can on postion player cause a team to lose
Yes
hockey = goalie
baseball = pitcher
football = QB
In all of the above cases a poor player in that position guarentees failure but almost every other position can be covered up if its suspect
Were you the first guy in line with a torch in Salem?
Maas last 2 games easily best as a Cat. Still some mistakes but I am not going to flic my bic.
Exactly what does this do to answer the question which BTW names absolutely nobody but identifies a basic premise you either agree with or don't. If you want to make this an effort to defend a particular player or criticize a particular player that your choice. I've seen posts that say that only a team can win a game and wondered if those same people believed that if individual players could singlehandedly ruin the efforts of the rest of the team. Obviously I believe that to be true and have laid out the circumstances that I believe this can happen. Either you agree with the premise or you don't. I you don't I'd like to hear your reasoning
The question asks an unanswerable question. The answer is, :It depends." In a close game even a lineman can make a mistake which causes a decisive outcome. On the other hand, it's obvious that some players are better than others.
The problem with this poll is that one can easily read an agenda into it- unlike all the other polls which are as pure as the driven snow. 
if a poor position player can cause a team to lose then a great player should cause a team to win
then howcome montreal and colorado didnt win the stanley cup every year that patrick roy played goal,why didnt the sf 49ers win the super bowl every year joe montana played its takes more than 1 player good or bad too affect the outcome of any game
I said disagree.
My evidence, the 85 Bears won Superbowl 20 behind Jim McMahon, the Steelers won all those Superbowls behind Terry Bradshaw and the Giants won a Superbowl behing a BACK UP quarterback, (whose name evades me). If a "key" player is bad, then other players have to pick up the slack. That is what a championship team is made of, players complementing each other. Defense rests.
Hersh
A hypothosise does not infer the opposite must be true
And what agenda would that be. I'm wondering if people feel that QB is a fundamentally imperative position to be at least average whereas other positions are not.
Because the three player positions mentioned tend to stand out in the eyes of the spectators, much too much is made of their contribution to winning or losing.
Yes, they are key players, but other players often make them look better, and yes, worse than they are.
I won't go into the other sports just football. A good offensive line can make a mediocre QB look good as he can make them look bad. Receivers that run good patterns and fight for the ball make QBs look good, those that don't make him look bad. And yes, a good QB can make a poor line and receiving corps look decent.
In football the good QB is probably the most valuable asset, but he his nothing without a good support cast.
Symantics aside, everyone knows he's talking about Maas. Maas's last game is one of his best as a cat? That doesn't say much. How many yards passing did he have? How many TDs? I rest my case. Taafe gave him a chance. Let's start Chang next game...
I'm not interested in that here. I want an honest discussion WITHOUT the usual Chang vs Maas routine. Debate the Argos for example. IMO they lost because they lost thier starter who was playing well and replaced him with a QB that has not proven that he can compete at the pro level
who lost their starter?
Toronto lost Bishop and was force to play McMahon who was absolutely pathetic. With Bishop at the helm last wee the Argos crushed the Stamps and with McMahon leading the offence this week the Stamps crushed the Argos. Coincidence? Not in my mind. Add to that the fact that Damen Allen led an inept offence to an opening game loss and the Argos looked like a machine after McMahon replaced him
It takes a team to win,,,,but it takes the fans to support them to the goal !!!!
?