There are 150 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Sing's opinion on the QB position . . .

Balance is the key to winning long term in the NFL. Sure, you may get a SB win, but if you're not a balanced team, you won't last long (see the Rams as a prime example).

Look at the Patriots during the 07 season. They gave up 21 sacks the whole season (that's about 30 less then what the 49ers average), and Brady was hardly touched all year. The Patriots O-line didn't give up more then 3 sacks a game until the Super Bowl.

Get to the Super Bowl and the Giants pretty much destroyed the Pats o-line. They gave up 5 sacks and the Patriots were held to below 20 points for the first time all season. That's not taking into account the times Brady was hit after a throw or when the Giants hurried him to throw a pass.

A QB like Brady fell apart when his o-line failed.

The 07 Patriots were not a balanced football team. Same with the Rams (look at how quick that fell apart).

49ers fans, for some unknown reason, seem to think that the o-line isn't important. Just plug the QB in there and everything will be good. Hogwash. Do you think Montana and Young would have been as good as they were if they didn't have the line in front of them that they did. Do you think the Cowboys would have won 3 Super Bowls if they didn't have the line they did.

That's what 49ers have been brainwashed into thinking. Just replace the QB and everything will be good. No team in this league will win when their sack totals look like this

04: 52 sacks
05: 48 sacks
06: 35 sacks
07: 55 sacks
08: 55 sacks
09: 40 sacks

That's 285 sacks over a 6 season span. Oh, and btw, the 49ers lowest sack total during that stretch was when Alex took every offensive snap (just throwing that out)

You can't just expect to replace the QB and expect the team to win. That's the point Singletary was trying to make. That's the point the majority of 49ers fans are failing to comprehend.

The QB is just one part of the overall team. Every player on both offense and defense has to do their part for the team to succeed. That's why its called a team sport, not an individual sport

[ Edited by linkboy on Apr 26, 2010 at 08:27:13 ]
  • Nes49
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 5,321
Originally posted by titan:
Originally posted by Canadian49er:
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???

Someone is trying really hard to convince himself that we'll be good

A lot of those QB's could not win a Superbowl until Joe Montana got old and retired. Joe Cool owned them, Especially Elway and Marino!

Dan Marino?.............He nohave SB ring.
Originally posted by GEEK:
Originally posted by OnTheClock:
The comments don't bother me in the least. I agree.

OL and defense can take a rookie to the conference championships (see: Roethlisberger and Sanchez). Change that to someone with experience.. and you've got a Super Bowl contender...

Not trying to imply anything. Just saying...

The dominant teams that remained dominant had stability and pro-bowl caliber QBs throughout the decade.

Colts - Manning
Steelers - Roethlisberger
Patriots - Brady
Eagles - McNabb
Packers - Favre/Rodgers

etc...etc...

The only exception I can think is the Ravens. But they have a DEEP backfield and consistently hit on their OL and D picks, which we haven't done yet.

I think Singletary's validity on the statement is somewhat true, but the probability to make the playoffs and dominate in the NFL without a legit QB at the helm for multiple years is less than 10%.

Steelers have had a legendary consistency at OL except maybe ONE season. For decades they're a top rushing team in the NFL.

Colts - Again awesome blocking. There's a reason Jeff Saturday is a household name.

Patriots - Again when they were dominant, they easily had the best OL in the league by far.

Eagles - Usually invest a 1st round pick every season in their lines - OL or DL. Philadelphia has always been a great pass-blocking team. Again, there's a reason John Runyan is a household name.

Packers - Again, not just their QB, but they've had a stable system and pretty good pass blocking over the years. When they don't it becomes clear.

Outside of Larry Allen, I can't name one 49er OL who became a household name in the last 10 years - and Allen wasn't drafted by this team so I wouldn't count him anyway. We can't name a guy because the 49ers haven't had a decent OL in a very, very long time which IMHO, explains why this offense hasn't been at the very least decent in a very long time.

[ Edited by NinerGM on Apr 26, 2010 at 08:47:48 ]
  • GEEK
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 17,147
Originally posted by NinerGM:
Originally posted by GEEK:
Originally posted by OnTheClock:
The comments don't bother me in the least. I agree.

OL and defense can take a rookie to the conference championships (see: Roethlisberger and Sanchez). Change that to someone with experience.. and you've got a Super Bowl contender...

Not trying to imply anything. Just saying...

The dominant teams that remained dominant had stability and pro-bowl caliber QBs throughout the decade.

Colts - Manning
Steelers - Roethlisberger
Patriots - Brady
Eagles - McNabb
Packers - Favre/Rodgers

etc...etc...

The only exception I can think is the Ravens. But they have a DEEP backfield and consistently hit on their OL and D picks, which we haven't done yet.

I think Singletary's validity on the statement is somewhat true, but the probability to make the playoffs and dominate in the NFL without a legit QB at the helm for multiple years is less than 10%.

Steelers have had a legendary consistency at OL except maybe ONE season. For decades they're a top rushing team in the NFL.

Colts - Again awesome blocking. There's a reason you Jeff Saturday is a household name.

Patriots - Again when they were dominant, they easily had the best OL in the league by far.

Eagles - Usually invest a 1st round pick every season in their lines - OL or DL. Philadelphia has always been a great pass-blocking team. Again, there's a reason John Runyan is a household name.

Packers - Again, not just their QB, but they've had a stable system and pretty good pass blocking over the years. When they don't it becomes clear.

Outside of Larry Allen, I can't name one 49er OL who became a household name in the last 10 years - and Allen wasn't drafted by this team so I wouldn't count him anyway. We can't name a guy because the 49ers haven't had a decent OL in a very, very long time which IMHO, explains why this offense hasn't been at the very least decent in a very long time.

I totally agree with your OL statement. A good OL sets up the run and pass.

My point is that most of the dominant teams have QBs that are pro-bowl caliber, and that going against the grain of conventional wisdom will lower the probability of success.
I actually didn't find this "perplexing" or "scary" to the least bit. You trippin.
Originally posted by NinerGM:
I have to say I disagree with Leatherface and some others here and I'll try to lay things out best I can.

Yes, it is a QB-driven league as we move more toward the pass and the game has rewarded passers more than pure running teams. I do believe you can mask the deficiencies of a QB and this is done every season, all the time. As the quality of team gets better, overall, quality of each player is better. So a team that plays in the conference championship game is a better overall team than a team that exits in the first round of the play-offs.

This was clearly the case regardless of QB play - or even more important, QB talents. I don't believe that a "quick release" or any of that stuff matters if you're trying to pass behind a OL that can't play when discussing performance of play-off teams. Regardless of how quick the release, a WR still needs to be open, the hot read needs to be uncovered and if coverage isn't beaten at the LOS, it's usually going to be incomplete.

I encourage anyone to read other posters breakdown of offensive drives last season or OL play. No matter how great the QB, if the OL is so poorly coached, so incapable of sustaining offense, not even capable of making 1st downs on 3rd and 1 against the lowest of statistically ranked defenses, regardless of who the QB is, the offense won't be consistent. Add to this new receiving targets, new system (mid-season change), less talented receiving targets than projected (Jones didn't get on the field for whatever reason), etc. All affect the passing game.

I've said this before and I'll say it again - show me a top statistically performing QB and I'll show you a pretty good OL. I know a lot of people immediately point out Green Bay last year to counter this argument, but again, that line despite the number of sacks it gave up was light years ahead of the 49er OL play last season.

I think Mike looks at how far the Jets went and again was absolutely sold on what Ryan did in NY - and that was with a rookie.

I'm glad u actually pointed that one out as well. I completely agree, and the thing was, about that game, for the entire day, all i kept on hearing from the commentators was and i quote, "I dont know what it is about today, but this line is looking like a Pro-Bowl line today."

There were soo many teams that I remembered hearing about on a weekly basis after we played them, that had career days against us offensively. And that was whether or not we sustained a drive and scored, or stalled.

I like the philosophy that we carried in the Walsh, Seifert days, and that was when someone said, we were so good, because we knew that if individually everyone did their job at the end of the day we would win. And that when we lost we knew it had to be on a certain person because once again if everyone did their job, we'd win.

I love that philosophy, wonder if we can ever get that back. Where if a ball was thrown and the receiver could get it, jump on him if it was catchable. That if the Qb was sacked the team got on the player who didnt pick it up. Say sumthin to the QB if the throw was WAAAYYY OFF. I mean i loved this accountability measure we played with in the past.
Originally posted by GEEK:
Originally posted by NinerGM:
Originally posted by GEEK:
Originally posted by OnTheClock:
The comments don't bother me in the least. I agree.

OL and defense can take a rookie to the conference championships (see: Roethlisberger and Sanchez). Change that to someone with experience.. and you've got a Super Bowl contender...

Not trying to imply anything. Just saying...

The dominant teams that remained dominant had stability and pro-bowl caliber QBs throughout the decade.

Colts - Manning
Steelers - Roethlisberger
Patriots - Brady
Eagles - McNabb
Packers - Favre/Rodgers

etc...etc...

The only exception I can think is the Ravens. But they have a DEEP backfield and consistently hit on their OL and D picks, which we haven't done yet.

I think Singletary's validity on the statement is somewhat true, but the probability to make the playoffs and dominate in the NFL without a legit QB at the helm for multiple years is less than 10%.

Steelers have had a legendary consistency at OL except maybe ONE season. For decades they're a top rushing team in the NFL.

Colts - Again awesome blocking. There's a reason you Jeff Saturday is a household name.

Patriots - Again when they were dominant, they easily had the best OL in the league by far.

Eagles - Usually invest a 1st round pick every season in their lines - OL or DL. Philadelphia has always been a great pass-blocking team. Again, there's a reason John Runyan is a household name.

Packers - Again, not just their QB, but they've had a stable system and pretty good pass blocking over the years. When they don't it becomes clear.

Outside of Larry Allen, I can't name one 49er OL who became a household name in the last 10 years - and Allen wasn't drafted by this team so I wouldn't count him anyway. We can't name a guy because the 49ers haven't had a decent OL in a very, very long time which IMHO, explains why this offense hasn't been at the very least decent in a very long time.

I totally agree with your OL statement. A good OL sets up the run and pass.

My point is that most of the dominant teams have QBs that are pro-bowl caliber, and that going against the grain of conventional wisdom will lower the probability of success.

Agreed so following that logic, wouldn't it also be true that a good OL sets up pro-bowl caliber QB performance? If a good OL sets up the run and the pass, in essence this sets up the offense.

I think this is a chicken and egg argument - pro-bowl caliber QB without an average offensive line? Very, very unlikely. I don't think it's possible to have a bad OL and a pro-bowl caliber QB on the same team the two are mutually exclusive in my opinion. That QB may have been to the pro-bowl when the line was good, but certainly not performing at a pro-bowl caliber when line play declined.
Originally posted by NinerGM:
Originally posted by GEEK:
Originally posted by OnTheClock:
The comments don't bother me in the least. I agree.

OL and defense can take a rookie to the conference championships (see: Roethlisberger and Sanchez). Change that to someone with experience.. and you've got a Super Bowl contender...

Not trying to imply anything. Just saying...

The dominant teams that remained dominant had stability and pro-bowl caliber QBs throughout the decade.

Colts - Manning
Steelers - Roethlisberger
Patriots - Brady
Eagles - McNabb
Packers - Favre/Rodgers

etc...etc...

The only exception I can think is the Ravens. But they have a DEEP backfield and consistently hit on their OL and D picks, which we haven't done yet.

I think Singletary's validity on the statement is somewhat true, but the probability to make the playoffs and dominate in the NFL without a legit QB at the helm for multiple years is less than 10%.

Steelers have had a legendary consistency at OL except maybe ONE season. For decades they're a top rushing team in the NFL.

Colts - Again awesome blocking. There's a reason Jeff Saturday is a household name.

Patriots - Again when they were dominant, they easily had the best OL in the league by far.

Eagles - Usually invest a 1st round pick every season in their lines - OL or DL. Philadelphia has always been a great pass-blocking team. Again, there's a reason John Runyan is a household name.

Packers - Again, not just their QB, but they've had a stable system and pretty good pass blocking over the years. When they don't it becomes clear.

Outside of Larry Allen, I can't name one 49er OL who became a household name in the last 10 years - and Allen wasn't drafted by this team so I wouldn't count him anyway. We can't name a guy because the 49ers haven't had a decent OL in a very, very long time which IMHO, explains why this offense hasn't been at the very least decent in a very long time.

You couldn't be more wrong on the Colts and you're only half right on the Patriots. Patriots have had a p*ss poor offensive line since their last Super Bowl victory and the Colts line was never anything more than average. There's a reason why those two teams can't run the football at all anymore, and are forced to live in a Shotgun offense. When Tom Brady got injured that great Patriot line went from giving up 15 sacks to 46 sacks. Losing Damien Woody really destabilized that offensive line.

[ Edited by tjd808185 on Apr 26, 2010 at 08:56:13 ]
Originally posted by tjd808185:
Originally posted by NinerGM:
Originally posted by GEEK:
Originally posted by OnTheClock:
The comments don't bother me in the least. I agree.

OL and defense can take a rookie to the conference championships (see: Roethlisberger and Sanchez). Change that to someone with experience.. and you've got a Super Bowl contender...

Not trying to imply anything. Just saying...

The dominant teams that remained dominant had stability and pro-bowl caliber QBs throughout the decade.

Colts - Manning
Steelers - Roethlisberger
Patriots - Brady
Eagles - McNabb
Packers - Favre/Rodgers

etc...etc...

The only exception I can think is the Ravens. But they have a DEEP backfield and consistently hit on their OL and D picks, which we haven't done yet.

I think Singletary's validity on the statement is somewhat true, but the probability to make the playoffs and dominate in the NFL without a legit QB at the helm for multiple years is less than 10%.

Steelers have had a legendary consistency at OL except maybe ONE season. For decades they're a top rushing team in the NFL.

Colts - Again awesome blocking. There's a reason Jeff Saturday is a household name.

Patriots - Again when they were dominant, they easily had the best OL in the league by far.

Eagles - Usually invest a 1st round pick every season in their lines - OL or DL. Philadelphia has always been a great pass-blocking team. Again, there's a reason John Runyan is a household name.

Packers - Again, not just their QB, but they've had a stable system and pretty good pass blocking over the years. When they don't it becomes clear.

Outside of Larry Allen, I can't name one 49er OL who became a household name in the last 10 years - and Allen wasn't drafted by this team so I wouldn't count him anyway. We can't name a guy because the 49ers haven't had a decent OL in a very, very long time which IMHO, explains why this offense hasn't been at the very least decent in a very long time.

You couldn't be more wrong on the Colts and you're only half right on the Patriots. Patriots have had a p*ss poor offensive line since their last Super Bowl victory and the Colts line was never anything more than average. There's a reason why those two teams can't run the football at all anymore.

Okay ... if you're going to call someone out, at least read what they're responding to...

Geek said:

The dominant teams that remained dominant had stability and pro-bowl caliber QBs throughout the decade.

So the overall argument is - Pro-bowl caliber QBs dominant over the past DECADE, not just last year or 2 years ago. So you're trying to argue Patriots and Colts haven't had good blocking throughout the DECADE? Seriously? Colts are just terrible - I guess them going undefeated for x number of games was ALL Manning? Seriously bud? I can't buy that one.

Any Niner fan would like to trade the Colts or Patriot line for the Niners line throughout the last decade?

[ Edited by NinerGM on Apr 26, 2010 at 08:57:20 ]
Originally posted by NinerGM:
Originally posted by tjd808185:
Originally posted by NinerGM:
Originally posted by GEEK:
Originally posted by OnTheClock:
The comments don't bother me in the least. I agree.

OL and defense can take a rookie to the conference championships (see: Roethlisberger and Sanchez). Change that to someone with experience.. and you've got a Super Bowl contender...

Not trying to imply anything. Just saying...

The dominant teams that remained dominant had stability and pro-bowl caliber QBs throughout the decade.

Colts - Manning
Steelers - Roethlisberger
Patriots - Brady
Eagles - McNabb
Packers - Favre/Rodgers

etc...etc...

The only exception I can think is the Ravens. But they have a DEEP backfield and consistently hit on their OL and D picks, which we haven't done yet.

I think Singletary's validity on the statement is somewhat true, but the probability to make the playoffs and dominate in the NFL without a legit QB at the helm for multiple years is less than 10%.

Steelers have had a legendary consistency at OL except maybe ONE season. For decades they're a top rushing team in the NFL.

Colts - Again awesome blocking. There's a reason Jeff Saturday is a household name.

Patriots - Again when they were dominant, they easily had the best OL in the league by far.

Eagles - Usually invest a 1st round pick every season in their lines - OL or DL. Philadelphia has always been a great pass-blocking team. Again, there's a reason John Runyan is a household name.

Packers - Again, not just their QB, but they've had a stable system and pretty good pass blocking over the years. When they don't it becomes clear.

Outside of Larry Allen, I can't name one 49er OL who became a household name in the last 10 years - and Allen wasn't drafted by this team so I wouldn't count him anyway. We can't name a guy because the 49ers haven't had a decent OL in a very, very long time which IMHO, explains why this offense hasn't been at the very least decent in a very long time.

