Better QB = Wins
one thing that last night's rose bowl re-confirmed for me is my belief that simply getting mcnabb back healthy and happy is going to make the eagles a playoff team again. the QB position, probably 10 times more than any other position, can itself decide the outcome of a game by itself. if the talent on two teams is close (or even remotely close), the team that gets the better QB play usually wins.
this notion that the talking heads are always spouting about running the ball and defending the run winning championships is hogwash. if you can't pass the ball, you can't win... or at least it's *very* difficult to win.
you *can* win a superbowl with a great running game and an all-time type of defense (2000 ravens and 1990 giants), but those kinds of teams are few and far between and one of those teams had a great QB (simms).
personally, i don't think teams can afford to take a running back with the number 1 pick in the draft unless it already had a stud QB in place -- and any team that passes on young, should he choose to come out, to take reggie bush is nuts. a team can win a superbowl with a stud QB and not much else (81 niners with montana and nothing else), but i can't think of a team that won a superbowl with a stud running back and not much else.
imo you can win in the nfl with just these four things:
- QB
- offensive line
- defensive line (replace defensive line with linebackers for a 3-4 defense)
- secondary
you contend for superbowls when you start adding in difference makers at the other positions.
this season's eagles were lacking in the top three items on that list. i think they'll be fine once they get mcnabb and the o-line healthy and are able to address the issues on the d-line.
i am not saying that they don't have other problems to correct. i think they do have issues to address, but i do think that they still have the foundation of a good to great team once they get everyone healthy and fix the d-line.
this notion that the talking heads are always spouting about running the ball and defending the run winning championships is hogwash. if you can't pass the ball, you can't win... or at least it's *very* difficult to win.
you *can* win a superbowl with a great running game and an all-time type of defense (2000 ravens and 1990 giants), but those kinds of teams are few and far between and one of those teams had a great QB (simms).
personally, i don't think teams can afford to take a running back with the number 1 pick in the draft unless it already had a stud QB in place -- and any team that passes on young, should he choose to come out, to take reggie bush is nuts. a team can win a superbowl with a stud QB and not much else (81 niners with montana and nothing else), but i can't think of a team that won a superbowl with a stud running back and not much else.
imo you can win in the nfl with just these four things:
- QB
- offensive line
- defensive line (replace defensive line with linebackers for a 3-4 defense)
- secondary
you contend for superbowls when you start adding in difference makers at the other positions.
this season's eagles were lacking in the top three items on that list. i think they'll be fine once they get mcnabb and the o-line healthy and are able to address the issues on the d-line.
i am not saying that they don't have other problems to correct. i think they do have issues to address, but i do think that they still have the foundation of a good to great team once they get everyone healthy and fix the d-line.
Labels: college
posted by The Mean Guy at 1:59 PM
7 Comments:
So you can win if you've got good players at 14 of the 22 starting positions? (sorry for the sarcasm). I'd put the top 4 positions as QB, pass-rushing DE, MLB, and shutdown corner and great LT would be right behind at #5. Eagles have done very well the prior 4 years with really only 1 or 2 of those, but good overall depth.
Frankly, I think this (I can't wait to call it "last") season just reinforces how good (seriously bordering on great) 5 is more than anything else. He's worth 4 wins all by himself.
Also, did anyone else notice the Eagles had a winning record against non-NFC East opponents (6-4)? Reid needs to spend as much time on figuring out how to win division games next year as getting better players in my opinion.
Football is such a great game.
Must be honest, this may have been the worst year of football in my life, second (and closely) was the Ray Rhodes 3-13 turds. I never really expected much out of him and I knew once they deep sixed Ricky and Gruden, it was all going to be downhill..."we'll check the tape"..."we'll fix this thing"...yeah right. Every game was late (I like 1 PM Sunday games), so it never felt like they were on. They never ran, the TO situation, the injuries, McMahon, and all of the embarrassing losses (Denver, Dallas, Dallas, and Seattle).
