HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Ottawa Senators (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=19)
-   -   OT: NFL hypothetical question (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1313773)

internetdotcom 12-30-2012 08:58 PM

NFL hypothetical question
 
Sitting there watching football today, I came up with a hypothetical question. If you took the best quarterback in the NFL (no matter who you think that is), and put him on the worst team (again, whatever team you feel that is), and played them against the best team with the worst quarterback, who do you think would win?

I would say the best team with the worst quarterback, since, although the quarterback is arguably the most important position in sports, football is pretty much the ultimate team game.

What do you all think? Just an inane query to pass the time.

And for extra credit, the age old question : Would you rather fight 100 duck-sized horses, or 1 horse-sized duck, and why?

Das Boot 12-30-2012 10:23 PM

Best team would win most of the times. Good defense and a good running back can win games easy.

internetdotcom 12-30-2012 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vodkanator (Post 56946211)
Best team would win most of the times. Good defense and a good running back can win games easy.

Good point, very true.

But minus points, as u didnt answer the horse/duck question.
Grade : B-

BK201 12-30-2012 11:38 PM

If you put a top QB on KC they would instantly challenge any team in the NFL.

They put Andrew luck into a 1-15 team now they are 11-5.

DJB 12-31-2012 12:20 AM

The NFL is a QB driven league. Just take a look at some of the bottom teams in the NFL last year that added a QB and how they are this year. 3 of them are in the playoffs with Washington, Indy and Seattle.

QB's win in the NFL.

Go Bills. :(

BonkTastic 12-31-2012 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BK201 (Post 56947853)
If you put a top QB on KC they would instantly challenge any team in the NFL.

They put Andrew luck into a 1-15 team now they are 11-5.

The Chiefs are the exception to the rule. Them and the Jags. Even Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady or Drew Brees couldn't make those teams winners, at least not the way their rosters are currently put together.

Everyone else? Probably.

The Colts were far better built to win than the Chief were (and they play in a division with the Jags and Titans, which always helps, haha)

BonkTastic 12-31-2012 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by internetdotcom (Post 56943747)
And for extra credit, the age old question : Would you rather fight 100 duck-sized horses, or 1 horse-sized duck, and why?

1 horse-sized duck. Ducks are still "big": 100 angry, duck-sized horses stampeding at you is unavoidable death. They'll outrun you for sure, and even at 1/4 the size are strong like crazy.

One horse-sized duck, you've got a chance. Get yourself a weapon, and a one-on-one fight is much more to your advantage. I'll take a "mano a mano" fight over being swarmed any day.

wilfred 12-31-2012 09:43 AM

I'll take the better team.

Football has as much to do with the o-line and d-line. You give an average QB 2 extra seconds and he becomes an all-star(Matt Cassel when he was a patriot).

Just to argue
I'll take the 100 duck size horses(although horses do like to bite).
Horses can't climb
If you know how strong a small duck's wing is, it would break you in 2(if its 5 times bigger)

internetdotcom 12-31-2012 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BK201 (Post 56947853)
If you put a top QB on KC they would instantly challenge any team in the NFL.

They put Andrew luck into a 1-15 team now they are 11-5.

Nitpicking, but I think Indy was 2 - 14 last year , though I think that was in part that they were on the 'suck for luck' bandwagon (i.e. they were the NFL version of the Edmonton Oilers, except that they tanked one year, not 3 and counting).

Quote:

Originally Posted by BonkTastic (Post 56949571)
1 horse-sized duck. Ducks are still "big": 100 angry, duck-sized horses stampeding at you is unavoidable death. They'll outrun you for sure, and even at 1/4 the size are strong like crazy.

One horse-sized duck, you've got a chance. Get yourself a weapon, and a one-on-one fight is much more to your advantage. I'll take a "mano a mano" fight over being swarmed any day.

I would agree with this, except that horses are MUCH more than 4 times the size of a duck.

Larionov 01-01-2013 10:43 AM

I always view the QB question like goaltending in hockey. A great QB doesn't guarantee that you will win, but bad play from the QB position pretty much guarantees that you will lose. I look at teams like Arizona and Buffalo, and felt bad for their fans and players - no way they could win consistently with the QBs they had.

