markgbe Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 i'm going to go with Defense wins championships.. The Packers would not have wont this past Superbowl without turnovers and big defensive plays, the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoggyHog Posted February 23, 2011 Author Share Posted February 23, 2011 And you don't think that winning super bowls had something to do with them being named to the Hall of Fame??? Aikman, for example, though he was a #1 overall pick - didn't have such great numbers during the regular season. Without the SB wins, there is no way he makes the HoF. His career stats: http://www.nfl.com/players/profile?id=AIK553722 are nothing special - Boomer Esiason, for example had better, and you don't even hear his name come up for the Hall. Aikman was never the NFL MVP. Elway is one of the most bogus examples. The Broncos were humiliated in the Super Bowl when Elway was the key to their offense. Later, when he was long past his prime and his job was to hand the ball to Terrell Davis - the 1998 regular season MVP - they won the Super Bowl over Brett Favre. Terry Bradshaw's career stats would get him cut even from the Bills today. 212/210 TD/INT; <28000yds, QB rating of 70.9!! He did win four Super Bowls "leading" one of the best teams ever. Does that make him why the Steelers won?? In fact, it's almost impossible for a QB to make the Hall of Fame w/o a ring. Your consideration of the regular season team ranks has merit. Claiming indivdual QB's being "Hall of Famers" as the reason the team got to/won Super Bowls is a circular argument with no merit. Actually, I never stated that "as the reason" those teams got to/won. I simply made a comparison of those teams having HoFers or Franchise QB's on their teams. I'm sure Hall of Fame QB's have lost the Super Bowl. Even in the last 21 years (Kelly). I'm not for nor against Franchise QB's or elite defenses, I just wanted to look at the statement "Defenses win Championships" logically and break down some numbers. I do, however, think it's compelling for teams to have a Franchise QB. I think the statement should be...... "Defenses win games, Franchise QB's win Championships!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) Your consideration of the regular season team ranks has merit. Claiming indivdual QB's being "Hall of Famers" as the reason the team got to/won Super Bowls is a circular argument with no merit. Yep. Exactly what I was thinking when I read the OP. Most QBs were HOFs because they won SBs, not HOFs who lead their teams to the SB. And this is true because the contrapositive is also true: Nobody in his right mind would argue that Aikman was better than Kelly or Marino. Neither Kelly or Marino won a SB, but both are in the Hall, because both lead their teams to the playoffs and SB. As far as the rest of the analysis, who knows? It appears that the #s don't provide any sort of usable correlation, never mind causation. Once again, "teams", not systems, not individual players, and certainly not coaches individually, win games. Edited February 23, 2011 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metzelaars_lives Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Can Geico really save you 15% or more on car insurance? Does defense really win championships? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Can Geico really save you 15% or more on car insurance? Does defense really win championships? Jeopardy Question: "Phrase most likely to be heard from the 3rd string defensemen who war-paint their faces with eye black, and go all out in pre-game drills, but don't ever actually get into the game"? "I'll take 'Defense Wins Championships' for $200, please Alex". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewEra Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 i'm going to go with Defense wins championships.. The Packers would not have wont this past Superbowl without turnovers and big defensive plays, the end. They wouldn't have won with Ryan fitzpatrick either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metzelaars_lives Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) Jeopardy Question: "Phrase most likely to be heard from the 3rd string defensemen who war-paint their faces with eye black, and go all out in pre-game drills, but don't ever actually get into the game"? "I'll take 'Defense Wins Championships' for $200, please Alex". "It was the last time that the #1 and #2 ranked defenses squared off in the Super Bowl" "What is three weeks ago Alex." Edited February 23, 2011 by metzelaars_lives Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 "It was the last time that the #1 and #2 ranked defenses squared off in the Super Bowl" "I'll take three weeks ago Alex." I know, I know...just getting that out of my system. I feel much better now. Been carrying that pent-up annoyance around for way too long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobChalmers Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 (edited) Yea and Bradshaw was one of the best of his era, look it up. The overall numbers of players of his era were much lower. Talk about an argument with no merit. But you ignored my Esiason/Aikman comparison - two QB's of similar eras. Boomer got to one SB and lost. Aikman won (3? off the top of my head) mostly handing off to Smith. Esiason's stats were clearly better. One is in the hall, the other is not. My point is - winning Super Bowls - or in Jim Kelly's case - the incredible feat of going to 4 straight - is #1 reason HOW you get into the HoF asw a QB. So arguing HoF QB's get you to the SB is a circular argument. Bradshaw was one of the best of his era with a 70.9 rating? The guy I watched mostly heaved it up to a pair of awesome WR's and handed it off behind a great line to a great RB that rarely played from behind because they had the best defense of their era. But maybe I'm just confused from my youth: so I looked up some other guys I remember watching. Ken Anderson: TD-INT 197-160 Yards 32,838 QB Rating 81.9 No SB wins No HoF Much better than TB Joe Ferguson: TD-INT 196-209 Yards 29,817 QB Rating 68.4 No SB's No HoF A little worse than TB Bert Jones: TD-INT 124-101 Yards 18,190 QB Rating 78.2 No SB's No HoF Much better stats but not the longevity Rodger Staubach: TD-INT 153-109 Yards 22,700 QB Rating 83.4 SB's HoF Much better than TB but not the longevity Bob Griese: TD-INT 192-172 Yards 25,092 QB Rating 77.1 Perfect Season, SB, HoF Look - ratings were mostly lower back then - clearly - I'm not trying to put Bradshaw down, but it's also clear he was a piece of that Steeler machine, not the key component. He was pretty good - the rest of the team was sick. The reason he was an instant Hall of Fame pick is because they won - not because of his specific role in their winning. QB's get the credit/blame for wins/losses and SB's are the ultimate wins and losses - but that's the credit in the public/press eye - not the same as being the actual reason for the wins and losses. I'm inclined to seperate the perception from the reality on this topic. The topic question was where do the wins actually come from, and the problem with using the Hall of Fame as a benchmark for quarterbacks, is that for that position it's based as much on team wins as it is on the individual real contribution of the player. Edited February 23, 2011 by BobChalmers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts