Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Trent Dilfer dishes on Cutler situation

No need to worry about the Vikings trading for Jay Cutler. Trent Dilfer doesn't think he's that good.

As a former quarterback who had some (limited) success in the league, I'm interested in Dilfer's opinion on Cutler. But I think Dilfer provides some pretty dubious logic in his answer to this question from Judd Zulgad.

Q: Are you comfortable with the Vikings having Sage Rosenfels and Tarvaris Jackson battle for the starting spot?

A: "I’m one of the few guys who doesn’t have a problem with what they’re doing. Their team is built from the inside out both on the defensive and offensive side. That works. It worked for the Steelers, it worked for the Ravens, it worked for other teams. … I think if the quarterback understands, whoever wins the job, that he has to play critical downs better that is the key. It’s not about first and second down all the time. You have to make sure you’re playing well on third down and capitalize on red-zone opportunities. If the quarterback has that perspective on it, the Vikings are definitely Super Bowl contenders."

Based on this answer, Dilfer doesn't seem to think the quarterback position is as important as other people do. And I'd expect Dilfer to feel that way – after all, he's the poster child for the term "game manager quarterback." The term may have even been coined after Dilfer won his Super Bowl with Baltimore in 2001.

That doesn't mean he's right though. He mentions the Steelers as an example of a team built from the inside out both offensively and defensively. But I don't think the Steelers would have got to two Super Bowls in the past four years, and won them, without Ben Roethlisberger.

And let's look at the Super Bowl champs and who quarterbacked them from 1999-2009.

2009 – Steelers (Ben Roethlisberger, elite QB)
2008 - Giants (Eli Manning, solid QB)
2007 – Colts (Peyton Manning, elite QB)
2006 – Steelers (Roethlisberger)
2005 – Patriots (Tom Brady, elite QB)
2004 – Patriots (Brady)
2003 – Buccaneers (Brad Johnson, game manager QB)
2002 – Patriots (Brady)
2001 – Ravens (Dilfer, game manager QB)
2000 – Rams (Kurt Warner, elite QB)
1999 – Broncos (John Elway, Hall of Famer)

So, yeah, you can be successful and win a Super Bowl with a Dilfer or Brad Johnson, or Sage Rosenfels or maybe even Tarvaris Jackson. But it doesn't happen very often. And if a better quarterback – possibly an elite quarterback – is available, the Vikings are silly if they don't explore what it would take to get him.

Dilfer also talks about the Viking quarterbacks having to play critical downs better and if Rosenfels or Jackson can just understand they need to play better on those downs, then the Vikings will be Super Bowl contenders.

The thing is, I'm sure Rosenfels and Jackson do understand this. I'm sure Brad Childress and Darrell Bevell will talk about this until their throats are all dry and scratchy. It's just that Rosenfels and Jackson haven't been able to pull it off enough so far in their careers. And I don't think that's a mental thing, or even an experience thing, it's a talent thing. Better quarterbacks will play better on critical downs because they are better.

So I'll accept it if the Vikings go into 2009 with Rosenfels and Jackson competing for the starting job. But I will not feel comfortable about it.

4 comments:

Travis D. said...

Very good post. I agree that the success of the "game manager" strategy in the NFL is more of the exception instead of the rule. If not for Brad Johnson, we'd all just look at Dilfer and the Ravens as being a complete anomaly (arguably the best defense ever, by the way). Dilfer may have coined the "game manager" term, but Johnson proliferated the illusion throughout the optimistic hearts of NFL fans and management. I suppose Doug Williams and Mark Rypien of the old Skins teams also come to mind.

As you outline, the odds to win the Super Bowl favor teams with stellar QBs. Winning the SB with a QB like Dilfer or Brad Johnson is the football equivalent of hitting a hole-in-one.

SupaFan said...

Maybe its the Canadian speak or spelling, but it think the term is dis not dish. Either way good post great sight.

DC said...

Supafan:

I did not mean in the headline to indicate Dilfer was "dissing" Cutler (although he kinda was) but that he was "dishing" on Cutler.

To "dish" on something – means to offer an opinion. I'm pretty sure I've read this in American publications, not just Canadian ones.

Anyway, thanks for stopping by.

SupaFan said...

my bad