A Quetion for Joe and Others.

[steelman59]

Joe I have a question for you. I mentioned this in another thread, but would like others to respond to it also.

It has been stated many times that it takes a team effort to win games in football, Some even call football the ultimate team sport. I agree with the fact that it is a team sport and one player alone can not determine the success or failure of the team. You and others have mentioned this on numerous occassions, especially in the Ben vs Carson threads, which their are to many to even count.

Well if that is truly the case, explain to me how the Pats go from being a super bowl contender to just another team that will be lucky to make the playoffs, all because one player named Brady is done for the season. If football is truly a team sport, why does this injury knock the Pats out of contention?

[joshinpa]

Football is the ultimate team game. You can't win in this league if you aren't getting quality play from both offense and defense plus help from the special teams. There is just nothing that shows you can't win consistently in this league without having the entire team playing together and solid.

However there is no more important position that seperates the good teams from the elite, or the mediocre from the bad as QB. Quarterback play for better or worse seperates you into a different catagory. Tom Brady did impact his offensive line, his receivers and his running game, and for any one to argue that the position of QB is not one that will either elevate or deflate a team is wrong.

[steelman59]

Originally Posted by joshinpa

Football is the ultimate team game. You can't win in this league if you aren't getting quality play from both offense and defense plus help from the special teams. There is just nothing that shows you can't win consistently in this league without having the entire team playing together and solid.

However there is no more important position that seperates the good teams from the elite, or the mediocre from the bad as QB. Quarterback play for better or worse seperates you into a different catagory. Tom Brady did impact his offensive line, his receivers and his running game, and for any one to argue that the position of QB is not one that will either elevate or deflate a team is wrong.

I wholeheartedly agree with you Josh, but how many times has it been said that a qb is just one player on a team?

[joshinpa]

Originally Posted by steelman59

I wholeheartedly agree with you Josh, but how many times has it been said that a qb is just one player on a team?

Ah yes the rhetoric used to try and put a player into a spot when we classify him against his peers. Yes QB play is impacted by the talent around him but the QB's talent and his performance will say if you are a contender or pretender.

[steelman59]

Originally Posted by joshinpa

Ah yes the rhetoric used to try and put a player into a spot when we classify him against his peers. Yes QB play is impacted by the talent around him but the QB's talent and his performance will say if you are a contender or pretender.

There is a reason why the QB is referred to as the General. It starts with him.

[philhos]

Originally Posted by steelman59

Joe I have a question for you. I mentioned this in another thread, but would like others to respond to it also.

It has been stated many times that it takes a team effort to win games in football, Some even call football the ultimate team sport. I agree with the fact that it is a team sport and one player alone can not determine the success or failure of the team. You and others have mentioned this on numerous occassions, especially in the Ben vs Carson threads, which their are to many to even count.

Well if that is truly the case, explain to me how the Pats go from being a super bowl contender to just another team that will be lucky to make the playoffs, all because one player named Brady is done for the season. If football is truly a team sport, why does this injury knock the Pats out of contention?

First off, it doesn't knock them out of contention. They're not out of contention 'til they rack up too many losses and miss the playoffs.

Secondly, Cassell is a backup. If he were better than Brady, then he would've started over Brady. Any time you replace a starter with a backup, you're team becomes weaker (even if it's only slightly weaker at say the 3rd WR spot). Thus, it makes it harder to win than if you're fully healthy.

Lastly, if you think Brady or Manning or Big Ben or anyone can win a game by himself, do this: take away the OL, the WRs, the TEs, the RBs, the FBs, the K, the P, and the entire defense and play 1 man versus an entire team. Who do you think will win?

It takes a TEAM to win it and as far as I know, Ghostwriter is the only Steeler fan who seems to understand that.

[rplaya28]

No one said the Patriots were out of contention. Also look what the Steelers did in 05. You could have put a woman in at QB (which ben is) and the Steelers still would have won the Superbowl. QBs don't make or break a team but if you get a good one it certainly helps. I think the Vikings are still looking for one of those...

[sloppy lombardi slaps]

Originally Posted by steelman59

Joe I have a question for you. I mentioned this in another thread, but would like others to respond to it also.

It has been stated many times that it takes a team effort to win games in football, Some even call football the ultimate team sport. I agree with the fact that it is a team sport and one player alone can not determine the success or failure of the team. You and others have mentioned this on numerous occassions, especially in the Ben vs Carson threads, which their are to many to even count.

Well if that is truly the case, explain to me how the Pats go from being a super bowl contender to just another team that will be lucky to make the playoffs, all because one player named Brady is done for the season. If football is truly a team sport, why does this injury knock the Pats out of contention?

matt cassel could be to tom brady what tom brady was to drew bledsoe, or he could bust. saying the pats are done is ignorant, let them play a few games with cassel starting.

[joshinpa]

Originally Posted by steelman59

There is a reason why the QB is referred to as the General. It starts with him.

There is just so much more to a Great QB than his stats. Does he command a huddle, do his teammates expect him to lead them to wins. Do they trust him with the ball in his hands in the clutch? Does he demand the best from his teammates? You know I obviously don't sit in locker rooms with these guys or stand in the huddle but it's quite clear that Tom Brady has the respect and demands the best of his teammates, while someone like Joey Harrington never gained that from the guys around him.

[steelman59]

Originally Posted by philhos

First off, it doesn't knock them out of contention. They're not out of contention 'til they rack up too many losses and miss the playoffs.

Secondly, Cassell is a backup. If he were better than Brady, then he would've started over Brady. Any time you replace a starter with a backup, you're team becomes weaker (even if it's only slightly weaker at say the 3rd WR spot). Thus, it makes it harder to win than if you're fully healthy.

Lastly, if you think Brady or Manning or Big Ben or anyone can win a game by himself, do this: take away the OL, the WRs, the TEs, the RBs, the FBs, the K, the P, and the entire defense and play 1 man versus an entire team. Who do you think will win?

It takes a TEAM to win it and as far as I know, Ghostwriter is the only Steeler fan who seems to understand that.

I also totally get that, if there not out of contention then why the big hub bub about the changes in the power structure of the AFC being changed now because of Brady being hurt? Check out, ESPN, NFL SI any of them and they all say that with Brady being hurt there is now a realignment in the AFC power rankings.

It takes 22 players to play the game, but it all starts with the QB. He is the leader. The chief if you will. Remmeber the old cowboy movies? Take down the chief and the rest fall apart. Its the same thing. WR are successful because the QB has the ability to throw to them. The offense is successful because of the ability of the QB to read defenses. When all this is clicking, the defense gets motivated.

Take the houston game. The Steeler D destroyed the Houston offense, now how much do you think that inspired the houston defense?

[Big Time]

Originally Posted by philhos

First off, it doesn't knock them out of contention. They're not out of contention 'til they rack up too many losses and miss the playoffs.

Secondly, Cassell is a backup. If he were better than Brady, then he would've started over Brady. Any time you replace a starter with a backup, you're team becomes weaker (even if it's only slightly weaker at say the 3rd WR spot). Thus, it makes it harder to win than if you're fully healthy.

Lastly, if you think Brady or Manning or Big Ben or anyone can win a game by himself, do this: take away the OL, the WRs, the TEs, the RBs, the FBs, the K, the P, and the entire defense and play 1 man versus an entire team. Who do you think will win?

It takes a TEAM to win it and as far as I know, Ghostwriter is the only Steeler fan who seems to understand that.

Well said, and I also have said many times that it takes a team to win however, I found a hole in your theory.
I believe the Steelers got better when Tommy Gun went down.
I believe you have said in the past that we would have won the Super bowl that year no matter who our QB was, but I disagree. Ben was an up grade over Tommy Maddox and we would have never won with Tommy under center. I dont believe the Pats would have won with Bledsoe either. It's my opinion,,,it maybe wrong, but I think those two guys are the exception to your theory.

[joshinpa]

Originally Posted by Big Time

Well said, and I also have said many times that it takes a team to win however, I found a hole in your theory.
I believe the Steelers got better when Tommy Gun went down.
I believe you have said in the past that we would have won the Super bowl that year no matter who our QB was, but I disagree. Ben was an up grade over Tommy Maddox and we would have never won with Tommy under center. I dont believe the Pats would have won with Bledsoe either. It's my opinion,,,it maybe wrong, but I think those two guys are the exception to your theory.

Does someone honestly believe that the Colts would have won the Superbowl with Jim Sorgi as their starter? Look no one is saying that a QB is the only thing that matters but having dependable play by your qb and more than that having your team trust that your QB is going to make plays to help you win ball games is incredibly important. Kyle Boller has a gun but the guy never could win over his teammates. Good quality QB play is what every team is looking for on Sunday.

[philhos]

Originally Posted by steelman59

I also totally get that, if there not out of contention then why the big hub bub about the changes in the power structure of the AFC being changed now because of Brady being hurt? Check out, ESPN, NFL SI any of them and they all say that with Brady being hurt there is now a realignment in the AFC power rankings.

Don't listen to the media. They don't know what they're talking about. Just over a year ago, I believe, SI predicted the Miami Dolphins would represent the AFC in the Super Bowl (I think they had them losing the big game). Miami then went out and narrowly avoided being the 1st 0-16 team in NFL history.

Heck just go back to when Drew Bledsoe was the starter and went down with injury. EVERYONE said NE was done. A 6th-rounder coming in to start? No way, they'd go anywhere. And what happened?

The media may say there's a shift in power in the AFC, but that doesn't necessarily make it true.

Originally Posted by steelman59

It takes 22 players to play the game, but it all starts with the QB. He is the leader. The chief if you will. Remmeber the old cowboy movies? Take down the chief and the rest fall apart. Its the same thing. WR are successful because the QB has the ability to throw to them.

It varies from team to team, though. Generally speaking, the QB is the leader, but that's not the case. Look at the Ravens. Do you honestly think Smith, Flacco or Boller is the leader? No, guys like Ray Lewis are. So, yeah, on some teams, maybe even most, you lose the QB, the leader, then there will be struggle. But, also remember that, he can still lead without playing (though it makes it harder to lead during those difficult times).

Originally Posted by steelman59

The offense is successful because of the ability of the QB to read defenses. When all this is clicking, the defense gets motivated.

Take the houston game. The Steeler D destroyed the Houston offense, now how much do you think that inspired the houston defense?

It can also work the other way. When a defense is playing great getting big time stops and huge hits and nabbing turnovers, the offense will respond and be inspired.

But, either way, it goes back to the point of it taking a WHOLE TEAM to win a game.

[philhos]

Originally Posted by Big Time

Well said, and I also have said many times that it takes a team to win however, I found a hole in your theory.
I believe the Steelers got better when Tommy Gun went down.

The thing in that instance is that Ben was better than Tommy. The only thing Tom had over Ben was smarts and as was shown, Cowher helped Ben overcome that by not putting too much on him and relied heavily on the running game. Eventually, the smarts caught up to Ben and you can now say he was overwhelmingly better than Tommy.

Originally Posted by Big Time

I believe you have said in the past that we would have won the Super bowl that year no matter who our QB was, but I disagree. Ben was an up grade over Tommy Maddox and we would have never won with Tommy under center. I dont believe the Pats would have won with Bledsoe either. It's my opinion,,,it maybe wrong, but I think those two guys are the exception to your theory.

That's mostly smack about winning with anyone at QB. Ben definitely was a huge reason for GETTING to the Super Bowl (though it seemed he did almost everything he could to lose the big game). But, if Cowher used just about any QB the way he did Ben up to the playoffs, the results would've been the same in my opinion (run the ball way more than pass it). However, Cowher changed it up in the postseason that year and that's where only a select few QBs could've done what Ben did. But, then in the Super Bowl, most other quality QBs could've done better than Ben (guys like Carr, Harrington, etc. would've lost the game, but guys like Palmer, Manning, Brady, would've done better and still won).

[steelman59]

Originally Posted by philhos

Don't listen to the media. They don't know what they're talking about. Just over a year ago, I believe, SI predicted the Miami Dolphins would represent the AFC in the Super Bowl (I think they had them losing the big game). Miami then went out and narrowly avoided being the 1st 0-16 team in NFL history.

Heck just go back to when Drew Bledsoe was the starter and went down with injury. EVERYONE said NE was done. A 6th-rounder coming in to start? No way, they'd go anywhere. And what happened?

The media may say there's a shift in power in the AFC, but that doesn't necessarily make it true.



It varies from team to team, though. Generally speaking, the QB is the leader, but that's not the case. Look at the Ravens. Do you honestly think Smith, Flacco or Boller is the leader? No, guys like Ray Lewis are. So, yeah, on some teams, maybe even most, you lose the QB, the leader, then there will be struggle. But, also remember that, he can still lead without playing (though it makes it harder to lead during those difficult times).



It can also work the other way. When a defense is playing great getting big time stops and huge hits and nabbing turnovers, the offense will respond and be inspired.

But, either way, it goes back to the point of it taking a WHOLE TEAM to win a game.

I'm not in disagreement with you, however it seems that the so called experts are in total disagreement. I am trying to approach this as I did in college regarding a debate we had.
I was unfortunate enough to get stuck with the abortion issue. I told my instructor that I would really appreciate another topic because I was totally unsure of my stance. I felt that abortion in certain circumstances would be legitimate but in most cases it would not be. The Instructor said, so basically your against abortion, I said yes. I was told to debate the pro side of it. It worked very well.

This is what I am doing here, I am taking the opposite side of my belief's and trying to make a case.

[GreggyDigital]

QB is the one position you don't want to lose someone. The fact is the QB touches the ball 99 percent of offensive plays. He, for the most part, it the start to every play.

To say the Pats are done is a bit premature. But, when you lose the best NFL QB for the entire season, you're obviously losing some offensive firepower.

[Big Time]

Originally Posted by philhos

The thing in that instance is that Ben was better than Tommy. The only thing Tom had over Ben was smarts and as was shown, Cowher helped Ben overcome that by not putting too much on him and relied heavily on the running game. Eventually, the smarts caught up to Ben and you can now say he was overwhelmingly better than Tommy.



That's mostly smack about winning with anyone at QB. Ben definitely was a huge reason for GETTING to the Super Bowl (though it seemed he did almost everything he could to lose the big game). But, if Cowher used just about any QB the way he did Ben up to the playoffs, the results would've been the same in my opinion (run the ball way more than pass it). However, Cowher changed it up in the postseason that year and that's where only a select few QBs could've done what Ben did. But, then in the Super Bowl, most other quality QBs could've done better than Ben (guys like Carr, Harrington, etc. would've lost the game, but guys like Palmer, Manning, Brady, would've done better and still won).

Well said!

[steelman59]

Originally Posted by philhos

The thing in that instance is that Ben was better than Tommy. The only thing Tom had over Ben was smarts and as was shown, Cowher helped Ben overcome that by not putting too much on him and relied heavily on the running game. Eventually, the smarts caught up to Ben and you can now say he was overwhelmingly better than Tommy.



That's mostly smack about winning with anyone at QB. Ben definitely was a huge reason for GETTING to the Super Bowl (though it seemed he did almost everything he could to lose the big game). But, if Cowher used just about any QB the way he did Ben up to the playoffs, the results would've been the same in my opinion (run the ball way more than pass it). However, Cowher changed it up in the postseason that year and that's where only a select few QBs could've done what Ben did. But, then in the Super Bowl, most other quality QBs could've done better than Ben (guys like Carr, Harrington, etc. would've lost the game, but guys like Palmer, Manning, Brady, would've done better and still won).

Phil we ran the ball because Whiz is not Brat, the run was working, why change it up? Ben would have thrown more, if he had to, but like the old saying goes, if it isn't broke why fix it. Everybody says Ben don't throw enough, ok fine, then stop the run.

[philhos]

Originally Posted by steelman59

Phil we ran the ball because Whiz is not Brat, the run was working, why change it up? Ben would have thrown more, if he had to, but like the old saying goes, if it isn't broke why fix it. Everybody says Ben don't throw enough, ok fine, then stop the run.

But, they went MORE to the run than they normally would. Whiz is no Brat, true, but all OCs know that the best offenses are balanced ones: ones that pass AND run effectively. With Ben being a rookie QB, they couldn't chance his throwing too much, so they ran the ball more than they normally would (and chances are A LOT more considering they viewed Tommy as the passing QB they've lacked in years).

It was very smart. You limit Ben's passing as much as you can (you still pass, but not nearly all that much) until he is able to truly be relied on to throw more. If the running game wasn't so successful for you guys, I firmly believe you would've lost more games just simply from Ben's inexperience and the INTs he would've thrown had he been forced to throw more.

