There are 89 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Sing's opinion on the QB position . . .

Originally posted by Waldor:
This article says it all.
http://www.49erswebzone.com/content/commentary/view.php?id=832

I am worried, really worried....

thats a s**tty article
Originally posted by tjd808185:
Originally posted by Ripamaru:
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



The QB is not the most important. This is a fact that many fail to accept.

Offensive line is by far the most important part of the team. Without a solid offensive line there isnt a single QB on the planet that can succeed at the NFL level.

There have been super bowl champions without a good QB (Trent Dilfer), There have been champions without a good RB, Without legit WR's, there have even been champs with poor defense (rams).

There has NEVER been a championship team with a crap O-line. EVER.

You should NEVER start to build a team with a QB. It always fails. (Couch, Carr etc.) All you will get is the QB killed. Why most have yet to figure this out is beyond me.

Peyton Manning came into the league with a great LT already in place. The proper mold would is to start building the o-line first. Once that is solid then and only then do you start thinking QB.

Think of it this way. If you have a GREAT offensive line it has a trickle down effect. You can get by without a great QB because he will have all day to sit back and pick his spots. The line will open up huge holes for the running game lowering the need for a great RB. Any half decent WR can get open every play if he has enough time.
The great O-line also makes the defense better just by keeping them off the field with clock control. A fresh defense is HUGE.

The QB by himself cannot do any of those things in the NFL.

Offensive lines don't make mediocre quarterbacks great. You can't give me one recent scenario when a below average quarterback turned into a great quarterback because of an offensive line. Troy Aikman might be the closest thing you can come to, but he was the 1st pick in the draft going to real bad team, and he developed in year 4 not year 16 like Alex.

Everybody points to Baltimore and Trent Dilfer. Baltimore arguably had the best defense of all time, and a 2,000 yard rusher. Good luck trying to recreate that. Yeah you're right you can win without a QB in this league, but your odds aren't that great. Look at Baltimore. Yeah they got a Super Bowl, but they severely underachieved given how dominant that defense was and how good that offensive line was. They had alot of 8-8 years during that stretch.

First of all if you think about it, this is actually Alex's 4th year and dude, you're missing the point. A QB by himself can't win games, it takes a TEAM. Here's an example. Our 2nd game vs Seattle last year. Delanie Walker has a chance to come up with a TD on 4th down and he drops it (was also a PI), special teams gives the ball away on a bad pitch, Frank Gore fumbles the ball while in scoring position, VD and Crabs drop passes all game and key drops in the endzone, we had poor field position all game, poor playcalling. These are things that good TEAMS can not do. So hopefully we've addressed some of those things with the draft and FA. I can see our field position being helped out with some of our additions and also our playcalling could open up a lot more. In the end it's not about the QB see Seattle game (it's the most telling one), it's about the TEAM. If you can't see that, it's really sad that we have 9er fans such as you.
Originally posted by tjd808185:
Originally posted by Ripamaru:
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



The QB is not the most important. This is a fact that many fail to accept.

Offensive line is by far the most important part of the team. Without a solid offensive line there isnt a single QB on the planet that can succeed at the NFL level.

There have been super bowl champions without a good QB (Trent Dilfer), There have been champions without a good RB, Without legit WR's, there have even been champs with poor defense (rams).

There has NEVER been a championship team with a crap O-line. EVER.

You should NEVER start to build a team with a QB. It always fails. (Couch, Carr etc.) All you will get is the QB killed. Why most have yet to figure this out is beyond me.

Peyton Manning came into the league with a great LT already in place. The proper mold would is to start building the o-line first. Once that is solid then and only then do you start thinking QB.

Think of it this way. If you have a GREAT offensive line it has a trickle down effect. You can get by without a great QB because he will have all day to sit back and pick his spots. The line will open up huge holes for the running game lowering the need for a great RB. Any half decent WR can get open every play if he has enough time.
The great O-line also makes the defense better just by keeping them off the field with clock control. A fresh defense is HUGE.

The QB by himself cannot do any of those things in the NFL.

Offensive lines don't make mediocre quarterbacks great. You can't give me one recent scenario when a below average quarterback turned into a great quarterback because of an offensive line. Troy Aikman might be the closest thing you can come to, but he was the 1st pick in the draft going to real bad team, and he developed in year 4 not year 16 like Alex.

Everybody points to Baltimore and Trent Dilfer. Baltimore arguably had the best defense of all time, and a 2,000 yard rusher. Good luck trying to recreate that. Yeah you're right you can win without a QB in this league, but your odds aren't that great. Look at Baltimore. Yeah they got a Super Bowl, but they severely underachieved given how dominant that defense was and how good that offensive line was. They had alot of 8-8 years during that stretch.

