Don't need a 'great' QB???

[Dibs]

Upon having a discargument on another thread about whether a team needs a 'great' QB to win the Superbowl I discovered something which altered my views a bit. I went from thinking "they don't need one but it sure helps a lot" to "realistically without one you have very little chance to win it all."

 

What I looked at was....

13 of the last 18 superbowls were won by HOFers, future HOFers or MVPs.

Those players are....

Brady(x3).......Future HOFer

Warner(x1).....MVP...(possible future HOFer but I doubt it)

Elway(x2).......HOFer

Favre(x1).......Future HOFer & MVP

Aikman(x3)....HOFer

Young(x1)......HOFer & MVP

Montana(x2)...HOFer & MVP

 

For the sake of this exercise I'm going to skew things against my argument.

I'll drop off year 18 so Montana only has 1 SB ring.

 

That brings things to 12 out of 17 or around 71%

(obviously Rothisberger may be a future HOFer which would add to things let's assume he does not make it as MVP or HOFer)

 

On any given year there would be ???? QBs who fit the criteria. I am going to be very generous & say 12 of the 32 starting QBs each year are capable of being HOFers or League MVPs....that's 37.5%. Favre, Brady, McNair, Warner, Manning...a few vets (Vick, Delhomme or Hasslebeck types might make it...who knows?), a few youngsters(JP, Manning2, Palmer) & another QB for good measure.

That leaves 20 starters who are not.

 

Mathematically(all things being equal) that means each year...

each of those 12 'great' QBs have about a 5.9% chance each of winning the superbowl

each of the 20 others have about a 1.5% chance each.

OR>>>>>>> 1 in 17 years

compared to.. 1 in 68 years

(average obviously is 1 in 32 years)

 

Using these figures, a 'great' QB has a 4 times more chance of winning the Superbowl than a non-great QB.

 

If I were to use the 13 in 18 & say only 10 QBs were 'greats' the figures would be...

'greats'...........1 in 14 years

'non greats'.....1 in 79 years

 

As you can see...

If you have a great QB, you will probably(on average) win the superbowl within their playing life span.

If you don't, you will be waiting(on average) your own supporting life span.

[Pyrite Gal]

Upon having a discargument on another thread about whether a team needs a 'great' QB to win the Superbowl I discovered something which altered my views a bit.  I went from thinking "they don't need one but it sure helps a lot" to "realistically without one you have very little chance to win it all."

 

What I looked at was....

13 of the last 18 superbowls were won by HOFers, future HOFers or MVPs.

Those players are....

Brady(x3).......Future HOFer

Warner(x1).....MVP...(possible future HOFer but I doubt it)

Elway(x2).......HOFer

Favre(x1).......Future HOFer & MVP

Aikman(x3)....HOFer

Young(x1)......HOFer & MVP

Montana(x2)...HOFer & MVP

 

For the sake of this exercise I'm going to skew things against my argument.

I'll drop off year 18 so Montana only has 1 SB ring. 

 

That brings things to 12 out of 17 or around 71%

(obviously Rothisberger may be a future HOFer which would add to things let's assume he does not make it as MVP or HOFer)

 

On any given year there would be ???? QBs who fit the criteria.  I am going to be very generous & say 12 of the 32 starting QBs each year are capable of being HOFers or League MVPs....that's 37.5%.  Favre, Brady, McNair, Warner, Manning...a few vets (Vick, Delhomme or Hasslebeck types might make it...who knows?), a few youngsters(JP, Manning2, Palmer) & another QB for good measure.

That leaves 20 starters who are not.

 

Mathematically(all things being equal) that means each year...

each of those 12 'great' QBs have about a 5.9% chance each of winning the superbowl

each of the 20 others have about a 1.5% chance each.

OR>>>>>>> 1 in 17 years

compared to.. 1 in 68 years

(average obviously is 1 in 32 years)

 

Using these figures, a 'great' QB has a 4 times more chance of winning the Superbowl than a non-great QB.

 

If I were to use the 13 in 18 & say only 10 QBs were 'greats' the figures would be...

'greats'...........1 in 14 years

'non greats'.....1 in 79 years

 

As you can see...

If you have a great QB, you will probably(on average) win the superbowl within their playing life span. 

If you don't, you will be waiting(on average) your own supporting life span.