You didn't always need a spectacular QB to win in the past - Baltimore winning a Super Bowl with Trent Dilfer, and Tampa Bay with Brad Johnson, are two good examples. Those guys weren't brilliant, but they were good game managers who knew their limitations, made smart decisions, and didn't turn the ball over. With a great D and a good running game, that got it done. Over these last few years, though, the passing game has evolved to the point where you wonder if that model will ever get it done again...

BK201 01-01-2013 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BonkTastic (Post 56949555)
The Chiefs are the exception to the rule. Them and the Jags. Even Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady or Drew Brees couldn't make those teams winners, at least not the way their rosters are currently put together.

Everyone else? Probably.

The Colts were far better built to win than the Chief were (and they play in a division with the Jags and Titans, which always helps, haha)

yes they could easily turn the offenses around

The cheifs don't have a pass game so defenses stack the box against the only offensive threat in charles if they could pass to a premier wide out in Dwayne Bowe they would be set on Offense, defenses would have to actually guard the pass and the rush.

as for JJ they once again have an amazing RB and just need a competent QB to throw to a modest WR core.

both these teams don't have the best defenses but it's obvious by the fact that they just can't score points that a top QB would pretty much turn both these franchises around.

Greeningfan14 01-01-2013 12:22 PM

100 duck sized horses would be lethal

Fenix Rises 2026 01-01-2013 12:46 PM

What if you took the best team in the NFL with the best quarterback, but then you made him duck sized?

internetdotcom 01-01-2013 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenix Rises 2026 (Post 56985097)
What if you took the best team in the NFL with the best quarterback, but then you made him duck sized?

What a quack. LOL *badumbapsssh*

The Expert 01-01-2013 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BonkTastic (Post 56949571)
1 horse-sized duck. Ducks are still "big": 100 angry, duck-sized horses stampeding at you is unavoidable death. They'll outrun you for sure, and even at 1/4 the size are strong like crazy.

One horse-sized duck, you've got a chance. Get yourself a weapon, and a one-on-one fight is much more to your advantage. I'll take a "mano a mano" fight over being swarmed any day.

Depends on the size of these ducks for me, as well as the horse-duck's jumping ability. If it were possible to hypothetically get higher ground and then pick them off one by one, that would be ideal. But the more I think about it, the more unlikely it would work, assuming they are extremely pissed off and blood-thirsty.

FolignoQuantumLeap 01-01-2013 02:13 PM

Coaching is much more important than the QB. The Chiefs aren't even that bad at most important positions but they have a terrible head coach. Crennel will always and forever be a defensive co-ordinator. He's great at that job but not head coach material. If they just would have given Hillis and Charles more carries, they'd be almost a .500 team. Instead they put the ball in the hands of Brady Quinn and Matt Cassel far more often than they should have and gave the other team great starting position on so many key drives.

As a Chiefs fan, I'm concerned about the future at QB, but far more concerned about who will replace the coaching staff and GM. The secondary needs a lot of work too. The loss of Brandon Carr was HUGE.

internetdotcom 01-01-2013 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Expert (Post 56986803)
Depends on the size of these ducks for me, as well as the horse-duck's jumping ability. If it were possible to hypothetically get higher ground and then pick them off one by one, that would be ideal. But the more I think about it, the more unlikely it would work, assuming they are extremely pissed off and blood-thirsty.

I would say that the horse-sized duck would have only the capabilities of any normal duck, it would just be much larger. Similarly for the duck-sized horses.

:nod:

BonkTastic 01-01-2013 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FolignoQuantumLeap (Post 56986809)
...As a Chiefs fan...

Here's my impression of you on Sundays:

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-conte.../08/sadman.gif

:sarcasm:

tony d 01-02-2013 06:55 AM

I'll take the better team as well. A QB is important but a football game is more than just 1 player.

Legend Killer 01-02-2013 07:42 AM

I would take an average team with a great qb over a good team with a brutal qb.

But never take the worst team.

lafite 01-02-2013 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fenix Rises 2026 (Post 56985097)
What if you took the best team in the NFL with the best quarterback, but then you made him duck sized?

They already tried that with Doug Flutie. Mixed results I think.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:46 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.