Tom Brady during NE's first Super Bowl run. He wasn't really anything spectacular but he had a pretty good line in front of him and a good defense that gave him opportunities. No, even the greatest line wont make a poor QB better but that's oversimplifying. A bad line line will certainly mitigate a good QB (see NE vs NYG Super Bowl for an example).

I don't know about anyone else, but my argument isn't that Alex is a world beater that's being held back by his O-Line. I'm asking how despite it being fact that we've had one of the crappiest lines in recent NFL history, how can you accurately judge?

And let's not limit it to the O-line. You can't forget about the overall poor talent on the team (save Gore), and the turnovers at OC. You don't have to be a fan of Smith, but even a staunch critic has to admit that he was never really given a chance to succeed.
Originally posted by baltien:
Originally posted by tjd808185:
Originally posted by Ripamaru:
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



The QB is not the most important. This is a fact that many fail to accept.

Offensive line is by far the most important part of the team. Without a solid offensive line there isnt a single QB on the planet that can succeed at the NFL level.

There have been super bowl champions without a good QB (Trent Dilfer), There have been champions without a good RB, Without legit WR's, there have even been champs with poor defense (rams).

There has NEVER been a championship team with a crap O-line. EVER.

You should NEVER start to build a team with a QB. It always fails. (Couch, Carr etc.) All you will get is the QB killed. Why most have yet to figure this out is beyond me.

Peyton Manning came into the league with a great LT already in place. The proper mold would is to start building the o-line first. Once that is solid then and only then do you start thinking QB.

Think of it this way. If you have a GREAT offensive line it has a trickle down effect. You can get by without a great QB because he will have all day to sit back and pick his spots. The line will open up huge holes for the running game lowering the need for a great RB. Any half decent WR can get open every play if he has enough time.
The great O-line also makes the defense better just by keeping them off the field with clock control. A fresh defense is HUGE.

The QB by himself cannot do any of those things in the NFL.

Offensive lines don't make mediocre quarterbacks great. You can't give me one recent scenario when a below average quarterback turned into a great quarterback because of an offensive line. Troy Aikman might be the closest thing you can come to, but he was the 1st pick in the draft going to real bad team, and he developed in year 4 not year 16 like Alex.

Everybody points to Baltimore and Trent Dilfer. Baltimore arguably had the best defense of all time, and a 2,000 yard rusher. Good luck trying to recreate that. Yeah you're right you can win without a QB in this league, but your odds aren't that great. Look at Baltimore. Yeah they got a Super Bowl, but they severely underachieved given how dominant that defense was and how good that offensive line was. They had alot of 8-8 years during that stretch.

Tom Brady during NE's first Super Bowl run. He wasn't really anything spectacular but he had a pretty good line in front of him and a good defense that gave him opportunities. No, even the greatest line wont make a poor QB better but that's oversimplifying. A bad line line will certainly mitigate a good QB (see NE vs NYG Super Bowl for an example).

I don't know about anyone else, but my argument isn't that Alex is a world beater that's being held back by his O-Line. I'm asking how despite it being fact that we've had one of the crappiest lines in recent NFL history, how can you accurately judge?

And let's not limit it to the O-line. You can't forget about the overall poor talent on the team (save Gore), and the turnovers at OC. You don't have to be a fan of Smith, but even a staunch critic has to admit that he was never really given a chance to succeed.

I'm asking people to name me a below average QB that was turned into a Pro Bowl QB because of a line.

Tom Brady was never a below average QB. Drew Bledsoe was a Pro Bowl QB and he stunk it up under that line. They were 0-2 before Brady took over and a bad football team the year before.

Yeah it was a great O Line, and because of Tom's inexpierence the running game and defense carried the team, but Tom was never a below average QB he was just a great QB in the making. Sort of like Big Ben with the Steelers.

The Giants is a great example of a team winning without a great offensive line. There's nothing special about that line. Nothing. Bunch of mid round picks, no anchor tackles.
Originally posted by tjd808185:
Originally posted by Ripamaru:
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



The QB is not the most important. This is a fact that many fail to accept.

Offensive line is by far the most important part of the team. Without a solid offensive line there isnt a single QB on the planet that can succeed at the NFL level.

There have been super bowl champions without a good QB (Trent Dilfer), There have been champions without a good RB, Without legit WR's, there have even been champs with poor defense (rams).

There has NEVER been a championship team with a crap O-line. EVER.

You should NEVER start to build a team with a QB. It always fails. (Couch, Carr etc.) All you will get is the QB killed. Why most have yet to figure this out is beyond me.

Peyton Manning came into the league with a great LT already in place. The proper mold would is to start building the o-line first. Once that is solid then and only then do you start thinking QB.

Think of it this way. If you have a GREAT offensive line it has a trickle down effect. You can get by without a great QB because he will have all day to sit back and pick his spots. The line will open up huge holes for the running game lowering the need for a great RB. Any half decent WR can get open every play if he has enough time.
The great O-line also makes the defense better just by keeping them off the field with clock control. A fresh defense is HUGE.

The QB by himself cannot do any of those things in the NFL.

Offensive lines don't make mediocre quarterbacks great. You can't give me one recent scenario when a below average quarterback turned into a great quarterback because of an offensive line. Troy Aikman might be the closest thing you can come to, but he was the 1st pick in the draft going to real bad team, and he developed in year 4 not year 16 like Alex.

Everybody points to Baltimore and Trent Dilfer. Baltimore arguably had the best defense of all time, and a 2,000 yard rusher. Good luck trying to recreate that. Yeah you're right you can win without a QB in this league, but your odds aren't that great. Look at Baltimore. Yeah they got a Super Bowl, but they severely underachieved given how dominant that defense was and how good that offensive line was. They had alot of 8-8 years during that stretch.

I don't think anyone is talking about putting in a crappy qb and expecting to have the o-line bail him out. But the o-line can certainly make an average NFL qb into a good one. Washington back in the Joe Gibbs days had done it with Rippien and others. The Giants had Phil Simms, slow average, he had the advantage of knowing the system, a good line, running game and defense. Pittsburg Steelers in the 70's had Bradshaw, as average as you can get, great o-line and defense.

Joe Gibbs is the prime example of this. He always seems to plug in a journeyman qb into his system that preference to the running game and more often than not had success.

[ Edited by qnnhan7 on Apr 27, 2010 at 08:24:29 ]
Originally posted by qnnhan7:
Originally posted by tjd808185:
Originally posted by Ripamaru:
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



The QB is not the most important. This is a fact that many fail to accept.

Offensive line is by far the most important part of the team. Without a solid offensive line there isnt a single QB on the planet that can succeed at the NFL level.

There have been super bowl champions without a good QB (Trent Dilfer), There have been champions without a good RB, Without legit WR's, there have even been champs with poor defense (rams).

There has NEVER been a championship team with a crap O-line. EVER.

You should NEVER start to build a team with a QB. It always fails. (Couch, Carr etc.) All you will get is the QB killed. Why most have yet to figure this out is beyond me.

Peyton Manning came into the league with a great LT already in place. The proper mold would is to start building the o-line first. Once that is solid then and only then do you start thinking QB.

Think of it this way. If you have a GREAT offensive line it has a trickle down effect. You can get by without a great QB because he will have all day to sit back and pick his spots. The line will open up huge holes for the running game lowering the need for a great RB. Any half decent WR can get open every play if he has enough time.
The great O-line also makes the defense better just by keeping them off the field with clock control. A fresh defense is HUGE.

The QB by himself cannot do any of those things in the NFL.

Offensive lines don't make mediocre quarterbacks great. You can't give me one recent scenario when a below average quarterback turned into a great quarterback because of an offensive line. Troy Aikman might be the closest thing you can come to, but he was the 1st pick in the draft going to real bad team, and he developed in year 4 not year 16 like Alex.

Everybody points to Baltimore and Trent Dilfer. Baltimore arguably had the best defense of all time, and a 2,000 yard rusher. Good luck trying to recreate that. Yeah you're right you can win without a QB in this league, but your odds aren't that great. Look at Baltimore. Yeah they got a Super Bowl, but they severely underachieved given how dominant that defense was and how good that offensive line was. They had alot of 8-8 years during that stretch.

I don't think anyone is talking about putting in a crappy qb and expecting to have the o-line bail him out. But the o-line can certainly make an average NFL qb into a good one. Washington back in the Joe Gibbs days had done it with Rippien and others. The Giants had Phil Simms, slow average, he had the advantage of knowing he system, a good line, running game and defense. Pittsburg Steelers in the 70's had Bradshaw, as average as you can get, great o-line and defense.

The league has changed since 1982. I prefer recent examples when free agency actually effected a team's lineup. If your going back 20 -30 years to prove your point you have a huge problem. Rypien's a good example I mentioned Grbac and Green in Kansas City. That's the best I could think of.
Originally posted by tjd808185:
Originally posted by qnnhan7:
Originally posted by tjd808185:
Originally posted by Ripamaru:
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



The QB is not the most important. This is a fact that many fail to accept.

