@dallasactuary "Because he's Tom Brady and it was a huge game. Even if using the backup would reduce their chances of winning by (I'll just make up a number) 10%, of course they'll do all they can to avoid that 10% hit."
but your words in regards to how much a backup reduces a teams chances of winning ONE game were:
"Do it for one game and it makes a little difference"
So, you are saying 2 different things here:
a backup for one game makes "little difference" in the outcome.
It was A huge game. it was tom brady. they would do ALL THEY COULD to avoid using a backup for one game.
I think deep down you know how much a great starting QB means for an NFL team in contention. It is starting to come out in your responses. keep going, you are almost there....
Entirely different argument than winning a single game. Obviously, if a team has to play a sub-par player then their odds of winning go down. Do it for one game and it makes a little difference; do it for a lot of games or an entire season and it makes a lot of difference. The same is true, obviously, of every position on the field.
I disagree. It does make a big difference in one game. of course it does. Why would playing a sub-par QB make "a lot of difference for a season?" All a season is, is a bunch of single games strung together. you dont think losing Tua makes a lot of difference for every game of the season?
What happened to the 49ers during the playoff game when Purdey hurt his arm? they kept him in even though he couldnt throw. they lost.
If losing a starting QB has "little difference" to the outcome of one game, why did the Patriots move heaven and earth to get Brady ready to play against the Jaguars in the 2017 playoff when he had a major hand injury during practice the week before the game? Why not just let the backup play and let Brady heal for an extra week if losing him makes "little difference" to the outcome of one game?
Purdy was the backup QB last year.
He started the year as such, i think it is safe to say that by the regular seasons end he was considered by all the starter. the same could be said for Brady in 2001. He started the year as backup, but took over the starter role and did not give it up when Brady came back. Same for Kurt Warner in 99. Started as the backup, but took over after trent green got hurt and played himself into the starters role.
It is a common situation. This is how lots of QB's become starters. I think that a backup can play himself into the role of a starter during the regular season.
but your words in regards to how much a backup reduces a teams chances of winning ONE game were:
"Do it for one game and it makes a little difference"
So, you are saying 2 different things here:
a backup for one game makes "little difference" in the outcome.
It was A huge game. it was tom brady. they would do ALL THEY COULD to avoid using a backup for one game.
I think deep down you know how much a great starting QB means for an NFL team in contention. It is starting to come out in your responses. keep going, you are almost there....
You lost me. The two things I said are entirely consistent. Of course, every team wants to go into an important game with their strongest possible lineup, even if the difference at any one position is only one half of 1%. If that one player is Tom Brady then it's a lot more than that, and more than for most QBs. But it wouldn't matter at all if his backup was Patrick Mahomes.
I will repeat myself: who a team uses as their QB, in a Super Bowl or otherwise, makes a LOT less difference than the QB worshipers think it does. Never did I say, and never would I say, that it makes NO difference. It makes a difference at QB and every other position whether a starter or backup is playing. Losing a starter at ANY position reduces the team's chances of winning (assuming they know what they're doing when they pick their starters). Losing a starter at ANY position hurts, but it hurts only to the degree the backup is worse than the starter. You put a lousy backup QB in against a good team and it's probably fatal. You put a lousy backup LT, CB, LB, etc. in against a good team and it's probably fatal. We notice and remember when teams have to use a backup QB because that's the only thing the announcers will talk about for the entire game. But it's not the only position where using a backup matters. Yes, it matters more (all else equal) when you have to use a backup QB than a backup guard, but not as much more as you and others in this thread think it does. It all depends on how good the backup is. And sometimes, say Peyton Manning when "he won" the Super Bowl with Denver, the team would have been better off with the backup. Super Bowls have been won by QBs having so-so and even terrible games.
I believe every sentence in the preceding paragraph is indisputably true. And it is my argument.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Entirely different argument than winning a single game. Obviously, if a team has to play a sub-par player then their odds of winning go down. Do it for one game and it makes a little difference; do it for a lot of games or an entire season and it makes a lot of difference. The same is true, obviously, of every position on the field.
I disagree. It does make a big difference in one game. of course it does. Why would playing a sub-par QB make "a lot of difference for a season?" All a season is, is a bunch of single games strung together. you dont think losing Tua makes a lot of difference for every game of the season?
What happened to the 49ers during the playoff game when Purdey hurt his arm? they kept him in even though he couldnt throw. they lost.
If losing a starting QB has "little difference" to the outcome of one game, why did the Patriots move heaven and earth to get Brady ready to play against the Jaguars in the 2017 playoff when he had a major hand injury during practice the week before the game? Why not just let the backup play and let Brady heal for an extra week if losing him makes "little difference" to the outcome of one game?
Purdy was the backup QB last year.
He started the year as such, i think it is safe to say that by the regular seasons end he was considered by all the starter. the same could be said for Brady in 2001. He started the year as backup, but took over the starter role and did not give it up when Brady came back. Same for Kurt Warner in 99. Started as the backup, but took over after trent green got hurt and played himself into the starters role.
It is a common situation. This is how lots of QB's become starters. I think that a backup can play himself into the role of a starter during the regular season.
Yes that is true. It makes for a gray area on if the starter or backup was winning though. Purdy I think was clearly a backup QB to start the year being the last pick of the draft. Warner too who was bagging groceries and then won a super bowl soon after.
I think that is a much different than someone like Mahomes who was on the bench before he became a starter as he learned the ropes as being groomed to be the starter.
but your words in regards to how much a backup reduces a teams chances of winning ONE game were:
"Do it for one game and it makes a little difference"
So, you are saying 2 different things here:
a backup for one game makes "little difference" in the outcome.
It was A huge game. it was tom brady. they would do ALL THEY COULD to avoid using a backup for one game.
I think deep down you know how much a great starting QB means for an NFL team in contention. It is starting to come out in your responses. keep going, you are almost there....
You lost me. The two things I said are entirely consistent. Of course, every team wants to go into an important game with their strongest possible lineup, even if the difference at any one position is only one half of 1%. If that one player is Tom Brady then it's a lot more than that, and more than for most QBs. But it wouldn't matter at all if his backup was Patrick Mahomes.
