There are 69 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Sing's opinion on the QB position . . .

  • Jcool
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 14,051
Originally posted by Leathaface:
Originally posted by Joecool:
Originally posted by Ceadderman:
Originally posted by tommyncal:
Originally posted by Joecool:
Perfect examples for Mike Singletary's case:

Troy Aikman
John Elway
Phil Simms
Dan Marino
Mark Rypien
Brett Favre
Steve Young

These guys could never win a superbowl until the running game was the main focus and Marino never won it. Steve Young never won until our defense was better than our offense. They all had the capabilities to get the job done when needed but their superbowl wins weren't mainly because of them.

So, if Alex Smith is the QB on those those superbowl winning teams, you think they still win the superbowl???

Dude, ANY GIVEN SUNDAY, Dilfer won a Super Bowl with Baltimore. W/O that Defense would they even have made the Playoffs?

Quit beating your horse Semantics. He's already dead. It's time to let him go.

Oh and our DEFENSE was not better than our Offense in '95. You better look at how many points our Offense put on the board. Our Defense DID get better and we needed it to get better but it was NOT better than our Offense.Prime example is look at the amount of points dropped on San Di-uhoh by one Steve Young and one Jerry Rice.

~Ceadder

Our defense was better than our offense that year. Just because our offense scored tons of points against OTHER defenses doesn't mean a thing. I don't think Steve Young would be very effective against our defense.

BTW, what did the Niners (I won't say Young) do when Deon left? The defense was the reason why we won that superbowl more than it was the QB.

And about the Alex Smith comment...if Dilfer can win one, anyone QB can.

You're crazy if you think the 94-95 team won b/c of the defense. Yes the defense was in need of a upgrade, and yes they were awesome. But just b/c the defense got better relative to the previous year doesn't mean it was the stronger unit.

That's just ridiculous, I'm sorry. The 94-95 team had one of the most complete offenses the 49ers have ever had.

Id say the 94 Superbowl team had one of the best offenses in NFL history
Originally posted by Jcool:
Originally posted by Leathaface:
Originally posted by Joecool:
Originally posted by Ceadderman:
Originally posted by tommyncal:
Originally posted by Joecool:
Perfect examples for Mike Singletary's case:

Troy Aikman
John Elway
Phil Simms
Dan Marino
Mark Rypien
Brett Favre
Steve Young

These guys could never win a superbowl until the running game was the main focus and Marino never won it. Steve Young never won until our defense was better than our offense. They all had the capabilities to get the job done when needed but their superbowl wins weren't mainly because of them.

So, if Alex Smith is the QB on those those superbowl winning teams, you think they still win the superbowl???

Dude, ANY GIVEN SUNDAY, Dilfer won a Super Bowl with Baltimore. W/O that Defense would they even have made the Playoffs?

Quit beating your horse Semantics. He's already dead. It's time to let him go.

Oh and our DEFENSE was not better than our Offense in '95. You better look at how many points our Offense put on the board. Our Defense DID get better and we needed it to get better but it was NOT better than our Offense.Prime example is look at the amount of points dropped on San Di-uhoh by one Steve Young and one Jerry Rice.

~Ceadder

Our defense was better than our offense that year. Just because our offense scored tons of points against OTHER defenses doesn't mean a thing. I don't think Steve Young would be very effective against our defense.

BTW, what did the Niners (I won't say Young) do when Deon left? The defense was the reason why we won that superbowl more than it was the QB.

And about the Alex Smith comment...if Dilfer can win one, anyone QB can.

You're crazy if you think the 94-95 team won b/c of the defense. Yes the defense was in need of a upgrade, and yes they were awesome. But just b/c the defense got better relative to the previous year doesn't mean it was the stronger unit.

That's just ridiculous, I'm sorry. The 94-95 team had one of the most complete offenses the 49ers have ever had.

Id say the 94 Superbowl team had one of the best offenses in NFL history

I agree...and I can say that without any homerism.
He said that because he still believes in his smash mouth run philosophy. Now that he thinks he's got the horses, you'll see him pound the ball more.

He wanted big bodies and he's got them. This is what he's wanted all along and now we'll all see how it works out.

[ Edited by Kauaiguy on Apr 26, 2010 at 01:04:54 ]
The Alex Smith of right now would've won the superbowl with Dilfer's Ravens... and probably Brad Johnson's Bucs... and probably with the steelers when Big Ben won his first, etc
  • PaulW
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 259
I know last year early on in the season, maybe before the season started in a KNBR interview either Murph or Mac said something about the offense starting with Frank Gore and Singletary corrected them saying Frank was a very important piece of the offense but that the most important piece of the offense was the offensive line.
Sing was simply defending his 'day one' draft decisions, and he made a very valuable point behind the fact that if you don't have an o-line (or a balanced attack), having the best QB in the world won't mean jack s**t.

Look at any Superbowl winning team within this entire decade, they all had balanced running strategies/passing attacks. The New England Patriots build a dynasty around a stoic run attack with a beastly line (not to mention a masterfully built defense), and the moment Charlie Weis left they went "high-flying" without a running attack, and they lost SB XLII to a team using a 'balanced' offense.

People aren't listening to what Singletary has been pointing out, balanced teams win Superbowls, and that's what we're doing.
What I think Sing is trying to say is, you can have Peyton Manning, but if you don't have a good o-line you aren't going to win. Or if you don't have a good running game you aren't going to win, or if you don't have good recievers you aren't going to win. Or a good D.

Basically you need more than just a great QB to win.
Originally posted by SnakePlissken:
Sing was simply defending his 'day one' draft decisions, and he made a very valuable point behind the fact that if you don't have an o-line (or a balanced attack), having the best QB in the world won't mean jack s**t.

Look at any Superbowl winning team within this entire decade, they all had balanced running strategies/passing attacks. The New England Patriots build a dynasty around a stoic run attack with a beastly line (not to mention a masterfully built defense), and the moment Charlie Weis left they went "high-flying" without a running attack, and they lost SB XLII to a team using a 'balanced' offense.

People aren't listening to what Singletary has been pointing out, balanced teams win Superbowls, and that's what we're doing.

this is key, we have to be able to run the ball effectively to stand a chance of winning. Drafting two Oline is not just for "smash mouth" football, but to allow us to choose how we attack offences, which IMO will make the whole team better (easier to pass, keep the defence off the field etc)
Originally posted by KALI-KING:
What I think Sing is trying to say is, you can have Peyton Manning, but if you don't have a good o-line you aren't going to win. Or if you don't have a good running game you aren't going to win, or if you don't have good recievers you aren't going to win. Or a good D.

Basically you need more than just a great QB to win.

And that's exactly what I don't believe.

If you have a good QB, your offensive line will somehow--as if by the stroke of a magic wand--play better. Why?

1. Less blitzing
2. Quicker release (a trait of a good QB)

You can't overstate how important these two factors are to the offensive line. Yes having talent on the line matters, but having a QB who threatens the defense is just as important. This is what Singletary doesn't seem to understand.

All of a sudden you'll have WRs who were no-namers turn into viable targets. QBs make WRs...not the other way around.

A running game is cake. It's clearly helpful but it's not necessary to success. The fact is, if you have THAT good of passing game, there's no need to run it often.
Originally posted by Leathaface:
Originally posted by KALI-KING:
What I think Sing is trying to say is, you can have Peyton Manning, but if you don't have a good o-line you aren't going to win. Or if you don't have a good running game you aren't going to win, or if you don't have good recievers you aren't going to win. Or a good D.

Basically you need more than just a great QB to win.

And that's exactly what I don't believe.

If you have a good QB, your offensive line will somehow--as if by the stroke of a magic wand--play better. Why?

1. Less blitzing
2. Quicker release (a trait of a good QB)

You can't overstate how important these two factors are to the offensive line. Yes having talent on the line matters, but having a QB who threatens the defense is just as important. This is what Singletary doesn't seem to understand.

