nl5xsk1 0 Report post Posted April 28, 2004 I won't say that the QB position is in a state of decline, but I will agree that it's not as good as the 80s and early 90s were. It's all cyclical, and it's more that those years were amazing that the era now is that horrible. Look at the era before the great days, and you'll see that those QBs weren't necessarily the best, either. Who would say that Bradshaw was a 'great' QB? The man won 4 SBs, but wasn't great by any stretch of the imaginaion. Jim Plunkett? No one said that Montana was "the next Plunkett". How about Danny White? Or Jim McMahon, Phil Simms, Jeff Hostetler (spelled wrong, I'm pretty sure), etc.? Even look at Joe Namath; his numbers were far from impressive. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Damaramu 0 Report post Posted April 28, 2004 The Falcons didn't win all there games since Vick came back. I can clearly remember one game where they got dominated after he came back. I just can't remember against who.....I want to say The Colts. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0 Report post Posted April 28, 2004 No, the position of quarterback isn't in a state of decline. If you watch some of the "good" quarterbacks of our day throw the ball, including the Delholmmes or the Tom Brady's, they have one thing in common: They throw the ball on a line and in a tight spiral. They don't necessarily take over games because, quite frankly, defensive and offensive schemes have become suffocating with the addition of the cover 2/rush 4 schemes, but to say the position is declining because 6th rounders come in and lead teams to Super Bowls is off base. What you're seeing there is too much of a focus on measurables or other intangible draft day statistics that cause good players to drop. The biggest attribute, besides a good arm, that a quarterback must have is a good head on his shoulders. Some quarterbacks that have a great ability to work a game have been overlooked recently because they aren't top flight atheletes and can't throw a football through John Madden's head. That's not all there is to playing the game, and people like Warner and Brady have shown that. If you're saying that it doesn't take talent to complete 80% of your passes just because they're 8-15 yard strikes, you're insane; they're still facing much pressure, and a quarterback like Kordell Stewart would never be able to accomplish that. So, no, it's not in decline. If anything is, it's scouting. Schemes have changed the game, but that doesn't mean the quarterbacks are any less talented. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cartman 0 Report post Posted April 28, 2004 Well I have a hard time believing that the Patriots could win those two Championships without Tom Brady running the offense. People only see the "dink and dunk short passing scheme" but don't understand just how great Brady is at reading and recognizing everything going on all over the field at all times. He has one of those uncanny abilities that not every QB has, or has ever had. Sure i'm a homer, but ask any "analyst" and they will tell you the same about Brady. Of course there are other QB's much better than Brady, but we can't realy tell until he actually has weapons to use for a change. Now that he will have a running game to supplement the passing game, expect Brady to have a REAL good time this coming season. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Agent_Bond34 0 Report post Posted April 28, 2004 I can clearly remember one game where they got dominated after he came back. I just can't remember against who.....I want to say The Colts. You want to say the Colts because it WAS the Colts. IIRC, that was the game where TJ Duckett scored a TD, then did that kick-ass celebration, in which he was ripped for by Sean Salisbury and others later on that night. The score, If I'm not mistaken, was 35-7 or something to that effect. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Redhawk Report post Posted April 29, 2004 Among active quarterbacks, who would you say is a future Hall of Famer? I'd say Favre for sure and P. Manning most likely. After that there's a bunch of "maybes" like Brady, Culpepper, McNabb, McNair and Vick. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Vitamin X Report post Posted April 29, 2004 I think McNabb still has something to prove, but he definitely defines the term "Most Valuable Player" as the Eagles offense completely revolves around him, as has often been the case with Favre in the past. I think Brady has the potential to be the next Montana, but he has to keep up his pay at a consistently high level to be considered among the all-time greats, whereas I think Culpepper and Vick have to have truly great defining play over a longer stretch of time as they're too early in their careers to figure out, and McNair....McNair I think is a great QB but for some reason I can't quite picture him as Hall-of-Fame good. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ripper 0 Report post Posted April 29, 2004 The Falcons didn't win all there games since Vick came back. I can clearly remember one game where they got dominated after he came back. I just can't remember against who.....I want to say The Colts. Yes...they went 4-1 with him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cartman 0 Report post Posted April 29, 2004 While Manning is a great HoF bound QB, he is Dan Marino part 2 to me. Incredible QB skills, definitely a winner(unless it's big games), whiny little brat. He will be in the Hall for sure. Yet I would not be suprised at all to see him never win a Super Bowl, especially with Indy. That lovely contract he wanted, and got, is going to cost him either Harrisson or Edge if they every want to be able to have a Defense. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites