There are 137 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Most important element of the team

Most important element of the team

Originally posted by GEEK:
QB hands down.

agree, the oline is important too but if we had a qb who can make something happen, this team would be seen in a different light. we still have a problem even if we had one of the best olines but no qb behind the center making things happen.
An owner like John York. A winner like that will field a powerhouse program year in and year out.
  • BigRon
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 14,778
Most important element of the team is Communication
  • dmax
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 6,036
ol....it starts there
The answer is QB for any football team at any level

A good OL is irrelevant without a QB that can manage the game and run the offense

Good QB's make bad OL's look good quite often
Originally posted by dmax:
ol....it starts there

I think we're seeing that in Technicolor this year.
Originally posted by KknighthawkK_9er:
The answer is QB for any football team at any level

A good OL is irrelevant without a QB that can manage the game and run the offense

Good QB's make bad OL's look good quite often


Bad OL's can make good QB's look bad quite often too.
Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:
Originally posted by dmax:
ol....it starts there

I think we're seeing that in Technicolor this year.

But what is harder to find & more important to hang on to? A franchise quarterback or a bunch of good offensive linemen?

I think you need a "franchise" type player for quarterback, but with Oline you need a bunch of good ones, not necessarily have five franchise type guys as starters. Is it easier to plug in new O-linemen & stay consistent, or new quarterbacks every season?

I guess I am looking at this from an individual player perspective instead of squad perspective. I don't think it is equatable to compare a single player position against a squad of several players.
Originally posted by djfullshred:
Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:
Originally posted by dmax:
ol....it starts there

I think we're seeing that in Technicolor this year.

But what is harder to find & more important to hang on to? A franchise quarterback or a bunch of good offensive linemen?

I think you need a "franchise" type player for quarterback, but with Oline you need a bunch of good ones, not necessarily have five franchise type guys as starters. Is it easier to plug in new O-linemen & stay consistent, or new quarterbacks every season?

I guess I am looking at this from an individual player perspective instead of squad perspective. I don't think it is equatable to compare a single player position against a squad of several players.

Which I think is the point .....

It's harder to find a "franchise" QB than it is to put together and develop a good OL. You can still win with a average QB with a great OL than you can with a great QB and a poor OL.

"A good QB gets the ball out of his hands quickly......"

I've read this a number of times in a number of different threads by other posters. This statement is only true IF the play calls for a hot-read. A lot of people take one game, or a couple plays and say "see how fast the QB gets rid of the ball". That may be true for a series or two, but at some point the D adjusts and if you can't attack the entire field, you become Shaun Hill (no offense).

Only the OL allows the QB to attack the entire field regardless of who's behind center.

Great example? I saw the Bengals make a very potent Ben Rothelisburger pretty ineffective - not because Ben didn't get rid of the ball quickly, but the rush essentially confined the passing offense to hot-reads. If you're playing a defense that can stop the run/screen and limit YAC from short passes, and your offense in turn can run the ball, control the clock and score, it doesn't matter who's behind center if the rush is great. Joe Montana had his problems against Lawrence Taylor, but still needed some blocking to throw to Rice regardless of timing.

So was Steve Bono and Elvis Grbac franchise QBs? I'd say no but a great system was in place (OL, WR, TE) where they could easily step in and keep things moving. Now to beat better Ds, that player behind center had to be elite - but all in all, you can win with an average QB.

You can't consistently win with a poor OL. Remember Warner behind that terrible, aging line in St. Louis? Warner was hearing footsteps and was replaced by Bulger eventually. Many thought Warner (a sure HOFer) was washed up until he again had blocking and WRs who could make plays in Arizona.

And if your QB totally sucks, you can always run ala Miami. That will at least take you to the playoffs.
Originally posted by English:
Originally posted by SFCH3DDERZ:
Originally posted by FourNine49:
team = everyone

there is no I in TEAM.

stupid question

This is a discussion thread. Regurgitating dumb management consultant-speak doesn't do it.

Teams have to make judgement. They have to decide where to spend the high picks or the free agent bucks.

The question is entirely valid

Quit thinking outside the box. Or start. Which ever it is you are (or aren't) doing now.

I've found management slogans solve most of life's problems.
QB

I'll take P. Manning or Brady behind a struggling line over Alex Smith and an all pro line any day of the week. And twice on sunday.
Originally posted by Overkill:
QB

I'll take P. Manning or Brady behind a struggling line over Alex Smith and an all pro line any day of the week. And twice on sunday.

And my running game with my great OL will keep P. Manning and Brady on the bench. I just need a couple of big plays to my average WR who will certainly get open because my QB has all day to throw and yours doesn't.

(See Manning against the 49ers; See Brady against Jets, 1st game).
QB plays the most important element on a team....but if u asked the QB...he will probably answer OLINE (OT)...

Steve Young said it!! he would trade an all-pro WR for an all-pro LT!
Originally posted by NinerGM:
Originally posted by Overkill:
QB

I'll take P. Manning or Brady behind a struggling line over Alex Smith and an all pro line any day of the week. And twice on sunday.

And my running game with my great OL will keep P. Manning and Brady on the bench. I just need a couple of big plays to my average WR who will certainly get open because my QB has all day to throw and yours doesn't.

(See Manning against the 49ers; See Brady against Jets, 1st game).

LOL, didn't realize you were in my division...

I've heard that theory repeated so many times in NT that I knew somebody would say it here. Sure, there are teams that win based on TOP, but it requires 2 elements - a good running attack and a great defense. Having just one of those things really doesn't help you much (see the 2009 49ers, who lost to Manning btw). The Vikes also prescribed to that philosophy for years and never made it very far.

I'll stick with Manning & Brady (and all their SB's), but its really personal preference imo.
Originally posted by Overkill:
Originally posted by English:
Originally posted by SFCH3DDERZ:
Originally posted by FourNine49:
team = everyone

there is no I in TEAM.

stupid question

This is a discussion thread. Regurgitating dumb management consultant-speak doesn't do it.

Teams have to make judgement. They have to decide where to spend the high picks or the free agent bucks.

The question is entirely valid

Quit thinking outside the box. Or start. Which ever it is you are (or aren't) doing now.

I've found management slogans solve most of life's problems.

This is the start of a whole new thread!! I loath management slogans as being the height of banality, and anyway they are usually misapplied.

Take this one. There is no I in team. Therefore no one part of the tram is more important than the others. A misapplication. There is no I in team (the management slogan) refers to ego. So you leave your ego behind and play for the good of the team. Which is not to say that one part of the team is not more important than others.

And anyway, it's the lines!