Offensive line is by far the most important part of the team. Without a solid offensive line there isnt a single QB on the planet that can succeed at the NFL level.

There have been super bowl champions without a good QB (Trent Dilfer), There have been champions without a good RB, Without legit WR's, there have even been champs with poor defense (rams).

There has NEVER been a championship team with a crap O-line. EVER.

You should NEVER start to build a team with a QB. It always fails. (Couch, Carr etc.) All you will get is the QB killed. Why most have yet to figure this out is beyond me.

Peyton Manning came into the league with a great LT already in place. The proper mold would is to start building the o-line first. Once that is solid then and only then do you start thinking QB.

Think of it this way. If you have a GREAT offensive line it has a trickle down effect. You can get by without a great QB because he will have all day to sit back and pick his spots. The line will open up huge holes for the running game lowering the need for a great RB. Any half decent WR can get open every play if he has enough time.
The great O-line also makes the defense better just by keeping them off the field with clock control. A fresh defense is HUGE.

The QB by himself cannot do any of those things in the NFL.

Offensive lines don't make mediocre quarterbacks great. You can't give me one recent scenario when a below average quarterback turned into a great quarterback because of an offensive line. Troy Aikman might be the closest thing you can come to, but he was the 1st pick in the draft going to real bad team, and he developed in year 4 not year 16 like Alex.

Everybody points to Baltimore and Trent Dilfer. Baltimore arguably had the best defense of all time, and a 2,000 yard rusher. Good luck trying to recreate that. Yeah you're right you can win without a QB in this league, but your odds aren't that great. Look at Baltimore. Yeah they got a Super Bowl, but they severely underachieved given how dominant that defense was and how good that offensive line was. They had alot of 8-8 years during that stretch.

I don't think anyone is talking about putting in a crappy qb and expecting to have the o-line bail him out. But the o-line can certainly make an average NFL qb into a good one. Washington back in the Joe Gibbs days had done it with Rippien and others. The Giants had Phil Simms, slow average, he had the advantage of knowing he system, a good line, running game and defense. Pittsburg Steelers in the 70's had Bradshaw, as average as you can get, great o-line and defense.

The league has changed since 1982. I prefer recent examples when free agency actually effected a team's lineup. If your going back 20 -30 years to prove your point you have a huge problem. Rypien's a good example I mentioned Grbac and Green in Kansas City. That's the best I could think of.

My point is that it worked though out history of the NFL. Recently, off the top Brad Johnson of Tampa Bay. I'm sure I can find more if I take the time to look further. But let me try to forget that you ask for example of putting average qb into good o-line but now request to narrow those example into recent ones.
Originally posted by tjd808185:
Originally posted by baltien:
Originally posted by tjd808185:
Originally posted by Ripamaru:
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



The QB is not the most important. This is a fact that many fail to accept.

Offensive line is by far the most important part of the team. Without a solid offensive line there isnt a single QB on the planet that can succeed at the NFL level.

There have been super bowl champions without a good QB (Trent Dilfer), There have been champions without a good RB, Without legit WR's, there have even been champs with poor defense (rams).

There has NEVER been a championship team with a crap O-line. EVER.

You should NEVER start to build a team with a QB. It always fails. (Couch, Carr etc.) All you will get is the QB killed. Why most have yet to figure this out is beyond me.

Peyton Manning came into the league with a great LT already in place. The proper mold would is to start building the o-line first. Once that is solid then and only then do you start thinking QB.

Think of it this way. If you have a GREAT offensive line it has a trickle down effect. You can get by without a great QB because he will have all day to sit back and pick his spots. The line will open up huge holes for the running game lowering the need for a great RB. Any half decent WR can get open every play if he has enough time.
The great O-line also makes the defense better just by keeping them off the field with clock control. A fresh defense is HUGE.

The QB by himself cannot do any of those things in the NFL.

Offensive lines don't make mediocre quarterbacks great. You can't give me one recent scenario when a below average quarterback turned into a great quarterback because of an offensive line. Troy Aikman might be the closest thing you can come to, but he was the 1st pick in the draft going to real bad team, and he developed in year 4 not year 16 like Alex.

Everybody points to Baltimore and Trent Dilfer. Baltimore arguably had the best defense of all time, and a 2,000 yard rusher. Good luck trying to recreate that. Yeah you're right you can win without a QB in this league, but your odds aren't that great. Look at Baltimore. Yeah they got a Super Bowl, but they severely underachieved given how dominant that defense was and how good that offensive line was. They had alot of 8-8 years during that stretch.

