There are 90 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 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).

Bingo!

Not to mention that neither of them have ever had a line as bad as ours, so you cant say how they would perform behind one. We haven't seen what Smith can do behind a solid line. On the other hand, we have seen what Brady and Manning can do behind a bad line only a few times, but the results werent that great.

Look at Matt Cassell, Kurt Warner, Jay Cutler, and Kyle Orton.

- Cassell went from stud to average at best when he went from NE to KC

- Kurt Warner was terrible from his days in NY to his days with Denny Green. In comes Ken Whisenhunt who focuses on the line, and Kurt Warner suddenly is a Super Bowl QB again

- Jay Cutler behind Denver's line was "The next Elway". Behind Chicago's line he looks like Rex Grossman with a strong arm.

- Kyle Orton looked terrible in Chicago. Put him behind the same line that Cutler took for granted and he helped turn a team that nobody thought would win 4 games into a legit playoff team.

Just about the only guy in the league that is still putting up numbers behind a bad line, is Aaron Rodgers....of course, now people will say "we should have taken Rodgers". Fact is that MOST of the QBs in the NFL will suck behind a bad O-line. The good ones like Manning, Brady, Brees, Palmer, and Rivers almost never get hit.
Originally posted by macombs:
Originally posted by fandemonium:
Well, since every position is played by a carbon-based life form, I'd say carbon is the most important element.

I was going to say H2O! Aren't we 90% water anyway?

Water isn't an element though... It's made up of elements.
Originally posted by TheRatMan13:


Just about the only guy in the league that is still putting up numbers behind a bad line, is Aaron Rodgers....of course, now people will say "we should have taken Rodgers". Fact is that MOST of the QBs in the NFL will suck behind a bad O-line. The good ones like Manning, Brady, Brees, Palmer, and Rivers almost never get hit.



You don't watch many Cincy games if you think they fielded a great OL for much of Palmer's time there and SD's line really struggled last year when Rivers was going off. Every single GM in the league would still take Cutler over Orton right now. Denver doesn't ask Orton to do near as much Chicago asks of Cutler, but you don't seem to recognize "little" stuff like that when you try to boil everything down to the difference in the OL.

Most of your other examples either have huge gaps in logic or ignore many other important facts. Like Cassell leaving NE (where they've run the same offense for a decade now and field two GREAT WR's) to play in KC (where they are in the middle of changing everything with no great WR's). Any argument looks legit if we're taking this type of flawed logic seriously now (then again, it is NT).

You also fail to consider the fact that many teams simply do not blitz Manning & Brady because both are so good at beating them when they do so. Put Alex Smith behind the Colts OL and I guarantee he gets sacked more than 3 times in the first 6 games. Its ridiculous to make the argument that the OL improves the QB, but ignore the QB's effect on the OL. They both feed off each other.

Any team with a great QB playing behind a decent line has a better shot at winning the SB than a team fielding a decent QB behind a great OL. Teams with decent QB's that win SB's tend to share one common denominator - great defenses.
Originally posted by NinerGM:
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.

I love these debates. Because of course in a team game like football, they have been discussed for decades, and no concencus. Good food for thought though.
Originally posted by Overkill:
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.

LOL!!! The Vikes haven't got very far?

To whom?

You have to walk before you can run. Last time I checked we haven't had a .500 record in quite a few years, and if you want to compare to the Vikes, they've had a plus .500 record more times in 6 seasons than the 49ers have had and that's been with a shaky secondary and a no-name QB.

So would I take the Vikes OL over ours? Most certainly. Maybe the Vikes don't make it deep into the play-offs with Tavaris Jackson, but heck if you think this team is even going to the playoffs, you're sadly mistaken.

Also, you're dead wrong about needing to have an awesome defense with that philosophy.

I don't need to have an awesome defense. I just need to have a decent one. If you have a poor OL, I can rush your passer, which means your prone to throwing a pick to my average secondary - not to mention you would have NO running game. I just need to win the possession battle just 2 times in the game to win. The probability that I score with a good OL and a average QB than with a bad OL and a good QB.

My D just needs to stop you 2 times in 60 minutes. I win the TOP battle. Your offense doesn't get on the field.

Oh, by the way, if we control the TOP against INDY and actually had a good OL that could score on its own offensive possession, we win that game quite easily.

The 49ers lose because they can't score on a drive (running lanes/protect the passer on a needed drive) when they have to.

The difference in the game.
[ Edited by NinerGM on Nov 19, 2009 at 3:15 PM ]
Originally posted by Kush_Man16:
this poll proves the stupidity if the people on this board........Good QBs make o-lines

Are you suggesting that Alex's play makes the offensive line bad?
Originally posted by Overkill:
Originally posted by TheRatMan13:


Just about the only guy in the league that is still putting up numbers behind a bad line, is Aaron Rodgers....of course, now people will say "we should have taken Rodgers". Fact is that MOST of the QBs in the NFL will suck behind a bad O-line. The good ones like Manning, Brady, Brees, Palmer, and Rivers almost never get hit.



You don't watch many Cincy games if you think they fielded a great OL for much of Palmer's time there and SD's line really struggled last year when Rivers was going off. Every single GM in the league would still take Cutler over Orton right now. Denver doesn't ask Orton to do near as much Chicago asks of Cutler, but you don't seem to recognize "little" stuff like that when you try to boil everything down to the difference in the OL.

Most of your other examples either have huge gaps in logic or ignore many other important facts. Like Cassell leaving NE (where they've run the same offense for a decade now and field two GREAT WR's) to play in KC (where they are in the middle of changing everything with no great WR's). Any argument looks legit if we're taking this type of flawed logic seriously now (then again, it is NT).

You also fail to consider the fact that many teams simply do not blitz Manning & Brady because both are so good at beating them when they do so. Put Alex Smith behind the Colts OL and I guarantee he gets sacked more than 3 times in the first 6 games. Its ridiculous to make the argument that the OL improves the QB, but ignore the QB's effect on the OL. They both feed off each other.

Any team with a great QB playing behind a decent line has a better shot at winning the SB than a team fielding a decent QB behind a great OL. Teams with decent QB's that win SB's tend to share one common denominator - great defenses.

Okay 2 things first of all:

1) Kyle Orton doesn't need be asked to do a lot because he has all day to throw. But you don't field a guy on Sunday, you field a team. Yes you're right, every GM would take Cutler over Orton, but not at the expense of drafting a bunch of scrubs at OL. If you asked any GM in the league if he was going to improve Cutler's protection they'd say absolutely. There's a reason why OTs are some of the highest rated picks in the draft.

2) WRs do not an offense make! LOL! Even Bill Walsh will tell you that dude. In NE, Cassel had protection. In all the cases he raises they had protection. Actually teams DO blitz Brady (see the Rex Ryan strategy), but the reason why they were so effective a couple of years ago was because the OL would be superior at blitz pick-up. So even if you brought a couple of extra rushers, the OL was so disciplined, you wouldn't get there before someone would be free.

Now I'm not diminishing the brilliance of a franchise QB, BUT against better D even the franchise QB needs a line equal or to the talent of the opposing D-line. There's a reason why White, Haley, Taylor, were game changers.
when u have a stud o line u make your whole team better. the big boys make holes for backs, lanes for qbs, time for plays to develop downfield for wrs and chews up clock on long drives to keep your defense and special teams rested and in favorable positions to perform and win.