Rank the positions on a football team on importance

[X-Era]

Lots of talk on whether we should have paid Levitre. But it speaks to a bigger question. Should the Bills or any team structure their team such that the most important positions make the most money?

Which then begs the question, how would you rank the positions from most important to least? Would that rank then track the average of the top 10 salaries at each position?

It's important to note that the franchise tag rules have now changes and OG's now share the same tag number as OT's even though the average of the top 10 at each spot is still different.

I'll take a shot at ranking the importance of the positions on a team. No, I have not looked up the average salaries of the top 10. Obviously we know QB's make the most. But after that I'm not sure how the ranks go. Give me your list and in a few days we can throw the averages up by most expensive to least and see how well the lists match.

Sure we can go round and round on what "importance" means to each of us. Rank them based on how you look at it.

Position importance, off the top of my head:
1) QB
2) DE
3) CB
4) RB
5) LT/RT depending on whether the QB is right or left ha
6) WR
7) DT
8) RT/LT
9) C
10) S
11) G
12) OLB
13) ILB
14) TE
15) K
16) P
17) FB
18) LS

Give me your list from most important to least. This should be very interesting.

Update:

Here is a chart of the highest paid positions (average of the top 5 in 2012 by cap hit). All I could find so far.

http://www.businessinsider.com/nfls-highest-paid-positions-sports-chart-of-the-day-2012-9

16373

Highest to lowest paid:

1) DE
2) QB
3) OT
4) WR
5) CB
6) LB
7) S
8) RB
9) DT
10) TE
11) G
12) C
13) K
14) P

This begs the question as to what the range is for all positions. I found this:

"Salary by Position

Here are the average yearly salaries across the National Football League for all positions.

Rank - Position - Yearly Wages

1. Quarterback 1,970,982
2. Defensiv End 1,583,784
3. Offensive Line 1,267,402
4. Defensive Tackle 1,223,925
5. Cornerback 1,193,666
6. Linebacker 1,175,788
7. Wide Receiveer 1,054,437
8. Running Back 957,360
9. Safety 947,847
10. Punter / Kicker 868,005
11. Tight End 863,414"


http://turtledog.hubpages.com/hub/NFL-Salaries-No-Two-Football-Positions-Rank-Equal

[EDS]

I think in todays NFL RB is much less of a priority. I would move LT up as well, probably to #3 or #4 on the list.

[justasportsfan]

IMO, guards are like rb's. They grow on trees. I'm not saying that G are as important as rbs however.

[sukie]

I think LBs are of more importance especially if they apply pressure effectively when asked to pass rush.

[X-Era]

Guys, list them out. If you want to copy, paste, and adjust so be it. LOL.

[jdaltroy5]

1)QB
T2)rest

[EDS]

Guys, list them out. If you want to copy, paste, and adjust so be it. LOL.

Doesn't really work as neatly as you would like. For example, if I had a 3-4 defense then my OLB becomes much more important as that is typically my money passrusher, but not so with a 4-3 defense, typically. Also, if you have a TE like Gronkowski he is obviously an important piece of the puzzle - he is an offensive playmaker in the same way as an elite receiver.

[sukie]

For as long as I can remeber... THIS is what was important on the Bills

Position importance, off the top of my head:

1) K Our only points guy
2) P Field position guy to set up the kicker
3) LS Made 1/2 all happen
4) RB Sell jerseys and pimp Applebees
5) LT/RT depending on whether the QB is right or left ha
6) SPECIAL TEAMS high motor guy
7) DT Fat black dude with the season highlight INT for a TD once every 5 years
8) RT/LT Not needed THAT much since a weakness at this position stregthened #1 & #2
9) C
10) S
11) G
12) OLB Insert Polish white dude here... Sell jerseys then move on
13) ILB Insert Polish white dude here... Sell jerseys then move on
14) WR
15) QB
16) DE They were all pinky and meh
17) FB
18) TE interchangeable with FB

[X-Era]

Doesn't really work as neatly as you would like. For example, if I had a 3-4 defense then my OLB becomes much more important as that is typically my money passrusher, but not so with a 4-3 defense, typically. Also, if you have a TE like Gronkowski he is obviously an important piece of the puzzle - he is an offensive playmaker in the same way as an elite receiver.
I realize it's not perfect. But the top 10 salaries at each position ought to even out the difference between a 3-4 and 4-3 OLB.

Care to give me your list?

[Mr. Pink]

1. QB
2. LT
3. WR
4. Everything else

Offense wins in the NFL. You need a QB who can throw the rock, an anchor at tackle to protect his blindside and then weapons for him to get the ball to. Everything else is window dressing as if you can put up piles of points giving up points doesn't matter.

[Mahdi]

QB
LT
Pass rusher
CB
WR

[Mski]

Position importance, off the top of my head:
1) QB
2) DE
3) CB
4) LT/RT depending on whether the QB is right or left ha
5) S
6) WR
7) DT
8) RT/LT
9) C
10) ILB
11) RB
12) G
13) OLB
14) TE
15) K
16) P
17) FB
18) LS

[stuckincincy]

1. Punter
2. Center
3. MLB

[BLeonard]

1: An Owner and Front Office that puts winning football games ahead of profit.

