There are 65 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Sing's opinion on the QB position . . .

Originally posted by tjd808185:
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.

? Kurt Warner and Marc Bulger with blocking isn't a buy? Serious not a great example of a good line when leading the league in all statistical offensive categories in 1999 and leaders in 2000? Back-to-back Super Bowl appearances. Rich Gannon not a great example? Super Bowl appearance? Had enough time to throw to an aging Jerry Rice?

Sorry man but I'm not sure about your reasoning here. It seems to be a bit extreme.
Originally posted by NinerGM:
Originally posted by tjd808185:
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.

? Kurt Warner and Marc Bulger with blocking isn't a buy? Serious not a great example of a good line when leading the league in all statistical offensive categories in 1999 and leaders in 2000? Back-to-back Super Bowl appearances. Rich Gannon not a great example? Super Bowl appearance? Had enough time to throw to an aging Jerry Rice?

Sorry man but I'm not sure about your reasoning here. It seems to be a bit extreme.

Kurt Warner is a Hall of Famer, and has been to the Super Bowl with multiple teams. He doesn't qualify as a below average QB by any means. I conceed that Orlando Pace is a Hall Famer and St Louis line was spectular in 99-00, but after that it was giving up 40 sacks a season every single year. Kurt Warner was perceived to be washed up because he took a beaten like no other for years in St Louis.

As for Oakland what is so great about that line? Barry Sims, Frank Middleton, Barrett Robbins, Mo Collins, Lincoln Kennedy. Lincoln Kennedy was a d*mn good tackle I give you that, and you can make a case for Robbins being good before he went crazy, but that's not a great offensive line, and there's a reason why the Raiders only started winning when Gannon and Gruden was there.

[ Edited by tjd808185 on Apr 27, 2010 at 10:30:42 ]
Originally posted by tjd808185:
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.

Oh really.

2008 Minnesota Vikings (10-6, Made Playoffs) - The Vikings used a combination of Gus Frerotte and Tarvaris Jackson in 2008 on their way to a 10-6 record. Frerotte arguably had his best season in 2008, leading Minnesota to a 8-3 record before injuring his back (and ending his career). Tarvaris Jackson went 3-1 as a starter while finishing the season with a 95.4 QB Rating. Minnesota's rushing attack was 5th in the NFL (2,338 Yards).

And why did the Minnesota Vikings win their division? The Vikings sent Steve Hutchinson and Matt Birk to the Pro Bowl. Fullback Tony Richardson went too. Bryant McKinnie was certainly deserving as well. The Minnesota offensive line dominated all phases of the offense.

Also see: 2008 Miami Dolphins (Chad Pennington), 2008 Tennessee Titans (Kerry Collins), 2006 Chicago Bears (Rex Grossman), 2006 Kansas City Chiefs (Damon Huard and Trent Green), 2006 New York Jets (Chad Pennington), 2005 Chicago Bears (Kyle Orton), 2005 Tampa Bay Buccaneers (Chris Simms, Brian Griese) - I could go on and on about average Quarterbacks succeeding in the NFL with excellent offensive line play.

I won't even divulge into that Alex Smith remark, because I have so much more to prove wrong.

Originally posted by tjd808185:
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.

The 2000 Baltimore Ravens had a rookie at running back in Jamal Lewis (he didn't rush for 2,000 yards until 2003) and an excellent secondary back by the name of Priest Holmes. It's no doubt that the team had an outstanding running game.

And who fueled that running game? None other than a top offensive line, led by Pro Bowler Jonathan Ogden.

Also, the Ravens finished 8-8 just once during Billick's tenure.
Originally posted by redrathman:
Originally posted by tjd808185:
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.

Oh really.

2008 Minnesota Vikings (10-6, Made Playoffs) - The Vikings used a combination of Gus Frerotte and Tarvaris Jackson in 2008 on their way to a 10-6 record. Frerotte arguably had his best season in 2008, leading Minnesota to a 8-3 record before injuring his back (and ending his career). Tarvaris Jackson went 3-1 as a starter while finishing the season with a 95.4 QB Rating. Minnesota's rushing attack was 5th in the NFL (2,338 Yards).

And why did the Minnesota Vikings win their division? The Vikings sent Steve Hutchinson and Matt Birk to the Pro Bowl. Fullback Tony Richardson went too. Bryant McKinnie was certainly deserving as well. The Minnesota offensive line dominated all phases of the offense.

Also see: 2008 Miami Dolphins (Chad Pennington), 2008 Tennessee Titans (Kerry Collins), 2006 Chicago Bears (Rex Grossman), 2006 Kansas City Chiefs (Damon Huard and Trent Green), 2006 New York Jets (Chad Pennington), 2005 Chicago Bears (Kyle Orton), 2005 Tampa Bay Buccaneers (Chris Simms, Brian Griese) - I could go on and on about average Quarterbacks succeeding in the NFL with excellent offensive line play.

I won't even divulge into that Alex Smith remark, because I have so much more to prove wrong.

Originally posted by tjd808185:
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.

The 2000 Baltimore Ravens had a rookie at running back in Jamal Lewis (he didn't rush for 2,000 yards until 2003) and an excellent secondary back by the name of Priest Holmes. It's no doubt that the team had an outstanding running game.

And who fueled that running game? None other than a top offensive line, led by Pro Bowler Jonathan Ogden.

Also, the Ravens finished 8-8 just once during Billick's tenure.

I'm not saying you can't win without a quarterback. Of course you can. Like you pointed out Minnesota, Baltimore, and Tampa for years all won without a quarterback.

What I am saying is that great line is not going to propel Smith into a great quarterback. You either have it or you don't and if we do win more likely than not Smith is still going to be an average QB. Tavaris Jackson, Gus Frerotte, and Trent Dilfer remained below average quarterbacks despite their team's success. There's a reason why Trent Dilfer won the Super Bowl and Baltimore said thanks but no thanks for your services next season. Every QB you listed there wasn't close to being a good QB and was replaced by the end of the following season. Those teams won inspite of their below average QB play. Like I implied before with Delhomme. If this is how you want to build a team be prepared for inconsisant seasons year to year because if you want to be consisant you need an actual QB.

BTW Billick finished 8-8 or worse 3 times during his tenure.

[ Edited by tjd808185 on Apr 27, 2010 at 11:00:12 ]
Originally posted by Leathaface:
Originally posted by Memphis9er:
Originally posted by zillabeast:
If it was all about the Quarterback in the NFL, Dan Marino would have a fistfull of rings right now.

This pretty much says it all. You guys trying to put it all on the QB just do not have a clue do you?

. This is such bad logic.

So why doesn't one of the all time greatest quarterbacks of all time not have a ring at all, if all it takes is a great QB? The real logic being that it takes a team to win it all, one player can NEVER do it on his own unless he has a solid team backing him up. Only a complete idiot would think otherwise.
Originally posted by tjd808185:
Originally posted by NinerGM:
Originally posted by tjd808185:
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.

? Kurt Warner and Marc Bulger with blocking isn't a buy? Serious not a great example of a good line when leading the league in all statistical offensive categories in 1999 and leaders in 2000? Back-to-back Super Bowl appearances. Rich Gannon not a great example? Super Bowl appearance? Had enough time to throw to an aging Jerry Rice?

Sorry man but I'm not sure about your reasoning here. It seems to be a bit extreme.

Kurt Warner is a Hall of Famer, and has been to the Super Bowl with multiple teams. He doesn't qualify as a below average QB by any means. I conceed that Orlando Pace is a Hall Famer and St Louis line was spectular in 99-00, but after that it was giving up 40 sacks a season every single year. Kurt Warner was perceived to be washed up because he took a beaten like no other for years in St Louis.

As for Oakland what is so great about that line? Barry Sims, Frank Middleton, Barrett Robbins, Mo Collins, Lincoln Kennedy. Lincoln Kennedy was a d*mn good tackle I give you that, and you can make a case for Robbins being good before he went crazy, but that's not a great offensive line, and there's a reason why the Raiders only started winning when Gannon and Gruden was there.

LOL! Warner has been to the Super Bowl with 2 teams - I guess that qualifies as multiple and in both cases, they had good OLs. Are you seriously going to argue the Cards didn't have a good line when they went to the Super Bowl? You're going to make the same argument about the Raiders line?

I think you're assuming that once a good line, always a good line and once a great QB, always a great QB.

This certainly IS NOT the case for Warner or any other QB that doesn't have consistency in blocking. Again ask yourself how the Cardinals acquired Warner. It wasn't a bidding war, there wasn't a 32-team league wide demand. Even after he won a SB, conventional wisdom was that he was washed up and in total decline, brought to Arizona (like he had in New York) to help mentor Lienart.

I think your definition of "great QB" is quite only done in hindsight. The same thing happened to Gannon who was the league MVP the season they went to the bowl who before we went to the Raiders was considered a "journeyman" NFL QB. That Raider offense has 2 great/outstanding seasons with John Gruden as HC, followed by Bill Callahan. What was so great about that OL? Well it put the Raiders in the World Championship much more recent than ANY 49er OL has since 1994.

