Most and least important position for team success (1 Viewer)

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

I was watching one of the talking head panel shows on ESPN a few days back, and it seems to me that in recent years, too many fans and media members over-emphasize the importance receivers play in overall team success. Not that they aren't important, but you can win with relatively average receivers, as the Pats proved three times, and you can certainly lose with elite receivers, as the Pats proved this year.

So, other than QB, what position on the football field is, in your opinion, the most vital for overall team success? And which is the least important? I think almost everyone will agree that QB is generally the most important position on a football team to determine overall team success so I left QB out. Also left special teams out.

I'm a big believer in building from the lines out, so I'd say having a strong defensive line is the position after QB that needs to be excellent, followed closely by the OL.

I've seen too many plug-and-play RBs come through the league to say that if the other offensive pieces are in place, you can de-emphasize your investment in the RB position and still be successful.

Thoughts?

 

[morris4903]

I've seen too many plug-and-play RBs come through the league to say that if the other offensive pieces are in place, you can de-emphasize your investment in the RB position and still be successful.

 

[Captain Spaulding]

The Steelers have proven a formula over the years that a great offensive line can actually make the defense better as well as running game and obviously passing game (if you have a decent QB). Controlling the game and clock by a strong offensive line unit allows your teams defense to stay fresh for later in the game and also with Time of Possession it actually allows the defense to "defend" less plays. I have to vote for O-line.

 

[Koya]

Seems like I am in line with most early voters.

Offensive Line - because a great line makes everyone else at least good, especially the running game...

Running Backs - ... because if you have the line then any decent RB with a little speed will produce well. It is also a position where three different guys with different skill sets can be about 80% as good as a REALLY good all around RB who can do it all. With a great line, even better.

 

[Despyzer]

I don't think there is any position in any sport that is more dependent on the other teammates performing well than the WR. Think of all the things that have to go right before the WR even has an opportunity to catch the ball.

 

[Road Warriors]

I think its a pretty close call on most important between OL and DL. If one of these is great, it vastly improves all the other positions on that side of the ball.

 

[The Kansas Comet]

I chose D-line barely ahead of O-line. Least important? WR If you have a solid QB and a good O-line to give him time, decent receivers can look pretty darn good.

 

[SSOG]

If we're talking about entire units, then offensive line. If we're talking about individual players, then I think defensive linemen are more important. A stud defensive lineman and 3 average Joes makes a great defensive line, while a stud offensive tackle and 4 average Joes makes a pretty mediocre line (because only one DL has to win the battle for the defense to win the play, while all 5 OLs have to win the battle for the offense to win the play).

Outside of Tom Brady or Peyton Manning, I'd take a young Michael Strahan or a young Warren Sapp over anyone currently in the NFL. Not sure if there's anyone who currently fits that bill right now- maybe if Peppers was a bit more consistent.

 

[DoubleG]

I chose D-line barely ahead of O-line. Least important? WR If you have a solid QB and a good O-line to give him time, decent receivers can look pretty darn good.

I chose D-line just over O-line simply because defense wins championships. Although it doesn't happen as often in today's NFL, you usually win if your opponent doesn't score. Good D-lines stop RBs, rush the passer, etc. As we saw in SB XLII, even one of the most prolific offenses in a while was made to look feeble when faced with strong D-line play (NY's LBs are decent and their DB's average at best.)I am actually suprised that this poll, coming on the heels of SB XLII, doesn't have the D-line showing better in votes.

 

[Sheriff66]

Crucial for success - OL

Not so crucial - RB

Give me a great OL and an average back over a great RB with an average OL anytime.

 

[switz]

Least important? LBs... if you have a great DL and DBs you can shut down the run and the pass. LBs actually cover weaknesses in those other areas.

Next? RBs... average RBs look great behind great lines.

I don't buy into the WR thing. I've never seen a crappy WR look great because of the QB. I've seen QBs improve WRs, put the ball in the spot for the WR to rack up YAC, but not turn crappy into good. Not like lines transform RBs.

 

[FUBAR]

Least important? LBs... if you have a great DL and DBs you can shut down the run and the pass. LBs actually cover weaknesses in those other areas.Next? RBs... average RBs look great behind great lines.I don't buy into the WR thing. I've never seen a crappy WR look great because of the QB. I've seen QBs improve WRs, put the ball in the spot for the WR to rack up YAC, but not turn crappy into good. Not like lines transform RBs.

Before this year, New England did very well with poor WRs. Most - either OL or DLLeast - either RB or WR, you should have one quality player among this group, but it doesn't matter which.