It was a smart move and one that paid off well.

[steelman59]

Originally Posted by philhos

But, they went MORE to the run than they normally would. Whiz is no Brat, true, but all OCs know that the best offenses are balanced ones: ones that pass AND run effectively. With Ben being a rookie QB, they couldn't chance his throwing too much, so they ran the ball more than they normally would (and chances are A LOT more considering they viewed Tommy as the passing QB they've lacked in years).

It was very smart. You limit Ben's passing as much as you can (you still pass, but not nearly all that much) until he is able to truly be relied on to throw more. If the running game wasn't so successful for you guys, I firmly believe you would've lost more games just simply from Ben's inexperience and the INTs he would've thrown had he been forced to throw more.

It was a smart move and one that paid off well.

And don't forget that by running the ball you kept the colts and denvers offense off the field, which is always a good thing. It's the 12th man for the defense when you do that. As far as a balanced offense your correct, but again how much did we really need that? I mean the balanced offense is how you establish the run or the pass depending on your offensive philosophy. But when your constantly getting 3 or 4 yards per rush even when they stack the box against the run, again why throw it?

[oasiswr]

Originally Posted by steelman59

Joe I have a question for you. I mentioned this in another thread, but would like others to respond to it also.

It has been stated many times that it takes a team effort to win games in football, Some even call football the ultimate team sport. I agree with the fact that it is a team sport and one player alone can not determine the success or failure of the team. You and others have mentioned this on numerous occassions, especially in the Ben vs Carson threads, which their are to many to even count.

Well if that is truly the case, explain to me how the Pats go from being a super bowl contender to just another team that will be lucky to make the playoffs, all because one player named Brady is done for the season. If football is truly a team sport, why does this injury knock the Pats out of contention?

You don't know if the Pats are done but they do lack strong running and you saw it in the Superbowl without Sammy Morris (best runner in that team).If they can at least keep Sammy running strong the QB doesn't have to be much better than average given the Defense and special teams being really good.For the most part Jacksonville is hurting badly with three offensive lineman gone on injuries,and no strong run game spells doom for them.(No real wide outs)

[SteelCity1]

Originally Posted by rplaya28

No one said the Patriots were out of contention. Also look what the Steelers did in 05. You could have put a woman in at QB (which ben is) and the Steelers still would have won the Superbowl.

So what you are saying is the Steelers still would have won it all with Kordell as QB?

[oasiswr]

Originally Posted by SteelCity1

So what you are saying is the Steelers still would have won it all with Kordell as QB?

I believe he almost did if it wasn't for special teams screwing it up or was that a running back fumbling. 2001 fumble debacle.Pats win AFC title.Let me see that was with Tom Brady taken out on a knee injury with them behind mind you then kickoff-----fumble--placing Pats in the 30 yard area. Well at least they had Drew Bledsoe to pass; who was there starter for awhile.

NFL playoffs 2001

[Dill]

Originally Posted by philhos

The thing in that instance is that Ben was better than Tommy. The only thing Tom had over Ben was smarts and as was shown, Cowher helped Ben overcome that by not putting too much on him and relied heavily on the running game. Eventually, the smarts caught up to Ben and you can now say he was overwhelmingly better than Tommy.



That's mostly smack about winning with anyone at QB. Ben definitely was a huge reason for GETTING to the Super Bowl (though it seemed he did almost everything he could to lose the big game). But, if Cowher used just about any QB the way he did Ben up to the playoffs, the results would've been the same in my opinion (run the ball way more than pass it). However, Cowher changed it up in the postseason that year and that's where only a select few QBs could've done what Ben did. But, then in the Super Bowl, most other quality QBs could've done better than Ben (guys like Carr, Harrington, etc. would've lost the game, but guys like Palmer, Manning, Brady, would've done better and still won).

A first--I agree with everything Philhos says above. Good analysis.

And I think NE will still be in the playoffs this year.

[Who2Dey]

I think the reason everyone is lowered their expectations for the Pats is that the QB taking over the team hasn't started a game since HS. It is the ultimate team sport, but the QB is one of two players that handles the ball on every play.