2007:

Indy: Meh D (played great in PS), Great QB, shit running game
Chicago: Great D, Good running game, shit QB

Indy won

2008:

NE: Shit running game, ok D, great QB
NYG: Good running game, good D, good QB

NYG won after their QB led them on an 80 yard drive with 3 minutes left, after NE had taken the lead after their QB led them on an 80+ yard drive

Az: Great QB, bad D, horrid running game
Pitt: Great QB, Great D, horrid running game

Indy: Meh D, Great QB, bad running game
NO: Opportunistic D, Great QB, meh running game.

I mentioned this last week, and think it is worth bringing up again. The NFL... like most sports... is cyclic. Defenses are being built to stop the dominate passing game. Once those defenses are all built, the trend will bend back around to the running game. And for once, it appears that our own Kansas City Chiefs could belong to the trend setting group as opposed to being nearly the last one in a long line of followers as we have been for nearly our entire history.

I still long for a franchise QB, but am content in the mean time watching what is unfolding before our eyes.

Cyclical? So it will be a return to when the franchise QB was less important? Like in the 80's or 70's?

The league loves the forward pass and lots of scoring so I would want to have a good defense. And, if I had my druthers, an excellent passing game. I would, however, love to be able to run the ball ... especially in the red zone.

So, I choose Strong Defense, Strong Passing, and Strong Running.

FAX

Setting the trend by being one of the 15 teams to run a 3-4?

FWIW, I agree that it's a copycat league, but it's not necessarily a cyclical league. The league has gotten progressively more pass happy the last 50 years and the rules continue to favor the pass.

I like the idea of a franchise QB. But they also require franchise WR's to be successful.
Montana had Rice
Peyton had Harrison
Elway had Rod Smith and Sharpe
Warner had Fitzgerald, Bruce and Holt
Aikman had Irvin

etc., etc.

Granted a great QB can make an avg WR a good WR

And all of them save Peyton and Warner with AZ had elite RB's, Davis, Smith, Faulk

I was hoping the options would include 'awesomeness' and 'invincibility', but I'd settle for a run game and a D.

:deevee:

I think we once proved beyond all shadow of all doubt that scoring "first" or "early" was a major key to success in the NFL. Plus, with all the Manning Rules the league has installed in the last 5 or 6 years, the game favors the QB and the pass, that's for sure. Given all that, it makes sense that a team would want a quarterback who is accurate, has a quick release, and is, preferably, somewhat mobile.

But, if a team can get good pressure, field a solid secondary, win the field position battle (forcing long drives to score), and control the clock with the rush, you may not cancel out the pass, but you can minimize its effectiveness. It's happening more and more ... even so far in this season.

FAX

Granted last year is an exception, I think a top defense is where it all starts to getting to the SB

Milkman approves this message.
Posted via Mobile Device

#2 gives you the best chance to win, so I pick that one.

Agreed. That and having an offense that can chew up the clock and keep the Mannings of the world parked on the sideline is the ticket to beating those type of teams. Now having a QB competent enough to drive the team to a late TD if need be would be nice... but maybe in time. :shrug:

And it's always best to build the offensive line before even thinking about acquiring a top QB, though I suppose we could "save" him.

Like the Jets and Ravens in the playoffs last year?