IDrinkyourMilkshake
Footballguy
I'm not sure if I completely agree with the assessment, but its a good read comparing QB's to DT's.
Article Link
Article Link
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Do QB's have a higher bust rate? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter IDrinkyourMilkshake
- Start date
IDrinkyourMilkshake
Footballguy
3 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
2 Members: IDrinkyourMilkshake, Chase Stuart
Chase have you done any sort of statistical analysis on this topic? Would like to see what kind of results you found.
2 Members: IDrinkyourMilkshake, Chase Stuart
Chase have you done any sort of statistical analysis on this topic? Would like to see what kind of results you found.
Jerry Lawler
Footballguy
It would be interesting to do this for all positions. The problem is that the production at the skill positions is much easier to measure, so "non-skill" positions like DT have more room for disagreement.
Seems like a lot of DT's have busted over the past 10 years, and this article looks to bear that out. Maybe DT's are just too difficult to evaluate. A player like Suh dominates college O-linemen so easily that it's difficult to know how he would do without a monstrous physical advantage.
The QB list was fascinating in that the players sorted very easily into the Hit or Bust categories. I was expecting more mediocre Jason Campbell types, but maybe QB is more of a boom-bust position. One nitpick: I always thought it would be more useful to evaluate boom/bust from the perspective of the drafting team. For example, Kerry Collins is listed as a "Hit", but I bet Carolina considers him a bust because he was pretty bad for his first 6 years, far too long for any franchise to hang onto him. On the other hand, now that I see that my evaluation system would label Corey Simon a "Hit", I'm starting to re-think it.
Seems like a lot of DT's have busted over the past 10 years, and this article looks to bear that out. Maybe DT's are just too difficult to evaluate. A player like Suh dominates college O-linemen so easily that it's difficult to know how he would do without a monstrous physical advantage.
The QB list was fascinating in that the players sorted very easily into the Hit or Bust categories. I was expecting more mediocre Jason Campbell types, but maybe QB is more of a boom-bust position. One nitpick: I always thought it would be more useful to evaluate boom/bust from the perspective of the drafting team. For example, Kerry Collins is listed as a "Hit", but I bet Carolina considers him a bust because he was pretty bad for his first 6 years, far too long for any franchise to hang onto him. On the other hand, now that I see that my evaluation system would label Corey Simon a "Hit", I'm starting to re-think it.
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=6464http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=2123
Not written by me, but there are some articles. And no, based on my own research, I don't think QBs have a particularly high bust rate and linemen (on both sides of the ball) have a higher bust rate than most seem to think.
Lott's Fingertip
Footballguy
I did not read the article, but a fairly major component when talking about bust rates is the cap cost to the drafting team. QBs picked #1 get a king's ransom in salary and somewhat cripple a franchise when they bust. A DT makes less dough and hurts the team a little less if he busts.
LHUCKS
Footballguy
The consensus is that GMs hate Clausen...ummm no.As far as I can tell, that's the general consensus. What else ya got?LHUCKS said:
You've often contended a lot of things. Simply contending as much doesn't make it so.The only QB prediction I can recall you making is that Leinart was a slam-dunk stud. To date, that one's not looking so hot, although I realize he could still prove you right. You say you weren't a huge Stafford fan, either (neither was I), but I don't think that one has come close to being resolved one way or another. What other predictions have you made regarding rookie QBs?Either way, if I ever had to lay money on "the consensus of NFL GMs" vs. "a poster on FBGs" to make a football-related decision, I would lay money on the GMs 11 times out of 10. And that's not a knock on you in particular, I'm saying I'd take the GMs over *ANY* individual poster on FBGs.LHUCKS said:
Mr. Retukes
Footballguy
1. he overlooks the fact that even a "bust" of a DT will give you a few decent years as a reasonably-priced 2nd-stringer. But when a quarterback busts, not only is he worthless to you, but he usually costs a LOT more money. Who would you rather have -- Ryan Leaf or Glenn Dorsey?
2. He's got Alex Smith and Matt Leinart in the "Bust" category, when they should be in the TBA category. And if he wants to call Byron Leftwich a Bust, that's fine -- but few people were calling him a Bust three years ago.
3. Can any player be considered a bust if they had 2 great years? Then why are Darrell Russell and Corey Simon on his "Bust" list?
2. He's got Alex Smith and Matt Leinart in the "Bust" category, when they should be in the TBA category. And if he wants to call Byron Leftwich a Bust, that's fine -- but few people were calling him a Bust three years ago.
3. Can any player be considered a bust if they had 2 great years? Then why are Darrell Russell and Corey Simon on his "Bust" list?
Donsmith753
Footballguy
I'd like to see something that takes into account where a player SHOULD have been drafted.
Last year DHB should never have gone so high but he did. Reaches need to be taken into consideration.
Last year DHB should never have gone so high but he did. Reaches need to be taken into consideration.
IDrinkyourMilkshake
Footballguy
I'd like to see something that takes into account where a player SHOULD have been drafted.
Last year DHB should never have gone so high but he did. Reaches need to be taken into consideration.
Last year DHB should never have gone so high but he did. Reaches need to be taken into consideration.
Donsmith753
Footballguy
You disagree?
IDrinkyourMilkshake
Footballguy
Nah just busting your chops for the triple post.
Donsmith753
Footballguy
Fair enough! It's the stupid filters at my work.
