There are 54 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

The biggest double standard in the NFL

So, I watch A LOT of football news. Whenever I tune in, I tend to get really pissed off at everything they say (as Im sure all of you guys do too.) One of the things that pisses me off is how these POS analysts "Judge Quarterbacks." Pretty much 80% of the time you hear them talk, they say.

"Oh, you need a franchise QB to have a chance. He needs to be able to throw for 4,000 yards and 25 TD's a season, or your team has no shot at winning anything."

We hear this a lot when they talk about QB's like Alex Smith and other "mediocre" QB's that would be categorized alongside him such as (Insert whoevers playing QB in florida other than Josh Freeman*), Colt McCoy, people like that.

But then the other 20% of the time, you hear the COMPLETELY opposite thing, and they try to make it sound like thats the way they've been thinking this whole time. Something along the lines of. "Stats are nice, but in the end the only thing that truly matters when judging an NFL Quarterback is Wins and losses. All the other numbers dont matter."

You hear this a lot with "fantasy" QB's like Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco, and especially Tony Romo.

I personally think that none of these people should have jobs for having such contradicting values, and openly expressing them on a regular basis. But I think it does present a good question of "What ultimately matters in a Quarterback."

(I know this is pretty much one of the only things we argue about on the Alex Smith Thread other than his mechanics, but I think this is an interesting question that could be answered with a lot more examples other than AS)

Thoughts?
They are self-preservation oriented. i'd really llike it to have a network bring up film of their competitors quotes and analysis that flat out sucked - and thgen cal them out on it.

They NEVER or rarely admit a mistake and create drama for whatever reason. All the contraversies they inflame is the soap opera crap they bring to sports that I hate. One of the main reasons I hate TO. [Another topic]

I remember when the trashed Terry Bradshaw as stupid yada, yada - he called his own plays and won championships. Then he became a great QB - what crap! He was a great QB w/out those toads.

If Alex has a great year - watch all the clones hop on the bandwagon.
http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/58956/alex-smith-cam-newtons-stats-overblown

I think it depends on who the starting QB is for your team. Would we be more successful with Cam Newton or Alex Smith? Instinctively the majority would choose Cam Newton but his turnovers are glossed over by his nice highlights.
let's make an example of the league's posterboy, Tom Brady

season stats when the Patriots won the superbowl
2001 - 2843yards 18TD 12 INT 86.5 rating
2003 - 3620yards 23TD 12 INT 85.9 rating
2004 - 3692yards 28TD 14INT 92.6 rating

season stats when the Patriots lost the superbowl
2007 - 4806yards 50TD 8 INT 117.2 rating
2011 - 5235yards 39TD 12 INT 105.6 rating
The double standard is...

When there is a story on espn/nfln about the niners, its about 20 seconds long, and they have like 5 commercial breaks before it comes on. Niner highlights? they show like 1, and cut to a story about Tom Brady.

Nfl draft? everytime we pick they go to commercial, then start talking about Tim tebow.
Great point comparing bradys sb winnIng years. Its a lot easier to hit great pro bowl targets like moss and welker and a great ol that gives you 5 seconds per pass
To win in this league, it takes a total team effort-not just one great quarterback.
Originally posted by niners4lyfe:
To win in this league, it takes a total team effort-not just one great quarterback.

Yeah. Coaching makes a big difference, and a defense. I think coaching is the most important thing in the NFL to be honest. Just look at the 9ers(and Alex Smith) before Harbaugh and after. There's a big difference.
I was the most pissed off right after the Saints 49ers playoff game. I was floored when I went to my usual football news outlets and they were talking about Tebow and Tom Brady!!! They ignored the most electric amazing game of the entire season and instead were talking about that scrub Tebow and the Pats before the game had even started!! I couldn't believe it. I watched a few different channels and it took almost an hour for them to finally say something about the 49ers and when they did it was 25 seconds and they were right back to talking about the Packers for another 20 minutes!

I don't know why but for some reason the sports media hates talking about the 49ers at all unless it is to bash them or stir up controversy.

I bet if they win the superbowl they will somehow manage to avoid talking about them then too! Instead hours of talking about how other teams lost in the playoffs.

