Jump to content

What would you rather pair with a an all time great QB?


What would you rather pair with a an all time great QB?  

66 members have voted

  1. 1. What would you rather pair with a an all time great QB?

    • All time great running back
      14
    • All time great receiver
      34
    • All time great left tackle
      18


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, nextsuperstar1 said:

Brady has never had great running backs (with the exception of Dillon one year). He’s had ok to good, but never elite left tackles. He has had elite pass catchers. When he struggles the most was with lousy receiving cores. 

He's had some pretty good backs.  Not elite, but a good, solid committee of backs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, JBURGE25 said:

How many of Tom's 5 super bowls did he win with Moss?

And how many did he win with an all-time great RB or LT?  

He was 18-1 with Moss and one fluke play away from being 19-0.  He's also won two SB with Rob Gronkowski, although Gronk only played in one of those games. 

If you have an all-time great QB there are going to be diminish returns with an all-time great RB.  Don't see how you can pick RB over WR.

WR vs. LT is a more difficult but I think the franchise LT concept matters less in today's NFL.  Defenses are more creative with the pass rush and you really need a solid all-around offensive line rather than one rock star.  On the other hand, one all-time receiver can open up opportunities for a bunch of meh secondary options.  And we've seen with Brady-Moss, Montana-Rice, Manning-Harrison, etc. what kind of production you can get out of some of these combos.

WR would be my answer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4th and 13 to go, fourth quarter, the game is on the line, important game, I'm a great QB. Do I think: "Boy, am I glad I have that great LT to watch my back?", or do I think: "I have Great WR on my team, let's go and get it!"... Great QBs often make their OL look better than they actually are, because a prerequisite of a great QB is to be all to work the pocket, move within it, know it's weak points, understand the pass rush, get rid of the ball in time. A great OL, with a great LT, doesn't necessarily make the QB that much better. A great RB sure helps, it puts a strain on the defense, it wears them down, it controls the clock, and it sets up the playaction game beautifully. But you're suddenly trailing at the end of the fourth quarter of the Superbowl, and your importance is diminished by the situation. If your team is dominant, I could argue you can win with a great RB and an average QB. It's actually very easy to argue. But does a great RB really makes a great QB that much better? A lesser RB in a scheme that fits his skills will give you the exact same impact, for less money. But the WR, that's the go-to guy. He will help the QB in ways a lesser WR will not, and you can not adjust the scheme to make lesser WRs make great plays. Lesser WRs can make great play, but a great WR will make them more often. The great WR will transform a low probability contested catch into something more probable. A great WR will draw more coverage to his side, helping lesser WRs get open more easily. The WR has a greater impact when the game is on the line, in my opinion. With a lesser QB, I agree, LTs and RBs are probably more important than a great WR, as a lesser QB won't be as adept at exploiting coverages as a great QB is, and could use all the help, a cleaner pocket for a longer time, defenses loading the box to stop the run leaving one on ones on the outside, and defenses biting on playaction fakes. Those things lesser QBs better. But a great QB doesn't necessarily need that extra help to be great, but he can be made greater still by a great WR.

But really, what you'd rather want is a great QB and a great HC. If you have that, you can get by with lesser LTs, RBs and WRs. Then maybe you luck into getting a great player here and there, and it makes their job easier, and the team's success greater. But really, there are just so many different ways a team can win, be it with a great defense, great offense, balanced offense, pass-heavy offense, running, etc. The important thing is to have a solid roster, a solid plan and players buying into the plan. And then a little luck. Having a great QB and other greats simply makes all of that waaaaaaayyy easier.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, mission27 said:

And how many did he win with an all-time great RB or LT?  

He was 18-1 with Moss and one fluke play away from being 19-0.  He's also won two SB with Rob Gronkowski, although Gronk only played in one of those games. 

If you have an all-time great QB there are going to be diminish returns with an all-time great RB.  Don't see how you can pick RB over WR.

WR vs. LT is a more difficult but I think the franchise LT concept matters less in today's NFL.  Defenses are more creative with the pass rush and you really need a solid all-around offensive line rather than one rock star.  On the other hand, one all-time receiver can open up opportunities for a bunch of meh secondary options.  And we've seen with Brady-Moss, Montana-Rice, Manning-Harrison, etc. what kind of production you can get out of some of these combos.

WR would be my answer.

In my next comment I addressed diminished returns for rb. I don't think ONE wr or ONE LT makes that much of a difference. That was my only point 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even though the LT position isn't as important of an o-line corner piece as it is deemed to be since defenses move their pass rushers around frequently these days, I'd still take to all time great lineman.

 

19 hours ago, Nabbs4u said:

Had Dan Marino had any semblance of a Running game let alone a all time great (Payton, Dickerson, Allen), He's going down as the GOAT of QB and the debate isn't even close.

. . . defense. The answer you're looking for is "defense" and you couldn't find it because it was buried underneath the incompetence of Tom Olividotti.

Edited by Carmen Cygni
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/17/2018 at 10:56 PM, Jlowe22 said:

He's had some pretty good backs.  Not elite, but a good, solid committee of backs.

He’s had fine running backs, but they’re more ham and eggers than all pros. Ridley, Smith, Vareen, Blount, Maroney, and Woodhead are pretty much the definition of journeymen. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...