Until you get that, the rest don't mean ****.

-Bill

[feldspar]

1: An Owner and Front Office that puts winning football games ahead of profit.

Until you get that, the rest don't mean ****.

-Bill

Don't you ever get tired of listening to yourself complain?

[The Jokeman]

1) LT Protects against the QB and helps the running game
2) DE/OLB An above average pass rusher is what this position is
3) C The Only offensive position player that touches the ball on every snap.
4) DT They protect LBs and help stuff the run game your D is good, if they can rush the passer it could make your D great.
5) QB I've always said a QB a product of the talent around him
6) LS Great ones are never noticed for a reason
7) CB To me I always want better talent on D than O.
8)OLB/DE Need to fill in the spot that didn't fill in at #2
9) WR Consistency is key here
10) RT Usually more of a run blocking position but doesn't hurt to have one that can also protect the QB with more and more quality D-lineman/OLB coming out
11) TE Guys who can block and catch the pass are so rare but elite ones can cause fits for any Ds
12) ILB Maybe should be ranked higher because they are typically the "QB of the D" but don't think need a great one to win every week.
13) S Becoming more important with more spread offenses and TEs becoming bigger passing threats
14) G Not the least important position on offense but pretty close
15) RB Most don't have long careers and if you have a quality O-line almost anyone can produce assuming they have enough quickness
16) K more and more guys are becoming good enough that they are almost a dime a dozen
17) P If you have a strong O and strong D nobody will notice your Punter
18) FB if you're talking traditional FB but if your talking 3rd down and blocking FB move him up one spot.

[YardRat]

Good thread.

Obviously there is no set ranking or formula, otherwise everybody in the league would be following the same pattern...but they don't. Strengths in one area can overshadow weaknesses in others, so the real key is coaching...having somebody that knows how to properly utilize the talent on the team and scheme around it. A great RB can make an average oline look good, and vice versa. If I were building from scratch.....?

1) DE
2) LT
3) CB
4) C
5) QB
6) DT
7) RB
8) S
9) WR
10) ILB
11) OLB
12) RT
13) G
14) K
15) TE
16) P
17) FB
18) LS

[BLeonard]

Don't you ever get tired of listening to yourself complain?

I'm more tired of the Bills' front office being inept... They've been inept for a much longer time than I have been complaining...

Of course, all the Bills have to do is win, in order to shut me up and prove me (and others who feel the same way) wrong... Good luck with that happening, with this group in the Front Office.

-Bill

[clumping platelets]

1)QB
2)LT
3)pass rushing DE
4)shutdown CB
5)run stuffing DT
6)RT
7)C
8)MLB
9)true #1 WR
10)money PK
11)SS or LB that can cover athletic TE's
12)competent backup QB
13)RB
14)TE
15)gritty physical G's
16)quality depth for starters
17)special teams ace
18)P
19)FS
20)LS

[fluteflakes]

You guys are criminally underrating long snappers. That's a hard thankless job.

My list (using a 4-3 base defense):

1) DE (4-3 obviously)
2) LT
3) QB
4) CB
5) C
6) RB
7) DT (NT would be 2-3 slots higher on a 3-4)
8) S
9) WR
10) ILB
11) OLB
12) TE
13) OG
14) P
15) RT
16) LS
17) FB (depends on the offense)
18) K (kickers are for the most part interchangeable unless you've got a Janikowski or a Dawson)

Missing position (AKA the I'm to lazy to have a ranking with every position list):
3DRB
Gunner
KoS
UB
3-4 DE
NT
3-4 RLB

[coastal]

1.) football players
2.) selling tickets

[DraftBoy]

Control the lines and add playmakers.

1) QB
2) OT
3) DE
4) WR
5) DT
6) OG
7) OC
8) CB
9) OLB
10) ILB
11) RB
12) SAF
13) TE
14) FB
15) K
16) P
17) LS

[mjt328]

Lots of talk on whether we should have paid Levitre. But it speaks to a bigger question. Should the Bills or any team structure their team such that the most important positions make the most money?

Which then begs the question, how would you rank the positions from most important to least? Would that rank then track the average of the top 10 salaries at each position?

It's important to note that the franchise tag rules have now changes and OG's now share the same tag number as OT's even though the average of the top 10 at each spot is still different.

I'll take a shot at ranking the importance of the positions on a team. No, I have not looked up the average salaries of the top 10. Obviously we know QB's make the most. But after that I'm not sure how the ranks go. Give me your list and in a few days we can throw the averages up by most expensive to least and see how well the lists match.

Sure we can go round and round on what "importance" means to each of us. Rank them based on how you look at it.

Position importance, off the top of my head:
1) QB
2) DE
3) CB
4) RB
5) LT/RT depending on whether the QB is right or left ha
6) WR
7) DT
8) RT/LT
9) C
10) S
11) G
12) OLB
13) ILB
14) TE
15) K
16) P
17) FB
18) LS

Give me your list from most important to least. This should be very interesting.

Interesting thread. I'll have to think about my list.

I think the issue with Levitre wasn't about "importance" of the guard position. If you really think about it, all of the spots on the offensive line have roughly the same level of importance. All are vital to the running and passing games. A missed block at any spot has the potential to destroy a play, cause a sack, force a turnover, etc.

The thing about the guard position, is that it requires a lower skill set than offensive tackle. Because of that, it's a lot easier to find a good guard than other spots on the line.
Guards have to deal with straight ahead rushers. Period. Tackles have to handle straight ahead rushers, as well as edge rushers trying to beat them around the corner. It requires much better balance, better feet and better handwork.

A player that is terrible at tackle can often be moved inside and be a very good guard.

[TedMock]

This is tough because of the varying offensive styles as some others have mentioned. Having said that, all else being equal and in a 1-system broad stroke, I give you my opinion:

1) QB
2) OT
3) DE
4) CB
5) WR
6) DT
7) OG
8) OC
9) OLB
10) ILB
11) SAF
12) RB
13) TE
14) FB
15) K
16) P
17) LS

[mjt328]

I found it very difficult to split everything position by position, so I just went by tiers.

Tier 1:
Quarterback
Not even close. Quarterback has always been the most important single position in team sports, and has only grown with importance as the game of footall evolves into heavier passing. The QB is expected to be the leader, handles the ball on every offensive play and many are given the responsiblity of calling or changing plays.

Tier 2:
The Trenches: All offensive linemen, All defensive linemen and edge rushers (3-4 OLBs)
An offensive line that cannot block will cause disaster for the running game and make the quarterback's job difficult, if not impossible. A group that blocks well can clear massive holes in the running game and give the QB more time to find an open receiver.

Tier 3:
Skill Positions: Running Backs, Wide Receivers, Tight Ends, Linebackers, Cornerbacks, Safeties
The value of these positions depends heavily on the system being run. A downfield passing game like the Packers relies on big and fast wide receivers. A ground and pound group like the Vikings values a great runner. A short and efficient passing team like the Patriots values tight ends and slot receivers. On defense, cornerbacks are more important in a man-to-man scheme as opposed to a zone. Linebackers may be required to blitz or cover receivers.

Tier 4:
Kicking Specialists: Kicker, Punter, Long Snapper, Returners
The value of these positions is really situational.

[W1DER1GHT]

1) QUARTERBACK
See above then figure the rest out. It's obvious that everyone knows this, yet here we are in 2013 and the last Playoff memory we have is from January 8th 2000 and "Home Run Throwback." Ouch.

A few things from 1999 and 2000 to give a little more clarity of how long it's been

9/9/99 Sega launches the Dreamcast
Britney Spears - Baby One More Time is the #1 song of the year, followed by Livin La Vida Loca by Ricky Martin and mambo #5 by Lou Bega.
Some of the movies released were Fight Club, American Beauty, American Pie, Star Wars Episode I the Phantom Menace.
David Cone pitches a perfect game.
"No Goal" the Sabres get screwed.
Ricky Williams wins the Heisman Trophy.
Y2K was the worry of paranoid masses.

Oh yeah...and we finished second in the AFC East to.....the Indianapolis Colts!!!!

Just a few examples.....now I feel old and depressed.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Interesting thread. I'll have to think about my list.

I think the issue with Levitre wasn't about "importance" of the guard position. If you really think about it, all of the spots on the offensive line have roughly the same level of importance. All are vital to the running and passing games. A missed block at any spot has the potential to destroy a play, cause a sack, force a turnover, etc.

The thing about the guard position, is that it requires a lower skill set than offensive tackle. Because of that, it's a lot easier to find a good guard than other spots on the line.
Guards have to deal with straight ahead rushers. Period. Tackles have to handle straight ahead rushers, as well as edge rushers trying to beat them around the corner. It requires much better balance, better feet and better handwork.

A player that is terrible at tackle can often be moved inside and be a very good guard.

That's the bare minimum of guard play, but not the sum total of it. Guards have to deal with tackle-end stunts, delayed linebacker blitzes, and other attempts to confuse them, while they are also (usually) the only offensive linemen called upon to pull out of position and lead block for a halfback. Since many teams don't feature a fullback anymore, they might be the team's primary lead blocker.

[DraftBoy]

That's the bare minimum of guard play, but not the sum total of it. Guards have to deal with tackle-end stunts, delayed linebacker blitzes, and other attempts to confuse them, while they are also (usually) the only offensive linemen called upon to pull out of position and lead block for a halfback. Since many teams don't feature a fullback anymore, they might be the team's primary lead blocker.

Every offensive lineman deals with those issues and also pulls. Any OL scheme that doesn't utilize the OC or OT pull/trap is seriously limiting their own blocking ability.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Every offensive lineman deals with those issues and also pulls. Any OL scheme that doesn't utilize the OC or OT pull/trap is seriously limiting their own blocking ability.

Of course, but the statement was that guards only take on straight ahead rushers, which isn't true.

[Ed]

I found it very difficult to split everything position by position, so I just went by tiers.

