Why you need a QB, but don't necessarily need a running game to win

[Warhead36]

I saw some interesting stats on NFL.com.

Of the 10 highest rated QBs in the NFL, 9 will make the playoffs. The only one that won't will be either Eli or Romo, whoever loses this week. I'm also counting Schaub in this list as he'd obviously be starting if it weren't for injury.

I also looked at the ten teams with the best rushing attacks(looking at team rushing YPG). Of those ten, three are locks to make the playoffs in New Orleans, Houston, and San Francisco. All three of these teams, however, have top 10 rated QBs this year.

There are two other teams in the rushing list, Denver and Oakland, who may or may not make the playoffs. One of them obviously will, so really of the top 10 rushing teams in the league only ONE(maybe two if some fluky stuff goes down) will make the playoffs that didn't have a very good passing game to go with it.

In simple terms, if you can throw the ball effectively, you're basically a lock to be a playoff team. But if you can only run it, you're not as likely to be successful, although you still can.

How does this relate to us? Simple. We NEED to get a franchise QB so we can have a top flight passing game. A top flight passing game will make what's looking like a soon to be great running game even better, and will have us in the playoffs. Not addressing QB will reduce our chances of success big time.

[daveakl]

1st and 3rd this year and 1st and 2nd next to go get one above.

Or

Trade down and draft tannenhill in 1st as well as get another 2 or 3.

[TankRizzo]

Peyton Manning
Drew Brees
Tom Brady


Defense doesn't win championships anymore. The NFL has done everything in their power to maximize the passing game, in 2004 they pretty much accomplished that goal with the new rules for CBs. You NEED a topflight QB if you want to make it to the playoffs regularly.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

btw, this is wrong.

The 2004 rules were not new. It was a change, yes, but it was a change in how the rules were enforced. You were never supposed to make contact with WRs downfield past 5 yards (unless incidental). It had been that way since the 80s, it was just inconsistently enforced. Now the rules are consistently enforced.

[TankRizzo]

btw, this is wrong.

The 2004 rules were not new. It was a change, yes, but it was a change in how the rules were enforced. You were never supposed to make contact with WRs downfield past 5 yards (unless incidental). It had been that way since the 80s, it was just inconsistently enforced. Now the rules are consistently enforced.


Regardless of the how or why, it's had a huge impact on the game.

[London Kev]

Interesting stats indeed; I guess with the rule changes on hitting QBs and WRs, the league really is changing. An elite QB is becoming a necessity if you want to make the playoffs.

Saying that, I would still be happy if we traded down again this year, got some extra picks and upgraded other positions first (DB, OL, ILB, NT, WR) rather than blowing the lot to move up and get a franchise QB.

[Destino]

It also helps to throw more TD than interceptions. Sounds obvious right but seriously more than over all turnover differential, this season this stat has mattered.

TD - Int = diff Team
45 - 7 = 38 Green Bay Packers
41 - 13 = 28 New Orleans Saints
36 - 11 = 25 New England Patriots
36 - 14 = 22 Detroit Lions
31 - 11 = 20 Dallas Cowboys
27 - 12 = 15 Atlanta Falcons
16 - 5 = 11 San Francisco 49ers
26 - 16 = 10 New York Giants
19 - 9 = 10 Houston Texans
24 - 15 = 9 New York Jets
20 - 12 = 8 Baltimore Ravens
19 - 11 = 8 Miami Dolphins
21 - 14 = 7 Cincinnati Bengals
20 - 13 = 7 Denver Broncos
21 - 15 = 6 Pittsburgh Steelers
20 - 14 = 6 Minnesota Vikings
20 - 14 = 6 Tennessee Titans
24 - 19 = 5 San Diego Chargers
20 - 16 = 4 Carolina Panthers
16 - 12 = 4 Cleveland Browns
22 - 21 = 1 Buffalo Bills
14 - 13 = 1 Seattle Seahawks
13 - 12 = 1 Indianapolis Colts
8 - 8 = 0 St. Louis Rams
20 - 22 = -2 Arizona Cardinals
17 - 19 = -2 Chicago Bears
18 - 22 = -4 Oakland Raiders
11 - 15 = -4 Jacksonville Jaguars
19 - 24 = -5 Philadelphia Eagles
18 - 23 = -5 Washington Redskins
13 - 18 = -5 Kansas City Chiefs
15 - 21 = -6 Tampa Bay Buccaneers

Notice this isn't about scoring more the most points in general. This is purely passing TD versus interceptions thrown. Notice that in the bottom half of that list there are no qualified teams for the post season and only two teams still alive going into week 17. If you simply look at the highest scoring teams the post season qualifiers aren't as concentrated at the top as this.

