everyone is up in arms about the QB postion

[STSINAZ]

But what matters the most in this era is a great defense along with solid depth at every position that's how you win now....things have changed so that the last 5 years are unlike no other era in the history of the modern NFL.

Never before have we had teams rebound to win superbowls the very next year after having losing seasons or 8-8 seasons the year before. Even with Carolina getting there last year it was a big accomplishment from what they did the year before. I think it really shows as a sign of the times. Never before did we have two Superbowl winners so close together win it all with average at best Quarterbacks. This has happened because of expansion, Free agency and the salary cap. Teams have overinflated most of the free agents but have not received adequate play in return. This has caused them to be strapped for years to come which in turn has prevented them from getting the depth that is needed. So not only are most of the teams watered down due to expansion but most teams that arent smart get salary cap strapped.

One other thing to note here is this. This may be the most important thing. Football is a chemistry game. The more players that have to be involved on a play the more chemistry you need. With players moving around so much it has caused the play of alot of teams to deteriorate. Football is a timing sport. The more you practice the more you get your timing down. So you could have this Franchise QB that everyone is searching for and still not win because the players around that player change from year to year. I dont think it is a fluke thing that the Colts are now more dominant on Offense than they ever have been. They have been able to keep the players on Offense for alot of years together. Or alot by free agency and salary cap standards...Even with that they have lost players and will continue to do so because they dont have the money to pay all of them due to this. So that leads me to my main point. We know the era has changed. It's not like it was 20 years ago.

In order to see that the era has changed you have to know why and how to overcome it and still win. I think that BP was on the cutting edge of this several years and passed on his knowledge to Belichek. It is obviously working and BP is trying to bring that here. He was handicapped due to Jerry's ineptitude at picking players up until a few years ago when he finally gave the reigns back over to Lacewell to do what he was hired to so. Our defense needed to be overhauled last year but he didnt do it. He knew it needed to be done. We won last year with alot of players that just were not the greatest. Maybe it was chemistry. Maybe it was the fact that we played alot of teams that had major injuries at crucial positions when we played them. Maybe it was because the players really wanted to give their all for their new coach. Whatever it was it worked without a talent level that was subpar in alot of positions. But the way to win in the league right now is with a great defense and alot of depth at every position. The Bucs did it. The Ravens did it. And the Pats are doing it! The Ravens lost it due to one of the above reasons. The salary cap. The Bucs got old quick. The Pats are the smartest out there. Money and new opportunities may be an issue though. They are already starting to lose people in management. Some more could go very soon. That probably will hurt them depending on who they get but the fact that they accumulate alot of draft picks, pick alot of good players instead of paying alot of money in free agency for so called stars, it has allowed them to build up a dynasty for this era and given us all a blueprint on how to win.

Our coach is the one who gave them that blueprint. Let's not forget where it came from. That's what he is trying to do here but the problem is he was so handicapped to begin with that he had to try and bandaid the whole thing with players he knew in the meantime. I do however disagree with alot of decisions that Parcells has made and also think that if we had a personnel guy in here it would help things. The way to do it is the key so instead of everyone being pissed that BP is not trying to find a Franchise QB understand that Franchise QB's were pretty much a lock to get you pretty close to doing something 20 years ago but they arent now (for reasons mentioned above). What we should all be focused on is improving with good players, middle tier players at every position. That will allow us to keep them longer and to have more depth rather than going after the Grant Wistrom's of the world who get a 14 million dollar signing bonus but only produce 3.5 sacks. Middle tier players who the very next year lead the NFC in sacks like Berry are who we should be looking at. Like I said I dont agree with all of Bill's decisions!

[blindzebra]

Paragraphs dude. ;)

[Chuck 54]

Is it just me?...Those look like paragraphs in block form to me. What's the problem?

[blindzebra]

Is it just me?...Those look like paragraphs in block form to me. What's the problem?

Notice the little edited by STSINAZ at the bottom, it had a the 3 line first paragraph followed by one HUGE chunk of unreadable text before it got fixed.

[STSINAZ]

you didnt give me a chance to fix it...didnt know it was so long initially....

Notice the little edited by STSINAZ at the bottom, it had a the 3 line first paragraph followed by one HUGE chunk of unreadable text before it got fixed.

[Fletch]

It's okay STSINAZ, you can never please the "paragraph police".

[STSINAZ]

I see that...

It's okay STSINAZ, you can never please the "paragraph police".

[gbrittain]

But what matters the most in this era is a great defense along with solid depth at every position that's how you win now....things have changed so that the last 5 years are unlike no other era in the history of the modern NFL.

Never before have we had teams rebound to win superbowls the very next year after having losing seasons or 8-8 seasons the year before. Even with Carolina getting there last year it was a big accomplishment from what they did the year before. I think it really shows as a sign of the times. Never before did we have two Superbowl winners so close together win it all with average at best Quarterbacks. This has happened because of expansion, Free agency and the salary cap. Teams have overinflated most of the free agents but have not received adequate play in return. This has caused them to be strapped for years to come which in turn has prevented them from getting the depth that is needed. So not only are most of the teams watered down due to expansion but most teams that arent smart get salary cap strapped.

One other thing to note here is this. This may be the most important thing. Football is a chemistry game. The more players that have to be involved on a play the more chemistry you need. With players moving around so much it has caused the play of alot of teams to deteriorate. Football is a timing sport. The more you practice the more you get your timing down. So you could have this Franchise QB that everyone is searching for and still not win because the players around that player change from year to year. I dont think it is a fluke thing that the Colts are now more dominant on Offense than they ever have been. They have been able to keep the players on Offense for alot of years together. Or alot by free agency and salary cap standards...Even with that they have lost players and will continue to do so because they dont have the money to pay all of them due to this. So that leads me to my main point. We know the era has changed. It's not like it was 20 years ago.

In order to see that the era has changed you have to know why and how to overcome it and still win. I think that BP was on the cutting edge of this several years and passed on his knowledge to Belichek. It is obviously working and BP is trying to bring that here. He was handicapped due to Jerry's ineptitude at picking players up until a few years ago when he finally gave the reigns back over to Lacewell to do what he was hired to so. Our defense needed to be overhauled last year but he didnt do it. He knew it needed to be done. We won last year with alot of players that just were not the greatest. Maybe it was chemistry. Maybe it was the fact that we played alot of teams that had major injuries at crucial positions when we played them. Maybe it was because the players really wanted to give their all for their new coach. Whatever it was it worked without a talent level that was subpar in alot of positions. But the way to win in the league right now is with a great defense and alot of depth at every position. The Bucs did it. The Ravens did it. And the Pats are doing it! The Ravens lost it due to one of the above reasons. The salary cap. The Bucs got old quick. The Pats are the smartest out there. Money and new opportunities may be an issue though. They are already starting to lose people in management. Some more could go very soon. That probably will hurt them depending on who they get but the fact that they accumulate alot of draft picks, pick alot of good players instead of paying alot of money in free agency for so called stars, it has allowed them to build up a dynasty for this era and given us all a blueprint on how to win.

Our coach is the one who gave them that blueprint. Let's not forget where it came from. That's what he is trying to do here but the problem is he was so handicapped to begin with that he had to try and bandaid the whole thing with players he knew in the meantime. I do however disagree with alot of decisions that Parcells has made and also think that if we had a personnel guy in here it would help things. The way to do it is the key so instead of everyone being pissed that BP is not trying to find a Franchise QB understand that Franchise QB's were pretty much a lock to get you pretty close to doing something 20 years ago but they arent now (for reasons mentioned above). What we should all be focused on is improving with good players, middle tier players at every position. That will allow us to keep them longer and to have more depth rather than going after the Grant Wistrom's of the world who get a 14 million dollar signing bonus but only produce 3.5 sacks. Middle tier players who the very next year lead the NFC in sacks like Berry are who we should be looking at. Like I said I dont agree with all of Bill's decisions!

I have to disagree. Tampa Bay and Baltimore are the teams that people use as examples for not needing a special QB. Consider they did not have above average defeneses, they had the very best.

Not only were these defenses statistically #1 like Dallas was last year, but they were dominant.

New England won two superbowls with Antowain Smith has the RB, you dont see teams settling for run of the mill RBs.

Just because it has been done, I dont beleive it is a good idea to try to duplicate that success.

If you look at the field which is going to be in the playoffs this year and you will see a collection of pretty good QBs.

I think winning the Superbowl without a stellar QB is more an abberation than a rule.

[STSINAZ]

i think because it happened recently you have to take note...only time will tell if I am right...

I have to disagree. Tampa Bay and Baltimore are the teams that people use as examples for not needing a special QB. Consider they did not have above average defeneses, they had the very best.

Not only were these defenses statistically #1 like Dallas was last year, but they were dominant.

New England won two superbowls with Antowain Smith has the RB, you dont see teams settling for run of the mill RBs.

Just because it has been done, I dont beleive it is a good idea to try to duplicate that success.

If you look at the field which is going to be in the playoffs this year and you will see a collection of pretty good QBs.

I think winning the Superbowl without a stellar QB is more an abberation than a rule.

[SuspectCorner]

pardon mr. melville - at least he made some good points. it wouldn't kill him to condense a bit but i'm glad he's here.

[gbrittain]

i think because it happened recently you have to take note...only time will tell if I am right...

Well, you are definitely not alone in this theory. Many hold the same to be true. Shoot, I could be wrong but we will see.

[blindzebra]

It's okay STSINAZ, you can never please the "paragraph police".

Excuse me for wanting to be able to READ it.

Punctuation, sentences and paragraphs are there for a purpose. :D

[jimmy40]

But what matters the most in this era is a great defense along with solid depth at every position that's how you win now....things have changed so that the last 5 years are unlike no other era in the history of the modern NFL.

Never before have we had teams rebound to win superbowls the very next year after having losing seasons or 8-8 seasons the year before. Even with Carolina getting there last year it was a big accomplishment from what they did the year before. I think it really shows as a sign of the times. Never before did we have two Superbowl winners so close together win it all with average at best Quarterbacks. This has happened because of expansion, Free agency and the salary cap. Teams have overinflated most of the free agents but have not received adequate play in return. This has caused them to be strapped for years to come which in turn has prevented them from getting the depth that is needed. So not only are most of the teams watered down due to expansion but most teams that arent smart get salary cap strapped.

One other thing to note here is this. This may be the most important thing. Football is a chemistry game. The more players that have to be involved on a play the more chemistry you need. With players moving around so much it has caused the play of alot of teams to deteriorate. Football is a timing sport. The more you practice the more you get your timing down. So you could have this Franchise QB that everyone is searching for and still not win because the players around that player change from year to year. I dont think it is a fluke thing that the Colts are now more dominant on Offense than they ever have been. They have been able to keep the players on Offense for alot of years together. Or alot by free agency and salary cap standards...Even with that they have lost players and will continue to do so because they dont have the money to pay all of them due to this. So that leads me to my main point. We know the era has changed. It's not like it was 20 years ago.

In order to see that the era has changed you have to know why and how to overcome it and still win. I think that BP was on the cutting edge of this several years and passed on his knowledge to Belichek. It is obviously working and BP is trying to bring that here. He was handicapped due to Jerry's ineptitude at picking players up until a few years ago when he finally gave the reigns back over to Lacewell to do what he was hired to so. Our defense needed to be overhauled last year but he didnt do it. He knew it needed to be done. We won last year with alot of players that just were not the greatest. Maybe it was chemistry. Maybe it was the fact that we played alot of teams that had major injuries at crucial positions when we played them. Maybe it was because the players really wanted to give their all for their new coach. Whatever it was it worked without a talent level that was subpar in alot of positions. But the way to win in the league right now is with a great defense and alot of depth at every position. The Bucs did it. The Ravens did it. And the Pats are doing it! The Ravens lost it due to one of the above reasons. The salary cap. The Bucs got old quick. The Pats are the smartest out there. Money and new opportunities may be an issue though. They are already starting to lose people in management. Some more could go very soon. That probably will hurt them depending on who they get but the fact that they accumulate alot of draft picks, pick alot of good players instead of paying alot of money in free agency for so called stars, it has allowed them to build up a dynasty for this era and given us all a blueprint on how to win.

Our coach is the one who gave them that blueprint. Let's not forget where it came from. That's what he is trying to do here but the problem is he was so handicapped to begin with that he had to try and bandaid the whole thing with players he knew in the meantime. I do however disagree with alot of decisions that Parcells has made and also think that if we had a personnel guy in here it would help things. The way to do it is the key so instead of everyone being pissed that BP is not trying to find a Franchise QB understand that Franchise QB's were pretty much a lock to get you pretty close to doing something 20 years ago but they arent now (for reasons mentioned above). What we should all be focused on is improving with good players, middle tier players at every position. That will allow us to keep them longer and to have more depth rather than going after the Grant Wistrom's of the world who get a 14 million dollar signing bonus but only produce 3.5 sacks. Middle tier players who the very next year lead the NFC in sacks like Berry are who we should be looking at. Like I said I dont agree with all of Bill's decisions!Give me a fanchise QB and you can have Dilfer or whatever bus driver you want and I'm going to win more Super Bowls than you. Tom Brady's won two of the last three. Nothing's changed.

[Sarge]

Give me a fanchise QB and you can have Dilfer or whatever bus driver you want and I'm going to win more Super Bowls than you. Tom Brady's won two of the last three. Nothing's changed.

...and he or P. Manning is gonna win the next one.


Steeler fans - keep dreaming - it'll be over soon.

[STSINAZ]

a great defense will always beat a great offense...manning is going back up to new england to choke once again...and if you put brady on the colts he would do the same thing!

...and he or P. Manning is gonna win the next one.


Steeler fans - keep dreaming - it'll be over soon.

[jimmy40]

a great defense will always beat a great offense...manning is going back up to new england to choke once again...and if you put brady on the colts he would do the same thing!New England's great defense got ran over in the Super Bowl. Why did they win? Tom Brady. Period.

[blindzebra]

New England's great defense got ran over in the Super Bowl. Why did they win? Tom Brady. Period.

Carolina had a great defense too. ;)

[jimmy40]

Carolina had a great defense too. ;)Well, against us anyway. :(

[Hostile]

Super Bowl History and QBs.

$...designates them as a franchise caliber QB. In parenthesis the number of Super Bowls they participated in. Winners listed first.

I...$ Bart Starr (2) & $ Len Dawson (2)
II...$ Bart Starr (2) & Darryl Lamonica (1)
III...$ Joe Namath (1) & $ Johnny Unitas (1)
IV...$ Len Dawson (2) & Joe Kapp (1)
V...Earl Morrell (1) & Craig Morton (2)
VI...$ Roger Staubach (4) & $ Bob Griese (3)
VII...$ Bob Griese (3) & Billy Kilmer (1)
VIII...$ Bob Griese (3) & $ Fran Tarkenton (3)
IX...$ Terry Bradshaw (4) & $ Fran Tarkenton (3)
X...$ Terry Bradshaw (4) & $ Roger Staubach (4)
XI...Ken Stabler (1) & $ Fran Tarkenton (3)
XII...$ Roger Staubach (4) & Craig Morton (2)
XIII...$ Terry Bradshaw (4) & $ Roger Staubach (4)
XIV...$ Terry Bradshaw (4) & Vince Ferragamo (1)
XV...Jim Plunkett (2) & Ron Jaworski (1)
XVI...$ Joe Montana (4) & Ken Anderson (1)
XVII...Joe Thiesman (2) & David Woodley (1)
XVIII...Jim Plunkett (2) & Joe Thiesman (2)
XIX...$ Joe Montana (4) & $ Dan Marino (1)
XX...Jim McMahon (1) & Steve Grogan (1)
XXI...Phil Simms (1) & $ John Elway (5)
XXII...Doug Williams (1) & $ John Elway (5)
XXIII...$ Joe Montana (4) & Boomer Esiason (1)
XXIV...$ Joe Montana (4) & $ John Elway (5)
XXV...Jeff Hostetler (1) & $ Jim Kelly (4)
XXVI...Mark Rypien (1) & $ Jim Kelly (4)
XXVII...$ Troy Aikman (3) & $ Jim Kelly (4)
XXVIII...$ Troy Aikman (3) & $ Jim Kelly (4)
XXIX...$ Steve Young (1) & Stan Humphries (1)
XXX...$ Troy Aikman (3) & Neil O'Donnell (1)
XXXI...$ Brett Favre (2) & $ Drew Bledsoe (1)
XXXII...$ John Elway (5) & $ Brett Favre (2)
XXXIII...$ John Elway (5) & Chris Chandler (1)
XXXIV...$ Kurt Warner (2) & $ Steve McNair (1)
XXXV...Trent Dilfer (1) & Kerry Collins (1)
XXXVI...$ Tom Brady (2) & $ Kurt Warner (2)
XXXVII...Brad Johnson (1) & Rich Gannon (1)
XXXVIII...$ Tom Brady (2) & Jake Delhomme (1)

So, let's do some math. 38 Super Bowls and 76 QBs.

46 of 76 QB participants were franchise caliber. That is 61%. I am quite sure you can get some people to argue Plunkett, Thiesmann, and Kilmer deserve that classification. That would jump it up to 67%.

27 of of 38 Super Bowl Winners are franchise caliber. That is 71%. Again if you add Plunkett and Thiesman it goes up to 79%.

16 QBs played in more than 1 Super Bowl and in a total of 44 games out of 76 that means that 58% ot the time with QBs who achieved more than 1 Super Bowl. 32 times out of 76 it was a QB on a 1 shot deal so 42% of the time.

I have long maintained that Super Bowl QBs who are franchise caliber run in cycles. You have a period of great, franchise caliber QBs domintaing Super Bowl Participation and then a dry spell, usually shorter than the up cycle and franchise guys come back in force. We are currently in the beginning of a Franchise caliber participant cycle.

You can have your "bus drivers." I'll take the franchise guys and the better odds any day.

[Tuna Helper]

Super Bowl History and QBs.

$...designates them as a franchise caliber QB. In parenthesis the number of Super Bowls they participated in. Winners listed first.

I...$ Bart Starr (2) & $ Len Dawson (2)
II...$ Bart Starr (2) & Darryl Lamonica (1)
III...$ Joe Namath (1) & $ Johnny Unitas (1)
IV...$ Len Dawson (2) & Joe Kapp (1)
V...Earl Morrell (1) & Craig Morton (2)
VI...$ Roger Staubach (4) & $ Bob Griese (3)
VII...$ Bob Griese (3) & Billy Kilmer (1)
VIII...$ Bob Griese (3) & $ Fran Tarkenton (3)
IX...$ Terry Bradshaw (4) & $ Fran Tarkenton (3)
X...$ Terry Bradshaw (4) & $ Roger Staubach (4)
XI...Ken Stabler (1) & $ Fran Tarkenton (3)
XII...$ Roger Staubach (4) & Craig Morton (2)
XIII...$ Terry Bradshaw (4) & $ Roger Staubach (4)
XIV...$ Terry Bradshaw (4) & Vince Ferragamo (1)
XV...Jim Plunkett (2) & Ron Jaworski (1)
XVI...$ Joe Montana (4) & Ken Anderson (1)
XVII...Joe Thiesman (2) & David Woodley (1)
XVIII...Jim Plunkett (2) & Joe Thiesman (2)
XIX...$ Joe Montana (4) & $ Dan Marino (1)
XX...Jim McMahon (1) & Steve Grogan (1)
XXI...Phil Simms (1) & $ John Elway (5)
XXII...Doug Williams (1) & $ John Elway (5)
XXIII...$ Joe Montana (4) & Boomer Esiason (1)
XXIV...$ Joe Montana (4) & $ John Elway (5)
XXV...Jeff Hostetler (1) & $ Jim Kelly (4)
XXVI...Mark Rypien (1) & $ Jim Kelly (4)
XXVII...$ Troy Aikman (3) & $ Jim Kelly (4)
XXVIII...$ Troy Aikman (3) & $ Jim Kelly (4)
XXIX...$ Steve Young (1) & Stan Humphries (1)
XXX...$ Troy Aikman (3) & Neil O'Donnell (1)
XXXI...$ Brett Favre (2) & $ Drew Bledsoe (1)
XXXII...$ John Elway (5) & $ Brett Favre (2)
XXXIII...$ John Elway (5) & Chris Chandler (1)
XXXIV...$ Kurt Warner (2) & $ Steve McNair (1)
XXXV...Trent Dilfer (1) & Kerry Collins (1)
XXXVI...$ Tom Brady (2) & $ Kurt Warner (2)
XXXVII...Brad Johnson (1) & Rich Gannon (1)
XXXVIII...$ Tom Brady (2) & Jake Delhomme (1)

So, let's do some math. 38 Super Bowls and 76 QBs.

46 of 76 QB participants were franchise caliber. That is 61%. I am quite sure you can get some people to argue Plunkett, Thiesmann, and Kilmer deserve that classification. That would jump it up to 67%.

27 of of 38 Super Bowl Winners are franchise caliber. That is 71%. Again if you add Plunkett and Thiesman it goes up to 79%.

16 QBs played in more than 1 Super Bowl and in a total of 44 games out of 76 that means that 58% ot the time with QBs who achieved more than 1 Super Bowl. 32 times out of 76 it was a QB on a 1 shot deal so 42% of the time.

I have long maintained that Super Bowl QBs who are franchise caliber run in cycles. You have a period of great, franchise caliber Qbs domintaing Super Bowl Participation and then a dry spell, usually shorter than the up cycle and franchise guys come back in force. We are currently in the beginning of a Franchise claiber participant cycle.

