This stat tells it all

[blackcatgrowl]

You need solid quarterback play to win championships? Profound.

Indeed... but wait... didn't you say "Teams Win, not players"?

Just what is your position on this point? Are you even sure?

And I never said I believe a word John Fox says. He tries to play a poker face all the time. How can anyone "believe" him?

It's what he doesn't say (or do) that's more of a threat to the 2010 season to me. (like not firing his QB coach, or releasing Delhomme, etc.)

[beastson]

Been brought up by pstall, but the damn search button is off smh

You cant pass effectively, you're not going anywhere. If your QB cant lead your team to victory, you're not going anywhere. Welcome to 2010

[E CaT PanTHer]

Lets just look at the last 20 superbowl champs and their QB's. Here's the list in order starting with the most recent.

Ben Roethlisburger

Eli Manning

Peyton Manning

Ben Roethlisburger

Tom Brady

Tom Brady

Brad Johnson

Tom Brady

Trent Dilfer

Kurt Warner

John Elway

John Elway

Brett Favre

Troy Aikman

Steve Young

Troy Aikman

Troy Aikman

Phil Simms

Joe Mantana

Joe Mantana

Now on that entire list, I probably see 2 superbowl champions that didn't have elite QB's. The Bucs with Brad Johnson and the Ravens with Trent Dilfer. But what did those 2 teams have in common ... exceptional defenses. And when I say exceptional, I mean historic defenses. Equivalent to the Steelers steal curtain type defense. Those are the exceptions, not the rule.

Now a lot of you are saying teams need to have great defenses and a great rushing attack to go along with a great QB to win championships. Well if that's the case, then why are there so many QB's on that list that have won multiple times?? Roethlisburger, Brady, Montana, Young, Aikman, Elway all with multiple championships. And I guarantee you Peyton and Eli will each have one more before their career is over, and maybe possibly Favre this year. The point I'm trying to make is an elite QB can do wonders for a team, and can win you championships with a decent supporting cast, not a superb one.

[magnus]

Chargers are terrible rushing the football, and good at passing it. Of course, an off game or two, and suddenly it's "you have one of the best backs of his generation, a backup with a franchise tag, and you can't run the football."

Which, BTW, does matter. Tomlinson and Sproles are huge in this, and if they can't help support their part of things, it's a waste. If they're not getting attempts, it's a waste. It doesn't help the defense and if you sniff failure, it's "why can't we run the football?".

Also, rushing attempts, no matter who you are, help win games. Be up by two scores with 7 minutes to go and see which makes more sense. Passing or running? Indy won their only championship when they plugged in a fresh runner and had balance.

[CarolinaSock]

Aikman doesn't belong in the same sentence with those other QBs. Aikman was a very average QB on an elite team. I'll never understand how the 42nd ranked QB made it into the HOF. Brad Johnson finished his career with a better passer rating than Aikman.

[E CaT PanTHer]

Aikman doesn't belong in the same sentence with those other QBs. Aikman was a very average QB on an elite team. I'll never understand how the 42nd ranked QB made it into the HOF. Brad Johnson finished his career with a better passer rating than Aikman.

So you're trying to say Dallas would have won 3 superbowls in 4 years with any other QB under center?? Care to revise your statement?

[CarolinaSock]

So you're trying to say Dallas would have won 3 superbowls in 4 years with any other QB under center?? Care to revise your statement?

Exactly what I'm saying. Take any of a dozen or so QBs from the same era and they still win with all that talent.

[panthers55]

Lets just look at the last 20 superbowl champs and their QB's. Here's the list in order starting with the most recent.

Ben Roethlisburger

Eli Manning

Peyton Manning

Ben Roethlisburger

Tom Brady

Tom Brady

Brad Johnson

Tom Brady

Trent Dilfer

Kurt Warner

John Elway

John Elway

Brett Favre

Troy Aikman

Steve Young

Troy Aikman

Troy Aikman

Phil Simms

Joe Mantana

Joe Mantana

Now on that entire list, I probably see 2 superbowl champions that didn't have elite QB's. The Bucs with Brad Johnson and the Ravens with Trent Dilfer. But what did those 2 teams have in common ... exceptional defenses. And when I say exceptional, I mean historic defenses. Equivalent to the Steelers steal curtain type defense. Those are the exceptions, not the rule.

Now a lot of you are saying teams need to have great defenses and a great rushing attack to go along with a great QB to win championships. Well if that's the case, then why are there so many QB's on that list that have won multiple times?? Roethlisburger, Brady, Montana, Young, Aikman, Elway all with multiple championships. And I guarantee you Peyton and Eli will each have one more before their career is over, and maybe possibly Favre this year. The point I'm trying to make is an elite QB can do wonders for a team, and can win you championships with a decent supporting cast, not a superb one.

