true. but if he is the only one, that would make him an exception to the rule, which we have to reasonably know would exist for any rule. I am certainly not talking about a single season. to do so would be like taking one possession of a game and claiming a QB was good, and ignoring the rest of the game. you have to look at their overall record as a starter. that is where you will see how good they are. every QB could potentially have one great season, just as they could have one great series within a single game. the Jets in Sanchez's rookie year were only 9-7. that's barely an above average overall team and Sanchez was a barely above average QB that season. that seems about right. I am not claiming that a team making a great playoff run makes the QB great (see Dilfer and Doug Williams), I am talking strictly win/loss records.
How do explain the same team turning it around when they make a change at QB. In 1998 the Jets were 0-3 with Glenn Foley, 12-1 with Vinny, all the other personnel the same. Or the 2002 Jets when we started 1-3 with Vinny and finished 8-4 with Chad? Or the Broncos last year when they made the move to Tebow? That's just off the top of my head, there are countless examples. Again, not saying it's all one guy, it never is, but you have to factor in how the QB plays and manages the game. People here tend to scoff at managing the game for some reason, but it's an important part of the position.
Not sure I understand the question, what do I think of Sanchez? So far I like him, he's shown a lot of positive signs and he's 25 so I think he will get better. I compare him to a young Eli, who was inconsistent but could also pull games out in the 4th quarter and had to grow into being a leader on the team dealing with guys like Tiki, etc. We can certainly win with Sanchez, given that we have already, so he certainly isn't going to hold a good team back.
Average offensive talent. Above average ST and above average defensive talent to clarify. Brady is definitely a great QB, but the Patriots did a great job of helping go from great to all time great. Brady would be a great QB everywhere, not sure if he would be an all time great everywhere (but that goes for any QB). Every QB gets help from his surroundings, it is a team game and the Patriots have done a good job. I actually thought Bill was getting away from what made them great in the early 2000s but this draft and some player decisions I think he understands even with an elite QB you need some type of balance.
Hadn't really thought of the bolded part, but that's a good point. What if Steve Young was a career Buccaneer?
How did Joe Montana fare in KC? The Pats and Belichik and Brady are linked. Take either B away from the equation and everybody involved suffers big time. Taking Scott Pioli away from the Pats caused some issues, not in the record but in having a second set of eyes on what the Pats really needed to win it all.
which is the why the only honest analysis of a player's ability is based on what they actually accomplished, not hypotheticals. otherwise you could minimize player's accomplishments and nobody would be an all-time great. but your argument against Montana is extremely flawed. for one, Montana brought the Chiefs to the AFCCG and lost to a team that went to 4 straight Super Bowls. secondly, it only reflects that Montana, at the age of 37 and 38, was not capable of winning a Super Bowl. considering only 1 QB in the history of the NFL has done so at those ages, John Elway, it certainly does not minimize what Joe Montana did with the Chiefs. and there is nothing to indicate that Montana in his prime could not have won with the Chiefs.
But he's Joe Cool. He's Joe Montana. If the argument is that all of the mojo that a great player brings to the table is self-contained then he should have been able to get the Chiefs a Super Bowl win. If Tom Brady and the Pats parted ways today that is the end of the great Tom Brady. It's not the end of Tom Brady excellent QB but it is almost certainly the end of Tom Brady regular Super Bowl visitor.
that is an opinion, which you are entitled to, but for it to have any semblance of a reasonable argument you would have to show that other QB's have switched teams at that age and won championships, and was thus a deficiency of Montana that other QB's did not have so it isn't a matter of age (which you cannot do because only one player in the history of the NFL has won a Super Bowl at that age -- John Elway, revealing that Montana likely just wasn't good enough at the age of 37 and 38, like every other QB in the history of the NFL, not that he wouldn't have been good enough at age 25, 31, 33 and 34).
Actually, the fact that QB's haven't switched teams late career and won championships is vindication of the idea that the ability to win championships is not a self-contained property of great QB's. The fact that NO QB has ever won more than 4 championships (Bradshaw) is vindication of that idea. The fact that the greatest QB of our time, Peyton Manning, has only won a single championship is vindication of the idea. Super Bowls are won by great teams. Even when the team appears to have lucked into the win (2008 Steelers, 2011 Giants) the team that did that has demonstrated the ability to win Super Bowls prior. The reason the Jets haven't won a Super Bowl in 40 years is not because the QB's haven't been up to the task. It's because the team hasn't been up to the task. The best player playing at the highest level on the 1998 Jets was Vinny Testaverde. The best player playing at the highest level in 2009 Was Darrelle Revis. The best player playing at the highest level in the playoffs in 2010 was Mark Sanchez. He threw 5 TDs against the Pats and Steelers with 1 turnover and no interceptions and it wasn't enough. You need a great team playing a great game to get to the Super Bowl and win it. You can take the world's greatest QB, like Dan Marino, and never win a Super Bowl.
