Offensive Line Needs to Get Healthy and Consistent

[Pokerbrat2000]

It's obviously easy for me, rings. What are some of the bold items that you'd consider?

Although important in calling a QB "Elite" or "HOF", etc. I don't think Superbowl rings is the only or even the #1 criteria, I view rings more as a team thing.

This article is pretty good at summarizing how I feel:

http://www.cincyjungle.com/2013/6/18/4442918/the-formula-for-an-elite-nfl-quarterback

 

[PackerDNA]

I've posted this before, I think, but the "how many rings does he have" business doesn't cut it for me.
By that 'logic', Dan Marino wasn't a great Qb; Doug Williams, Brad Johnson, and Jeff Hostetler were better than him, and as good as Peyton Manning, Brett Favre, and Steve Young.
Many former coaches, players, and media considered Archie Manning a great QB, yet he not only never played in a playoff game, he never played on a team that had a winning record.
It's a poor standard in the ultimate team sport.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Which one of Bradys 6 super bowls are you referring to?

******** it isn't a compelling argument... Its nearly the only one that matters. You don't get carried 6 times. Sorry but you are wrong. PERIOD.

Get to one off a great defense fine... BUT you cannot tell me NE goes to 6 with Cutler at QB. Period.

You're right, you've convinced me. Trent Dilfer is just as good as Peyton Manning, Aaron Rodgers, Brett Favre, etc. Aikman is WAAAYYY better than any of the guys mentioned. And Dan Marino? HAH! That guy is basically Andy Dalton!

 

[Half Empty]

I've posted this before, I think, but the "how many rings does he have" business doesn't cut it for me.
By that 'logic', Dan Marino wasn't a great Qb; Doug Williams, Brad Johnson, and Jeff Hostetler were better than him, and as good as Peyton Manning, Brett Favre, and Steve Young.
Many former coaches, players, and media considered Archie Manning a great QB, yet he not only never played in a playoff game, he never played on a team that had a winning record.
It's a poor standard in the ultimate team sport.

What is the standard that isn't poor? Pokerbrat2000 answered that question with a link to an article that he says tends to explain his thoughts. It's interesting, but with 10 criteria and a lot of explanation of each one, it'd be a really wordy discussion item (although, if anyone wants to play, I'm in). In the ultimate team sport, what does make for an elite/outstanding QB?

 

[Un4GivN]

You're right, you've convinced me. Trent Dilfer is just as good as Peyton Manning, Aaron Rodgers, Brett Favre, etc. Aikman is WAAAYYY better than any of the guys mentioned. And Dan Marino? HAH! That guy is basically Andy Dalton!

Once again, bringing an argument to an absurd level is childish. Trying to mock me and my viewpoint, and laugh at my opinion. Not to mention you are bringing up things that I never said in order to make yourself sound more correct.

There is a difference between winning 1 and winning 4. Which i stated here "Get to one off a great defense fine... BUT you cannot tell me NE goes to 6 with Cutler at QB. "

And when you go back to my argument... Then yes
Brady > Manning
Brady > Dilfer
Brady > Favre
Brady > Marino
Brady > Rodgers

BUT

Starr > Brady (More cause I'm a Packers fan and have a huge soft spot for starr)

There is a HUGE difference when comparing someone with 1 title to 1 title... Then comparing someone with 4 (6 appearances) to someone with 1.

There is also a huge difference in comparing Brady to Aikman. Brady is the engine that makes the Patriots run (Look at the starting rushers the patriots have had the last 10 years). Aikman had perhaps a top 3 RB of all time. Smith was the engine that made that team go. Along with OL.

At the same time if you put Cutler in where Aikman was... He'd prolly still find a way to screw it up. So that's why I say he deserves some credit.

 

[PackerDNA]

What is the standard that isn't poor? Pokerbrat2000 answered that question with a link to an article that he says tends to explain his thoughts. It's interesting, but with 10 criteria and a lot of explanation of each one, it'd be a really wordy discussion item (although, if anyone wants to play, I'm in). In the ultimate team sport, what does make for an elite/outstanding QB?

By watching him and how well he does his job; by how well he performs the functions his position requires. Raw talent and more.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Once again, bringing an argument to an absurd level is childish. Trying to mock me and my viewpoint, and laugh at my opinion. Not to mention you are bringing up things that I never said in order to make yourself sound more correct.

There is a difference between winning 1 and winning 4. Which i stated here "Get to one off a great defense fine... BUT you cannot tell me NE goes to 6 with Cutler at QB. "

And when you go back to my argument... Then yes
Brady > Manning
Brady > Dilfer
Brady > Favre
Brady > Marino
Brady > Rodgers

BUT

Starr > Brady (More cause I'm a Packers fan and have a huge soft spot for starr)

There is a HUGE difference when comparing someone with 1 title to 1 title... Then comparing someone with 4 (6 appearances) to someone with 1.

There is also a huge difference in comparing Brady to Aikman. Brady is the engine that makes the Patriots run (Look at the starting rushers the patriots have had the last 10 years). Aikman had perhaps a top 3 RB of all time. Smith was the engine that made that team go. Along with OL.

