That's because there is nothing more 'impactful' to team success than a good QB. There isn't a single position on the field that has the power to affect results more than the QB. You mentioned the substandard post-season that Peyton Manning had, but there is no way that they would've succeeded without him. Making reference to a specific example or small sample size of a circumstance doesn't add to, nor take away from, the overall point. I doubt that anyone would argue against the thought that it's a team sport and it's about more than any one guy.
In the words of Dick Vermeil -
"Football is the ultimate team sport, but the QB is too damn important."
Unlike the cancer in your analogy, fixing the issue at QB is more likely to cover up - and in some case, shore up - the other areas that ail the team. No team is perfectly assembled, and every team has holes. Besides, some things will kill you faster than others.
I've heard over and over again about how there will be no better options this off-season, but how do we know that? How do we know that there isn't a better option already on the roster? As I mentioned earlier - if you're going to boast a 29th ranked (type) pass offense, I'd just assume you do it with a younger QB that you feel has the talent to develop into a good NFL QB. I mean ...... what's the purpose of paying a veteran QB mega-bucks to lead an inferior pass offense?
Speaking of which, Smith's cap number goes up significantly for '15 & '16. That's only going to restrict the amount of help that the Chiefs can add to the roster, as well as limit what they're able to maintain as far as talent already on the team.
Smith is only the "best option" if his production is proportionate to the amount of cap space he eats up, IMO.
Bookmarks