Incredibly inadequate analysis. First of all, because a quarterback is recognized as an elite quarterback because they won a superbowl or had a good career, doesn't mean they were elite the year they won the superbowl or were elite during the Superbowl run etc. Plus you really need to separate recent superbowls where passing is a bigger issue than 20 years ago when passing wasn't as important.

For example look at Roethlisburger's 2 superbowls. He was great in 2005 during the regular season at 98 good for 3rd and was great up until the superbowl where he was awful (passer rating of 22). They won despite him with defense. In 2008 he was ranked 24th during the season (80) and even during the postseason he was second to Warner by almost 20 passer rating points (91).

Look at Eli Manning during the regular season in 2007. His passer rating was a 74 and he was 25th on the list. Even in the post season his rating was the 4th best at 95.7 . In the NFC Championship game it was a 72 and in the superbowl it was 87.

Let look at Elway's ratings. In 1997 in the regular season it was a pedestrian 87 and 7th on the list. It went down to an 83 in the postseason and 3rd behind the other elite quarterbacks Elvis Grbac(94) and Frank Reich (99). In 1998 his regular season rating was 87 good for 5th on the list. Who was better? Vinny Testeverde was 2nd at 101 and Randall Cuningham led the pack at 106. He was right behind that other elite quarterback Chris Chandler who was at 100.

Now lets look at defensive stats for the same examples using points allowed:

In 2007 the Giants were 17th in the regular season (21.9) and first in the post season at 16.1.

In 2008 Pittsburgh was 1st in fewest points allowed regular season and post season. In 2005 they were 4th at 16 points a game. In the postseason they were 4th at 15.5 ( the top 3 were all tied at 15 points per game)

How about Elway and the Orange Crush. In 1997 Denver was 8th in the regular season, 6th in the playoffs in points allowed. In 1998 they were 8th in the regular season and 1st in the postseason allowing only 10.7 points.

Lets look at rushing:

Denver in 1998 was ranked 1st in the regular season, 2nd in the postseason. In 1997 they were 2nd in the regular season and first in the post season.

In 2005 the Steelers were 5th in the regular season, 7th in the playoffs.

In 2007 the Giants were 3rd in the regular season and 6th in the postseason.

In 2009 the steelers were 23rd in regular season and 9th in the postseason

You can make a case that passing is becoming more important but if you do the analysis for the last 20 years you will see very few winners without a good rushing attack and defense. Plus elite quarter passer ratings from that era would put you in the middle of the pack today. Look at Troy Aikman- career passer rating of 81 with almost as many Ints than TDs and in his 12 year career only once threw for more than 20 TDs. He averaged less than 1 per game.

[E CaT PanTHer]

Incredibly inadequate analysis. First of all, because a quarterback is recognized as an elite quarterback because they won a superbowl or had a good career, doesn't mean they were elite the year they won the superbowl or were elite during the Superbowl run etc. Plus you really need to separate recent superbowls where passing is a bigger issue than 20 years ago when passing wasn't as important.

For example look at Roethlisburger's 2 superbowls. He was great in 2005 during the regular season at 98 good for 3rd and was great up until the superbowl where he was awful (passer rating of 22). They won despite him with defense. In 2008 he was ranked 24th during the season (80) and even during the postseason he was second to Warner by almost 20 passer rating points (91).

Look at Eli Manning during the regular season in 2007. His passer rating was a 74 and he was 25th on the list. Even in the post season his rating was the 4th best at 95.7 . In the NFC Championship game it was a 72 and in the superbowl it was 87.

Let look at Elway's ratings. In 1997 in the regular season it was a pedestrian 87 and 7th on the list. It went down to an 83 in the postseason and 3rd behind the other elite quarterbacks Elvis Grbac(94) and Frank Reich (99). In 1998 his regular season rating was 87 good for 5th on the list. Who was better? Vinny Testeverde was 2nd at 101 and Randall Cuningham led the pack at 106. He was right behind that other elite quarterback Chris Chandler who was at 100.

Now lets look at defensive stats for the same examples using points allowed:

In 2007 the Giants were 17th in the regular season (21.9) and first in the post season at 16.1.

In 2008 Pittsburgh was 1st in fewest points allowed regular season and post season. In 2005 they were 4th at 16 points a game. In the postseason they were 4th at 15.5 ( the top 3 were all tied at 15 points per game)

How about Elway and the Orange Crush. In 1997 Denver was 8th in the regular season, 6th in the playoffs in points allowed. In 1998 they were 8th in the regular season and 1st in the postseason allowing only 10.7 points.

Lets look at rushing:

Denver in 1998 was ranked 1st in the regular season, 2nd in the postseason. In 1997 they were 2nd in the regular season and first in the post season.

In 2005 the Steelers were 5th in the regular season, 7th in the playoffs.

In 2007 the Giants were 3rd in the regular season and 6th in the postseason.

In 2009 the steelers were 23rd in regular season and 9th in the postseason

You can make a case that passing is becoming more important but if you do the analysis for the last 20 years you will see very few winners without a good rushing attack and defense. Plus elite quarter passer ratings from that era would put you in the middle of the pack today. Look at Troy Aikman- career passer rating of 81 with almost as many Ints than TDs and in his 12 year career only once threw for more than 20 TDs. He averaged less than 1 per game.

Ok, so you proved to me that to win a championship, you need an average rushing attack and defense to go along with a great QB. B/c to be honest, you're numbers don't say much. Those numbers aren't elite numbers, and that's exactly what I'm saying. I'm conceding that you need a decent supporting cast around you to win it all, but not an elite supporting cast. And the difference between winning it all and losing comes down to the QB.

But what if we look at the teams that were both in the top 5 in rushing offense and overall defense and see how many of those teams won the SB.

2004: Steelers 2nd in rushing and 1st in overall defense. Superbowl, NO

2004: Broncos 4th in rushing and 4th in overall defense. Superbowl, NO

2005: Steelers, 5th in rushing and 4th in overall defense. Superbowl, YES

2006: Jaguars, 3rd in rushing and 2nd in overall defense. Superbowl, NO

2007: Steelers, 3rd in rushing and 1st in overall defense. Superbowl, NO

2007: Titans, 5th in rushing and 5th in overall defense. Superbowl, NO

2008: Giants, 1st in rushing and 5th in overall defense. Superbowl, NO

2008: Ravens 4th in rushing and 2nd in overall defense. Superbowl, NO

Ok so in the past 5 years, only 1 team has won a superbowl with a top 5 rushing attack and a top 5 defense. And the reason I'm using top 5 and not top 10 for example is just to prove my point. An average running game and an average defense will get it done with an elite QB. But an elite running game and an elite defense won't get it done with an average QB.

end of story.

[frash.exe]

a great qb and a good running game will take you farther in this league today than a good qb and a great running game

[E CaT PanTHer]

a great qb and a good running game will take you farther in this league today than a good qb and a great running game

Thank you Raging Bull. Good minds think alike. Just look at my post above in bold.

[panthers55]

a great qb and a good running game will take you farther in this league today than a good qb and a great running game

Thank you Raging Bull. Good minds think alike. Just look at my post above in bold.

Only if they play great when they need to. What has been the knock on Mannning before 2006? He played great in the regular season and crappy in the playoffs. Even the year they won the Super bowl it was as much a function of the defense playing over their heads than it was Manning playing great. His passer rating in the regular season was 101, in the post season it was 70.

[panthers55]

Ok, so you proved to me that to win a championship, you need an average rushing attack and defense to go along with a great QB. B/c to be honest, you're numbers don't say much. Those numbers aren't elite numbers, and that's exactly what I'm saying. I'm conceding that you need a decent supporting cast around you to win it all, but not an elite supporting cast. And the difference between winning it all and losing comes down to the QB.

But what if we look at the teams that were both in the top 5 in rushing offense and overall defense and see how many of those teams won the SB.

2004: Steelers 2nd in rushing and 1st in overall defense. Superbowl, NO

2004: Broncos 4th in rushing and 4th in overall defense. Superbowl, NO

2005: Steelers, 5th in rushing and 4th in overall defense. Superbowl, YES

2006: Jaguars, 3rd in rushing and 2nd in overall defense. Superbowl, NO

2007: Steelers, 3rd in rushing and 1st in overall defense. Superbowl, NO

2007: Titans, 5th in rushing and 5th in overall defense. Superbowl, NO

2008: Giants, 1st in rushing and 5th in overall defense. Superbowl, NO

2008: Ravens 4th in rushing and 2nd in overall defense. Superbowl, NO

Ok so in the past 5 years, only 1 team has won a superbowl with a top 5 rushing attack and a top 5 defense. And the reason I'm using top 5 and not top 10 for example is just to prove my point. An average running game and an average defense will get it done with an elite QB. But an elite running game and an elite defense won't get it done with an average QB.

end of story.

Again what kind of crappy analysis is that. I also said you need a good offense and good defense in the playoffs to win. First of all you used regular season stats which mean much less than post season ones. Secondly you used quantitative stats instead of qualitative ones. Third you ignored my point that it is about total offense not simply rushing. For example New York won the Super bowl in 2007 with the 1st rated defense (points surrendered) in the post season, the 6th rated rushing attack(yards per carry) and the 8th rated passing attack (yards per game) out of 12 teams. Total offense was 7th based on points per game at 21. Any ideas what got them over the top.

You obviously took some regular season stats, which are not very telling and made erroneous conclusions proving nothing. Now do what I did for the other teams you mentioned using qualitative meaningful stats looking at where they ranked on rushing, defense, and passing and total offense in the post season and get back with me. At least you will have an analysis worth discussing at that point.

[PeteRozelle]

Take a look at these stats... Like it or not, the game is changing.....

http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/release.aspx?release_id=1330

From 1967 to 1980, there were only 3, 4000+ yds passers. There were 10 alone this year.

pete