At the same time if you put Cutler in where Aikman was... He'd prolly still find a way to screw it up. So that's why I say he deserves some credit.

Ringzzzz depend on the TEAM. If Brady is the best because he has all the rings, then why doesn't he win the Super Bowl every year? Is he not as good those other years? Obviously not. Brady doesn't win every year because his team isn't good enough every year. In a sport as dependent on the entire team as the NFL is, counting a player's rings doesn't make any kind of case. Marino was just as good as Brady. Marino has zero rings. I could also point out that Gronk is JUST as important to the Pats as Brady (remember what the Pats looked like early last year when Gronk was out?) and not many other quarterbacks in the NFL have played with potentially the most potent non-QB offensive weapon in the history of the game.

 

[Half Empty]

By watching him and how well he does his job; by how well he performs the functions his position requires. Raw talent and more.

So, would it be a stretch to say you're talking about the eye test and personal evaluation? If we watch the same TV screen, are we going to agree that ____ is better at his job than the other guy, and that he performs the function his position requires - is that the same for everyone, or are we now talking a 'system' QB? Raw talent to do what - again, same for all? What 'more' - would like to hear about additional criteria?

Is there some measure that would sway a football-knowledgeable but neutral observer?

Also, there is, I think, a reasonable argument to be made for asking if we're talking about great QBs, great passers, or if they're the same thing.

Obviously, of course, none of this will every get settled, but at least there needs to be a straw-man for the discussion.

 

[Un4GivN]

Ringzzzz depend on the TEAM. If Brady is the best because he has all the rings, then why doesn't he win the Super Bowl every year? Is he not as good those other years? Obviously not. Brady doesn't win every year because his team isn't good enough every year. In a sport as dependent on the entire team as the NFL is, counting a player's rings doesn't make any kind of case. Marino was just as good as Brady. Marino has zero rings. I could also point out that Gronk is JUST as important to the Pats as Brady (remember what the Pats looked like early last year when Gronk was out?) and not many other quarterbacks in the NFL have played with potentially the most potent non-QB offensive weapon in the history of the game.

Replace Brady with Schaub... Do you have 4 titles? Even a shot? Even playoff births.

If you want to discredit the quarterback position as a whole and say it is a team game than great. No quarterback is great. If not you cannot deny Brady makes his team better. End of Story.

 

[TJV]

The first one to post "End of Story" "always" losses the argument. The only way to really settle how Brady and Rodgers compare, for example, is to make Rodgers a 23 year old 6th round draftee of the Patriots in the 2000 draft. Or make Brady a 21 year old first round draftee of the Packers in the 2005 draft.

 

[PackerDNA]

Any such comparisons for me come after both have retired.

 

[Half Empty]

Any such comparisons for me come after both have retired.

Super. We look forward to hearing from you again in a decade or so.

 

[Patriotplayer90]

I've posted this before, I think, but the "how many rings does he have" business doesn't cut it for me.
By that 'logic', Dan Marino wasn't a great Qb; Doug Williams, Brad Johnson, and Jeff Hostetler were better than him, and as good as Peyton Manning, Brett Favre, and Steve Young.
Many former coaches, players, and media considered Archie Manning a great QB, yet he not only never played in a playoff game, he never played on a team that had a winning record.
It's a poor standard in the ultimate team sport.

Brady obviously would be a winner anywhere, but he undoubtedly fell into the right situation with the right coach. If he had been close to the same player in college that he has been in the NFL, somebody else would have noticed.

Considering that NE won 10 games with Brady out and a backup in, you have to give credit to the coach and the rest of the personnel for knowing what they are doing.

 

[Un4GivN]

The first one to post "End of Story" "always" losses the argument. The only way to really settle how Brady and Rodgers compare, for example, is to make Rodgers a 23 year old 6th round draftee of the Patriots in the 2000 draft. Or make Brady a 21 year old first round draftee of the Packers in the 2005 draft.

That's not even logical besides to try and give yourself some fake advantage.

Other than that though I do agree with the rest of your post. I just am of the belief that any quarterback that has been to 6 and won 4 deserve to be in "the conversation" is all.

There is no right answer... Everyone values different things, devalues QBs for others. For my money he is one of the greatest ever. Doesn't make me right or wrong. Doesn't mean I lost the argument.

Simply means that "One cannot win or lose a subjective debate." Sometimes they stalemate. And rather than beat a dead horse. Sometimes its better to say your point and move on, and let others take your words for what they wish.

 

[PackerDNA]

Brady obviously would be a winner anywhere, but he undoubtedly fell into the right situation with the right coach. If he had been close to the same player in college that he has been in the NFL, somebody else would have noticed.

Considering that NE won 10 games with Brady out and a backup in, you have to give credit to the coach and the rest of the personnel for knowing what they are doing.

Always. That's why it's the ultimate team sport.

 

[Rick 12]

The O-Line was amazing last year, especially down the stretch.

Yes I think they played great last season one of the best in the NFL!