I agree with Pete on this. The team that personified what may have been the best way to win, IMHO, was the early 1990's Cowboys. Jimmy Johnson is an ass, but he nailed it with his philosophy....you need a strong QB and good Defensive Line. Just thinking of all of the philosophy postings that Mean Guy has made, think about it. Strong QB--Hall of Famer Troy Aikman. Great FB who blocked--Moose. TE that was great--Novacek. Unbelievably solid offensive line with Stepnoski, Tuinei and I think a young Larry Allen. Pass Rushing, pocket crunching Def line with Casillas, Leon Lett, and Russell Maryland. 2 solid receivers (although you could debate a stud with Irvin, I think he was a solid receiver who made big plays rather than being a TO or Harrison) with Irvin and Alvin Harper. Oh yeah, they also had a pretty good RB. The LBs were also quick and athletic (Darrin Smith was one that I remember), but relative no names.
I can't wait till March 3.
I'd put the top 4 positions as QB, pass-rushing DE, MLB, and shutdown corner and great LT would be right behind at #5. Eagles have done very well the prior 4 years with really only 1 or 2 of those, but good overall depth.
ha! good point... but you don't have to have great players at every position for the unit to be great. ok, in a little more depth, mine are:
- qb
- ot
- de
- cb
- dt
- og
- fs
- rb
- slb
- ss
- wr
- wlb
- mlb
- te
- c
- fb
Also, did anyone else notice the Eagles had a winning record against non-NFC East opponents (6-4)? Reid needs to spend as much time on figuring out how to win division games next year as getting better players in my opinion.
that's a great observation, phil. you know what that tells me? that the other coaches in the division have figured out the eagles tells and know their tendencies. andy and JJ better come up with some new wrinkles and fast.
big dog, I would say this is much worse than the 3-13 season as at least no one had any illusisons going in that they were going to be any good that year. Probably about as frustrating as all those late '80s, early '90s teams that could never win a playoff game.
I would move TE up quite a bit on my list (like 7 or 8) because a very good one gives you both a WR and a FB on the field at the same position. I'm kinda surprised to see MLB so far down your list.
Phil, I agree with you. I do think that this is the worst year of my football lifetime. And I am old enough to remember Mike Boryla Eagles and the Marion Campbell-era Birds. At least the Marion Campbell era Birds had the guys from the Vermeil era, they just started breaking down then, plus you had Mike Quick.
You can debate and change your mind on so many things, but a QB/Def Line combo is so key. You have to have a QB. Period. You can't just have a QB, ask Archie Manning. You need a defensive line, which really drives your defensive unit (unless of course you run a 3-4), too. A FB may be the least important part, however, having a good one that can block, get you some tough yards, and catch a pass is such a great thing. So is a pass-catching TE that can block, which you don't see a whole lot. They both just open the whole offense up to so many possibilities. Bottom line, you need good players.
Has anyone seen the stud pitcher the Phils signed today? Watch out, Johan Santana.....you know when you get a pitcher for 1 year at less than 3 mill, who has a career losing record and an ERA in the 4.00s you are done.
I would move TE up quite a bit on my list (like 7 or 8) because a very good one gives you both a WR and a FB on the field at the same position. I'm kinda surprised to see MLB so far down your list.
for both TE and MLB, if you have a difference making player in those positions it certainly helps the team, but i don't think that having difference making players at those positions are a necessary condition for success.
i made my list according to how hard is it to win without a good...
trotter brings unique skills to the table and he's one of my favorites on the team, but if you asked me if i would trade him for an equivalently skilled player at any other position listed above middle linebacker, i'd have to say i would. i don't think you have to have a great middle linebacker to win, just one that can run pretty fast and won't wear down.
since i think that the passing game is more important than the running game, i think some of trotter's unique run stopping skills are a nice to have rather than a must have.
Has anyone seen the stud pitcher the Phils signed today? Watch out, Johan Santana.....you know when you get a pitcher for 1 year at less than 3 mill, who has a career losing record and an ERA in the 4.00s you are done.
that's not the worst of it.
Last year Franklin received a 10-day suspension for violating baseball's steroid policy. He told reporters that he used a supplement he bought at a nutrition store, and that he had "no idea'' how he tested positive.
this guy had to use steroids to put up the numbers you mention. ha!
still, i plan to give gillick a pass on anything he does this offseason. he's still dealing with the stink that head wade left in the stall.
Post a Comment
<< Home