Really? No Super Bowl thread again?

Remove all ads!

Of course it's subjective Saber. That's the nature of such claims. But the QB is not the team. Not a chance. Take Baltimore for example. Any QB that doesn't throw picks can win games with that Def and RB group. The Giants and Carolina are the same way. All of these teams have made the SB, with Bal and NY winning it.

As for Peyton still playing, that only means he will add to his legacy.

 

I've heard sportscasters claim this is the age of the quarterback literally every game this year.

Look at the playoff teams this year: all of them (except Baltimore) had outstanding quarterbacks (or QBs who were having above average years). Yes, there are other parts of the team, but unless the entire rest of the team is incredible, you need an excellent QB.

 

Mark Sanchez outstanding or above average?

You also have to realize that with most playoff teams, the players around them make them look better. The playoff teams tend to have the best offensive lines, give any QB time to throw and they will be able to hurt you.

It may be the era of the QB, but put any of those guys on the Lions over Matt Stafford and the team would still suck. No pass protection, limited run threat, going against a defense that will always be fresh.

 

Every year for the past, I don't know, thirty years has been the age of the quarterback (even going back further to Staubach, Namath, and Unitas you could say the same thing). However, every few years a running back will come up that can just tear through the opposing defenses -- then the broadcaster talk about a resurgence in the running game ... blah, blah, blah.

The best teams simply have multiple weapons -- all of which are important. A good quarterback executes plays well, a great quarterback can make effective changes to the plays at the line of scrimmage after reading the defense. At that point it becomes a game of strategy and a good defensive strategy can cause the quarterback to 'misread' the defense (which the Saints were very successful with).

Defenses have evolved, especially over the past decade, to be stronger and faster ... even the great Bears defense of 1985 wouldn't compare to a mediocre defense today.

 

Did you hear them say that last year? No. How can this then be the "Age" of the QB. One year the top teams have to turned pasing and its the Age of the QB? I don't get that reasoning. Just a couple years ago Chicago made the SB with Grossman at QB. yes, Terrible Rex. A top QB is not a necessity to winning, just a luxury for teams that have them.

And as Chicken just said, Sanchez is not a top QB. His numbers are terrible and he didn't lead his team to one victory this year. The running game and Defense carried that standard for the Jets.

 

Yes!

I know one that has two rings and not mentioned yet. Is he great for having rings or not great for having a strong defense. Confusion all around.

 

You are right, he is not great. That doesn't alter the fact that of the 12 teams, 10 of them have good QBs.

No, a QB cannot win without at least some semblance of an offensive line, but I will stand my ground on saying the person who changes the game the most on the field is the QB. Most teams live and die by their QB, with a few exceptions.

And yes, the announcers have been saying this an an age of the QB since Brady, Manning (the good one), and Big Ben were all in their prime. So... since 2002, basically.


Edit: Some stats:

Of the top 5 QBs in yards passed, 4 were in the postseason (and 8 of the top 10). Of the top 5 rushing yards, only 2 of the teams with those players were in the postseason (and 4 out of 10).

Of the elite passing teams, the only team to not make the playoffs was the Houstan Texans. All of the other good passing teams made it in, regardless of defense.

 

SBs (or championships before the SB era) matter. Unitas, Starr, Montana are all considered among the best ever because of their championships. Others, like Bradshaw or Aikman, are in the HoF because of their post season exploits (both are deserviing IMO, but the fact remains that other QBs put up similar numbers when they were playing and are NOT in the HOF, because they lack SB wins). Manning will make the HoF, but he is not among the best all time with a single SB win. SBs alone do not measure greatness (Marino, Kelly, Tarkenton, Fouts would not not be in the HoF), but they matter in "best ever" category.

As for the era of QBs, while I do not think you need a GREAT QB to win a title, you do need at least an above average one. Let's review the recent ones: Brees, Roethlisberger, Manning (Eli), Manning (Peyton), Roethlisberger, Brady, Brady, Johnson, Brady, Warner, Elway, Elway, Favre... you get the idea.

With the exception of Eli and Johnson, all of those QBs are well above average, and it should be noted that Eli and Johnson had better statistical seasons that year than their career averages. So while you may not consider Eli and Johnson to be above average QBs, they were that particular year.

