To win and be a contender you need competency at the Qb position but you don't need greatness. It's true that most SB teams had good starters to franchise Qbs but there are a number of exceptions. Like I've said before and we've discussed I don't believe in putting all of your resources and commitment into the Qb position. And constantly drafting very high until you get a franchise Qb. And permanently rebuilding. And losing games while a new QB learns the position. You can be competitive with a guy like Hoyer if you have a good team.
You have different aspirations than me. I value the QB more than any other position in all of organized sports. You do not. You only draft and redraft QBs high and rebuild until you find one. Then you sit back for the next decade and consistently win. Until then you are treading water. _
I don't see the ten years of winning, I see the ten years of constantly retooling and hoping you get a good one. Since there are few guarantees and the rate of failure is higher than the rate of finding a gem. Like all positions if you have a good team you don't have to have great players. Sure I want the Jets to have a great Qb. But a good one like Chad (who was ripped by fans and called Noodlearm) can win you a lot of games. You don't need the glitz at the Qb position. But it would be great to have it.
Hope is not a strategy. That's ok, you think the quarterback position in football is overrated. Build a stellar team around a mediocre QB. Sounds like a plan that Andy Dalton would love. _
Its just a matter of time and allocating your resources but the Dalton reference is a slap in the face like getting cold water thrown in your face. I didn't mean him!
Of course no one person can win a game by themselves, not even a QB. He'll need guys to block, guys to catch and defenders to defend. That said, every guy on that list has repeatedly been asked to step in and win games by throwing the ball A LOT against defenses . They can put points on the board even with backup RBs getting maybe 40 - 50 yards in a game. I read your posts and I am disagreeing with you. Over the past 3 years, Seattle has fewer pass attempts than ANY other team in the NFL. Here's a listing of pass attempts by QBs who have started 40 games or more over the past 3 years: Code: Drew Brees 1979 (48 games) Matthew Stafford 1963 (48 games) Matt Ryan 1894 (48 games) Tom Brady 1847 (48 games) Peyton Manning 1839 (48 games) Andrew Luck 1813 (48 games) Joe Flacco 1699 (48 games) Eli Manning 1688 (48 games) Ryan Tannehill 1662 (48 games) Philip Rivers 1641 (48 games) Ben Roethlisberger 1641 (45 games) Tony Romo 1618 (46 games) Andy Dalton 1595 (48 games) Aaron Rodgers 1362 (41 games) Carson Palmer 1361 (37 games) Jay Cutler 1350 (41 games) Russell Wilson 1252 (48 games) I stand by my statement. The guys on the list above aren't "game managers", Russell Wilson is at this point.
^^ but idk about Hoyer I'm thinking maybe someone like Eli. Flacco. Not All Pro QBs, but clutch and pretty decent QBs
^^^^^^^^ This. NY was ready to run Eli out of town after 3 or so years. Now he is almost irreplaceable
Actually, our defense might be better than that Ravens' D right now...after all the great players we added in the secondary, and our dominant D-line, we are really only one OLB away from not having a single weakness at any position on our D, and we have 7 or 8 potential Pro Bowlers right now! Hardly "sticking my head in the sand" or "praying for a miracle" when I look at this loaded D we have (at least on paper, we'll have to see how it plays out of course). I agree with you that a franchise QB is usually necessary to win consistently over a 10-12 year period, but hey, I'll take even one SB win with a Trent Dilfer or Brad Johnson! (which we may have with Geno and Fitz). We have all the pieces in place except franchise QB, but you can't force a pick if it's not there.
Hoyer had a good first half of the season but eventually sank to his talent level which is average. But I think you can win with a Qb like him. He's smart enough to be able to learn from his mistakes.
Holy shit LOL. That 2000 Ravens defense was one of the greatest in NFL History. Well done, that was funny. Here all week? Try the veal? _
Muhammad Wilkerson, Sheldon Richardon, Damon Harrison, Darrelle Revis, Antonio Cromartie, Calvin Pryor, Quinton Coples, Demario Davis ..... that rivals the top players the Ravens had on that D. ....I just looked it up. Here are the Ravens' starters from that legendary 2000 group: DE Rob Burnett DT Sam Adams DT Tony Siragusa DE Michael McCrary OLB Peter Boulware MLB Ray Lewis OLB Jamie Sharper CB Duane Starks CB Chris McAllister SS Kim Herring FS Rod Woodson http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/rav/2000_roster.htm IDK, I think our stacks up pretty well with that group! DE Muhammad Wilkerson NT Damon Harrison DE Sheldon Richardson OLB Quinton Coples MLB Demario Davis MLB David Harris OLB (draft pick) or Calvin Pace/Jason Babin CB Darrelle Revis S Calvin Pryor S Marcus Gilchrist CB Antonio Cromartie I put the stars on each team in italics, and the superstars bold and italics. Looks like our D is every bit as good, on paper, as a unit, with the potential to be even better. Their linebackers were better, but our D-line and secondary are clearly better.
You're fucking loopy. We're not even the best defense in the league THIS year but you think we're better than one of the GREATEST defenses in NFL history. Lol buy a clue. _
They have better safeties and linebackers. Chris McAllister and Starks were pretty damn good too. Not Revis and Cro level but they weren't scrubs. I don't think you know how important Rod Woodson, or Siragusa, or Boulware were to that Defense
Rod Woodson was at the tail end of his career, if I recall. Siragusa was good, but was he better than Harrison? I just think, overall, we have more elite impact players on our D. The main advantage they had was at LB, but DL and DB are more important in Bowles' scheme.
Joel Osteen is a wannabe. He's just some guy, he's not even a Priest. He means well though, and some people like him. ....but here you go bringing religion back into the discussion.
