Did Elway have good lines? in teh pre-TD years?
"Don't argue with an idiot, he'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."
[QUOTE=Boulder Buff;1123033]Going to strongly disagree with you on Reesing being average. That guy was a fantastic QB.
Reesing put up good numbers and didnt turn the ball over a ton. He was more of a game manager than a superb QB though. He did get cut by a CFL team...
Everybody hates you, Everybody wishes that you were dead
Cuz Peter you suck, Peter you suck
Peter your music is ****ing terrible
Peter you suck, Peter you suck
Peter you don't do anything of value, Peter you suck
Write some music but instead you sit and write these bulls**t songs
It's so self loathing go see a psychiatrist
I hate the psychiatrist
Well go see one anyway
I don't like the psychiatrist
You need to go see one
See a psychiatrist
I'm not going
i think in the college game a good to great oline with an average qb will be more beneficial than a great qb with an average oline. In college you can still win by dominating the line of scrimmage and pounding the ball and having a qb that will be low risk low reward. In the pro game, you need to have a qb that will be able to air it out. Perfect example is last year, Broncos #1 in rushing with a qb that minimized mistakes, still made the playoffs but had no chance, while the giants were last in rushing with a top flight qb and they were able to win the superbowl
Now apply to best QB's in NFL game:
1. Colts had best O-line in NFL in 2009-2010 with Peyton Manning, and were one of the worst without him
2. Packers have one of worst O-lines in NFL the past 3 years and yet are Super Bowl contenders in each because of Aaron Rogers
QB can compensate for so many more weaknesses on a team in the NFL than any o-line could.....and I think everyone will agree if you had to choose a Tebow behind a top notch o-line vs. Rogers or Manning behind a bottom tier O-line on paper....the team with best super bowl chances is the one with the better QB
College Ball is completely different story due to the disparity in talent levels across positions, teams, conferences, etc.
Yeah. One thing to keep in mind with the NFL is that there's a salary cap and every team applies the same resources to their teams. What that generally means is that there are 32 teams that would all go 8-8, with the QB being the main variable that separates greatness from sucking.
College is obviously different. I still think a QB is the most important position on the field and means the most. However, I also think that it's the position you're least able to control and count on. For year-to-year consistency, focusing on the OL is more important. For single year greatness, the QB is going to be more important.
Only Irish coffee provides in a single glass all four essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar and fat. - Alex Levine
Sorry, but BJax was never going to complete a pass, I don't care how much time the OL gave him. The OL can't fix a bad QB, but a great QB can make plays. But eventually he'll get killed, so you obviously need both.
We thought about it for a long time, "Endeavor to persevere." And when we had thought about it long enough, we declared war on the Union. - Lone Watie, The Outlaw Josey Wales
I think it depends on the offense. In a spread, give me the qb. In a power attack, its gotta be the o-line.
Depends on the QB. A pocket passer, and no. A scrambler, yes I would rather have a good QB.
However, I cannot stress enough, games are won in the trenches. A great O-line can make an average QB look like Joe Montana.
Wisconsin has been a consistent top 15 team (sometimes much better) for over a decade without ever having a QB that was anything more than average until this last year. Their OL's have always been among the best.