being elite QB's also... this list of magical unicorns seems to grow or shrink depending on the results of team. In the real world Stafford's won 4 games in 2020, went to a team that was in the Super Bowl a couple of year ago with Goff and squeaked out a win... against a team who if they had an O-Line would have steamrolled over them. Goff meanwhile lost one more game this year in Detroit than Stafford's did last year. So far all we've learned here is the QB is responsible for a difference of roughly 1-4 games... max.
Tell it to Aaron Rogers, his team just got bounced from the playoffs because his special teams units made 4 crucial errors that ended their season. Aaron's magical unicorn powers didn't enhance the blocking on special teams so they lost... how come?
Do you understand the difference between one and many? ************ the RG can suck while the other four linemen do their jobs and that can work. Your quarterback sucks and generally you're toast.
Belichick handed that game to Foles on a silver platter. Flacco was sensational for one postseason. Baltimore won with Dilfer because they had an all-time elite defense who allowed 5 points per playoff game. Dilfer did exactly what the defense needed him to do... nothing. Their entire WR group was worthless too. And their ST. It didn't matter because that defense was ridiculous. The 2000 Ravens were not a great team. They were a dominating defense. Period. There have been 56 Super Bowls, I probably could name 100 teams that needed their quarterback to get that far. The 2000 Ravens aren't one of them.
Rodgers always has excuses. For years he moaned about not playing enough postseason games at Lambeau. Two years in a row he had homefield throughout and HE failed. He's a postseason gagger. He could hand pick a team for next season and he'd still lose.
That 45-yard FG in the blizzard was miraculous. The game-winning FG was a chip shot. What else are we talking about here? The 48-yarder that he kicked in perfect conditions? Historic moment for the franchise, and a nice kick, but come on, the degree of difficulty there was minuscule. I'm not giving out MVPs for 40-yard FGs either.
Hey you're the one implying in a team sport with 53 players, closer to 63 with practice squads that QB's are the sole reason for winning.
So "elite" QB play can be had with the Nick Foles, Joe Flacco's and Trent Dilfer's of the world as long as the team around them is good enough. Got it.
It was a modern day equivalent of a defensive battle, in as such Burrow got sacked 7 times... but you don't think his O-Line sucking was a problem? You think it was his "clutch gene" sputtering or a lack of "leadership skills?" Good grief...
Four gaffes by the special teams isn't "an excuse," it's something that completely changed the dynamic of a game. Read the article I posted for you with the headline that says exactly that. But that's something someone who looks at the NFL through a QB-centric prism would say. Rogers doesn't possess enough QB magic to be as good as Brady.... it wasn't that his team wasn't good enough. lol
You crediting Tom for Adam Vinatieri's greatness, along with all the other players who contributed to Super Bowl wins is a fanboy take... something I'd expect to hear from a QB cheerleader. I'm insulted for them.
No, I think the Bengals were not all that worthy of being there and their lackluster performance proved me right. They were a mediocre team in many areas with their passing game their best asset and that wasn't even good in the SB. They were a mediocre team that came up little in the biggest game of the season.
No, you're not getting it. Dilfer was not an elite quarterback and nor did he play elite football in the 2000 postseason. He and the offense generally (and the ST) were entirely redundant because their historically great defense allowed 5 P/G in the postseason. They had a great defense, not a great team, and their quarterback was practically useless. So it wasn't a matter of "the team around him was good enough." The defense alone was good enough.
Well, if you remove the whimsical language then you may be onto something.
Vinatieri made the kicks but Brady put him in those positions. Brady obviously was doing the heavy lifting leading up to the kicks. Vinatieri makes it onto the field for one play at the end of a series of plays led by Brady. I would hope you could see the difference.
I'll reiterate since you keep suggesting the same asinine thing. Brady is NOT "the sole reason" for winning. He gets the highest percentage of the credit. Other players, and coaches, get credit too, however, Brady gets the most credit.
When facts are ignored, this is what's left.
From our archive - this week all-time:
April 4 - April 19 (Through 26yrs)
