Great QB or Great Team?

[Vicious]

I posted this in Pure Football, but I figured I'd get more responses here.

What would you rather have? A great QB or a great team? Historically, if you were to compare the two it would seem that more great teams won with average QB's than great QB's won with average teams.

I'll give you an example:

1.) Brett Favre 5,377 completions out of 8,758 attempts 61.4 completion % 61,655 yards 7.0 yards per attempt with 442 TD's and 288 interceptions

2.) Dan Marino 4,967 completions out of 8,358 attempts 59.4 completion % 61,361 yards 7.3 yards per attempt with 420 TD's and 252 interceptions

All of that with one super bowl win between two of the greatest of all time. Now name me one QB that has won the super bowl without a great team. I am willing to bet there were more super bowl winning QB's who were average QB's with a great team than there were great QB's with an average team.

I'm thinking we should definitely focus more on building a great team through the draft than going after the best of an average QB class at best. Redman proved to be capable of running an offense last year and barring injury should be plenty capable of being our QB for at least another year while this team is built the right way, not putting the buggy in front of the horse.

[Vicious]

Maybe I should have made it a poll.

[Bring It]

I guess I want both !!! As the NFL evolves, most football people agree that you can't win in today's NFL WITHOUT both..............a great QB AND a great TEAM.

I would agree with that. That's why winning is soooooo **** hard.

[Bloodhoundz]

Of course a great team because that means this Franchise probably won a Super Bowl. A great teams makes the Quarterback look better.

[Vicious]

Bloodhoundz Reborn (3/8/2008)

---

Of course a great team because that means this Franchise probably won a Super Bowl. A great teams makes the Quarterback look better.

Exactly! All these people wanting the flash in the pan pick are wanting something that historically doesn't pan out when there isn't a solid foundation for support. What does work is building solid lines and having reliable skill position players.

[Cygnus]

I think you're looking at it a little too black and white.

Sure, teams have made it to the Superbowl without a great QB... Tampa, and Baltimore come to mind, but that's about it. And sometimes, in the case of New England and St. Louis, a team gets lucky, and the unheralded guy gets it done is fantastic fashion.

I'm tired of looking at Superbowl wins as the great indicator of great teams or QBs. I'd rather look at sustained success, multi-year playoff runs as the best indicator of whether or not a team is good.

But yeah, in the Salary Cap era, you'd have to think that having the "great QB" is going to hamstring your club, having so much money tied up in a single point of failure. What happens if that guy goes down, or can't play because of extra-curricular activities? A significant portion of your team is gone.

Than again, that could be said of the loss of any starting QB. Its hard to overcome.

I'm surprised that Marino never made it back to the Superbowl, but at least they had continued success. At least they were in it, year after year. We seem to be good once every four years, which I'm sick of.

At this point, I'd rather have 5 years of continued success over one Superbowl appearance. Give me a team that's not an embarrassment.

So yeah, I think you have to have both. A great team can overcome the QB having a bad game (Peyton Manning's playoff run for instance). I think the opposite is true as well, when you see a QB take it on his shoulders in the 4th.

But if you only have one of the two...

[Bloodhoundz]

Vicious (3/8/2008)

---

Exactly! All these people wanting the flash in the pan pick are wanting something that historically doesn't pan out when there isn't a solid foundation for support. What does work is building solid lines and having reliable skill position players.

This Bret Favre retirement made me realize one thing, and that is when people ranked Favre with the all-time QB's, I didn't hear 1 single person name Dan Marino in their top 5. If Dan Marino had won a Super Bowl he would of been mentioned IMO. At the end of the day people will remember you for being on a great championship team more than being a great Quarterback without a Super Bowl win.

[Vicious]

Cygnus (3/8/2008)

---

I think you're looking at it a little too black and white.

Sure, teams have made it to the Superbowl without a great QB... Tampa, and Baltimore come to mind, but that's about it. And sometimes, in the case of New England and St. Louis, a team gets lucky, and the unheralded guy gets it done is fantastic fashion.

I'm tired of looking at Superbowl wins as the great indicator of great teams or QBs. I'd rather look at sustained success, multi-year playoff runs as the best indicator of whether or not a team is good.

But yeah, in the Salary Cap era, you'd have to think that having the "great QB" is going to hamstring your club, having so much money tied up in a single point of failure. What happens if that guy goes down, or can't play because of extra-curricular activities? A significant portion of your team is gone.

Than again, that could be said of the loss of any starting QB. Its hard to overcome.

I'm surprised that Marino never made it back to the Superbowl, but at least they had continued success. At least they were in it, year after year. We seem to be good once every four years, which I'm sick of.

At this point, I'd rather have 5 years of continued success over one Superbowl appearance. Give me a team that's not an embarrassment.

So yeah, I think you have to have both. A great team can overcome the QB having a bad game (Peyton Manning's playoff run for instance). I think the opposite is true as well, when you see a QB take it on his shoulders in the 4th.

But if you only have one of the two...

Good post. I know what you are saying. Don't get me wrong, though, I would love that kind of sustained success, but it all goes for naught if there's not any championships to go with it.

[oregonsfan]

A great team! There are always exceptions, of course, but you don't see many Superbowl-winning teams who have won on the back of any one single player.

[halsey]

Both

[edZep]

Great Team !

It is all about the team.

If you have a great team you obviously have a really good QB.

[Vicious]

halsey (3/8/2008)

---

Both

Agreed, but this is an either or question so if you had to choose which would be more important which would you choose?

[1945]

Great team, obviously.

Another example is Elway. It took years to put together a team that would allow him to finally excell for a full season rather than just a game here and there.