724563[/snapback]

 

In line with the thinklng one needs to walk before you run (rhough actually we might want to crawl before we walk), I think its better to follow your lead of shewing your argument by rather than looking at the SB winners of the last few years, lets take your very own great post in the other thread and look at all the starting QBs who platws QB for the team which got to the SB the last 18 years.

 

The list YOU produced (thanks BTW) was

 

Rothlisberger...Future Probowler

Hasslebeck......Probowler

Brady(x3).......Future HOFer

McNabb...........Probowler

Delhomme......Probowler

Gannon...........MVP

Johnson..........Probowler(but average)

Warner(x2).....MVP

Kerry Collins...Probowler(but average)

Dilfer..............Probowler(but average)

McNair............MVP

Elway(x5).......HOFer

Chandler........Probowler(but average)

Favre(x2).......Future HOFer, MVP

Bledsoe..........Probowler

Aikman(x3).....HOFer

O'Donnell........Probowler

Young.............HOFer, MVP

Humphries......NO PROBOWLS

Kelly(x4).........HOFer

Rypien............Probowler(but average)

Hostetler.........Probowler(but average)

Montana(x4)....HOFer, MVP

 

 

Of these 23 QBs, YOU note that no fewer than 6 are average and you do not typify Humphrey. but I assume he raises the # of players you deem average or worse to 7. One might quibble over whether folks like O'Donnell or Hasselbeck though Pro Bowlers are really great or much better than average QB, or one might want to see a bit more of Delhomme of RoboQB (clearly a not very smart person, but it appears that surviving taking a face plant from his motorcycle might have knocked some sense or responsibility to his teammates and fans into him- besides Jimbo had demonstrated that you do not need to be a brain surgeon or have high moral character to be a great QB).

 

Yet, evem if one wants to be fairly harsh in judging who is good the fact that this # of 23 men actually biases the % of great QB years down because folks like Brady, Elway, Jimbo and Montana have multiple SB years to their name (in fact your selection of looking at years rather than players allows Tom Brady's performance to weigh heavily in your calculation as his prescence alone and domination of your numbers really hikes up the showing of great QBs in your stats),

 

At any rate, your own declaration with a broader definition of achievement shows that while it is a very good thing to have a very good QB, almost 1/3 of the individuals you name are average QBs who made it to the SB.

 

Your own analysis really did a lot to convince me that an average QB can "lead" his team to the SB not nearly as well as a HOF or MBP player, but they can certainly get a good team there in good though not the best #s.

 

I remained convinced by your earlier argument rather than the selection of a pool limited by only looking at the winners and not at who got there even if they lost. In fact. if you want to take the time (my hat is off to you for what you already did so I have no expectation or demand you will do this) then I think a better analysis can likely be made by expanding your pool of successful QBs to count the 4 QBs who led the team to conference championships.

 

In my mind, a team or a QB who make it that far has actually had a pretty successful season and an analysis of the necessity of a top flight QB is probably best seen in that pool rather by making the standard for a successful season be winning the SB.

 

As I said, this sounds like a load of work to me snd though I hope to find enough late nights or rainy days to do this, I doubt i will so if you or anyonw does then my thnahs to you as I think this is where better analysis of your original quality work lies.

 

I also think that this approach is by far the most relevant to our Bills. It is nice to know what would be useful or essential to win the SB, but really right now I think we are probably more reasonably worried about what is useful or necesary to simply make the playoffs.

 

Being a fan does mean having rediculous aspirations for great occurences even when reality says they will not happen. Still, I guess I am even more interested in the fantasy of what do we need to be one of the final four than the even more redicoulous standard of what is useful or essential to win the SB.

 

It is in reality that I think Bills fans can find some security with our QB situation. A HOFer at QB may be essential to winning the SB based on your more rarified current analysis, but your analysis in the earlier thread shows it is very useful though not essential to have a very good QB (and in fact even merely having an adequate QB may be enough to get you there in a quarter of the cases).

 

I suspect the even better news if someone has the time or the analysis is easier to do than I suspect, that given the goal of making the conference championships (a goal which unfortunately is probably a dream for us) can be done a lot of the times with merely an adequate QB.

 

The real saving grace may be that in order to reach the goal of merely making the playoffs, i would not be surprised if the numbers show that not only do a fair number of adequate QBs achieve this goal, but actually even some teams with bad QBs make it that far.

 

This analysis will give some real hope to Bills fans if someone does it and it turns out to be true, because one thing many TSW folks seem certain of its that we are going to have a below average QB this year.

 

We will see.