Tier 1:
Quarterback
Not even close. Quarterback has always been the most important single position in team sports, and has only grown with importance as the game of footall evolves into heavier passing. The QB is expected to be the leader, handles the ball on every offensive play and many are given the responsiblity of calling or changing plays.

Tier 2:
The Trenches: All offensive linemen, All defensive linemen and edge rushers (3-4 OLBs)
An offensive line that cannot block will cause disaster for the running game and make the quarterback's job difficult, if not impossible. A group that blocks well can clear massive holes in the running game and give the QB more time to find an open receiver.

Tier 3:
Skill Positions: Running Backs, Wide Receivers, Tight Ends, Linebackers, Cornerbacks, Safeties
The value of these positions depends heavily on the system being run. A downfield passing game like the Packers relies on big and fast wide receivers. A ground and pound group like the Vikings values a great runner. A short and efficient passing team like the Patriots values tight ends and slot receivers. On defense, cornerbacks are more important in a man-to-man scheme as opposed to a zone. Linebackers may be required to blitz or cover receivers.

Tier 4:
Kicking Specialists: Kicker, Punter, Long Snapper, Returners
The value of these positions is really situational.
I probably agree with this the most. I look at it more as units than individual positions.

1. QB
2. DL
3. OL
4. WR
5. DB
6. RB
7. LB
8. TE

I think you're best off investing the bulk of your money in qb and then the lines. It's important to have a few playmakers on both sides of the ball too.

I don't have an issue with spending big at what's considered a less important position, but that player better be really special. Like in Levitre's case, if you're going to spend that kind of money on an OG I think they should be elite. I'm not sure that Levitre is. That money could easily be better spent elsewhere. At the end of the day I think you need to find a balance between spending at the important positions, but also making sure your investments are worth it.

[X-Era]

I probably agree with this the most. I look at it more as units than individual positions.

1. QB
2. DL
3. OL
4. WR
5. DB
6. RB
7. LB
8. TE

I think you're best off investing the bulk of your money in qb and then the lines. It's important to have a few playmakers on both sides of the ball too.

I don't have an issue with spending big at what's considered a less important position, but that player better be really special. Like in Levitre's case, if you're going to spend that kind of money on an OG I think they should be elite. I'm not sure that Levitre is. That money could easily be better spent elsewhere. At the end of the day I think you need to find a balance between spending at the important positions, but also making sure your investments are worth it.Only question on the tiers is if it adequately breaks down the differences in importance by position.

Can we, should we, consider a G as important as a LT for example? It's not just on the OL either. DB is another spot. Is a SS as important as a CB?

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Only question on the tiers is if it adequately breaks down the differences in importance by position.

Can we, should we, consider a G as important as a LT for example? It's not just on the OL either. DB is another spot. Is a SS as important as a CB?

It depends on your division IMO. A good rule of thumb is to build a team to win in your division. To play in the AFC East, the best pass catcher is Rob Gronkowski and Hernandez isn't far behind. A solid pass coverage SS and/or OLB are much more important here than in most places. However, in the AFC West where Justin Houston and Von Miller play the defensive left, then a right tackle is much more important than in most places.

[bleve]

1. Cheerleaders.
2. QB.
3. Fat guys.
4. Fast guys.

[X-Era]

It depends on your division IMO. A good rule of thumb is to build a team to win in your division. To play in the AFC East, the best pass catcher is Rob Gronkowski and Hernandez isn't far behind. A solid pass coverage SS and/or OLB are much more important here than in most places. However, in the AFC West where Justin Houston and Von Miller play the defensive left, then a right tackle is much more important than in most places.So find a way you want to rank them and give me your rankings. I'd like to see what you think.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

So find a way you want to rank them and give me your rankings. I'd like to see what you think.

I would rank it by units.

1) QB
2) OL - (T > C >G)
3) DL - (DT > DE)
4) LB (Depends on the scheme)
5) WR or Pass catching TE
6) CB
7) Safeties
8) Halfbacks
9) Kicker/Punter
10) Fullback or blocking TE
11) Returner

This is how I would build a team to face a generic opponent.

[mjt328]

That's the bare minimum of guard play, but not the sum total of it. Guards have to deal with tackle-end stunts, delayed linebacker blitzes, and other attempts to confuse them, while they are also (usually) the only offensive linemen called upon to pull out of position and lead block for a halfback. Since many teams don't feature a fullback anymore, they might be the team's primary lead blocker.

I understand that. I wasn't trying to simplify the job of an offensive guard into just blocking the dude in front of them. It's obviously a lot more complicated than that.

What I was trying to say, was that guards aren't required to make blocks around the edge. It's a skill that requires a more athletic player and not every lineman is cut out to handle that job. Even with stunts and blitzes, the block is still "straight up" so to speak.

Like another poster said, tackles are also asked to pull very frequently and they are also required to take on stunts and blitzes.

The bottom line is, everything a guard is asked to do is also required out of a tackle - along with handling speed edge rushers. That was my main point.

[X-Era]

I would rank it by units.