[Knight of God]

When a team is great it allows an average, tough, and athletic QB to evolve into something fierce. Marino never really had a great RB, when Elway finally got a great RB he won SB. Both are great QB's that lacked. Brady and Favre both had great tools when they one big games, but even when they became "great" they fell short of that big victory. If we can make a run stopping "D", the pass rush will come. If we run the ball with a solid Power Rush, the pass will come.

[Guest JBopper]

A great team of coarse.In today`s NFL you need both but a graet team can deal with average QB`s(The Bears with Grossman).Also most teams now have a 2 runningback system as well.Would be nice to have another great backup behind Turner and Norwood just incase one got hurt.

[Cygnus]

This has really got me thinking about "great quarterbacks." Who's on that list? Who will be?

Is Roethlisberger a great QB? What about Eli? I'd answer no to both at this point in time. Yeah, they've got rings, but so does Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer.

I'd put all of those guys in a "good QB" category, at least for right now, but they've got a lot of football ahead of them (Eli and Big Ben that is). I have a feeling that my opinion of them will probably change, but I've seen too many QBs do great for a couple of years, only to become question marks. And have either of these buys been great? Or have they been a little more than good enough?

So I guess it brings up another question...

Great QB, good team?

Great team, good QB?

That would seem to be enough, and to be honest, I seems like all you could really ask for in the Salary Cap era.

You're gonna have holes, unless you're really lucky in the draft. The greater a few players are considered, the bigger holes elsewhere. Or so it seems.

[busboyisback]

You want to know the truth?

The QB position is merely the glory position in football. It's the only position in football where they keep track of a win/loss record. It's the most marketable position.

So all these paid analysts make you think that it's the end all be all when it comes to importance.

In reality the biggest formula for success especially when you talk post-season success is a championship caliber DEFENSE.

39 of the 42 teams that have won the Super Bowl have had a top 10 defense.

(It's something that I often forget which is why I retract my comments about taking Jake Long over a DT)

Sure you can't have a bad to average QB lead you to the Super Bowl unless you have a once in a generation defense, but you don't need a great one either.

Just a decent to good one.

[NewFalcon]

Nice post and IMHO, a great team is the key to sustained success.

For too many years the Falcons have tried various means of having it all now and still have not had back-to-back winning seasons. If you look at the successful teams in the NFL (both historically and today), they typically have assembled dominant defensive lines and offensive lines via the draft, supplemented by free-agency. The great teams were not created in one season, but you could watch them improve each year as they added the missing pieces to the 'complete team' puzzle.

When your OL can protect the QB and create running and passing lanes, you will score points and can win games.

If your DL can get to the QB, disrupt his rhythm, and create 3 and outs, you keep your opponents from scoring, and you can win the game.

It's an ole cliche, but the game is won or lost in the trenches, and the QB succeeds or fails based upon your success there. Certainly the QB is a key component, but history has shown that a solid/dependable QB with good decision-making, playing behind a great team can get you "W's", into the playoffs and eventually into the Super Bowl. Isn't that the goal of every team in the NFL, and isn't winning the 'big game' the standard against which QB's are ultimately judged?

Let's build a solid OL/DL foundation and let Redman lead the offense next season, with a later round draft pick like Flacco, Henne, or Brohm carrying the clipboard and learning the game.

[Electric Falcon]

Edward Malone (3/8/2008)

---

Great Team !

It is all about the team.

If you have a great team you obviously have a really good QB.

Ok let me stir the pot of opinions so to speak and add this to the mix :

Great defense/decent offense or Great offense/decent defense?

I know defense wins championships is going to be said, but I will say again and again and again that "TEAMS WIN CHAMPIONSHIPS", balance on both sides of the field. JMO.....

[edZep]

Great D , decent O

85 Bears !

[Cygnus]

Teams need a great defense to be successful. But how many teams with great defenses never even made it to the playoffs?

In 2006, Miami, Oakland and Jacksonville were in the top 5 for points allowed. Jacksonville was 8-8, Miami 6-10, and Oakland 2-14.

In 2005, Baltimore was #5 and 6-10. In 2006 they brought in McNair and were 13-3. Was it just because of him, no, I'd never make that argument. But he as a big player in that.

2004? Washington was 6-10 and ranked #3. At #5 Tampa was 5-11.

2003 had Buffalo ranked #2, their record was 6-10. Tampa #5 again, only won 7 games.

I'm cherry picking here, I'm not saying that Defense isn't important, or that its not imperative that we build a really good one. But defense alone does not win championships. NFL history is laden with great defenses that couldn't even make it into the post season.

[edZep]

Great coach/good team

or

good coach/great team ?

[Vicious]

I think it boils down to having a top 10 defense with an above average offense. There were only a few teams that did it with all offense, namely the Rams. The point to my thread is that everyone is putting too much importance on the QB position. Do you think with the same team last year that if you replaced our QB with Brady or Manning (either one) that the team would have fared much better? I don't. Our offensive line was dreadful, our pass rush was none existent which led to the other team picking us apart, our offense stayed on the field, and our RB was the wrong fit for a power scheme. That's too much to put on the shoulders of any one player.

[edZep]

Good team/ugly cheerleaders

or

Bad team/super hot cheerleaders ?

[somecut8]

good analysis. That's the way I always thought - defense wins championships. Plus the QB is only as good as the players around him. He needs a good line to block, and good WRs to catch the ball.

Falcons key to success:

Pro-Bowl Defense + Decent Offense + Great Offensive Line = Superbowl Falcons.

So lets make it like that. Draft linemen and resign DeAngelo Hall.

Oh and to Cygnus's first post. It depends on what you define success is. Personally, I'd much rather have 1 superbowl win than 5 years of success only because the Falcons have NEVER won a Superbowl. I would love for us to get that first ring sometime soon. I'd much rather us got to the Superbowl and win it and have 4 years of average to winning seasons then 5 years of making it to the playoffs but not winning the big one.