Tom Brady during NE's first Super Bowl run. He wasn't really anything spectacular but he had a pretty good line in front of him and a good defense that gave him opportunities. No, even the greatest line wont make a poor QB better but that's oversimplifying. A bad line line will certainly mitigate a good QB (see NE vs NYG Super Bowl for an example).

I don't know about anyone else, but my argument isn't that Alex is a world beater that's being held back by his O-Line. I'm asking how despite it being fact that we've had one of the crappiest lines in recent NFL history, how can you accurately judge?

And let's not limit it to the O-line. You can't forget about the overall poor talent on the team (save Gore), and the turnovers at OC. You don't have to be a fan of Smith, but even a staunch critic has to admit that he was never really given a chance to succeed.

I'm asking people to name me a below average QB that was turned into a Pro Bowl QB because of a line.

Tom Brady was never a below average QB. Drew Bledsoe was a Pro Bowl QB and he stunk it up under that line. They were 0-2 before Brady took over and a bad football team the year before.

Yeah it was a great O Line, and because of Tom's inexpierence the running game and defense carried the team, but Tom was never a below average QB he was just a great QB in the making. Sort of like Big Ben with the Steelers.

The Giants is a great example of a team winning without a great offensive line. There's nothing special about that line. Nothing. Bunch of mid round picks, no anchor tackles.

What about Trent Green as an example? Was a mediocre QB before he went to Kansas City and had a great O-Line there with Pro Bowl-Linemen Roaf and Shields, a great running back in Priest Holmes and a Pro Bowl tight end in Tony Gonzalez (that setup sound familiar?).

Trent Green put up great stats behind Roaf and Shields and went to two Pro Bowls or so. Yeah, his Chiefs never won the Super Bowl, but I think that was because they never had a Defense.
I think many of you are getting caught up in the wrong details. It is true that simply having a good QB will not guarantee success, just as having a mediocre one doesn't guarantee failure. A good OL is important either way--that is not really up for debate. The big issue for us as 49ers fans is that we have neither a great QB (yet, at least) nor a great OL (hopefully we just changed that). Having both dramatically improves our chances, and pretending that the QB isn't important--as Sing is doing--is not helpful. We are on the cusp of actual success for the first time in a decade and it is at risk of being undone very quickly should Smith regress. Not being able to pass effectively will be a huge problem, no matter how well we run block. I am rooting that Smith takes a quantum leap forward, but if he doesn't and we are stuck in neutral offensively, then we need a plan B and guess what--Sing's lack of attention to the QB position means that we don't have one. Grooming a young QB this year was critical to ensure that we hedged our bets at that position; Davis may be that guy, but with a learning disability and zero reps that is looking unlikely in the near term. IF Smith fails, be prepared for us to draft a young QB again next year and throw him into the fire....that does not likely translate into lots of wins, and we may be sitting watching as a really good defense and RB is wasted waiting for this new guy to learn the ropes.
this explains why Smith is still around.
  • Kolohe
  • Hall of Fame
  • Posts: 31,116
Originally posted by qnnhan7:
Originally posted by Kolohe:
Originally posted by excelsior:
I want to respond to those making the argument that a top flight Qb is essential to get through the playoffs and into the SB. Names like Manning, Brady, Farve, Warner, Rivers, McNabb and Brees are frequently invoked to support that argument.

So let's look at the QB's rating when their team lost in the playoffs this last year:
Palmer - 58.3
McNabb - 68.5
Brady - 49.1
Rogers - 121.3
Warner - 73.4
Flacco - 48.4
Romo - 66.1
Rivers - 76.9
Sanchez - 93.3
Favre - 70.0
Manning - 88.5
Average = 74.0

Other than Rogers (121.3) and Sanchez (93.3) the other top QBs stunk it up in the playoffs. And it also shows that even with the good QB play of Rogers and Snachez, their teams still lost. The lesson is exactly what Sing is saying: it is foolishness to neglect the building of your entire team and it takes a complete team to win, especially if your great QB is struggling that day.

As for Alex, of the 11 games he played in last season, he only had 4 games in which his rating was lower than 74.0. Indeed, his best 7 games were 118.6, 88.8, 74.7, 96.8, 97.5 and 97.6. Considering the weaknesses he had to deal with, he did very well.

Finally, while we should be heartened by our first two picks, reality tells us that we will struggle for awhile until these newcomers have learned the techniques and gained the experience to be dependable and dominant. Yes, I am giving Alex another EXCUSE!

But you see, those QB's come through went it counts, help won games that took their team to the next level. Comparing QB stats when teams lose is pretty much meaningless.

