Sing's opinion on the QB position . . .

Originally posted by Goldtimer:

Originally posted by ajsjohnson:
I think many of you are getting caught up in the wrong details. It is true that simply having a good QB will not guarantee success, just as having a mediocre one doesn't guarantee failure. A good OL is important either way--that is not really up for debate. The big issue for us as 49ers fans is that we have neither a great QB (yet, at least) nor a great OL (hopefully we just changed that). Having both dramatically improves our chances, and pretending that the QB isn't important--as Sing is doing--is not helpful. We are on the cusp of actual success for the first time in a decade and it is at risk of being undone very quickly should Smith regress. Not being able to pass effectively will be a huge problem, no matter how well we run block. I am rooting that Smith takes a quantum leap forward, but if he doesn't and we are stuck in neutral offensively, then we need a plan B and guess what--Sing's lack of attention to the QB position means that we don't have one. Grooming a young QB this year was critical to ensure that we hedged our bets at that position; Davis may be that guy, but with a learning disability and zero reps that is looking unlikely in the near term. IF Smith fails, be prepared for us to draft a young QB again next year and throw him into the fire....that does not likely translate into lots of wins, and we may be sitting watching as a really good defense and RB is wasted waiting for this new guy to learn the ropes.

I think you're taking his words a little too literally. To me he's saying the QB is just as important as the rest of the guys around him equally. The problem is we have fans that think they know exactly what's going to happen. Did the Rams know what they had in Kurt Warner before they lost Trent Green? Did the Pats know what they had in Tom Brady? Stop with all the what ifs and trust in what the coaches visions are. Let me give you a taste of what you are doing. IF he didn't think the QB was important than we would still have Martz as our OC with JT at QB and Vernon would've been blocking all game last year.

Perhaps, but in the cases you cited I think that 1. Martz was actually MORE concerned with QB play than Sing wanted to be, hence the switch to the much more conservative Raye, 2. Sing was more concerned with the fact that JT was turning the ball over more often than a short order cook turned over pancakes at IHOP than his actual QB related performance (comp %, TDs, efficiency) and 3. VD was used more because the running game bogged down early in the season and we had to change offensive gears midstream to be competitive

These are just opinions, obviously, but my main point is that Sing simply does not feel that a top QB is necessary to win in the NFL. He's right--it isn't. But to win a super bowl (that is the goal right? Or are we so beaten down as fans we just aim for a winning season and an early playoff exit?), i am saying that you better have a redonkulous defense and an unparalleled ability to control the ball if you hope to win with an average QB. Look at history and you will see that that didn't happen very often....

Don't get me wrong--Sing blows the doors off of any coach we've had since the suckage began. I am just ready to win now, and I am in skeptical mode until given reason to feel otherwise.

Originally posted by gold49er2183:
I think it starts with the o-line. a good o-line can make a bad qb look great. no hate on tom brady but were would he be if he had a bad o-line his whole career

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by qnnhan7:

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by qnnhan7:

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by Ripamaru:

Originally posted by tommyncal:
Does anyone else find this statement by Singletary perplexing or even scary? "To me, I still believe the quarterback position is really important. But I don't think it's what they make it out to be. 'The quarterback is the most important guy"...' I don't believe that. I really don't."
Seems like every coach, analyst or whoever, that has anything to do with the NFL, has stated, at one time or another, it all starts with the QB. Just curious how many of you believe the same or are you worried about Sing's vision and plan for this team into the future? I understand it takes more than just a QB to win, but, if you had to choose between a franchise QB and franchise (insert any other position) . . . I'll take the QB

The QB is not the most important. This is a fact that many fail to accept.

Offensive line is by far the most important part of the team. Without a solid offensive line there isnt a single QB on the planet that can succeed at the NFL level.

There have been super bowl champions without a good QB (Trent Dilfer), There have been champions without a good RB, Without legit WR's, there have even been champs with poor defense (rams).

There has NEVER been a championship team with a crap O-line. EVER.

