|
I have never in the history of my 9+ years on this board thought the QB was solely responsible for playoff success.
I do think having a great QB does help you achieve the goal of getting to the playoffs, something you need to do to win Super Bowls.
But once you get to the playoffs, you need too many good bounces to win it all ... the best team seldom ever wins.
New England was the better team in last year's Super Bowl. Seattle still should have stolen that game. And then New England re-stole it. And then Seattle re-stole it until New England really re-stole it.
Joe Flacco made $100M+ because Rahim Moore made the worst play in NFL history. Rahim Moore picks that off, knocks it down, or does anything else ... Flacco gets ousted from Baltimore and Baltimore starts over (something they should have done regardless).
Tony Romo lost a playoff game because he botched a FG snap. That's right. Tony Romo, inexplicably, doubled as the holder for a playoff game in which he started and was the team's most important player. Yeah, very sensible.
Tom Brady had Adam Vinatieri making ridiculous kicks in blizzards to get to Super Bowls...
Peyton Manning had Vanderjagt pushing game winning kicks 50 yards right.
There are 53 players. Of course the QB is the most important one ... but a QB alone doesn't win playoff games. Hell, Malcom Butler made one of the best plays I've ever seen in my life to win a Super Bowl ...
Hilariously, though ...
If Andrew Luck wins a postseason game, that's all him. 100%. But when he loses? Didn't have the cast around him.
Conversely, when guys like Romo, Manning or Wilson win a playoff game ... it's because of their superior supporting cast.
But when they lose?
OMG
CHOKE
!
CHOKE!!!
OMG DID YOU SEE THAT CHOKE!?
That is what I've spent my tenure on this board campaigning against.
I'm so tired of great QB's (Brady, Rodgers) and good QB's (Luck) getting to cash in on every excuse every game they don't play well ... while guys like Romo get ****ing eviscerated.
|