I will repeat myself: who a team uses as their QB, in a Super Bowl or otherwise, makes a LOT less difference than the QB worshipers think it does. Never did I say, and never would I say, that it makes NO difference. It makes a difference at QB and every other position whether a starter or backup is playing. Losing a starter at ANY position reduces the team's chances of winning (assuming they know what they're doing when they pick their starters). Losing a starter at ANY position hurts, but it hurts only to the degree the backup is worse than the starter. You put a lousy backup QB in against a good team and it's probably fatal. You put a lousy backup LT, CB, LB, etc. in against a good team and it's probably fatal. We notice and remember when teams have to use a backup QB because that's the only thing the announcers will talk about for the entire game. But it's not the only position where using a backup matters. Yes, it matters more (all else equal) when you have to use a backup QB than a backup guard, but not as much more as you and others in this thread think it does. It all depends on how good the backup is. And sometimes, say Peyton Manning when "he won" the Super Bowl with Denver, the team would have been better off with the backup. Super Bowls have been won by QBs having so-so and even terrible games.
I believe every sentence in the preceding paragraph is indisputably true. And it is my argument.
As I have stated, the Manning broncos SB was an exception. an outlier.
will you at least concede that QB is the most important single position on the field?
will you at least concede that QB is the most important single position on the field?
I have conceded that many times, it's the margin by which too many people think it is the most important that bothers me.
I also want to be clear that I believe it is the most important single position over the course of a season. There are lots and lots of games, and Super Bowls, where the QB is far from the most important single player, even on the winning team. Manning was the most obvious example since the Broncos had to overcome both the Panthers and Manning, but there are plenty of others.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
but your words in regards to how much a backup reduces a teams chances of winning ONE game were:
"Do it for one game and it makes a little difference"
So, you are saying 2 different things here:
a backup for one game makes "little difference" in the outcome.
It was A huge game. it was tom brady. they would do ALL THEY COULD to avoid using a backup for one game.
I think deep down you know how much a great starting QB means for an NFL team in contention. It is starting to come out in your responses. keep going, you are almost there....
You lost me. The two things I said are entirely consistent. Of course, every team wants to go into an important game with their strongest possible lineup, even if the difference at any one position is only one half of 1%. If that one player is Tom Brady then it's a lot more than that, and more than for most QBs. But it wouldn't matter at all if his backup was Patrick Mahomes.
I will repeat myself: who a team uses as their QB, in a Super Bowl or otherwise, makes a LOT less difference than the QB worshipers think it does. Never did I say, and never would I say, that it makes NO difference. It makes a difference at QB and every other position whether a starter or backup is playing. Losing a starter at ANY position reduces the team's chances of winning (assuming they know what they're doing when they pick their starters). Losing a starter at ANY position hurts, but it hurts only to the degree the backup is worse than the starter. You put a lousy backup QB in against a good team and it's probably fatal. You put a lousy backup LT, CB, LB, etc. in against a good team and it's probably fatal. We notice and remember when teams have to use a backup QB because that's the only thing the announcers will talk about for the entire game. But it's not the only position where using a backup matters. Yes, it matters more (all else equal) when you have to use a backup QB than a backup guard, but not as much more as you and others in this thread think it does. It all depends on how good the backup is. And sometimes, say Peyton Manning when "he won" the Super Bowl with Denver, the team would have been better off with the backup. Super Bowls have been won by QBs having so-so and even terrible games.
I believe every sentence in the preceding paragraph is indisputably true. And it is my argument.
As I have stated, the Manning broncos SB was an exception. an outlier.
Outlier?
Trent Dilfer
Brad Johnson
Both Dolphins victories.
Bears SB win.
Doug Williams.
Jeff Hostetler.
Mark Rypien.
SB 5, MVP was a defensive player on the losing team.
Troy Aikman in SB 28 (Kosar was backup, he could have won with that team).
Plunket in SB 18.
Every one of those games was won by a back up, back up caliber QB or could have been won by a back up. There's probably more, but I got tired of showing you the obvious.
You can probably include SB's 1&2, nobody was going to beat Green Bay. I didn't put them in because you are backing away from your original statement about "the 57 year history of the SB" and are now bringing it down to the "modern QB driven" SB's.
Teams win championships, not quarterbacks,
Both Tarkenton and Marino retired with all the passing records and neither won the SB. Favre won only 1, he too had all the records when he retired for the third time.
It's gotten to the point here where either you just don't bother to do the research or you're just arguing because you don't have anything better to do.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
but your words in regards to how much a backup reduces a teams chances of winning ONE game were:
"Do it for one game and it makes a little difference"
So, you are saying 2 different things here:
a backup for one game makes "little difference" in the outcome.
It was A huge game. it was tom brady. they would do ALL THEY COULD to avoid using a backup for one game.
I think deep down you know how much a great starting QB means for an NFL team in contention. It is starting to come out in your responses. keep going, you are almost there....
You lost me. The two things I said are entirely consistent. Of course, every team wants to go into an important game with their strongest possible lineup, even if the difference at any one position is only one half of 1%. If that one player is Tom Brady then it's a lot more than that, and more than for most QBs. But it wouldn't matter at all if his backup was Patrick Mahomes.
I will repeat myself: who a team uses as their QB, in a Super Bowl or otherwise, makes a LOT less difference than the QB worshipers think it does. Never did I say, and never would I say, that it makes NO difference. It makes a difference at QB and every other position whether a starter or backup is playing. Losing a starter at ANY position reduces the team's chances of winning (assuming they know what they're doing when they pick their starters). Losing a starter at ANY position hurts, but it hurts only to the degree the backup is worse than the starter. You put a lousy backup QB in against a good team and it's probably fatal. You put a lousy backup LT, CB, LB, etc. in against a good team and it's probably fatal. We notice and remember when teams have to use a backup QB because that's the only thing the announcers will talk about for the entire game. But it's not the only position where using a backup matters. Yes, it matters more (all else equal) when you have to use a backup QB than a backup guard, but not as much more as you and others in this thread think it does. It all depends on how good the backup is. And sometimes, say Peyton Manning when "he won" the Super Bowl with Denver, the team would have been better off with the backup. Super Bowls have been won by QBs having so-so and even terrible games.