You can't prove a QB is good or great until they actually HAVE the a great team around them, at the very least a good OL in which they operate behind.

Yes, there are some qualities that are innate, but again, you don't need a HOF QB to win it all. And for many HOF QBs they HAD a good/great line around them with help to get over the hump.

There's just way too much evidence out there.

[ Edited by NinerGM on Apr 27, 2010 at 12:43:16 ]
Originally posted by tjd808185:
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.

Tom Brady's numbers the year they won the Superbowl (1st) with a great O-line and Defense.

Games: 15
264/413
Comp: 63.9%
Yards: 2,843
TD's: 18
Int's: 12

Alex Smith in 2009, behind what was statistically the worst O-Line in the NFL (32nd in Sacks Allowed) and two of the league leaders in dropped passes...

Games: 11
225/372
Comp: 60.5%
Yards: 2,350
TD's: 18
Int's: 12

Just looking at these numbers analytically I wouldn't be too worried about not having the QB play good enough of the SB-caliber team. Smith's number are equal to or better than Brady's were even though he was playing behind the worst O-line, rather than one of the best. Didn't hurt he had Vinatieri either...

TEAMS win championships, not one player. This isn't the NBA.
Originally posted by Memphis9er:
Originally posted by Leathaface:
Originally posted by Memphis9er:
Originally posted by zillabeast:
If it was all about the Quarterback in the NFL, Dan Marino would have a fistfull of rings right now.

This pretty much says it all. You guys trying to put it all on the QB just do not have a clue do you?

. This is such bad logic.

So why doesn't one of the all time greatest quarterbacks of all time not have a ring at all, if all it takes is a great QB? The real logic being that it takes a team to win it all, one player can NEVER do it on his own unless he has a solid team backing him up. Only a complete idiot would think otherwise.

Once again, .
Originally posted by Kolohe:
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??

Man, I'm actually one of you. I don't want the team known to be a 'running' team. It's boring to watch. I missed the juggernaut type offense that we have had back when. But I'm also open minded to the team being a running team, because there are more than one way to get to success and a SB. And other teams have done it without having a great qb or a juggernaut offensive passing team. They are just trying to be good all around team. So the idea that we may not have an elite qb isn't a critical point to me as we should have first and foremost a good team. And I recognized, if for Singletary as an headcoach to say that qb is the most important part of the team, it would devalue guys like Patrick Willis for example their places on the team.
Originally posted by Afrikan:
Originally posted by domingo360:
The Alex Smith of right now would've won the superbowl with Dilfer's Ravens... and probably Brad Johnson's Bucs... and probably with the steelers when Big Ben won his first, etc

Originally posted by titan:
His theory is correct depending on what type of offense you play. You can't be on a pass happy offense and not have your QB as the most important player. During Peyton Manning and Drew Brees Superbowl wins ,can you replace them with Alex Smith to win a Superbowl? Probably No! could Alex Smith replaced Trent Dilfer or Brad Johnson during Baltimore Ravens and Tampa Bay Super Bowl years? I would say Yes! In our situation Alex Smith doesn't have to be the most important player, he just have to be solid.

wow just WOW ....is this how most Alex fans feel?

first we have to make the playoffs, then we have to beat teams in the playoffs...not regular teams, but the BEST teams in the league, with either the Best Defenses or a very good ones.....then you have the Super Bowl....

As much as everyone wants to blame the Oline, WRs, RBs, OCs, slippery Footballs or what ever... Alex still has deficiencies that opposing DCs will easily exploit.


I'm still waiting to see what a 1st pick QB can do with some continuity on OC, a decent OL, and some weapons at receiver. I think Alex will break out and we will finally have a balanced attack.
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.

Everything you just said can be applied to the 49ers this year.
Originally posted by Goldtimer:
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.

Perhaps, but in the cases you cited I think that 1. Martz was actually MORE concerned with QB play than Sing wanted to be, hence the switch to the much more conservative Raye, 2. Sing was more concerned with the fact that JT was turning the ball over more often than a short order cook turned over pancakes at IHOP than his actual QB related performance (comp %, TDs, efficiency) and 3. VD was used more because the running game bogged down early in the season and we had to change offensive gears midstream to be competitive

These are just opinions, obviously, but my main point is that Sing simply does not feel that a top QB is necessary to win in the NFL. He's right--it isn't. But to win a super bowl (that is the goal right? Or are we so beaten down as fans we just aim for a winning season and an early playoff exit?), i am saying that you better have a redonkulous defense and an unparalleled ability to control the ball if you hope to win with an average QB. Look at history and you will see that that didn't happen very often....

Don't get me wrong--Sing blows the doors off of any coach we've had since the suckage began. I am just ready to win now, and I am in skeptical mode until given reason to feel otherwise.
  • fly15
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 4,246
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

Originally posted by NinerGM:
Originally posted by tjd808185:
Originally posted by NinerGM:
Originally posted by tjd808185:
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.

? Kurt Warner and Marc Bulger with blocking isn't a buy? Serious not a great example of a good line when leading the league in all statistical offensive categories in 1999 and leaders in 2000? Back-to-back Super Bowl appearances. Rich Gannon not a great example? Super Bowl appearance? Had enough time to throw to an aging Jerry Rice?

Sorry man but I'm not sure about your reasoning here. It seems to be a bit extreme.

Kurt Warner is a Hall of Famer, and has been to the Super Bowl with multiple teams. He doesn't qualify as a below average QB by any means. I conceed that Orlando Pace is a Hall Famer and St Louis line was spectular in 99-00, but after that it was giving up 40 sacks a season every single year. Kurt Warner was perceived to be washed up because he took a beaten like no other for years in St Louis.

As for Oakland what is so great about that line? Barry Sims, Frank Middleton, Barrett Robbins, Mo Collins, Lincoln Kennedy. Lincoln Kennedy was a d*mn good tackle I give you that, and you can make a case for Robbins being good before he went crazy, but that's not a great offensive line, and there's a reason why the Raiders only started winning when Gannon and Gruden was there.

LOL! Warner has been to the Super Bowl with 2 teams - I guess that qualifies as multiple and in both cases, they had good OLs. Are you seriously going to argue the Cards didn't have a good line when they went to the Super Bowl? You're going to make the same argument about the Raiders line?

I think you're assuming that once a good line, always a good line and once a great QB, always a great QB.

This certainly IS NOT the case for Warner or any other QB that doesn't have consistency in blocking. Again ask yourself how the Cardinals acquired Warner. It wasn't a bidding war, there wasn't a 32-team league wide demand. Even after he won a SB, conventional wisdom was that he was washed up and in total decline, brought to Arizona (like he had in New York) to help mentor Lienart.

I think your definition of "great QB" is quite only done in hindsight. The same thing happened to Gannon who was the league MVP the season they went to the bowl who before we went to the Raiders was considered a "journeyman" NFL QB. That Raider offense has 2 great/outstanding seasons with John Gruden as HC, followed by Bill Callahan. What was so great about that OL? Well it put the Raiders in the World Championship much more recent than ANY 49er OL has since 1994.

You can't prove a QB is good or great until they actually HAVE the a great team around them, at the very least a good OL in which they operate behind.

Yes, there are some qualities that are innate, but again, you don't need a HOF QB to win it all. And for many HOF QBs they HAD a good/great line around them with help to get over the hump.

There's just way too much evidence out there.

Arizona has a great line? You mean the same Arizona Cardinal team that has finished 32nd and 28th in rushing over the past 2 seasons and has 0 Pro Bowlers. Let's see how great that line looks with Matt Leinart at the helm. My guess it's going to be exposed.

I clearly see your thinking. If a team wins their line has to be great. End of story. There's no point in arguing with you if you believe that.

Kurt Warner wasn't healthy in New York. Alot of that has to do with the beatings he took St Louis. Another thing is not every quarterback fits every scheme. Take a look at the decrease in Favre's game in New York. New York has undisputely the best line in football yet he struggled pretty badly with Jets. Minus one 5 TD against Arizona and he really didn't do much even before you account for his injuries. Yeah the Jets were 8-1 but most of those games weren't won because of Favre's play.

Rich Gannon may have been a journey man, but he was the prototypical quarterback for the West Coast offense. Good weapons, terrific offensive coach, and I'm not saying it was a bad offensive line. That Oakland team was giving 50+ sacks for 3 straight seasons before that. Yeah they added some pieces in Barry Sims and Mo Collins but both of those guys are average at best lineman. You insert Jeff George back into that line and it's giving up 50 sacks.

[ Edited by tjd808185 on Apr 28, 2010 at 08:20:42 ]
Originally posted by MSteitz468:
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.

Everything you just said can be applied to the 49ers this year.

Except for the top 5 defense of all time thing.