There are 80 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Sing's opinion on the QB position . . .

  • Kolohe
  • Hall of Fame
  • Posts: 31,517
Well hes probably referring to his 80's Bears, when they had Payton and McMahon. McMahon didn't exactly put up elite numbers but they had a bad ass RB and defense.
Originally posted by NinerGM:
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.

It was always a finesse line relying on the stretch play, and Peyton Manning making in audible into a run. You take Peyton Manning from the Colts and that line is and was average at best. Great quarterbacks disguiese mediocre lines. They pick out blitzes and beat them, they scare teams away from blitzes. It's not a coincedence that a Tom Brady led offensive line gave up 15 sacks and then the following season that same line gave up 45 sacks.
Good Qb's put teams over the hump. Typically a good D and mediocre O can get you into the playoffs, but you need a good QB to make plays when there is a breakdown on offense or when your defense has a bad game.

Mark Sanchez is another example of a good defense that made a mediocre QB look good. Although, there were occasions when he made things happen to help out the team...
How did this become an "OL vs. QB" competition? The reason Sing has this attitude is that the team he played for and won a super bowl with--The '85 Bears--DIDN'T have QB as their most important position. They had an average QB with a great Defense and running game. He is out of touch with reality, though, because the truth is that QB weak teams winning super bowls are the exception and have required absurd dominance on the other side of the ball to do so. We have a good defense, yes, but I am sure everyone would agree it's not as good as the '85 Bears or the '00 Ravens. I liked this draft and thought that the OL was the way to go in the first--kudos. That said, we are set up to start from scratch after next year at the QB position should Alex fail. Had we picked up a QB this year we would have had the luxury of grooming them should the worst-case scenario occur. I like Davis, but it seems clear from what the coaches have said that he will take a while to get up to speed. Do we use Carr as a stopgap if Alex bombs and draft a QB next year? We would have to, and from most accounts he sounds like he isn't as good as Alex.....
  • Shemp
  • Hall of Fame
  • Posts: 26,745
I don't agree with Sing's assessment. Does he want us to be like the Baltimore Ravens SB run? That's nice, but having a QB like Manning, Brady, Brees, Warner, Phillips, Roethlisberger, Palmer, etc trumps having a Trent Dilfer like QB (which we do: Dilfer career rating - 70.2; A. Smith career rating - 69.2) every time. Look at how much better off the Ravens are with Flacco now.

You have a great QB, and the rest of the team gets better. You have an average QB (Smith is very average), and the rest of the team has to compensate.

[ Edited by Shaj on Apr 26, 2010 at 10:43:30 ]
Originally posted by tjd808185:
Originally posted by NinerGM:
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.

It was always a finesse line relying on the stretch play, and Peyton Manning making in audible into a run. You take Peyton Manning from the Colts and that line is and was average at best. Great quarterbacks disguiese mediocre lines. They pick out blitzes and beat them, they scare teams away from blitzes. It's not a coincedence that a Tom Brady led offensive line gave up 15 sacks and then the following season that same line gave up 45 sacks.

I haven't read this anywhere or even seen this on a consistent basis in the NFL. If anything it's the other way around. Great lines disguise bad average QB and turn them into pro-bowlers. That same Patriot line had injuries the time it gave up 45 sacks.

I see and respect your point, but just strongly disagree.
Originally posted by Shaj:
I don't agree with Sing's assessment. Does he want us to be like the Baltimore Ravens SB run? That's nice, but having a QB like Manning, Brady, Brees, Warner, Phillips, Roethlisberger, Palmer, etc trumps having a Trent Dilfer like QB (which we do: Dilfer career rating - 70.2; A. Smith career rating - 69.2) every time. Look at how much better off the Ravens are with Flacco now.

You have a great QB, and the rest of the team gets better. You have an average QB (Smith is very average), and the rest of the team has to compensate.

What he fails to see is that the Ravens of yesteryear was a ONE hit wonder. With all the changes made to protect the passer and the receivers, it has become easier to score points through the air in today's NFL. That's why you see today that the more successful teams (consistently) are the passing teams.

I guess we'll see how long this smash mouth football philosophy is going to last!
It may make him but it could also break him!
Originally posted by Kauaiguy:
Originally posted by Shaj:
I don't agree with Sing's assessment. Does he want us to be like the Baltimore Ravens SB run? That's nice, but having a QB like Manning, Brady, Brees, Warner, Phillips, Roethlisberger, Palmer, etc trumps having a Trent Dilfer like QB (which we do: Dilfer career rating - 70.2; A. Smith career rating - 69.2) every time. Look at how much better off the Ravens are with Flacco now.

You have a great QB, and the rest of the team gets better. You have an average QB (Smith is very average), and the rest of the team has to compensate.

What he fails to see is that the Ravens of yesteryear was a ONE hit wonder. With all the changes made to protect the passer and the receivers, it has become easier to score points through the air in today's NFL. That's why you see today that the more successful teams (consistently) are the passing teams.

I guess we'll see how long this smash mouth football philosophy is going to last!
It may make him but it could also break him!

I don't agree with this, but the Jets are a good example. Running game (#1 NFL), defense (#1 NFL), and the QB makes a couple of key throws.