You should NEVER start to build a team with a QB. It always fails. (Couch, Carr etc.) All you will get is the QB killed. Why most have yet to figure this out is beyond me.

Peyton Manning came into the league with a great LT already in place. The proper mold would is to start building the o-line first. Once that is solid then and only then do you start thinking QB.

Think of it this way. If you have a GREAT offensive line it has a trickle down effect. You can get by without a great QB because he will have all day to sit back and pick his spots. The line will open up huge holes for the running game lowering the need for a great RB. Any half decent WR can get open every play if he has enough time.
The great O-line also makes the defense better just by keeping them off the field with clock control. A fresh defense is HUGE.

The QB by himself cannot do any of those things in the NFL.

Offensive lines don't make mediocre quarterbacks great. You can't give me one recent scenario when a below average quarterback turned into a great quarterback because of an offensive line. Troy Aikman might be the closest thing you can come to, but he was the 1st pick in the draft going to real bad team, and he developed in year 4 not year 16 like Alex.

Everybody points to Baltimore and Trent Dilfer. Baltimore arguably had the best defense of all time, and a 2,000 yard rusher. Good luck trying to recreate that. Yeah you're right you can win without a QB in this league, but your odds aren't that great. Look at Baltimore. Yeah they got a Super Bowl, but they severely underachieved given how dominant that defense was and how good that offensive line was. They had alot of 8-8 years during that stretch.

I don't think anyone is talking about putting in a crappy qb and expecting to have the o-line bail him out. But the o-line can certainly make an average NFL qb into a good one. Washington back in the Joe Gibbs days had done it with Rippien and others. The Giants had Phil Simms, slow average, he had the advantage of knowing he system, a good line, running game and defense. Pittsburg Steelers in the 70's had Bradshaw, as average as you can get, great o-line and defense.

The league has changed since 1982. I prefer recent examples when free agency actually effected a team's lineup. If your going back 20 -30 years to prove your point you have a huge problem. Rypien's a good example I mentioned Grbac and Green in Kansas City. That's the best I could think of.

My point is that it worked though out history of the NFL. Recently, off the top Brad Johnson of Tampa Bay. I'm sure I can find more if I take the time to look further. But let me try to forget that you ask for example of putting average qb into good o-line but now request to narrow those example into recent ones.

Of course you can.

Jeff Jeff Hostetler, Phil Sims, Elvis Grbac, Rich Gannon, Chris Chandler, more recently Jake Delhomme (many argued between 2003 - 2005 he was a top NFL QB), Marc Bulger, (or any Rams QB after Pace broke down, including Warner who was cut, picked up by the Giants and thought to be washed up), Trent Greene ala Washington Redskins (not the Chiefs version) .... these are just the ones from memory. I'm SURE I can extend this list if I really researched.

Not buying any Rams QB. Those teams gave up 40 sacks a season do to Mad Martz crazy scheme (even with a healthy Orlando Pace). Not a great example of a good O line. Not really buying Rich Gannon in Oakland either.

+ Show all quotes
? Kurt Warner and Marc Bulger with blocking isn't a buy? Serious not a great example of a good line when leading the league in all statistical offensive categories in 1999 and leaders in 2000? Back-to-back Super Bowl appearances. Rich Gannon not a great example? Super Bowl appearance? Had enough time to throw to an aging Jerry Rice?

Sorry man but I'm not sure about your reasoning here. It seems to be a bit extreme.

Kurt Warner is a Hall of Famer, and has been to the Super Bowl with multiple teams. He doesn't qualify as a below average QB by any means. I conceed that Orlando Pace is a Hall Famer and St Louis line was spectular in 99-00, but after that it was giving up 40 sacks a season every single year. Kurt Warner was perceived to be washed up because he took a beaten like no other for years in St Louis.

As for Oakland what is so great about that line? Barry Sims, Frank Middleton, Barrett Robbins, Mo Collins, Lincoln Kennedy. Lincoln Kennedy was a d*mn good tackle I give you that, and you can make a case for Robbins being good before he went crazy, but that's not a great offensive line, and there's a reason why the Raiders only started winning when Gannon and Gruden was there.

LOL! Warner has been to the Super Bowl with 2 teams - I guess that qualifies as multiple and in both cases, they had good OLs. Are you seriously going to argue the Cards didn't have a good line when they went to the Super Bowl? You're going to make the same argument about the Raiders line?

I think you're assuming that once a good line, always a good line and once a great QB, always a great QB.

This certainly IS NOT the case for Warner or any other QB that doesn't have consistency in blocking. Again ask yourself how the Cardinals acquired Warner. It wasn't a bidding war, there wasn't a 32-team league wide demand. Even after he won a SB, conventional wisdom was that he was washed up and in total decline, brought to Arizona (like he had in New York) to help mentor Lienart.

I think your definition of "great QB" is quite only done in hindsight. The same thing happened to Gannon who was the league MVP the season they went to the bowl who before we went to the Raiders was considered a "journeyman" NFL QB. That Raider offense has 2 great/outstanding seasons with John Gruden as HC, followed by Bill Callahan. What was so great about that OL? Well it put the Raiders in the World Championship much more recent than ANY 49er OL has since 1994.

You can't prove a QB is good or great until they actually HAVE the a great team around them, at the very least a good OL in which they operate behind.

Yes, there are some qualities that are innate, but again, you don't need a HOF QB to win it all. And for many HOF QBs they HAD a good/great line around them with help to get over the hump.

There's just way too much evidence out there.

Arizona has a great line? You mean the same Arizona Cardinal team that has finished 32nd and 28th in rushing over the past 2 seasons and has 0 Pro Bowlers. Let's see how great that line looks with Matt Leinart at the helm. My guess it's going to be exposed.

I clearly see your thinking. If a team wins their line has to be great. End of story. There's no point in arguing with you if you believe that.

Kurt Warner wasn't healthy in New York. Alot of that has to do with the beatings he took St Louis. Another thing is not every quarterback fits every scheme. Take a look at the decrease in Favre's game in New York. New York has undisputely the best line in football yet he struggled pretty badly with Jets. Minus one 5 TD against Arizona and he really didn't do much even before you account for his injuries. Yeah the Jets were 8-1 but most of those games weren't won because of Favre's play.

Rich Gannon may have been a journey man, but he was the prototypical quarterback for the West Coast offense. Good weapons, terrific offensive coach, and I'm not saying it was a bad offensive line. That Oakland team was giving 50+ sacks for 3 straight seasons before that. Yeah they added some pieces in Barry Sims and Mo Collins but both of those guys are average at best lineman. You insert Jeff George back into that line and it's giving up 50 sacks.

[ Edited by tjd808185 on Apr 28, 2010 at 08:20:42 ]

Originally posted by MSteitz468:

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by Ripamaru:

Originally posted by tommyncal:
Does anyone else find this statement by Singletary perplexing or even scary? "To me, I still believe the quarterback position is really important. But I don't think it's what they make it out to be. 'The quarterback is the most important guy"...' I don't believe that. I really don't."
Seems like every coach, analyst or whoever, that has anything to do with the NFL, has stated, at one time or another, it all starts with the QB. Just curious how many of you believe the same or are you worried about Sing's vision and plan for this team into the future? I understand it takes more than just a QB to win, but, if you had to choose between a franchise QB and franchise (insert any other position) . . . I'll take the QB

+ Show all quotes


The QB is not the most important. This is a fact that many fail to accept.

Offensive line is by far the most important part of the team. Without a solid offensive line there isnt a single QB on the planet that can succeed at the NFL level.

There have been super bowl champions without a good QB (Trent Dilfer), There have been champions without a good RB, Without legit WR's, there have even been champs with poor defense (rams).

There has NEVER been a championship team with a crap O-line. EVER.

You should NEVER start to build a team with a QB. It always fails. (Couch, Carr etc.) All you will get is the QB killed. Why most have yet to figure this out is beyond me.

Peyton Manning came into the league with a great LT already in place. The proper mold would is to start building the o-line first. Once that is solid then and only then do you start thinking QB.

Think of it this way. If you have a GREAT offensive line it has a trickle down effect. You can get by without a great QB because he will have all day to sit back and pick his spots. The line will open up huge holes for the running game lowering the need for a great RB. Any half decent WR can get open every play if he has enough time.
The great O-line also makes the defense better just by keeping them off the field with clock control. A fresh defense is HUGE.

The QB by himself cannot do any of those things in the NFL.

Offensive lines don't make mediocre quarterbacks great. You can't give me one recent scenario when a below average quarterback turned into a great quarterback because of an offensive line. Troy Aikman might be the closest thing you can come to, but he was the 1st pick in the draft going to real bad team, and he developed in year 4 not year 16 like Alex.

Everybody points to Baltimore and Trent Dilfer. Baltimore arguably had the best defense of all time, and a 2,000 yard rusher. Good luck trying to recreate that. Yeah you're right you can win without a QB in this league, but your odds aren't that great. Look at Baltimore. Yeah they got a Super Bowl, but they severely underachieved given how dominant that defense was and how good that offensive line was. They had alot of 8-8 years during that stretch.

Everything you just said can be applied to the 49ers this year.

Except for the top 5 defense of all time thing.

Originally posted by Ripamaru:

Originally posted by tommyncal:
Does anyone else find this statement by Singletary perplexing or even scary? "To me, I still believe the quarterback position is really important. But I don't think it's what they make it out to be. 'The quarterback is the most important guy"...' I don't believe that. I really don't."
Seems like every coach, analyst or whoever, that has anything to do with the NFL, has stated, at one time or another, it all starts with the QB. Just curious how many of you believe the same or are you worried about Sing's vision and plan for this team into the future? I understand it takes more than just a QB to win, but, if you had to choose between a franchise QB and franchise (insert any other position) . . . I'll take the QB

The QB is not the most important. This is a fact that many fail to accept.

Facts are like ' the sun is coming up tomorrow', 'gravity' and 'taxes'. The QB being the most important position is an opinion or debate. Sorry, I fail to accept your so-called Fact.

Originally posted by qnnhan7:
Only perplexing on a slow off season news day. For the rest of us who are supportive 49ers fan, we understand what he's trying to say. And it's a non-issue.

Up to 9 pages of a 'non-issue'.

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by qnnhan7:

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by qnnhan7:

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by Ripamaru:

Originally posted by tommyncal:
Does anyone else find this statement by Singletary perplexing or even scary? "To me, I still believe the quarterback position is really important. But I don't think it's what they make it out to be. 'The quarterback is the most important guy"...' I don't believe that. I really don't."
Seems like every coach, analyst or whoever, that has anything to do with the NFL, has stated, at one time or another, it all starts with the QB. Just curious how many of you believe the same or are you worried about Sing's vision and plan for this team into the future? I understand it takes more than just a QB to win, but, if you had to choose between a franchise QB and franchise (insert any other position) . . . I'll take the QB

The QB is not the most important. This is a fact that many fail to accept.

Offensive line is by far the most important part of the team. Without a solid offensive line there isnt a single QB on the planet that can succeed at the NFL level.

There have been super bowl champions without a good QB (Trent Dilfer), There have been champions without a good RB, Without legit WR's, there have even been champs with poor defense (rams).

There has NEVER been a championship team with a crap O-line. EVER.

You should NEVER start to build a team with a QB. It always fails. (Couch, Carr etc.) All you will get is the QB killed. Why most have yet to figure this out is beyond me.

Peyton Manning came into the league with a great LT already in place. The proper mold would is to start building the o-line first. Once that is solid then and only then do you start thinking QB.

Think of it this way. If you have a GREAT offensive line it has a trickle down effect. You can get by without a great QB because he will have all day to sit back and pick his spots. The line will open up huge holes for the running game lowering the need for a great RB. Any half decent WR can get open every play if he has enough time.
The great O-line also makes the defense better just by keeping them off the field with clock control. A fresh defense is HUGE.

