Well, yeah. We agree, they needed a qb. However, I want to stress again that Brady is unique. He is no standard or norm, he's a rare exception.
In fact I would say that without the qb issues the last 2 years (Foles and Bradford)...combined with the OL issues...they would already be a winning team.
I like Goff btw and think that with him, it;s just a matter of time. I don't know if he will be elite, but you don't need that if you have the defense. You just need good at qb if you have the defense.
Quote
PHDram
the qb is the key.
that is why the rams went out and acquired a "franchise" qb. at least that is what they hope they acquired one. in addition they drafted higbee who will hopefully live up to the hype he is getting.
and im sure they are aware that wr is still an issue which is why they brought in a number of guys. but they needed the qb first. i suspect that wr will top the list of toys for next year.
in terms of rodgers, yeah gb was less effective without nelson but they were still pretty damn good. ill take that any day. which is again an indication that you NEED the qb.
Quote
zn
Quote
PHDram
yet he patriots keep on winning and winning without a dominant wr corps. why cant the rams do the same?
Why can't the Rams do the same?
Brady. Plus of course, Gronkowsi (Patz aren't weaponless.)
Patz have Brady, Rams don't.
I hope we agree that, yes, Brady is that good and combined with Gronkowski that offense is very good.
Meanwhile what happened to Rodgers last year? Visible declines in production and accuracy and points.
The word out of GB is that Nelson meant that much to the offense.
And...that does not make Rodgers a bad qb. It's just that unlike Brady he needed his top receiver.
That makes Brady even more rare, it doesn't diminish Rodgers.
.
