Last year, when Matt Shaub went down it tested the strength of the Houston team. Matt Leinart was the second string QB who replaced Shaub. Yet, Leinart did not last long, and third stringer TJ Yates filled the spot and ultimately led the Texans to their very first playoff appearance in franchise history. Was it TJ Yates, or was it the team? Yates is no push over, by any means, but he's no Peyton Manning either. Houston's playoff push was indicative of a team that was coming together and running on all cylinders.
The Bleacher Report did an article on the top ten teams who cannot afford to lose their starting QB. Peyton Manning and the Denver Broncos was atop the list, with Pittsburgh and Green Bay following. It's obvious these teams still have missing pieces and rely heavily on their franchise QB's. Has anyone watched the Steelers offense with Charlie Batch? Why did the football gods not let us face Batch instead of Roethlisberger? The Report listed the Super Bowl Champion New York Giants at 7, although I think that is low. The Giants need Eli. Last year the Giants secondary was decimated, yet Eli was clutch and led them to another ring.
Obviously, no one wants to lose their QB, especially RG3. But if we had too, Cousins is not a bad backup. Kirk's ability to close out the game showed that he is unusually mature and bright for his age. I believe it also shows the team is playing better as a unit. We are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel from the days of selfish, over paid superstars to a group of youngsters playing like a team. No doubt Cousins is good, but I truly believe the talent on the field is better than it has been.
It's been a long time since we have had a Franchise QB. An even longer time since one actually led us to the promise land. When we look back to the QB's of the glory days with Joe Theisman, Mark Rypien and Doug Williams one commonality they all shared was: they were no Tom Brady or Joe Montana. They were QB's of "teams," units of talented men.