The QB by himself cannot do any of those things in the NFL.

Offensive lines don't make mediocre quarterbacks great. You can't give me one recent scenario when a below average quarterback turned into a great quarterback because of an offensive line. Troy Aikman might be the closest thing you can come to, but he was the 1st pick in the draft going to real bad team, and he developed in year 4 not year 16 like Alex.

Everybody points to Baltimore and Trent Dilfer. Baltimore arguably had the best defense of all time, and a 2,000 yard rusher. Good luck trying to recreate that. Yeah you're right you can win without a QB in this league, but your odds aren't that great. Look at Baltimore. Yeah they got a Super Bowl, but they severely underachieved given how dominant that defense was and how good that offensive line was. They had alot of 8-8 years during that stretch.

I don't think anyone is talking about putting in a crappy qb and expecting to have the o-line bail him out. But the o-line can certainly make an average NFL qb into a good one. Washington back in the Joe Gibbs days had done it with Rippien and others. The Giants had Phil Simms, slow average, he had the advantage of knowing he system, a good line, running game and defense. Pittsburg Steelers in the 70's had Bradshaw, as average as you can get, great o-line and defense.

The league has changed since 1982. I prefer recent examples when free agency actually effected a team's lineup. If your going back 20 -30 years to prove your point you have a huge problem. Rypien's a good example I mentioned Grbac and Green in Kansas City. That's the best I could think of.

My point is that it worked though out history of the NFL. Recently, off the top Brad Johnson of Tampa Bay. I'm sure I can find more if I take the time to look further. But let me try to forget that you ask for example of putting average qb into good o-line but now request to narrow those example into recent ones.

Of course you can.

Jeff Jeff Hostetler, Phil Sims, Elvis Grbac, Rich Gannon, Chris Chandler, more recently Jake Delhomme (many argued between 2003 - 2005 he was a top NFL QB), Marc Bulger, (or any Rams QB after Pace broke down, including Warner who was cut, picked up by the Giants and thought to be washed up), Trent Greene ala Washington Redskins (not the Chiefs version) .... these are just the ones from memory. I'm SURE I can extend this list if I really researched.

Not buying any Rams QB. Those teams gave up 40 sacks a season do to Mad Martz crazy scheme (even with a healthy Orlando Pace). Not a great example of a good O line. Not really buying Rich Gannon in Oakland either.

? Kurt Warner and Marc Bulger with blocking isn't a buy? Serious not a great example of a good line when leading the league in all statistical offensive categories in 1999 and leaders in 2000? Back-to-back Super Bowl appearances. Rich Gannon not a great example? Super Bowl appearance? Had enough time to throw to an aging Jerry Rice?

Sorry man but I'm not sure about your reasoning here. It seems to be a bit extreme.

+ Show all quotes
Kurt Warner is a Hall of Famer, and has been to the Super Bowl with multiple teams. He doesn't qualify as a below average QB by any means. I conceed that Orlando Pace is a Hall Famer and St Louis line was spectular in 99-00, but after that it was giving up 40 sacks a season every single year. Kurt Warner was perceived to be washed up because he took a beaten like no other for years in St Louis.

As for Oakland what is so great about that line? Barry Sims, Frank Middleton, Barrett Robbins, Mo Collins, Lincoln Kennedy. Lincoln Kennedy was a d*mn good tackle I give you that, and you can make a case for Robbins being good before he went crazy, but that's not a great offensive line, and there's a reason why the Raiders only started winning when Gannon and Gruden was there.

LOL! Warner has been to the Super Bowl with 2 teams - I guess that qualifies as multiple and in both cases, they had good OLs. Are you seriously going to argue the Cards didn't have a good line when they went to the Super Bowl? You're going to make the same argument about the Raiders line?

I think you're assuming that once a good line, always a good line and once a great QB, always a great QB.

