Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

all great qbs had great coaches


BigSyke

Recommended Posts

A great QB/coach combo certainly makes things easier. But it is not the end all be all. Solid defense and line play can certainly make up for a mediocre QB or coach.

i.e.: Ravens with Dilfer and Billick, Bucs with Gruden and Brad Johnson...Steelers with Roethlisberger?

With the game changing so much now, a great QB is likely more needed than a great coach, though. As long as that coach is competent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one constant with very few exceptions for any winning NFL team is the QB. Teams that won it all with average QBs (Tampa Bay, Baltimore) just got hot and lucky.

Yes, they need lines and WRs,but a good QB makes everyone better, including the coach.

Was Jim Caldwell a good coach when the Colts nearly went undefeated? How good is Tomlin without Rothelesberger? Is Coughlin a difference maker when Manning is not on his game? I wonder if Bill Bellichek (sp?) would have ever been more than average if he did not have Brady. He was not great with Bledsoe.

Harbaugh may be the exception to this rule, but he knows to develop the QB you have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hall of fame coach Joe Gibbs never had a great qb. A lot of people would say that Parcells never had a great qb.

Of course, both of those guys did their best work before the salary cap was adopted.

And they also coached a game where defense and the run game ruled and the rules to pass the ball weren't in yet. You needed a game manager no Brady to win it all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • If there's a pattern I'm definitely picking up from Dan and company is a philosophy of making trades where we try not to sacrifice the number of draft picks we have by day's end. In other words, we're not giving up three picks for one, or giving up a future pick to make a pick today. And even if we give up something at the start, we make trades later to make up for that initial loss. Here's how it stacked up for 2026: How we started: 19, 51, 83, 119, 158, 159, 200 How we ended: 19, 49, 83, 129, 144, 151, 227 (no future picks sacrificed) Ultimately, we moved up two spots in the second to ensure we got someone we coveted, gave up a few spots for our fourth round pick, but then had better picks in the 5th (and got really good value out of them), and had a worse 7th rounder which isn't that big of a loss anyways.  At this point, we can question who they draft, but they're pretty good maneuvering across the draft board.
    • I just saw the funniest thing...or very disappointing, depending how you handle misery. A guy on YouTube did a 2027 'way too early' mock draft.  If I told you the simulator has the Panthers selecting in the top 10 , what would you say?  If I told you it was pick #8 and only two QBs were taken in the top 7, what would you say?  If I told you this dude had us taking a defensive player, what would you say?
    • It is due diligence at that point. Irresponsible not to take him.  Crossing my fingers on this one, he has everything you look for except experience.  
×
×
  • Create New...