Are there any Super Bowl winner without a Pro Bowl QB?

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by Dice

Now the 2001 Pats were average-to-below average defensively. Matter of fact, in the last 20 years, the 2001 Pats had the lowest defensive ranking(24th) of Superbowl champions. They were only the second Superbowl champion with a defensive ranking below 20. The other was the 2006 Colts. Who also have a HOF QB in Peyton Manning. And if you remember in the Superbowl, the Pats gave up 400+ yards against the Rams. It wasn’t like they completely shut down their opponents. Brady was also the MVP of that Superbowl because of the drive that got them in FG position. Not many QB’s would have made a clutch drive the way he did. And average QB would not have done that. And that to me separates an average QB from a great QB. When has a Dilfer or Delhomme made plays in big game situations? Now I know you mentioned Eli, who has made a big play in big game situations, BUT his HOF status is still up in the air. We know that Dilfer nor Delhomme will never make it but Eli still has a shot. A long shot, but nevertheless, a shot. You cannot short-change the impact of Brady during the 2001 season. Yes, he didn't have mind boggling numbers BUT he was a big reason why they won that year. And a bigger reason why they won the other years.

Cebby made most of the points I would on this. I'll just add that Dilfer also threw a 96 yard td pass to Sharpe against Oakland and another long pass to Sharpe against Denver. I'm definitely not here to say Dilfer deserves to be mentioned with the greats, of course. The point is a great defense can keep the game close and the offensive gameplan in tact, making it easier for any QB to be successful and complete a play or drive that ends up being a game changer/winner. You put the likes of Brady, Manning, Ben in these situations, they will shine more times than not, but you can put many QBs in these situations when they only need to make one or two plays and they can get the job done.

Quote: Originally Posted by Dice

Your right, they don't award the Superbowl MVP to entire defenses. But when you talk about teams who's sole purpose of winning was defense then you'd notice the MVP's were on the defensive side of the ball. 85 Bears - Richard Dent. 2000 Ravens - Ray Lewis. 2002 Tampa Bay - Dexter Jackson. These teams are examples of their defense being their sole purpose in winning. As for the Pats, yes the had a good defense. BUT their defense alone was not the reason why they won the Superbowl. That's all I'm saying.

You know well that you can't argue the merit of a player based on SB MVP. If the 2000 Ravens QB's name was Brady and he had the EXACT same game, he would've won the MVP of the game. As great as Ray was, he won bc Dilfer was Trent Dilfer... especially after the murder trial (Dilfer was the one invited to Disney World if I'm not mistaken). Hell, Peyton probably shouldn't have been named MVP of his SB win and Eli should've have been of his. It takes an out of wordly performance for a nonQB to get consideration.

You also can't argue regular season defensive ranking unless you can show it was displayed in the game. Both the Colts and Pats defenses of those SB years played HUGE roles no matter what their regular season defensive rankings said.

[Dice]

Quote: Originally Posted by wwharton

Cebby made most of the points I would on this. I'll just add that Dilfer also threw a 96 yard td pass to Sharpe against Oakland and another long pass to Sharpe against Denver. I'm definitely not here to say Dilfer deserves to be mentioned with the greats, of course. The point is a great defense can keep the game close and the offensive gameplan in tact, making it easier for any QB to be successful and complete a play or drive that ends up being a game changer/winner. You put the likes of Brady, Manning, Ben in these situations, they will shine more times than not, but you can put many QBs in these situations when they only need to make one or two plays and they can get the job done. You know well that you can't argue the merit of a player based on SB MVP. If the 2000 Ravens QB's name was Brady and he had the EXACT same game, he would've won the MVP of the game. As great as Ray was, he won bc Dilfer was Trent Dilfer... especially after the murder trial (Dilfer was the one invited to Disney World if I'm not mistaken). Hell, Peyton probably shouldn't have been named MVP of his SB win and Eli should've have been of his. It takes an out of wordly performance for a nonQB to get consideration. You also can't argue regular season defensive ranking unless you can show it was displayed in the game. Both the Colts and Pats defenses of those SB years played HUGE roles no matter what their regular season defensive rankings said.

OK. So now let's get back to the statement that I made because now you and Cebby has gotten off track on what I said.

I stated that if you want a dynasty, you have to have a pro bowl/HOF caliber QB. When I say dynasty, that's at least 2 or more SB in a span of 5 years. Now I also stated that you can win A superbowl without a pro bowl/HOF QB. But that's all your getting is ONE.

OK. Let's just say for arguments sake that I give you guys the Patriots 2001 SB. Where's you guys believed that their defense was the key reason for them winning that year. What about the other two championships? In 2003, Brady had good numbers in the playoffs and had an outstanding SB, where he one the SB MVP again.

In the 2003 championship are you going to tell me that their defense won it for them? They gave up 29 points to the Panther and almost 400 yards. So Brady wasn't the MVP of that Superbowl?

Then let's go to 2004. Ok, I'll give the Pats D credit in the Colts win BUT you cannot deny that Brady ran rough shot through the playoffs that season. He had a stellar playoffs, 105 QB rating and 5 TD's and 0 INT's. And the defense in the conference finals and superbowl? 21, 27 points and 350+ yards allowed in both games. So Brady wasn't responsible for that?

So let's recap, out of the 3 superbowl victories, Brady was more valuable for 2 of them than the defense. So back to my statement, to maintain a dynasty you must have a pro bowl/HOF QB.

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by Dice

OK. So now let's get back to the statement that I made because now you and Cebby has gotten off track on what I said. I stated that if you want a dynasty, you have to have a pro bowl/HOF caliber QB. When I say dynasty, that's at least 2 or more SB in a span of 5 years. Now I also stated that you can win A superbowl without a pro bowl/HOF QB. But that's all your getting is ONE. OK. Let's just say for arguments sake that I give you guys the Patriots 2001 SB. Where's you guys believed that their defense was the key reason for them winning that year. What about the other two championships? In 2003, Brady had good numbers in the playoffs and had an outstanding SB, where he one the SB MVP again. In the 2003 championship are you going to tell me that their defense won it for them? They gave up 29 points to the Panther and almost 400 yards. So Brady wasn't the MVP of that Superbowl? Then let's go to 2004. Ok, I'll give the Pats D credit in the Colts win BUT you cannot deny that Brady ran rough shot through the playoffs that season. He had a stellar playoffs, 105 QB rating and 5 TD's and 0 INT's. And the defense in the conference finals and superbowl? 21, 27 points and 350+ yards allowed in both games. So Brady wasn't responsible for that? So let's recap, out of the 3 superbowl victories, Brady was more valuable for 2 of them than the defense. So back to my statement, to maintain a dynasty you must have a pro bowl/HOF QB.

It did get sidetracked, and on your statement I don't disagree all that much. I replied to the idea that an average QB couldn't have won any of those SB games (which I obviously disagree with) and we went off a bit on that point.

Going back to my replies to your earlier statements, I think a good/great D is as important to a dynasty as a good/great QB (as well as a good/great RB... I think you need 1 great and 2 good out of the 3). I think that's where we disagree, or where the discussion is coming from on my end. I'm not discrediting Brady but giving his D the credit it deserves.

[Cebby]

Quote: Originally Posted by Dice

I stated that if you want a dynasty, you have to have a pro bowl/HOF caliber QB. When I say dynasty, that's at least 2 or more SB in a span of 5 years. Now I also stated that you can win A superbowl without a pro bowl/HOF QB. But that's all your getting is ONE.

Any QB of a "dynasty" will make the Hall of Fame based on the media's belief that team success=quarterback success.

Bradshaw was not a Hall of Fame quarterback, and Aikman's status without championships is debatable but he's certainly not a first ballot guy without chips. I never saw Starr, but his lack of Pro Bowls and All Pro selections would indicate he should be included with these two.

Quote:

What about the other two championships?

Brady played well.

That said, if the defenses were reversed, I think the Colts smash them both years.

