Dr. Trooth Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Look at the last 10 SB champs. You will find that their defenses were OK to great. So, defenses are definitely factor. But, the biggest single factor in the past 10 SB champs has been the QB. If you want to win the SB, you better have a QB that packs a rating of 85.9 or higher for the season. The only exception in the past 10 SBs was Trent Dilfer who fell into the SB with a 76.6 QB rating... but then again, the Ravens team that won the SB had the best defense (by a good margin) of any SB winner in the past 10 years. 6 of the 10 teams that won the SB had QBs that packed a rating of 92.6 or above, with Kurt Warner packing the highest rating for the season at 109.2... which overcame his team's defense. So we have the extremes (low/high) of Dilfer and Warner... and both of those teams were extremes (low high) on defense as well. So...JP, Nall, and Holcomb, will any of them hit the magic number of 85.9? And even if one of them does, will the defense and ST be good enough to bring a cup home? JP was essentially a rookie last year on a bad team. He still may be on a bad team, although we don't know that just yet, but for JP, either way, he needs to emerge this season and show big improvement... In my book, to show he is on track, he's going to need to hit a rating of above 77... otherwise, we know that Holcomb is above that level already. Nall? For this guy to emerge as the starter, either the other two are that bad or Nall is pretty good. He didn't throw a single pass last season, only 33 in 2004, and never started a game... I won't say that it can't happen, but in my book, as it stands right now, he's long shot to start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stinky finger Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 In other words, we need a good QB, defense and ST. True dat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Trooth Posted June 2, 2006 Author Share Posted June 2, 2006 In other words, we need a good QB, defense and ST. True dat. Nope... we need a very good QB and an adequate Defense and Special Teams. Take a look at the last 10 SB winners. Only Tampa Bay and Baltimore had great defenses. The Rams certainly didn't play good D. Denver's really weren't that good, and neither were New England's ...although the Pats D was opportunistic and exceptional in the red zone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanInTheRock Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Getting to the Super Bowl and scoring more points then the other team! Sorry but I couldn't help myself! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUFFALOTONE Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 it takes alot more than we have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Once again, your quarterback is NOT going to hit those completion percentages without a strong OL, I don't care who you are. No line = no quarterback. That's why I always get frustrated when you hear someone like Paul McGuire say something stupid like, "Let me tell ya, if you give a guy like Peyton Manning time, he's gonna pick ya apart." Hey Paul, if you give my father's second wife time, she can pick you apart too, and that's after the stupid whore takes time to give blowjobs to the receivers before they go to the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acantha Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Don't foget the refs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 A good QB? Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer have both won superbowls, and Bledsoe, Chandler, Kerry Collins, Jake Delhomme all got there. You need a QB whose strengths you can play to, with most of the QBs making the superbowl playing more smart, rather than "Good". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ1 Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 What if JP hit 85.9? Wouldn't that alone negate all the current dire predictions? Why is it portrayed as leap into fantasyland to think of the possiblity that the main cog finally gets it? With help from the OL at least being average. This requires a major leap of faith? I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Another thing those 3 QB's have in common..... Besides the smarts they also have good to great arms.....which gives them the ability to make all the throws all over the field...... This is why we will never win a Super Bowl with Kelly H. at QB..... JP Losman is our only hope..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mary owen Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 Let's take a closer look. Chandler 100+ Favre - 90+ Warner - 100+ Gannon - high 90's McNabb - 100+ Hassleback - high 90's in 5 out of the 6 above, the losing QB's season rating was greater than the winning QB's. I don't think it matters much what your QB's rating is at all. I'll take the guy who makes the least amount of mistakes and the rest of his team is playing better than the competition. A little help from the refs won't hurt either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 Once again, your quarterback is NOT going to hit those completion percentages without a strong OL, I don't care who you are. No line = no quarterback. That's why I always get frustrated when you hear someone like Paul McGuire say something stupid like, "Let me tell ya, if you give a guy like Peyton Manning time, he's gonna pick ya apart." Hey Paul, if you give my father's second wife time, she can pick you apart too, and that's after the stupid whore takes time to give blowjobs to the receivers before they go to the line. 702378[/snapback] Bravo LA. Despite the funny stuff, I think that the above was your best ever football post. People can point to Warner's numbers/ratings as they choose, but he had monsters in front of him, led by Orlando Pace (the best LT in NFL history imo). When Trent Green went down, most fans thought their season was going down the tubes. Warner was an Arena League nobody and he kicked ass. He didn't look so good on the giants now did he? As for Green, look at HIS line! Nothing but monsters, thus the good numbers. Is he THAT good? I think not. Not to worry.....we have a more talented secondary (in a cover 2) than those guys! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 Once again, your quarterback is NOT going to hit those completion percentages without a strong OL, I don't care who you are. No line = no quarterback. That's why I always get frustrated when you hear someone like Paul McGuire say something stupid like, "Let me tell ya, if you give a guy like Peyton Manning time, he's gonna pick ya apart." Hey Paul, if you give my father's second wife time, she can pick you apart too, and that's after the stupid whore takes time to give blowjobs to the receivers before they go to the line. 702378[/snapback] No Marc, tell us, how do you really feel about your father's second wife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 There are two paths to winning the Super Bowl: - Achieve truly elite status in one area, and be at least respectable everywhere else. - Be on the verge of dominance across the board, even though no one area quite reaches elite status. Either way, you have to be able to take control of the football game in some area. The 49ers of the '80s used an elite passing attack to take control of football games. The Ravens of 2000 used one of the best defenses ever to do so. Then there are teams which are on the verge of dominance across the board. Take the New England Patriots team that won those Super Bowls. Their passing game was on the verge of dominance, and was capable of taking control of football games. But so was their defense. The same could be said of this year's Steelers team. The only way to get out of needing a good quarterback is to achieve elite status in some area other than the passing attack. If memory serves, the last team to do this was the Ravens of 2000. They had built a truly elite defense, and so could get by with a passing game that was merely respectable. But most of the time, you're going to need a quarterback. Some might feel the sole or main determining factor in a quarterback's success is the time he's given to throw. There's some truth to this view, as a quarterback without a line won't get you anywhere. But the quarterback still matters--a lot. Suppose your supporting cast consisted of players like Orlando Pace, Marshall Faulk, Isaac Bruce, etc. If your quarterback's name is Billy Joe Hobart, there's no way your offense becomes The Greatest Show on Turf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbonehawaii Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 Once again, your quarterback is NOT going to hit those completion percentages without a strong OL, I don't care who you are. No line = no quarterback. That's why I always get frustrated when you hear someone like Paul McGuire say something stupid like, "Let me tell ya, if you give a guy like Peyton Manning time, he's gonna pick ya apart." Hey Paul, if you give my father's second wife time, she can pick you apart too, and that's after the stupid whore takes time to give blowjobs to the receivers before they go to the line. 702378[/snapback] you are correct sir. why people can't grasp the fact that the o line is the most important unit on a team is beyond me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAMIEBUF12 Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 ya gotta make the playoffs and ya gotta win the league championship and then ya gotta score more points then the other team when u play the superbowl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts