Poll

25 votes were received.
All visitors can vote.

Which will invariably do better

	A Crappy QB with a GREAT Offensive line
	A Great QB with a CRAPPY Offensive line

---

A crappy QB with a GREAT offensive line or a GREAT QB with a crappy offensive line?

I mean what's more likely? And keep in mind I am considering ONLY the O-line and the QB, not the RBs, WRs, or Defensive side of the ball.

Haven't seen too many quarterbacks that can make great throws while lying on their back after being sacked.

Marino made our line look better than it was. Receivers too

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

The same line that took us to the SuperBowl the year before he joined the team?

A crappy QB can't do well in ANY situation.

The team, not the QB. Which team can do better. Although the question does not say it, that is what is meant.

The question is are you likely to go farther with a Great QB with a crappy o line or a mediocre QB with a great o line.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/12/2012 01:20PM by ChyrenB.

Franchise QB all the way.

This is too easy.

This isn't 1950's football anymore.

---------------------

"When you suck long enough, you get a Hickey"

i can't imagine anyone who watched any football the last 20 years voting anything other than "B"

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

Easy. Look at Eli and the Giants. They had an average oline and a great QB. They won the SB. Peyton and the Colts last time they went to the SB. Peyton was amazing and the line sucked.

A good line helps but if your great QB is riding a hot streak then it doesn't really matter.

name any of the OL on the last 5 SB winning teams. now name the QBs.
thought so.

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

All that proves is QBs are better known than OLs. Not too startling of a proposition.

Then why is this poll even relevant?

---------------------

"When you suck long enough, you get a Hickey"

Well, David Woodley was a mediocre QB who took us to the SuperBowl with a great surrounding cast.

The relevance of it is, AQUA, that you DON'T HAVE TO necessarily start with a great QB on a crappy team AND THEN build around him. You can do the opposite.

And you might be wise after all to ask the relevance of it because, to tell the truth, if we draft Riley Reiff, then we would be building a great O-Line for say, Matt Moore or Brandon Weeden but if WE PASS ON A GREAT O LINEMAN, would we really be getting a "GREAT" QB in Tannehill?

Come on, A & O, you've got to commit. Do you think Tannehill will turn out to be "Great?"

Imagine it. I don't agree with you at all. I have seen too many teams get to the playoffs that had what I considered mediocre QB talent under center to believe otherwise. Just look at the Baltimore Ravens of the early 2000's. Or, is that too far in the past for you?

Rick

Who do you disagree with Rick? I agree with what you just said.

Agree. How did the N.Y. Jerks get to the AFC Championship game 2 years in a row with the subpar Mark Sanchez under center? No, you don't do that if all your talent is only on the defensive side of the ball. How many of their o-lineman performed at a high level those years? (it makes me sick to use these clowns in this post.)

Rick

you guys are so wrong. it's a qb league. look who's played in and won the sb the past 10-15 years or so. and please stop bringing up trent dilfer. that's a total anomaly and it took the all time best D and a 2000 yard RB to make it happen.

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

The question was which will do better. Choosing great QB/average line does not mean I think average QB/great line is doomed to fail and would never succeed. It simply means that I think the great QB/average line would succeed more often than average QB/great line.

I think you proved that point with your post rick. You have two examples, one of which you had to use the hated Jets and one is over a decade ago. Plus, the examples you used are from teams that fielded two of the best defenses in recent memory. I gave examples in my previous post from two of the past three seasons and only one of my examples has an argument for having the additional help of a great defense.

this is kind of a trick question.... It depends on how good the QB is verse how bad the line is and the dynamics of the defense you are playing on any given sunday... For instance, a guy like Peyton Manning has done pretty well and even won a superbowl, with a less then stellar line.... But a great offensive line that provides amazing protection, can make a mediocre QB look like a stud at times....
I dont think it is a black and white answer as the question and answers suggest...
FOr instance a team with amazing cover corners, would make it hard on any QB, no matter how good the line is, unless you just run the ball 80 percent of the time... Same with pass rush
And a team who can not run or protect at all, would make it self one dimensional and be hard to be successful consistently with a one dimensional attack....
I understand what Chyren is trying to say, that a great offensive line is a QB's best friend, but not neccessarily the black and white answers' he proposed...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Nietzsche



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2012 02:53AM by Crowder52.

A different way to look at the question that would yield a different response I am assuming is,......
Would you rather have a top 3 QB or a top 3 offensive line....

-----------------------------------------------------------------
All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Nietzsche

It really comes down to how you interpret the word "Crappy". To me, "Crappy" is below average. Woodley was average and was helped by the fact that he split time with Strock. There have been numerous "Average" QBs to play in the Superbowl. Very few have actually won. Regardless, I wouldn't consider ANY QB that has ever started in a Superbowl to be "Crappy"...but that's my opinion.

We all know Cyren likes big sweaty offensive linemen (just kidding Cyren ) and thinks we should use every first round pick every year to draft one, and that Chad Henne would have been the next Dan Marino if only Dwight Stephenson were still around (not kidding so much Cyren). BUT just use simple logic to answer this question. An offensive line is a unit, you not only need great players but they have to compliment each other and be able to work together. You also need 4-5 of them. So what are your chances of finding 4-5 GREAT players who work well together, keeping them all signed and healthy and doing so over the span of the first ones carer just to make an average QB look good vs your chances of finding ONE great QB who makes the whole OL look good? WHo ever heard of Indy's OL till Manning came along? No one. Project BIG failed. Get over it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2012 06:48AM by KB.

It's interesting how reading the posts from top to bottom STARTING FROM 1423's 12:39 AM post began to slowly bring out what I was talking about.

Prior to that berk posted and pointed out how great QBs won the SuperBowl for their respective teams. That may be true, but they had great O lines as well.

The point was if we have to choose now between a great OL or a QB what is the sensible choice.

But more importantly, when confronted with having to pass on a great OL, does Tannehill really fit that definition of a potentially "great" QB like a Peyton Manning who can take a MEDIOCRE o-line and put it on his back.

Even more importantly, if we go RIGHT NOW with Tannehill who might NOT be that great QB like LUck or RGIII, WE NECESSARILY HAVE TO PASS ON THE NEXT JAKE LONG OR LARRY LITTLE at the same time.

That, in turn, brings up the question of whether Tannehill is the kind of guy who is worth it.

In other words, by passing on a great O lineman at 8 and drafting Tannehill, we end up getting an "average or below average" O lineman and what MIGHT NOT BE A GREAT but only "average" or "mediocre" QB.

KB, I AM one of those big, sweaty lineman being north of (well I don't wan to say) so many pounds and played center.

True, KB, keeping a line together today is much more difficult than it was in the days of Jim Langer and Dwight Stephenson later but still O lineman usually stick with a team longer than most other positions.

Bottom line, do you really trust that Tannehill is that GREAT QB who we would have to rely on to play with that average or mediocre OL.

Monte, I sat in the Rose Bowl and Woodley did not complete a SINGLE PASS in the second half in the SuperBowl against The Redskins. And the fact that whatever success we had that year was WITH Don Strock showed that he was a crappy QB.

Yet, we went to the SuperBowl.

But if Tannehill is crappy, we WON'T HAVE THAT GREAT O LINE TO ASSIST HIM.

This draft it is either HIM or a potentially great O lineman.

A great QB.

Great QB's are one of the few positions in sports that make everyone around them better.


Our great LT didnt make his LG much better.

---------------------

"When you suck long enough, you get a Hickey"