Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

In Nfl You Don't Need A Qb To Win Games


Recommended Posts

Are QB's really the main reason for success? All I hear is people talking about them and complaining about them. Not just Colts fans, but everyone. Most of the conversations are based on QB's. If you look at NFL history, it is clearly a team sport and defense is more important than a QB.

Now there are ton of teams that win and won with sub par QB's. Here is an example of Super Bowl winners. Just imagine how many teams made it into the playoffs with sub par QB's.

Doug Williams

Jeff Hostetler

Mark Rypien

Trent Dilfer

Brad Johnson

I can put a few others on this list, but they are a little bit better than sub-par.

The point is just by looking at Super Bowl winners, there are hundreds of other sup-par QB's that went into the playoffs.

Stop dissing Collins, stop whining and moaning, stop crying. Blame the team effort. Collins didn't singlehandedly lose those games.

The Defense was atrocious in both games. Special teams even worse. We couldn't run the ball at Hou. Our DB's stink. Coaching hasn't been good either.

QB's don't win games.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking about this the other day. Heck, Collins took the Giants to the Super Bowl and ran into a great Ravens D.

I'm starting to think that Manning has made Polian look better than he is. Why does this team look so bad without Manning?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you in that Hall of Fame Qb's aren't needed for a team to be successful. The instances in which good teams with sub par QB's have went on to win big games, has been with at least steady Qb play. You don't need HOFer to make it to the playoffs, and really we see this alot. example:(Jets)

The few games Manning has missed now clearly show how amazing he really is. He's covered up alot of flaws we've had on offense, and really let this franchise sit back.

Really I guess I agree with the top part of your post, but the "QB's don't win games" is a little shaky. They certainly can loose you games.(The Houston game week 1)

But if you go as far to say QB's don't win you games, then tell me;

Did Peyton win us games?

At this point its obvious he did. He didn't just win us games, he brought us a championship. Qb's can win you games, and certainly loose you games. A good defense and special teams, just give you more of a cushion for when your QB's not named, Peyton Manning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? You list 5 teams that have won Super Bowls with sub-par QBs and then make the sweeping generalization that they're not important to winning games? Think of how many more Super Bowls have been won by elite QBs...Manning, Brady, Favre, Montana, Young, Aikman, Staubach, Starr, Elway, etc. It might not be essential for a team to have a good QB to win, but a team can win or lose a game based on QB play. The reason everyone blames Collins is because Manning was able to take this same team and make them contenders last year. Was the talent any better last year? No. What does that mean? It must mean that Manning, the QB, was the difference maker for this team.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are QB's really the main reason for success? All I hear is people talking about them and complaining about them. Not just Colts fans, but everyone. Most of the conversations are based on QB's. If you look at NFL history, it is clearly a team sport and defense is more important than a QB.

Now there are ton of teams that win and won with sub par QB's. Here is an example of Super Bowl winners. Just imagine how many teams made it into the playoffs with sub par QB's.

Doug Williams

Jeff Hostetler

Mark Rypien

Trent Dilfer

Brad Johnson

I can put a few others on this list, but they are a little bit better than sub-par.

The point is just by looking at Super Bowl winners, there are hundreds of other sup-par QB's that went into the playoffs.

Stop dissing Collins, stop whining and moaning, stop crying. Blame the team effort. Collins didn't singlehandedly lose those games.

The Defense was atrocious in both games. Special teams even worse. We couldn't run the ball at Hou. Our DB's stink. Coaching hasn't been good either.

QB's don't win games.

Are you serious? ..Of course QB's win games ... can you win the SB without one? Yes, but it is much easier if you have a great QB. You named a few, but I would argue that the NFL is more of a passing league now and a top notch QB is even more important then ever before.

Just as a comparison to your list, the most recent super bowl winners:

Aaron Rodgers

Drew Brees

Ben Roethlisberger

Eli Manning

Peyton Manning

Ben Roethlisberger

Tom Brady

Tom Brady

While in my opinion Roethlisberger isn'e elite and gets a lot of help from his defense he is a "very good" QB. Eli is the only one that would fit your criteria of a team winning with an average QB, the rest are "very good" and "elite".