You can have your "bus drivers." I'll take the franchise guys and the better odds any day.

Amen! Great post Hostile!

[STSINAZ]

why do you say that we are about to have a bunch of franchise qb's win superbowls?...you are still not recognizing that this is a different era...the one thing that shows that is how the teams flipflop from year to year...that has never happened before...go back through history and you will not find a 5 year period where teams such as the ravens, bucs, rams, and even the pats had as bad of records as they did the year before or two previous before they won it all! that tells me this is a different time...there also was no free agency or a salary cap before so you have to throw all that stuff out before then...you cant count it! and there are alot more teams now so that has watered things down a bit too...we are in a different era now matter how you try and slice things...you can gloss over the facts that I have pointed all you want that's up to you...but they are still true...

Super Bowl History and QBs.

$...designates them as a franchise caliber QB. In parenthesis the number of Super Bowls they participated in. Winners listed first.

I...$ Bart Starr (2) & $ Len Dawson (2)
II...$ Bart Starr (2) & Darryl Lamonica (1)
III...$ Joe Namath (1) & $ Johnny Unitas (1)
IV...$ Len Dawson (2) & Joe Kapp (1)
V...Earl Morrell (1) & Craig Morton (2)
VI...$ Roger Staubach (4) & $ Bob Griese (3)
VII...$ Bob Griese (3) & Billy Kilmer (1)
VIII...$ Bob Griese (3) & $ Fran Tarkenton (3)
IX...$ Terry Bradshaw (4) & $ Fran Tarkenton (3)
X...$ Terry Bradshaw (4) & $ Roger Staubach (4)
XI...Ken Stabler (1) & $ Fran Tarkenton (3)
XII...$ Roger Staubach (4) & Craig Morton (2)
XIII...$ Terry Bradshaw (4) & $ Roger Staubach (4)
XIV...$ Terry Bradshaw (4) & Vince Ferragamo (1)
XV...Jim Plunkett (2) & Ron Jaworski (1)
XVI...$ Joe Montana (4) & Ken Anderson (1)
XVII...Joe Thiesman (2) & David Woodley (1)
XVIII...Jim Plunkett (2) & Joe Thiesman (2)
XIX...$ Joe Montana (4) & $ Dan Marino (1)
XX...Jim McMahon (1) & Steve Grogan (1)
XXI...Phil Simms (1) & $ John Elway (5)
XXII...Doug Williams (1) & $ John Elway (5)
XXIII...$ Joe Montana (4) & Boomer Esiason (1)
XXIV...$ Joe Montana (4) & $ John Elway (5)
XXV...Jeff Hostetler (1) & $ Jim Kelly (4)
XXVI...Mark Rypien (1) & $ Jim Kelly (4)
XXVII...$ Troy Aikman (3) & $ Jim Kelly (4)
XXVIII...$ Troy Aikman (3) & $ Jim Kelly (4)
XXIX...$ Steve Young (1) & Stan Humphries (1)
XXX...$ Troy Aikman (3) & Neil O'Donnell (1)
XXXI...$ Brett Favre (2) & $ Drew Bledsoe (1)
XXXII...$ John Elway (5) & $ Brett Favre (2)
XXXIII...$ John Elway (5) & Chris Chandler (1)
XXXIV...$ Kurt Warner (2) & $ Steve McNair (1)
XXXV...Trent Dilfer (1) & Kerry Collins (1)
XXXVI...$ Tom Brady (2) & $ Kurt Warner (2)
XXXVII...Brad Johnson (1) & Rich Gannon (1)
XXXVIII...$ Tom Brady (2) & Jake Delhomme (1)

So, let's do some math. 38 Super Bowls and 76 QBs.

46 of 76 QB participants were franchise caliber. That is 61%. I am quite sure you can get some people to argue Plunkett, Thiesmann, and Kilmer deserve that classification. That would jump it up to 67%.

27 of of 38 Super Bowl Winners are franchise caliber. That is 71%. Again if you add Plunkett and Thiesman it goes up to 79%.

16 QBs played in more than 1 Super Bowl and in a total of 44 games out of 76 that means that 58% ot the time with QBs who achieved more than 1 Super Bowl. 32 times out of 76 it was a QB on a 1 shot deal so 42% of the time.

I have long maintained that Super Bowl QBs who are franchise caliber run in cycles. You have a period of great, franchise caliber QBs domintaing Super Bowl Participation and then a dry spell, usually shorter than the up cycle and franchise guys come back in force. We are currently in the beginning of a Franchise caliber participant cycle.

You can have your "bus drivers." I'll take the franchise guys and the better odds any day.

[STSINAZ]

one other thing to note.

look at the last 6 superbowls. There were 10 quarterbacks in them but only 5 were franchise QB's. 5 weren't. That tells you something right there. If it happened any other time in history it probably was only once. More evidence that things have changed and they are not going to go back due to the reasons I gave you already. By the way Kenny Stabler was a franchise Quarterback.

Super Bowl History and QBs.

$...designates them as a franchise caliber QB. In parenthesis the number of Super Bowls they participated in. Winners listed first.

I...$ Bart Starr (2) & $ Len Dawson (2)
II...$ Bart Starr (2) & Darryl Lamonica (1)
III...$ Joe Namath (1) & $ Johnny Unitas (1)
IV...$ Len Dawson (2) & Joe Kapp (1)
V...Earl Morrell (1) & Craig Morton (2)
VI...$ Roger Staubach (4) & $ Bob Griese (3)
VII...$ Bob Griese (3) & Billy Kilmer (1)
VIII...$ Bob Griese (3) & $ Fran Tarkenton (3)
IX...$ Terry Bradshaw (4) & $ Fran Tarkenton (3)
X...$ Terry Bradshaw (4) & $ Roger Staubach (4)
XI...Ken Stabler (1) & $ Fran Tarkenton (3)
XII...$ Roger Staubach (4) & Craig Morton (2)
XIII...$ Terry Bradshaw (4) & $ Roger Staubach (4)
XIV...$ Terry Bradshaw (4) & Vince Ferragamo (1)
XV...Jim Plunkett (2) & Ron Jaworski (1)
XVI...$ Joe Montana (4) & Ken Anderson (1)
XVII...Joe Thiesman (2) & David Woodley (1)
XVIII...Jim Plunkett (2) & Joe Thiesman (2)
XIX...$ Joe Montana (4) & $ Dan Marino (1)
XX...Jim McMahon (1) & Steve Grogan (1)
XXI...Phil Simms (1) & $ John Elway (5)
XXII...Doug Williams (1) & $ John Elway (5)
XXIII...$ Joe Montana (4) & Boomer Esiason (1)
XXIV...$ Joe Montana (4) & $ John Elway (5)
XXV...Jeff Hostetler (1) & $ Jim Kelly (4)
XXVI...Mark Rypien (1) & $ Jim Kelly (4)
XXVII...$ Troy Aikman (3) & $ Jim Kelly (4)
XXVIII...$ Troy Aikman (3) & $ Jim Kelly (4)
XXIX...$ Steve Young (1) & Stan Humphries (1)
XXX...$ Troy Aikman (3) & Neil O'Donnell (1)
XXXI...$ Brett Favre (2) & $ Drew Bledsoe (1)
XXXII...$ John Elway (5) & $ Brett Favre (2)
XXXIII...$ John Elway (5) & Chris Chandler (1)
XXXIV...$ Kurt Warner (2) & $ Steve McNair (1)
XXXV...Trent Dilfer (1) & Kerry Collins (1)
XXXVI...$ Tom Brady (2) & $ Kurt Warner (2)
XXXVII...Brad Johnson (1) & Rich Gannon (1)
XXXVIII...$ Tom Brady (2) & Jake Delhomme (1)

So, let's do some math. 38 Super Bowls and 76 QBs.

46 of 76 QB participants were franchise caliber. That is 61%. I am quite sure you can get some people to argue Plunkett, Thiesmann, and Kilmer deserve that classification. That would jump it up to 67%.

27 of of 38 Super Bowl Winners are franchise caliber. That is 71%. Again if you add Plunkett and Thiesman it goes up to 79%.

16 QBs played in more than 1 Super Bowl and in a total of 44 games out of 76 that means that 58% ot the time with QBs who achieved more than 1 Super Bowl. 32 times out of 76 it was a QB on a 1 shot deal so 42% of the time.

I have long maintained that Super Bowl QBs who are franchise caliber run in cycles. You have a period of great, franchise caliber QBs domintaing Super Bowl Participation and then a dry spell, usually shorter than the up cycle and franchise guys come back in force. We are currently in the beginning of a Franchise caliber participant cycle.

You can have your "bus drivers." I'll take the franchise guys and the better odds any day.

[Hostile]

one other thing to note.

look at the last 6 superbowls. There were 10 quarterbacks in them but only 5 were franchise QB's. 5 weren't. That tells you something right there. If it happened any other time in history it probably was only once. More evidence that things have changed and they are not going to go back due to the reasons I gave you already. By the way Kenny Stabler was a franchise Quarterback.NFC Potential Playoff QBs for 2004

Favre...$
Culpepper...$
McNabb...$
Vick...$
Hasselbeck
Delhomme
Bulger

AFC Potential Playoff QBs for 2004

Brady...$
Manning...$
Brees
Roethlesberger (I'm tempted to go ahead and $ him.)
Pennington...$
Bledsoe...$
Plummer


I like my odds of a $ QB vs. another $ QB and I will like my odds next year just as much. The cycle is back.

[Hostile]

one other thing to note.

look at the last 6 superbowls. There were 10 quarterbacks in them but only 5 were franchise QB's. 5 weren't. That tells you something right there. If it happened any other time in history it probably was only once. More evidence that things have changed and they are not going to go back due to the reasons I gave you already. By the way Kenny Stabler was a franchise Quarterback.
A final comment. Hasn't happened before?

XV...Jim Plunkett (2) & Ron Jaworski (1)
XVI...$ Joe Montana (4) & Ken Anderson (1)
XVII...Joe Thiesman (2) & David Woodley (1)
XVIII...Jim Plunkett (2) & Joe Thiesman (2)
XIX...$ Joe Montana (4) & $ Dan Marino (1)
XX...Jim McMahon (1) & Steve Grogan (1)
XXI...Phil Simms (1) & $ John Elway (5)
XXII...Doug Williams (1) & $ John Elway (5)

I think it has. Stabler makes my argument even better then.

[blindzebra]

why do you say that we are about to have a bunch of franchise qb's win superbowls?...you are still not recognizing that this is a different era...the one thing that shows that is how the teams flipflop from year to year...that has never happened before...go back through history and you will not find a 5 year period where teams such as the ravens, bucs, rams, and even the pats had as bad of records as they did the year before or two previous before they won it all! that tells me this is a different time...there also was no free agency or a salary cap before so you have to throw all that stuff out before then...you cant count it! and there are alot more teams now so that has watered things down a bit too...we are in a different era now matter how you try and slice things...you can gloss over the facts that I have pointed all you want that's up to you...but they are still true...


If you are going to talk history, at least get it right. Your bad to SB trend began in '93 with SD at 8-8, NE '95 at 6-10, ATL '97 at 7-9, STL '98 at 4-12, NYG and BAL in '99 at 7-9 and 8-8, NE in 2000 at 5-11, CAR in '02 at 7-9.

But it HAS happened before, but it was not as dramatic because MEDIOCRITY had not set in.

A 4-11 CIN team in '87 went to the SB in '88, Den was 8-8 in '88 SB in '89, BUF was 9-7 in '89 SB in '90.

In '79 OAK was 9-7 and went to the SB in '80, in '80 CIN and SF were 6-10 and played in the '81 SB, WAS was 8-8 in '81 and won the '82 SB.

Dallas 8-6 in '74, MIN 7-7 in '72, and from '65 to 70 only MIA in 1970 had a 10-4 record every other team went from at least 5 losses to the SB.

[Waffle]

If you are going to talk history, at least get it right. Your bad to SB trend began in '93 with SD at 8-8, NE '95 at 6-10, ATL '97 at 7-9, STL '98 at 4-12, NYG and BAL in '99 at 7-9 and 8-8, NE in 2000 at 5-11, CAR in '02 at 7-9.

But it HAS happened before, but it was not as dramatic because MEDIOCRITY had not set in.

A 4-11 CIN team in '87 went to the SB in '88, Den was 8-8 in '88 SB in '89, BUF was 9-7 in '89 SB in '90.

In '79 OAK was 9-7 and went to the SB in '80, in '80 CIN and SF were 6-10 and played in the '81 SB, WAS was 8-8 in '81 and won the '82 SB.

Dallas 8-6 in '74, MIN 7-7 in '72, and from '65 to 70 only MIA in 1970 had a 10-4 record every other team went from at least 5 losses to the SB.
Game, Set, and Match! :D

[STSINAZ]

so obviously you made my point for me...never in history were there so many at one time...look at what you just typed below...that was my whole point...thanks...93,95,97,98,99,00,02....thanks... we are now in a different era as I stated...

If you are going to talk history, at least get it right. Your bad to SB trend began in '93 with SD at 8-8, NE '95 at 6-10, ATL '97 at 7-9, STL '98 at 4-12, NYG and BAL in '99 at 7-9 and 8-8, NE in 2000 at 5-11, CAR in '02 at 7-9.

But it HAS happened before, but it was not as dramatic because MEDIOCRITY had not set in.

A 4-11 CIN team in '87 went to the SB in '88, Den was 8-8 in '88 SB in '89, BUF was 9-7 in '89 SB in '90.

In '79 OAK was 9-7 and went to the SB in '80, in '80 CIN and SF were 6-10 and played in the '81 SB, WAS was 8-8 in '81 and won the '82 SB.

Dallas 8-6 in '74, MIN 7-7 in '72, and from '65 to 70 only MIA in 1970 had a 10-4 record every other team went from at least 5 losses to the SB.

[blindzebra]

so obviously you made my point for me...never in history were there so many at one time...look at what you just typed below...that was my whole point...thanks...93,95,97,98,99,00,02....thanks... we are now in a different era as I stated...

No we are not agreeing, it HAS happened before right from the first Super Bowl. The difference is salary cap and free agency. Before that teams built up to challenge the big boys who stayed on top for long periods of time.

Since the cap EVERYTHING just happens quicker, teams get better faster and teams get worse faster. Remember Dallas was the last pre-cap dynasty and we went from 1-15 to 7-9 to 11-5 that is how it used to be teams went from bad to average to good with a few cases of bad to good.

