Mark Clayton and Torrey Smith

[bacchys]

To the QB question you posed -- Yes, yes, yes, and yes.

Nobody claimed you need the "top QB" or the "best QB to win the SB". Try again without moving the goal posts.

And you've also contradicted yourself in the last sentence. How can a team be complete without a good QB? All of the teams that won the SB the past ten years had complete teams, to include a very good QB.

The last ten Super Bowls proves the point.

For someone talking about moving the goalposts, yours are on skates.

Yes, you need a good quarterback. You don't need a great QB to win. There are more than a few good QB's in the league. The major difference between winning teams and losing teams in the NFL in the era of parity is in the front office and the coaching staffs, especially the latter. Good coaching staffs figure out ways to use the talent they have and set those players up for success. Less-than-good coaching staffs try to force their players into whatever scheme they have instead of adjusting to the players.

[Coastergenius]

I realize that it's just a video, but I did notice something I noticed about Mark Clayton in terms of his Madden character. He was obviously an awful traditional WR to use, but he was actually pretty effective with WR screens.

[PurpleApocalypse37]

For someone talking about moving the goalposts, yours are on skates.

Yes, you need a good quarterback. You don't need a great QB to win. There are more than a few good QB's in the league. The major difference between winning teams and losing teams in the NFL in the era of parity is in the front office and the coaching staffs, especially the latter. Good coaching staffs figure out ways to use the talent they have and set those players up for success. Less-than-good coaching staffs try to force their players into whatever scheme they have instead of adjusting to the players.

Sorry but saying the quarterback position isn't an important enough position to merit using a first rounder is just silliness.

Joe Flacco's defense was NOT GOOD last year. They gave up 88 points in the playoffs, and over 600 yards in the Super Bowl. But the Ravens won the Super Bowl anyways because Flacco was GREAT.

A big reason why the Ravens won it all last year is because they scored touchdowns on TEN STRAIGHT TRIPS to the Redzone. "Good quarterbacks" don't convert 10 Redzone trips into 70 points.

[StingerNLG]

Name the last "good" QB to win the Super Bowl, especially in the last 5-7 years.

Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk 2

[HoustonRaven]

For someone talking about moving the goalposts, yours are on skates.

Yes, you need a good quarterback. You don't need a great QB to win. There are more than a few good QB's in the league. The major difference between winning teams and losing teams in the NFL in the era of parity is in the front office and the coaching staffs, especially the latter. Good coaching staffs figure out ways to use the talent they have and set those players up for success. Less-than-good coaching staffs try to force their players into whatever scheme they have instead of adjusting to the players.

My position has not moved so please point out where I've changed things up.

Last ten years, since the addition of offensive friendly rules to allow for more scoring and a more pass friendly league, the winning SB QB has been what I called "very good". I never said these QB's were just "good" as you seem to claim here.

And for someone to claim I am the one moving the goal posts, it's a head scratcher why you now are arguing parity. That was not your original point. But to that point, yes, I agree that the difference between winning and losing teams has is due, in large part, to parity.

But again, that was not your original point nor any part of my rebuttal. When you want to get back on topic, I will be more than happy to continue this debate since history is on my side.

[Sirdowski]

Quibbling is an interesting euphemism for "complete rebuttal." I've never seen it used that way before.

Your too much.

Saying "he had some success" and, "he had better stats in 5 start's than in 8 with Detroit" is quibbling with regards to the point your trying to make.

Shaun Hill has flashes of very good play and has games with the stats to back that up, but he is a one man turnover machine. You cannot win in the playoffs let alone a SB with a QB who turns the ball over as much as Hill, the point your trying to make.

[bacchys]

Sorry but saying the quarterback position isn't an important enough position to merit using a first rounder is just silliness.

Joe Flacco's defense was NOT GOOD last year. They gave up 88 points in the playoffs, and over 600 yards in the Super Bowl. But the Ravens won the Super Bowl anyways because Flacco was GREAT.

A big reason why the Ravens won it all last year is because they scored touchdowns on TEN STRAIGHT TRIPS to the Redzone. "Good quarterbacks" don't convert 10 Redzone trips into 70 points.

Yes, they do. Good quarterbacks on good teams score points. They win games. Teams win games, not individual players.

Flacco did play great. So did other players on the team. Boldin was a standout, making huge, difficult catches. If Jones fumbles those two bombs, we're talking about him and this season like we talked about Evans and last year.

Teams win championships, not players.

A good quarterback contributes to the team. They're able to contribute to the formula an NFL team needs to win: dominant in one aspect of the game while not getting dominated somewhere else.

Eli Manning is not a great QB. He's made some great plays, but he's not a great QB. He's certainly not a better QB than Brady, but his team has beaten Brady's twice in the last six years in the SB, because Manning is good enough to ensure that his play doesn't contribute to a negative value in that formula.

We used more than "a first rounder" on Flacco.

Yes, he was great. I'm happy he's our QB. I still don't agree with rolling the dice on a draft pick on that position when there are more than adequately serviceable QB's that have NFL experience (even if it's only holding a clipboard) a team can acquire. You are as likely to get a Leaf, Boller, or Russell as you are a Flacco or Manning.

[bacchys]

My position has not moved so please point out where I've changed things up.

Last ten years, since the addition of offensive friendly rules to allow for more scoring and a more pass friendly league, the winning SB QB has been what I called "very good". I never said these QB's were just "good" as you seem to claim here.

