Originally posted by excelsior:
Some time ago, Joecool made a very insightful observtion: There can be a problem with having a QB who is too good. It often leads to the OC relying on the passing game too much and the playcalling becomes too predictable. Moreover, the team starts to think that it doesn't have to reach within itself to win - just let "Great QB" win it for them.
So I see a blessing in Smith being good (with limitations) rather than GREAT. Then we know that it takes a complete team, and complete team effort to win.
If you are referring to his analysis that the Colts Super Bowl loss was due to an over dependency on Peyton Manning, and not attempting a sufficient number of running plays other than the draw from shotgun, I think I pretty much addressed that as inaccurate. For one, the Saints had one fewer rush attempt than the Colts and lot fewer yards, so technically, they relied on their quarterback slightly more than the Colts did, and they won. The Colts' biggest lead in the game was 10 in the first half against the number one offense in the league, not really a situation where you change styles and go heavy run to kill the clock. And they played most of the second half from behind, virtually forcing them to have to throw. Second, of the Colts' 19 rush attempts, only one...one!!...was from shotgun. So while it was/is an interesting theory, the "facts" he based that theory on are incorrect.
I suppose there are people in any profession or situation that, when there is a very strong individual working along side of them, will have a tendency to slack off or not perform up to their potential with the subconscious knowledge that the stronger person will pick up the slack. However, to say you do not want to have the strong person there, so that the others don't slack off, seems really off to me, counterproductive even. I think the better option would be to have that great person, and simply push/drive the other people to still perform at their best. In the setting of a football team, that great person is often the quarterback. A strong coaching staff should be able to keep the rest of the team from slacking off. If the other players do not perform at their best, they need to be replaced, or the coaching staff needs to be replaced, not the great player. Many of the truly great quarterbacks will even affect the rest of the team so that they play better than they otherwise would. The prime example would be Peyton Manning. A second year guy that spent most of the previous year on the practice squad and a rookie performing well beyond expectation. An offensive line full of what many call undersized players that most teams would probably have as backups giving up among the fewest sacks in the league (much of that is due to Manning's quick reads, quick decisions, and getting the ball out). A pro-bowl center that was undrafted, rookie running backs reading the defenses and picking up the blitz, and on and on.
I've said it before in one of these many, many QB threads. The best thing for a team is to have a QB that makes the players around him better. Not a QB that needs the players around him to help him play better. And for some to think that you'd actually want a QB who was not great so that the rest of the team is forced to pick up the slack is just really odd to me.
[ Edited by mrgneissguy on Feb 23, 2010 at 11:14:02 ]