I believe every sentence in the preceding paragraph is indisputably true. And it is my argument.
As I have stated, the Manning broncos SB was an exception. an outlier.
Outlier?
Trent Dilfer
Brad Johnson
Both Dolphins victories.
Bears SB win.
Doug Williams.
Jeff Hostetler.
Mark Rypien.
SB 5, MVP was a defensive player on the losing team.
Troy Aikman in SB 28 (Kosar was backup, he could have won with that team).
Plunket in SB 18.
Every one of those games was won by a back up, back up caliber QB or could have been won by a back up. There's probably more, but I got tired of showing you the obvious.
You can probably include SB's 1&2, nobody was going to beat Green Bay. I didn't put them in because you are backing away from your original statement about "the 57 year history of the SB" and are now bringing it down to the "modern QB driven" SB's.
Teams win championships, not quarterbacks,
Both Tarkenton and Marino retired with all the passing records and neither won the SB. Favre won only 1, he too had all the records when he retired for the third time.
It's gotten to the point here where either you just don't bother to do the research or you're just arguing because you don't have anything better to do.
I thought I was clear that I was talking about the modern NFL where passing is key.
@galaxy27 said:
after much thought and consideration, here's my goat list for every NFL franchise. feel free to tell me where i went wrong
Arizona Cardinals - Terry Bradshaw
San Francisco 49ers - Joe Greene
Seattle Seahawks - Mel Blount
LA Rams - Rocky Bleier
Tampa Bay Buccaneers - L.C. Greenwood
Minnesota Vikings - Terry Bradshaw
Green Bay Packers - Jack Ham
Detroit Lions - John Stallworth
Chicago Bears - Lynn Swann
NY Giants - Franco Harris
Dallas Cowboys - Terry Bradshaw
Philadelphia Eagles - Steve Furness
Washington Commskins - John Banaszak
Atlanta Falcons - John Fuqua
New Orleans Saints - Roy Gerela
Carolina Panthers - Terry Bradshaw
Houston Texans - Donnie Shell
Indianapolis Colts - Mike Webster
Jacksonville Jaguars- Dwight White
Tennessee Titans - Jon Kolb
Kansas City Chiefs - Terry Bradshaw
San Diego Chargers - Ernie Holmes
Denver Broncos - Russell Wilson
Las Vegas/Los Angeles/Oakland/Sacramento/Tijuana Raiders - Hines Ward
Miami Dolphins - Jerome Bettis
New England Patriots - TB.....Terry Bradshaw
NY Jets - Willie Parker
Buffalo Bills - Antonio Brown
Cleveland Browns - Le'Veon 🔔
Cincinnati Bengals - Rod Woodson
Baltimore Ravens - Troy Polamalu
Pittsburgh Steelers - Roger Staubach
Bobby Orr has to be the GOAT for at least a few of those teams
but your words in regards to how much a backup reduces a teams chances of winning ONE game were:
"Do it for one game and it makes a little difference"
So, you are saying 2 different things here:
a backup for one game makes "little difference" in the outcome.
It was A huge game. it was tom brady. they would do ALL THEY COULD to avoid using a backup for one game.
I think deep down you know how much a great starting QB means for an NFL team in contention. It is starting to come out in your responses. keep going, you are almost there....
You lost me. The two things I said are entirely consistent. Of course, every team wants to go into an important game with their strongest possible lineup, even if the difference at any one position is only one half of 1%. If that one player is Tom Brady then it's a lot more than that, and more than for most QBs. But it wouldn't matter at all if his backup was Patrick Mahomes.
I will repeat myself: who a team uses as their QB, in a Super Bowl or otherwise, makes a LOT less difference than the QB worshipers think it does. Never did I say, and never would I say, that it makes NO difference. It makes a difference at QB and every other position whether a starter or backup is playing. Losing a starter at ANY position reduces the team's chances of winning (assuming they know what they're doing when they pick their starters). Losing a starter at ANY position hurts, but it hurts only to the degree the backup is worse than the starter. You put a lousy backup QB in against a good team and it's probably fatal. You put a lousy backup LT, CB, LB, etc. in against a good team and it's probably fatal. We notice and remember when teams have to use a backup QB because that's the only thing the announcers will talk about for the entire game. But it's not the only position where using a backup matters. Yes, it matters more (all else equal) when you have to use a backup QB than a backup guard, but not as much more as you and others in this thread think it does. It all depends on how good the backup is. And sometimes, say Peyton Manning when "he won" the Super Bowl with Denver, the team would have been better off with the backup. Super Bowls have been won by QBs having so-so and even terrible games.
I believe every sentence in the preceding paragraph is indisputably true. And it is my argument.
As I have stated, the Manning broncos SB was an exception. an outlier.
Outlier?
Trent Dilfer
Brad Johnson
Both Dolphins victories.
Bears SB win.
Doug Williams.
Jeff Hostetler.
Mark Rypien.
SB 5, MVP was a defensive player on the losing team.
Troy Aikman in SB 28 (Kosar was backup, he could have won with that team).
Plunket in SB 18.
Every one of those games was won by a back up, back up caliber QB or could have been won by a back up. There's probably more, but I got tired of showing you the obvious.
You can probably include SB's 1&2, nobody was going to beat Green Bay. I didn't put them in because you are backing away from your original statement about "the 57 year history of the SB" and are now bringing it down to the "modern QB driven" SB's.
Teams win championships, not quarterbacks,
Both Tarkenton and Marino retired with all the passing records and neither won the SB. Favre won only 1, he too had all the records when he retired for the third time.
It's gotten to the point here where either you just don't bother to do the research or you're just arguing because you don't have anything better to do.
I thought I was clear that I was talking about the modern NFL where passing is key.
You seem to move the goalposts every time you get put in a box. Your original point was regarding "the 57 years of the SB".
Ok then how do you explain Eli Manning beating Tom Brady not once, but TWICE in the SB????????? Is that going back too far?
