The new NFL is a passing league

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Ex- GM Michael Lombardi thinks Fitz is good enough to win, so does Ex-GM Charlie Casserly. Build a team around him and you have a competitive team

 

Linkies?

[CosmicBills]

That's all fine and dandy. And honestly I agree with many of your views but it's not that simple.

 

First off, the past SuperBowl wins since 2000 have been a bit of both. Yes they have had star QBs on thier teams but it's far from why they won. Brady just managed the game in his first 2 SB victories but lost the Giants because they played a ball control game with stout defense and ran the ball well.

The Steelers under Big Ben only managed the game over the Seahawks and they were incredibly defensive and had the Bus runnina all over the place with Parker as well. Not far off was thier 2nd SB where Ben had a good game but it was more closely related to his defense that he won that game. A 90+ yard defensive TD tells the story. It was clear that Warner and the Cardinals were the pass happy offense of the game and they lost.

The Packers wouldn't have gotten where they were last year if not for Starks and thier defense. And just at the same time when Big Ben became more pas happy and thier defense got a little older, slower, and relied less on the run in Offense.

The Bears were able to make the SB with Who? Oh yeah, Rex Grossman. The Ravens win it with Trent Dilfer. Both teams had really good to great defenses and ran the ball extremely well.

I'm not saying it isn't important to have that stud QB. Of course it is. I'm just saying your point about having Fitz vs a Stud Franchise guy bring that ine can only back you into the playoffs while the Sutld will win it is not true. Fact is when tje studs relied on thier offenses they lost. It's almost the opposite is factual evidence that the stud QB can get you there but the stud defense or balenced offense is what's going to win it. The 06' Patriots were one of the most dominating offenses of all time. Brady threw over 50 TDs (the most all time), the team went 16-0 in the regular season, yet a balenced offense and a food defense was able to beat them in the most important game in SB history.

Just saying.

 

I'll out money in it this year that the more balenced offense and better defense will win the SB this year. It won't be the Packers or the Patriots for sure.

Again, just making it to the super bowl isn't enough. It's about winning it. Look at the QBs who have won the past 10 super bowls. In the past 10 years, 8 of the winning QBs are first ballot hall of famers or on their way to being one (Brady 3 times, Big Ben 2 times, Rogers, Brees, Big Ben, P. Manning). The other 2 were, if not hall of famers, in the upper echelon of QBs (Eli Manning and Johnson) at some point in their career. Johnson was a pro bowl QB. Eli may still be great for all we know.

 

Look at the teams that have made the playoffs the past 5 seasons and who their starting QB is. Look at the QBs in this year's playoff class: with the exception of Brady, all were taken in the first two rounds. All but Dalton and Brees in the first round. 3 of the 12 are first overall picks.

 

This is not a new trend. And it's only going to keep going in this direction. You're blind if you can't see that. You need balance. But above balance, you need an elite passing game and QB to win a championship.

[BADOLBILZ]

I'm reading a super interesting article from Gregg Easterbrook. I find myself agreeing with him a lot this time. Usually don't agree with him much. This bit really stands out for me.

 

 

 

http://espn.go.com/espn/page2/story/_/id/7415167/green-bay-new-england-make-history-strong-offenses-weak-defenses

 

The Bills won their early games playing pass first football. They played from behind a lot, but at least then the defense was getting turnovers. They don't win those games without chucking the football around and running Freddie against a spread defense.

 

The losing streak the Bills went thru was plagued by A LOT of early scores by the opposing offense. This basically put an end to running the ball for much of the season.

 

When you are down 14 points early and you actually understand that you have a defense that can't get stops even if they are rested......you don't bring two TE's in the game, run it into the line three times and punt.

 

I know people are thrilled with those yards per rush numbers but those numbers are there because teams know the Bills are a pass-first offense. They play a lot of nickel and dime and anyone can run on a spread out defense with 3-4 cb's on the field.

 

But you CAN'T keep running the ball if your defense is giving up TD's one after the other. There was no protecting this defense. Because the two OLB's couldn't set the edge or rush the passer, offenses had their pick,,,,,throw it all over the field or run wide for huge gains. Running the ball wasn't going to help matters.

