Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Should the QB be the face of the franchise?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Should the QB be the face of the franchise?

    I mean this is a concept that is usually just accepted, but I thought it'd be good to discuss. (Plus someone else suggested I do this.) The QB is the only position that gets tagged with a W-L record. It's funny because you got players like Tebow, coming out and VY who are QB's who just win. Thanks to just winning, their performances are glossed over. My question is, is it fair or right to do this when it is such a team sport?

    I hear the argument that the QB get's this much attention because he touches the ball every play. If that were the case wouldn't the Center be the most important position on the line? I mean the center touches the ball every play, usually makes protection adjustments and protects the QB. Yet, the center isn't even the most recognized position on the line. Yet somehow the QB, not even the first one to touch the ball is the face of the franchise.

    Then there's the he directs the offense. I think this is where it gets muddied up. The OC directs the offense and the QB has a few options. Reading the defense and finding the open receiver or audibles however most QB's perform in set parameters. So while we root for the "fiel general" he is put in those positions by the OC, some are better than others and that's reflected by the final #'s.

    I'm not really sure what else to add, but I'm sure this should make for a good debate.

    Oh, I almost forgot, the defense is the other half and have just as much say in how games can turn out. Case in point the 2000 Baltimore Ravens. I mean Dilfert didn't win that game, he was just a part of the team that did.

  • #2
    It's absolutely fair, because no single position affectsall other positions on the field (and even those not on the field) in ANY sport as much as a quarterback does.

    Also, I'm really tired of hearing about Baltimore and Dilfer. Yes, that defense was legendary (one of the best of all-time). But, they're the exception, not the rule. With such an amazing defense, why did they not ever return to the Superbowl? Because of quarterback play. If they would have had a real quarterback, that team could have won 3 Superbowls.
    Last edited by yourfavestoner; 02-16-2010, 12:34 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      no, other positions should receive more recognition. look at espn, all they do is talk about qbs. qbs in free agency, in the draft, ect. I really think it should just be renamed the NQBL (National Quarterback League). truth is, espn focuses on the qbs so much because that is what the majority of the single minded fans care about. the nfl is legislating defense out of the league and i am terrified of the future. will nfl games turn into glorified 7 on 7 drills? will espn make it mandatory for every qb to be filmed and followed 24/7? be afraid.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by yourfavestoner View Post
        Also, I'm really tired of hearing about Baltimore and Dilfer. Yes, that defense was legendary (one of the best of all-time). But, they're the exception, not the rule. With such an amazing defense, why did they not ever return to the Superbowl? Because of quarterback play. If they would have had a real quarterback, that team could have won 3 Superbowls.
        True. They are pretty much the only exception. Could probably throw the 1985 Bears in there and 2002 Buccaneers...although Brad Johnson did have a good season.

        "Every light must fade, every heart return to darkness!"
        -San Francisco 49ers: Five Time Super Bowl Champions-
        Originally posted by Borat
        Oh, my bad. Didn't realize SWDC was the pinnacle of class and grace.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Ness View Post
          True. They are pretty much the only exception. Could probably throw the 1985 Bears in there and 2002 Buccaneers...although Brad Johnson did have a good season.
          And look: both of those teams had defenses that are remembered as some of the best of all-time. Yet, they both won only a single Superbowl each.

          Comment


          • #6
            Of course there are many factors that contribute to a team's success. The problem is this:

            A team with 21 studs at starting positions but a bum at QB can still stink up the joint.

            A team with 1 stud at QB can still pull off some upsets.

            In the process of each scenario, a great QB can make everyone else look better than they are. A terrible QB can make everyone else look far worse than they are.

            The same sentence does not apply to any other position in the game. All the other positions on the field can be helped out by schemes, talent at other positions, or just great team play in general.

            Great schemes, skill players, and team chemistry can't help a QB throw a 15 yard out, read a defense, or feel the pressure without looking.

            Sig img shamelessly stolen from teh interwebs

            Comment


            • #7
              Only if there good looking...

              Comment


              • #8
                My team would probably be in the playoffs if we had a decent quarterback. Instead guys like Willis, Davis and Gore are wasting their valuable years.

                "Every light must fade, every heart return to darkness!"
                -San Francisco 49ers: Five Time Super Bowl Champions-
                Originally posted by Borat
                Oh, my bad. Didn't realize SWDC was the pinnacle of class and grace.

                Comment


                • #9
                  The QB is not always the face of the franchise.

                  Who is the face of the Ravens?
                  Ray Lewis not Joe Flacco

                  Who is the face of the Bengals?
                  Easily Chad Ochocinqo not Carson Palmer

                  Who is the face of the Dolphins?
                  Big Tuna not Chad Henne

                  Who is the face of the Steelers?
                  You could make the argument for Ben but he doesn't get nearly as much air as Troy.

                  I could name at least another 5-15 other teams in which the QB isn't the face of that franchise.
                  Stafford Sig by touchdownrams the rest of the sig by Sig Master Bone Krusher Avy by King of all avys renji


                  DEATH NOTE MAFIA SIGNUP!

                  Originally posted by njx9
                  oh please. as if canadians even know what beer is.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The Ravens are a rare example. They're also on the path of change and Flacco will soon be the face.

                    Bengals = Palmer. Ocho gets lots of press b/c of his mouth but, as much as I love him, he's not the face of the franchise.

                    Dolphins = faceless. Hell, headless. But Henne could emerge this season. Using a team with a less than desirable QB situation really only enforces the theory, imo.

                    Steelers = Ben. I can't beleive you'd even try to say otherwise.



                    The only teams that don't have QB as their "face" are the teams with terrible QBs. Like it or not, QBs are the face of the franchise, and the league, for that matter.

                    Cut that meat motha*****!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                    Sig img shamelessly stolen from teh interwebs

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Indianapolis - Peyton Manning
                      New Orleans - Drew Brees
                      Minnesota - Brett Favre
                      San Diego - Phillip Rivers

                      It seems to help.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by FlyingElvis View Post
                        Bengals = Palmer. Ocho gets lots of press b/c of his mouth but, as much as I love him, he's not the face of the franchise.

                        Dolphins = faceless. Hell, headless. But Henne could emerge this season. Using a team with a less than desirable QB situation really only enforces the theory, imo.

                        Steelers = Ben. I can't beleive you'd even try to say otherwise.



                        The only teams that don't have QB as their "face" are the teams with terrible QBs. Like it or not, QBs are the face of the franchise, and the league, for that matter.
                        Only teams with above average QBs have a QB as the face of the franchise and I would easily place Troy as the face/hair of the franchise well over Big Ben.
                        Stafford Sig by touchdownrams the rest of the sig by Sig Master Bone Krusher Avy by King of all avys renji


                        DEATH NOTE MAFIA SIGNUP!

                        Originally posted by njx9
                        oh please. as if canadians even know what beer is.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Caddy View Post
                          Indianapolis - Peyton Manning
                          New Orleans - Drew Brees
                          Minnesota - Brett Favre
                          San Diego - Phillip Rivers

                          It seems to help.
                          favre was the face of this season but not really the face of the franchise imo, but I agree with the other three, although until last season LT was the face of the chargers


                          Saints 2014 draft wish list:
                          - No pass rusher till the fourth round (or preferably at all)
                          - Corner or Wideout in the first
                          - No reaching
                          - No Kelvin Benjamin

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by broth223 View Post
                            Only teams with above average QBs have a QB as the face of the franchise and I would easily place Troy as the face/hair of the franchise well over Big Ben.
                            Fair enough. I don't agree on Troy over Ben, but you're definitely right that only the better QBs are the face.

                            I do think, however, that the teams with weaker QBs would prefer a better QB and love to have them as the face.

                            Different points to a related argument, I guess. QB as the face of the franchise vs. teams without a good enough QB to be the face of the franchise.

                            Sig img shamelessly stolen from teh interwebs

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by wicket View Post
                              favre was the face of this season but not really the face of the franchise imo, but I agree with the other three, although until last season LT was the face of the chargers
                              An interesting example. It would have been quite a case study had the emergence of Rivers not coincided with the decline of LT.

                              Sig img shamelessly stolen from teh interwebs

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X

                              Debug Information