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can have short-term success with a mediocre QB, but you have to be clicking on all other cylinders to do it. If you can do it, good for you, but don't expect it to last.

But, and it pains me that I even have to explain this, a team with an elite, top flight QB is going to do much better than a team that doesn't over the long-term.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As great as Peyton is im not sure he could take this current team to the playoffs. The Oline has been pretty darn bad and our defense is terrible... Hopefully they can turn it around, but i dont see it happening on Sunday... My gues is Painter will finish the game.. Heck, we may want to take 3 QB's into the game against the Steelers...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh get off it mate, THIS IS NOT THE GIANTS, THIS IS NOT THE PANTHERS... If your QB sucks you are going to suck period... thats what happens when your the one delivering the ball its common sense.... if your QB cant get the ball to your WR's how are they gonna produce? if your QB cant handle the ball how is the offense gonna go up the field? and last time i checked brad johnson had an ok game in the superbowl... unlike Rich Gannon who had 5 INTS in that game..... hmmm now why did the raiders lose again??? :loco:

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok if according to you sub par qb's along with a great defense wins superbowls right? so the vikings won the superbowl? what about the panthers when they had peppers and company? the bear a few years ago? what about our colts back in the 90's? hhmmm looks to me like with the occasional fluke sub par qb's do not get the job done at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug Williams 1988

Jeff Hostetler 1991 as a 2nd string to an injured Phil Simms

Mark Rypien 1992

Trent Dilfer 2001

Brad Johnson 2003

Lets take a look at SB QB matchups for the last, lets say 20 years, and we shall grade the QBs based on A, being great, B being good C Avg. although subject to debate it should be fairly easy enough this way.

91 Jim Kelly A Hostetler C...Giants Won. Key Factors. LT and Parcells.

92 Mark Rypien C Jim Kelly A.....Redskins win.

93 Troy Aikman A Jim Kelly A....Cowboys win.

94 Troy Aikman A Jim Kelly A....Cowboys win.

95 Steve Young A Stan Humphries C.....49ers win.

96 Troy Aikman A Niel Odonell C......Cowboys win.

97 Brett Farve A Drew Bledsoe B.....Packers win

98 John Elway A Brett Farve A....Broncos win

99 John Elway A Chris Chandler C....Broncos Win

00 Kurt Warner A Steve McNair B....Rams Win

01 Trent Dilfer C Kerry Collins C......Ravens Win. Key Factors. Mega Defense.

02 Tom Brady A Kurt Warner A....Pats Win

03 Brad Johnson C Rich Gannon A....Key factors. Mega Defense

04 Tom Brady A Jake Delhomme B...Pats Win

05 Tom Brady A Donovan McNabb B.....Pats Win

06 Ben Roethlisberger A Matt Hasselbeck B.....Steelers Win

07 Peyton Manning A Rex Grossman C....Colts Win

08 Eli Manning B Tom Brady A.....Giants win.

09 Ben Roethlisberger A Kurt Warner A...Steelers win

10 Drew Brees A Peyton Manning A....Saints win

11 Aaron Rodgers A Ben Roethisberger A....Packers win

As: Kelly, Aikman, Elway, Young, Farve, Warner, Brady, Gannon, Big Ben, Manning, Brees, Rodgers

B: Bledose, Mcnair, Delhomme, McNabb, Hasselbeck, Manning

Cs: Hostetler (LT, Parcells) Rypien(Great team),Humphries (blowout),Odonnell(Blowout) Chandler (beatdown), Collins/Dilfer (Great Def),Brad Johnson (Def) Grossman (Def)

20 years. 20 Super Bowls. 6 Hall of Famers. One year in which a marquee QB isnt starting in the Super Bowl. The only average QBs to make the Super Bowl had the support of quality teams, some of them were some of the best of all time 91 Giants, 01 Ravens, 03 Bucs. And the ones who didn't were trashed by the team with the better QB. Is a super QB ness? No, not at all, but a super defense will be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The teams that are good now have good QBs. Modern NFL really accentuates the QB position.

Look at the Jets. I think they have the pieces to go as far as Sanchez can take them.

Yep. Sanchez is the last piece of that team that has to come through. The defense and running game is solid, and they have quality weapons on the outside. It's all up to Sanchez making the right plays or the wrong ones.

The Steelers have exceptional, I mean historically good, defense and a solid running game, with a QB who can make the clutch plays when he has to. We've all seen him make some stupid plays, but the drive to beat the Cardinals in the Super Bowl a few years ago was incredible.

When you consider the rule changes in the NFL over the last decade, it certainly suggests that an elite QB gives you an advantage. Looking at the recent Super Bowl QBs, you have to admit that it takes "better than average" players at that position. Both Mannings, Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Roethlisberger, Kurt Warner. The exceptions would be Grossman, Delhomme (who had a good run), and Hasselbeck isn't in the class of the winners. Of course, those exceptions to that rule aren't wearing rings anyways, so it only supports the notion that the elite QB is the best way to win in today's NFL.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are QB's really the main reason for success? All I hear is people talking about them and complaining about them. Not just Colts fans, but everyone. Most of the conversations are based on QB's. If you look at NFL history, it is clearly a team sport and defense is more important than a QB.

Now there are ton of teams that win and won with sub par QB's. Here is an example of Super Bowl winners. Just imagine how many teams made it into the playoffs with sub par QB's.

Doug Williams

Jeff Hostetler

Mark Rypien

Trent Dilfer

Brad Johnson

I can put a few others on this list, but they are a little bit better than sub-par.

The point is just by looking at Super Bowl winners, there are hundreds of other sup-par QB's that went into the playoffs.

Stop dissing Collins, stop whining and moaning, stop crying. Blame the team effort. Collins didn't singlehandedly lose those games.

The Defense was atrocious in both games. Special teams even worse. We couldn't run the ball at Hou. Our DB's stink. Coaching hasn't been good either.

QB's don't win games.

Were you watching these games or these QBs during those years? I did and I remember Doug Willims and Mark Rypien both having pretty good years. Jeff Hostetler also had a pretty good year. Trent Dilfer is the only guy on this list that I would say let the defense win the season and the SB for him. Now I'm not syaing these guys all deserve to be in the Hall of Fame, but they had everything working for them in the years they won the SB.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one of the silliest threads I've seen on here. Sure a team may get lucky every once in a while and win with a mediocre QB, but the overwhelming evidence is that a team needs a good/great QB to be successful consistantly. Anyone that thinks different just don't have any idea what they're talking about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There have indeed been some very good, defensive-oriented teams that have won Super Bowls with mediocre play from their quarterbacks. The difference, though, is that those teams rarely won more than one.

Look at the teams who most feel had the best defenses of all time.

The 1985 Bears? One Super Bowl win.

The 2002 Ravens? Again, one title.

The key is balance. In Tom Brady's best individual seasons (2007 and 2010), the Patriots did not win championships. Same for Manning and the 2004 Colts.

It takes both to win it all. And for teams with elite QBs, there is a distinct advantage because those QBs will be elite for most of their careers. It's difficult with free agency and injuries to maintain an elite defense over the course of many years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There have indeed been some very good, defensive-oriented teams that have won Super Bowls with mediocre play from their quarterbacks. The difference, though, is that those teams rarely won more than one.

Look at the teams who most feel had the best defenses of all time.

The 1985 Bears? One Super Bowl win.

The 2002 Ravens? Again, one title.

The key is balance. In Tom Brady's best individual seasons (2007 and 2010), the Patriots did not win championships. Same for Manning and the 2004 Colts.

It takes both to win it all. And for teams with elite QBs, there is a distinct advantage because those QBs will be elite for most of their careers. It's difficult with free agency and injuries to maintain an elite defense over the course of many years.

Couldn't have said it better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are QB's really the main reason for success? All I hear is people talking about them and complaining about them. Not just Colts fans, but everyone. Most of the conversations are based on QB's. If you look at NFL history, it is clearly a team sport and defense is more important than a QB.

Now there are ton of teams that win and won with sub par QB's. Here is an example of Super Bowl winners. Just imagine how many teams made it into the playoffs with sub par QB's.

Doug Williams

Jeff Hostetler

Mark Rypien

Trent Dilfer

Brad Johnson

I can put a few others on this list, but they are a little bit better than sub-par.

The point is just by looking at Super Bowl winners, there are hundreds of other sup-par QB's that went into the playoffs.

That's an old theory..which is illustrated by the fact that everyone you name played a generation ago..

The game has changed dramatically favoring the passing game. Look at the last 2 Super Bowls...all 4 QBs are elite.

What you're saying could pass 20 years ago..but not now...

You need outstanding QB play or you'll be outstanding in the alley when trophies are handed out...

Stop dissing Collins, stop whining and moaning, stop crying. Blame the team effort. Collins didn't singlehandedly lose those games.

The Defense was atrocious in both games. Special teams even worse. We couldn't run the ball at Hou. Our DB's stink. Coaching hasn't been good either.

QB's don't win games.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are QB's really the main reason for success? All I hear is people talking about them and complaining about them. Not just Colts fans, but everyone. Most of the conversations are based on QB's. If you look at NFL history, it is clearly a team sport and defense is more important than a QB.

Now there are ton of teams that win and won with sub par QB's. Here is an example of Super Bowl winners. Just imagine how many teams made it into the playoffs with sub par QB's.

Doug Williams

Jeff Hostetler

Mark Rypien

Trent Dilfer

Brad Johnson

I can put a few others on this list, but they are a little bit better than sub-par.

The point is just by looking at Super Bowl winners, there are hundreds of other sup-par QB's that went into the playoffs.

Stop dissing Collins, stop whining and moaning, stop crying. Blame the team effort. Collins didn't singlehandedly lose those games.

The Defense was atrocious in both games. Special teams even worse. We couldn't run the ball at Hou. Our DB's stink. Coaching hasn't been good either.

QB's don't win games.

lol....in the case of Jeff Hostetler and Trent Dilfer.....Curtis Painter might have won the Super Bowl with the defenses those 2 had.

I largely agree with the premise of your post....but the Colts roster, built offensively around Peyton and the passing attack, as well as a defense built to protect a lead that HE provides...is simply NOT constituted to allow for his absence.

We gambled on this method of building the Colts roster, and for 13 years the gamble largely paid off.

The worst case scenario has happened and we're pretty screwed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I think I know what the OP was getting at but it just came out wrong....or he was at least on the right track.

What I would say is that you can win and have a lot of success with a good to great QB and you don't necessarily have to have the greatest QB in the game at the time in order to win. I say this in reference to all of the "we must draft Luck" chatter. There are at least 3-4 QB's in the coming draft who have the potential to be good, great or elite. However colts fans are so used to having the best QB in the game right now that they feel we must continue that trend in order to win. And since all the hype this year is about Andrew Luck, well clearly he's going to be the best QB out of the coming draft so he's the one we absolutely have to go with. IMO this is total nonsense. There are a lot of teams that win with good or great QB's. Yes having an elite QB has been great and I've cherished every minute of it so far and will continue to do so until he can no longer play. His successor, however, does not have to be the elite type of QB that he is. It would be nice, yes, but having a great QB instead of an elite one would afford us a better opportunity to add more talent around him and be a better team overall.

Just my $0.02 and I could be way off base on where the OP was coming from. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are QB's really the main reason for success? All I hear is people talking about them and complaining about them. Not just Colts fans, but everyone. Most of the conversations are based on QB's. If you look at NFL history, it is clearly a team sport and defense is more important than a QB.

Now there are ton of teams that win and won with sub par QB's. Here is an example of Super Bowl winners. Just imagine how many teams made it into the playoffs with sub par QB's.

Doug Williams

Jeff Hostetler

Mark Rypien

Trent Dilfer

Brad Johnson

I can put a few others on this list, but they are a little bit better than sub-par.

The point is just by looking at Super Bowl winners, there are hundreds of other sup-par QB's that went into the playoffs.

Stop dissing Collins, stop whining and moaning, stop crying. Blame the team effort. Collins didn't singlehandedly lose those games.

The Defense was atrocious in both games. Special teams even worse. We couldn't run the ball at Hou. Our DB's stink. Coaching hasn't been good either.

QB's don't win games.

Those guys had good teams; the Colts are not a good team without Peyton. You are correct about team effort, but regardless of effort the talent is not there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I think I know what the OP was getting at but it just came out wrong....or he was at least on the right track.