Edited January 5, 2012 by Dick Drawn

[mrags]

Again, just making it to the super bowl isn't enough. It's about winning it. Look at the QBs who have won the past 10 super bowls. In the past 10 years, 8 of the winning QBs are first ballot hall of famers or on their way to being one (Brady 3 times, Big Ben 2 times, Rogers, Brees, Big Ben, P. Manning). The other 2 were, if not hall of famers, in the upper echelon of QBs (Eli Manning and Johnson) at some point in their career. Johnson was a pro bowl QB. Eli may still be great for all we know.

 

Look at the teams that have made the playoffs the past 5 seasons and who their starting QB is. Look at the QBs in this year's playoff class: with the exception of Brady, all were taken in the first two rounds. All but Dalton and Brees in the first round. 3 of the 12 are first overall picks.

 

This is not a new trend. And it's only going to keep going in this direction. You're blind if you can't see that. You need balance. But above balance, you need an elite passing game and QB to win a championship.

I can clearly see the trend. I can clearly see that the past SB winners have been Franchis QBs. I conceide. But to call me blind for not agreeing with your opinion males me ask if your blind that you haven't noticed that the better defense and better balenced offense has won more of those SBs than elite QB. Manning lost to Brees, Brady lost to Manning, Warner lost to Brady, McNabb lost to Brady, Warner lost to Big Ben. I wouldn't say that when all is done it is this way, but at the time of those SuperBowls, the better QBs AT THE TIME lost to the lesser. They lost because they were too pass happy and were more one dimensional.

[Orton's Arm]

I can clearly see the trend. I can clearly see that the past SB winners have been Franchis QBs. I conceide. But to call me blind for not agreeing with your opinion males me ask if your blind that you haven't noticed that the better defense and better balenced offense has won more of those SBs than elite QB. Manning lost to Brees, Brady lost to Manning, Warner lost to Brady, McNabb lost to Brady, Warner lost to Big Ben. I wouldn't say that when all is done it is this way, but at the time of those SuperBowls, the better QBs AT THE TIME lost to the lesser. They lost because they were too pass happy and were more one dimensional.

I agree that when two teams each have an elite QB, the more complete team will tend to win. (Even if the less complete team has the better of the two elite QBs.) There are some exceptions to that rule. I'd argue that in this past Super Bowl, the Steelers were the more complete team, but the Packers won anyway because of Aaron Rodgers being that much better than Ben Roethlisberger. But the general trend you've pointed out still applies.

 

Almost every Super Bowl winner has a franchise QB. But not every franchise QB retires with a Super Bowl ring. Obtaining a franchise QB has to be part of any serious plan to win the Super Bowl. But that's only one of several things which must be done.

 

As I pointed out in another thread, the four teams of the AFC East were each founded around 1960 or thereabouts. The Bills have had one franchise QB in their history (Kelly). The Jets have had one franchise QB (Namath). The Patriots have had 1.5 franchise QBs (Brady, plus the first half of Bledsoe's career). The Dolphins have had two franchise QBs in their history (Griese and Marino). Nearly all those teams' Super Bowl appearances and wins have come when they had franchise QBs; even though those teams have averaged about 1.5 franchise QBs each over the last 50 years. Obtaining a franchise QB will change the course of your team's history for the next decade or more.

[mrags]

I agree that when two teams each have an elite QB, the more complete team will tend to win. (Even if the less complete team has the better of the two elite QBs.) There are some exceptions to that rule. I'd argue that in this past Super Bowl, the Steelers were the more complete team, but the Packers won anyway because of Aaron Rodgers being that much better than Ben Roethlisberger. But the general trend you've pointed out still applies.

 

Almost every Super Bowl winner has a franchise QB. But not every franchise QB retires with a Super Bowl ring. Obtaining a franchise QB has to be part of any serious plan to win the Super Bowl. But that's only one of several things which must be done.

 

As I pointed out in another thread, the four teams of the AFC East were each founded around 1960 or thereabouts. The Bills have had one franchise QB in their history (Kelly). The Jets have had one franchise QB (Namath). The Patriots have had 1.5 franchise QBs (Brady, plus the first half of Bledsoe's career). The Dolphins have had two franchise QBs in their history (Griese and Marino). Nearly all those teams' Super Bowl appearances and wins have come when they had franchise QBs; even though those teams have averaged about 1.5 franchise QBs each over the last 50 years. Obtaining a franchise QB will change the course of your team's history for the next decade or more.

I'll agree with that point. I have never said I dont WANT and elite Franchise QB. I just think it's easier said than done. The fact remains that you can build an all around team and get it done and usually it's when you build that team, the good to elite QB falls into place because your already on the brink of greatness as a team. The Packers, Patriots, Steelers were all on the verge of becoming strong contenders when tjier QBs brought them over the edge. Brady for example with the Pats only managed the game for the first few years. It wasn't until after he won his 3rd SuperBowl that he broke out to be an amazing QB statistically, however it's funny that he hasn't won a SuperBowl since he's been putting up record breaking TDs, and Yards.

 

So overall I agree you want to get an elite QB and think if you can get one you can win easier than without one. Looking at what the Colts did this year without Manning makes a point got both arguments. If you have that QB your doing great, and without him you suck. Which is more important to the future of your team? Brady was out for a year a few seasons ago and they played just fine. Because they were a better TEAM. I'd rather not have to rely on just one player. I'd rather it be on the team as a whole.

 

Not to mention, HOF QBs like Manning, Brees, Rodgers, Big Ben, And Brady don't grow on trees. They will all be first ballot HOFers. Brady, Brees and Manning will probably retire as the best 3 QBs of all time with Big Ben and Rodgers right with them. It's not easy. It's much easier to find Justin Tuck, Osi, Harrison, Polamalu, Bruschi, Vrabel, Sharper type players than the elite QBs. That's A whole other story since up until this past draft out talent evaluation of college players has been absolutely horrible and I seriously doubt webcam find these guys either. But that's besides the point. If we evaluate that poorly wgat males anyone think we would pick the right QB? Even if we did, does anyone really think we have the coaching staff to coach them into a success?

[thewildrabbit]

The Bills won their early games playing pass first football. They played from behind a lot, but at least then the defense was getting turnovers. They don't win those games without chucking the football around and running Freddie against a spread defense.

 

The losing streak the Bills went thru was plagued by A LOT of early scores by the opposing offense. This basically put an end to running the ball for much of the season.

 

When you are down 14 points early and you actually understand that you have a defense that can't get stops even if they are rested......you don't bring two TE's in the game, run it into the line three times and punt.

 

I know people are thrilled with those yards per rush numbers but those numbers are there because teams know the Bills are a pass-first offense. They play a lot of nickel and dime and anyone can run on a spread out defense with 3-4 cb's on the field.

 

But you CAN'T keep running the ball if your defense is giving up TD's one after the other. There was no protecting this defense. Because the two OLB's couldn't set the edge or rush the passer, offenses had their pick,,,,,throw it all over the field or run wide for huge gains. Running the ball wasn't going to help matters.

Nobody said anything about trying to run the ball with a closed formation, 2 TE's and fullback, which is dictating to the opposing defense your going to run. That type of offense doesn't work whatsoever with the current Bills O line, they couldn't power their way down a water slide.

 

What got that offensive running game going this year was running out of the spread formation, you know the exact same spread formation Jim Kelly made famous along with the Bills no huddle offense. Back then in the 90's the Bills had the talent on the line to run any play or formation they wanted.

 

Chan Gailey setup his offense to be mostly spread formation, QB in shotgun, sometimes empty backfield with 4-5 WR sets. Its not very confusing to the opposing defense when you come out in shotgun, empty backfield. You are basically saying we are gonna pass, try and stop us. The problem is Buffalo's passing attack isn't good enough to do that, and hasn't been good enough all year.

 

As soon as the Bills would lose the lead, then out came the constant passing plays. Which was forcing the QB to try and make plays into the strength of the opposing defense. Brady, Rodgers, Brees might be able to get away with that continuous style of play, Fitz just isn't good enough to overcome defenses with a one dimensional short passing scheme offense. A banged up O line, 4th 5th 6th 7th string WR's. Shoot, the Bills have 3rd string QB Brad Smith listed as the #2 WR, how lame is that.

 

A one back offense with one TE using play action now and again would work. The running game was working very well in most games,and Gailey would simply stop calling run plays, and just call constant passing plays. Running the ball keeps your defense fresh, and wears down the opposing defense.

 

When the opposing team has a 21 point lead the very last thing you want to do is go 3 and out and give the opposing team the ball back. The priority should be just moving chains, making first downs, and keeping possession of the ball and ultimately score. The bills were down 21-3 early in the season against the Raiders. Guess what, Fred Jackson broke a 43 TD yard run to fire up the team. The Bills ended up winning 38-35 with a great come from behind. Its a darn shame Gailey forgot about that win and how the Bills did it.

Edited January 6, 2012 by Fear the Beard

[reddogblitz]

I was thinking during the season that this year several teams with run happy offenses were seeing success. Denver, Baltimore, San Fransisco, the Giants. I think it's too early to declare strong running teams as a thing of the past.

 

And I would note that 5 of the 7 teams in the playoffs this year do not have "frachise QBs". Cincy, Denver, San Fransisco, Houston, and Baltimore.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

The Bills won their early games playing pass first football. They played from behind a lot, but at least then the defense was getting turnovers. They don't win those games without chucking the football around and running Freddie against a spread defense.

 

The losing streak the Bills went thru was plagued by A LOT of early scores by the opposing offense. This basically put an end to running the ball for much of the season.

 

 

Dick, with all respect these statements don't seem to match the facts. I know it's the perception.

 

During the Bills 7 game losing streak, there were two games (Dallas and 1st Miami) where the opponents had 28 points by the half and a third where the opponents had 16 unanswered points at the half (Chargers, 16-0 at the half)

In the rest of those 7 losing streak games, the score was 3-0 at the half (1st Jets), tied at the half (2nd Jets), 17-10 at the half (Titans), 13-7 at the half (2nd Miami).

In our other losses outside the infamous 7 game skid, we were still up 20-13 in the 3Q (Bengals), tied at the half (Giants), up 21-14 at the half (2nd NE).

 

So there were 3 of our 10 losses where your point is valid or arguably valid. The rest, we were leading, tied, or down only one score at the half. No reason there to pack up the run game.

 

Your point about the porosity of our D and the fact that it couldn't seem to stop a nosebleed, is valid.

 

Nobody said anything about trying to run the ball with a closed formation, 2 TE's and fullback, which is dictating to the opposing defense your going to run. That type of offense doesn't work whatsoever with the current Bills O line, they couldn't power their way down a water slide.

 

To be fair here, I believe I have suggested we utilize a 2 TE formation and 1 back, or a TE, and 2 backs. The idea is to create doubt as to who/how many will stay in to block/run as opposed to heading downfield. I haven't suggested a closed, power-running formation.

Though when Wood was healthy, I think with Hairston in at LT we might have more of a running line than is thought.

 

But this is really an aside, just wanting to be fair to Dick in acknowledging I have made the suggestion above.

 

What got that offensive running game going this year was running out of the spread formation, you know the exact same spread formation Jim Kelly made famous along with the Bills no huddle offense. Back then in the 90's the Bills had the talent on the line to run any play or formation they wanted.

 

Chan Gailey setup his offense to be mostly spread formation, QB in shotgun, sometimes empty backfield with 4-5 WR sets. Its not very confusing to the opposing defense when you come out in shotgun, empty backfield. You are basically saying we are gonna pass, try and stop us. The problem is Buffalo's passing attack isn't good enough to do that, and hasn't been good enough all year.

 

This. It's perhaps not even so much the play calling per se but the formations used. Once the injury bug hit, we simply didn't have the talent at WR and on the OL to be running empty backfields which as FtB noted, is another way of saying "we're gonna pass and you only have to beat 5 blockers".

 

I haven't finished breaking down the games, but a couple of losses where we were NOT very far behind most of the game are simply scary on the play breakdown - 46 pass, 23 run v the Titans (17-10 at the half), 47 pass 19 run in the 2nd Mia game (13-7 at the half)

Edited January 5, 2012 by Hopeful

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

Again, just making it to the super bowl isn't enough. It's about winning it. Look at the QBs who have won the past 10 super bowls. In the past 10 years, 8 of the winning QBs are first ballot hall of famers or on their way to being one (Brady 3 times, Big Ben 2 times, Rogers, Brees, Big Ben, P. Manning). The other 2 were, if not hall of famers, in the upper echelon of QBs (Eli Manning and Johnson) at some point in their career. Johnson was a pro bowl QB. Eli may still be great for all we know.

 

Look at the teams that have made the playoffs the past 5 seasons and who their starting QB is. Look at the QBs in this year's playoff class: with the exception of Brady, all were taken in the first two rounds. All but Dalton and Brees in the first round. 3 of the 12 are first overall picks.

 

This is not a new trend. And it's only going to keep going in this direction. You're blind if you can't see that. You need balance. But above balance, you need an elite passing game and QB to win a championship.