I still cannot understand people's dislike of the Pats-Giants and Cards-Steelers SBs. I did not think the Pats-Giants game was boring - I simply thought the defenses played well. I looked up the stats for the Cards-Steelers game (I must caveat this with the fact that I am a Steelers fan), and there were 19 penalties during that game - 11 against the Cards and eight against the Steelers. So while that is a lot, I don't think the totals were so lop-sided as it affected the outcome. And the last few minutes of both those games were spectacular.

I'm not a Giants fan, but the David Tyree play was fantastic. Even though I am a Steelers fan, how could you not consider Holmes' catch in the back of the endzone a fantastic play?

 

The Steelers-Cards game wasn't lopsided, but it was poorly played. It isn't fun to watch teams commit 19 penalties.

As for the Pats-Giants game, I probably hate the game mostly because of the outcome. The Pats didn't play as well as they could, which frustrated me, and then seeing Manning make an excellent run to the end pissed me off (as that was the only time he really played well at all, it seemed). I could just have a mental block in my mind because it was so disturbing to be beaten by a Manning.

Plus, even though that was the Pat's undefeated season, very few people remember (or rather, care about) that because they did NOT win the SB. Which kinda sucks for them.

 

You're definitely right about Manning - he has never played as well before or since that particular season. (Even though the Giants were a wild card team, they did go 11-5 that year, so they weren't a bad team.) I also agree that you probably wouldn't have minded it as much if it were the Pats who had won the game in the final minute.

As for the Pats perfect season, the reason why no one seems to care, is because it ceased to be a perfect season when they lost the SB. You cannot say it was a perfect season if you lose the SB. In fact, a season where you lost a few games but won the SB is more "perfect" than one in which you lose the SB. Had they won, their season would have been historic, and they would rightly be considered among the best teams ever.

 

One thing I will say about the game is that it is evolving. With the players being so valuable with the Big contracts they are getting, teams are changing their philosophies, as is the league. Rules are changing to better protect the QBs, allowing them to play more each season and racking up numbers by eliminating injuries. Does that necessarily make it the age of the QB. Maybe. Teams are passing a bit more, but you see less deep drops and more quick and short throws, which are pretty much supplimental runs. Brees used them to great effect against Indy. Teams are letting more of the QBs audible at the line as well. We all know what that will lead to. More pass plays. Only the truly great QBs audible to the run. I'll admit, the numbers don't lie when perusing the % of runs to passes that coaches are calling around the league. Andy Reid is a great example. His pass-1st philosphy is mind-boggling to the Eagles fans.

 

Of course; I was referring to the regular season. The SB is the ultimate goal, and without that, it is not a perfect season. However, the Pats are still only one of two teams to win all the regular season games (last time was Miami, but that was when the season was only 14 games, right?)

I think they can still be considered the best team of the decade though (2001-2009) - 3 SB wins, 7 playoff appearances (starting with 2001), and 9 winning seasons.

 

Correct - but that team won the SB.

Agreed - in fact, I think that is almost inarguable. Typically, the team that won the most SB is considered the best team that decade. The only other team that has more than one SB win is Pittsburgh, but the Pats have absolutely owned the Steelers in recent years. I think that is a pretty open and shut case.

 

NE was by far the monster of the decade. You're lucky Saber, it's nice when your team is on top. Bill & Tom has been one heck of a tandem. Though I think their dominance is at an end, Brady is aging and they will have trouble replacing him this decade.

 

That's why I wish we had kept Cassel - he has potential. Although I do not know how he did in KC this year.

I have been very lucky, Boston sports teams have absolutely dominated this decade. I have grown up in a time when everyone does well every year; hopefully this upcoming decade won't be too much of a letdown (the Sox won't win the for the next 3 years, and unless the Pats get themselves a younger team, they won't be winning for a while).

 

Cassel did not do nearly as well with KC this year as he did with NE the year before. Then again, he also had a better team in NE, so that may have had something to do with it.

I agree with Boston's recent sports dominance. Between the Pats, Sox, and Celtics, it's been a Golden Age for sports there.

 

The Sox still have a shot to win it. They have STRONG starting pitching. Beckett, Lackey and Lester is an excellent 1-2-3 punch. Their lineup has defalted over the last 3 years, no more Manny/Big Papi 2-headed monster in the middle, but still solid enough to score. With that starting pitching and Papelbon, they should still compete.

 

Not to but I saw this on SI (written by Peter King) regarding the two SB we talked about earlier:

So I'm not alone. You can read the rest of his best/worst of the decade here.