One of the Best Articles on Football You'll Ever Read (INCLUDES BROWNS)

[Shep]

And people say I'm lofty...

It's been "trending" for a while now. Big TSN article on completion percentage, QBR, percentage of offense, 4,000 yard passers... all trending up since the 70s.

Originally Posted by Masters

Winning in the NFL is abotu a lot of things, including running the ball and stopping the run (because that typically controls the clock, which limits the number of possessions you allow your opponent, or allows you to close out games).

We have been down this path. I know people like to say there is a "trend" of it being a passing first league. I personally think those people should learn the definition of the word trend before they start throwing it around. One or two years doesn't equal a trend. Let's see what happens this year and the next couple of years.

[Thaak]

But you know I'm right Shep. Just admit it.

[nickers]

Pittsburgh Steelers did it with the shady refs and steroid juiced up players get to the Superbowl and win it through....? Defense.


Fixed!

[King of Kings]

Originally Posted by Greythan

Super Bowl Winners (Grey's take on their QB at that time)

2001: Ravens (Dilfer - NOT ELITE)
2002: Patriots (Brady - NOT ELITE at that time; Rams outgained Pats 427 - 267 for the game)
2003: Bucs (Brad Johnson - NOT ELITE)
2004: Pats (Brady - ELITE)
2005: Pats (Brady - ELITE)
2006: Steelers (Roethlesberger - NOT ELITE at that time; set NFL record for lowest QB rating in a Super Bowl with a 22.6)
2007: Colts (Manning - ELITE)
2008: Giants (Manning - NOT ELITE)
2009: Steelers (Roethlesberger - ELITE)
2010: Saints (Brees - ELITE)

On the highlighted portion: They had the worst offense in the NFL yet still won the SB, and it wasn't because Big Jen handles "gorgeous balls."

That said, go back through the history of the NFL for an even better look: Steelers(all 6, won by the Defenses), Saints(Defense played a HUGE role), Giants(obvious for pretty much every SB win), Pats(obvious the D carried the first along with that run game AND was a major key to the other two), Bucs(Defense), Denver(Passing game and? Defense!), Cowboys(Emmitt Smith running it down everyones throats along with the D stopping other teams, 1970's- Defense), 'Niners(well rounded teams), '85 Bears(Obvious), You get the point on the winners.

Those that have appeared and lost: Oakland(Sure as hell wasn't their QB), Bears(Defense again), Vikings(Purple People Eaters, 'nuff said), Dallas(Doomsday D), Bills(well rounded team), Bengals(Defense and running game), Seahawks(well rounded team including great D, great run game) and so on.....

Those whom have gotten there strictly on the QB's glutes and WR's biceps: Colts, Rams, Cards. Yep, that really is it. Just saying.... Just reiterating our collective point until it sinks in on some, unless it's Peyton Manning or Kurt Warner you're not going to win jack shit off of the QB's arm exclusively. As it stands now two quarterbacks out of a thousand or so have been good enough to accomplish that feat, so i'm not much for those chances, i'd rather go the way of the Dynasties but that's just me.

Originally Posted by Greythan

Just trying to point out that the ultimate goal of winning the Super Bowl is NOT tied to having a consistent, top 5 ELITE QB. It simply isn't.

Indeed, though I suspect we'll continue to hear it is every day for the next 8 months or until someone gets their 1st round QB to beat off to.

[jason j]

Not to throw last minute thoughts onto a week-old debate... but, "one of the best articles on football you'll ever read?" Really? You must not think very highly of my reading list. I mean, I read Mr. Skolnick's article, and an recent one about the culture differences between the NY Jets and Miami Dolphins. And, while they're both fine articles, I'd say John Nash captured it perfectly when he said, "I'm convinced there wasn't one seminal or innovative idea in either one of them...Enjoy your punch."

Drawing a comparison to "Elite Quarterbacks" and wins per season is hardly a new consideration. But, I'll go you one better... it's logically irrelevant.

After all, how do we measure "Elite Quarterbacks?"

Primarily... in wins. Sure, sure, yards, touchdowns, completion percentage... but in the end, it's wins.

So saying that having an "Elite Quarterback" is the catalyst of success, is like saying that the winner of a NASCAR race is the guy with the fastest car. Right! Because it took him less time to travel the prescribed distance... that makes it the fastest.

The entire article is merely a restatement of this one circular argument, over and over. Increasingly, this passes for insight. It isn't.

Explore what actually separates the so-called "elite" quarterback from the less so. That would be groundbreaking. Offer some biological manifestation that would predict with greater accuracy which quarterbacks will become "elite" and which won't. That, I would call groundbreaking.

I certainly respect Ethan's education, but his gift for analysis leaves an awful lot to be desired. I don't need someone else waxing philosophical telling me the guy whose team wins the most is the guy whose team wins the most.

Great! But why? What makes this guy better than that guy?

That's the question everyone is asking. And there are no easy answers.

-jj

[Alo]

+1!

[Masters]

+ Infinity!

[Shep]

I have to say -1... because you strawmanned, JJ.

The article was about stability at the QB position and how HUGELY central it's become to successful franchises in the era of passing offense in the NFL.

It wasn't really about the definition of "elite."

Fantastic article. And I'll say: +infinity to this post. Plus one more. I win.

[jason j]

Originally Posted by Shep

I have to say -1... because you strawmanned, JJ.

The article was about stability at the QB position and how HUGELY central it's become to successful franchises in the era of passing offense in the NFL.

It wasn't really about the definition of "elite."

Fantastic article. And I'll say: +infinity to this post. Plus one more. I win.

Well, call it what you want. The claim that resonates from the article is if you want to win consistently, you are exponentially more likely to accomplish that if you have an 'elite' quarterback.

Stability is an outgrowth... and even less relevant. If you are consistently winning, you will have stability at quarterback and... the converse of which is also true... if you have stability at quarterback, you will win consistently.

He's merely suggesting that organizations that win consistently don't often change quarterbacks, and by extension coaches.

Great... and....

Let me see if I have this straight... teams that win don't change quarterbacks, and teams that don't win, keep changing quarterbacks until they start winning.

Ok... so if you want to be a great team, you'd better go out and get a great quarterback.

Right.

How?

Everyone knows that the NFL and football in general revolves greatly, if not entirely, around the play of the quarterback.

No single player in any team sport can impact the total number of wins and losses for his team than an NFL quarterback. I don't think anyone debates that (or maybe some do... I don't know... I don't).

Hell, you've made that argument (and may I add more succinctly than the aforementioned Mr. Skolnick), a couple of hundred times throughout the pages of this forum... and you didn't need a masters degree from Columbia to sort it all out. Apologies if you actually do have a masters from Columbia... but I think you get my point.

To me, it sounded less like "One of the Best Articles on Football..." and a lot more like... "Hey, this guy agrees with me, and he's on NBCSports.com"

I don't need Ethan Skolnick's corroboration to know that you believe in the long established principle... "you wanna be great, have a great quarterback."

I'm sure I'm nitpicking all of this to a certain extent. But the article had a "No Kidding?!!" feel to it. Kind of like watching a game and listening to the radio announcer. Stop telling me what I can see with my own eyes. Tell me what I can't see.

That's my measuring stick for a great article.

-jj

[Shep]

It's not really that he agrees with me (I was just as interested in the surprising way last night's game played out, which goes against my beliefs about the NFL)... it's that it was an article with a premise many "hardcore" fans still don't buy into... and it was written on a high level, very in-depth.

I know you don't like the premise, J, as we've discussed... so maybe that colored YOUR reaction to it. We all carry around our shit, I guess.

[jason j]

Originally Posted by Shep

It's not really that he agrees with me (I was just as interested in the surprising way last night's game played out, which goes against my beliefs about the NFL)... it's that it was an article with a premise many "hardcore" fans still don't buy into... and it was written on a high level, very in-depth.

I know you don't like the premise, J, as we've discussed... so maybe that colored YOUR reaction to it. We all carry around our shit, I guess.

Of course we all have perspectives. But I don't disagree with the premise. Not at all. If you're going to be a consistently great team, you have to understand that you can't do it without a great quarterback. It simply can't be done. You can win for a while, maybe even eek out a championship. But you will not, year over year, win in this league without excellent play at the quarterback position.

You just can't do it.

And I'm not saying it's unlikely, or the odds are long... I'm saying you CAN NOT DO IT.

I'm pretty sure I'm not covering any new ground here. That's in essence exactly what was in that article. Except, in less than 1000 words.

I guess I just didn't get it. It's like writing an article telling me that drinking water is good for me. Who are you convincing?

-jj

[slowmo411]

I'm of a rare breed I reckon, I believe in every position supports the other. I've never seen a great QB win a bunch of games with a bad OL and/or WR's. I really believe it all starts in the trenches.
There isnt much use in drafting a QB real high in the first round without a great OL and atleast 1 great WR. Thats just my opinion though. I think you build a great offense starting with the OL then get a running game a WR and then your QB.