PDA

View Full Version : QB or Supporting Cast?


Shiver
08-12-2009, 08:39 AM
I think we will have a good look at which makes the other better based on the performance of this man:

http://nbc5streetteam.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/orton-beard.jpg

He has been a mediocre QB his entire career, he actually had "decent" stats last year. Now he will be on an offense that is:

1) QB friendly, lots of screens and quick passes,
2) Has legitimate weapons like Marshall, Royal, Scheffler,
3) Has one of the best offensive lines in football, he may not even be touched by a defensive lineman.

How much is QB performance based on the supporting cast? I guess we will find out.

NY+Giants=NYG
08-12-2009, 08:50 AM
I think we will have a good look at which makes the other better based on the performance of this man:

http://nbc5streetteam.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/orton-beard.jpg

He has been a mediocre QB his entire career, he actually had "decent" stats last year. Now he will be on an offense that is:

1) QB friendly, lots of screens and quick passes,
2) Has legitimate weapons like Marshall, Royal, Scheffler,
3) Has one of the best offensive lines in football, he may not even be touched by a defensive lineman.

How much is QB performance based on the supporting cast? I guess we will find out.

Good topic! Plus rep for you!

I think it's both. The QB has to be talented enough to play and start in the NFL. After that you have to have a system that's designed very well. By that I mean.

1. Terminology for the system
2. Routes for the skill guys
3. Progressions and reads for the QB.


Those are just 3 out of a lot of different variables. But you want it to be Qb friendly and make sense.. For instance..

You can't have 3 step drop if all the routes are deep routes, ie vertical stretch concept. On the same token you are not going to run a 7 step drop and have everyone run slants.. So the # of drops should be coorelated to the routes. And that effects pass protection to a certain extent too. So once all that is designed well, you need to have an OC AND position coaches who can teach it. If they are not good teachers than right away you have a problem. Another aspect is how organized is the OC.. How does he organize his plays on his call sheet? Who much does the HC butt in?

Those are just some of the variables when it comes to system design and implementation. Now you have to have a decent to great cast to surround that QB so it makes his life easier based on the individual 1 on 1 matchups.

I would say it's both when you analyze it. For Broncos specific it will be interesting to see what they run now. I know I will be interested to break some games down to get an idea of what they are running in their running game, and passing game.

Gay Ork Wang
08-12-2009, 09:03 AM
Im gonna miss Orton somehow

MetSox17
08-12-2009, 01:40 PM
Eli Manning says it's the supporting cast.

YAYareaRB
08-12-2009, 01:51 PM
Tom Brady says why choose when you can have both?

BeerBaron
08-12-2009, 01:52 PM
Im gonna miss Orton somehow

No we're not. An efficient system may allow him to look like an efficient QB, but he's never once flashed the franchise QB material that Cutler has.

Good luck Denver, seriously. Orton is unlikely to ever truly "lose" you a game, but he's never going to do anything to "win" you one either.

TACKLE
08-12-2009, 01:57 PM
The interesting thing about QB is that it is regarded as the most important position in professional sports yet no player in any sport is more dependent on the players around him than the Quarterback.

A pitcher can get bad hitting but if he's pitching lights out, they can still win. Same type of thing with a goalie. A Quarterback needs his O-Line to give him time, needs his WR's to get seperation and catch the ball, needs the RB to pick up blitzes and run the ball successfuly to take off pressure, needs good play calling. If one of those things break down, the whole thing breaks down which is why football is the ultimate team game. Yes a QB can carry a team, but to a large extent, the team carries the QB no matter who it is.

Ness
08-12-2009, 02:08 PM
Thinking Orton can pull a Mark Rypien? I'd honestly be very surprised. He's going to a team with a lot of pieces in place, but the offense is new and he's going to have to build chemistry with new receivers. And like someone else said, he comes off to me as the player that won't really lose you a game, but not necessarily win you one either. I just don't see it happening for the Broncos this year.

Halsey
08-12-2009, 02:09 PM
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that 10 players do more for one than one does for 10. No one position is as important as QB, however.

Geo
08-12-2009, 02:42 PM
I think Jay Cutler is included in this as well.

Let's see how well Cutler does in Chicago instead of Denver.