1) QB
2) OL - (T > C >G)
3) DL - (DT > DE)
4) LB (Depends on the scheme)
5) WR or Pass catching TE
6) CB
7) Safeties
8) Halfbacks
9) Kicker/Punter
10) Fullback or blocking TE
11) Returner

This is how I would build a team to face a generic opponent.Um, can you go a bit more linear?

Here's what I think I'm reading:

1) QB
2) OT
3) C
4) G
5) DT
6) DE
7) LB (Depends on the scheme)
8 and 9) WR or Pass catching TE
10) CB
11) Safeties
12) Halfbacks
13) Kicker/Punter
14) Fullback or blocking TE
15) Returner

[BillsFever21]

Don't you ever get tired of listening to yourself complain?

Don't you ever get tired of drinking the Kool-Aid and thinking that this team and front office is better then they really are?

Living in reality and pointing out the obvious flaws of this team isn't a bad thing. Those of us that choose to look objectively at the team hear the same crap every season from those who think this team can be contenders every season. Unfortunately we haven't been wrong yet.

It's different is you're a team who has had a lot of success and you have people complaining about the team after a couple down years while they retool. There isn't much to complain about when it comes to the competency of the team and players. When you have 13 consecutive losing seasons outside of one 9 win season where they choked anyway then that's an entire different ballgame.

The sad part is the same people have probably been predicting this team to win around 10 games each one of them years. That's usually always the benchmark for them types. One of these years you would think they will have to be right and they will act like they knew it the entire time even though they have been wrong almost two decades leading up to it. I would love to be wrong and here the Kool-Aid drinkers bragging about their great "prediction" if we ever were surprised by this team.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Um, can you go a bit more linear?

Here's what I think I'm reading:

1) QB
2) OT
3) C
4) G
5) DT
6) DE
7) LB (Depends on the scheme)
8 and 9) WR or Pass catching TE
10) CB
11) Safeties
12) Halfbacks
13) Kicker/Punter
14) Fullback or blocking TE
15) Returner

Sure I'll go with that.

[mjt328]

Only question on the tiers is if it adequately breaks down the differences in importance by position.

Can we, should we, consider a G as important as a LT for example? It's not just on the OL either. DB is another spot. Is a SS as important as a CB?


That's what I was talking about earlier. To me, there is a difference between "importance" and what a guy might actually be worth to his team.

I think an OG is equally as important as an OT. If either makes a great block, it helps the team. If either misses a block, it can be catastrophic.
However, it's easier to find guards at later rounds in the draft and it's more common to find good guards available in free agency. A guy who struggles on the outside can often be bumped inside and become more effective.

Cornerback and safety are similar. Guys who struggle at corner can often become good safeties, but not vice versa.

[Novacane]

You guys listing QB #5 are freaking crazy. QB is #1 and it's not close.

[YardRat]

You guys listing QB #5 are freaking crazy. QB is #1 and it's not close.

If QB's were indisputably #1, there wouldn't be so many cases of teams still being successful with their backups when the starter goes down.

[BillsFever21]

If QB's were indisputably #1, there wouldn't be so many cases of teams still being successful with their backups when the starter goes down.

There's a difference from having a capable backup that can step in for a few games and keep the team afloat and somebody who can be the main guy for the entire year and lead the team deep into the playoffs or on a SB run.

Some guys can step in as a backup and do alright but once they are the main guy over the course of an entire season it's a different story. Especially if they have a good coaching staff and system. A good Qb can't do everything by himself and still needs players around him but they can turn an average team into a consistent winner. Look at the Colts the season inbetween the season Manning was injured and they drafted Luck.

It's also not an accident that teams like the Cardinals were horrible long before Kurt Warner and has been completely terrible since he retired. He took them from a horrible team to the SB.

[gr8slayer]

Lots of talk on whether we should have paid Levitre. But it speaks to a bigger question. Should the Bills or any team structure their team such that the most important positions make the most money?

Which then begs the question, how would you rank the positions from most important to least? Would that rank then track the average of the top 10 salaries at each position?

It's important to note that the franchise tag rules have now changes and OG's now share the same tag number as OT's even though the average of the top 10 at each spot is still different.

I'll take a shot at ranking the importance of the positions on a team. No, I have not looked up the average salaries of the top 10. Obviously we know QB's make the most. But after that I'm not sure how the ranks go. Give me your list and in a few days we can throw the averages up by most expensive to least and see how well the lists match.

Sure we can go round and round on what "importance" means to each of us. Rank them based on how you look at it.

Position importance, off the top of my head:
1) QB
2) DE
3) CB
4) RB
5) LT/RT depending on whether the QB is right or left ha
6) WR
7) DT
8) RT/LT
9) C
10) S
11) G
12) OLB
13) ILB
14) TE
15) K
16) P
17) FB
18) LS

Give me your list from most important to least. This should be very interesting.

Great post. At the end of the day, none of it matters without #1. The Bills, and multiple teams have proven that without a QB, it really doesn't matter what the team looks like.

[mjt328]

If QB's were indisputably #1, there wouldn't be so many cases of teams still being successful with their backups when the starter goes down.

Examples?

Usually when the starting QB goes down for a significant period of time, the team is screwed.

Colts without Manning...
Steelers without Roethlisberger...
Even the Patriots missed the playoffs without Brady...

[ublinkwescore]

Qb, MLB, t, cb, de, rb, dt, c, wr/te.

[YardRat]

Examples?

Usually when the starting QB goes down for a significant period of time, the team is screwed.

Colts without Manning...
Steelers without Roethlisberger...
Even the Patriots missed the playoffs without Brady...

San Francisco. Actually, NE is a pretty good example, when Brady first stepped on to the field. Denver, pre-Manning. A plethora more, if you think about it.

[coastal]

Without Brady, the Patriots are competing with the Bills record of ineptitude.

Bill Belicheat isn't a genius.

He got lucky with Tom and then they both cheated.

Remove ugg-boy from the equation... a steady stream of 5-11.

[W1DER1GHT]

Sorry, but QB is 1. There are very few examples of non franchise QBs winning it all....it happens, but history says....GET A FRANCHISE QB.

Super Bowl 1. Bart Starr (MVP), 2 TDs
Super Bowl 2. Bart Starr (MVP), 1 TD
Super Bowl 3. Joe Namath (MVP), 0 TDs
Super Bowl 4. Len Dawson (MVP), 1 TD
Super Bowl 5. John Unitas (Chuck Howley), 1 TD
Super Bowl 6. Roger Staubach (MVP), 2 TDs
Super Bowl 7. Bob Griese (Jake Scott), 1 TD
Super Bowl 8. Bob Griese (Larry Csonka), 0 TDs
Super Bowl 9. Terry Bradshaw (Franco Harris), 1 TD
Super Bowl 10. Terry Bradshaw (Lynn Swann), 2 TDs
Super Bowl 11. Ken Stabler (Fred Biletnikoff), 1 TD
Super Bowl 12. Roger Staubach (Harvey Martin & Randy White), 0 TDs
Super Bowl 13. Terry Bradshaw (MVP), 4 TDs
Super Bowl 14. Terry Bradshaw (MVP), 2 TDs
Super Bowl 15. Jim Plunkett (MVP), 3 TDs
Super Bowl 16. Joe Montana (MVP), 1 TD
Super Bowl 17. Joe Theismann (John Riggins), 2 TDs,
Super Bowl 18. Jim Plunkett (Marcus Allen), 1 TD
Super Bowl 19. Joe Montana (MVP), 3 TDs
Super Bowl 20. Jim McMahon (Richard Dent), 0 TDs
Super Bowl 21. Phil Simms (MVP), 3 TDs
Super Bowl 22. Doug Williams (MVP), 4 TDs
Super Bowl 23. Joe Montana (Jerry Rice), 2 TDs
Super Bowl 24. Joe Montana (MVP), 5 TDs
Super Bowl 25. Jeff Hostetler (Ottis Anderson), 1 TD
Super Bowl 26. Mark Rypien (MVP), 2 TDs
Super Bowl 27. Troy Aikman (MVP), 4 TDs
Super Bowl 28. Troy Aikman (Emmitt Smith), O TDs
Super Bowl 29. Steve Young (MVP), 6 TDs
Super Bowl 30. Troy Aikman (Larry Brown), 1 TD
Super Bowl 31. Brett Favre (Desmond Howard), 2 TDs
Super Bowl 32. John Elway (Terrell Davis), 0 TDs
Super Bowl 33. John Elway (MVP), 1 TD
Super Bowl 34. Kurt Warner (MVP), 2 TDs
Super Bowl 35. Trent Dilfer (Ray Lewis), 1 TD
Super Bowl 36. Tom Brady (MVP), 1 TD
Super Bowl 37. Brad Johnson (Dexter Jackson), 2 TDs
Super Bowl 38. Tom Brady (MVP), 3 TDs
Super Bowl 39. Tom Brady (Deion Branch), 2 TDs
Super Bowl 40. Ben Roethlisberger (Hines Ward), 0 TDs
Super Bowl 41. Peyton Manning (MVP), 1 TD
Super Bowl 42. Eli Manning (MVP), 2 TDs
Super Bowl 43: Ben Roethlisberger (Santonio Holmes), 1 TD
Super Bowl 44: Drew Brees (MVP), 2 TDs
Super Bowl 45: Aaron Rogers (MVP), 3TDs
Super Bowl 46: Eli Manning (MVP), 1 TD
Super Bowl 47: Joe Flacco (MVP), 2 TDs

[Novacane]

San Francisco. Actually, NE is a pretty good example, when Brady first stepped on to the field. Denver, pre-Manning. A plethora more, if you think about it.



Kapernick proved he is not a backup. Brady? Really? The guy goes on to be one of the best QB of all time and your using him to make your point? You really think NE would have been good if Trent Edwards had stepped in for Bledsoe? I'll give you Denver with Tebow but that was a one year fluke. Why did they dump Tebow? Elway knew they got lucky in 2011. How many teams have been good over time without a good QB? I can list dozens of teams that have talent at other positions but suck because the don't have a good QB. Starting with the Bills. Granted we suck at a lot of other spots too but we have some good players.

[Novacane]

Without Brady, the Patriots are competing with the Bills record of ineptitude.

