Colt McCoy can be the next Drew Brees per Trent Dilfer

[Brown Warrior]

Yeah, but M (and others)... that's true of most of the top teams: Aside from a quirky near-miss year by the Patriots, I'd say you take away Brady, Brees, Rodgers, Rivers, obviously Favre, obviously Stafford, and maybe a lot of other good QBs, and the team takes such a precipitous fall it's scary.

Point being, the run isn't something they do to score or win. They do it in service of a high-powered passing game, which is the lynchpin of most of the good teams now. Without the pass, it's like Mastro's specializing in Caesar salad and baked potatoes. It doesn't work and it doesn't make sense.

In addition to the Colts, I'd look at the Vikings as another glaring example: Favre stays healthy and has one great year and the Vikings probably should have been in the Super Bowl. Remove that element... and they don't become "solid" or "pretty good"... they suck ass. And that's with Adrian Peterson, who a lot of posters here thought could be the centerpiece of some 1970s smashmouth team in Cleveland.

It's not just Manning... unless you think Danny Woodhead's gonna carry the Pats.

I'd say it makes the case for having a really strong backup QB who fits your offense as well as the starter. Wallace ranks pretty high when you look around the league. I think Mike Kafka could win a game for the Eagles, like Kevin Kolb before him (and he ain't looking too bad as a Card, either).

But Curtis Painter? I think that was a HUGE personnel mistake. Something Ron Wolf would never, ever let happen. Which I guess makes the point that Matt Flynn probably could keep the Packers in contention.

[Brown Warrior]

The Colts D only works after Manning predictably puts them ahead by 10 points or more. Then they can sell out on the pass rush. Otherwise... uh, they suck and have sucked for a long time.

[Masters]

Originally Posted by Brown Warrior

Yeah, but M (and others)... that's true of most of the top teams: Aside from a quirky near-miss year by the Patriots, I'd say you take away Brady, Brees, Rodgers, Rivers, obviously Favre, obviously Stafford, and maybe a lot of other good QBs, and the team takes such a precipitous fall it's scary.

Point being, the run isn't something they do to score or win. They do it in service of a high-powered passing game, which is the lynchpin of most of the good teams now. Without the pass, it's like Mastro's specializing in Caesar salad and baked potatoes. It doesn't work and it doesn't make sense.

In addition to the Colts, I'd look at the Vikings as another glaring example: Favre stays healthy and has one great year and the Vikings probably should have been in the Super Bowl. Remove that element... and they don't become "solid" or "pretty good"... they suck ass. And that's with Adrian Peterson, who a lot of posters here thought could be the centerpiece of some 1970s smashmouth team in Cleveland.

It's not just Manning... unless you think Danny Woodhead's gonna carry the Pats.

I'd say it makes the case for having a really strong backup QB who fits your offense as well as the starter. Wallace ranks pretty high when you look around the league. I think Mike Kafka could win a game for the Eagles, like Kevin Kolb before him (and he ain't looking too bad as a Card, either).

But Curtis Painter? I think that was a HUGE personnel mistake. Something Ron Wolf would never, ever let happen.

Some of those yes, some no. Obviously losing the starting QB is going to cause any team to take a step or two backwards. But turning them from a 12 game winner into what looks like a 4 game winner is not all of those. All of those teams likely wouldn't look as inept as the Colts look w/o Manning. Most teams don't have a backup of equal level of their starter. Throwing Stafford in that list is a little crazy to me seeing as how he has yet to truly prove himself in the NFL. Let's see him play a whole season first. Not sure how Rivers actually ends up in that list either as his team couldn't even win their division or make the playoffs with the top passing game and D last year.

Running can score and help teams win. Let's not kid ourselves here. A "high powered" passing game is not the lynch pin of most good teams. A solid/effective passing game is a lynchpin, just as a solid D, and solid running game. Unless or course your idea of "most" is 5 of top 10 passing teams making the playoffs last year compared to 4 of the top 10 rushing teams making the playoff (numbers are similar for the last 10 years). Look no further than last years Saints team to see what happens to a high powered passing attack when it no longer has an effeictive running game. You need solid passing, running, and D to be a good team year in and year out. There are certainly a handful of exceptions such as Indy, NO, and maybe GB (notice last year when they were on the outside looking in for the playoffs it was their rededication to the running game down the stretch that got them into the playoffs).

MIN got to the playoffs previous seasons ridding nothing but Peterson with Tavaris Jackson playing QB, so bad example. MIN has a few problems right now, including QB. There D isn't what it was 3 years ago.