This is a bit of a chicken and egg thing IMO. The only qb they were talking probowl and canton for before the superbowl wins came was manning. Fitz could easily in the right situation have a season that puts him in a probowl. In fact he was a top qb in the first half of the year. I see where you are trying to go but I just don't think your areguement washes.

 

Again, just making it to the super bowl isn't enough. It's about winning it. Look at the QBs who have won the past 10 super bowls. In the past 10 years, 8 of the winning QBs are first ballot hall of famers or on their way to being one (Brady 3 times, Big Ben 2 times, Rogers, Brees, Big Ben, P. Manning). The other 2 were, if not hall of famers, in the upper echelon of QBs (Eli Manning and Johnson) at some point in their career. Johnson was a pro bowl QB. Eli may still be great for all we know.

 

Look at the teams that have made the playoffs the past 5 seasons and who their starting QB is. Look at the QBs in this year's playoff class: with the exception of Brady, all were taken in the first two rounds. All but Dalton and Brees in the first round. 3 of the 12 are first overall picks.

 

This is not a new trend. And it's only going to keep going in this direction. You're blind if you can't see that. You need balance. But above balance, you need an elite passing game and QB to win a championship.

This is a bit of a chicken and egg thing IMO. The only qb they were talking probowl and canton for before the superbowl wins came was manning. Fitz could easily in the right situation have a season that puts him in a probowl. In fact he was a top qb in the first half of the year. I see where you are trying to go but I just don't think your areguement washes.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

I agree that when two teams each have an elite QB, the more complete team will tend to win. (Even if the less complete team has the better of the two elite QBs.) There are some exceptions to that rule. I'd argue that in this past Super Bowl, the Steelers were the more complete team, but the Packers won anyway because of Aaron Rodgers being that much better than Ben Roethlisberger. But the general trend you've pointed out still applies.

 

In what way do you feel the Steelers were the more complete team last year?

 

Keep in mind last year the Pack had the #2 defense on points, #5 I think on yards, and their offense ranked higher overall than the Stillers. It's true that Rodgers played much better than Ben in the bowl, I think it's hard to argue for the Steelers being the more complete team last year though.

 

Green Bay lost a couple key players on D to FA after last season, but they had a very stout D going into the Superbowl last year.

[CosmicBills]

In what way do you feel the Steelers were the more complete team last year?

 

Keep in mind last year the Pack had the #2 defense on points, #5 I think on yards, and their offense ranked higher overall than the Stillers. It's true that Rodgers played much better than Ben in the bowl, I think it's hard to argue for the Steelers being the more complete team last year though.

 

Green Bay lost a couple key players on D to FA after last season, but they had a very stout D going into the Superbowl last year.

Didn't the Packers have half their team on IR? Or were they back by the Super Bowl. I forget.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

I cringe when anyone says the Bills should run the ball more

 

Why not?

When they ran the ball WELL the Bils were 5-2!!

 

A running game limits the 2 + INT per games we (expect to) see from Fitz!!

 

 

 

You always need to be able to run the ball to eat up the clock with a lead late in the 4th QTR!!!

[Orton's Arm]

I was thinking during the season that this year several teams with run happy offenses were seeing success. Denver, Baltimore, San Fransisco, the Giants. I think it's too early to declare strong running teams as a thing of the past.

 

And I would note that 5 of the 7 teams in the playoffs this year do not have "frachise QBs". Cincy, Denver, San Fransisco, Houston, and Baltimore.

Earlier, I mentioned that if a QB has a career average of 7.2 - 7.3 yards per attempt, he might be a franchise QB. If his career average is 7.4 yards per attempt or higher, he's definitely franchise!

 

Matt Schaub has averaged 7.9 yards per attempt over the course of his career. That's a higher career average than Peyton Manning (7.6) or Tom Brady (7.5). This past season Schaub put up a jaw-dropping 8.5 yards per attempt. Brady's average for the season was 8.6.

 

Schaub has thrown nearly twice as many TDs as INTs over the course of his career. This past season he threw almost three times as many TDs as INTs. I'd argue that Schaub is the most underrated QB in the NFL, and is among the five best QBs in the league.

 

To put this into perspective, the best season of Fitz's career was 2010, in which he averaged 6.8 yards per attempt. His overall career average is 6.3 yards per attempt. Even if going forward he's more likely to average 6.7 - 6.8 yards per attempt than 6.3, that's still 1.1 - 1.2 yards less than Schaub's career average. A 1.1 yard difference in two QBs' average yards per attempt is like a 0.7 yard difference between two RBs' average yards per carry. In other words, it's huge!