[stevemcqueen1]

Having a great QB isn't the recipe for a Superbowl. The teams that win the most in the playoffs are the ones who most consistently control the LoS.

The great QBs that win Superbowls get great play from the guys on the LoS.

The effect of a great QB is felt most during the course of the regular season. A great QB gives you a large margin for error--he can win you games even when the rest of your team is making mistakes and/or not playing their best football. This adds up over a long term measure like a season, particularly when most of your opponents can't match your level QB play. But in the one and done atmosphere of the playoffs, a bad day at the LoS is usually fatal.

But it's always been true (and probably always will be) that you have to take your defense and running game with you when you hit the road in the winter for your toughest games. You've got to control that line. The level of QB play on the other side will match your own in the playoffs no matter how good it is. You need to win up front to get the edge.

Why did the Saints beat the Colts when the QBs were pretty much evenly matched? Because the Saints dominated the Colts on both sides of the LoS. Why did the Packers beat the Steelers? They dominated them on both sides of the LoS. Ditto for Steelers over Cardinals and Giants over Patriots in the years before that. If anything, the less effective QB won those Superbowls, largely because of their team's play at the line.

You can build a consistent playoff participant with only a great QB and a mediocre roster around them. But you won't win championships without a balanced roster.

[greenspandan]

Having a great QB isn't the recipe for a Superbowl. The teams that win the most in the playoffs are the ones who most consistently control the LoS.

The great QBs that win Superbowls get great play from the guys on the LoS.

The effect of a great QB is felt most during the course of the regular season. A great QB gives you a large margin for error--he can win you games even when the rest of your team is making mistakes and/or not playing their best football. This adds up over a long term measure like a season, particularly when most of your opponents can't match your level QB play. But in the one and done atmosphere of the playoffs, a bad day at the LoS is usually fatal.

But it's always been true (and probably always will be) that you have to take your defense and running game with you when you hit the road in the winter for your toughest games. You've got to control that line. The level of QB play on the other side will match your own in the playoffs no matter how good it is. You need to win up front to get the edge.

Why did the Saints beat the Colts when the QBs were pretty much evenly matched? Because the Saints dominated the Colts on both sides of the LoS. Why did the Packers beat the Steelers? They dominated them on both sides of the LoS. Ditto for Steelers over Cardinals and Giants over Patriots in the years before that. If anything, the less effective QB won those Superbowls, largely because of their team's play at the line.

You can build a consistent playoff participant with only a great QB and a mediocre roster around them. But you won't win championships without a balanced roster.

you basically proved the other guy's point with your example. Saints vs. Colts. Drew Brees vs. Peyton Manning. lesser QBs need not apply. does controlling the line of scrimmage help? yes. but you can't get in that position in the first place without a top-tier QB.

[TankRizzo]

You can build a consistent playoff participant with only a great QB and a mediocre roster around them. But you won't win championships without a balanced roster.

The difference is, you can find ALL of those other pieces in free agency and the draft, EVERY year. Finding a franchise QB is a whole lot harder. If you have the opportunity to get a QB like Luck, it's worth the gamble.

[mr_neon]

I disagree with the thread title. You need to be able to run the able effectively, especially around December and January if you expect to win championships. Sure, I agree that you need a good franchise quarterback, but you need a running game to make it all work.

[JerseyGator]

Could the mods just combine all of these silly elite QB threads with minimal support in fact. I want to see Brees win a playoff game in the cold in Chicago and then have someone tell me that he doesn't need a running game.

These elite QB teams also have elite lines and elite receivers. Running games are a necessity often but you better have some great tackles to block a less than honest defense.

People who start threads like this make football sound like tennis.