The last part is dead on. Teams need to have a competent back up QB so that should the starter go down your team takes a smaller step backwards. If you don't you are in big trouble. That's one of the problems in Indy, they made no plan for that team to be have someone compatent behind Peyton. You then add in they designed their O so much around him, have built the line for mainly passing, and built their D for playing with a lead. All of that of course ties back to Peyton. The othe QBs you mentioned at the beginning, their teams could lose those guys for a few games and still be in some games and have chance to win. Be it because of their D, their rushing attack, the combination of those, or because they have a bit of one of those to go with a compatent backup QB.

[Brown Warrior]

I think it's chicken and egg, Masters. Most teams are built to win by the pass. Almost all of them, in fact... unless they lack a quarterback. The run is in service of the pass. As Billick said, these days it's awful tough to keep up with all the high-powered passing teams (and there are a lot now) by sustaining long drives. The more plays, the more chances for a penalty or turnover.

In fact, I just heard that repeated by another announcer, the perils of "long drives." It only works if you can get up a couple scores, which you mostly have to do by passing.

So if your team is constructed that way, and most are, it's difficult to become something else and try to win with the run (not just milk a lead). But it's also difficult to run the same pass-oriented offense if you don't have a capable and hopefully long-standing backup... and that's the Colts' problem right now.

It really is a different league and it's measurable. We're setting records week by week for passing yards, QBR, most games with two 300 yard passers, and so on. It has changed... and it's virtually impossible for a franchise to be conscientious objector and base an offense around the run. They just can't keep up with the arms race.

[Sez.EJ]

The smart playoff teams have quality backups. Period.
Pittsburgh went 3-1 without pigben last year because they have quality or at least experienced backups.. made the playoffs.
Eagles had Vick on the bench when last years starter Kolb went down..made the playoffs
The Patriot invested a high draft pick for Brady's backup this year.
Jets had Brunnell
Cowboys had Kitna
Giants had Rosenfels
Ravens had Bulger
Chargers have volek

Every one of those backups have been starters in the past (but for the Pats rookie)

I could go on listing.. but I think you see the pattern.. Playoff teams keep experience veterans on the roster to backup the stars.. Except the Colts... ERROR ERROR ERROR .. Not saying there is not a huge dropoff.. but you have to have a guy who can run the offense and win a game if your guy goes down.. Colt have never had that.. they are paying for it.

[Masters]

Originally Posted by Brown Warrior

I think it's chicken and egg, Masters. Most teams are built to win by the pass. Almost all of them, in fact... unless they lack a quarterback. The run is in service of the pass. As Billick said, these days it's awful tough to keep up with all the high-powered passing teams (and there are a lot now) by sustaining long drives. The more plays, the more chances for a penalty or turnover.

In fact, I just heard that repeated by another announcer, the perils of "long drives." It only works if you can get up a couple scores, which you mostly have to do by passing.

So if your team is constructed that way, and most are, it's difficult to become something else and try to win with the run (not just milk a lead). But it's also difficult to run the same pass-oriented offense if you don't have a capable and hopefully long-standing backup... and that's the Colts' problem right now.

It really is a different league and it's measurable. We're setting records week by week for passing yards, QBR, most games with two 300 yard passers, and so on. It has changed... and it's virtually impossible for a franchise to be conscientious objector and base an offense around the run. They just can't keep up with the arms race.

Most teams that are built to win have balance on O and a D. I am not saying you can win without the pass, because odds are you can't. Just as odds are you can't if all you can do is pass. Run and pass service each other. More one or the other depending on personal and the offense the team is running. There may be a lot of high powered passing offenses (though I don't think a handful is a lot) but recent history shows high powered passing offenses (top 10) have about a 50% shot at the playoffs.

I think Billick is refering to playing from behind against those teams. Quick scores are great, but every team wants to take as much time off that clock as they can and make the game shorter. Not to mention just slinging it around has as many perils as a long drive. The more times you pass the more opportunity for an INT, sacks (kills field position), getting your QB knocked out of the game, or the dreaded sack + fumble.

Who ever that announcer is that said that is obvioulsy not very versed in football. Drive of 8 or 10 plays are common place today as they have always been. But you don't want those to be the only way your O can score or then those perils come into to play. Teams also get up by a couple of scores by multiple ways, not just passing.

Two weeks of stats for one season doesn't mark a change of anything yet. You have to factor into those two weeks of change the huge numbr of big returns and injuries suffered. Those stats are far more likley to be a result of no normal offseason for teams. D's and special teams are way behind because of that.

Again though, no one is saying base the entire O around the run, so I have no idea why you keep coming back to that. It's about all phases of the game, pass, run, D, and STs. The teams that stay good year in and year out do at least 3 of those phases well. They don't just go out, sling the ball around the yard and win.

[Masters]

Let me put it this way, saying the stats of the two weeks of the season are a new trend is like saying the number of injuries over the last two weeks are a new trend.