It still comes down to the team who has the best QB play wins the Super Bowl, and a franchise QB makes that more likely to happen.

[STSINAZ]

I wouldnt mind having a payton manning but all I am saying is that with the cap it would be too hard to build around him..the colts cant either....that's what has changed....thats why we went downhill....FREE AGENCY AND THE CAP....

No we are not agreeing, it HAS happened before right from the first Super Bowl. The difference is salary cap and free agency. Before that teams built up to challenge the big boys who stayed on top for long periods of time.

Since the cap EVERYTHING just happens quicker, teams get better faster and teams get worse faster. Remember Dallas was the last pre-cap dynasty and we went from 1-15 to 7-9 to 11-5 that is how it used to be teams went from bad to average to good with a few cases of bad to good.

It still comes down to the team who has the best QB play wins the Super Bowl, and a franchise QB makes that more likely to happen.

[STSINAZ]

QB play had nothing to do with the bucs and ravens winning it...not at all...you will see....the dollars are getting so out of control that the next SUPERSTAR QB will get 22 mill and then the next 25....especially with the cap going up...it's going to be too hard in the future to build around these guys...that's why smart coaches and gm's are talking about building around the qb position..it's alot easier in this day and age...especially when you have a great receiver and runningback like the colts have...they will never win a thing and they have the best offense that we have seen since the Rams...you may never see a better offense so what does that tell you?????????? i would never be able to find a better example of what I am saying if I tried....and they will only win one playoff game this year probably...as soon as they go to new england they are done just like last year...So where does your franchise QB get you??????????

No we are not agreeing, it HAS happened before right from the first Super Bowl. The difference is salary cap and free agency. Before that teams built up to challenge the big boys who stayed on top for long periods of time.

Since the cap EVERYTHING just happens quicker, teams get better faster and teams get worse faster. Remember Dallas was the last pre-cap dynasty and we went from 1-15 to 7-9 to 11-5 that is how it used to be teams went from bad to average to good with a few cases of bad to good.

It still comes down to the team who has the best QB play wins the Super Bowl, and a franchise QB makes that more likely to happen.

[Hostile]

I wouldnt mind having a payton manning but all I am saying is that with the cap it would be too hard to build around him..the colts cant either....that's what has changed....thats why we went downhill....FREE AGENCY AND THE CAP....I don't agree with you on this. The Colts just re-signed Marvin Harrison and are said to be close to a deal to wrap up Edgerrin James. With their other 2 WRs and TEs all they are is a defense away from being a contender for a long time. If they do nothing other than keep their Free Agents and draft well this team has a great shot at a long run and it has its alpha and omega in their franchise QB.

[jimmy40]

I don't agree with you on this. The Colts just re-signed Marvin Harrison and are said to be close to a deal to wrap up Edgerrin James. With their other 2 WRs and TEs all they are is a defense away from being a contender for a long time. If they do nothing other than keep their Free Agents and draft well this team has a great shot at a long run and it has its alpha and omega in their franchise QB.
Nope,it's too hard to win with franchise QBs. You have to have crappy ones in this new era which doesn't include two out of the last three years somehow.

[blindzebra]

QB play had nothing to do with the bucs and ravens winning it...not at all...you will see....the dollars are getting so out of control that the next SUPERSTAR QB will get 22 mill and then the next 25....especially with the cap going up...it's going to be too hard in the future to build around these guys...that's why smart coaches and gm's are talking about building around the qb position..it's alot easier in this day and age...especially when you have a great receiver and runningback like the colts have...they will never win a thing and they have the best offense that we have seen since the Rams...you may never see a better offense so what does that tell you?????????? i would never be able to find a better example of what I am saying if I tried....and they will only win one playoff game this year probably...as soon as they go to new england they are done just like last year...So where does your franchise QB get you??????????

Which QB played better in the Super Bowl Dilfer or Collins? Johnson or Gannon?

Your argument about the cap makes no sense, if the cap goes up too, why will it get harder to build around a QB?

[Hostile]

QB play had nothing to do with the bucs and ravens winning it...not at all...you will see....the dollars are getting so out of control that the next SUPERSTAR QB will get 22 mill and then the next 25....especially with the cap going up...it's going to be too hard in the future to build around these guys...that's why smart coaches and gm's are talking about building around the qb position..it's alot easier in this day and age...especially when you have a great receiver and runningback like the colts have...they will never win a thing and they have the best offense that we have seen since the Rams...you may never see a better offense so what does that tell you?????????? i would never be able to find a better example of what I am saying if I tried....and they will only win one playoff game this year probably...as soon as they go to new england they are done just like last year...So where does your franchise QB get you??????????Yet you still see teams taking QBs higher in the draft than any other position. I'm sorry, the trend of mediocre QBs and building around them just doesn't wash.

[Hostile]

Nope,it's too hard to win with franchise QBs. You have to have crappy ones in this new era which doesn't include two out of the last three years somehow.:spanking:

[Sarge]

a great defense will always beat a great offense...manning is going back up to new england to choke once again...and if you put brady on the colts he would do the same thing!

The Steelers are NOT going to the Superbowl. Guaranteed.

[gbrittain]

Yet you still see teams taking QBs higher in the draft than any other position. I'm sorry, the trend of mediocre QBs and building around them just doesn't wash.

Yep, 6 out of the last 7 number one overall picks have been...you guessed it QBs. If Leinart comes out this year you can make that 7 out of 8.

It is clear the NFL is still a QB driven league.

[Hostile]

Yep, 6 out of the last 7 number one overall picks have been...you guessed it QBs. If Leinart comes out this year you can make that 7 out of 8.

It is clear the NFL is still a QB driven league.Even if Leinart doesn't I'll put money on Aaron Rodgers being the overall #1. Teams will be hungry for guys like Kyle Orton, Andrew Walters, and several other QBs.

In the real game of human chess QB is the piece where you can attack the most. The better the QB is the more you can have the offense do.

[STSINAZ]

they lost a bunch of free agents last year (remember the linebacker they lost lost year?) and will do the same in the years to come...mark it down...the colts will never win a superbowl in the payton manning era if they keep harrison and james...there wont be any money...not only will it be due to salary cap problems but also do to the fact that they just dont have the money to fork out....

I don't agree with you on this. The Colts just re-signed Marvin Harrison and are said to be close to a deal to wrap up Edgerrin James. With their other 2 WRs and TEs all they are is a defense away from being a contender for a long time. If they do nothing other than keep their Free Agents and draft well this team has a great shot at a long run and it has its alpha and omega in their franchise QB.

[Hostile]

they lost a bunch of free agents last year (remember the linebacker they lost lost year?) and will do the same in the years to come...mark it down...the colts will never win a superbowl in the payton manning era if they keep harrison and james...there wont be any money...not only will it be due to salary cap problems but also do to the fact that they just dont have the money to fork out....Sorry, not going to mark it down. I think they have a great shot at one this year and will be a serious contender for a number of years and it will mostly be because of #18. They've already kept Harrison so moot point. Even if they don't keep Edge they can draft a rookie RB. This team will roll up points for a while.

[blindzebra]

Sorry, not going to mark it down. I think they have a great shot at one this year and will be a serious contender for a number of years and it will mostly be because of #18. They've already kept Harrison so moot point. Even if they don't keep Edge they can draft a rookie RB. This team will roll up points for a while.

