• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Modern Quarterbacks

Maybe for Brady but wouldnt Peyton Manning have been successful as a QB no matter what team he was on?

I don't know. I'd like to think so. But he was a number 1 pick. So, he certainly was expected to.
 
Do you really believe Detroit or Cleveland win 5 Superbowls if only they had drafted Tom in the sixth round 18 years ago?

No. But you know the NFL is now QB league. There was 2 really good defenses in this year's SB. And the QB's shredded them.
 
No. But you know the NFL is now QB league. There was 2 really good defenses in this year's SB. And the QB's shredded them.

Of course a QB is important, but not everything, The two best QB's to ever play the game: Peyton Manning and Aaron Rodgers only have three SB wins between them, and one of those was definitely not due to the efficiency of the rubber armed QB. Get my drift?
 
This is so completely ridiculous. QBs make the team. And pointing to Foles taking over for Wentz does not count. Foles was already familiar with the system, was a starter in the league with experience, and he played lights out the past couple weeks.
You know they had to beat a Case Keenum led Vikings team to get to the super bowl right? Even Wentz is only in his second season. So is Goff who was already in the playoffs. Blake Bortles is terrible right? Maybe the rest of the team is what actually matters? Maybe all these teams were able to get by with average qbs because they were good all around.

What happened to Green Bay when Rodgers went out? They sucked.
Right, because they had a ****ty team all around. Rodgers has been relatively healthy most of his career. The packers have still only been to one super bowl in that time period, and it was the year they had one of the leagues top defenses.

Why have the Jets sucked for so long?
The Jets made back to back AFC championship games in 2009 and 2019 with Mark Sanchez as their Quarterback.

The Browns? THey have no QB.
They have no anything.


The QBs are the most important position, and only if you have a really good defense can you generally win without having a good QB, particularly in this day and age.

Patriots had a great QB, and a so so defense. Eagles had a so-so QB and a great Defense.

Here's a fun fact.....The top ten highest scoring offenses in NFL history are as follows....
1 Denver Broncos 2013 606 37.9
2 New England Patriots 2007 589 36.8
3 Green Bay Packers 2011 560 35.0
4 New England Patriots 2012 557 34.8
5 Minnesota Vikings 1998 556 34.8
6 New Orleans Saints 2011 547 34.2
7 Atlanta Falcons 2016 540 33.8
8 St. Louis Rams 2000 540 33.8
9 St. Louis Rams 1999 526 32.9
10 Indianapolis Colts 2004 522 32.6

All within the last twenty years, all with great quarterbacks. The 1999 Rams are the only team in the top ten to win the super bowl that year.

Now here's a list of the 5 best defenses in NFL history...
1985 Bears, 2015 Broncos among five best defenses of all time - NFL.com

Guess how many of them won the Super Bowl?
 
Back to Eli Manning and the HOF. If Eli had one half of his brother's personality, he would be a lock. I am not a fan, my nickname for Eli is "mush-mouth", he never looks happy and body language is telling. I think based on performance, he should probably get a nod, imo.
 
Back to Eli Manning and the HOF. If Eli had one half of his brother's personality, he would be a lock. I am not a fan, my nickname for Eli is "mush-mouth", he never looks happy and body language is telling. I think based on performance, he should probably get a nod, imo.

A real borderline case. The two SB's over lock TB are probably good enough to do it though.
 
Of course a QB is important, but not everything, The two best QB's to ever play the game: Peyton Manning and Aaron Rodgers only have three SB wins between them, and one of those was definitely not due to the efficiency of the rubber armed QB. Get my drift?

Absolutely. That's why the Pats are so successful, they're a well rounded team. Good offense, great QB and a good defense.

IMO Dan Marino is an all-time great, but he never won a SB because he never had a defense or running game to help him. But still he carried the team. Without him Miami would have been a 1-2 win team every year. Peyton got the Colts to the playoffs 12 years in a row, then he has neck surgery and has to sit out 1 year ,and that year he Colts won what? 2 games? 3 games?

All I'm saying is now the rules are set-up for the offenses and the QB's. And the better the QB is, the better chance a team has of winning.
 
Do you really believe Detroit or Cleveland win 5 Superbowls if only they had drafted Tom in the sixth round 18 years ago?

That's a bogus analogy, those teams suck a picking players. YOu can't just have a good QB and nothing around. Luck is a good QB, but his team sucks. But you remove a QB from a good team, more often than not, unless you have a respectable backup (which most teams don't), than you are toast.

The Jets had some really good defenses, a good running game under Rex Ryan, but they had ****ty Mark Sanchez as QB. If they had a good QB, they possibly could have won the super bowl.

You can't win with just a QB, but without a strong QB you are likely toast.

Look at the super bowl teams that have won over the past 10-20 years, they all had really good QBs. You have to go back all the way to 2003 with Tampa to find a mediocre QB winning a superbowl.

Brady, Manning (Eli and Peyton), Rothlesburger, Wilson, Flacco, Rodgers. And its no coincidence as the rules have changed and the league has become very pass heavy
 
That's a bogus analogy, those teams suck a picking players. YOu can't just have a good QB and nothing around. Luck is a good QB, but his team sucks. But you remove a QB from a good team, more often than not, unless you have a respectable backup (which most teams don't), than you are toast.

The Jets had some really good defenses, a good running game under Rex Ryan, but they had ****ty Mark Sanchez as QB. If they had a good QB, they possibly could have won the super bowl.

You can't win with just a QB, but without a strong QB you are likely toast.

Look at the super bowl teams that have won over the past 10-20 years, they all had really good QBs. You have to go back all the way to 2003 with Tampa to find a mediocre QB winning a superbowl.

Brady, Manning (Eli and Peyton), Rothlesburger, Wilson, Flacco, Rodgers. And its no coincidence as the rules have changed and the league has become very pass heavy

Sure. I was a Bears fan back in the 80's. If they had a QB, they would have won more Superbowls than Joe Montana. But...alas. They had Mike Tomzak, Doug Flutie and some guy named Harbough.
 
Absolutely. That's why the Pats are so successful, they're a well rounded team. Good offense, great QB and a good defense.

IMO Dan Marino is an all-time great, but he never won a SB because he never had a defense or running game to help him. But still he carried the team. Without him Miami would have been a 1-2 win team every year. Peyton got the Colts to the playoffs 12 years in a row, then he has neck surgery and has to sit out 1 year ,and that year he Colts won what? 2 games? 3 games?

All I'm saying is now the rules are set-up for the offenses and the QB's. And the better the QB is, the better chance a team has of winning.

Marino is an excellent example of what happens when all you have is a good QB and a receiver or two. You lose games 39 to 35.
 
Sure. I was a Bears fan back in the 80's. If they had a QB, they would have won more Superbowls than Joe Montana. But...alas. They had Mike Tomzak, Doug Flutie and some guy named Harbough.

80s is a completely different time. Look at the QB list of the past SuperBowl winning QBs since 2003, all really good QBs.
 
Personally, I believe the QB thing is overrated. Even Tom Brady would be an unheard of sixth round bust if he was drafted by the Lions or Browns.

The only reason to have a QB is to give the defensive ends something to hit :)
 
80s is a completely different time. Look at the QB list of the past SuperBowl winning QBs since 2003, all really good QBs.

Two notable exceptions: Flaco and Foles.
 
Back
Top Bottom