For the lenght of drives, taking NE as the example (who is the team really skewing the passing numbers right now), they averaging 8 plays per drive.

The team scoring the most points so far is BUF, who is averaging 230 in the air and 193 on the ground.

[Brown Warrior]

It's well beyond a trend now, M. It's been "trending" sharply for about a decade now: It's a passing league, moreso every year, and running backs are getting devalued (ask Mayock). The top one in last year's draft went #28.

I won't argue about defense. It's obviously hugely important. But the way the rules are rigged, you have a better chance of winning with a high-powered passing game and mediocre defense than the other way around.

Sez... totally agree. Because of all of the above, the backup quarterback position has become almost more important than the starting running back position. If the holes are there, there are five guys available to hit them for every back who actually gets the opportunity. Again: Starks, Woodhead, the UDFA in Indy, Ben Tate second in the league while Foster is out, etc. Widgets. Replace one with another.

And yet the Vikings and Titans ponied up. I think those were hideous personnel moves. But that's just my opinion. I'd also rather have two good corners, a pass rush, and a free safety who can cover than one Revis or Nnamde. It's my version of "Moneyball!"

[Masters]

Originally Posted by Brown Warrior

It's well beyond a trend now, M. It's been "trending" sharply for about a decade now: It's a passing league, moreso every year, and running backs are getting devalued (ask Mayock). The top one in last year's draft went #28.

I won't argue about defense. It's obviously hugely important. But the way the rules are rigged, you have a better chance of winning with a high-powered passing game and mediocre defense than the other way around.

Sez... totally agree. Because of all of the above, the backup quarterback position has become almost more important than the starting running back position. If the holes are there, there are five guys available to hit them for every back who actually gets the opportunity. Again: Starks, Woodhead, the UDFA in Indy, Ben Tate second in the league while Foster is out, etc. Widgets. Replace one with another.

And yet the Vikings and Titans ponied up. I think those were hideous personnel moves. But that's just my opinion. I'd also rather have two good corners, a pass rush, and a free safety who can cover than one Revis or Nnamde. It's my version of "Moneyball!"

I have shown countless times the numbers don't add up to it as a trend. Year in and year out for the last 10 years you are looking at 4-6 of the top passing teams (not QB, TEAM) making the playoffs and 4-6 of the top rushing teams (not RB, TEAM) making the playoffs (with some overlapping by being in both catagories). The only trend in those numbers is that being in the top 10 of only one of those two catagories gives you a 50/50 shot at the playoffs. That, and if you are in the top 10 of both you are all but guaranteed the playoffs. That's not trending sharply to any thing.

RBs are certainly being devalued, as far as where drafted. That's for multiple reasons. The shelf life of them (though they may start going higher again with the new rookie cap), the trend to using multiple backs, and the reality that every year teams find good ones lower in the draft. The top back this year went so low in the draft because there weren't any seen as being great backs. The year before 2 went in the top 15 picks. Point being, one year isn't a trend, just as two weeks into one season that is coming off no offseason isn't a trend. Not to mention it isn't like there used to be 5, 6, 7 RBs goiing at the top of the draft. Using the one draft would be like me saying it's a trend for the top passing team to miss the playoffs because SD did that last year. One year isn't anything but that, one year. The whole draft approach is going to change from this year on because of the rookie cap. That has nothing to do with the notion that it's all about being some high powered passing attack for the league.

The NFL is not trending to be Areana league football. Saying it doesn't make it so, espcially when the numbers go completely against it.

The way the rules are set now for D's, it's what allows for all the passing yards and the higher individual QBRs. As to better chance of winning with a high-powered passing game and mediocre defense than the other way around, someone should have told the Jets, PIT, BALT, and ATL that last year.

[Brown Warrior]

M, tons of people have used the numbers that proved the trend. You just like yours better. TSN did a 10-page article with a timeline showing how passing has undeniably taken over the league.

I'm not saying you have to agree... you just haven't disproven anything.

[nickers]

Originally Posted by Brown Warrior

M, tons of people have used the numbers that proved the trend. You just like yours better. TSN did a 10-page article with a timeline showing how passing has undeniably taken over the league.

I'm not saying you have to agree... you just haven't disproven anything.

Regardless of whose right or wrong in the debate...I lean towards QB. History has shown,again and again,that teams go as theyre QB goes...not the other way around. Doesnt matter what Era were in.

[Brown Warrior]

It's a passing league and a quarterback league. The trend has been upward since Bill Walsh, accelerated with rule changes, and is spiking to an unforeseen level as we speak. Records have been falling the past few years, including QBRs over 100, passing yards, etc.

And it's never been so obvious, like you said, that the best teams are basically the teams with the best quarterbacks. Their influence over the bottom line was always the greatest in all of team sports... but it's by an even greater margin now.