[Pedro]

You can build a consistent playoff participant with only a great QB and a mediocre roster around them. But you won't win championships without a balanced roster.

MS has been going on about DL and OL since he got here, plus traded for 'game winner' McNabb and tried to trade up for Bradford. I think you and he see things in a very similar way.

[Darkstarr]

You can twist stats all you want. Yes you need a qb, but you also must have a defense and running game imo. Take the Patriots the last 4 years.

2007 Lost to the Giants (a defense front beat them!!!)
2008 No Playoffs (11-5) with a back up qb
2009 Lost to the Raven!! (a defense team) NE was at home.
2010 Lost the Jets!!! (a defense team) NE again lost at home.

So yes maybe in the afc having a defense and a running game will beat NE again at home.

[Darth Tater]

btw, this is wrong.

The 2004 rules were not new. It was a change, yes, but it was a change in how the rules were enforced. You were never supposed to make contact with WRs downfield past 5 yards (unless incidental). It had been that way since the 80s, it was just inconsistently enforced. Now the rules are consistently enforced.
Yep, those rules were created in 1978 and is pretty much why the record for the most yards passing in a season were set in 1979 and 1984. The contact rules were pretty much enforced even more strictly over that period than today.

---------- Post added December-27th-2011 at 01:37 PM ----------


Regardless of the how or why, it's had a huge impact on the game.
Actually the things that contributed most to the change were rules protecting the QB, not allowing the defense to get OL to jump and the more recent change that prevents defenders from laying out receivers in the act of catching. This year, the lack of practice arguably has hurt tackling.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

Why did the Saints beat the Colts when the QBs were pretty much evenly matched? Because the Saints dominated the Colts on both sides of the LoS.

I don't remember the game in detail, but I do remember that the Saints FAILED to run the ball against the Colts, and it came down to Brees simply outdueling Manning the entire game until the Tracy Porter pick 6.


Why did the Packers beat the Steelers?

The Packers beat the Steelers because Ben had an awful game. Granted, one of the INTs was because he got crushed by someone (can't remember who), but he probably shouldn't have thrown that ball to begin with. I would say that the Packers offense made the Steelers defense a non-factor, but that I think was more a matter of outgameplanning them (they took Polamalu out of the game entirely) than any particular LOS domination.


Ditto for Steelers over Cardinals and Giants over Patriots in the years before that. If anything, the less effective QB won those Superbowls, largely because of their team's play at the line.

The Giants are definitely the example proving your point. Steelers to an extent too.


You can build a consistent playoff participant with only a great QB and a mediocre roster around them. But you won't win championships without a balanced roster.

Nobody doubts that. But people seem to think you can win championships with a balanced roster and a mediocre QB.

The thing about is that the Cardinals, with an absolutely dreadful roster outside Warner, was an absolute miracle throw and catch, one of the greatest in the history of football, away from winning the title. The Colts, even in 2009, probably weren't 3-13 bad sans Manning, but they were probably a 7-9 team with a replacement guy at QB.

[DogofWar1]

I think the title to the thread is a bit argumentative, but makes a good point about the importance of QBs nonetheless.

And based on what we can see a good QB will get you to the playoffs consistently, while a good running game or solid D might get you there 50% of the time.

So while I agree that we would need more pieces before being able to compete for championships, we don't even have the 1st piece.

Ultimately, we can spend years building the perfect team, having mediocre records and maybe a couple playoff years, and then drop the franchise QB into it and be successful, or we can get the QB, be a consistently solid team making the playoffs most years, and then build the team around them. Personally I'd take the latter option, since our franchise has hurt for success for 20 years. The end result is ultimately the same, the question is what do we address first?

[DieselPwr44]

Tom Brady's Oline could not handle the Giants Dline in the SuperBowl and couldn't handle the Jets pressure in last year's playoffs and he got bounced.

Drew Brees couldn't get on the field enough because Seattle ran the ball down the Saints throat and they got bounced.

Peyton Manning struggled for years vs the Pats D because he couldn't figure out their mix of coverage/pressure.

The running game and defense have not diminished in this game,imo.

We'll see what these passing games look like when the winds howling at 35 mph,the grounds froze and the snow is flying........

[8181]

The mantra used to be, "You need to be able to run the ball and stop the run"

Now, it's "You need to be able to pass the ball and stop the pass"

That's how you win games...

[FuriousD]

Jim Kelly and the Buffalo Bills, anyone? Kelly carried those teams to 4 straight but each time a better balanced team set them packing.

No, it's not all about the QB. It's all of the above.

[Warhead36]

A franchise QB gives you a chance every year. That's really all you can ask for. Too many things have to go right to win a Super Bowl but with an elite QB, your team will be there come playoff time with a shot. After that, anything can happen. But without a QB you have no chance unless you have an all-time great D which is not something you can actually expect to build.

[compguru13]

Jim Kelly and the Buffalo Bills, anyone? Kelly carried those teams to 4 straight but each time a better balanced team set them packing.

No, it's not all about the QB. It's all of the above.

First off, that just proves OP's point: a Franchise QB will get you to the playoffs consistently, even with a weak run game and/or defense.
And secondly, just going to the playoffs would be considered an improvement from where we are now, and our defense ISN'T weak, and neither is our run game.

[Vilandil Tasardur]

Here's how I see it.

During the regular season, the magic question is "Can you score 30?". If you can score 30 against the bottom 25 defenses, then depending on your schedule, you can almost assuredly go 12-4.

But when you get to the playoffs, new questions arise. "Can you score 30 against the top 7 defenses?" and "Can you stop the other team from scoring 30?" Become far more important.

A franchise QB will almost assuredly guarantee you success in the regular season because it answers question one, but it does not necessarily answer questions 2 and 3, which is why the better all around teams go farther in the tournament.

So we must ask ourselves question one, "Can we score 30?" If the answer were yes, I would say we upgrade defense and running game. But the answer is most certainly NOT yes. We rarely score 25. So we start with our QB.

[Destino]

The passing game is dominant right now. The best way to stop it is to pressure the passer and force mistakes or to simply keep the ball away from them and force them to execute a lot of plays when they do get it. A strong running game that produces points matched with defense that doesn't allow big plays will force the opposing passing offense to play error free football which is not the strength of s passing game. The other is to have a powerful offense of your own matched with a killer pass rush that forces turnovers. If you have to get into a shoot out it helps to have the cleaner of the two gunslingers in the 4th Qtr.

The running game isnt dead but it's not as strong as a passing game right now. It helps the defense more than it puts points on the board in most cases.

[Dirt]

To be fair to the Shannahan's system, it's possible that the Redskins could benefit more from the running game than other teams because of the play action passing. Some teams win with big running numbers, some teams win by selling the run.

[stevemcqueen1]

you basically proved the other guy's point with your example. Saints vs. Colts. Drew Brees vs. Peyton Manning. lesser QBs need not apply. does controlling the line of scrimmage help? yes. but you can't get in that position in the first place without a top-tier QB.

I'm not sure the OP and I actually disagree or have opposing view points. My point was more of an addendum to his own.

Re: the Brees/Manning example, That was just one Superbowl matchup. Eli Manning and Ben Roethlisberger are not as good passers as those two are. Kurt Warner probably isn't either, but each have recent Superbowl appearances. But they're "good enough" QBs and then you go and let your OL and DL win the game for you.

One of your points that I don't totally agree with is I don't think you need transcendent QB like Brady, Manning, or Brees to get to or win a Superbowl.

I wouldn't bet against someone like Matt Ryan, Jay Cutler, Tony Romo, Matt Stafford, Mark Sanchez, and Joe Flacco all getting to and even winning a Superbowl in the near future. None of them are QBs on the caliber of Brees/Manning/Brady/Rodgers. Ditto for Eli/Rivers/Roethlisberger/Schaub. They're good enough to win in the playoffs.

I also think the biggest difference in the quality of a Superbowl contender isn't drawn from the differences in their QBs but the differences in their OL and DL. Otherwise Peyton Manning would have had a lot more playoff success than he did.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Is anyone actually advocating having a crappy o-line?

[KDawg]

See, the key isn't necessarily to have one or the other, its to have a combination of them both while keeping possession of the football. That's all, that's it. We've turned the ball over more than the majority of NFL teams. We're ranked 30th in turnovers given away, and 24th in takeaways.