They have Freeney and their secondary was improving before injuries took their toll. All they need, with that offense, is a defense in the 15 to 20 range, and they can re-tool that type of defense each year through the draft.

[gbrittain]

they lost a bunch of free agents last year (remember the linebacker they lost lost year?) and will do the same in the years to come...mark it down...the colts will never win a superbowl in the payton manning era if they keep harrison and james...there wont be any money...not only will it be due to salary cap problems but also do to the fact that they just dont have the money to fork out....

Even if Peyton Manning does not win a Superbowl this year, chances are franchise QBs Brady, McNabb, Ben R, Vick, Pennington or Favre will.

I suppose it is debatable wether Ben R should be classified as a franchise QB, but when you draft a guy #12 overall that is what you anticipate the guy to be. So far he has not let them down.

[Hostile]

They have Freeney and their secondary was improving before injuries took their toll. All they need, with that offense, is a defense in the 15 to 20 range, and they can re-tool that type of defense each year through the draft.I completely agree. You can win a Super Bowl in any number of ways. If you've got a superior offense, and I think they qualify, all you need is a consistent defense.

If you have a mediocre QB you better have a killer defense if you want to overcome all obstacles.

The main reason neither Dan Marino nor Dan Fouts never won a Super Bowl is because they did not have consistent defenses to help their great QBs. I really don't see that as a potential issue as long as Tony Dungy is their Head Coach.

[STSINAZ]

in two to three weeks we will talk again on this subject when get taken out by the Pats........you will see....their defense sucks! how can you not see that????????????????

Sorry, not going to mark it down. I think they have a great shot at one this year and will be a serious contender for a number of years and it will mostly be because of #18. They've already kept Harrison so moot point. Even if they don't keep Edge they can draft a rookie RB. This team will roll up points for a while.

[blindzebra]

I completely agree. You can win a Super Bowl in any number of ways. If you've got a superior offense, and I think they qualify, all you need is a consistent defense.

If you have a mediocre QB you better have a killer defense if you want to overcome all obstacles.

The main reason neither Dan Marino nor Dan Fouts never won a Super Bowl is because they did not have consistent defenses to help their great QBs. I really don't see that as a potential issue as long as Tony Dungy is their Head Coach.

SD had a pretty good defense and their offense was pretty Indy-like because of Muncie.

Miami had no balance on offense, which was their down fall.

This years Colt's offense is the BEST ever with a 1,500 yard RB and 3 1,000 yard WRs, along with Manning's record breaking year. They are winning close games too, I think they win it this season.

[STSINAZ]

NO WAY THEY DO...no possible way...they have no defense! and it will only get worse because they will be strapped for years to come!

SD had a pretty good defense and their offense was pretty Indy-like because of Muncie.

Miami had no balance on offense, which was their down fall.

This years Colt's offense is the BEST ever with a 1,500 yard RB and 3 1,000 yard WRs, along with Manning's record breaking year. They are winning close games too, I think they win it this season.

[blindzebra]

NO WAY THEY DO...no possible way...they have no defense! and it will only get worse because they will be strapped for years to come!

How'd they win 12 games then?

They are 16th in scoring defense, they have 36 takeaways. You are beyond WRONG. :rolleyes:

[STSINAZ]

well blind zebra if you are right they will win it all and if you are wrong they will get bounced right out of the playoffs once again just like they did last year...I will check back with you in a few weeks...no excuses when they lose...dont want to hear one of them from you...numbers dont always show everything...we had the number one defense last year without having the best defense in the league so slice and dice all you want...bottom line is their defense sucks...everyone knows it...

How'd they win 12 games then?

They are 16th in scoring defense, they have 36 takeaways. You are beyond WRONG. :rolleyes:

[blindzebra]

well blind zebra if you are right they will win it all and if you are wrong they will get bounced right out of the playoffs once again just like they did last year...I will check back with you in a few weeks...no excuses when they lose...dont want to hear one of them from you...numbers dont always show everything...we had the number one defense last year without having the best defense in the league so slice and dice all you want...bottom line is their defense sucks...everyone knows it...

Then half the defenses in the league must suck. :D

[Waffle]

How'd they win 12 games then?

They are 16th in scoring defense, they have 36 takeaways. You are beyond WRONG. :rolleyes:
Not trying to interfere too much with your debate here, but I must agree with you BZ that the Colts' defense has really played much better, especially over the last half of the season. Freeney is a sack machine, and guys like Morris and Mathis have been forcing some turnovers here of late. I think they really turned the corner defensively in that Houston game a few weeks back.

[Hostile]

in two to three weeks we will talk again on this subject when get taken out by the Pats........you will see....their defense sucks! how can you not see that????????????????I never said their defense was any good. Where do you read that I have said that? I did say Tony Dungy will get them a good scheme.

[Hostile]

How'd they win 12 games then?

They are 16th in scoring defense, they have 36 takeaways. You are beyond WRONG. :rolleyes:Smoke and mirrors. Sleight of hand. Optical illusions. Dumb luck.

#13 tomorrow...more of the same.

[u4ea242]

Super Bowl History and QBs.

XXXV...Trent Dilfer (1) & Kerry Collins (1)
XXXVI...$ Tom Brady (2) & $ Kurt Warner (2)
XXXVII...Brad Johnson (1) & Rich Gannon (1)
XXXVIII...$ Tom Brady (2) & Jake Delhomme (1)


Dare I get involved in this debate? I don't think it is complete coincidence that you see fewer franchise qb's near the end of the list.

All things equal, going forward, you will probably see fewer franchise qb's in the superbowl POST-salary cap era than PRE. Why? Because paying up for the qb neccessarily leaves you less for the rest of the team, albeit in less critical positions. This was less true before the salary cap, of course. Not to mention, today's active free agency market gives more options to teams that can find their quarterback more cheaply.

Now, don't get me wrong, good QB's are extremely valuable. What I think you'll see more of is teams that win with high quality but reasonably priced qb's that are later deemed to be franchise quality. Tom Brady was a perfect example of this...winning the SB on less than $400k salary. Sure, eventually you have to pony up - but at least you are not doing it blindly like you have to with an unproven top-5 draft choice, etc.

[STSINAZ]

thats exactly what I have been saying...good post....

Dare I get involved in this debate? I don't think it is complete coincidence that you see fewer franchise qb's near the end of the list.

All things equal, going forward, you will probably see fewer franchise qb's in the superbowl POST-salary cap era than PRE. Why? Because paying up for the qb neccessarily leaves you less for the rest of the team, albeit in less critical positions. This was less true before the salary cap, of course. Not to mention, today's active free agency market gives more options to teams that can find their quarterback more cheaply.

Now, don't get me wrong, good QB's are extremely valuable. What I think you'll see more of is teams that win with high quality but reasonably priced qb's that are later deemed to be franchise quality. Tom Brady was a perfect example of this...winning the SB on less than $400k salary. Sure, eventually you have to pony up - but at least you are not doing it blindly like you have to with an unproven top-5 draft choice, etc.

[gbrittain]

Dare I get involved in this debate? I don't think it is complete coincidence that you see fewer franchise qb's near the end of the list.

