Too many people seem to be confused by the whole "You need a QB to win in the NFL" comments.It's not saying that you will win because of the good QB, it's saying you can win because you have a good (not even great) QB.If you don't have a good QB you aren't winning more than a handful of games a season, sure you need supporting cast around them but you don't need a top CB/OT/DE/WR/RB for ultimate success like you do at the QB position.You basically write your season off as a 4 or 5 win at most year before game one if you don't have that QB, if you do have one there is always a chance.
If the Ravens can do it with Dilfer and Flacco, then Seattle would have been able to do it with Locker, Ryan Tannehill, or Andy Dalton.
Before i dismiss what you've typed as utter nonsense, are you talking about one game or the season?
Season. Both Dilfer and Flacco, were and are, mediocre to below average QB's. If the Ravens can win Super Bowl's with those two, then with the defense had this year, Seattle could have won it with a comparable QB. I think Locker, Tannehill, and Dalton right now are better than what Dilfer was back in '01. I think Dalton is better than, and the other two, are almost as good Flacco.
If the Ravens can do it with Dilfer and Flacco, then Seattle would have been able to do it with Locker, Ryan Tannehill, or Andy Dalton.
Before i dismiss what you've typed as utter nonsense, are you talking about one game or the season?
He thinks Flacco is worse than Freeman. You're not going to get anywhere with this discussion.
I think i'll change my opinion slightly on Russell Wilson. I still don't put him in my top 5 and I think his team doesn't ask him to do to much to win but you have to give him credit and say that he does make big plays for his team when called upon, even if that isn't nearly as often as other QBs.