FlyingElvis
08-12-2009, 02:46 PM
Cutler should be inlcuded with his move to Chicago.

This guy will be a good study in that area, too.

http://sportscrzy.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/mattcasselchiefs.jpg



edit: Geo beat me to the Cutler mention as I took too long picking a picture of Cassel.

PACKmanN
08-12-2009, 02:46 PM
I think its 60-40 towards the supporting cast. A qb can be as great as anyone, but you can not win football games on your own. However, a qb has to have the mindset of when and where to place the ball, but without a supporting cast, you can not do that.

Bigburt63
08-12-2009, 03:15 PM
There are examples of both. Brady had some pretty mediocre receivers for years until Moss and Welker came on board. On the other end of the spectrum, some QB's look much better than they actually are because of their surrounding talent. Delhomme comes to mind with Smith, or Culpepper when he has Moss. No need to re-hash it, but look at the Eli thread for some of that whole debate.

Geo
08-12-2009, 05:06 PM
edit: Geo beat me to the Cutler mention as I took too long picking a picture of Cassel.
Those pics are an awesome touch though. Cassel should be included as well.

Cassel was the most-sacked QB last season and he wasn't effective in the red zone either. Granted it was his first season as a starter since high school. But that was with the veteran-laden Patriots except for maybe the right tackle.

(Say something about the Patriots/Brady that they can win 11 games with a QB who didn't start since high school?)

Maybe Haley can help him get rid of the ball quicker, and he could improve with the increased experience.

But the above is why I'm avoiding Cassel in fantasy football this year, I want to see how he looks for a season first.

Gay Ork Wang
08-12-2009, 08:12 PM
No we're not. An efficient system may allow him to look like an efficient QB, but he's never once flashed the franchise QB material that Cutler has.

Good luck Denver, seriously. Orton is unlikely to ever truly "lose" you a game, but he's never going to do anything to "win" you one either.
no, i mean i miss his face. not the playing style

Halsey
08-13-2009, 12:03 AM
People act like the Patriots didn't drop off much last year. They went from almost being 19-0 to 11-5 and not making the playoffs...

Is that totally because Brady got injured and Cassel started. Probably not, but it's pretty clear that Cassel, despite playing well, was no Brady.

7-11
08-13-2009, 12:14 AM
Granted it was his first season as a starter since high school.

Everytime i think about that i find it absolutely mind boggling.

CC.SD
08-13-2009, 12:34 AM
The problem is that the current perception of Orton skews negative because of how terrible his supporting cast in Chicago was.

bearfan
08-13-2009, 12:59 AM
The problem is that the current perception of Orton skews negative because of how terrible his supporting cast in Chicago was.

I half agree, because the Wrs given to him were never very good. Basically the garbage heap Wrs were starting for the Bears last year...yet he pulled of a pretty decent season. The other half is that he has some things to work on, but its mostly being more of an offensive player than a game control Qb. I really like Orton, he works hard and wont lose you a game. I have seen that he wont win a game either, but he showed last year before his injury that he has the ability to show some offensive power AND he can take the team down the field to win a game (ATL even though we lost it was not Ortons fault). Orton put the team in a few positions to win last year, but playcalling after we got the lead was so conservative that we lost (I wanna say Carolina game).

If I were Bronco fans, I would be mildly happy because Orton is not a terrible QB. He'll suprise some people this year.

Iamcanadian
08-13-2009, 08:55 AM
If you examine who makes the playoffs and who doesn't year in and year out, you will find that the NFL is a QB/schedule league. If you have a franchise QB, there is a very good chance that your team will make the playoffs nearly every year, if your team is a well run organization. If your team lacks a franchise QB or isn't a well run organization, you will be lucky to make the playoffs once every 4 years.
Great QB's make the players around them better and most are great through their leadership, mental toughness, quick release and great throwing ability.
IMO, you could put a Brady or a Peyton on any team in the NFL that is a well run organization, and you would find their new team on top of the pile no matter how weak their personnel is. There is a reason why NFL GM's continually draft QB's with the #1 overall pick even though they are often flops, each NFL GM knows that if he strikes it rich, his team will be a SB contender for at least a decade. A team can have a great OL and great WR's but without a franchise QB, it isn't going too far in the playoffs and certainly will never make it back to playoffs anytime soon. Denver fans will quickly discover what it means to lose a franchise QB and aren't likely to see the playoffs until Cutler is replace by another franchise QB.

