Jump to content

2008 NFL Champions  

87 members have voted

  1. 1. Who will win?

    • New England Patriots
      53
    • New York Giants
      34


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 395
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

...as did Trent Dilfer, Doug Williams, Jay Schroeder, etc...

 

Here is another way of looking at it: 6 QB's that have been drafted #1 overall started in a Super Bowl:

 

Terry Bradshaw (was killed by P-Burgh fans and benched before getting there and winning 4)

Jim Plunkett (not for the team that drafted him)

John Elway (lost how many Super Bowls before finally winning two in his last 2 years?)

Drew Bledsoe (lost his only SB start before losing his job to 6th round pick Brady)

Troy Aikman ( a great QB, but only threw over 20 td's in a season 3 times)

Peyton Manning (remember when he couldn't win a playoff game? Took him 9 years to get to the big game)

Link to post
Share on other sites
He was knocked out in the first week of the season with internal bleeding.

 

Yes, but he did lose his job. (was it week one? I remember it was against the Jets) There was talk of him starting in the playoffs over Brady because of his experience. He then went on to suck for both the Bills and Cowboys.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, but he did lose his job. (was it week one? I remember it was against the Jets) There was talk of him starting in the playoffs over Brady because of his experience. He then went on to suck for both the Bills and Cowboys.

 

Brady would've never had a shot if Bledsoe doesn't get hurt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, the point seems to be that, yeah, having a great quarterback helps a lot, but playing in the Super Bowl is more of a reflection of the overall quality of the team and the level of competition they faced in the playoffs than it is a personal reflection on the quarterback. Lots of teams have been lead to glory by great QBs but there have been just as many or more who have stumbled there with a mediocre to shitty QB because the rest of the team was good enough, and also some great quarterbacks whose teams never did anything. The fact that Eli is playing in the Super Bowl does say something about him, but it's unclear as to what.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He's had a great postseason, though. They didn't make it there in spite of him.

 

I've never been one to judge a QB by super bowl appearances, so I don't really care about this argument one way or the other, but he's been stellar in the last 4 games, including the one against the Pats. It would be a discussion worth having if he had shit the bed and they won anyways. He's carried them to victory.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyway, the point seems to be that, yeah, having a great quarterback helps a lot, but playing in the Super Bowl is more of a reflection of the overall quality of the team and the level of competition they faced in the playoffs than it is a personal reflection on the quarterback. Lots of teams have been lead to glory by great QBs but there have been just as many or more who have stumbled there with a mediocre to shitty QB because the rest of the team was good enough, and also some great quarterbacks whose teams never did anything. The fact that Eli is playing in the Super Bowl does say something about him, but it's unclear as to what.

 

I think that reinforces the old saying: "Offense wins games, defense wins championships"

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that reinforces the old saying: "Offense wins games, defense wins championships"

 

No it doesn't.

 

Maybe if the saying was "Great quarterbacks win games, but you can overcome that by having great everything else" then yes, it would. But I would guess most of these teams whose QBs sucked and they made it or won did so with great running games and a dominant reciever or two, plus a great defense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe if the saying was "Great quarterbacks win games, but you can overcome that by having great everything else" then yes, it would. But I would guess most of these teams whose QBs sucked and they made it or won did so with great running games and a dominant reciever or two, plus a great defense.

 

There have only been 5 teams in the SB era that have won championships without a top-ten defense:

 

2006 Colts: ranked 21st, but the D dominated in the playoffs and especially in the SB.

2001 Pats: ranked 16th, made the run by controlling the clock and playing great D in the playoffs.D shut down the #1 O in the NFL in the SB.

1998 Broncos: ranked 11th. Shut down the Falcon's #8 O in the SB.

1987 Skins: ranked 18th, which includes the 3 "scab" games.D featured Manley, Mann and Green. Had the #3 O in the NFL.

1976 Raiders: ranked #18, O ranked #2.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a similar stat regarding baseball and it went true both ways. Teams are just as likely to win with a great offense and good defense as great defense and good offense, but you are very unlikely to win without at least one aspect being great and the other good, and you are almost never going to win if you are bad at any one aspect.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1987 Skins: ranked 18th, which includes the 3 "scab" games.D featured Manley, Mann and Green. Had the #3 O in the NFL.

I went to one of those scab games at RFK. It was great, there was some WR who had like 300 yards receiving for the Skins in that game. That dude was phenomenal. Good times.

 

 

Edit: God bless the internet

 

One Strike and You’re In

Twenty years later, Skins record books still remember replacement player Anthony Allen.

 

By Dave McKenna

Posted: November 7, 2007

 

Anthony Allen says he finds himself talking “pretty often” about his first game as a receiver with the Washington Redskins.

 

It came 20 years ago, against the then St. Louis Cardinals at RFK Stadium. Allen’s stats: eight catches for 255 yards and three touchdowns, in less than three quarters of work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The list is a little longer, but not much different. The good D, bad QB syndrome appears to be a recent trend:

 

05 Steelers: 15th ranked O. Great running game, controlled passing, young QB.

03 Pats: 17th ranked O. RB by comittee, Brady was still coming along.

02 Bucs: 24th ranked O. Brad Johnson at QB. Very controlled, short passing game. Possesion WR's.

01 Pats: 19th ranked O. Bradys 1st year starting. His job was to not make mistakes.

00 Ravens: 16th. Good running game, horrible passing game. They went a bunch of games without an offensive TD.

90 Giants: 17th. Simms went down in week 11.

81 49ers: 13th. Montana wasn't "Montana" just yet.

80 Raiders: 16th. They were the first wildcard team to win a SB.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And if Drew Henson wasn't splitting time between baseball and football, Brady might not have gotten a shot a Michigan. Goes to show you never can tell...

 

Not really. The reason they split time wasn't because of baseball. Henson was a freshman when Brady was a junior. Normally he wouldn't get much playing time at all, but due to the crazy high expectations they had for him, they wanted to get him some playing time right away. If he'd quit baseball, he still would have been backing up Brady.

 

And yeah, I was also going to dispute that "defense wins championships" thing but I guess that's already been covered.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not really. The reason they split time wasn't because of baseball. Henson was a freshman when Brady was a junior. Normally he wouldn't get much playing time at all, but due to the crazy high expectations they had for him, they wanted to get him some playing time right away. If he'd quit baseball, he still would have been backing up Brady.

 

Thats right. And Henson sucked at baseball! Bats no hit curveball!

 

And as far as the defense wins championships: I think its pretty obvious that you have to play great D to win a Super Bowl where as you don't have to play really great O.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats right. And Henson sucked at baseball! Bats no hit curveball!

 

And as far as the defense wins championships: I think its pretty obvious that you have to play great D to win a Super Bowl where as you don't have to play really great O.

 

You have to do both very well 90% of the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...