[Dice]

Quote: Originally Posted by Cebby

Any QB of a "dynasty" will make the Hall of Fame based on the media's belief that team success=quarterback success. Bradshaw was not a Hall of Fame quarterback, and Aikman's status without championships is debatable but he's certainly not a first ballot guy without chips. I never saw Starr, but his lack of Pro Bowls and All Pro selections would indicate he should be included with these two. Brady played well. That said, if the defenses were reversed, I think the Colts smash them both years.

Well, let me put it like this. Teams don't win with bad QB play. Doesn't matter if you've got the best O-line in the league and you got Jerry Rice on one side and Randy Moss on the other side with Walter Payton as your running back. If you have a terrible QB, somewhere down the line your team is going to loose. I definitely know about this after watching the 2006 Bears go down in the Superbowl due to Rex 'is our quarterback' Grossman.

In some respects it makes sense and some respects it doesn't. Football is in essence a team sports. But if you were forced to make a decision on what was the single most important position on the football field it would be the QB. It's the position a team cannot hide if they are weak at the position. Maybe in the college game you can get away with having a bad QB if your stronger at other positions. But in the pros, sooner or later a team is going to test the abilities of a QB. And in the pros, a QB will have to make at least a few key plays to help win the game. I’m not saying he has to be ‘in his prime’ Farve or Montana but they would need to do stuff like getting a key first down to keep a drive alive. Or not throwing the ball to the other team. Simple stuff like that.

I do agree that guys like Bradshaw and Aikman might be overrated because if you put them on crappy teams they don’t get the job done. But you have to respect the fact that they worked with what they had and won multiple championships with them. A bad-to-average QB might not have done the same thing.

But nevertheless, team success can equal QB play because 9 time out of 10 if a QB is playing bad then that team is going to loose.

[Cebby]

Quote: Originally Posted by Dice

Well, let me put it like this. Teams don't win with bad QB play.

The 2005 Steelers and 2006 Colts and Bears disagree.

Quote:

Doesn't matter if you've got the best O-line in the league and you got Jerry Rice on one side and Randy Moss on the other side with Walter Payton as your running back.

The point is if you had Jerry Rice, Randy Moss, and Walter Payton, you probably wouldn't be a terrible QB.

Quote:

It's the position a team cannot hide if they are weak at the position.

There are tons of teams who have hidden deficiencies at quarterback.

[Dice]

Quote: Originally Posted by Cebby

The 2005 Steelers and 2006 Colts and Bears disagree

OK. I'll give you the 2005 Steelers. But as I stated before, 9 times out of 10. That game was that 10%. And as far as the 2006 Colts, Manning didn't play terrible. He just didn't play the way we're used to seeing him play. Manning is a future HOF and we expect him to go out every game and pass for 300 yards and 4 TD's. So by regular standards he didn't do bad BUT by Peyton Manning standards he didn't play good at all.

Quote: Originally Posted by Cebby

The point is if you had Jerry Rice, Randy Moss, and Walter Payton, you probably wouldn't be a terrible QB.

What makes you think that? I saw Mike Tomzack QB'ing the 1986 Bears to a 7-0 record that season and he had a QB rating of 50 with 2 TD's and 10 INT's. Great team with a terrible QB. And speaking of the 86 Bears, QB was the one of the big reasons why they didn't repeat. They still had that killer defense BUT they couldn't get it done because of no reliability at the QB spot.

Quote: Originally Posted by Cebby

There are tons of teams who have hidden deficiencies at quarterback.

And what teams might that be? And I'm pretty sure most of those teams records are below .500

[Cebby]

Quote: Originally Posted by Dice

OK. I'll give you the 2005 Steelers. But as I stated before, 9 times out of 10. That game was that 10%. And as far as the 2006 Colts, Manning didn't play terrible. He just didn't play the way we're used to seeing him play. Manning is a future HOF and we expect him to go out every game and pass for 300 yards and 4 TD's. So by regular standards he didn't do bad BUT by Peyton Manning standards he didn't play good at all.

Manning was about average in the Super Bowl and good during the second half of the Patriots game but was terrible the first two weeks.

Quote:

And what teams might that be?

Of Super Bowl teams, I think the 2000 Ravens, 2001 Patriots, and 2005 Steelers are the most recent examples. I think you could argue for Eli being above that level, but he certainly wasn't the strength of the team.