that simply isn't true because you continue to ignore that no QB has won a Championship at that age, except one, regardless of whether they switched teams or not. otherwise you would see more QB's that age who haven't switched teams winning on the team they have always been on and thus negating any claim of age. please address that fact. if it wasn't an issue of age you would have more Super Bowl winning teams with 38 year old QBs. the fact that you do not is because QB's that old don't have the ability anymore to make the team a Super Bowl winner. and that points to the likelihood that the QB is a difference maker for a Championship if their abilities are at their peak as when they are young, not the opposite. Pro sports is a young man's game. so older QB's not winning has nothing to do with whether they switched teams or not and more with their age, otherwise you would see more older QB's winning championships at that age on the same team they have always played for. you have to acknowledge that fact, you can't dismiss it. you have to address the fact that older QB's don't win regardless of any other factor. there is a clear common denominator that you are clearly being unreasonable to ignore if you do so. or for your argument to have merit you could show SB winning QB's that switched teams when they were younger but failed to win with their other teams. obviously Super Bowl winning QB's aren't generally let go by teams when they are in their prime, so there isn't much of a data pool to work with. point being the only way to defend your position is with the two scenarios above, one which there isn't enough data to consider and the other that rightfully disputes your assertion, so you are just making up your conclusion with nothing to back it up. no, it is just vindication of how difficult it is to win, not whether a QB isn't a significant factor in it. no, because you are again ignoring many other factors. mostly the fact that he lost to the QB considered the second best of our generation who had his QB service as well as a better team. nobody has ever claimed that a great QB alone could overcome a team with a comparable QB and a better team just because he was slightly better than the other QB. how could you possible ignore these obvious factors to the scenarios you are presenting? and with few exception those teams have what are considered elite QB's. the Giants and Steelers continue to validate my point, not yours. your only defense would be Doug Williams and Dilfer. two QB's out of the history of Super Bowls is an acceptable outlier for my position. how many great QB's have the Jets had in that time? Vinny certainly wasn't, even if he had his best year with the Jets. nobody has ever said that being a great QB guarantees a Super Bowl, or that QB's alone are the difference maker. that's a strawman that nobody is discussing.
Wins/losses are a team-based outcome stat and not a direct indicator of QB skill. They should be one of the last things used in evaluating a QB. Completion %, yards per attempt, TD-to-Int ratio, etc are much better indicators of a QB's skill. For instance, Peyton Manning put up great QB stats and had enough talent on his team, that the Colts were consistently in the playoffs over the last decade. He wasn't on the team last year, and the Colts lost all the passing yards, completion %, and TD's that Manning used to provide. Therefore, the outcome was that the Colts had the worst record in the NFL. There are 53 players, 100+ coaches, trainers, and other talent evaluators that make up a team. They all contribute to wins/losses. Win/loss record is not an individual QB stat.
Has any QB ever won a Super Bowl with two different teams? I'm trying to think of one and nobody is coming to mind. I just don't think that championships rest with the QB. They rest with the team. Earl Morrall was on both the 70 Colts and the 72 Dolphins but he didn't play in the 72 Super Bowl despite starting a lot of the year. Griese was back for that and he played.
if the Cardinals actually attack Pittsburgh on that final drive Kurt Warner may have been the first. you're right, a QB does not win a Super Bowl all by himself. I don't think anyone has argued such. the argument is simply a derivative of how much importance does the QB's play and ability have to winning compared to other positions, and thus why win/loss record (not Super Bowls) reflects their ability. I have already detailed why it is relevant so it doesn't do either of us any good to rehash it.
All great statistical QB play does is to set the team up to be good if they have the other pieces in place. Overwhelmingly great QB play, like Brady the last few years and Peyton Manning for a long run, can set a team up to win big in the regular season, however absent the other pieces of greatness those teams don't prosper in the Super Bowl most of the time. That's all I'm saying. Take Brady off of the Pats and he's going to be a 9-7/10-6 QB somewhere wondering where all the magic went. Put him on the Steelers and he's going to be retired in a hurry. The Pats are as much of the picture with him as he is. The Pats are the team that keeps playing down to their opponent in the Super Bowl and losing as a result. Not surprisingly, when the Pats play down so does Brady.
considering how few QB's win Super Bowls, I don't think anyone can dismiss a QB's ability if they do not win one. the "greatness" that QB's are anointed with for winning Super Bowls is more than about ability but historical perspective of their ability AND accomplishments. I am merely discussing ability, and overall win/loss record I think reflects the QB's ability, even if they lose 1 game every year in the playoffs. that 1 loss may affect their historical "greatness" but it doesn't negate their ability that they have shown in winning enough games to make the playoffs. which leads us back to Montana. there is no doubt the Chiefs weren't as good as any of his 49er's teams that won Super Bowls, which hindered his ability to win with them. but on that same token, at age 37 and 38, Montana himself wasn't as good as he was when he won those Super Bowls with the 49er's either, so he was a reason, as well, and maybe more significantly, why they did not win. he was still good enough to make them a contender at that age, which leads to the reasonable speculation that had he been as good with the Chiefs as he was in his prime with the 49er's maybe he would have been such a difference make that they would have won.
QB is the most important position in Sports. But there are still 10 other guys that the qb is dependent upon to do their jobs. How well the other 10 do their job is often greatly affected by the character of the QB. That is the "intangible" that continues to be undervalued by fans and "experts" alike.
It's a team accomplishment, not an individual accomplishment. Trent Dilfer didn't will the Ravens to a Super Bowl victory, that historic defense did.
