New Orleans Saints - blackandgold.com

New Orleans Saints - blackandgold.com (http://blackandgold.com/community/)
-   Saints (http://blackandgold.com/saints/)
-   -   good article (http://blackandgold.com/saints/7344-good-article.html)

baronm 02-04-2005 09:04 AM

good article
 
Quote:

Quarterbacks are driving force in the NFL

By Jennifer Floyd Engel

Star-Telegram Staff Writer


JACKSONVILLE, Fla. - The question before the assembled panel of Super Bowl MVPs on Monday was supposed to be whether the quarterback is back as the sexy, headline-grabbing focus of the NFL.

"You all played in an era when great quarterback play was a precursor to winning ..." had barely been spoken when former 49ers quarterback Steve Young interrupted.

"What era is that not the case?" he asked, drawing laughter.

Well, until very recently, that era appeared to be this one. How else do you explain Baltimore lifting a Lombardi Trophy with Trent Dilfer as its quarterback. That, coupled with the St. Louis Rams winning with a grocery store stock boy and the Bucs winning with a journeyman in recent seasons, lent credence to the idea that somehow you don't need that Steve Young-esque quarterback. You can build a good team and stick in whoever you want, a bus driver so to speak, and still win.

"She's from Dallas. She's been listening to [coach Bill] Parcells," former Cowboys quarterback Troy Aikman explained, when Young looked befuddled by that explanation.

"Well," Young said, "I can guarantee you Bill doesn't believe it. He might be spouting it, but he doesn't believe it."

Hardly anybody does. Almost everybody jumped off that bus, so to speak, this season as the teams with the best quarterbacks made the playoffs and those without did not. Super Bowl Sunday is just an exclamation point. It matches the best teams who, not coincidentally, are led by two of the best quarterbacks in the game with the Eagles' Donovan McNabb and the Patriots' Tom Brady.

"I think in our system and, probably I can speak here also for the Patriots, for our systems, I think it is very important that you have a franchise quarterback," Eagles coach Andy Reid said. "Both teams are fortunate enough to have that, but again, for what we are trying to do, I think it is very, very important."

The debate comes with the wording, not so much with the theory.

Former Cowboys coach turned NFL analyst Jimmy Johnson stumbles on the term "franchise," for it implies a No. 1 draft pick must be used or lots and lots of money must be spent to snare somebody else's former No. 1 pick. He does not believe first equals best. He believes best equals best, and the key is to find a quarterback who can win wherever he might come from.
"You have to have a quarterback. That is the key position," Johnson said. "He might not be the key player for the offense, but he has to be able to win games."

This is a characteristic not determined simply by talent, but by talent and moxie and coolness and guts.

It was a combination of these characteristics which made the likes of Joe Namath and Aikman, Joe Montana and Young, Terry Bradshaw and Bart Starr the standard by which everybody else will be judged and the reason behind building around a quarterback, not vice versa.

Not that everybody agrees.

"We weren't saying that last year," Patriots coach Bill Belichick said. "We weren't saying that a couple of years ago in the Oakland scenario. We weren't saying that with Baltimore. I think every team is it's own team. I don't think there is anything you have to do."

Of course, he can say that. He has Brady, who is definitely not a bus driver. For those who don't, they are looking for somebody like him.

"I think you look at whether it is Tom Brady or Brad Johnson or Rich Gannon and some of the journeyman trips he made around the league, Jake Delhomme, and those guys that have been able to take their team to the Super Bowl, that is what all of a sudden has put the thought in some people's minds that they don't have to have a first-round pick to make it to the Super Bowl," Aikman said. "Which is obvious because these guys have been able to do it.

"But what I would argue, is that all of those quarterbacks have played like first-round picks, so your chances of getting a quarterback to play like a first-rounder goes up dramatically when you draft that guy in the first round."

Of course, leave it to the running back to perfectly summarize the quarterback debate.