[Dibs]

............We will see.

724577[/snapback]

I understand where you're at....I was there recently(& still sort of am).

That is to say...At this point in time I'd be happy if we just make the playoffs.

 

I know however that if we get closer to the 'big one' I will be petrified of us 'losing' the superbowl(becoming league losers 0-5). Just on the psychological level of having experienced 4 consecutive losses it will be devastating to get there & lose.

Truth be told I realized I don't want us to be nearly good enough. I want us to WIN.

As the last 17(18) years have shown....

If you have a 'great' QB you have a decent chance of winning the superbowl.

If you don't you've got between slim & none.

[Dibs]

......Tom Brady's performance to weigh heavily in your calculation as his prescence alone and domination of your numbers really hikes up the showing of great QBs in your stats....

724577[/snapback]

Um...that is my exact point on 'great' QBs.....they win Superbowls.

[Pyrite Gal]

I understand where you're at....I was there recently(& still sort of am).

That is to say...At this point in time I'd be happy if we just make the playoffs.

 

I know however that if we get closer to the 'big one' I will be petrified of us 'losing' the superbowl(becoming league losers 0-5).  Just on the psychological level of having experienced 4 consecutive losses it will be devastating to get there & lose.

Truth be told I realized I don't want us to be nearly good enough.  I want us to WIN. 

As the last 17(18) years have shown....

If you have a 'great' QB you have a decent chance of winning the superbowl.

If you don't you've got between slim & none.

724582[/snapback]

 

At this point, I'd simply be overjoyed if we end up 0-5 in the SB after this season.

 

I thiink my feelings in order would be:

 

1. Make the playoffs and lose in the first round- Surprised to see it, bummed (as always) about the loss, but mostly supremely enjoying the I told you sos to the the yahoos at ESPN, and busting out laughing at the revisionist historics (or is it hysterics) of John Clayton, amused by the silence of Mort and looking forward to the future where we are on the right track quicker than most imagined possible.

 

2. Lose in the 2nd round- All of the above and even smug rather than simply confident about the future.

 

3. Lose in the conference final- All of the above and simply pumped about the future. Woulda, coulda, shouldas about the loss, but this is overwhelmed by sporting a winning record in the playoffs and next season simply cannot come quick enough.

 

4. Lose in the SB- I wake up several days after the SB, any being bummed by the loss in the Big Dance is overcome by the raucous time I had getting there and my post drinking stupor. Suddenly, I become aware of those standing around the bed. Ed, I suddenly say, you were there! Amd Uncle Bud you were a tin woodsman. Frank, you were a Cowardly Lion. There's no place like the Home Opener. There' no place like the Homer Opener.

[Dr. Trooth]

And... what do all of these SB winning QBs have in common? As I eluded to a couple months back... a QB rating of at least 85.

 

Achieving a QB rating of 85 assures a team of nothing. But if you don't have a QB with a rating of 85 or above, you may as well piss on the fire and call in the dogs, because, essentially, the hunt is over. In the last 10 years... only Dilfer was a tad below that 85 rating... and he was helped considerably by probably the best defense ever the year the Ravens brought home the Lombardi cup.

[5 Wide]

This thread started to look like "I see your long post and I raise you a wicked long post"... J/K that's interesting though because the general national consensus was that you just need a guy who can manage the game, good take on things

[AKC]

It might be possible to turn that argument completely around. It seems that the term "great QB" is most often bestowed upon those who end up on the winning sidelines Super Bowl Sunday, which simply follows the fan hysteria of attributing an inordinate amount of any team's success or failure to that single position.

 

Along those lines you've identified Kurt Warner and Brett Favre under your measures as "Great QBs". It might be more prudent to say that another season at Arizona and Green Bay respectively could go far in dulling both their shines to the point that in retirement they may not be looked upon so glowingly. I could also list MVP QBs who are hardly "great", but simply beneficiaries of systems that fit their skillsets ideally. You might start with Rick Gannon as a for instance, and there are solid arguments along the same lines about a few of those among the Super Bowl winners you list too.

[drnykterstein]

Brady(x3).......Future HOFer

you sure it was not brusci who won those?

[Dibs]

It might be possible to turn that argument completely around. It seems that the term "great QB" is most often bestowed upon those who end up on the winning sidelines Super Bowl Sunday, which simply follows the fan hysteria of attributing an inordinate amount of any team's success or failure to that single position.

 

Along those lines you've identified Kurt Warner and Brett Favre under your measures as "Great QBs". It might be more prudent to say that another season at Arizona and Green Bay respectively could go far in dulling both their shines to the point that in retirement they may not be looked upon so glowingly. I could also list MVP QBs who are hardly "great", but simply beneficiaries of systems that fit their skillsets ideally. You might start with Rick Gannon as a for instance, and there are solid arguments along the same lines about a few of those among the Super Bowl winners you list too.

725588[/snapback]

I totally understand what you are saying. That is why I expanded the number of 'great' QBs in each year to 12 out of 32. I was intending to not only include the true greats (Montant, Elway etc) but also those capable of appearing great(the next level down)..i.e. Warner.

IMO Favre is a true great. Just as Elway was a sure HOFer before he won superbowls, Favre would be a sure HOFer if he didn't win his one. Even seeing him in action last year you could still see he was(at one time) a special QB.

 

If we did cut it down to unargueable(pretty much) 'true greats'...

It would be 9 out of the last 18. 50%

Each year there would be...???...let's say 6 'true greats' playing in the NFL(including old & young)

That means 'true greats' have a 8.3% chance each year(on average) of winning the SB. Non-greats have a 1.9% chance.

OR>>>>>>....1 in 12 years

compared to....1 in 52 years

It is easy to see why every team is desperate for a 'great' QB.

 

Sorry for another long one.

[LevysEraII]

What I looked at was....

13 of the last 18 superbowls were won by HOFers, future HOFers or MVPs.

Those players are....

Brady(x3).......Future HOFer

Warner(x1).....MVP...(possible future HOFer but I doubt it)

Elway(x2).......HOFer

Favre(x1).......Future HOFer & MVP

Aikman(x3)....HOFer

Young(x1)......HOFer & MVP

Montana(x2)...HOFer & MVP

 

724563[/snapback]

 

Great post. Here's my two cents on the subject.

 

How 'bout this for an eye opener? ALL of these QB's came from, in one way or another, the coaching family tree of Bill Parcells, Bill Walsh and/or Jimmy Johnson. All exept Warner.

[LevysEraII]

Rothlisberger...Future Probowler:Cowher

Hasslebeck......Probowler: Holmgren via Walsh

Brady(x3).......Future HOFer: Belichek via Parcells

McNabb...........Probowler: Reid via Walsh

Delhomme......Probowler:

Gannon...........MVP

Johnson..........Probowler(but average):Gruden via Walsh

Warner(x2).....MVP

Kerry Collins...Probowler(but average)

Dilfer..............Probowler(but average):Billick via Walsh

McNair............MVP

Elway(x5).......HOFer: Reeves and Shanahan the latter via Walsh

Chandler........Probowler(but average): Reeves

Favre(x2).......Future HOFer, MVP: Holmgren via Walsh

Bledsoe..........Probowler: count him for 2 appearances. One with Parcells the other with Belichek via Parcells

Aikman(x3).....HOFer: Jimmy Johnson

O'Donnell........Probowler: Cowher

Young.............HOFer, MVP: Seifert via Walsh

Humphries......NO PROBOWLS

Kelly(x4).........HOFer: Levy

Rypien............Probowler(but average): Gibbs

Hostetler.........Probowler(but average): Parcells

Montana(x4)....HOFer, MVP: Walsh

 

724577[/snapback]

 

Taking my "coaching family tree" one step further.

 

Add Cowher, Levy, Reeves and Gibbs to the mix of Parcells, Walsh and Johnson and these 7 coaches' family trees are responsible for a whopping 34 out of 38 Super Bowl appearances.

 

BTW. Please tell me Dick Jauron coached under one of these "Super 7" coaches.

[krazykat]

Upon having a discargument on another thread about whether a team needs a 'great' QB to win the Superbowl I discovered something which altered my views a bit.  I went from thinking "they don't need one but it sure helps a lot" to "realistically without one you have very little chance to win it all."

 

What I looked at was....

13 of the last 18 superbowls were won by HOFers, future HOFers or MVPs.

Those players are....

Brady(x3).......Future HOFer

Warner(x1).....MVP...(possible future HOFer but I doubt it)

Elway(x2).......HOFer

Favre(x1).......Future HOFer & MVP

Aikman(x3)....HOFer

Young(x1)......HOFer & MVP

Montana(x2)...HOFer & MVP

 

For the sake of this exercise I'm going to skew things against my argument.