As we all know Brady is the without question the greatest ever to play the most vital position, how could that happen?
How about Brady beating Mahomes two years ago? Brady was way past his prime and Mahomes the best right now.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
but your words in regards to how much a backup reduces a teams chances of winning ONE game were:
"Do it for one game and it makes a little difference"
So, you are saying 2 different things here:
a backup for one game makes "little difference" in the outcome.
It was A huge game. it was tom brady. they would do ALL THEY COULD to avoid using a backup for one game.
I think deep down you know how much a great starting QB means for an NFL team in contention. It is starting to come out in your responses. keep going, you are almost there....
You lost me. The two things I said are entirely consistent. Of course, every team wants to go into an important game with their strongest possible lineup, even if the difference at any one position is only one half of 1%. If that one player is Tom Brady then it's a lot more than that, and more than for most QBs. But it wouldn't matter at all if his backup was Patrick Mahomes.
I will repeat myself: who a team uses as their QB, in a Super Bowl or otherwise, makes a LOT less difference than the QB worshipers think it does. Never did I say, and never would I say, that it makes NO difference. It makes a difference at QB and every other position whether a starter or backup is playing. Losing a starter at ANY position reduces the team's chances of winning (assuming they know what they're doing when they pick their starters). Losing a starter at ANY position hurts, but it hurts only to the degree the backup is worse than the starter. You put a lousy backup QB in against a good team and it's probably fatal. You put a lousy backup LT, CB, LB, etc. in against a good team and it's probably fatal. We notice and remember when teams have to use a backup QB because that's the only thing the announcers will talk about for the entire game. But it's not the only position where using a backup matters. Yes, it matters more (all else equal) when you have to use a backup QB than a backup guard, but not as much more as you and others in this thread think it does. It all depends on how good the backup is. And sometimes, say Peyton Manning when "he won" the Super Bowl with Denver, the team would have been better off with the backup. Super Bowls have been won by QBs having so-so and even terrible games.
I believe every sentence in the preceding paragraph is indisputably true. And it is my argument.
As I have stated, the Manning broncos SB was an exception. an outlier.
Outlier?
Trent Dilfer
Brad Johnson
Both Dolphins victories.
Bears SB win.
Doug Williams.
Jeff Hostetler.
Mark Rypien.
SB 5, MVP was a defensive player on the losing team.
Troy Aikman in SB 28 (Kosar was backup, he could have won with that team).
Plunket in SB 18.
Every one of those games was won by a back up, back up caliber QB or could have been won by a back up. There's probably more, but I got tired of showing you the obvious.
You can probably include SB's 1&2, nobody was going to beat Green Bay. I didn't put them in because you are backing away from your original statement about "the 57 year history of the SB" and are now bringing it down to the "modern QB driven" SB's.
Teams win championships, not quarterbacks,
Both Tarkenton and Marino retired with all the passing records and neither won the SB. Favre won only 1, he too had all the records when he retired for the third time.
It's gotten to the point here where either you just don't bother to do the research or you're just arguing because you don't have anything better to do.
I thought I was clear that I was talking about the modern NFL where passing is key.
You seem to move the goalposts every time you get put in a box. Your original point was regarding "the 57 years of the SB".
Ok then how do you explain Eli Manning beating Tom Brady not once, but TWICE in the SB????????? Is that going back too far?
As we all know Brady is the without question the greatest ever to play the most vital position, how could that happen?
How about Brady beating Mahomes two years ago? Brady was way past his prime and Mahomes the best right now.
but your words in regards to how much a backup reduces a teams chances of winning ONE game were:
"Do it for one game and it makes a little difference"
So, you are saying 2 different things here:
a backup for one game makes "little difference" in the outcome.
It was A huge game. it was tom brady. they would do ALL THEY COULD to avoid using a backup for one game.
I think deep down you know how much a great starting QB means for an NFL team in contention. It is starting to come out in your responses. keep going, you are almost there....
You lost me. The two things I said are entirely consistent. Of course, every team wants to go into an important game with their strongest possible lineup, even if the difference at any one position is only one half of 1%. If that one player is Tom Brady then it's a lot more than that, and more than for most QBs. But it wouldn't matter at all if his backup was Patrick Mahomes.
I will repeat myself: who a team uses as their QB, in a Super Bowl or otherwise, makes a LOT less difference than the QB worshipers think it does. Never did I say, and never would I say, that it makes NO difference. It makes a difference at QB and every other position whether a starter or backup is playing. Losing a starter at ANY position reduces the team's chances of winning (assuming they know what they're doing when they pick their starters). Losing a starter at ANY position hurts, but it hurts only to the degree the backup is worse than the starter. You put a lousy backup QB in against a good team and it's probably fatal. You put a lousy backup LT, CB, LB, etc. in against a good team and it's probably fatal. We notice and remember when teams have to use a backup QB because that's the only thing the announcers will talk about for the entire game. But it's not the only position where using a backup matters. Yes, it matters more (all else equal) when you have to use a backup QB than a backup guard, but not as much more as you and others in this thread think it does. It all depends on how good the backup is. And sometimes, say Peyton Manning when "he won" the Super Bowl with Denver, the team would have been better off with the backup. Super Bowls have been won by QBs having so-so and even terrible games.
I believe every sentence in the preceding paragraph is indisputably true. And it is my argument.
As I have stated, the Manning broncos SB was an exception. an outlier.
Outlier?
Trent Dilfer
Brad Johnson
Both Dolphins victories.
Bears SB win.
Doug Williams.
Jeff Hostetler.
Mark Rypien.
SB 5, MVP was a defensive player on the losing team.
Troy Aikman in SB 28 (Kosar was backup, he could have won with that team).
Plunket in SB 18.
Every one of those games was won by a back up, back up caliber QB or could have been won by a back up. There's probably more, but I got tired of showing you the obvious.
You can probably include SB's 1&2, nobody was going to beat Green Bay. I didn't put them in because you are backing away from your original statement about "the 57 year history of the SB" and are now bringing it down to the "modern QB driven" SB's.