And for someone to claim I am the one moving the goal posts, it's a head scratcher why you now are arguing parity. That was not your original point. But to that point, yes, I agree that the difference between winning and losing teams has is due, in large part, to parity.

But again, that was not your original point nor any part of my rebuttal. When you want to get back on topic, I will be more than happy to continue this debate since history is on my side.

Earlier you were saying it took a "high quality" QB to win. Now it's "very good." At no point did I say you had said "good" was enough. That's my claim. You don't need a great or "very good" QB to win. You do need a good one.

The parity part is relevant to the discussion. That's why the NFL is the way it is today even more than the rule changes to benefit the offense.

[bacchys]

Your too much.

Saying "he had some success" and, "he had better stats in 5 start's than in 8 with Detroit" is quibbling with regards to the point your trying to make.

Shaun Hill has flashes of very good play and has games with the stats to back that up, but he is a one man turnover machine. You cannot win in the playoffs let alone a SB with a QB who turns the ball over as much as Hill, the point your trying to make.

He's not a "turnover machine." His level of play seems, like it does with so many others, to rise and fall based on the level of play around him. In 2010 with Detroit, he threw 16 TD's and 12 picks in 11 games. He lost 1 fumble. The Lions were a bad team that year. They'd been a bad team for quite a while.

[Jeremiah W]

Yes, they do. Good quarterbacks on good teams score points. They win games. Teams win games, not individual players.

Flacco did play great. So did other players on the team. Boldin was a standout, making huge, difficult catches. If Jones fumbles those two bombs, we're talking about him and this season like we talked about Evans and last year.

Teams win championships, not players.

A good quarterback contributes to the team. They're able to contribute to the formula an NFL team needs to win: dominant in one aspect of the game while not getting dominated somewhere else.

Eli Manning is not a great QB. He's made some great plays, but he's not a great QB. He's certainly not a better QB than Brady, but his team has beaten Brady's twice in the last six years in the SB, because Manning is good enough to ensure that his play doesn't contribute to a negative value in that formula.

We used more than "a first rounder" on Flacco.

Yes, he was great. I'm happy he's our QB. I still don't agree with rolling the dice on a draft pick on that position when there are more than adequately serviceable QB's that have NFL experience (even if it's only holding a clipboard) a team can acquire. You are as likely to get a Leaf, Boller, or Russell as you are a Flacco or Manning.

I agree with the first part almost totally, but the last part, I do not see where you are coming from. You still need to draft a QB and no single draft pick is worth your franchise QB. Even 2 1st round picks is a low price to pay for a potential franchise guy like the Jay Cutler deal. Qbs do not grow on trees, but they come into the draft every year and half the first rounders do not turn out to busts and they do not tend to reach free agency. Free agency is usually a QB wasteland of retreads, washed up and busted out 1st round picks. That us not usually where you are going to find a diamond in the rough like Drew Brees. You get the other side of that coin flip in the form of the Love Boat himself Daunte Cullpeper. It is always a gamble, but the risk reward ratio is much better in the draft, even before the rookie wage scale.

[Dade]

Torrey's specialty seems to be his acceleration more than his pure speed.

Bingo. Thats what burned Champ Bailey in the playoffs.

[PurpleApocalypse37]

Yes, they do. Good quarterbacks on good teams score points. They win games. Teams win games, not individual players.

Flacco did play great. So did other players on the team. Boldin was a standout, making huge, difficult catches. If Jones fumbles those two bombs, we're talking about him and this season like we talked about Evans and last year.

Teams win championships, not players.

A good quarterback contributes to the team. They're able to contribute to the formula an NFL team needs to win: dominant in one aspect of the game while not getting dominated somewhere else.

Eli Manning is not a great QB. He's made some great plays, but he's not a great QB. He's certainly not a better QB than Brady, but his team has beaten Brady's twice in the last six years in the SB, because Manning is good enough to ensure that his play doesn't contribute to a negative value in that formula.

We used more than "a first rounder" on Flacco.

Yes, he was great. I'm happy he's our QB. I still don't agree with rolling the dice on a draft pick on that position when there are more than adequately serviceable QB's that have NFL experience (even if it's only holding a clipboard) a team can acquire. You are as likely to get a Leaf, Boller, or Russell as you are a Flacco or Manning.

Eli Manning was certainly a better quarterback than Brady in those games when they played. Look at Eli's pass to Manningham.. That's probably a better throw than Brady's ever made in his career. Meanwhile, Brady had a wide open Wes Welker and threw it behind him.. Turning an easy catch for YAC into a very difficult catch for no YAC.

Eli had a higher quarterback rating in both of those superbowls. Even in 2007 when Brady was in possibly the most talented offense in NFL history.

How exactly did Flacco cost "more" than a 1st rounder? The Ravens traded their 8th overall pick for the 26th pick, two thirds, and a fourth. Then they traded a third and a sixth for the 18th, and picked Flacco. So they gained a third and a fourth and lost a sixth. If anything, Flacco cost less than a first. Oh, and Jacksonville picked a DE with the 8th overall. Since that's a position other than quarterback, it's a sure thing right? Since apparently quarterback is the only position that's a gamble. Well Derrick Harvey has amounted to jackshit.

This idea of trying to sign mediocre journeyman quarterbacks to give your team the best chance at winning superbowls is beyond ridiculous. It's easier to find a franchise quarterback than it is to assemble one of the best defenses in NFL history, which is what it takes to win a Super Bowl with a mediocre journeymen quarterback.