QB or defense: what's the bigger problem?

I can only dream of what it would be like to have a franchise QB! I vote that QB is the biggest problem without a doubt. This Defense has really fallen apart from a high level in a short period, but the QB makes such a huge difference all by himself. A great QB is about as important as an entire defense and we certainly don't need an entirely new defense. I'm surprised so many people think it is the D that is the biggest concern. I guess some Redskins fans are just so used to this mediocre QB play. Not that these guys grow on trees, but find a great QB please please please.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TenandSix:Unacceptable http://www.thewarpath.net/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-locker-room/15165-qb-defense-whats-bigger-problem-post233291.html#post233291)
ANYONE WHO SAYS DEFENSE IS WRONG.
DEAD WRONG!

Have you been paying any attention to the missed tackles? The blown coverages? The injuries?



Have you been paying attention to football teams with good QB´s?

Essentially because of Joe Gibbs and Trent Dilfer, some people actually try to win without a franchise QB. Let´s look back at the last 20 years or so, shall we? Who wins superbowls?

Ben Rothlisberger
Brady times three
Brad Johnson
Trent Dilfer
Kurt Warner
John Elway times two
Brett Favre
Troy Aikman times three
Steve Young
Mark Rypien
Jeff Hostetler
Joe Montana times two
Doug Williams
Phil Simms

Now, my point is, that out of the last twenty SB winners, 15 were won with franchise QB´s. That´s 75%. It´s no coincidence that the teams with franchise QB´s are consistantly in it, year after year. The Redskins QB´s, Rypien and Williams, had solid if not spectacular careers, but had incredible SB performances. Dilfer is another QB on the list who had done very little else in his career. Hostetler and Johnson had solid careers but weren´t franchise QB´s. Warner is the lowest rated in my opinion out of the Franchise group. But he went again two years later and lost in an upset to a young guy named Brady. He bloomed late, and luckily for the Rams they cut him as soon as his skills had diminished. To me, what most of you are trying to say is that you´d rather take the Gibbsian approach to winning. Build the team around the QB first thinking that we can win it with a servicable QB who gets hot as the team around him peaks. Obviously, as Gibbs is our coach again, it makes sense to me and has the ring of foolishness to suggest otherwise. However, just imagine if we had a franchise QB? Would you trade that player for all the players and the members of the coaching staff of the #1 defense in the league? Do you trade Peyton Manning or Tom Brady for the Bears D? Absolutely not.

Let me repeat that: ABSOLUTELY NOT!

So, my point is that it all starts with a QB. Perhaps in other places the need is not quite as dire as it is here for us here in Skinsland. We haven´t had a franchise QB for decades and it is time to make that priority number one.

Franchise QBs don't grow on trees.

You have a chance with Campbell, but if he doesn't end up being a great player, you will have to satisfied with above average QB play for a long time. Or just complain a lot, whatever floats your boat.

it's funny.

last year we needed an O to go with our stellar D. we need new players and a new system to open it up.

this year, in my opinion, the offense is doing okay. now though, we need a new fucking D to hold opponents to under TWENTY fucking points.

what a turnaround. i know one TD was in garbage time. last year though, we score 21+, we win.

ugh.

damn redskins will break your heart.

I cannot believe that we haven't had a franchise QB since Joey T. Brad Johnson was decent, but we didn't have him that long. Trent Green was good for a season. Rich Gannon wasn't great until he left Washington. I think we're due for a good QB.

definantly the qb... why?

Because all teams line 9 in the box and dare us to throw it deep and we can't. Brunnell cannont convert when it counts and causes the d to stay on the field for long periods of time. the d is bad but brunnel is worst

definantly the qb... why?

Because all teams line 9 in the box and dare us to throw it deep and we can't. Brunnell cannont convert when it counts and causes the d to stay on the field for long periods of time. the d is bad but brunnel is worst

What causes the d to stay on the field is the fact that they can't stop the other team. They are average at best against the run. Horrible in coverage and can't rush the passer. Brunnel can be criticized for a lot of things but I think blaming him for the way the defense has played is a bit much.

It's the defense. 22 points would have been enough to win most games in 04 or 05. They are a below average group, injuries notwithstanding.

well, for that game it was a garbage TD against prevent, and you need a LOT of points to beat peyton (usually). in our losses, our offense hasn't been getting it done either, even though the jacksonville, houston, and end of the indy game pad the stats. 3 of those 4 games weren't even close on either side of the ball.

What makes a quarterback a "Franchise QB"? Is there some definition?

What makes a quarterback a "Franchise QB"? Is there some definition?

i guess someone who can keep you in games and doesn't make a ton of stupid mistakes, can make all the throws, and can make something out of nothing every so often. starting young is another part of it, since you have to be around a while playing at a high level relative to league average.

This thread misses the point. We can't do anything about our defense other than hope they get better. At QB, we at least have options.