Teams win championships, not quarterbacks,
Both Tarkenton and Marino retired with all the passing records and neither won the SB. Favre won only 1, he too had all the records when he retired for the third time.
It's gotten to the point here where either you just don't bother to do the research or you're just arguing because you don't have anything better to do.
I thought I was clear that I was talking about the modern NFL where passing is key.
You seem to move the goalposts every time you get put in a box. Your original point was regarding "the 57 years of the SB".
Ok then how do you explain Eli Manning beating Tom Brady not once, but TWICE in the SB????????? Is that going back too far?
As we all know Brady is the without question the greatest ever to play the most vital position, how could that happen?
How about Brady beating Mahomes two years ago? Brady was way past his prime and Mahomes the best right now.
Dont forget Nick Foles beating Brady
So many average and below average QBs have won the SB it's amazing people keep repeating the fallacy that you need a good one to go all the way.
TEAM SPORT!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
but your words in regards to how much a backup reduces a teams chances of winning ONE game were:
"Do it for one game and it makes a little difference"
So, you are saying 2 different things here:
a backup for one game makes "little difference" in the outcome.
It was A huge game. it was tom brady. they would do ALL THEY COULD to avoid using a backup for one game.
I think deep down you know how much a great starting QB means for an NFL team in contention. It is starting to come out in your responses. keep going, you are almost there....
You lost me. The two things I said are entirely consistent. Of course, every team wants to go into an important game with their strongest possible lineup, even if the difference at any one position is only one half of 1%. If that one player is Tom Brady then it's a lot more than that, and more than for most QBs. But it wouldn't matter at all if his backup was Patrick Mahomes.
I will repeat myself: who a team uses as their QB, in a Super Bowl or otherwise, makes a LOT less difference than the QB worshipers think it does. Never did I say, and never would I say, that it makes NO difference. It makes a difference at QB and every other position whether a starter or backup is playing. Losing a starter at ANY position reduces the team's chances of winning (assuming they know what they're doing when they pick their starters). Losing a starter at ANY position hurts, but it hurts only to the degree the backup is worse than the starter. You put a lousy backup QB in against a good team and it's probably fatal. You put a lousy backup LT, CB, LB, etc. in against a good team and it's probably fatal. We notice and remember when teams have to use a backup QB because that's the only thing the announcers will talk about for the entire game. But it's not the only position where using a backup matters. Yes, it matters more (all else equal) when you have to use a backup QB than a backup guard, but not as much more as you and others in this thread think it does. It all depends on how good the backup is. And sometimes, say Peyton Manning when "he won" the Super Bowl with Denver, the team would have been better off with the backup. Super Bowls have been won by QBs having so-so and even terrible games.
I believe every sentence in the preceding paragraph is indisputably true. And it is my argument.
As I have stated, the Manning broncos SB was an exception. an outlier.
Outlier?
Trent Dilfer
Brad Johnson
Both Dolphins victories.
Bears SB win.
Doug Williams.
Jeff Hostetler.
Mark Rypien.
SB 5, MVP was a defensive player on the losing team.
Troy Aikman in SB 28 (Kosar was backup, he could have won with that team).
Plunket in SB 18.
Every one of those games was won by a back up, back up caliber QB or could have been won by a back up. There's probably more, but I got tired of showing you the obvious.
You can probably include SB's 1&2, nobody was going to beat Green Bay. I didn't put them in because you are backing away from your original statement about "the 57 year history of the SB" and are now bringing it down to the "modern QB driven" SB's.
Teams win championships, not quarterbacks,
Both Tarkenton and Marino retired with all the passing records and neither won the SB. Favre won only 1, he too had all the records when he retired for the third time.
It's gotten to the point here where either you just don't bother to do the research or you're just arguing because you don't have anything better to do.
I thought I was clear that I was talking about the modern NFL where passing is key.
You seem to move the goalposts every time you get put in a box. Your original point was regarding "the 57 years of the SB".
Ok then how do you explain Eli Manning beating Tom Brady not once, but TWICE in the SB????????? Is that going back too far?
As we all know Brady is the without question the greatest ever to play the most vital position, how could that happen?
How about Brady beating Mahomes two years ago? Brady was way past his prime and Mahomes the best right now.
Dont forget Nick Foles beating Brady
So many average and below average QBs have won the SB it's amazing people keep repeating the fallacy that you need a good one to go all the way.
TEAM SPORT!
Its definitely helpful having one and I would say you do need a competent one now, but yea part of the reason why the best are the best is because whats around them. If a line cant block only runners have a chance, if WRs/TEs/RBs cant get open who is there to throw too. Doesnt matter if you score 80 if the defense gives up 81 etc.
but your words in regards to how much a backup reduces a teams chances of winning ONE game were:
"Do it for one game and it makes a little difference"
So, you are saying 2 different things here:
a backup for one game makes "little difference" in the outcome.
It was A huge game. it was tom brady. they would do ALL THEY COULD to avoid using a backup for one game.
I think deep down you know how much a great starting QB means for an NFL team in contention. It is starting to come out in your responses. keep going, you are almost there....
You lost me. The two things I said are entirely consistent. Of course, every team wants to go into an important game with their strongest possible lineup, even if the difference at any one position is only one half of 1%. If that one player is Tom Brady then it's a lot more than that, and more than for most QBs. But it wouldn't matter at all if his backup was Patrick Mahomes.
I will repeat myself: who a team uses as their QB, in a Super Bowl or otherwise, makes a LOT less difference than the QB worshipers think it does. Never did I say, and never would I say, that it makes NO difference. It makes a difference at QB and every other position whether a starter or backup is playing. Losing a starter at ANY position reduces the team's chances of winning (assuming they know what they're doing when they pick their starters). Losing a starter at ANY position hurts, but it hurts only to the degree the backup is worse than the starter. You put a lousy backup QB in against a good team and it's probably fatal. You put a lousy backup LT, CB, LB, etc. in against a good team and it's probably fatal. We notice and remember when teams have to use a backup QB because that's the only thing the announcers will talk about for the entire game. But it's not the only position where using a backup matters. Yes, it matters more (all else equal) when you have to use a backup QB than a backup guard, but not as much more as you and others in this thread think it does. It all depends on how good the backup is. And sometimes, say Peyton Manning when "he won" the Super Bowl with Denver, the team would have been better off with the backup. Super Bowls have been won by QBs having so-so and even terrible games.
I believe every sentence in the preceding paragraph is indisputably true. And it is my argument.
As I have stated, the Manning broncos SB was an exception. an outlier.
Outlier?
Trent Dilfer
Brad Johnson
Both Dolphins victories.
Bears SB win.
Doug Williams.
Jeff Hostetler.
Mark Rypien.
SB 5, MVP was a defensive player on the losing team.
Troy Aikman in SB 28 (Kosar was backup, he could have won with that team).
Plunket in SB 18.
Every one of those games was won by a back up, back up caliber QB or could have been won by a back up. There's probably more, but I got tired of showing you the obvious.
You can probably include SB's 1&2, nobody was going to beat Green Bay. I didn't put them in because you are backing away from your original statement about "the 57 year history of the SB" and are now bringing it down to the "modern QB driven" SB's.
Teams win championships, not quarterbacks,
Both Tarkenton and Marino retired with all the passing records and neither won the SB. Favre won only 1, he too had all the records when he retired for the third time.
It's gotten to the point here where either you just don't bother to do the research or you're just arguing because you don't have anything better to do.
I thought I was clear that I was talking about the modern NFL where passing is key.
You seem to move the goalposts every time you get put in a box. Your original point was regarding "the 57 years of the SB".
Ok then how do you explain Eli Manning beating Tom Brady not once, but TWICE in the SB????????? Is that going back too far?
As we all know Brady is the without question the greatest ever to play the most vital position, how could that happen?
How about Brady beating Mahomes two years ago? Brady was way past his prime and Mahomes the best right now.
@galaxy27 said:
after much thought and consideration, here's my goat list for every NFL franchise. feel free to tell me where i went wrong
Arizona Cardinals - Terry Bradshaw
San Francisco 49ers - Joe Greene
Seattle Seahawks - Mel Blount
LA Rams - Rocky Bleier
Tampa Bay Buccaneers - L.C. Greenwood
Minnesota Vikings - Terry Bradshaw
Green Bay Packers - Jack Ham
Detroit Lions - John Stallworth
Chicago Bears - Lynn Swann
NY Giants - Franco Harris
Dallas Cowboys - Terry Bradshaw
Philadelphia Eagles - Steve Furness
Washington Commskins - John Banaszak
Atlanta Falcons - John Fuqua
New Orleans Saints - Roy Gerela
Carolina Panthers - Terry Bradshaw
Houston Texans - Donnie Shell
Indianapolis Colts - Mike Webster
Jacksonville Jaguars- Dwight White
Tennessee Titans - Jon Kolb
Kansas City Chiefs - Terry Bradshaw
San Diego Chargers - Ernie Holmes
Denver Broncos - Russell Wilson
Las Vegas/Los Angeles/Oakland/Sacramento/Tijuana Raiders - Hines Ward
Miami Dolphins - Jerome Bettis
New England Patriots - TB.....Terry Bradshaw
NY Jets - Willie Parker
Buffalo Bills - Antonio Brown
Cleveland Browns - Le'Veon 🔔
Cincinnati Bengals - Rod Woodson
Baltimore Ravens - Troy Polamalu
Pittsburgh Steelers - Roger Staubach
hey galaxy27,
I hope that you did not forget:
Bill Saul, Dick Shiner, Craig Colquitt, Bobby Walden, Glen Edwards, Mike Wagner, Andy Russell, Matt Bahr, Kordell Stewart, Pat Brady, Ray Mathews, John Schweder, Darrell Hogan, Elbie Nickel -- I just was looking at some of my 54 Bowman's on a few of those...
I noticed that a few teams were left out on your listing:
New York Titans
Houston Oilers
Dallas Texans
Baltimore Colts
St. Louis Rams
Chicago Cardinals
St. Louis Cardinals
LA Chargers
Boston Patriots
but your words in regards to how much a backup reduces a teams chances of winning ONE game were:
"Do it for one game and it makes a little difference"
So, you are saying 2 different things here:
a backup for one game makes "little difference" in the outcome.
It was A huge game. it was tom brady. they would do ALL THEY COULD to avoid using a backup for one game.
I think deep down you know how much a great starting QB means for an NFL team in contention. It is starting to come out in your responses. keep going, you are almost there....
You lost me. The two things I said are entirely consistent. Of course, every team wants to go into an important game with their strongest possible lineup, even if the difference at any one position is only one half of 1%. If that one player is Tom Brady then it's a lot more than that, and more than for most QBs. But it wouldn't matter at all if his backup was Patrick Mahomes.
I will repeat myself: who a team uses as their QB, in a Super Bowl or otherwise, makes a LOT less difference than the QB worshipers think it does. Never did I say, and never would I say, that it makes NO difference. It makes a difference at QB and every other position whether a starter or backup is playing. Losing a starter at ANY position reduces the team's chances of winning (assuming they know what they're doing when they pick their starters). Losing a starter at ANY position hurts, but it hurts only to the degree the backup is worse than the starter. You put a lousy backup QB in against a good team and it's probably fatal. You put a lousy backup LT, CB, LB, etc. in against a good team and it's probably fatal. We notice and remember when teams have to use a backup QB because that's the only thing the announcers will talk about for the entire game. But it's not the only position where using a backup matters. Yes, it matters more (all else equal) when you have to use a backup QB than a backup guard, but not as much more as you and others in this thread think it does. It all depends on how good the backup is. And sometimes, say Peyton Manning when "he won" the Super Bowl with Denver, the team would have been better off with the backup. Super Bowls have been won by QBs having so-so and even terrible games.
I believe every sentence in the preceding paragraph is indisputably true. And it is my argument.
As I have stated, the Manning broncos SB was an exception. an outlier.
Outlier?
Trent Dilfer
Brad Johnson
Both Dolphins victories.
Bears SB win.