All things equal, going forward, you will probably see fewer franchise qb's in the superbowl POST-salary cap era than PRE. Why? Because paying up for the qb neccessarily leaves you less for the rest of the team, albeit in less critical positions. This was less true before the salary cap, of course. Not to mention, today's active free agency market gives more options to teams that can find their quarterback more cheaply.

Now, don't get me wrong, good QB's are extremely valuable. What I think you'll see more of is teams that win with high quality but reasonably priced qb's that are later deemed to be franchise quality. Tom Brady was a perfect example of this...winning the SB on less than $400k salary. Sure, eventually you have to pony up - but at least you are not doing it blindly like you have to with an unproven top-5 draft choice, etc.

One thing that keeps getting glossed over is that in recent years Tampa Bay and Baltimore are teams used as examples of teams not needing a franchise QB.

They did not accomplish this with a good defense, they did not accomplish this with a top 10 defense, and they did not accomplish this because of a smoke and mirros statistical #1 defense like Dallas did a year ago.

Tampa and Baltimore had great dominant defenses. I suppose if you build a defense that is one of the all time greats you can get away with just an ok QB.

How likely is it that Dallas will build not just a good defense but a super dominant defense for the ages type?

If Dallas does not they better have a QB who can make things happen and is not just along for the defensive ride.

[Hostile]

Dare I get involved in this debate? I don't think it is complete coincidence that you see fewer franchise qb's near the end of the list.

All things equal, going forward, you will probably see fewer franchise qb's in the superbowl POST-salary cap era than PRE. Why? Because paying up for the qb neccessarily leaves you less for the rest of the team, albeit in less critical positions. This was less true before the salary cap, of course. Not to mention, today's active free agency market gives more options to teams that can find their quarterback more cheaply.

Now, don't get me wrong, good QB's are extremely valuable. What I think you'll see more of is teams that win with high quality but reasonably priced qb's that are later deemed to be franchise quality. Tom Brady was a perfect example of this...winning the SB on less than $400k salary. Sure, eventually you have to pony up - but at least you are not doing it blindly like you have to with an unproven top-5 draft choice, etc.I simply don't agree. Take a good look at the top 10 salaries in the NFL. Most of them will be QBs and I bet you they play for teams vying for playoff spots.

Manning
Vick
McNabb
Culpepper

That's 4 right off the top of my head that I know are highly paid. I don't have a list handy, but the doom and gloom of a Franchise QB weakening a team just isn't materializing.

[Hostile]

One thing that keeps getting glossed over is that in recent years Tampa Bay and Baltimore are teams used as examples of teams not needing a franchise QB.

They did not accomplish this with a good defense, they did not accomplish this with a top 10 defense, and they did not accomplish this because of a smoke and mirros statistical #1 defense like Dallas did a year ago.

Tampa and Baltimore had great dominant defenses. I suppose if you build a defense that is one of the all time greats you can get away with just an ok QB.

How likely is it that Dallas will build not just a good defense but a super dominant defense for the ages type?

If Dallas does not they better have a QB who can make things happen and is not just along for the defensive ride.:hammer:

[jimmy40]

I simply don't agree. Take a good look at the top 10 salaries in the NFL. Most of them will be QBs and I bet you they play for teams vying for playoff spots.

Manning
Vick
McNabb
Culpepper

That's 4 right off the top of my head that I know are highly paid. I don't have a list handy, but the doom and gloom of a Franchise QB weakening a team just isn't materializing.I wonder if this thread would have been started if Quincy Carter was a franchise type QB?

[STSINAZ]

remember this blindzebra?

But what matters the most in this era is a great defense along with solid depth at every position that's how you win now....things have changed so that the last 5 years are unlike no other era in the history of the modern NFL.

Never before have we had teams rebound to win superbowls the very next year after having losing seasons or 8-8 seasons the year before. Even with Carolina getting there last year it was a big accomplishment from what they did the year before. I think it really shows as a sign of the times. Never before did we have two Superbowl winners so close together win it all with average at best Quarterbacks. This has happened because of expansion, Free agency and the salary cap. Teams have overinflated most of the free agents but have not received adequate play in return. This has caused them to be strapped for years to come which in turn has prevented them from getting the depth that is needed. So not only are most of the teams watered down due to expansion but most teams that arent smart get salary cap strapped.

One other thing to note here is this. This may be the most important thing. Football is a chemistry game. The more players that have to be involved on a play the more chemistry you need. With players moving around so much it has caused the play of alot of teams to deteriorate. Football is a timing sport. The more you practice the more you get your timing down. So you could have this Franchise QB that everyone is searching for and still not win because the players around that player change from year to year. I dont think it is a fluke thing that the Colts are now more dominant on Offense than they ever have been. They have been able to keep the players on Offense for alot of years together. Or alot by free agency and salary cap standards...Even with that they have lost players and will continue to do so because they dont have the money to pay all of them due to this. So that leads me to my main point. We know the era has changed. It's not like it was 20 years ago.

In order to see that the era has changed you have to know why and how to overcome it and still win. I think that BP was on the cutting edge of this several years and passed on his knowledge to Belichek. It is obviously working and BP is trying to bring that here. He was handicapped due to Jerry's ineptitude at picking players up until a few years ago when he finally gave the reigns back over to Lacewell to do what he was hired to so. Our defense needed to be overhauled last year but he didnt do it. He knew it needed to be done. We won last year with alot of players that just were not the greatest. Maybe it was chemistry. Maybe it was the fact that we played alot of teams that had major injuries at crucial positions when we played them. Maybe it was because the players really wanted to give their all for their new coach. Whatever it was it worked without a talent level that was subpar in alot of positions. But the way to win in the league right now is with a great defense and alot of depth at every position. The Bucs did it. The Ravens did it. And the Pats are doing it! The Ravens lost it due to one of the above reasons. The salary cap. The Bucs got old quick. The Pats are the smartest out there. Money and new opportunities may be an issue though. They are already starting to lose people in management. Some more could go very soon. That probably will hurt them depending on who they get but the fact that they accumulate alot of draft picks, pick alot of good players instead of paying alot of money in free agency for so called stars, it has allowed them to build up a dynasty for this era and given us all a blueprint on how to win.

Our coach is the one who gave them that blueprint. Let's not forget where it came from. That's what he is trying to do here but the problem is he was so handicapped to begin with that he had to try and bandaid the whole thing with players he knew in the meantime. I do however disagree with alot of decisions that Parcells has made and also think that if we had a personnel guy in here it would help things. The way to do it is the key so instead of everyone being pissed that BP is not trying to find a Franchise QB understand that Franchise QB's were pretty much a lock to get you pretty close to doing something 20 years ago but they arent now (for reasons mentioned above). What we should all be focused on is improving with good players, middle tier players at every position. That will allow us to keep them longer and to have more depth rather than going after the Grant Wistrom's of the world who get a 14 million dollar signing bonus but only produce 3.5 sacks. Middle tier players who the very next year lead the NFC in sacks like Berry are who we should be looking at. Like I said I dont agree with all of Bill's decisions!

[Jim Walls]

Give me a fanchise QB and you can have Dilfer or whatever bus driver you want and I'm going to win more Super Bowls than you. Tom Brady's won two of the last three. Nothing's changed.--Agree--this year coming out is a guy I bet no one pays big money but he is in my opinion the best QB of all the big dollar guys--Alex Smith from Utah. I bet he could start also like Big Ben R.--if we get a line to block and comradeship on the team