Comments on: Why quarterbacks are overemphasized http://www.thephoenixpub.com/2009/11/09/why-quarterbacks-are-overemphasized/ Sat, 20 Mar 2010 01:16:48 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.1-beta2 hourly 1 By: Andrew Bucholtz http://www.thephoenixpub.com/2009/11/09/why-quarterbacks-are-overemphasized/comment-page-1/#comment-28089 Andrew Bucholtz Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:51:31 +0000 http://www.thephoenixpub.com/?p=5550#comment-28089 Great points, Martin. In my mind, "The Blind Side" should be highly recommended reading for anyone interested in the NFL. It really got me interested in the dynamics of line play, which means so much to the outcome of games but gets so little attention. I also agree that having a bad quarterback can kill a team. The best example is the current Raiders; they've got some talent here and there, but their quarterback couldn't complete a pass if his life depended on it, so they look much worse than they are. The quarterback is still the most important position in the game in my mind, which is why some of the coverage is justified; I just think many people go too far and turn quarterbacks into the only players in the game, which is anything but true. Great points, Martin. In my mind, “The Blind Side” should be highly recommended reading for anyone interested in the NFL. It really got me interested in the dynamics of line play, which means so much to the outcome of games but gets so little attention. I also agree that having a bad quarterback can kill a team. The best example is the current Raiders; they’ve got some talent here and there, but their quarterback couldn’t complete a pass if his life depended on it, so they look much worse than they are. The quarterback is still the most important position in the game in my mind, which is why some of the coverage is justified; I just think many people go too far and turn quarterbacks into the only players in the game, which is anything but true.

]]> By: Martin http://www.thephoenixpub.com/2009/11/09/why-quarterbacks-are-overemphasized/comment-page-1/#comment-28087 Martin Tue, 10 Nov 2009 08:47:33 +0000 http://www.thephoenixpub.com/?p=5550#comment-28087 Strangely enough, part of teh problem is that the media itself often believes this to be true. As an example, I give you one Bill Simmons. Yes he isn't an NFL guy, but one can make the case he is more popular then any NFL guy other then Florio and maybe P. King in terms of readership. He finally realized last year, after years of gambling and watching and writing about football, that an injury to the left tackle might be far worse for a team then one to the running back or wide out. I forget what team he mentioned, but they had lost like their left tackle and right guard and two starting defensive linemen, and had stopped winning, or barely beat a couple teams they should have, if healthy, handled easily. Here is a guy in the media, writing columns at least partly covering the NFL, and even he didn't realize until last year that it's not all about the 4 "skill players" whose names you know on the team, but about the guys helping them too. How many others are their like him who actually believe this whole Cult of the QB? I will say that the elevation of the QB has also partly arisen because as passing has become a larger and more important part of teh offense, bad or marginal quarterbacks are easier to identify. Dilfer and the Super Bowl is pretty much the exception that proves the rule. Yes, on rare occassion a Dilfer or Sexy Rexy can get as team to the Super Bowl, but really good teams don't "get by" at QB very often. Those teams have to have amazing defenses, not merely great, jsut to get as far as they did. I think that there has been a lack of "decent" QB's to apply this idea of Andy's too in the recent past of the league, and only in about the last 3-4 has emergence of the Cutler, Eli, Rodgers, Schaub, Flacco and Ryan (yes F & R might be great, but still they've only been around 2 years, let's give them some more time) given good teams a chance to win without an "elite" quarterback. Trust me, nothing kills a team as much as having a bad quarterback. Having a greatone might be overrated, but I don't think having a bad one can be. Strangely enough, part of teh problem is that the media itself often believes this to be true. As an example, I give you one Bill Simmons. Yes he isn’t an NFL guy, but one can make the case he is more popular then any NFL guy other then Florio and maybe P. King in terms of readership. He finally realized last year, after years of gambling and watching and writing about football, that an injury to the left tackle might be far worse for a team then one to the running back or wide out. I forget what team he mentioned, but they had lost like their left tackle and right guard and two starting defensive linemen, and had stopped winning, or barely beat a couple teams they should have, if healthy, handled easily. Here is a guy in the media, writing columns at least partly covering the NFL, and even he didn’t realize until last year that it’s not all about the 4 “skill players” whose names you know on the team, but about the guys helping them too. How many others are their like him who actually believe this whole Cult of the QB?