Doug Williams.
Jeff Hostetler.
Mark Rypien.
SB 5, MVP was a defensive player on the losing team.
Troy Aikman in SB 28 (Kosar was backup, he could have won with that team).
Plunket in SB 18.
Every one of those games was won by a back up, back up caliber QB or could have been won by a back up. There's probably more, but I got tired of showing you the obvious.
You can probably include SB's 1&2, nobody was going to beat Green Bay. I didn't put them in because you are backing away from your original statement about "the 57 year history of the SB" and are now bringing it down to the "modern QB driven" SB's.
Teams win championships, not quarterbacks,
Both Tarkenton and Marino retired with all the passing records and neither won the SB. Favre won only 1, he too had all the records when he retired for the third time.
It's gotten to the point here where either you just don't bother to do the research or you're just arguing because you don't have anything better to do.
I thought I was clear that I was talking about the modern NFL where passing is key.
You seem to move the goalposts every time you get put in a box. Your original point was regarding "the 57 years of the SB".
Ok then how do you explain Eli Manning beating Tom Brady not once, but TWICE in the SB????????? Is that going back too far?
As we all know Brady is the without question the greatest ever to play the most vital position, how could that happen?
How about Brady beating Mahomes two years ago? Brady was way past his prime and Mahomes the best right now.
Dont forget Nick Foles beating Brady
So many average and below average QBs have won the SB it's amazing people keep repeating the fallacy that you need a good one to go all the way.
TEAM SPORT!
An undrafted division 2 rookie QB in his first start in NFL just led the Bears offense to 24 points vs an NFL team. They won(but defense gets a lot of that credit too).
What would you call a guy who tried out for Green Bay and got cut? Is that a backup? Then as an undrafted grocery bagger he became a HOFer and won a Super Bowl with the greatest show on turf. Isn't Warner a backup QB twice?
but your words in regards to how much a backup reduces a teams chances of winning ONE game were:
"Do it for one game and it makes a little difference"
So, you are saying 2 different things here:
a backup for one game makes "little difference" in the outcome.
It was A huge game. it was tom brady. they would do ALL THEY COULD to avoid using a backup for one game.
I think deep down you know how much a great starting QB means for an NFL team in contention. It is starting to come out in your responses. keep going, you are almost there....
You lost me. The two things I said are entirely consistent. Of course, every team wants to go into an important game with their strongest possible lineup, even if the difference at any one position is only one half of 1%. If that one player is Tom Brady then it's a lot more than that, and more than for most QBs. But it wouldn't matter at all if his backup was Patrick Mahomes.
I will repeat myself: who a team uses as their QB, in a Super Bowl or otherwise, makes a LOT less difference than the QB worshipers think it does. Never did I say, and never would I say, that it makes NO difference. It makes a difference at QB and every other position whether a starter or backup is playing. Losing a starter at ANY position reduces the team's chances of winning (assuming they know what they're doing when they pick their starters). Losing a starter at ANY position hurts, but it hurts only to the degree the backup is worse than the starter. You put a lousy backup QB in against a good team and it's probably fatal. You put a lousy backup LT, CB, LB, etc. in against a good team and it's probably fatal. We notice and remember when teams have to use a backup QB because that's the only thing the announcers will talk about for the entire game. But it's not the only position where using a backup matters. Yes, it matters more (all else equal) when you have to use a backup QB than a backup guard, but not as much more as you and others in this thread think it does. It all depends on how good the backup is. And sometimes, say Peyton Manning when "he won" the Super Bowl with Denver, the team would have been better off with the backup. Super Bowls have been won by QBs having so-so and even terrible games.
I believe every sentence in the preceding paragraph is indisputably true. And it is my argument.
As I have stated, the Manning broncos SB was an exception. an outlier.
Outlier?
Trent Dilfer
Brad Johnson
Both Dolphins victories.
Bears SB win.
Doug Williams.
Jeff Hostetler.
Mark Rypien.
SB 5, MVP was a defensive player on the losing team.
Troy Aikman in SB 28 (Kosar was backup, he could have won with that team).
Plunket in SB 18.
Every one of those games was won by a back up, back up caliber QB or could have been won by a back up. There's probably more, but I got tired of showing you the obvious.
You can probably include SB's 1&2, nobody was going to beat Green Bay. I didn't put them in because you are backing away from your original statement about "the 57 year history of the SB" and are now bringing it down to the "modern QB driven" SB's.
Teams win championships, not quarterbacks,
Both Tarkenton and Marino retired with all the passing records and neither won the SB. Favre won only 1, he too had all the records when he retired for the third time.
It's gotten to the point here where either you just don't bother to do the research or you're just arguing because you don't have anything better to do.
I thought I was clear that I was talking about the modern NFL where passing is key.
You seem to move the goalposts every time you get put in a box. Your original point was regarding "the 57 years of the SB".
Ok then how do you explain Eli Manning beating Tom Brady not once, but TWICE in the SB????????? Is that going back too far?
As we all know Brady is the without question the greatest ever to play the most vital position, how could that happen?
How about Brady beating Mahomes two years ago? Brady was way past his prime and Mahomes the best right now.
Dont forget Nick Foles beating Brady
So many average and below average QBs have won the SB it's amazing people keep repeating the fallacy that you need a good one to go all the way.
TEAM SPORT!
An undrafted division 2 rookie QB in his first start in NFL just led the Bears offense to 24 points vs an NFL team. They won(but defense gets a lot of that credit too).
What would you call a guy who tried out for Green Bay and got cut? Is that a backup? Then as an undrafted grocery bagger he became a HOFer and won a Super Bowl with the greatest show on turf. Isn't Warner a backup QB twice?
He didn't quite get to the SB, but Randall Cunningham was out of football, working in the granite business before the Vikings picked him up.
Should have won it all that year!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Comments
@dallasactuary "Because he's Tom Brady and it was a huge game. Even if using the backup would reduce their chances of winning by (I'll just make up a number) 10%, of course they'll do all they can to avoid that 10% hit."
but your words in regards to how much a backup reduces a teams chances of winning ONE game were:
"Do it for one game and it makes a little difference"
So, you are saying 2 different things here:
a backup for one game makes "little difference" in the outcome.
