Nobody likes or respects Bledsoe...

[Givincer]

Don't try using logic with Jiggyfly.

He's about rings, not numbers, ... until he has to choose, and then it is not about rings.

You can't judge a QB solely on the number of Super Bowls he wins.

There are way too many factors to judge a quarterback solely on the number of rings he has all it is is logic like you say and a lot of football fans have trouble with logic.

 

[Givincer]

So where does the term "QB winning a game" come from?

Does it even make sense?

Quarterbacks don't win games teams win games. In order for quarterbacks to perform well and "win a game" the entire offense needs to execute not just one person. Thus, the team is winning the game not just the quarterback, some people can't comprehend it just due to the fact that it makes way too much sense...

 

[Givincer]

I can agree with your statement. However, we can agree that QB's like any other position can be the difference maker in any game. Right? Well when a team needs a big play on offense and the QB needs time to throw and he gets the time needed and he proceeds to make a bad pass that gets picked off, can we agree that the QB choked on that play? Yes I hope. If that same QB passed for a ton of yards but seems to have to his credit a fair amount of bad passes or taking too many sacks in big games because he was waiting for the deep pass. Is the QB guilty of contributing to a loss just like anyone else? Yes.

So what I'm saying is this. Drew has a history of taking too many sacks at the wrong damn time as well as making the wrong pass at the worst time. At least in my memory he does. Why else would someone with so many yards have so many question marks next to his name?

Any ideas?

Quarterbacks can be difference makers if they are alotted the necesarry things to be a difference maker, time/targets in the simplest terms. It's not like the quarterback can go out and singlehandedly take over the game which is a very poetic picture that the media likes to paint.

 

[Hostile]

Quarterbacks don't win games teams win games. In order for quarterbacks to perform well and "win a game" the entire offense needs to execute not just one person. Thus, the team is winning the game not just the quarterback, some people can't comprehend it just due to the fact that it makes way too much sense...

The only problem with that theory is that there is an actual NFL stat about wins. There is another for come from behind wins. The only player on the field who gets rated by these stats is the QB.

 

[Givincer]

The only problem with that theory is that there is an actual NFL stat about wins. There is another for come from behind wins. The only player on the field who gets rated by these stats is the QB.

First of all it's not a theory it's reality. Teams win games, not quarterbacks, anybody who would argue with that is not worth arguing with. And regardless of whether the NFL tracks the stat or not doesn't mean the stat holds merit as to how great or how terrible the quarterback is.

 

[Wolverine]

Real Question here.


How do you think Peyton Manning would do on this team.


I look at what Manning has and he has a great cast around him. A great OL that makes it so Manning has very little pressure.

One thing stood out to me about Manning. In the Steeler game he started off red hot. He threw a INT and he was rattled and it took him awhile to get back into his game.

After Bledsoe threw that serious INT against Denver I will say Bledsoe was not rattled at all and lead the team on a TD drive the next series.


I am not bashing Manning and I do think he is a great QB but I wonder how he would do here and what his stats would be like compared to Bledsoes right now.

The one thing I see is when pressure gets to Manning or the INTs come he gets rattled easier then Bledsoe.

 

[Hostile]

First of all it's not a theory it's reality. Teams win games, not quarterbacks, anybody who would argue with that is not worth arguing with. And regardless of whether the NFL tracks the stat or not doesn't mean the stat holds merit as to how great or how terrible the quarterback is.

Sir, yes sir.

 

[Givincer]

Sir, yes sir.

??
Would you argue that quarterbacks win games not teams?

 

[big_neil]

As for the best QBs being defined by the number of SBs, lets consider the top 10 QBs statistically (ranked by adding all-time rank in TDs, Yards and Completions, sorting smallest to largest, smallest being 3) and how many SBs they won versus played in.

1) Marino (0/1 in Super Bowl)
2) Favre (1/2 in Super Bowl)
3) Elway (2/5 in Super Bowl)
4) Moon (0/0 in Super Bowl)
5) Tarkenton (0/3 in Super Bowl)
6) Testaverde (0/0 in Super Bowl)
7) Montana (4/4 in Super Bowl)
8) Bledsoe (0/1 in Super Bowl)
9) Fouts (0/0 in Super Bowl)
10) Krieg (0/0 in Super Bowl)

Thus, with exception of Montana, the other 9 of the top 10 more prolific passers of all time combined to win 3 Super Bowls in 12 tries. Montana won more than all of the other 9 combined in 33% as many tries. Thus, there are only 7 Super Bowl wins and 16 Super Bowl games to split between the top 10, and even those guys had a combined losing record of 7-9.

 

[big_neil]

Only 60% of the top 10 QBs ever played in a Super Bowl and only 30% of the top 10 ever won a Super Bowl.

 

[Hostile]

??
Would you argue that quarterbacks win games not teams?

The point I was trying to make did a fly by.

I thought I spoke English. Sometimes I don't.

The reason QBs get the glory when a game is won and the balme when it is lost is because it has always been that way and the NFL even tracks stats to back up that line of thinking.

That is reality. Even if you want to close your eyes to it. I didn't say I supported or disgreed with that practice. It is what it is.

It isn't going to go away just because you don't like it.

Of course I know entire teams win games. I'm not stupid for crying out loud.

 

[Givincer]

The point I was trying to make did a fly by.

I thought I spoke English. Sometimes I don't.

The reason QBs get the glory when a game is won and the balme when it is lost is because it has always been that way and the NFL even tracks stats to back up that line of thinking.

That is reality. Even if you want to close your eyes to it. I didn't say I supported or disgreed with that practice. It is what it is.

It isn't going to go away just because you don't like it.

Of course I know entire teams win games. I'm not stupid for crying out loud.

I would disagree and say it is better to write about a quarterback winning a game than it is to write about a team winning a game thus the media paints dramatic pictures of quarterbacks winning games and that transcends throughout the nfl fandom...The NFL tracking the stat really isn't the problem. It's how the media interprets that stat. Most that watch football fall into that line of thinking because it is all they know, quarterbacks win games.

Did I ever say I expected it to go away just because I don't like it? No, I didn't I said it is ignorant to think quarterbacks singlehandedly win and lose games which is the picture the media often times paints when in fact the quarterback is the most dependent position on the field...

 

[Martice]

Quarterbacks can be difference makers if they are alotted the necesarry things to be a difference maker, time/targets in the simplest terms. It's not like the quarterback can go out and singlehandedly take over the game which is a very poetic picture that the media likes to paint.

I think you have me wrong Julius. I am not implying that a QB can go out there and win a game ohn his own. What I am saying is just like everyone else on the team, a missed assignment can cause a team to loose a game. A QB making the wrong pass could cost us a game. The same way a RB fumbling could cost us a game. When players have tendencies to turn the ball over, people don't forget easy. There is a sense of uneasyness when the player has the ball in his hands. Saying that, unfortunately, Drew has had his fair share of bone head plays to lose games over his career and in the worst times. He can give a clinic on how to fumble a ball and how to take a sack. He can also give a clinic on how to not feel a rush in the first place and if you rattle him enough, you can get him to shoot himself in the foot and make him throw an interception.

In all fairness, he can also give a clinic on how to throw a deep ball but his short passes are not as pretty or accurate. Maybe that's the reason for his high yardage total?

Anyway, I am not expecting Drew to win games on his own. I am not expecting Drew to be a different type of QB that he hasn't been over his whole career. What I am hoping Drew doesn't do is wilt under pressure and become erratic when we need him to be a rock for our offense and a rallying point when things get rough.

We have seen both sides of Drew for ourselves this year and although he had a good game this past Sunday, I am not going to act like I didn't see what I did see the last few games at the QB position. What I'd like to see is calm under pressure and smarter decisions when we have the ball. Taking sacks is a no no. Throwing bone head passes to his RB when he is not looking is a no no.

Drew has a lot of experience and I'd like to see that he has learned something over the years.

 

[Doomsday101]

As for the best QBs being defined by the number of SBs, lets consider the top 10 QBs statistically (ranked by adding all-time rank in TDs, Yards and Completions, sorting smallest to largest, smallest being 3) and how many SBs they won versus played in.

1) Marino (0/1 in Super Bowl)
2) Favre (1/2 in Super Bowl)
3) Elway (2/5 in Super Bowl)
4) Moon (0/0 in Super Bowl)
5) Tarkenton (0/3 in Super Bowl)
6) Testaverde (0/0 in Super Bowl)
7) Montana (4/4 in Super Bowl)
8) Bledsoe (0/1 in Super Bowl)
9) Fouts (0/0 in Super Bowl)
10) Krieg (0/0 in Super Bowl)

Thus, with exception of Montana, the other 9 of the top 10 more prolific passers of all time combined to win 3 Super Bowls in 12 tries. Montana won more than all of the other 9 combined in 33% as many tries. Thus, there are only 7 Super Bowl wins and 16 Super Bowl games to split between the top 10, and even those guys had a combined losing record of 7-9.

Funny thing about Elway he did not get the ring until Denver actually had a big time rushing attack with T. Davis. All those passing yards and Elway's great play could not win a SB because Denver overall did not have all the weapons to win a championship

 

[joseephuss]

Funny thing about Elway he did not get the ring until Denver actually had a big time rushing attack with T. Davis. All those passing yards and Elway's great play could not win a SB because Denver overall did not have all the weapons to win a championship

Elway didn't play well in Superbowls. The only good one he had was against Atlanta. His team was good enough to win against Green Bay even though he didn't have a good game.

His earlier Denver teams were not great and played in the weaker conference at the time. The Giants, Commanders and 49ers all had better more complete teams when Denver faced them in the Superbowl. It was a combination of Denver having the weaker team and Elway playing poorly that cost him rings in his early Superbowl appearances. Perhaps he was trying to do too much. Even if he plays well in those games, they probably lose because they just could not match up with those teams.

In the late 90s, they had a very strong running game, a very good tight end, very good receiver and a good defense. It was a complete team. If one part struggled, another part could take up the slack. That is a typical formula for success. Instead of having to be the team, Elway could just be a part of the team. I think any QB is going to find more success in that type of situation.

 

[Doomsday101]

Elway didn't play well in Superbowls. The only good one he had was against Atlanta. His team was good enough to win against Green Bay even though he didn't have a good game.

His earlier Denver teams were not great and played in the weaker conference at the time. The Giants, Commanders and 49ers all had better more complete teams when Denver faced them in the Superbowl. It was a combination of Denver having the weaker team and Elway playing poorly that cost him rings in his early Superbowl appearances. Perhaps he was trying to do too much. Even if he plays well in those games, they probably lose because they just could not match up with those teams.

In the late 90s, they had a very strong running game, a very good tight end, very good receiver and a good defense. It was a complete team. If one part struggled, another part could take up the slack. That is a typical formula for success. Instead of having to be the team, Elway could just be a part of the team. I think any QB is going to find more success in that type of situation.

I think his poor play was largely due to defense knowing they did not have to contend with the run they could focus on the Denver passing attack and when you’re talking a super bowl defense they can shut down any 1 dimensional team. Denver became a true contender for the ring when they could not only hurt you with the pass but could hurt you with the run as well.