For as long as I can remember the difference between the NFL and most other professional sports leagues was parity. I am not sure if my perception matches with reality, but do the new rules changes that make the league even more of a "QB driven league" threaten parity and by extension, the league, at least long term? I raise the question because there are only a few "elite" QBs in the league . . they are extremely rare to find. Given the emphasis now on QBs and defensive rule changes . . is one of the league's defining characteristics (parity) doomed? Are we about to enter an era where playoff games become shootouts, the team with the elite QB wins because defenses cant stop them? Maybe the new rules make so you don't need an elite QB as much as a good one and so parity remains, at least at some level?
You don't need an elite QB to win or reach Super Bowls. But an elite QB increases chance to make playoffs where anything can happen.
The Bengals-Chargers game was a battle between QBs. There was almost no spectacular defensive plays. It may be true some fans equate high scoring games to excitement. But, a great defense that shuts a reputed high scoring offense down and then plays tough offense to go along with it is a lot more exciting to me. This w hat I think this current staff is going after.
You don't need an elite QB to win or reach Super Bowls. But an elite QB increases chance to make playoffs where anything can happen.
If you have a quality QB your floor is basically 8-8 most seasons. If you don't, your ceiling is 8-8 most seasons. You will get anomalies like the NYJ with Sanchez winning or the Falcons with Ryan choking but generally the QB determines your fate.The league has always been this way, it isn't new. If you have bad QB play unless you have a historically good defense (us and the Ravesn for example) you are screwed. Even teams that won with spares like Rypien or Humphries won when those guys has career years and didn't play like bad QB's.
Although I thought we had one in Josh Freeman a few years ago, the Buccaneers have never has an elite or franchise QB. In what, 38 seasons we've won one Super Bowl, a few playoff games and find ourselves well below .500 all time. I don't think that's a coincidence. It CAN be done, winning it all, without an elite QB.....but the chances are much greater and for a longer period of time WITH one.
Although I thought we had one in Josh Freeman a few years ago, the Buccaneers have never has an elite or franchise QB. In what, 38 seasons we've won one Super Bowl, a few playoff games and find ourselves well below .500 all time. I don't think that's a coincidence. It CAN be done, winning it all, without an elite QB.....but the chances are much greater and for a longer period of time WITH one.
right IF that was true in our history (I think it was) AND . . . . the league is chnaging in a way that makes it even more true going forward . . THEN . . . . dont we lose parity and get more in the mode of the "haves" and "have nots," where teams with great QBs can no longer be macthed by teams with great defeneses (thing Bucs/Rams 99)
Well look at Seattle and San Francisco even. WIlson and Kaep are very good QBs but I wouldn't call them elite. And if they didn't have good defenses, I would argue both of those teams wouldn't necessarily be playoff teams. Maybe, but less likely that they would be driven by the QB solely.I think what Wilson and Kaep do offer is that they are PLAYMAKERS for their respective teams. I think playmakers are different than ELITE QBs as Wilson can look very very average for an entire game until the defense puts the team in position to win. Wilson then has the uncanny ability to make plays when it counts and do what he needs to do to win. He is still a very inconsistent QB, but he's enough of a playmaker to take advantage of the opportunities that defense presents to him.Another example is Eli Manning. Love him or hate him, I wouldn't call him an elite QB, but he does enough to make plays. When they had that ridiculous defense it was enough to win a Super Bowl. Twice. But now that the defense has lost a step, so have the Giants.
Good points Jay and Garv and the rest. Thanks for the discussion . . offseason, ya know
Well look at Seattle and San Francisco even. WIlson and Kaep are very good QBs but I wouldn't call them elite. And if they didn't have good defenses, I would argue both of those teams wouldn't necessarily be playoff teams. Maybe, but less likely that they would be driven by the QB solely.I think what Wilson and Kaep do offer is that they are PLAYMAKERS for their respective teams. I think playmakers are different than ELITE QBs as Wilson can look very very average for an entire game until the defense puts the team in position to win. Wilson then has the uncanny ability to make plays when it counts and do what he needs to do to win. He is still a very inconsistent QB, but he's enough of a playmaker to take advantage of the opportunities that defense presents to him.Another example is Eli Manning. Love him or hate him, I wouldn't call him an elite QB, but he does enough to make plays. When they had that ridiculous defense it was enough to win a Super Bowl. Twice. But now that the defense has lost a step, so have the Giants.
You may not but Wilson had the 7th and Kaep the 10th highest QBR. Both guys were over 90 for the year and Wilson was over 100. 7 of the top 10 passers made the playoffs. The other three were on teams eliminated on the last day of the season by teams led by the other top 10 passers. No QB with a rating under 87 made the playoffs. Unlike defense, run game, special teams or anything else QB play is basically the single must have. Everything can help but teams with bad QB play by and large don't make the playoffs. As I keep saying, it isn't about yards it is about efficiency. You can be, like SEA, last in passing attempts as long as when you do throw it works.
Although I thought we had one in Josh Freeman a few years ago, the Buccaneers have never has an elite or franchise QB. In what, 38 seasons we've won one Super Bowl, a few playoff games and find ourselves well below .500 all time. I don't think that's a coincidence. It CAN be done, winning it all, without an elite QB.....but the chances are much greater and for a longer period of time WITH one.
Garv,I think we have had a franchise QB before......we failed to keep and train him. Steve Young was that QB but Perkins wasn't smart enough to see it.....but I don't think he could have trained him either.
Although I thought we had one in Josh Freeman a few years ago, the Buccaneers have never has an elite or franchise QB. In what, 38 seasons we've won one Super Bowl, a few playoff games and find ourselves well below .500 all time. I don't think that's a coincidence. It CAN be done, winning it all, without an elite QB.....but the chances are much greater and for a longer period of time WITH one.
Garv,I think we have had a franchise QB before......we failed to keep and train him. Steve Young was that QB but Perkins wasn't smart enough to see it.....but I don't think he could have trained him either.
Well, Steve Young certainly turned OUT that way. But he was by no means an "elite" QB when he was here. Vinny Testaverde played better than Steve did here. But I definitely get what you're typing. On another point, I think Russell Wilson is on the cusp of being among the top five in the league and Kaepernick is right behind him. Right now their legs have a lot to do with that but I think they're right up there and will be for years to come. Of course, again, I thought Freeman was on that path a few years ago too. Went from thinking he was an awful pick in the first round to one of the best QB's in the league and back again....LOL
First, it's a great question Vin. For a few reasons, including ham-handed emphasis on offence and preventing concussion, I've been expecting the NFL to dip in ratings for a while now. I enjoy the NFL a lot less than I used to, whether ticky-tack DPI calls, terrible roughing the passer calls (has anyone ever hit someone in the head when they have a helmet on? - it HURTS you and doesn't do a thing to QB), "defenceless" players... What drives me crazy, and I know I'm talking to myself here, is that by widening the field by a few yards, you could have your offensive explosion, reduce concussions, and not have to FORCE the results you want by clumsy, bureaucratic rules that even the REFS can't get remember anymore. But apparently I'm the only one (and I still watch - although only on PVR to skip all those commercials after the kickoffs...)/rantI think the one reason it may not be as much of an issue is that (a) most teams without a QB are hopeful about a player on their roster. Coming into the 2013 season some of those teams BUF, MIA, NYJ, CIN, TEN, KC, WAS, ARI... So during the 2013 season they're hopeful they have the answer at QB and are waiting to see him develop. That even excludes teams like IND and SF who have young QBs who have played at a high level (and may or may not pan out long term).(b) I'm not sure most fans (ie. casual fans) are really aware how important an elite QB is. I think Vin's premise is spot on - you have to have an elite QB to get to (and win) a Super Bowl. Or, if you don't have an elite QB (hello Flacco & E. Manning) they need to be playing at an elite level (if Flacco and Manning played like their SB runs during the playoffs, they'd be top 5 in the NFL). I don't think fans of teams like CIN or KC or (perhaps) CAR really appreciate how far away they are from winning a SB. And I'm going to harp on this, but if the NFL just widened the field you'd make it easier for QBs resulting in improved play and likely make QBs a little less of a premium...(JayAuggs: I think Wilson is very clearly an elite QB. Kaepernick may not be there yet, but like you point out, he makes lots of plays (and been 11-4-1 and 12-4 his first two years))So do I think it's a problem? Yes - the QB position is over-emphasized resulting in dumb rules to keep them healthy and never-ending frustration for teams without one. But I'm not sure it "matters" financially to the NFL (and thus they're unlikely to look outside the box for solutions).
Although I thought we had one in Josh Freeman a few years ago, the Buccaneers have never has an elite or franchise QB. In what, 38 seasons we've won one Super Bowl, a few playoff games and find ourselves well below .500 all time. I don't think that's a coincidence. It CAN be done, winning it all, without an elite QB.....but the chances are much greater and for a longer period of time WITH one.
Garv,I think we have had a franchise QB before......we failed to keep and train him. Steve Young was that QB but Perkins wasn't smart enough to see it.....but I don't think he could have trained him either.
Well, Steve Young certainly turned OUT that way. But he was by no means an "elite" QB when he was here. Vinny Testaverde played better than Steve did here. But I definitely get what you're typing. On another point, I think Russell Wilson is on the cusp of being among the top five in the league and Kaepernick is right behind him. Right now their legs have a lot to do with that but I think they're right up there and will be for years to come. Of course, again, I thought Freeman was on that path a few years ago too. Went from thinking he was an awful pick in the first round to one of the best QB's in the league and back again....LOL
I liked Wilson coming out of college....wish we had taken him, but can't complain too much since we used our 3rd for David.As far as Young is concerned, it just shows what can happen when good coaching is given to a player with talent.
Thanks Tog and Watson. Great discussion. I really enjoy the differing thoughts
Thanks Tog and Watson. Great discussion. I really enjoy the differing thoughts
Amazing what can happen when you discuss subjects instead of getting into name calling