I find it interesting that everyone is hammering this approach for a team that haven't been to the playoffs and still trying to get there. I'm just saying before we start saying "this is the answer", let's get there first and then talk about what will move us past the next hump.
Please, Zoners, don't be scared. Don't jump off the bridge. I can't ask you not to overreact, because this is the WebZone!!
Originally posted by NinerGM:
Originally posted by Kauaiguy:
Originally posted by Shaj:
I don't agree with Sing's assessment. Does he want us to be like the Baltimore Ravens SB run? That's nice, but having a QB like Manning, Brady, Brees, Warner, Phillips, Roethlisberger, Palmer, etc trumps having a Trent Dilfer like QB (which we do: Dilfer career rating - 70.2; A. Smith career rating - 69.2) every time. Look at how much better off the Ravens are with Flacco now.

You have a great QB, and the rest of the team gets better. You have an average QB (Smith is very average), and the rest of the team has to compensate.

What he fails to see is that the Ravens of yesteryear was a ONE hit wonder. With all the changes made to protect the passer and the receivers, it has become easier to score points through the air in today's NFL. That's why you see today that the more successful teams (consistently) are the passing teams.

I guess we'll see how long this smash mouth football philosophy is going to last!
It may make him but it could also break him!

I don't agree with this, but the Jets are a good example. Running game (#1 NFL), defense (#1 NFL), and the QB makes a couple of key throws.

I find it interesting that everyone is hammering this approach for a team that haven't been to the playoffs and still trying to get there. I'm just saying before we start saying "this is the answer", let's get there first and then talk about what will move us past the next hump.

And who beat them in the playoffs? Peyton Manning ... a passing team? ... and who won the Superbowl? Drew Brees ... a passing team? I rest my case!
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

I think he could have won on those teams, Smith has alot more skill then Johnson/Dilfer combined. I dont know about the steelers, Ben does have that Favre like "Mavrick" to make something out of nothing...
Originally posted by gold49er2183:
I think it starts with the o-line. a good o-line can make a bad qb look great. no hate on tom brady but were would he be if he had a bad o-line his whole career

I can agree it starts with the line, but there have been many QBs behind good O-Lines that haven't done a damn thing. Looking at Brady, you can ask where he'd be without a good line, but where do you think their team would be without a great QB? Does anyone really believe they would have become a dynasty in the 2000s without Brady? I don't think so, not even with the best line in the business. I'll admit Brady isn't the best example because I fully believe Brady's success is due in large part to Bellichek's system, but at the same time, I don't believe they win 3 Super Bowls without him at QB. Peyton Manning and Drew Brees might be better examples, because without them, their teams don't win the championships they did.
Originally posted by Kauaiguy:
Originally posted by NinerGM:
Originally posted by Kauaiguy:
Originally posted by Shaj:
I don't agree with Sing's assessment. Does he want us to be like the Baltimore Ravens SB run? That's nice, but having a QB like Manning, Brady, Brees, Warner, Phillips, Roethlisberger, Palmer, etc trumps having a Trent Dilfer like QB (which we do: Dilfer career rating - 70.2; A. Smith career rating - 69.2) every time. Look at how much better off the Ravens are with Flacco now.

You have a great QB, and the rest of the team gets better. You have an average QB (Smith is very average), and the rest of the team has to compensate.

What he fails to see is that the Ravens of yesteryear was a ONE hit wonder. With all the changes made to protect the passer and the receivers, it has become easier to score points through the air in today's NFL. That's why you see today that the more successful teams (consistently) are the passing teams.

I guess we'll see how long this smash mouth football philosophy is going to last!
It may make him but it could also break him!

I don't agree with this, but the Jets are a good example. Running game (#1 NFL), defense (#1 NFL), and the QB makes a couple of key throws.

I find it interesting that everyone is hammering this approach for a team that haven't been to the playoffs and still trying to get there. I'm just saying before we start saying "this is the answer", let's get there first and then talk about what will move us past the next hump.

And who beat them in the playoffs? Peyton Manning ... a passing team? ... and who won the Superbowl? Drew Brees ... a passing team? I rest my case!

Bro, there's no case to rest. The Packers and Cardinals are both passing teams. So are the Eagles. So are the Cowboys. Yes passing is good, but it's not the only way to win.

The 49ers haven't gotten to the play-offs. We have to do that first, then actually reach the conference champs. Let's argue about what's better when we actually get to the playoffs first. It has yet to be dis-proven Sing's approach will not work.

Can we win something first before saying "this approach won't take us to the Super Bowl?" It's like throwing away the $10,000 lottery ticket because you didn't win the $100 million jackpot.



[ Edited by NinerGM on Apr 26, 2010 at 11:58:01 ]
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."


I couldn't agree more (and have said it many times here) with coach. The QB is the most dependent player on the field, playing the ultimate team sport. He has to rely on so many other guys to be able to do his job well. More so than anyone in sports.

A very good team with a crappy QB will get a lot further than a crappy team with a very good QB.
Originally posted by cape49er:
We're good!! usually quarterbacks get it in their 2nd Year in the league, i guess we're hoping he'll finally get it in YEAR 5!!!! they will win NOTHING until they improve this position.


You don't think Alex was more than "getting it" in his second year? Especially as the year went on?

I would say his play and numbers were more than admirable on a team with poor passblocking, not much for weapons/receivers (especially after Bryant disappeared), considering he was a 2nd year player.