In short we're -15 in the turnover department. You don't win like that.

Winning is a combination of three facets of a football team.

Defensively, our defense 19th in points and 13th in yards.

Offensively we're 26th in points and 16th in yards.

Special Teams we've made several key mistakes and we're hitting 76% of our field goal attempts, our opponents are hitting 82%. Furthermore, they've taken 9 more attempts than we have. We have lost the battle in all three facets of football, and people want to single it out to just needing one thing or the other. We need to find a way to get all three facets working together, and yes, that does involve a quarterback.

Of our 34 turnovers, our quarterbacks account for a majority of them, to the tune of 23 interceptions, and Grossman fumbled 8 times, Beck 3. Those aren't all turnovers, necessarily, but those are opportunities. So between them, alone, they've given 34 turnover opportunities. Again, I realize that not all the fumbles were turnovers, but most of our turnovers are on their shoulders.

We need a quarterback, first and foremost, that is talented and can protect the ball. I don't think we need elite. We need good. So quarterback is imperative. But if you don't have a multi-faceted football team, it doesn't matter if you can throw.

Protect the ball and play team football. That's the recipe.

[stevemcqueen1]

I don't remember the game in detail, but I do remember that the Saints FAILED to run the ball against the Colts, and it came down to Brees simply outdueling Manning the entire game until the Tracy Porter pick 6. I remember the game clearly. Manning had a poor day on the whole according to his usual standards.

The issues were clear. The Saints had an elite offensive line which kept Brees clean as a whistle and Indy had a dreadful line that left Manning harassed all day. IIRC, Bill Polian himself blamed the OL for the loss. Poor trench play versus great trench play was absolutely the difference in that game.


The Packers beat the Steelers because Ben had an awful game. Granted, one of the INTs was because he got crushed by someone (can't remember who), but he probably shouldn't have thrown that ball to begin with. I would say that the Packers offense made the Steelers defense a non-factor, but that I think was more a matter of outgameplanning them (they took Polamalu out of the game entirely) than any particular LOS domination. I completely disagree. Again, this is a situation of a fantastic trenches team bullying a weak trenches team in the playoffs. The Packers had elite play from their OL and DL throughout the playoffs and had strong protections. The Steelers were racked by injuries on their front, losing Maurkice Pouncey right before the game was especially damning, and the DL was banged up.


The Giants are definitely the example proving your point. Steelers to an extent too. The Giants not only had a great DL, but people forget how good their OL was around that time too. It was the best in the league in 07 and one of the best in 08 (second to the Broncos and maybe behind the Titans). They bullied teams on both sides of the ball.

The Steelers have typically had great DLs, that was the case in 2008, and the Cardinals had a weak OL. But the Cardinals weren't a bad roster like you say. They had a great defense that year with several Probowl caliber players, and they had a tremendous group of WRs. They got hot in the playoffs largely because they got such dominant play from guys like Antonio Smith and Darnell Dockett around that time.

[Darth Tater]

Here's how I see it.

During the regular season, the magic question is "Can you score 30?". If you can score 30 against the bottom 25 defenses, then depending on your schedule, you can almost assuredly go 12-4.

But when you get to the playoffs, new questions arise. "Can you score 30 against the top 7 defenses?" and "Can you stop the other team from scoring 30?" Become far more important.

A franchise QB will almost assuredly guarantee you success in the regular season because it answers question one, but it does not necessarily answer questions 2 and 3, which is why the better all around teams go farther in the tournament.

So we must ask ourselves question one, "Can we score 30?" If the answer were yes, I would say we upgrade defense and running game. But the answer is most certainly NOT yes. We rarely score 25. So we start with our QB.
Yep, I think that's generally true that the best way you can be a perennial playoff contender though not a SB contender with an elite QB (10-6 will get you into the playoffs most years and 12-4 probably wins the division). There are teams that have used a different strategy but such teams are usually one-offs. Now, if you are looking to be a perennial SB contender? Well, then you need to be good top to bottom.

[Destino]

Jim Kelly and the Buffalo Bills, anyone? Kelly carried those teams to 4 straight but each time a better balanced team set them packing.

