This right here is a big issue with too many fans - unrealistic expectations. Yes, if you're one of 12 teams in the playoffs, you're a "legit contender." Did anyone think Baltimore was a "legit contender" two years ago? The key is to make the postseason - from there, anything can happen. Case in point, only twice in the past 14 years have the two #1 seeds advanced to the Super Bowl. And altogether, only 13 of the 28 #1 seeds have advanced to the Super Bowl. I can't fathom how a team that won 11 games back-to-back isn't a "legit contender."
I would argue yes. There are plenty of examples of lower seeds and such getting hot and winning it all. Not saying you're the favorite or anything, but if you make it into the playoffs in the NFL, you have a legit shot.
I'm going to address your second point first. The key isn't to be a "legit contender" because, frankly, that means absolutely nothing. How often has Peyton Manning been a legit contender? The key is to make the playoffs; that's it - trying to slot playoff teams is silly: anyone can win it... IF you're in the playoffs. And your are FAR more likely to make the playoffs if you have a good QB. What Flacco illustrates is that it takes a good QB to win a Super Bowl. His poor play was the primary reason most people didn't think they had a chance; he got hot and... So which is more likely: someone like Andrew Luck heating up for three games, or someone like Joe Flacco? Who would you put your hard-earned money on?
So what you're saying is that teams don't need good QB's, they just need their QB to get lucky for a few games....if that's the case, why would anyone make the trade? If a mediocre QB like Flacco can put together a few good games, why couldn't damn near any mediocre QB do the same?
Luck is in his 3rd year and has gotten better each year. He has led two teams to the playoffs that have a mediocre defense and no running game or offensive line. He currently leads the NFL in yards and TDS with a 100+ QB Rating. He doesn't have to get any better than he is today to make the trade worth it. Texans are in the playoffs this year if Luck is on the team and healthy - and likely in the mix for the next 10-15 years as well. JJ Watt, as awesome as he is, simply cannot have that impact on the game. How so? The Giants didn't have an elite defense the last time they won the SB - they did it on the back of great QB play. But besides that, the fact that you are comparing a single player (a QB) to an entire unit (a defense) is kind of the point here. If the option were to trade the Seattle Defense for Luck, that's a different discussion. But one defensive player is not an entire unit. You can be in the playoffs and win Superbowls any number of ways. But if you have a great QB, you will have a consistency and floor for your team that you will not get from a great player at any other position. The examples Nick gave earlier - Dalton, Caepernick, Wilson, etc - have only been in the mix for 2-3 years now. Keeping those defenses elite for 10-15 years will be much harder than keeping Luck elite for 10-15 years.
Similarly, the Giants showed that a bad defense can play great for a few games too and win a SB, so why build a defense? In both cases, it's for the same reason that you do anything - probability. You're more likely to get 3-4 great games out of the Seattle defense than you are the Jags defense. You're more likely to get 3-4 great games of Andrew Luck than Ryan Fitzpatrick.
Some of those QB's were no longer with their original teams that drafted them... that counts all of the playoff appearances by Cutler, Brees, Alex Smith, Broncos Manning. When you subtract that from your total, it starts to even out. I'm already on board with saying they need to not pass up on a stud, if available... which is where you have former overall #1's with their original teams still there (Eli, Newton, Luck, Stafford)....but I've yet to see that guy on the board when they've had the chance.
I'd say Eli was closer to Schaub than Peyton for the SB runs. And their defense was good enough to get Spagnoulo a head coaching job.
I'm I'm not comparing Luck to an entire defense. The relevant comparison is luck vs other qbs. He's not even better than Philip Rivers. Are the Chargers always in the mix?
I'd put my money on Watt. Luck didn't post a 90 QB rating his first two years. People are going by the eye test too much.
But he's younger and has many more years to get even better than he is right now, which is pretty damn good. Again...we're not just talking about this year. We're talking (hypothetically) about what's best for your franchise for the next 10 years. I love JJ Watt - he is literally the best football player in the NFL. But I would rather be set at QB for the next decade than set at DE for the next decade.
Sure you were. You said a great defense with a good QB would always be in the mix, just like a great QB. Why make that statement if you're not comparing the effectiveness of a QB to an entire defense? Given the choice between Rivers and Luck, every franchise in the NFL would take Luck going forward given his age and trajectory. But that said, the Chargers have been in the mix more than most teams. Assuming they don't collapse this year, they'll have been in the playoffs in 6 of his 9 years, and finished 2nd in their division in the other 3 years they didn't make the playoffs. For the last decade, he's probably the top ranked QB after the big 4. An NFL team should take a decade of prime Rivers over a decade of prime Watt too. And that all said, I don't see why that's the relevant comparison. Unless you have access to a Rivers as an alternative, then it has no impact on a decision between Luck and Watt.
Sure why not, never going to realistically happen though. Luck does make his fair share of mistakes but isn't it his 3rd season in the NFL? If we actually had a better offense + offensive line...