You couldn't be more wrong on the Colts and you're only half right on the Patriots. Patriots have had a p*ss poor offensive line since their last Super Bowl victory and the Colts line was never anything more than average. There's a reason why those two teams can't run the football at all anymore.

Okay ... if you're going to call someone out, at least read what they're responding to...

Geek said:

The dominant teams that remained dominant had stability and pro-bowl caliber QBs throughout the decade.

So the overall argument is - Pro-bowl caliber QBs dominant over the past DECADE, not just last year or 2 years ago. So you're trying to argue Patriots and Colts haven't had good blocking throughout the DECADE? Seriously?

Any Niner fan would like to trade the Colts or Patriot line for the Niners line throughout the last decade?

I don't think the Colts ever had a great line. The picks don't back it up. You look at their history and you clearly see that weapons make and break the Colts. Yeah they've had 1 or 2 good offensive lineman over the years, but it's pretty much always been a patch work offensive line.
  • dmax
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 6,503
It doesnt matter how good the qb is, he cant throw a pass if hes laying on the turf. EVERYTHING STARTS UPFRONT IN THE TRENCHES

[ Edited by dmax on Apr 26, 2010 at 09:13:06 ]
Originally posted by tjd808185:
Originally posted by NinerGM:
Originally posted by tjd808185:
Originally posted by NinerGM:
Originally posted by GEEK:
Originally posted by OnTheClock:
The comments don't bother me in the least. I agree.

OL and defense can take a rookie to the conference championships (see: Roethlisberger and Sanchez). Change that to someone with experience.. and you've got a Super Bowl contender...

Not trying to imply anything. Just saying...

The dominant teams that remained dominant had stability and pro-bowl caliber QBs throughout the decade.

Colts - Manning
Steelers - Roethlisberger
Patriots - Brady
Eagles - McNabb
Packers - Favre/Rodgers

etc...etc...

The only exception I can think is the Ravens. But they have a DEEP backfield and consistently hit on their OL and D picks, which we haven't done yet.

I think Singletary's validity on the statement is somewhat true, but the probability to make the playoffs and dominate in the NFL without a legit QB at the helm for multiple years is less than 10%.

Steelers have had a legendary consistency at OL except maybe ONE season. For decades they're a top rushing team in the NFL.

Colts - Again awesome blocking. There's a reason Jeff Saturday is a household name.

Patriots - Again when they were dominant, they easily had the best OL in the league by far.

Eagles - Usually invest a 1st round pick every season in their lines - OL or DL. Philadelphia has always been a great pass-blocking team. Again, there's a reason John Runyan is a household name.

Packers - Again, not just their QB, but they've had a stable system and pretty good pass blocking over the years. When they don't it becomes clear.

Outside of Larry Allen, I can't name one 49er OL who became a household name in the last 10 years - and Allen wasn't drafted by this team so I wouldn't count him anyway. We can't name a guy because the 49ers haven't had a decent OL in a very, very long time which IMHO, explains why this offense hasn't been at the very least decent in a very long time.

You couldn't be more wrong on the Colts and you're only half right on the Patriots. Patriots have had a p*ss poor offensive line since their last Super Bowl victory and the Colts line was never anything more than average. There's a reason why those two teams can't run the football at all anymore.

Okay ... if you're going to call someone out, at least read what they're responding to...

Geek said:

The dominant teams that remained dominant had stability and pro-bowl caliber QBs throughout the decade.

So the overall argument is - Pro-bowl caliber QBs dominant over the past DECADE, not just last year or 2 years ago. So you're trying to argue Patriots and Colts haven't had good blocking throughout the DECADE? Seriously?

Any Niner fan would like to trade the Colts or Patriot line for the Niners line throughout the last decade?

I don't think the Colts ever had a great line. The picks don't back it up. You look at their history and you clearly see that weapons make and break the Colts. Yeah they've had 1 or 2 good offensive lineman over the years, but it's pretty much always been a patch work offensive line.
g

[ Edited by tjd808185 on Apr 26, 2010 at 09:11:07 ]
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.