You're dismissing a good post. It backed up the argument that even with a good to great qb, you also must have a good offense and a good defense to give that team a chance to get it done. And those teams listed couldn't get it done despite having HOF type qb because they didn't have an overall good enough team. Or you can say the great HOF qb suck ass in that particular attempt to get to the SB. Either way it's backing up the argument whether you have a good qb or a good team, you certainly need both. And this comes back to what Singletary is saying. That the qb is no more important than the other part of the team when you're trying to get to the SB, because you need both a good team and a good qb to get there.

I won't deny that a good defense and running game will win a playoff game or Super Bowl. But what these good to great QB's do, is CONSTANTLY help get their teams reach the next level.

After Tampa and Baltimore won their Super Bowls, how many times did they reach the Super Bowl after that, or shoot, how many times did they reach the NFC Championship after that??

Tell me why is Joe Montana known as the greatest of all time??

LOL, we have two Hall Of Fame QB's that brought us a dynasty. Than all of a sudden, when coach Sing says, the QB position is not as important as everyone thinks, you people go against the grain. How many Super Bowls did Chicago win again??
Originally posted by qnnhan7:
Originally posted by tjd808185:
Originally posted by qnnhan7:
Originally posted by tjd808185:
Originally posted by Ripamaru:
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



The QB is not the most important. This is a fact that many fail to accept.

Offensive line is by far the most important part of the team. Without a solid offensive line there isnt a single QB on the planet that can succeed at the NFL level.

There have been super bowl champions without a good QB (Trent Dilfer), There have been champions without a good RB, Without legit WR's, there have even been champs with poor defense (rams).

There has NEVER been a championship team with a crap O-line. EVER.

You should NEVER start to build a team with a QB. It always fails. (Couch, Carr etc.) All you will get is the QB killed. Why most have yet to figure this out is beyond me.

Peyton Manning came into the league with a great LT already in place. The proper mold would is to start building the o-line first. Once that is solid then and only then do you start thinking QB.

Think of it this way. If you have a GREAT offensive line it has a trickle down effect. You can get by without a great QB because he will have all day to sit back and pick his spots. The line will open up huge holes for the running game lowering the need for a great RB. Any half decent WR can get open every play if he has enough time.
The great O-line also makes the defense better just by keeping them off the field with clock control. A fresh defense is HUGE.

The QB by himself cannot do any of those things in the NFL.

Offensive lines don't make mediocre quarterbacks great. You can't give me one recent scenario when a below average quarterback turned into a great quarterback because of an offensive line. Troy Aikman might be the closest thing you can come to, but he was the 1st pick in the draft going to real bad team, and he developed in year 4 not year 16 like Alex.

Everybody points to Baltimore and Trent Dilfer. Baltimore arguably had the best defense of all time, and a 2,000 yard rusher. Good luck trying to recreate that. Yeah you're right you can win without a QB in this league, but your odds aren't that great. Look at Baltimore. Yeah they got a Super Bowl, but they severely underachieved given how dominant that defense was and how good that offensive line was. They had alot of 8-8 years during that stretch.

I don't think anyone is talking about putting in a crappy qb and expecting to have the o-line bail him out. But the o-line can certainly make an average NFL qb into a good one. Washington back in the Joe Gibbs days had done it with Rippien and others. The Giants had Phil Simms, slow average, he had the advantage of knowing he system, a good line, running game and defense. Pittsburg Steelers in the 70's had Bradshaw, as average as you can get, great o-line and defense.

The league has changed since 1982. I prefer recent examples when free agency actually effected a team's lineup. If your going back 20 -30 years to prove your point you have a huge problem. Rypien's a good example I mentioned Grbac and Green in Kansas City. That's the best I could think of.

My point is that it worked though out history of the NFL. Recently, off the top Brad Johnson of Tampa Bay. I'm sure I can find more if I take the time to look further. But let me try to forget that you ask for example of putting average qb into good o-line but now request to narrow those example into recent ones.

Brad Johnson was a Pro Bowl QB before he went to Tampa. Plus Tampa didn't have a great offensive line. Top 5 defense all time and good two headed rushing attack but doesn't mean you have a great offensive line. That Super Bowl Giants team had a magnificent rushing attack, but their line isn't anything special. No anchor tackles, and it's composed of a bunch of mid round picks.

LOL at you getting smart with me. I clearly said give me one recent example in my original post.

[ Edited by tjd808185 on Apr 27, 2010 at 09:33:55 ]
Originally posted by qnnhan7:
Originally posted by tjd808185:
Originally posted by qnnhan7:
Originally posted by tjd808185:
Originally posted by Ripamaru:
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



The QB is not the most important. This is a fact that many fail to accept.

Offensive line is by far the most important part of the team. Without a solid offensive line there isnt a single QB on the planet that can succeed at the NFL level.

There have been super bowl champions without a good QB (Trent Dilfer), There have been champions without a good RB, Without legit WR's, there have even been champs with poor defense (rams).

There has NEVER been a championship team with a crap O-line. EVER.

You should NEVER start to build a team with a QB. It always fails. (Couch, Carr etc.) All you will get is the QB killed. Why most have yet to figure this out is beyond me.

Peyton Manning came into the league with a great LT already in place. The proper mold would is to start building the o-line first. Once that is solid then and only then do you start thinking QB.

Think of it this way. If you have a GREAT offensive line it has a trickle down effect. You can get by without a great QB because he will have all day to sit back and pick his spots. The line will open up huge holes for the running game lowering the need for a great RB. Any half decent WR can get open every play if he has enough time.
The great O-line also makes the defense better just by keeping them off the field with clock control. A fresh defense is HUGE.

The QB by himself cannot do any of those things in the NFL.

Offensive lines don't make mediocre quarterbacks great. You can't give me one recent scenario when a below average quarterback turned into a great quarterback because of an offensive line. Troy Aikman might be the closest thing you can come to, but he was the 1st pick in the draft going to real bad team, and he developed in year 4 not year 16 like Alex.

Everybody points to Baltimore and Trent Dilfer. Baltimore arguably had the best defense of all time, and a 2,000 yard rusher. Good luck trying to recreate that. Yeah you're right you can win without a QB in this league, but your odds aren't that great. Look at Baltimore. Yeah they got a Super Bowl, but they severely underachieved given how dominant that defense was and how good that offensive line was. They had alot of 8-8 years during that stretch.

I don't think anyone is talking about putting in a crappy qb and expecting to have the o-line bail him out. But the o-line can certainly make an average NFL qb into a good one. Washington back in the Joe Gibbs days had done it with Rippien and others. The Giants had Phil Simms, slow average, he had the advantage of knowing he system, a good line, running game and defense. Pittsburg Steelers in the 70's had Bradshaw, as average as you can get, great o-line and defense.

The league has changed since 1982. I prefer recent examples when free agency actually effected a team's lineup. If your going back 20 -30 years to prove your point you have a huge problem. Rypien's a good example I mentioned Grbac and Green in Kansas City. That's the best I could think of.

My point is that it worked though out history of the NFL. Recently, off the top Brad Johnson of Tampa Bay. I'm sure I can find more if I take the time to look further. But let me try to forget that you ask for example of putting average qb into good o-line but now request to narrow those example into recent ones.

Of course you can find more.

Let me say first off that you don't need a GREAT- HOF QB to win a championship There aren't enough HOFers available and too many Super Bowls. Every QB who wins the Super Bowl isn't going to Canton. In this current era, the only locks for the 1st ballot HOF are Manning, Peyton and Favre, Brett.

And CERTAINLY a good OL can make a mediocre QB GOOD. For example:

Jeff Jeff Hostetler, Phil Sims, Elvis Grbac, Rich Gannon, Chris Chandler, more recently Jake Delhomme (many argued between 2003 - 2005 he was a top NFL QB), Marc Bulger, (or any Rams QB before Pace broke down, including Warner who was cut, picked up by the Giants and thought to be washed up), Trent Greene (consider him with the Redskins, then with the Chiefs - OL talent was a big difference) .... these are just the ones from memory. I'm SURE I can extend this list if I really researched.

[ Edited by NinerGM on Apr 27, 2010 at 09:37:57 ]
Originally posted by ajsjohnson:
I think many of you are getting caught up in the wrong details. It is true that simply having a good QB will not guarantee success, just as having a mediocre one doesn't guarantee failure. A good OL is important either way--that is not really up for debate. The big issue for us as 49ers fans is that we have neither a great QB (yet, at least) nor a great OL (hopefully we just changed that). Having both dramatically improves our chances, and pretending that the QB isn't important--as Sing is doing--is not helpful. We are on the cusp of actual success for the first time in a decade and it is at risk of being undone very quickly should Smith regress. Not being able to pass effectively will be a huge problem, no matter how well we run block. I am rooting that Smith takes a quantum leap forward, but if he doesn't and we are stuck in neutral offensively, then we need a plan B and guess what--Sing's lack of attention to the QB position means that we don't have one. Grooming a young QB this year was critical to ensure that we hedged our bets at that position; Davis may be that guy, but with a learning disability and zero reps that is looking unlikely in the near term. IF Smith fails, be prepared for us to draft a young QB again next year and throw him into the fire....that does not likely translate into lots of wins, and we may be sitting watching as a really good defense and RB is wasted waiting for this new guy to learn the ropes.

I think you're taking his words a little too literally. To me he's saying the QB is just as important as the rest of the guys around him equally. The problem is we have fans that think they know exactly what's going to happen. Did the Rams know what they had in Kurt Warner before they lost Trent Green? Did the Pats know what they had in Tom Brady? Stop with all the what ifs and trust in what the coaches visions are. Let me give you a taste of what you are doing. IF he didn't think the QB was important than we would still have Martz as our OC with JT at QB and Vernon would've been blocking all game last year.
Originally posted by NinerGM:
Originally posted by qnnhan7:
Originally posted by tjd808185:
Originally posted by qnnhan7:
Originally posted by tjd808185:
Originally posted by Ripamaru:
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



The QB is not the most important. This is a fact that many fail to accept.

Offensive line is by far the most important part of the team. Without a solid offensive line there isnt a single QB on the planet that can succeed at the NFL level.

There have been super bowl champions without a good QB (Trent Dilfer), There have been champions without a good RB, Without legit WR's, there have even been champs with poor defense (rams).

There has NEVER been a championship team with a crap O-line. EVER.

You should NEVER start to build a team with a QB. It always fails. (Couch, Carr etc.) All you will get is the QB killed. Why most have yet to figure this out is beyond me.

Peyton Manning came into the league with a great LT already in place. The proper mold would is to start building the o-line first. Once that is solid then and only then do you start thinking QB.

Think of it this way. If you have a GREAT offensive line it has a trickle down effect. You can get by without a great QB because he will have all day to sit back and pick his spots. The line will open up huge holes for the running game lowering the need for a great RB. Any half decent WR can get open every play if he has enough time.
The great O-line also makes the defense better just by keeping them off the field with clock control. A fresh defense is HUGE.

The QB by himself cannot do any of those things in the NFL.

Offensive lines don't make mediocre quarterbacks great. You can't give me one recent scenario when a below average quarterback turned into a great quarterback because of an offensive line. Troy Aikman might be the closest thing you can come to, but he was the 1st pick in the draft going to real bad team, and he developed in year 4 not year 16 like Alex.

Everybody points to Baltimore and Trent Dilfer. Baltimore arguably had the best defense of all time, and a 2,000 yard rusher. Good luck trying to recreate that. Yeah you're right you can win without a QB in this league, but your odds aren't that great. Look at Baltimore. Yeah they got a Super Bowl, but they severely underachieved given how dominant that defense was and how good that offensive line was. They had alot of 8-8 years during that stretch.

I don't think anyone is talking about putting in a crappy qb and expecting to have the o-line bail him out. But the o-line can certainly make an average NFL qb into a good one. Washington back in the Joe Gibbs days had done it with Rippien and others. The Giants had Phil Simms, slow average, he had the advantage of knowing he system, a good line, running game and defense. Pittsburg Steelers in the 70's had Bradshaw, as average as you can get, great o-line and defense.

The league has changed since 1982. I prefer recent examples when free agency actually effected a team's lineup. If your going back 20 -30 years to prove your point you have a huge problem. Rypien's a good example I mentioned Grbac and Green in Kansas City. That's the best I could think of.

My point is that it worked though out history of the NFL. Recently, off the top Brad Johnson of Tampa Bay. I'm sure I can find more if I take the time to look further. But let me try to forget that you ask for example of putting average qb into good o-line but now request to narrow those example into recent ones.

Of course you can.

Jeff Jeff Hostetler, Phil Sims, Elvis Grbac, Rich Gannon, Chris Chandler, more recently Jake Delhomme (many argued between 2003 - 2005 he was a top NFL QB), Marc Bulger, (or any Rams QB after Pace broke down, including Warner who was cut, picked up by the Giants and thought to be washed up), Trent Greene ala Washington Redskins (not the Chiefs version) .... these are just the ones from memory. I'm SURE I can extend this list if I really researched.

Not buying any Rams QB. Those teams gave up 40 sacks a season do to Mad Martz crazy scheme (even with a healthy Orlando Pace). Not a great example of a good O line. Not really buying Rich Gannon in Oakland either. When I think of a dominant LT I think of Barry Sims.

Jake Delhomme is exactly what I'm looking for. The guy has had some success, but look how inconsisant Carolina has been over the years. That's what you get with an average QB, a very good defense, and great O line. An inconsisant team that at times can make nice strides in the post season.

[ Edited by tjd808185 on Apr 27, 2010 at 09:52:37 ]