I think this is the only argument that could be made. There is no single athletic position that can take over the course of a game, series or even season like a QB except for an NHL goalie. But even then it's not the same because they have so many more games to play and the margin for error is much greater.
Yeah but wouldn't you think the offensive line is equally important those guys play every snap and keep the qb standing
But that's 5 positions. That's like saying the back court of a basketball team is more important than the QB position. I completely agree that the trenches are where football games are won and lost, but it's not the same.
There is no single person more valuable to their team.
Who's even close?
A pitcher? What once every 5 games? A goalie? A point guard or a center?
I find myself agreeing with ol' BD here all the time lately. WTF.
And yeah, I can't think of a single spot in any sport that can change the entire flow of a game the way a quarterback can. Sure, you'll get some randomly brilliant performances by a mediocre QB who is placed in a great system (Flynn is a great example, Matt Cassel when Brady went down, etc.), but those are the outliers. Think about how often a great WR switches teams and immediately becomes irrelevant. And yes, a QB depends on the rest of the team doing their jobs, but that's just sports in general (well, not so much baseball). The great QBs can also adjust when their support messes up (pocket presence, adjusting for coverage, adjusting their throws, etc.).
We can't all be terrible Juggs.
I could listen to an argument for NHL goalie, but as Gimli noted, there's a huge difference in margin for error. Plus, the QB has the ball every play, is required to remember the plays for all 11 people, and needs to be able to take a beating.
I'm not watching the game b/c I don't have cable. Is the Eagles D actually good? Or is something wrong with the Redskins offense?
Iggles defense is blowing up the runs, but the Skins are giong with the "don't block Trent Cole" strategy, so it's hard to tell if the Iggles are good or the Skins are idiots. Probably some combination of the two.
Post by C.R.E.A.M. on Sept 9, 2013 19:58:20 GMT -5
My personal favorite way to determine how good a QB is how they play in big game situations, or clutchness. Eli Manning has stepped up when his team has needed him too. We just finished discussing how much of an impact the QB has on the outcome of a game, so in an Elimination game, there is no other position that needs to perform well as much as the QB position. There are a lot of ways that you can compare QB's: Stats, Victories, Skill-set, Decision Making, etc. And for each of those lists, I think you could come up with a different order. But when you play the GM game, and you have to pick a QB to lead your team, give me the guy who has come through the most in the big game situations. Give me Brady over Manning.
Post by C.R.E.A.M. on Sept 9, 2013 20:35:16 GMT -5
Yeah, they are OK. Like I said in my EDIT, it's like they needed him to not screw up and he didn't, but he never made much of an impact late in the games. 1 pick in three games is great. the rest if the stats are pedestrian.
How do you come up with those numbers? 488 yards, 4 TDs/1 INT, 58.7% passing. in 3 games x 5.3 = 2600 yds, 21 TD's, and 5 Picks
Maybe because it's a two game total. He played in the AFC Championship in 2009 and 2010.
Ok. I see now. I would argue then that in 09 he got his team out to a 14-6 lead and was nowhere to be seen in the second half. In 2010, they were down big early, and despite the Jets D holding them to 24 for the rest of the game, he couldn't get them back in it. Not really clutch.
Post by C.R.E.A.M. on Sept 9, 2013 21:20:47 GMT -5
Nope, I'm just looking at the scoring summary and play-by-plays on ESPN. Do correct me if I'm wrong, as I don't remember anything about those games. I'm just saying it doesn't appear that Sanchez came through when he needed to the most.