Sing is wrong why cuz if it wasn't for Farve Vickings would never made it to the NFC title . if you don't have a qb you not going anywhere , cuz if RB gets hurt or OL can't push the other teams DL you are screwed if you don't have a QB that can't throw it deep and accurate. Welcome back 8 to 9 in the Box and 3 and out again ! No more spread O like last year where Alex can't function ! another 8-8 season.
Originally posted by tjd808185:
Originally posted by NinerGM:
Originally posted by tjd808185:
Originally posted by NinerGM:
Originally posted by GEEK:
Originally posted by OnTheClock:
The comments don't bother me in the least. I agree.

OL and defense can take a rookie to the conference championships (see: Roethlisberger and Sanchez). Change that to someone with experience.. and you've got a Super Bowl contender...

Not trying to imply anything. Just saying...

The dominant teams that remained dominant had stability and pro-bowl caliber QBs throughout the decade.

Colts - Manning
Steelers - Roethlisberger
Patriots - Brady
Eagles - McNabb
Packers - Favre/Rodgers

etc...etc...

The only exception I can think is the Ravens. But they have a DEEP backfield and consistently hit on their OL and D picks, which we haven't done yet.

I think Singletary's validity on the statement is somewhat true, but the probability to make the playoffs and dominate in the NFL without a legit QB at the helm for multiple years is less than 10%.

Steelers have had a legendary consistency at OL except maybe ONE season. For decades they're a top rushing team in the NFL.

Colts - Again awesome blocking. There's a reason Jeff Saturday is a household name.

Patriots - Again when they were dominant, they easily had the best OL in the league by far.

Eagles - Usually invest a 1st round pick every season in their lines - OL or DL. Philadelphia has always been a great pass-blocking team. Again, there's a reason John Runyan is a household name.

Packers - Again, not just their QB, but they've had a stable system and pretty good pass blocking over the years. When they don't it becomes clear.

Outside of Larry Allen, I can't name one 49er OL who became a household name in the last 10 years - and Allen wasn't drafted by this team so I wouldn't count him anyway. We can't name a guy because the 49ers haven't had a decent OL in a very, very long time which IMHO, explains why this offense hasn't been at the very least decent in a very long time.

You couldn't be more wrong on the Colts and you're only half right on the Patriots. Patriots have had a p*ss poor offensive line since their last Super Bowl victory and the Colts line was never anything more than average. There's a reason why those two teams can't run the football at all anymore.

Okay ... if you're going to call someone out, at least read what they're responding to...

Geek said:

The dominant teams that remained dominant had stability and pro-bowl caliber QBs throughout the decade.

So the overall argument is - Pro-bowl caliber QBs dominant over the past DECADE, not just last year or 2 years ago. So you're trying to argue Patriots and Colts haven't had good blocking throughout the DECADE? Seriously?

Any Niner fan would like to trade the Colts or Patriot line for the Niners line throughout the last decade?

I don't think the Colts ever had a great line. The picks don't back it up. You look at their history and you clearly see that weapons make and break the Colts. Yeah they've had 1 or 2 good offensive lineman over the years, but it's pretty much always been a patch work offensive line.

Wow. Just wow.
Colts Never Had A Great Line

[ Edited by NinerGM on Apr 26, 2010 at 09:20:28 ]
  • kem99
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 585
Originally posted by tommyncal:
Does anyone else find this statement by Singletary perplexing or even scary? "To me, I still believe the quarterback position is really important. But I don't think it's what they make it out to be. 'The quarterback is the most important guy"...' I don't believe that. I really don't."
Seems like every coach, analyst or whoever, that has anything to do with the NFL, has stated, at one time or another, it all starts with the QB. Just curious how many of you believe the same or are you worried about Sing's vision and plan for this team into the future? I understand it takes more than just a QB to win, but, if you had to choose between a franchise QB and franchise (insert any other position) . . . I'll take the QB

I think that's what you say when you don't have the franchise QB. Its also Singletary trying to take care of Smith and not heap all of the pressure of winning or losing on Smith.

History in the NFL shows that in order to have long term success, you have to have a franchise QB. Teams can succeed short term without a true franchise QB and can even win a SB if most everything breaks right in a season (e.g. Ravens, Bucs). What those teams have shown us though is that to have sustained runs of success, it all starts with the QB. Its why the 49ers made a run at Warner last year and have been mentioned every time a franchise type QB possibly becomes available.

Singletary's overall vision is bucking a lot of trends in the NFL. I have concerns that it won't work long term but at least the 49ers have a clear vision and plan about what they want to be. Its been quite a while since we have been able to say that.