This certainly IS NOT the case for Warner or any other QB that doesn't have consistency in blocking. Again ask yourself how the Cardinals acquired Warner. It wasn't a bidding war, there wasn't a 32-team league wide demand. Even after he won a SB, conventional wisdom was that he was washed up and in total decline, brought to Arizona (like he had in New York) to help mentor Lienart.

I think your definition of "great QB" is quite only done in hindsight. The same thing happened to Gannon who was the league MVP the season they went to the bowl who before we went to the Raiders was considered a "journeyman" NFL QB. That Raider offense has 2 great/outstanding seasons with John Gruden as HC, followed by Bill Callahan. What was so great about that OL? Well it put the Raiders in the World Championship much more recent than ANY 49er OL has since 1994.

You can't prove a QB is good or great until they actually HAVE the a great team around them, at the very least a good OL in which they operate behind.

Yes, there are some qualities that are innate, but again, you don't need a HOF QB to win it all. And for many HOF QBs they HAD a good/great line around them with help to get over the hump.

There's just way too much evidence out there.

Arizona has a great line? You mean the same Arizona Cardinal team that has finished 32nd and 28th in rushing over the past 2 seasons and has 0 Pro Bowlers. Let's see how great that line looks with Matt Leinart at the helm. My guess it's going to be exposed.

I clearly see your thinking. If a team wins their line has to be great. End of story. There's no point in arguing with you if you believe that.

Kurt Warner wasn't healthy in New York. Alot of that has to do with the beatings he took St Louis. Another thing is not every quarterback fits every scheme. Take a look at the decrease in Favre's game in New York. New York has undisputely the best line in football yet he struggled pretty badly with Jets. Minus one 5 TD against Arizona and he really didn't do much even before you account for his injuries. Yeah the Jets were 8-1 but most of those games weren't won because of Favre's play.

Rich Gannon may have been a journey man, but he was the prototypical quarterback for the West Coast offense. I was thinking about Jeff Garcia for a second and thought I could be wrong about Gannon and the Raiders. Garcia is very similiar to Gannon in alot of ways and he's someone who clearly backs up your point. You give him a line, weapons, a good offensive mind that suits him, and he's great. You don't and he sucks balls. I can't win them all.

[ Edited by tjd808185 on Apr 28, 2010 at 08:45:54 ]

Silly people, you're entertaining to watch. I suppose there's nothing better to do since it's the off-season.

For the others, have fun along with me, sitting back and just waiting for the season to speak for itself rather than engaging in frivolous, circular arguments that will never come to any resolution.

Right now, you've got a lot of people setting themselves up to look mighty dumb, continually splurging nonsensical comments fueled off of assumptions of a future yet to occur -- the "I told you so's" are going to be fantastic to see later.

Be safe. Don't get yourself banned, folks.

Originally posted by OnTheClock:
Silly people, you're entertaining to watch. I suppose there's nothing better to do since it's the off-season.

For the others, have fun along with me, sitting back and just waiting for the season to speak for itself rather than engaging in frivolous, circular arguments that will never come to any resolution.

Right now, you've got a lot of people setting themselves up to look mighty dumb, continually splurging nonsensical comments fueled off of assumptions of a future yet to occur -- the "I told you so's" are going to be fantastic to see later.

Be safe. Don't get yourself banned, folks.

Wow, you're sounding more and more like MadDog. Get off the high f**king horse. It's a message board.

Originally posted by tommyncal:

Originally posted by qnnhan7:
Only perplexing on a slow off season news day. For the rest of us who are supportive 49ers fan, we understand what he's trying to say. And it's a non-issue.

Up to 9 pages of a 'non-issue'.

Yeah, I know, there are a lot of boredom and overreactions in the Zone. Always have, always will.

Originally posted by gold49er2183:
I think it starts with the o-line. a good o-line can make a bad qb look great. no hate on tom brady but were would he be if he had a bad o-line his whole career

its enough to have a decent o-line if you have a real good QB...look at rodgers in the first half of '09 season...

[ Edited by communist on Apr 29, 2010 at 02:06:51 ]