I'll drop off year 18 so Montana only has 1 SB ring. 

 

That brings things to 12 out of 17 or around 71%

(obviously Rothisberger may be a future HOFer which would add to things let's assume he does not make it as MVP or HOFer)

 

On any given year there would be ???? QBs who fit the criteria.  I am going to be very generous & say 12 of the 32 starting QBs each year are capable of being HOFers or League MVPs....that's 37.5%.  Favre, Brady, McNair, Warner, Manning...a few vets (Vick, Delhomme or Hasslebeck types might make it...who knows?), a few youngsters(JP, Manning2, Palmer) & another QB for good measure.

That leaves 20 starters who are not.

 

Mathematically(all things being equal) that means each year...

each of those 12 'great' QBs have about a 5.9% chance each of winning the superbowl

each of the 20 others have about a 1.5% chance each.

OR>>>>>>> 1 in 17 years

compared to.. 1 in 68 years

(average obviously is 1 in 32 years)

 

Using these figures, a 'great' QB has a 4 times more chance of winning the Superbowl than a non-great QB.

 

If I were to use the 13 in 18 & say only 10 QBs were 'greats' the figures would be...

'greats'...........1 in 14 years

'non greats'.....1 in 79 years

 

As you can see...

If you have a great QB, you will probably(on average) win the superbowl within their playing life span. 

If you don't, you will be waiting(on average) your own supporting life span.

724563[/snapback]

How were the lines on those teams?

 

If you took the QBs from those teams and put them on teams with equally bad lines as those teams had good lines, would they have won SBs?

 

I noticed that you overlooked Williams, Theisman, and Rypien on the Skins, Hostetler, Dilfer, Brad Johnson.

 

Were they great? How were their lines?

 

So once again, what's the common thread then? The QBs? I don't think so.

[krazykat]

Also, Aikman and Warner aren't that great.

How would they have been not behind some of the best lines to ever play the game. I mean Orlando Pace is arguably the best T to play the game. We all know how good the Dallas line was.

[LevysEraII]

Also, Aikman and Warner aren't that great. 

How would they have been not behind some of the best lines to ever play the game.  I mean Orlando Pace is arguably the best T to play the game.  We all know how good the Dallas line was.

725734[/snapback]

 

Who says they aren't great? I don't care how dominating your offensive line is, sometimes it's the things you DON'T DO that make you great. Like costing your team the game by throwing a ton of interceptions.

[Dibs]

How were the lines on those teams? 

 

If you took the QBs from those teams and put them on teams with equally bad lines as those teams had good lines, would they have won SBs? 

 

I noticed that you overlooked Williams, Theisman, and Rypien on the Skins, Hostetler, Dilfer, Brad Johnson. 

 

Were they great?  How were their lines? 

 

So once again, what's the common thread then?  The QBs?  I don't think so.

725732[/snapback]

Firstly I did not overlook anyone. If I was discounting them I would end up with 100% not 71%(or my now adjusted 50%) They were counted(not named) in the percentages.

You miss the point.....& I think the answer is YES, these QBs can & do win with slightly lesser teams than the non 'truly great' QB teams.

The point is....

50% of superbowls are won by 'truly great' QBs.

50% are won by non 'truly great' QBs

That means that each year the superbowl will be won by either...

1 of the 6 'truly great' QBs that are in the league that year

or...

1 of the other 26 QBs

This means....

If you don't have a 'truly great' QB you have a 50% chance to be the one team from 26 to win(on average)

If you do have one, you have a 50% chance to be the one team from 6 to win(on average)

 

I don't know how else to put it. Yes, half of the superbowls are won by non-'true greats' at QB but what is the likelihood it is your non-'truly great' who wins over the other 25 non-'truly greats'? They all have a similar chance of building good teams around the QB.

If you have a 'truly great' then half of the superbowls will be won by your team or the other 5 teams who have a 'truly great' QB.

 

I don't know....the same might apply with 'truly great' OTs...or DEs....it's harder to research them.

 

(krazykat: my post #10 where I narrowed to 50%, I chopped out Warner & Aikman to achieve my 9 out of 18. My 'truly greats' who won superbowls for the sake of the argument are...Elway, Brady, Favre, Young, Montana )

 

AAAARRRGGHH another long post

[Buffalo_Stampede]

How were the lines on those teams? 

 

If you took the QBs from those teams and put them on teams with equally bad lines as those teams had good lines, would they have won SBs? 