Splat
08-13-2009, 09:07 AM
This guy will be a good study in that area, too.

http://sportscrzy.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/mattcasselchiefs.jpg


He will be fine he has a Toomer a well dressed Toomer.:)

Seamus2602
08-13-2009, 09:41 AM
A great Quarterback can suceed, to a high level, without the supporting cast. It is rarer for a poor Quarterback to suceed with the supporting cast. Look at the Superbowl winning Quarterbacks from this decade.

Ben Roethlisberger
Eli Manning
Peyton Manning
Ben Roethlisberger
Tom Brady
Tom Brady
Brad Johnson
Tom Brady
Trent Dilfer
Kurt Warner

There you have it. Brad Johnson is the last not great Quarterback to win the Superbowl, and only two aren't considered to be very good Quarterbacks.

A team will do well with a poor Quarterback as long as they are very good in most other areas (like New England last year). A great Quarterback with a poor team (like New England at the start of the decade) will do better.

FlyingElvis
08-13-2009, 09:55 AM
Those pics are an awesome touch though. Cassel should be included as well.

Cassel was the most-sacked QB last season and he wasn't effective in the red zone either. Granted it was his first season as a starter since high school. But that was with the veteran-laden Patriots except for maybe the right tackle.

(Say something about the Patriots/Brady that they can win 11 games with a QB who didn't start since high school?)

Maybe Haley can help him get rid of the ball quicker, and he could improve with the increased experience.

But the above is why I'm avoiding Cassel in fantasy football this year, I want to see how he looks for a season first.
I'm not shying away, but mine are keeper leagues. He is also going late enough to be considered a flier and I'm big on drafting 3 QBs. That round 13 or 14 WR is not likely to ever see the starting lineup anyway, so why not?

He improved on a weekly basis. It was pretty wild to watch actually, and I think the Chiefs will be very happy with the trade as long as they expect exactly what you mention - a guy who can get it done but still has some improvements to make. All of which is just a matter of experience. Just ask Randy - though I doubt he'll admit to his curios case of gator arms in the first 2 weeks after Brady went down. Once he saw some hope he started playing hard again. lol
He will be fine he has a Toomer a well dressed Toomer.:)
Love that signing. Bowe w/Bradley (developing fairly well) and Toomer is a nice 3wr set, imo.

Splat
08-13-2009, 10:14 AM
I like the Chiefs depth at WR alot better then most I'm more worried about their OL.

FlyingElvis
08-13-2009, 10:42 AM
I like them, too. In the context of this thread the WRs are still a downgrade in the supporting cast. OL is, as well and the D . . . well, the Pats were ok but not great last year which is still probably better than what KC fielded in 08.

For Orton it's a clear upgrade at WR, close enough to call it even at OL, and a major downgrade on the defensive side of the ball.

Cutler has a clear downgrade at WR, even OL and major upgrade on D.

Those two really make it a more comparable scenario, imo. Cassel's situation is a little tougher to compare because you can't really mark him up against Brady and the Pats offense overall is more experienced & proven than KC's.

sweetness34
08-13-2009, 12:29 PM
Cutler has a clear downgrade at WR, even OL and major upgrade on D.

Tis true, but he has an upgrade at TE and at RB, both positions that have some depth on this roster which will hopefully give him some help on the offensive side of the ball.

FlyingElvis
08-13-2009, 12:34 PM
Tis true, but he has an upgrade at TE and at RB, both positions that have some depth on this roster which will hopefully give him some help on the offensive side of the ball.

Correct. I'm not sure how I managed to overlook the RB position.

TE I'd say is close, although I'll concede Olsen is the better talent & higher upside. However, the production was in favor of Scheff last year (645 yds vs. 574) despite missing 3 games, so I'm not quite willing to call that one just yet.

Gay Ork Wang
08-13-2009, 12:35 PM
not just looking at Olsen, Clark is a very good TE and above average, i believe he leads the TEs in YPC over the last few years.