No, it's not all about the QB. It's all of the above.
The bust of Thurman Thomas sitting in the football hall of fame disagrees with you.

[KDawg]

The bust of Thurman Thomas sitting in the football hall of fame disagrees with you.

Well... although he neglected to mention Thurman Thomas, I think his point stands even more with you saying Thurman Thomas was a pivotal part of those teams (he was). Balance gets you places. Not necessarily in terms of ratios. But being able to successfully run and pass... That's the key.

And again. Keeping possession and forcing turnovers. Oh and field position.

So, again, all three facets come into play.

[SkinsHokieFan]

I don't think Mike Shanahan will have trouble building an effective running game in DC. It really is his speciality, what he has done his entire coaching career.

We just saw Evan Royster, with backup o-lineman, run for 130 yards against one of the better rush defenses in the NFL. Roy Helu had a nice streak of 100 yard games.

Historically we have struggled to run the ball vs the Giants (whatever the condition of their defense) and we ripped them twice this year on the ground. Even Seattle has a decent run D and we ran on them.

I am very confident Shanahan is very close to getting this running game to where he has had his running game in the past. I think it'll improve even more next year.

What needs to be addressed is the passing game, which thus far, and to be fair in his career, Mike Shanahan has had mixed (career) or bad (Washington) results with.

But I am not worried about our run game going forward so long as Kyle calls plays down the line like he has the past 5 weeks

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Having a great QB isn't the recipe for a Superbowl. The teams that win the most in the playoffs are the ones who most consistently control the LoS.

The great QBs that win Superbowls get great play from the guys on the LoS.



Explain the 2008 and 2010 Super Bowls.

Cardinals vs. Steelers - maybe the two worst offensive lines to ever make the Super Bowl.

2010 - Packers vs. Steelers. Steelers line was awful again. Packers had a mediocre line.

You seem to not actually watch football.

---------- Post added December-28th-2011 at 09:46 AM ----------


Jim Kelly and the Buffalo Bills, anyone? Kelly carried those teams to 4 straight but each time a better balanced team set them packing.

No, it's not all about the QB. It's all of the above.

That was 100 years ago in NFL time.

The league is not even the same as it was in 2000. Over the last six or seven years, it's morphed into a cousin of Arena Football.

In my opinion, the best offensive line in the NFL is Cleveland's. How is that working out for them?

[Fred Jones]

We need a quarterback, first and foremost, that is talented and can protect the ball. I don't think we need elite. We need good. So quarterback is imperative. But if you don't have a multi-faceted football team, it doesn't matter if you can throw.

Protect the ball and play team football. That's the recipe.

Reading some posts I just don't understand why anyone would present points that disagree with the above post.

At the top of the list of things to do this off season is to acquire a franchise QB. We can debate that QB has to be in the Brees/Rodgers/Brady mold, but said QB does have to be good enough to win during the season and playoffs.

Now, after we acquire a franchise QB, the FO needs to continue to draft well and continue to build the lines and continue to improve the rest of the team. Reading some of the posts it seems people think the FO is going to draft a QB and then stop. Of course they are going to continue to make sure the offense has weapons and lineman. Of course they are going to continue to build the defense.

Quality on both sides of the ball is the way to go. However, you don't get over the hump, hide your deficiencies and beat the other well-balanced teams without a quality QB.

No better examples than GB, Baltimore, and SF. Have to see if the best QB in football can overcome an average at best defense. Have to see if Flacco can finely overcome his lack of talent and win in the playoffs, and have to see if an average QB that manages the game is enough to win against two teams with elite QB's.

[SkinFaninOKC]

With Barkley going back to school and RG III and Landry Jones having not decided, yet they have alot of time to think about it, the lure of the large contract is no longer there. Perhaps the new trend will be more QB's staying through their Senior season, thus making them more pro ready. With Helu, Hightower, and the emergence of Royster our running game is getting better. If we are unable to draft RG III there isn't any frachise QB type left. I suppose the FO would have to draft one in the later rounds but that doesn't mean we'll get our Tom Brady. Yes we need a QB but as many others have said there are many holes to be filled.