View topic - Historical perspective and the vital importance of the QB

[First to Six Profile]

I think it's funny that each year somebody other than Ben gets named Stiller MVP, but when you look back at the totality of this team since 2004 there is one player who stands head and shoulders above all others. And without this one player, the Stillers would still be hunting for SB#5.

Think about it: Cowher never won a Super Bowl until he drafted a QB in Round 1. The Stillers had a bone-crushing defense throughout the Cowher era. It had star running backs (Foster then Bettis) for his entire tenure. But throughout, the team had sub-par QBs until Ben.

I'm a big-time D-fan -- almost to the point where I prefer watching the D on the field. The jersey I own is #43 not #7. But maybe I think in all our glorification of what is historically the best defense (collectively) in the SB-era, we sometimes forget the importance of having the right guy touching the ball on half of the teams total plays.

Here's an Iron City to the reason the Stiller's have SBs 5 and 6. If he's not the MVP of any given year, he's certainly the MVP of the 2000s.

[toomuchmerrilhoge Profile]

we could have 8 SBs right now if we had the right QB in the 90s. When I think of those great defenses we had combined with the dominant running games...it was pretty much the lack of clutch QB play (aka O'Donnell, Kordell) that kept us from the ultimate prize in 95, 97, and '03. It's true that Ben is single biggest difference for us going forward. The Rooney's knew that, which is why they gave him the giant $$$ over 8 years.

[BigE Profile]

I completely agree. I believe the Stillers would have no less than 9 superbowls if not for the shitty play of Neil O'Donnell and Kordell. O'Donnell was average and Kordell sucked elephant balls. Ben is the 2nd best quarterback in the league right now behind Brady, and hopefully the Stillers can repeat so we can share the decade with the Pats.