Aseahawkfan wrote:
Why would you post this? It's wrong on so many levels. Yes, having a franchise QB is what makes you a perennial contender. Regardless of Brady's generosity, it is him that makes the entire team work. Just like it is Rodgers in Green Bay, and Ryan in Atlanta, Peyton in Indy, Ben R. in Pittsburgh, and the list could go on. Having a franchise QB is literally the requirement for being a perennial contender. What team without a franchise QB has been a perennial contender in the modern era? Even in the older eras having a great QB relative to the time was extremely important to contending.
And they are not easy to find at all, which is why Kirk Cousins was just paid a huge amount of money. Why do you post statements that are so easily proven wrong.
I don't mind being a perennial contender but I'd rather have a SB. Think about the SB winners over the last few years, none of them have be Franchise QBs except for Brady.
SB QBs/teams this decade:
2011 Season Eli Manning/Giants vs Brady/Pats
2012 Season Flacco/Ravens vs Krap/49ers (Both were 1st contract QBs)
2013 Season Wilson/Seahawks vs Peyton/Denver (Wilson on first contract)
2014 Season Wilson/Seahawks vs Brady/Pats (I believe Wilson had just signed a new contract that year)
2015 Season Peyton/Denver vs. Kam/Carolina
2016 Season Brady/Pats vs Ryan/Atlanta (Both were not on their first contracts)
2017 Season Goff/Eagles vs Brady/Pats
What sticks out to me is that Brady is there a lot and I"m saying it is because he has supporting cast around him. You don't see Romo, Rodgers, Rothlisberger, etc there. With a franchise QBs salary the depth just can't built well enough to get to the promised land.