FlyingElvis
08-13-2009, 01:00 PM
A good point . . .


http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r39/dmc27sinned/flying%20circus/black-knight-draw.jpg


lol

Shiver
10-13-2009, 04:49 PM
I think we will have a good look at which makes the other better based on the performance of this man:

http://nbc5streetteam.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/orton-beard.jpg

He has been a mediocre QB his entire career, he actually had "decent" stats last year. Now he will be on an offense that is:

1) QB friendly, lots of screens and quick passes,
2) Has legitimate weapons like Marshall, Royal, Scheffler,
3) Has one of the best offensive lines in football, he may not even be touched by a defensive lineman.

How much is QB performance based on the supporting cast? I guess we will find out.

I think it is safe to say supporting cast helps a lot.

1,236 passing yards
63% completion percentage (by far the highest of his career)
7-1 TD/INT ratio
97.4 Passer Rating
5-0 Team, two games ahead of the Chargers

wicket
10-13-2009, 05:18 PM
Drew Brees says that defense also helps with how you are looked at as a qb

Gay Ork Wang
10-13-2009, 05:33 PM
What has ever happened to Eddie Royal

P-L
10-13-2009, 08:27 PM
It has mostly to do with the supporting cast.

Let's look first at Tom Brady. The guy was a great quarterback with average/below average receivers and a non-existent running game. Then he gets Randy Moss and Wes Welker and he puts up one of, if not, the greatest single season by a quarterback.

Then look at Peyton Manning. He's been one of the best quarterbacks in football his whole career. However, the Colts have constantly been surrounding him with great talent. That's not to say he wouldn't be good without Wayne, Clark, etc. Does anyone think he'd be having MVP type seasons if he played for Oakland or St. Louis?

No matter how good a quarterback is, they can only perform (statistically) as well as their supporting cast lets them. If your offensive line is a revolving door and your receivers can't run routes or create separation you can't succeed. On the other hand, any competent quarterback can put up good numbers if he is protected well and has receivers that can get open.

bored of education
10-13-2009, 08:31 PM
Eddie Royal tore it up last week with a 9 reception 90 yard game. I think he was hampered by an injury and it looking back to his true amazingness form.

If Cassel had orton's O line the Chiefs would be 5-0.

bored of education
10-13-2009, 08:38 PM
It has mostly to do with the supporting cast.

Let's look first at Tom Brady. The guy was a great quarterback with average/below average receivers and a non-existent running game. Then he gets Randy Moss and Wes Welker and he puts up one of, if not, the greatest single season by a quarterback.
Tom Brady was an average/above average qb with post season success before getting Welker/Moss. He was never amazing until that one season. The fact that his TD-INT ratio is one of the best ever helps but that only godly stat he had before 2007.

Then look at Peyton Manning. He's been one of the best quarterbacks in football his whole career. However, the Colts have constantly been surrounding him with great talent. That's not to say he wouldn't be good without Wayne, Clark, etc. Does anyone think he'd be having MVP type seasons if he played for Oakland or St. Louis?
P-L, I don't want to make this a Manning/brady debate but the Colts were the Rams before they got Manning. Manning is the reason, and only reason they are they are nd have been the last 10 years. it can be argued that Manning made Harrison who he is, Wayne who he is and Clark who he is. He has made Austin Colle and Pierre Garcon look better than Welker and Moss thisy ear. Every season of his career has Manning had had more than 62 comp %(other than his rookie year), 3500 yards, 25 TDs. Manning could go the the Ram right now and make them a 8-8 team, could Tom? **** NO! Prove me wrong please?

No matter how good a quarterback is, they can only perform (statistically) as well as their supporting cast lets them. If your offensive line is a revolving door and your receivers can't run routes or create separation you can't succeed. On the other hand, any competent quarterback can put up good numbers if he is protected well and has receivers that can get open.
To me, manning is the only exception to the rule. He could go to he Rams, the Browns and make them at least an 8-8 team. I have never seen a player in any team sport do what he does. I am not saying he is the goat. But you can put him on any team and they will matter.



Sorry P-L. I still heart you.