Makes me sick.
Originally posted by Kronos2560:
So, I watch A LOT of football news. Whenever I tune in, I tend to get really pissed off at everything they say (as Im sure all of you guys do too.) One of the things that pisses me off is how these POS analysts "Judge Quarterbacks." Pretty much 80% of the time you hear them talk, they say.

"Oh, you need a franchise QB to have a chance. He needs to be able to throw for 4,000 yards and 25 TD's a season, or your team has no shot at winning anything."

We hear this a lot when they talk about QB's like Alex Smith and other "mediocre" QB's that would be categorized alongside him such as (Insert whoevers playing QB in florida other than Josh Freeman*), Colt McCoy, people like that.

But then the other 20% of the time, you hear the COMPLETELY opposite thing, and they try to make it sound like thats the way they've been thinking this whole time. Something along the lines of. "Stats are nice, but in the end the only thing that truly matters when judging an NFL Quarterback is Wins and losses. All the other numbers dont matter."

You hear this a lot with "fantasy" QB's like Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco, and especially Tony Romo.

I personally think that none of these people should have jobs for having such contradicting values, and openly expressing them on a regular basis. But I think it does present a good question of "What ultimately matters in a Quarterback."

(I know this is pretty much one of the only things we argue about on the Alex Smith Thread other than his mechanics, but I think this is an interesting question that could be answered with a lot more examples other than AS)

Thoughts?

A QB that plays the way Alex Smith has played would need a defense like ours to win. When those QBs throwing for 4,000+ yards and 25 TDs are winning games, they're almost always the main reason their team is winning. The main reason our team is winning is not because of QB play, but because of elite defense and special teams play. The reason teams like GB, NO or NE win is because of their passing attacks (basically, their QBs).

If you don't have a top flight defense, you'll need a QB who can move the ball and put points on the board. Throwing for big yardage doesn't sound important, but chances are your QB will NEED to throw for a lot of yardage in order to put points on the board and get you a win if your defense isn't great.
Originally posted by H41L5ATAN:
http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/58956/alex-smith-cam-newtons-stats-overblown

I think it depends on who the starting QB is for your team. Would we be more successful with Cam Newton or Alex Smith? Instinctively the majority would choose Cam Newton but his turnovers are glossed over by his nice highlights.

Hey didn't I whoop you in Madden about two weeks ago? You have a very distinct name, so I'm pretty sure it was you.
The reason elite QBs are so valuable, is because with this elite QB, the margin for error for the rest of your team is substantially larger. Look at our two playoff games for example.

In the Saints game, the Saints nearly overcame FIVE TURNOVERS because they have an elite QB named Drew Brees. Even though he was part of the reason they were down, and had five turnovers, he brought his team back and even took the lead late in the game. He almost overcame FIVE costly turnovers.

Now look at the NFCCG. Kyle Williams' fumble will live in infamy forever. We were not able to overcome the mistake(s). Because without an elite QB, the margin of error is so much smaller. We werent able to overcome Williams mistakes. If we had Drew Brees would we have been able to? Maybe, maybe not. We all can speculate, but I would be willing to bet the 49ers are up by at least 3 scores if we had an elite QB. Alex didnt play bad in the NFCCG. He just didnt do enough.

Thats the big difference. Having an elite QB leading your offense can often times make up for the deficiencies/poor play elsewhere.

But to answer your specific question, NO, you dont need an elite QB to win or have the chance to win. Our Niners were one example of that last year. But you do need to be extremely good in every other aspect. With an elite QB, you dont necessarily need to be amazing in every other facet of your team.
What do you guys think about QB's who DO throw for a lot of yards and TD's, but have little success in the post season? Other than the fact that nobody has a defense like ours, do you think theres a chance that these pass happy schemes wear down pretty easily when January and Febuary come around?
IT IS NOT A DOUBLE STANDARD. YOU ARE JUST NOT LISTENING.

Nobody is really speaking in terms of absolutes. Most knowledgeable football people understand the odds of a team without a great QB to win a championship dramatically drops. Nobody claims it is impossible to win the SB without one, only that it is only going to happen about 1 in every 10 years or so.

The only double standard comes from fans of teams. When we had Montana and Young we dismissed roughly 20 teams per year as non factors based on the QB position alone.

Alex Smith could be the next mediocre QB Champion, but nobody is going to bank on it. But at the same time, nobody is saying it is impossible