StorminMormon86 wrote:CanesSkins26 wrote:What are the Broncos winning? They are 5-5 in a mediocre division.
And they're also 4-1 after Tebow has taken the reigns. Despite what you would classify as "mediocre" they are still winning games without passing the ball.
Even if you grant that the Broncos have been successful running the ball and are winning games, it still doesn't follow that they invalidate CanesSkins' observation that today's league is a passing league. Because it's not clear to me at all that what the Broncos are doing is sustainable. They look a lot like the Zorn team that managed to go 6-2 before falling apart: they are winning games, but not in ways that anyone can systematize or produce with any consistency. When you rely on an INT return for a TD or a big 4th quarter effort every time . . . well, you might hit a good streak but at some point you'll be losing more games than the ones you are winning.
Don't let the guy at the roulette table who's guessed right 4 out of 5 times fool you.
CanesSkins26 wrote:Other than Dilfer, most of that list is hall of fame caliber, and those that aren't, like Johnson and Eli, are very good players. Dilfer is really the lone exception and he needed a historically dominant defense to do it.
Why is Dilfer an exception? Because he refutes your point that you need a quality pass-heavy QB to go to the Superbowl (and win)?[/quote]
Dilfer is an exception because he's
an outlier. He's the exception that proves the rule, because it took, literally, a historically great defense to get the Ravens that far. (They almost didn't make the playoffs that year, by the way.)
In other words, CanesSkins can give you Dilfer and it doesn't make a dent on his argument. OK, if you have one of the top 3 defenses the NFL has ever seen, then no, you don't need an all-pro quarterback to win it all.
But which strategy should we try to gameplan for?