 

I noticed that you overlooked Williams, Theisman, and Rypien on the Skins, Hostetler, Dilfer, Brad Johnson. 

 

Were they great?  How were their lines? 

 

So once again, what's the common thread then?  The QBs?  I don't think so.

725732[/snapback]

 

Someone always has to bring up the OL.

 

Good QB's get good OL play because they dont put their OL in bad situations.

 

I will never beleive that the OL makes the QB, I always believe the QB makes the OL.

 

There is a reason the Patriots can play any offensive lineman from rookies to Vets, and they never miss a beat.

 

OL's change all the time, but good QB's keep putting up #'s.

 

Now the running game is a different story.

[Dibs]

Taking my "coaching family tree" one step further.

 

Add Cowher, Levy, Reeves and Gibbs to the mix of Parcells, Walsh and Johnson and these 7 coaches' family trees are responsible for a whopping 34 out of 38 Super Bowl appearances.

 

BTW. Please tell me Dick Jauron coached under one of these "Super 7" coaches.

725693[/snapback]

 

How about(& forgive me if I'm wrong on the name...don't have it in front of me)...

Levy & Vermeil both coached under George Allen(?).

I'm pretty sure Walsh & Gibbs both coached under Levy on College level.

 

Perhaps it is more to do with six degrees type situation than anything else. Coaches change teams...time progresses...cream rises to the top....six degrees.

Then again, maybe there is a trick to discovering/developing QBs that those trees of coaches know.

Then again, maybe I'm just wildly hypothesizing.

The thing is though, if you were to narrow down your coaching list into 'true super-coaches' & top coaches, I wonder what the stats would be...mind you, making that list would be far more contentious than my QB list.

Does it count that Levy is GM to DJ?

[Orton's Arm]

Along those lines you've identified Kurt Warner and Brett Favre under your measures as "Great QBs". It might be more prudent to say that another season at Arizona and Green Bay respectively could go far in dulling both their shines to the point that in retirement they may not be looked upon so glowingly.

My response is, so what? Say that a guy like Warner has a brilliant year, and the very next year appears totally washed up. Is that washed-up year supposed to retroactively take away Warner's Super Bowl ring or something?

 

Dibs' main point--which he's been presenting brilliantly by the way--is that outstanding play by your quarterback is (almost) a necessary condition to winning the Super Bowl. If Warner gives you one stellar year, and that same year his team wins the Super Bowl, then this supports Dibs' point. If Warner's play drops off, and if the Rams fail to return to the Super Bowl, then this supports Dibs' point even more.

 

So how good was Warner the year the Rams won the Super Bowl? He threw for 4353 yards, averaging nearly 8.72 yards per pass attempt, with a QB rating of 109.2. This was one of the finest seasons any quarterback has ever had in NFL history. The fact his team ended the year with a Super Bowl ring is no coincidence. The stuff that happened later was, well, later. The fact Warner would struggle with injuries in 2002 didn't help any of the Rams' opponents in 1999.

[AKC]

outstanding play by your quarterback is (almost) a necessary condition to winning the Super Bowl. 

725779[/snapback]

 

I don't know whether that's an attemtped dodge of the original supposition or simply a continued semantic dalliance ignoring clear evidence. But instead of debating that, let me introduce some objectivity into the original debate that contradicts the original poster's conclusions.

 

A) Among the past 6 Super Bowl Winning Quarterbacks, 3 have been journeymen Quarterbacks. Statistically speaking, over that span the whole of the 32 NFL teams have been just as likely win the Super Bowl with a journeyman Quarterback as they have been to win with a Quarterback assumed to be of any greater talent level.

 

B) Of the past 16 Super Bowls, half were won by teams playing in the Eastern Conference.

 

C) Of the past 6 Super Bowls, every single game was won by a team playing in a city located East of the Mississippi.

 

Just applying these objective facts to reach a conclusion on the likelihood of winning Super Bowls, it's perfectly objective to say that a team with a journeyman quarterback playing on an East Coast team today is infinitely more likely to win a Super Bowl than a great Quarterback playing for a West Coast team.

 

Also, we know for a fact that in recent times a journeyman QB is as likely to be among the Super Bowl winners as all the other Quarterbacks of any greater talent level in the game of football.

 

So using objective evidence instead of a subjective measure like "great QBs" we can prove that the original premise and conclusion are subject to irrefutable contradiction.