What I would say is that you can win and have a lot of success with a good to great QB and you don't necessarily have to have the greatest QB in the game at the time in order to win. I say this in reference to all of the "we must draft Luck" chatter. There are at least 3-4 QB's in the coming draft who have the potential to be good, great or elite. However colts fans are so used to having the best QB in the game right now that they feel we must continue that trend in order to win. And since all the hype this year is about Andrew Luck, well clearly he's going to be the best QB out of the coming draft so he's the one we absolutely have to go with. IMO this is total nonsense. There are a lot of teams that win with good or great QB's. Yes having an elite QB has been great and I've cherished every minute of it so far and will continue to do so until he can no longer play. His successor, however, does not have to be the elite type of QB that he is. It would be nice, yes, but having a great QB instead of an elite one would afford us a better opportunity to add more talent around him and be a better team overall.

Just my $0.02 and I could be way off base on where the OP was coming from. :)

Well....since the OP made no mention of the draft or Andrew Luck, I think the key takeaway from his examples are that if an NFL team is balanced overall...and perhaps has an outstanding defense or outstanding players at non-QB positions...then winning the Super Bowl is entirely possible, which it is.

For the Colts, Manning's successor....whoever he is...will not command or make the salary Peyton does, which SHOULD afford us the ability to build a stronger 53-man roster.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well....since the OP made no mention of the draft or Andrew Luck, I think the key takeaway from his examples are that if an NFL team is balanced overall...and perhaps has an outstanding defense or outstanding players at non-QB positions...then winning the Super Bowl is entirely possible, which it is.

For the Colts, Manning's successor....whoever he is...will not command or make the salary Peyton does, which SHOULD afford us the ability to build a stronger 53-man roster.

You're right, he didn't...I'm assuming that it it's either all the clamor saying we must get Luck or all the bashing and hatred shown towards Collins. Yeah that is an assumption and I know what happens when you assume....but I'm guessing it had to be one of the 2 that inspired this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

as a true colts fan (before manning) i would much rather have a complete team then just have manning. and the fo is so....to not have built at least a respectable defence by now for manning his career is at the farewell stage and they failed him. polian is really not that great of a gm if u ask me

Link to post
Share on other sites

as a true colts fan (before manning) i would much rather have a complete team then just have manning. and the fo is so....to not have built at least a respectable defence by now for manning his career is at the farewell stage and they failed him. polian is really not that great of a gm if u ask me

Polian Sr was good, but not his kid. If I remember correctly, he let his kid took over most of the day-to-day responsibilities around 06 or 07, that's when things starting going down hill with the busted early round draft picks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? You list 5 teams that have won Super Bowls with sub-par QBs and then make the sweeping generalization that they're not important to winning games? Think of how many more Super Bowls have been won by elite QBs...Manning, Brady, Favre, Montana, Young, Aikman, Staubach, Starr, Elway, etc. It might not be essential for a team to have a good QB to win, but a team can win or lose a game based on QB play. The reason everyone blames Collins is because Manning was able to take this same team and make them contenders last year. Was the talent any better last year? No. What does that mean? It must mean that Manning, the QB, was the difference maker for this team.

the point was that hundreds of sub-par QB's make playoffs.

I used super bowl as an example on the grandest of stages. This is not about Super Bowls. Eventho teams with bad quarterbacks win them all the time.

You don't need a good QB to make playoffs. Someone mentioned you don't need HOF QB's to be successful? who the heck is talking about HOF's? Are you kidding me?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are QB's really the main reason for success? All I hear is people talking about them and complaining about them. Not just Colts fans, but everyone. Most of the conversations are based on QB's. If you look at NFL history, it is clearly a team sport and defense is more important than a QB.

Now there are ton of teams that win and won with sub par QB's. Here is an example of Super Bowl winners. Just imagine how many teams made it into the playoffs with sub par QB's.

Doug Williams

Jeff Hostetler

Mark Rypien

Trent Dilfer

Brad Johnson

I can put a few others on this list, but they are a little bit better than sub-par.

The point is just by looking at Super Bowl winners, there are hundreds of other sup-par QB's that went into the playoffs.

Stop dissing Collins, stop whining and moaning, stop crying. Blame the team effort. Collins didn't singlehandedly lose those games.

The Defense was atrocious in both games. Special teams even worse. We couldn't run the ball at Hou. Our DB's stink. Coaching hasn't been good either.

QB's don't win games.

Link to post
Share on other sites

and last time i checked brad johnson had an ok game in the superbowl... unlike Rich Gannon who had 5 INTS in that game..... hmmm now why did the raiders lose again??? :loco:

they won the division and went to playoffs with Brad Johnson. Big whoop he had a decent game in SB. You are still missing the point of this thread.

They went through a 16 game season, through the playoffs and won a SB with a pedestrian QB.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok if according to you sub par qb's along with a great defense wins superbowls right? so the vikings won the superbowl? what about the panthers when they had peppers and company? the bear a few years ago? what about our colts back in the 90's? hhmmm looks to me like with the occasional fluke sub par qb's do not get the job done at all.

wrong again.

This is not about SB's.

This is about making playoffs with sub-par QB's. And those teams made playoffs.

Stop crying and blaming Collins.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right, he didn't...I'm assuming that it it's either all the clamor saying we must get Luck or all the bashing and hatred shown towards Collins. Yeah that is an assumption and I know what happens when you assume....but I'm guessing it had to be one of the 2 that inspired this thread.

You're probably right.

Bottom line....Collins and the rest of the team are being asked to compensate for a situation where a team's foundation and philosophy centers around one player, regardless of whether one agrees with that approach or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

what inspired this thread are the hundreds of lame threads that talk only about QB's.

Colts fans think that QB wins games. Colts fans forget that there is no I in TEAM.

Almost every thread on this forum blames Collins. Where are the threads that blame the team and the coaching?

I been a Colts fan way before Manning. I think that most Colts fans are spoiled people. Learn football and learn how the game works.

QB is only one aspect of the game, and it's not an important one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

as a true colts fan (before manning) i would much rather have a complete team then just have manning. and the fo is so....to not have built at least a respectable defence by now for manning his career is at the farewell stage and they failed him. polian is really not that great of a gm if u ask me

I agree about the defense but not about putting the blame on Polian. The players that were brought in were the type of players that Dungy wanted. I have a very hard time believing that it was coincidence that bigger and stronger players began coming in as Dungy was on his way out. The players we have now are bigger and stronger than in Dungy's days and I attribute that to Caldwell/Coyer. Otherwise, why wouldn't Polian still be bringing in 280 lb DTs, 220 lb LBs etc?

Polian Sr was good, but not his kid. If I remember correctly, he let his kid took over most of the day-to-day responsibilities around 06 or 07, that's when things starting going down hill with the busted early round draft picks.

From what I've been able to find, Chris Polian was named GM in November of 2009, but my understanding is he didn't take over full running of day to day operations until 2010. I am more than pleased with what Chris has done so far.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are QB's really the main reason for success? All I hear is people talking about them and complaining about them. Not just Colts fans, but everyone. Most of the conversations are based on QB's. If you look at NFL history, it is clearly a team sport and defense is more important than a QB.

Now there are ton of teams that win and won with sub par QB's. Here is an example of Super Bowl winners. Just imagine how many teams made it into the playoffs with sub par QB's.

Doug Williams

Jeff Hostetler

Mark Rypien

Trent Dilfer

Brad Johnson

I can put a few others on this list, but they are a little bit better than sub-par.

The point is just by looking at Super Bowl winners, there are hundreds of other sup-par QB's that went into the playoffs.

Stop dissing Collins, stop whining and moaning, stop crying. Blame the team effort. Collins didn't singlehandedly lose those games.

The Defense was atrocious in both games. Special teams even worse. We couldn't run the ball at Hou. Our DB's stink. Coaching hasn't been good either.

QB's don't win games.

ALL of those teams had super, Duper defenses. We dont. We wont. We cant. We shant. We draft. They Laughed. We Cry.......and a little more good Defense dies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It all depends on how the team is built. If they are built like the Colts in which EVERYTHING is built around the franchise QB (even the defense is built with him in mind) then yes he's going to get most of the credit and yes the team is going to struggle with out him. If you are team like the Pats that is built around solid line play on both sides of the ball and good coaching you are going to be able to over come losing your franchise QB like the Pats did.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...