It was extremely good - but it was also a bit of an outlier. In 1999, they allowed 277 points; in 2001, 265. In 1999, they trimmed that 271 average by more than a 100 (165). When you factor in they played prior to drastically favorable offensive rule changes and an overall offensive evolution (in 2000, 3 QBs topped 4,000 yards/passing; this year, the total was 11)... These days, you generally have to score points to win. In the divisional round this year, the 4 winning teams averaged 38.5 points/game. Last year, it was 34.5; in 2010, it 35.5. In 2000, Baltimore held 12 opponents (including playoffs) to single-digit (or zero) scores. In their 4 losses, they gave up 19, 10, 14 and 9 points. (Unreal.) I just don't think they could win and be *that* reliant on their defense today. And again, Dilfer was a below-average QB in 2000 - completed less than 60% of his passes; averaged less than 7 yards/attempt; threw 12 TDs to 11 INTs... In their 4 playoff games, he attempted 20+ passes in just one game and didn't complete more than 12 passes in any of them (and was single digits in 3 of them). He threw for 590 yards and 3 TDs total in 4 games... Matt Ryan went 396 and 3 Sunday. Which also underscores that the "yeah, but Trent Dilfer" defense is pretty terrible. You can hate Matt Schaub up and down and 15 different ways to Sunday - but is a light-years better QB than Trent Dilfer.
Did Troy Aikman play in the modern era of a high-powered offense-centered league? I don't think anyone is claiming that you needed an elite quarterback 20 years ago. But to the point, if you can put together hall of fame talent all over the rest of the field, you probably still don't need an elite QB. The question is whether it's easier to find a great QB or a collect a handful of hall of famers all over the field.
There weren't high powered offenses back then? And does it make elite QBs more or less necessary if the rules are more offense friendly now? If guys like RGiii and Kaepernick can be so effective, perhaps it's not worth throwing tons of money at an elite QB. You "probably" don't need an elite QB? How many of the 2013 Super Bowl QBs are elite? How about in the previous round? How many hall of famers do the 9ers and Ravens have on offense? The Cowboys of the mid 90s didn't have Hall of Famers all over the field. They had four, and that's including Sanders who didn't get there until 1995
No, but we have a lot of young QBs doing well. People forget about Andy Dalton, he's pretty good too and was drafted in the 2nd round. It does seem like more young QBs do well these days, meaning it's less necessary for us to chase and give up tons of picks for an elite QB.
younger qbs are starting earlier because they run sophisticated offenses in hs. They go to camps. No qbs came from texas because they ran the option up until the mid ninties.
IMO, no. In 12 NFL seasons, he never threw for more than 3,500 yards and topped 3,000+ just five times; threw 20+ TDs just once; threw double-digit INTs in 9 seasons*; he threw more INTs than TDs in four seasons; and he had more sub-80 QBRs (4) than 90+ (2). He was very good in the postseason but a fairly mediocre QB in the regular season. If the Cowboys had pulled an Oilers, and lost prior to the championship round every year they made the playoffs, there is NO WAY he makes the HoF. As is, those teams would have won multiple SBs with *a lot* of QBs as long as Smith and that OL were in place. (Not to mention Irvin and Novaceck.) He was the... 8th, 9th best offensive player on a lot of those teams, if not 10th, 11th. (* - double-digit INTs are not, by their lonesome, bad; but he topped 400 passing attempts in just 4 seasons - so he was throwing far more INTs, %-wise, than a lot of elite QBs who are throwing the same number of picks in 100-200 more attempts.)
The Ravens lost by a fg, yes to Batch. What is your point? Schaub lost to Christian Ponder....at home....while playing for the #1 overall seed. 23-6. Ouch.
he also destroyed the ravens who are going to the superbowl nitpicking is fun and all but the point i think he was trying to make is more than fair and accurate, i.e. flacco had a pretty pedestrian season and flat out looked bad in long stretches.
In 1995 Dallas' ENTIRE offensive line was on the All Pro Team..... Larry Allen: regarded as one of the best offensive linemen to ever play the game, there is only 1 reason he isn't in the hall: He's not eligible until later this year
I think the next Trent Dilfer is right around the corner. I think the dual-threat QB will last as long as their knees allow them, and we'll be right back where we started. None of these guys will be John Elway. Elway didn't change the game, Randall Cunningham didn't change the game, Michael Vick didn't change the game, and it's not going to change now. It will still take 11 guys on each side of the ball (plus a kicker or two) to win games in the NFL.
Offenses weren't nearly as high-powered back then. In 1993, the 49ers led the league with 473 points. The Superbowl-winning Cowboys were #2 with 376 points. This year, the Patriots scored 557 points. 15 teams scored more than 376 points. It makes having a great QB more important because you have to move the ball in chunks. You can't rely on Emmitt Smith to just ground out yards and win by scoring 20 points. In the modern era, unless you have an insane defense (Steelers, Ravens, Bucs), a great QB (Green Bay, NE, Indy, NO), or an Eli (consistently amazing in the playoffs somehow), you haven't won a Superbowl. SF may well have an elite QB, and Baltimore has an Eli impersonator and HOFers all over their defense. So yes, you probably can win without a great QB if you have great talent in other areas - it's just a hell of a lot more difficult. Sorry - to clarify, having 20% of your starting lineup be HOFers fits the mold of HOFers all over the field in my mind. That's a pretty impressive collection of talent.
I made my last reply before reading the next page. Great points on the rule changes that favor offenses. The game, in that regard, *has* changed. That said, those rule changes favor rookies or second-year players who just put the clipboard down as much as they favor "elite QBs". Who'd heard of Colin Kaepernick (sp?) before last September? It's still not too far-fetched to see an average-to-below-average QB win a SB ring. That's all I'm saying. And no, I'm not saying Schaub is comparable to Dilfer.
I don't know about "consistently amazing", but he had 2 great runs. He reminds me of flacco, when he is hot, he's among the best but when he is bad he is sanchez-like
So we don't need an elite QB. We need one who can get hot or one who may be considered elite in the future.
