This is a complete joke.
Did you see the abortion of a team the Colts became when they lost Peyton Manning? He played behind a shit offensive line, the worst running game in the NFL, and a rotating carousel of receivers that weren't anything remarkable beyond Reggie Wayne.
New Orleans has an okay line, an average running game, and Brees has won games behind some of the most injury-bit receiving corps out there. He was winning games with Terrence Copper as his #2 receiver at one point.
Green Bay's supporting cast is not good. They have the worst running game in the league and one of the worst offensive lines. They have good receivers when healthy, but most of those guys like Jordy Nelson and Cobb wouldn't be nearly as productive behind the wrong QB.
Tom Brady made an AFC championship game throwing to Reche Caldwell and Jabar Gaffney as his top 2 guys.
Your point is wrong on so many levels. Elite QBs elevate the play of the team exponentially more than any other position does. That's why the idea that it's okay to settle for a good enough QB is utterly ridiculous. Our supporting cast on offense is a hell of a lot more talented than Rodgers' or Brees'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mavericks Ace
The main point is this.
Even the great qbs, need weapons that they trust, and that are GOOD players.
That's the bottom line. Especially for someone with a limited skill set as Alex Smith. I made this point a while ago, and people disagreed with me.
If you put Alex Smith with a team on offense with the talent level of Atlanta, packers, saints, broncos, he would be considered a borderline top 10 qb.
if you put aaron Rodgers drew brees, peyton manning or matt ryan with the Chiefs weapons, are they still considered elite?
Or near elite?
|