I will say that the elevation of the QB has also partly arisen because as passing has become a larger and more important part of teh offense, bad or marginal quarterbacks are easier to identify. Dilfer and the Super Bowl is pretty much the exception that proves the rule. Yes, on rare occassion a Dilfer or Sexy Rexy can get as team to the Super Bowl, but really good teams don’t “get by” at QB very often. Those teams have to have amazing defenses, not merely great, jsut to get as far as they did. I think that there has been a lack of “decent” QB’s to apply this idea of Andy’s too in the recent past of the league, and only in about the last 3-4 has emergence of the Cutler, Eli, Rodgers, Schaub, Flacco and Ryan (yes F & R might be great, but still they’ve only been around 2 years, let’s give them some more time) given good teams a chance to win without an “elite” quarterback.

Trust me, nothing kills a team as much as having a bad quarterback. Having a greatone might be overrated, but I don’t think having a bad one can be.

]]> By: semper_ubi_sub_ubi http://www.thephoenixpub.com/2009/11/09/why-quarterbacks-are-overemphasized/comment-page-1/#comment-28084 semper_ubi_sub_ubi Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:56:01 +0000 http://www.thephoenixpub.com/?p=5550#comment-28084 I should have re-read that before I posted. One of the problems with going back and changing sentences is the fragments that may be left behind. I should have re-read that before I posted. One of the problems with going back and changing sentences is the fragments that may be left behind.

]]> By: semper_ubi_sub_ubi http://www.thephoenixpub.com/2009/11/09/why-quarterbacks-are-overemphasized/comment-page-1/#comment-28083 semper_ubi_sub_ubi Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:53:46 +0000 http://www.thephoenixpub.com/?p=5550#comment-28083 My main argument is that Rogers last year statistically wasn't that much worst than Favre (who turned much crappier once the temperature dropped - but I don't think there is much of a difference between a healthy Rogers and a healthy Favre). As Buch points out, Rogers is better long term as well. Rogers's stats show him as one of the top passers, so the Packers really haven't slipped in that category. There isn't a single franchise in the NFL that would choose Favre over Rogers (including the Vikings) if they had the free choice. They suck because they haven't had a run game in the past few seasons (but the offence keeps rollin' anyway) but because their defence the past two years can't stop the run and Al Harris is good to be beaten at least once/game. Unless Favre can help Ryan Grant turn into not Ryan Grant (like he was 2 years ago) and that defence, the Pack's problem isn't the QB. Favre is probably the most accurate passer in the NFL (I think that football outsiders came to that conclusion last year, but I don't have the numbers by me at the moment) - he throws picks not because he's inaccurate but because he's trying low % throws. I forget if the vikes have already played @ Chicago, but I do think that he's helped by the schedule this year (done his @ Green Bay while the weather was warm). His recent cold weather record isn't that stellar. OK, the suck is mostly my feelings and I can't prove that. @<a href="#comment-28071" rel="nofollow">Andrew Bucholtz</a>: I agree that the trade was a win-win. My main argument is that Rogers last year statistically wasn’t that much worst than Favre (who turned much crappier once the temperature dropped – but I don’t think there is much of a difference between a healthy Rogers and a healthy Favre). As Buch points out, Rogers is better long term as well. Rogers’s stats show him as one of the top passers, so the Packers really haven’t slipped in that category. There isn’t a single franchise in the NFL that would choose Favre over Rogers (including the Vikings) if they had the free choice.

They suck because they haven’t had a run game in the past few seasons (but the offence keeps rollin’ anyway) but because their defence the past two years can’t stop the run and Al Harris is good to be beaten at least once/game. Unless Favre can help Ryan Grant turn into not Ryan Grant (like he was 2 years ago) and that defence, the Pack’s problem isn’t the QB.

Favre is probably the most accurate passer in the NFL (I think that football outsiders came to that conclusion last year, but I don’t have the numbers by me at the moment) – he throws picks not because he’s inaccurate but because he’s trying low % throws. I forget if the vikes have already played @ Chicago, but I do think that he’s helped by the schedule this year (done his @ Green Bay while the weather was warm). His recent cold weather record isn’t that stellar.

OK, the suck is mostly my feelings and I can’t prove that.

@Andrew Bucholtz: I agree that the trade was a win-win.

]]> By: Andrew Bucholtz http://www.thephoenixpub.com/2009/11/09/why-quarterbacks-are-overemphasized/comment-page-1/#comment-28071 Andrew Bucholtz Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:55:16 +0000 http://www.thephoenixpub.com/?p=5550#comment-28071 I agree. I think the Orton deal works out very well for the Broncos, especially considering that he's happy to play in a run-first offence, which Cutler would not have been. The picks are a big pickup. It isn't a horrible deal for Chicago either, though; they get a very good quarterback who's proven himself at the NFL level. Now they just need to build around him. I also agree that keeping Rodgers was the proper move for Green Bay. Favre is good, but I think Rodgers is better, and he'll certainly be better long-term. I agree. I think the Orton deal works out very well for the Broncos, especially considering that he’s happy to play in a run-first offence, which Cutler would not have been. The picks are a big pickup. It isn’t a horrible deal for Chicago either, though; they get a very good quarterback who’s proven himself at the NFL level. Now they just need to build around him. I also agree that keeping Rodgers was the proper move for Green Bay. Favre is good, but I think Rodgers is better, and he’ll certainly be better long-term.

]]> By: Drunk with Lust http://www.thephoenixpub.com/2009/11/09/why-quarterbacks-are-overemphasized/comment-page-1/#comment-28050 Drunk with Lust Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:51:16 +0000 http://www.thephoenixpub.com/?p=5550#comment-28050 I would like to see your list. & please, CC it to Greg Bedard & Bob Mc Ginn c/o The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. Those fuck-nuggets never slobbed Brent's knob so much as Peter King did, even as they were the local beats for the Packers, but in that they did not have the national stage on which to play their man-crushes. I would like to see your list. & please, CC it to Greg Bedard & Bob Mc Ginn c/o The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. Those fuck-nuggets never slobbed Brent’s knob so much as Peter King did, even as they were the local beats for the Packers, but in that they did not have the national stage on which to play their man-crushes.

]]> By: semper_ubi_sub_ubi http://www.thephoenixpub.com/2009/11/09/why-quarterbacks-are-overemphasized/comment-page-1/#comment-28039 semper_ubi_sub_ubi Mon, 09 Nov 2009 23:26:59 +0000 http://www.thephoenixpub.com/?p=5550#comment-28039 Haven't read the background articles. Re: Cutler and Orton. Cutler is the better QB. Orton is still a competent QB - I'm a big Orton fan. Having a franchise QB isn't necessary for success. It helps - it's hard to come back in games when your team can't throw, but it is still possible to win with the Trent Dilfers of the world. Also, spending a little money on Orton means that more money can be spent elsewhere, addition by subtraction to use the cliché. I realize I'm not saying anything deep, but it's deeper than what the QB narrative in the media generally is. Also, Rob in WI and I both think that Green Bay made the right decision deciding it was Rogers's time, so the media in dairyland can eat a fat dick. I don't need to make a list why he was the better choice, but I could, if necessary. Haven’t read the background articles.
Re: Cutler and Orton.

Cutler is the better QB. Orton is still a competent QB – I’m a big Orton fan. Having a franchise QB isn’t necessary for success. It helps – it’s hard to come back in games when your team can’t throw, but it is still possible to win with the Trent Dilfers of the world. Also, spending a little money on Orton means that more money can be spent elsewhere, addition by subtraction to use the cliché.

I realize I’m not saying anything deep, but it’s deeper than what the QB narrative in the media generally is.

Also, Rob in WI and I both think that Green Bay made the right decision deciding it was Rogers’s time, so the media in dairyland can eat a fat dick. I don’t need to make a list why he was the better choice, but I could, if necessary.

]]>