Quote:
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501
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'.
|
Rodgers and Brees haven't sniffed a SB recently and wont until they fix the surrounding talent.
GB hasn't won a playoff game in 2 years.
NO hasn't won a playoff game since 2009.
Pitt has won 2 SB's and lost 1 because they have some defense and surrounding talent.
Same thing for the Giants.
The Ravens have been annual contenders because of team talent.
Any team can make a 1 year run but you need a balanced team (with a good QB) to sustain success.
NE may be an exception but thats because the Brady/BB combo is simply even better than Brees, Manning, Rodgers and basically anyone else over that span.
Hell I just looked back out of curiosity, outside of the SB run Rodgers hasn't won a playoff game before or after and he is considered to be the best QB in the NFL for years now.