"I think the reason you have some coaches saying certain things like talk about bus drivers kind of guys is because they don't have guys like these kind of guys who are playing for them," former Cowboys running back Emmitt Smith said.
SUPER BOWL XXXIX

Patriots vs. Eagles 5:30 p.m. Sunday Jacksonville, Fla. TV: KDFW/Ch. 4

• Late roster additions get lucky breaks. 11D

• Union's grievance against Cowboys to be heard. 11D

ONLINE EXCLUSIVE

Who do you think will win Super Bowl XXXIX? Tell us at www.star-telegram.com. Results will be published in a special Super Bowl preview section Sunday.


saintswhodi 02-04-2005 09:13 AM

good article
 
Wait, so you mean guys who played quarterback and WON SUPERBOWLS in the NFL feel like you NEED a GOOD QUARTERBACK to win? AND, to top it off, they said the playoff teams that got in this year HAD GOOD QBs and that was the difference?

Quote:

Hardly anybody does. Almost everybody jumped off that bus, so to speak, this season as the teams with the best quarterbacks made the playoffs and those without did not.
Which is what I have been saying for well over a month now in comparing us to teams similarly rated? Hot damn. Great article baron. :yourock: :yes: :thumbsup: :salute: :notworthy:

GumboBC 02-04-2005 09:16 AM

good article
 
Me, WhoDat, and some others, discussed this very topic a good while back.

It comes down to how a coach wants to construct their team.

You CAN win with just about ANY QB.

But, IMO, that\'s not wise.

I believe the QB is the most important player in football.

But, I don\'t care how good the QB is, he can\'t do it alone.

Peyton Manning and all his stats don\'t mean too much right now. And it won\'t mean much when Peyton is sitting home this sunday watching the super bowl.

A football team has 53 players. All of the players on the field count.

Mike Tyson might be a great fighter. But, if Tyson were in a street gang, his gang might lose a fight to a rival gang because the members in the other gang might be better fighters.... ;)

saintswhodi 02-04-2005 09:20 AM

good article
 
I don\'t care how it\'s tap-danced, Superbowl winning MVP QBs agree with my assessment of what it takes to win in the NFL. Gumbo you can nay-say all you like, but it doesn\'t get more real than that. Notice how they say ALL the playoff teams had good QBs and I outlined SEVERAL teams that were not much different than us except in that one area, QB. Kinda drives it home. So unless we wanna say we can\'t trust the opinion of a Steve Young or a Troy Aikman who I am sure have been poisoned by members of this board to take such a stance, I don\'t know that there is really much more to say.

GumboBC 02-04-2005 09:34 AM

good article
 
saintwhodi --

You and me are going to come to an understanding one day.... ;)

IMO, this article doesn\'t lend anymore credibility to your arugement than it does mine.

All the article is suggesting is whether or not having a \"franchise\" is the best way to build a winner.

It DOES NOT suggest that if you have a \"franchise\" QB that your team can still be an 8-8 team. The article doesn\'t even discuss that scenerio!!

It doesn\'t discuss the scenerio that a team could have a franchise QB like Archie Manning and still not be a playoff team.

But just becasue the \"article\" doesn\'t discuss that scenerio. That doesn\'t mean you and I can\'t?

Do you consider Archie to be a \"franchise\" QB?

I\'m going to assume you said yes?

Then how come Archie never led the Saints to even ONE playoff game?

The supporting cast wasn\'t good? That makes sense to me.

So, I think I\'ve proven it takes much more than a \"franchise\" QB to get it done.

But, the article never suggested that. It was only you who suggested that a QB can get it done by himself?




saintswhodi 02-04-2005 09:54 AM

good article
 
Ah, I see where we but heads. I never said a QB can get it done by HIMSELF, although there are some who have tried and almost succeeded. I said a QB needs to be competent or decent, and I don\'t think ours is. Now that is a huge difference from believing I think you can win without supporting players. I don\'t. These guys never said you need a franchise qb, they said you need a GOOD QB. They said the notion of winning with sub-par QBs is out the window. IMO, we have a sub-par QB. This is obviously where our wires are getting crossed. Stokley was nobody in Baltimore, enter Peyton Manning. Marcus Robinson was busted out of Chicago, enter Culpepper. Seahawks receivers drop more passes than ANYONE, enter Hasselbeck. Shaun McDonald and Kevin Curtis as yout third receivers and Manamaleuna as your TE?? Huh? Enter Marc Bulger. People said Muhammed was washed up and not worth the money 2 years ago and Steve Smith was just a special teamed, enter Jake Delhomme.

So basically my argument was NEVER that you need a QB who can do it all himself, you need a decent, competent QB who can make his team better. Ours DOES NOT. That\'s my point. If you have been understanding that I said a franchise QB with no team can do it all, then I see where we have been mixed up. Elway came the closest, and Vick comes pretty close although he has okay talent around him but very poor receivers outside Crumpler, but I wouldn\'t want that here. I want a good, competent decent Qb which we don\'t have, and which at least two Superbowl MVP Qbs and a superbowl winning coach agree that your QB at least needs to be good. Noone describes AB as good. Noone.

GumboBC 02-04-2005 10:06 AM

good article
 
saintwhodi -

The AB debate is a complex issue.

He\'s had some good mixed in with some bad.

Some of you look at the a couple of stupid plays that he\'s made. And you look at some things he\'s said in the media. And some of you question if his leadership skills are what is holding this team back.

And some of you question his accuracy and his decision making skills.

All of which are valid concerns.........

Myself.....well......... I take all of those things into consideration also.

But, that\'s all just specualation.

But what is not speculation is AB has had terrible defenses for 4 years.

And what is not speculation is Haslett disassembled a very good offensive line from the 2000 season and left AB with a very poor offensive line.

And what\'s not speculation is the ONE year where Brooks did have a good offensive line and a good defense is Brooks played great and we won our first playoff game ever.

Now, we can debate how good or not our receivers are. And we can debate a bunch of other things...

But, its clear to me that Brooks, while he\'s made some screw-ups, has not had the supporting cast to really see if its Brooks fault or not...

saintswhodi 02-04-2005 10:25 AM

good article
 
Quote:

And what\'s not speculation is the ONE year where Brooks did have a good offensive line and a good defense is Brooks played great and we won our first playoff game ever.
You mean the 5 games right cause Blake was 7-4? So in your mind, a 7-4 Blake as opposed to a 3-2 AB would not have won that playoff game? Okay. I see where we differ elsewhere also. Brooks did a nice job of taking Blake\'s team and finishing what Blake started. I wonder why he couldn\'t beat out Blake in the pre-season? So if I am a scientist, and I finish 75% of an equation that will allow us to run cars off water, but I die before I finish and Joe Scmoe comes along and finishes 25%, and gets a nobel peace prize for science for completing my work, that means for the next 4 years he can do jackity crap and make blunderous errors and what not and never bring science to the same level that I started for him and still get praised and a free ride? No thanks. I like my scientist inventing new things at least once in a while, not riding the coattails of someone else\'s success to endless freedom to f--- up.

GumboBC 02-04-2005 10:32 AM

good article
 
Again.........you\'re just speculating..........

Facts: Brooks came in and played better than Blake ever thought about playing. Which I think anyone would agree with. Blake managed the game very well and he had a very good supporting cast that helped him win.

Same thing with Brooks. He had a very good defense, a very good offensive line, and a good running back.

But, Brooks outplayed Blake and won the starting QB position.

Brooks beat the superbowl Rams TWICE. And that was in the Rams hayday!!!

In the playoff game, Brooks threw 4 TD passes and made a lot of plays with his legs.

Also, in that playoff game, Brooks didn\'t have Ricky Williams or Joe Horn. And many of the defensive starters were hurt too.

Who cares what Blake did? I\'m not talking about the play of Blake. I\'m talking about what Brooks done after he was the starting QB.

You think Randy Meuller gave Brooks that big contract because he played badly?

baronm 02-04-2005 10:34 AM

good article
 
more than a few people think we are going to try to trade up and grab alex smith.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:31 PM.


Copyright 1997 - 2013 - BlackandGold.com