hoops23;1155898 wrote:So, do QB's decide Super Bowls? What decides Super Bowls? Eli Manning has two Super Bowl rings, but people always credit the run game and defense for both his wins, mixed in with some timely throws by Eli.
Peyton is arguably the best QB of our generation and he has 1 ring to show for it....
As I said before, Rivers, Ryan, Flacco, Sanchez, Cutler, Romo, Vick, Young, Leinert, etc... None of them have really made much noise in the postseason...
So what decides Super Bowls?
Trent Richardson was a no brainer. No way that pick should get anything less than an A. And so what if we gave up ATL's 4th, our 5th and 7th? We basically got the 4th back.
People will bitch when the Browns trade down, such as last year when we traded down and selected Phil Taylor. They bitched because we didn't draft Julio.
When the Browns actually move up to get their guy, people still bitch.
It's amazing.
And who the fuck is Pete Prisco? He sounds like a dumb shit.
I'm very probably too drunk to reasonably answer you right now... but here goes:
Pete Prisco is a national writer for CBS Sports. I admittedly typed "NFL draft grades" into google to look for unbiased opinions, and clicked the first link that was a) not bleacher report, and b) not for day 1 only (I was looking at his grades for round 2 (B+ I think) and 3 (C+ maybe? Which is way too high)), but I checked day 1 too out of curiosity, and it fit into S&L's point.
There have pretty clearly been 2 things to decide Super Bowls over the last decade: defenses and QBs. You either need a great QB (Brady, Peyton, Brees, Rodgers), a great D (Baltimore, Tampa), or be very solid in both (Pittsburgh, Giants). I'm not a big Eli fan, but I don't deny his playoff numbers. He's been awesome in the postseason. The Giants D sucked for most of the year, but plenty of people talked over the last 2-3 weeks of the season and the playoffs about how much better the Giants defense was playing, and they carried them for a lot of the 1st Super Bowl run.
The issue wasn't the picks that were given up, it was giving up picks at all. Let alone 3 of them. For 1 spot. For a position that isn't make or break in the NFL anymore.
If you think an RB will put the Browns over the top, I would ask for 1 example of that happening in the last 10 years. C is definitely low, but A is definitely high in my opinion. The league is different now then it was even when AP was drafted.
I know this comment wasn't directed right at me, but I've been saying for months that I didn't think there was great value to be had at #4 and my ideal scenario was to trade down and add another 2nd round pick.
Also, why bring up Young (backup), Leinart (backup), Sanchez (running out of chances), or Cutler (hugely overrated from the time he was drafted)? They were high picks, but not good players. Just because some QBs bust doesn't mean QB isn't a position that can put a team over the top. Only 1 team wins the Super Bowl every year, but Vick is 53-37-1 as a starter, Rivers is 63-33, and Romo is 47-30, so even the legitimate QBs that aren't winning are putting their teams in position to at least compete more often then not.
By my math, 8 of the top 10 QBs in passing yards made the playoffs last year, and 9/10 went 8-8 or better (Cam Newton the only one who didn't at 6-10).
5 of the top 10 in rushing yards missed the playoffs (as did 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18). Steven Jackson, MJD, and Marshawn Lynch won 2, 5, and 7 games. You need to be able to run some, but a stud running back hasn't been a difference maker in so long that I don't know how you could possibly argue that.