Bill Belicheat isn't a genius.

He got lucky with Tom and then they both cheated.

Remove ugg-boy from the equation... a steady stream of 5-11.



We're in the minority but I agree. BB was just another failed HC till he lucked into Brady. A HOF QB can make anyone look smart. We'll be proven right when Brady retires. Unless those cheating bastards luck into another great QB which I can see happening :ill:

[mjt328]

San Francisco. Actually, NE is a pretty good example, when Brady first stepped on to the field. Denver, pre-Manning. A plethora more, if you think about it.

Huh???? These are all examples where the backup was BETTER than the guy starting.

Kaepernick > Smith
Brady > Bledsoe
Tebow > Orton

These examples do more to disprove your point than support it.

Give us some examples where a top QB went down, his significantly inferior backup came in, and the team had no drop-off in play.

[YardRat]

Huh???? These are all examples where the backup was BETTER than the guy starting.

Kaepernick > Smith
Brady > Bledsoe
Tebow > Orton

These examples do more to disprove your point than support it.

Give us some examples where a top QB went down, his significantly inferior backup came in, and the team had no drop-off in play.

Kap is a work in progress...we will see if he is truly better over the long haul.
Nobody even knew who Tom Brady was when he took over for an injured Bledsoe. In hindsight the justification is easy, but when it happened the fact is he replaced an established starter and the Pats obviously didn't get worse.
Tebow isn't better than anybody...sorry.

What do you consider 'significantly inferior'? A back-up with no experience vs an established starter? Again, Bledsoe/Brady. Go back 20 years...Kelly/Reich. Simms/Hostetler. Williams in Washington, a wash-up. There are plenty of examples, but those get tossed to the curb because of what happened afterward (Brady, for example) as opposed to what happened in the moment.

[BillsFever21]

San Francisco. Actually, NE is a pretty good example, when Brady first stepped on to the field. Denver, pre-Manning. A plethora more, if you think about it.

Kapernick was groomed to the starter and was left in there by CHOICE of the coaching staff. He would've eventually been the starter by 2013 at the latest. As far as the Brady and the Patriots go that's just a lousy example. Brady turned out to be one of the best of this era and a 1st ballot HOF QB.

Your examples are talking like they were just some scrubs that have never had any success starting or that would be lucky to be a backup QB. The Patriots didn't know what they had in Brady when he first came in and they weren't a good team with Bledsoe as QB. It was an upgrade for them and he would've eventually won the starting job.

You're using them guys as an example of failed starters or career backup level QB's like Fitzpatrick or Leftwich being thrown into a great team after their franchise QB was injured and they ended up being just as good or better. Look at how the Steelers did this year when Roethlisberger went down. Or how the Colts did when Manning got injured.

I can't even believe that this is a topic it's so asinine. There was a time over a decade ago when people thought you could win consistently or even a SB with a backup level QB after Trent Dilfer won a SB as the QB of the Ravens. That was a rare exception and it was because of their defense and it hasn't happened since. Especially in today's NFL where the rules and game have been changed to favor the QB's and the offense it has put that much more emphasis on the QB position as being the main and dominant source of success.

[BillsFever21]

Kap is a work in progress...we will see if he is truly better over the long haul.
Nobody even knew who Tom Brady was when he took over for an injured Bledsoe. In hindsight the justification is easy, but when it happened the fact is he replaced an established starter and the Pats obviously didn't get worse.
Tebow isn't better than anybody...sorry.

What do you consider 'significantly inferior'? A back-up with no experience vs an established starter? Again, Bledsoe/Brady. Go back 20 years...Kelly/Reich. Simms/Hostetler. Williams in Washington, a wash-up. There are plenty of examples, but those get tossed to the curb because of what happened afterward (Brady, for example) as opposed to what happened in the moment.

Just because Brady was the backup at that time is meaningless. He went on to be one of the best of all time. That's like using Steve Young or Aaron Rodgers as an example because they were backups to great QB's at one point and went on to be SB champions and one of the best in the league after they finally got a shot.

[BillsFever21]

And once again you're using examples from 20 years ago when the NFL was a total different game. Back then you could win with an average QB that didn't lose you games if you had a good coaching staff, running game and defense. Back then a RB and the running game was a major part of the game and with a lot of teams they were the focal point of the offense.

In today's NFL that strategy wouldn't win you a SB. Some of the best RB's in the league are on losing teams. The rules are geared towards the QB being the main importance of your success and outside of a few teams/RB like the Vikings they are not the focal point of the offense. Peterson is the best in the game and almost broke the rushing record yet they were a WC and a first round exit in the playoffs.

As far as Kelly/Reich goes that is the perfect example against your point. Reich did a good job stepping in for several games when needed but when he finally did get a shot to be a starting QB he never had any real success again. Once you're the main guy teams start getting more film on what your strengths and weaknesses are along with the type of offense the team is running. You can get by for a short period of time with a good backup but over the long haul it's not going to last.

[YardRat]

Kapernick was groomed to the starter and was left in there by CHOICE of the coaching staff. He would've eventually been the starter by 2013 at the latest.