All of a sudden you'll have WRs who were no-namers turn into viable targets. QBs make WRs...not the other way around.

A running game is cake. It's clearly helpful but it's not necessary to success. The fact is, if you have THAT good of passing game, there's no need to run it often.

So if your theory is correct (which it isn't, and it's horribly obtuse/wrong by all standards within terms of not only post-season strategy/common sense), if we had placed Peyton Manning behind that atrocious o-line we had last season we would have been Superbowl winners.

No, no, even better, Matt Stafford should have been Rookie Offensive MVP of the league of 2009!!!

Yeah, move along, nothing to see here.
Originally posted by SnakePlissken:
Originally posted by Leathaface:
Originally posted by KALI-KING:
What I think Sing is trying to say is, you can have Peyton Manning, but if you don't have a good o-line you aren't going to win. Or if you don't have a good running game you aren't going to win, or if you don't have good recievers you aren't going to win. Or a good D.

Basically you need more than just a great QB to win.

And that's exactly what I don't believe.

If you have a good QB, your offensive line will somehow--as if by the stroke of a magic wand--play better. Why?

1. Less blitzing
2. Quicker release (a trait of a good QB)

You can't overstate how important these two factors are to the offensive line. Yes having talent on the line matters, but having a QB who threatens the defense is just as important. This is what Singletary doesn't seem to understand.

All of a sudden you'll have WRs who were no-namers turn into viable targets. QBs make WRs...not the other way around.

A running game is cake. It's clearly helpful but it's not necessary to success. The fact is, if you have THAT good of passing game, there's no need to run it often.

So if your theory is correct (which it isn't, and it's horribly obtuse/wrong by all standards within terms of not only post-season strategy/common sense), if we had placed Peyton Manning behind that atrocious o-line we had last season we would have been Superbowl winners.

No, no, even better, Matt Stafford should have been Rookie Offensive MVP of the league of 2009!!!

Yeah, move along, nothing to see here.

If we had Peyton Manning last year, we very well could have made it deep into the playoffs. And yes, lets look at "the standards within the terms of the postseason" (whatever that butchering of the English language means). Was it not obvious by last seasons playoffs that QBs and offenses ruled and defenses were secondary?

What the hell does Stafford/ROY award have to do with this? Anyone care to clarify that one?

I'm not responding to you any further...you don't warrant my time. Have fun.
Originally posted by pelos21:
I think he is just saying that the qb doesn't have to do everything. If you have a good all around team your qb doesn't have to be a superstar.

Trent Dilfer and the Ravens!
3 yrds and a cloud=o=dust. Don't need no stinkin QB..right?
Originally posted by tommyncal:
Originally posted by qnnhan7:
Only perplexing on a slow off season news day. For the rest of us who are supportive 49ers fan, we understand what he's trying to say. And it's a non-issue.

You might agree with Singletary's vision and philosophy, but it is far from a non-issue!

Not sure how it's perplexing and scary as you described his comments, when we know all he said was basically a qb is important but no more important than the other 10 guys on the field. It's a team sport ultimately. It's almost cliche. So it's a non-issue.
  • Frisch
  • Info N/A
Most important position is the QB by far, then I would say the O-line. The Ravens a few years ago was a fluke. Most people throw the Ravens into this argument but the fact of the matter is you can name more QB/offense dominated teams that win super bowls than all defense. Lets not forget the Bears in '06. Marvin Harrison would be a nobody if Peyton Manning wasn't the QB. Also, Tom Brady was winning super bowls with Troy Brown and David Givens for receivers. Pats had a good defense but Tom Brady made that offense way better than it was...same as Peyton does year after year. Take Peyton away and the Colts will struggle to make the playoffs. Drew Brees doesn't need an O-line, you bring the blitz and he carves you up. Brees completes more passes under a blitz than any QB I have ever seen.

Does it scare me that Sing doesn't feel the QB is the most important position? Simple question gets a simple answer...YES!

[ Edited by Frisch on Apr 26, 2010 at 06:49:52 ]