[Orton's Arm]

I'll agree with that point. I have never said I dont WANT and elite Franchise QB. I just think it's easier said than done. The fact remains that you can build an all around team and get it done and usually it's when you build that team, the good to elite QB falls into place because your already on the brink of greatness as a team. The Packers, Patriots, Steelers were all on the verge of becoming strong contenders when tjier QBs brought them over the edge. Brady for example with the Pats only managed the game for the first few years. It wasn't until after he won his 3rd SuperBowl that he broke out to be an amazing QB statistically, however it's funny that he hasn't won a SuperBowl since he's been putting up record breaking TDs, and Yards.

 

So overall I agree you want to get an elite QB and think if you can get one you can win easier than without one. Looking at what the Colts did this year without Manning makes a point got both arguments. If you have that QB your doing great, and without him you suck. Which is more important to the future of your team? Brady was out for a year a few seasons ago and they played just fine. Because they were a better TEAM. I'd rather not have to rely on just one player. I'd rather it be on the team as a whole.

 

Not to mention, HOF QBs like Manning, Brees, Rodgers, Big Ben, And Brady don't grow on trees. They will all be first ballot HOFers. Brady, Brees and Manning will probably retire as the best 3 QBs of all time with Big Ben and Rodgers right with them. It's not easy. It's much easier to find Justin Tuck, Osi, Harrison, Polamalu, Bruschi, Vrabel, Sharper type players than the elite QBs. That's A whole other story since up until this past draft out talent evaluation of college players has been absolutely horrible and I seriously doubt webcam find these guys either. But that's besides the point. If we evaluate that poorly wgat males anyone think we would pick the right QB? Even if we did, does anyone really think we have the coaching staff to coach them into a success?

I agree that finding a franchise QB is easier said than done. Earlier, I mentioned that each team in the AFC East has had 1 - 2 franchise QBs. (One each for the Jets and the Bills, 1.5 for the Patriots, 2 for the Dolphins.) Considering these teams have been around since about 1960, the AFC East illustrates that most of the time your team will not have a franchise QB.

 

I disagree with your thought that having the other pieces in place makes a franchise QB more likely to appear. The Colts were able to draft Peyton Manning not because the other pieces were in place, but because the other pieces were so far out of place that the Colts went 1-15. Other franchise QBs taken in the top-12 include Eli Manning, Ben Roethlisberger, and Philip Rivers.

 

As for Tom Brady: within his first few games it had become clear that he was a significant upgrade over Drew Bledsoe. Bledsoe had begun his career as a franchise QB, but for whatever reason had become a merely average QB in the years leading up to his replacement. I agree that Brady wasn't asked to do as much back then as he is today. Partly that's because Brady was surrounded by less talent on offense then than now. Partly it's because the Patriots actually had a defense back then. And partly it's because Brady seems like he's playing at a higher level now than he had earlier in his career. (Though even back then, it was obvious Brady was a lot more than just a game manager. I remember reading that after the snap, Brady could process information over a full second faster than Bledsoe.)

 

I'd argue that building a Super Bowl winner requires both a franchise QB and a reasonably good assemblage of talent around him. If you're missing one or the other of those two things, you're almost certain to experience a postseason loss to some other team which has both these things. There are some exceptions to this rule, but they are rare exceptions. Back in 2000, the Ravens had one of the three best defenses in NFL history. They had an offensive line led by Hall of Fame-level LT Jon Ogden. They had a very good running game in the form of Jamal Lewis. Almost none of the teams they faced in the playoffs had franchise QBs. They beat the Broncos (Elway's successor) in the wildcard round, and the Titans (McNair) in the divisional round. They beat the Raiders in the AFC Championship game. Gannon was injured in the second quarter, so for most of that game they faced Gannon's backup. They beat the Giants (Kerry Collins) in the Super Bowl.

 

Most years are not like that. Normally, there will be a team that's a) reasonably complete, and b) that has a franchise QB. In order to win the Super Bowl, you will have to beat that team in particular! Beating a complete team that also has a franchise quarterback is almost impossible, unless you have a franchise quarterback of your own. This is why obtaining a franchise QB is both the single most difficult and the single most necessary step toward building a Super Bowl winner.