P-L
10-13-2009, 09:07 PM
So then why did you turn it into a Manning and Brady debate? http://draftcountdown.com/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif

I should've have known this would happen when I picked those two as my examples. I wasn't trying to compare the two. I just used them both as examples because they are the top two players at their position.

I know there will be a lot of disagreement, but I don't believe that quarterbacks can make their receivers significantly better. Does it help when you have a quarterback that throws you the ball accurately? Absolutely. However, the receiver still needs to run good routes and get separation (in order for the quarterback to decide to throw him the ball). Once the quarterback decides to throw him the ball, the receiver has to actually catch it. A good quarterback helps his receivers, but not nearly as much as a good receiver helps a quarterback. A good receiver can bail out a quarterback that makes a bad pass, usually. A good quarterback cannot bail out a receiver who drops the ball or can't get separation from the defender.



Although this doesn't have to do with the topic at hand, I just wanted to respond to your thoughts that Manning could make the Rams or Browns an 8-8 team. First you said that the Colts were the Rams before they got Manning. Well that may be true, but Manning didn't turn them into an 8-8 team in his first year. He went 3-13 in his rookie season. Then they drafted Edgerrin James the following year and Reggie Wayne, Ryan Diem, and Rick DeMulling two years later. Manning was able to turn the Colts around quickly (13-3 in his second year), but he also had help. Edgerrin James ran for 1500 yards and 13 TD that year. The defense also stepped up with 41 sacks, 10 interceptions, and 14 forced fumbles.

Obviously, a quarterback of Manning or Brady would make a team like the Rams better but not 5-8 wins better. No matter who is playing quarterback, St. Louis doesn't have the offensive line or defense to win 8 games.

Halsey
10-13-2009, 09:22 PM
The fact that people actually argue who is more important between the QB and the other 10 players on the field tells you that QB is easily the most important single position.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
10-13-2009, 10:02 PM
QB QB QB.

For Orton, we need to get one thing straight: He is far from a terrible QB. Terrible QBs are afraid to move the ball, they make bad decisions, and ultimately never do anything right. Orton is actually very solid. He's able to move the ball efficiently down the field, he does not turn the ball over, and we just saw him lead a 98-yard drive against the Patriots. Bad QBs don't do that.

Bad QBs make their supporting cast look terrible. Take David Carr for example. I think one year, Carr was getting shitkicked again, and he got pulled or hurt or something. Sage Rosenfels, I think(who is himself not a great QB by any means), came in and performed much, much better. Let's be real here. As bad as Houston's OL got the rep of being, that was all David Carr. He is/was a terrible quarterback. Great QBs make the OL look better than it is. Look at Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Jay Cutler(at the very least on his way to becoming aforementioned great QB). They all move well in the pocket and get rid of the ball fast, making their OL's job that much easier.

QB. All day, every day.

aNYtitan
10-13-2009, 10:10 PM
IMO, its got to be supporting cast and system. You can put Peyton on the Raiders, Rams or Browns and he would be struggling. A good QB needs weapons (preferably a good running attack and a TE who can catch in the flats) and a good line.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
10-13-2009, 10:19 PM
I'll rephrase my argument by saying great QB with terrible supporting cast>>terrible QB with great supporting cast.

Raiderz4Life
10-13-2009, 10:38 PM
Supporting cast IMO is by far more important. I'll use Dilfer and the '00 Ravens as my prime example.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
10-13-2009, 10:41 PM
Supporting cast IMO is by far more important. I'll use Dilfer and the '00 Ravens as my prime example.

But the thing is, the Ravens supporting cast never made Dilfer look like something he wasn't.

Raiderz4Life
10-13-2009, 10:44 PM
But the thing is, the Ravens supporting cast never made Dilfer look like something he wasn't.

What I'm trying to say is that a supporting cast is more important...a QB doesn't have to be the focal point of a team. Dilfer did his job but was never looked upon to lead the team. They ran Jamaal Lewis and the D. All they had Dilfer do was hand-off and throw when it was absolutely neccessary.

aNYtitan
10-13-2009, 10:52 PM
I'll rephrase my argument by saying great QB with terrible supporting cast>>terrible QB with great supporting cast.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but wasn't Troy Aikman horrible before Dallas revamped their entire offense?

Bengalsrocket
10-14-2009, 01:36 AM
Maybe I'm mistaken, but wasn't Troy Aikman horrible before Dallas revamped their entire offense?

I don't want to start an argument here, but Aikman was never as great as the other elite QBs of the modern era. Hard to make an argument around him either way.

Iamcanadian
10-14-2009, 10:31 AM
What I'm trying to say is that a supporting cast is more important...a QB doesn't have to be the focal point of a team. Dilfer did his job but was never looked upon to lead the team. They ran Jamaal Lewis and the D. All they had Dilfer do was hand-off and throw when it was absolutely neccessary.

And how often did Dilfer lead Baltimore into the playoffs??? One fluke doesn't prove your point. Baltimore still had great personnel but never saw the Super Bowl again??? Peyton and Brady started out on teams that weren't loaded and carried them to the Super Bowl. Peyton and Brady have taken their teams to the playoffs every year except one when Brady got hurt. Baltimore's HC got fired because his great personnel couldn't repeat without a top QB and couldn't consistently even make the playoffs without one.
According to the 2000's, 2 mediocre QB out of nine times made it to the SB while 7 franchise QB's also made it. That makes the odds 78% for franchise QB's and 22 % for mediocre QB's. If you want your team to try the 22% method, go for it, I'd chose the 78% method myself and that is why NFL GM have overwhelmingly drafted QB's with the 1st overall pick. Go back 20 years and check for yourself.

Shiver
10-14-2009, 12:52 PM
My point is simple: a great supporting cast cannot make a bad QB look good. But a mediocre QB, like Kyle Orton, can look like a great player in a system that Denver has. Kyle Orton had 3,000 yards, 18-12 TD/INT in Chicago, not bad but certainly not impressive. Now he has one of the best O-Lines, Brandon Marshall, Knowshon Moreno, he looks like an entirely different player.

NY+Giants=NYG
10-14-2009, 12:56 PM
My point is simple: a great supporting cast cannot make a bad QB look good. But a mediocre QB, like Kyle Orton, can look like a great player in a system that Denver has. Kyle Orton had 3,000 yards, 18-12 TD/INT in Chicago, not bad but certainly not impressive. Now he has one of the best O-Lines, Brandon Marshall, Knowshon Moreno, he looks like an entirely different player.

Good for him. Also, what is the difference between the two offensive systems? What has the OC done to help call/design plays for Orton's skill set? Who is his QB coach? What drills does he have them do compared to the Qb coach in Chicago?

So while you are correct, the questions above, are questions which also play a big factor for a QB as well.

awfullyquiet
10-14-2009, 12:58 PM
Then look at Peyton Manning. He's been one of the best quarterbacks in football his whole career. However, the Colts have constantly been surrounding him with great talent. That's not to say he wouldn't be good without Wayne, Clark, etc. Does anyone think he'd be having MVP type seasons if he played for Oakland or St. Louis?

No matter how good a quarterback is, they can only perform (statistically) as well as their supporting cast lets them. If your offensive line is a revolving door and your receivers can't run routes or create separation you can't succeed. On the other hand, any competent quarterback can put up good numbers if he is protected well and has receivers that can get open.

Hence why it's a team game. I agree completely...

Suppose Peyton spent his first 3 years behind Rich Gannon, and then ended up on the Colts... Would he be anywhere near the QB he is today?

Rosebud
10-14-2009, 01:03 PM
And how often did Dilfer lead Baltimore into the playoffs??? One fluke doesn't prove your point. Baltimore still had great personnel but never saw the Super Bowl again??? Peyton and Brady started out on teams that weren't loaded and carried them to the Super Bowl. Peyton and Brady have taken their teams to the playoffs every year except one when Brady got hurt. Baltimore's HC got fired because his great personnel couldn't repeat without a top QB and couldn't consistently even make the playoffs without one.
According to the 2000's, 2 mediocre QB out of nine times made it to the SB while 7 franchise QB's also made it. That makes the odds 78% for franchise QB's and 22 % for mediocre QB's. If you want your team to try the 22% method, go for it, I'd chose the 78% method myself and that is why NFL GM have overwhelmingly drafted QB's with the 1st overall pick. Go back 20 years and check for yourself.

How many superbowls has Peyton been to? The Answer is just as many as that Baltimore defense has been to.

As for the number of high caliber QBs who've one the superbowl I'd like to see how many high caliber defenses one the superbowl vs mediocre defenses, same for running games. Having a high caliber QB is important, but having the supporting cast is just as important. Otherwise the Cutlerzz would be superbowl contenders.

Halsey
10-14-2009, 02:57 PM
People love to go back to the Ravens team from a decade ago in an attempt to devalue QB's. There's some problems with that, however. First, why do they need to keep relying on a team from a decade ago. Secondly, rules have changed since then to benefit the passing game. Finally, if the Ravens didn't think QB was highly important why have they spent high picks and big money trying to find a franchise QB since that Super Bowl. They've drafted Kyle Boller in the first, Chris Redman in the 3rd, paid McNair 12 mill when he played for them and then drafted Flacco in the first. People saying the Ravens prove it's all about supporting cast are actually arguing against the Ravens...

MarioPalmer
10-18-2009, 07:23 PM
http://i508.photobucket.com/albums/s327/gsus8091/tx_palmer2.jpg

Carson Palmer: Was considered one of the Big 3 (Peyton Manning, Tom Brady and Carson Palmer) in 2005 and 2006, then had some minor injuries in 2007 along with a horrible defense and a offensive line that was about as strong and consistent as a wet piece of toilet paper. Then in 2008 had a major elbow injury that was being called an injury he would have to get Tommy John Surgery to fix, opted not to have the surgery and is supposedly 100% healthy going into 2009.

This year he finally doesn't have to score 30+ points just to be in games because his defense keeps opponents from slicing through them like warm butter and he finally has a running game that reminds people of the Rudi Johnson days of 2005. His offensive line has also gotten better but they are still not at the level they should be. Also, top pick, Andre Smith has yet to play in a single game this year at LT.

His Stat Line:
120 Completions, 203 Attempts, 1,375 Yards, 59% Completion Percentage, 8 TD, 7 INT, 78.9 QB Rating

Obviously not his best work, and obviously not even close to what people expect of him. But is this his supporting cast or is this him?

I'm stumped on Palmer. I know what he is capable of, and I have seen what he is capable of. In 205 and 2006 you would have a hard time finding a better QB then him and you could even argue him against both Peyton Manning and Tom Brady. So why has he fallen from top 3 QB in the league as just a top 10 or maybe even lower?

He is only 29 years-old, and will be turning 30 in December, which means he will still be younger than most of the top QB's in the league. In there still some things that he can correct through out the year? If you have watched him this year, you would have seen that he definitely is gaining more comfortable running around in the pocket, just watch the last 3 games of Ravens, Steelers and even Green Bay. He has also been better about his decision making from game to game. I have also not seen any flubbed throws or any ducks from him sense the Packer game. So I think his arm is getting stronger as the year goes on.

Anyway, what do you guys think?

NotRickJames
10-18-2009, 08:40 PM
It's a combination of both, but I definitely think a good/great supporting cast can make up for the shortcoming of a QB.

We saw it with Rex Grossman when the Bears were in the Super Bowl. We saw it with Derek Anderson in 2007 with Derek Anderson (some people look at stats and figure he was actually good that year. As someone who saw almost every Browns game, I can tell you he was bailed out by Winslow and Edwards every other play).

I still think the most important thing to the success of an NFL franchise is the offensive line. I've maintained this line of though as long as I can remember. They keep the offense functioning. A running game and a passing game cannot flourish without good blocking.

Iamcanadian
10-18-2009, 09:27 PM
How many superbowls has Peyton been to? The Answer is just as many as that Baltimore defense has been to.

As for the number of high caliber QBs who've one the superbowl I'd like to see how many high caliber defenses one the superbowl vs mediocre defenses, same for running games. Having a high caliber QB is important, but having the supporting cast is just as important. Otherwise the Cutlerzz would be superbowl contenders.

The difference between Dilfer and Peyton is that the Colts make the playoffs every year, Dilfer did it once. Nobody is mistaking the Indy defense as being special, it certainly isn't rated highly.
Nobody is saying that teammates aren't important but by far and large, franchise QB's have dominated not only the Super Bowl but the playoffs as well. GM's when asked will say the NFL is a schedule/QB league. The schedule if tough, will kill off any team that isn't strong at QB including teams that are strong defensively. Baltimore has trouble being a consistent playoff team because they have lacked a decent QB for years. They had solid OL's and RB's but without a QB their playoff appearances have been spotty. On the other hand teams that have franchise QB's repeat their playoff appearance year after year no matter what schedule they draw. They carry their teams through very tough schedules unlike team that are one dimensional.
GM's have clearly shown in the draft that they realize the importance of the QB position by drafting QB's 9 out of the last 12 first overall picks. That is a 75% average. Only 25% of the time and it usually occurs when no franchise type QB is available will they draft another position with the 1st overall pick. For me this clearly demonstrates that GM's throughout pro football don't agree with your analysis.

Bengalsrocket
10-18-2009, 09:43 PM
Great point. A lot of people don't realize that one of the separating factors of the NFL from other leagues is the schedule. You only play 16 games, and every single game is super important. If the Yankees mess up a game and lose, they have 100 other games to fix their record. If the Giants (sticking with New York here) mess up a game, they only have 15 or less to fix their record.

When you add in that a QB could single handily win or lose 3-4 games for you a year, that's a huge importance for 1 position.

However, not to contradict myself but, this is a team sport. Quarterbacks can't do it alone and teams can't do it without a QB (There are some exceptions, but not many).

Shiver
10-14-2010, 10:07 AM
I think we will have a good look at which makes the other better based on the performance of this man:

http://nbc5streetteam.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/orton-beard.jpg

He has been a mediocre QB his entire career, he actually had "decent" stats last year. Now he will be on an offense that is:

1) QB friendly, lots of screens and quick passes,
2) Has legitimate weapons like Marshall, Royal, Scheffler,
3) Has one of the best offensive lines in football, he may not even be touched by a defensive lineman.

How much is QB performance based on the supporting cast? I guess we will find out.

Uh, yeah. Looks like we might have our answer boys.

P-L
10-14-2010, 11:58 AM
Philip Rivers hasn't had his best receiver or left tackle so far this year, and he's playing the best football of his career.

V.I.P
10-14-2010, 02:06 PM
Philip Rivers hasn't had his best receiver or left tackle so far this year, and he's playing the best football of his career.

Antonio Gates > Vincent Jackson

SchizophrenicBatman
10-14-2010, 06:31 PM
I think some of this is real talent from Orton. Remember that his career was already on an upward progression in Chicago, one of the worst offensive environments in the league at the time, and that a good deal of opinion formed on him was when he started as a rookie 4th round draft pick. Also it's worth noting that the Brandon he's throwing to this year is Lloyd, not Marshall

With that said, I seem to recall the Patriots passing offense really taking off around the same time Josh McDaniels became their OC (of course this also coincided with the Moss years...)

nepg
10-14-2010, 06:36 PM
I agree. Orton's good. He showed signs in Chicago, but we all know Chicago's offensive system and weapons have sucked for...I can't remember when they didn't suck on that side of the ball. He was the ideal type of QB to come in and execute that offense right away.

McDaniels had a tough time adjusting to being the playcaller in his first year, but he got a **** ton better as a play caller in his second and third years.

P-L
10-14-2010, 06:39 PM
Antonio Gates > Vincent Jackson
I literally meant wide receiver, not pass catcher.

Splat
10-14-2010, 06:42 PM
I will take the QB thank you very much you can build around him later.

Brent
10-14-2010, 06:59 PM
coaching has to be the third option

PoopSandwich
10-14-2010, 07:08 PM
I literally meant wide receiver, not pass catcher.

While what you say is true that offense is loaded for with tall receivers still and Rivers is a great passer.

Floyd is filling in amazingly for VJ.

regoob2
10-18-2010, 10:49 AM
As much as I want to downplay Orton to defend our trade for Cutler, you can't deny what Orton is doing. He's making good decision and is accurate.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
10-18-2010, 10:59 AM
A lot of the plays last night, he had great position but it was a perfect throw. You really can't defend a perfect throw.