It was A huge game. it was tom brady. they would do ALL THEY COULD to avoid using a backup for one game.
I think deep down you know how much a great starting QB means for an NFL team in contention. It is starting to come out in your responses. keep going, you are almost there....
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
He started the year as such, i think it is safe to say that by the regular seasons end he was considered by all the starter. the same could be said for Brady in 2001. He started the year as backup, but took over the starter role and did not give it up when Brady came back. Same for Kurt Warner in 99. Started as the backup, but took over after trent green got hurt and played himself into the starters role.
It is a common situation. This is how lots of QB's become starters. I think that a backup can play himself into the role of a starter during the regular season.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
You lost me. The two things I said are entirely consistent. Of course, every team wants to go into an important game with their strongest possible lineup, even if the difference at any one position is only one half of 1%. If that one player is Tom Brady then it's a lot more than that, and more than for most QBs. But it wouldn't matter at all if his backup was Patrick Mahomes.
I will repeat myself: who a team uses as their QB, in a Super Bowl or otherwise, makes a LOT less difference than the QB worshipers think it does. Never did I say, and never would I say, that it makes NO difference. It makes a difference at QB and every other position whether a starter or backup is playing. Losing a starter at ANY position reduces the team's chances of winning (assuming they know what they're doing when they pick their starters). Losing a starter at ANY position hurts, but it hurts only to the degree the backup is worse than the starter. You put a lousy backup QB in against a good team and it's probably fatal. You put a lousy backup LT, CB, LB, etc. in against a good team and it's probably fatal. We notice and remember when teams have to use a backup QB because that's the only thing the announcers will talk about for the entire game. But it's not the only position where using a backup matters. Yes, it matters more (all else equal) when you have to use a backup QB than a backup guard, but not as much more as you and others in this thread think it does. It all depends on how good the backup is. And sometimes, say Peyton Manning when "he won" the Super Bowl with Denver, the team would have been better off with the backup. Super Bowls have been won by QBs having so-so and even terrible games.
I believe every sentence in the preceding paragraph is indisputably true. And it is my argument.
Yes that is true. It makes for a gray area on if the starter or backup was winning though. Purdy I think was clearly a backup QB to start the year being the last pick of the draft. Warner too who was bagging groceries and then won a super bowl soon after.
I think that is a much different than someone like Mahomes who was on the bench before he became a starter as he learned the ropes as being groomed to be the starter.
As I have stated, the Manning broncos SB was an exception. an outlier.
will you at least concede that QB is the most important single position on the field?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I have conceded that many times, it's the margin by which too many people think it is the most important that bothers me.
I also want to be clear that I believe it is the most important single position over the course of a season. There are lots and lots of games, and Super Bowls, where the QB is far from the most important single player, even on the winning team. Manning was the most obvious example since the Broncos had to overcome both the Panthers and Manning, but there are plenty of others.
Outlier?
Trent Dilfer
Brad Johnson
Both Dolphins victories.
Bears SB win.
Doug Williams.
Jeff Hostetler.
Mark Rypien.
SB 5, MVP was a defensive player on the losing team.
Troy Aikman in SB 28 (Kosar was backup, he could have won with that team).
Plunket in SB 18.
Every one of those games was won by a back up, back up caliber QB or could have been won by a back up. There's probably more, but I got tired of showing you the obvious.
You can probably include SB's 1&2, nobody was going to beat Green Bay. I didn't put them in because you are backing away from your original statement about "the 57 year history of the SB" and are now bringing it down to the "modern QB driven" SB's.
Teams win championships, not quarterbacks,
Both Tarkenton and Marino retired with all the passing records and neither won the SB. Favre won only 1, he too had all the records when he retired for the third time.
It's gotten to the point here where either you just don't bother to do the research or you're just arguing because you don't have anything better to do.
I thought I was clear that I was talking about the modern NFL where passing is key.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Bobby Orr has to be the GOAT for at least a few of those teams
You seem to move the goalposts every time you get put in a box. Your original point was regarding "the 57 years of the SB".
Ok then how do you explain Eli Manning beating Tom Brady not once, but TWICE in the SB????????? Is that going back too far?
As we all know Brady is the without question the greatest ever to play the most vital position, how could that happen?
How about Brady beating Mahomes two years ago? Brady was way past his prime and Mahomes the best right now.
Dont forget Nick Foles beating Brady
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
So many average and below average QBs have won the SB it's amazing people keep repeating the fallacy that you need a good one to go all the way.
TEAM SPORT!
Its definitely helpful having one and I would say you do need a competent one now, but yea part of the reason why the best are the best is because whats around them. If a line cant block only runners have a chance, if WRs/TEs/RBs cant get open who is there to throw too. Doesnt matter if you score 80 if the defense gives up 81 etc.
Wisconsin 2-6 against the SEC since 2007
............
No, let's forget that...
hey galaxy27,
I hope that you did not forget:
Bill Saul, Dick Shiner, Craig Colquitt, Bobby Walden, Glen Edwards, Mike Wagner, Andy Russell, Matt Bahr, Kordell Stewart, Pat Brady, Ray Mathews, John Schweder, Darrell Hogan, Elbie Nickel -- I just was looking at some of my 54 Bowman's on a few of those...
hey @galaxy27
I noticed that a few teams were left out on your listing:
New York Titans
Houston Oilers
Dallas Texans
Baltimore Colts
St. Louis Rams
Chicago Cardinals
St. Louis Cardinals
LA Chargers
Boston Patriots
An undrafted division 2 rookie QB in his first start in NFL just led the Bears offense to 24 points vs an NFL team. They won(but defense gets a lot of that credit too).
What would you call a guy who tried out for Green Bay and got cut? Is that a backup? Then as an undrafted grocery bagger he became a HOFer and won a Super Bowl with the greatest show on turf. Isn't Warner a backup QB twice?
He didn't quite get to the SB, but Randall Cunningham was out of football, working in the granite business before the Vikings picked him up.
Should have won it all that year!