Most important element of the team

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 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?

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.