whaaaaaat!!!!!!!!!

Clutch is REAL man! How do I know? 'Cause I've done some stuff and seen some things man....seen some THIIIINGS!

 

I did a mock bashing of Pete Prisco (a ThePhins.com favorite) a few months back, for an article he wrote where he said the QB was 80% :lol:

W-L record for an individual player is worthless in every team sport. The QB rating has always been flawed. For whatever reason, the NFL hasn't been able to develop advanced metrics like baseball has.

 

i love this line

There's no room in that to consider the effects of chance and probability inherent in sound statistical analysis. Nobody wants to think of "the hero who has worked his heart out in a good cause, in his final and finest hour, lying exhausted on the field of battle, defeated by random chance". It is not an acceptable thought. So it turns out "he didn't want it enough", or something.

 

QB's do have an increased importance though.

If you took Peyton Manning off the Colts they're the Denver Broncos.

 

Thats because baseball is more of an indivivual sport when it comes to STATS. Hittin, person at the plate with the bat in his hand is only helped by himself and other team dropping the ball.

Fielding, you do three things individually and two are bad.
1 you catch it
2 you miss fielding the ball
3 you drop the ball.

Stats in baseball are cherry pie, in football, there are too many variables to take into account.

 

Yeah, but there's only ONE P. Manning. If you're lucky enough to get that ONE QB that comes along every 15-20yrs, sure, it makes a difference. However, if you're on of the other 31 teams you may have to just get a better TEAM.

 

I think you're simplifying baseball stats a little too much. There are just as many variables in baseball as there are in football, if not more, actually. There are actually stats that account for these variables. For example, BAIBP, xFIP, adjusted OPS. The stats are just much more advanced. Football could easily come up with some other stats to gauge a player's efficiency. I'm sure if we got together on this site and tried we could come up with a few.

 

Do you think GB would be just as good with Matt Flynn for a full season as Rodgers?

I agree with you that you don't need an all time great at QB but you need a good one, and one who is playing well at that particular time.

 

That's what people said about Brady and the Pats. He got hurt, the Pats won 11 games with Matt Cassell. How many do they win if he's healthy?

 

Probably 13-14, more than enough for the #1 seed and a trip to the SB.

Do you think the Pats want to go with someone other than Brady for the next few years?

 

Why do you think that? Go and look at Cassell's season with the Patriots. His numbers mirror Brady's average numbers over his career. Brady, in his 11 year career, has had 2 great seasons. Neither were Super Bowl winning seasons.

 

No. However, I don't think the Packers would be as good without Matthews or Woodson either. It's called a football TEAM for a reason.

And the Steelers did just fine with Dixon too.

 

Because Brady is better.

Brady probably wouldn't have been sacked 4 times by Joey Porter in the wildcat game and maybe they beat us. I'd have to go back and look at the other games they lost, but I think in your argument you're going to the extreme of severely undervaluing the QB.

Sure, you can win a SB with an average QB if you are spectacular elsewhere, but even then the QB you do have needs to be playing well. Even Dilfer played very well down the stretch for Baltimore and made some big plays in the playoffs

 

Well, the fact is that GB has 14 guys on IR, yet they surivved the loss of Matthews for awhile alot better than they survived when Rodgers was out.

And the Steelers managed to win games without Ben, that's true, but go ask them if they want to play the whole season without him.

 

I'm not undervaluing anything. You're overvaluing the QB. I realize that it takes 22 guys to run an offense and defense. You think it takes one. Of course it helps if you have a QB like Marino, or Manning, or Montana, but it's NOT needed and it's harder to find a QB like that than to get 22 pretty good guys that gel well and play hard and smart.

Super Bowls are won by great TEAMS. Not great QB's.

 

You say that but fail to realize that Brady puts up, on average, the SAME types of stats that Cassell put up while he was in New England. The facts are, nearly any QB with a pretty good IQ and a decent arm could win on the Patriots.

 

i was going to make a peyton manning reference in regard to the W/L record being attributed to one person. It doesn't take a genius to realize when one player single handedly makes a difference in the outcome of a game. Ted Ginn did it against the Jets with back to back return TDs. Peyton Manning does it nearly every week. When you put together enough of those types of performance, you shape the direction of the franchise. Even more, you can shape the direction of the NFL. Same is true for Kobe Bryant, Michael Jordan, and Dan Carpenter.

 

Really? "Single handedly", huh? Does P. Manning catch his own passes? Did Ginn block for himself?

 

Yes. Did you not watch any games this year? Jeez.

 

Of course there are exceptions, and Brady’s 30 TDs to 4 picks in the regular season is sick, yet it still wasn't enough to beat Mark Sanchez in Foxboro when it counted. If you bump up a players value to much, it's almost like saying he could beat a team with an 11 on 10 player disadvantage.

There are plenty of marginal QBs that have won titles and probably an equal proportion of very good QBs that haven’t.