Let Kap play a couple of seasons before annointing him 'franchise'. Groomed or not, he replaced an injured starter and the 49ers didn't miss a beat. 'Eventually been the starter' is speculation, at best.


As far as the Brady and the Patriots go that's just a lousy example. Brady turned out to be one of the best of this era and a 1st ballot HOF QB.

Hindsight is 20/20. At the time, he couldn't beat out Bledsoe for the starting job, he replaced DB when he was injured, and the team (again) didn't miss a beat.


Your examples are talking like they were just some scrubs that have never had any success starting or that would be lucky to be a backup QB. The Patriots didn't know what they had in Brady when he first came in and they weren't a good team with Bledsoe as QB. It was an upgrade for them and he would've eventually won the starting job.

Brady was a scrub prior to DB's injury. Again, 'eventually he would've won the job' is speculation.


I can't even believe that this is a topic it's so asinine. There was a time over a decade ago when people thought you could win consistently or even a SB with a backup level QB after Trent Dilfer won a SB as the QB of the Ravens. That was a rare exception and it was because of their defense and it hasn't happened since. Especially in today's NFL where the rules and game have been changed to favor the QB's and the offense it has put that much more emphasis on the QB position as being the main and dominant source of success.

It's relevant because it's consistent.


Just because Brady was the backup at that time is meaningless. He went on to be one of the best of all time. That's like using Steve Young or Aaron Rodgers as an example because they were backups to great QB's at one point and went on to be SB champions and one of the best in the league after they finally got a shot.

Young was a bust. Rodgers was an unknown. They both stepped into pretty good teams.


And once again you're using examples from 20 years ago when the NFL was a total different game. Back then you could win with an average QB that didn't lose you games if you had a good coaching staff, running game and defense. Back then a RB and the running game was a major part of the game and with a lot of teams they were the focal point of the offense.

Still can...see the NY Giants.


In today's NFL that strategy wouldn't win you a SB. Some of the best RB's in the league are on losing teams. The rules are geared towards the QB being the main importance of your success and outside of a few teams/RB like the Vikings they are not the focal point of the offense. Peterson is the best in the game and almost broke the rushing record yet they were a WC and a first round exit in the playoffs.


Certainly not a focal point like 20 years ago, but Gore and Rice were very big parts of their team's success.


As far as Kelly/Reich goes that is the perfect example against your point. Reich did a good job stepping in for several games when needed but when he finally did get a shot to be a starting QB he never had any real success again. Once you're the main guy teams start getting more film on what your strengths and weaknesses are along with the type of offense the team is running. You can get by for a short period of time with a good backup but over the long haul it's not going to last.

Granted to a point, but most guys, like Reich, end up getting the keys on a different team, which makes all of the difference in the world. How good do you think Brady/Kap/Manning et al would be with Buffalo's roster?

[The Jokeman]

San Francisco. Actually, NE is a pretty good example, when Brady first stepped on to the field. Denver, pre-Manning. A plethora more, if you think about it.

Look at what some of these teams were doing before they got their QB. San Fran's defense has been great for years, they've built up the talent on the O-line considerably. NE hasn't won a Super Bowl since trading Richard Seymour. The Colts pre-Manning had guys like Tarrick Gleen and Marvin Harrison in the fold but never really turned the corner in the playoffs until Freeney was added. QBs get the headlines but again to me they are a final piece to a puzzle moreso than the building block. Hell look at the pre Kelly Bills when we were adding tuys like Bruce and Talley. Then with Kelly we got guys like Wolford and soon after Bennettt and Thurman. It's hard to say what the exact formula is but to me QBs are more made than born. As look at Brady now as a QB versus when he came in. There's no disputing he's way better now but why hasn't he won since those early years? Less talent around him on D if ask me.

[better days]

Kap is a work in progress...we will see if he is truly better over the long haul.
Nobody even knew who Tom Brady was when he took over for an injured Bledsoe. In hindsight the justification is easy, but when it happened the fact is he replaced an established starter and the Pats obviously didn't get worse.
Tebow isn't better than anybody...sorry.

What do you consider 'significantly inferior'? A back-up with no experience vs an established starter? Again, Bledsoe/Brady. Go back 20 years...Kelly/Reich. Simms/Hostetler. Williams in Washington, a wash-up. There are plenty of examples, but those get tossed to the curb because of what happened afterward (Brady, for example) as opposed to what happened in the moment.

The fact is the teams that had a back up step in & play well, just proves those teams VALUE the QB position so much that they had a capable back up ready to go. QB is the most important position in football & anyone that does not realize that just does not know the game.

[YardRat]

The fact is the teams that had a back up step in & play well, just proves those teams VALUE the QB position so much that they had a capable back up ready to go. QB is the most important position in football & anyone that does not realize that just does not know the game.

They didn't know how capable until they played.

[better days]

They didn't know how capable until they played.

YES they did. The PUBLIC did not know how capable they were until they played in a game, but the Coaches KNEW what they had.

[X-Era]

Updated with the data on pay.

Disclaimers:

1) It's average of highest 5 salaries at each position
2) It's cap hit not total salary
3) It's from 2012