I have always agreed. I always hate seeing the "don't take QB X, take the safe OL/DL pick" comments. Unfortunately, the NFL draft isn't a huge base of statistics (15 years and 16 picks is still only a 240 sample size), so 1 or 2 players can make one position "safer" than another, but I would think every position has the same bust rate. QBs are so much more visible that people remember Tim Couch, but no one remembers Courtney Brown (#1 overall 1 year later). Personally, I would rather go for the potential stud QB than a DT. When was the last time that a DT won a Super Bowl, versus a QB? Unfortunately, you get the Tom Brady theory of drafting a QB late, but Elway, Eli, Peyton, Aikman, Plunkett, and Bradshaw all won SBs as the #1 overall pick and contributed significantly to their teams. So out of 13 QBs drafted #1 overall from 1970 to 2004, 6 of them won 12 SBs (I think I counted correctly) and 5 more of them had 2+ pro-bowls. The other two were Tim Couch and Jeff George.IDrinkyourMilkshake said:
Over the same period, you get 10 DL. Out of those 10, Bruce Smith and Lee Roy Selmon have HOF careers and Ed Too Tall Jones has a great career. The other 7 have 1 pro-bowl between them. Seems like Bradford is a safer pick than Suh based on history, regardless of how it actually plays out.
TommyGilmore
Footballguy
Those stats are quite compelling. Too bad they'll become less relevant when Alex Smith, JaMarcus Russell, and Matthew Stafford fail to win Super Bowls.
twistd
Footballguy
The other problem that occurs when your first round QB busts is it takes time to replace them. Teams will spend a couple of years to determine if the QB is any good. Jamarcus Russell being an example. I think Oakland has finally concluded he is a bust. Brees being a similar example. SD was all ready to give up on Brees. So they drafted Phillip Rivers. By the time the team determines that the QB can't play they are looking to draft another. Then it takes a few more years for that player to develop. With DTs you can draft another guy and immediately he could help. And I think it is easier to find free agent DTs than it is free agent QBs. It is easier to develop a DT than a QB. It isn't generally easy to trade for a starting QB, or find a suitable starting free agent QB to step in as your starter. I believe busting on a high pick at QB is much more difficult to overcome than busting on a high pick at DT. So even if the bust rate is similar, the other factors make the QB bust much more damaging.Lott said:
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
Elway didn't win a Super Bowl for well over a decade. Plunkett wasn't a good QB. Manning was extremely fortunate to win his Super Bowls. So I think that skews things a little bit, too. And while they were very good, it's not as though Aikman and Bradshaw weren't incredibly lucky when it came to surrounding talent; it's just silly to try to grade these guys based on whether they won a SB or not, as a QB is just an extremely small part of a SB winning recipe.
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
Don't these thinks mean it's smarter to draft a QB when you have a high first round pick?
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
Let's be honest, though- if a team is drafting in the top 5, it's not like they're in the middle of a championship window. Sure, Oakland took two seasons to figure out Jamarcus was a bust... but it's not like Oakland was going to be winning anything whether they took Jamarcus or not. It's not like the Browns would have been championship contenders if not for Tim Couch, or as if the Houston Texans were one player away from being serious competitors, or as if the Lions would have somehow been a playoff team if they'd taken Albert Haynesworth instead of Joey Harrington. If a team is bad enough that they're picking in the top 5, usually time is something they have plenty of.
twistd
Footballguy
I don't know. The number of solid starting QBs that were drafted high is significant. If you look at the last ten years, there have been some really good years. In 2008 Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco both look really good. But on the other hand, in 2007 you had JaMarcus Russell and Brady Quinn. In 2006 Vince Young, Cutler, and the jury is out on Leinart. In 2005 you had Alex Smith, Aaron Rodgers and Jason Campbell. 2004 was a terrific year with Eli, Rivers, and Big Ben. But 2003 wasn't so good. You had Carson Palmer, but also Leftwich, Boller, and Grossman. And 2002 was really bad too. That produced Carr, Harrington, and Patrick Ramsey. 2001 was Michael Vick. 2000 was Chad Pennington. 1999 was Couch, McNabb, Culpepper, McNown, and Akili Smith. In the last ten years there have been QBs taken as the first pick eight times, those players were Stafford, JaMarcus Russell, Alex Smith, Eli Manning, Carson Palmer, David Carr, Michael Vick, and Tim Couch. You have to assume that Russell, Smith, Carr, and Couch really set teams back. And you have players like Romo, Brady, Matt Schaub, Drew Brees, Bulger, Hasselbeck, Farve, and Warner that were all drafted in the second round or later, or not drafted. So there are QBs that can be found outside the first round with much less of an investment. I'd have to be really sold on a guy to take him early in the first round.
Chase Stuart
Footballguy
I'd say that outside of the first round, you've got about a 1 in 10 chance of hitting on a QB. Here are all QBs drafted outside of the 1st round from '00 to '09:Tom Brady
Drew Brees
Marc Bulger
David Garrard
Matt Schaub
Matt Cassel
Kyle Orton
Derek Anderson
Quincy Carter
Trent Edwards
Josh McCown
Sage Rosenfels
Tim Rattay
Tarvaris Jackson
Seneca Wallace
Tyler Thigpen
Chris Weinke
Chris Simms
Ryan Fitzpatrick
Chris Redman
Brad Smith
Chad Henne
Charlie Frye
A.J. Feeley
J.T. O'Sullivan
Brooks Bollinger
Luke McCown
Bruce Gradkowski
Mike McMahon
Jim Sorgi
Dan Orlovsky
Kellen Clemens
Kevin Kolb
John Beck
Spergon Wynn
Troy Smith
Brodie Croyle
Ken Dorsey
Pat White
Keith Null
Dennis Dixon
Andrew Walter
Craig Krenzel
Cody Pickett
Matt Mauck
Dave Ragone
Randy Fasani
Kurt Kittner
Craig Nall
Marques Tuiasosopo
Jesse Palmer
Curtis Painter
Kevin O'Connell
Matt Flynn
Isaiah Stanback
Charlie Whitehurst
Ingle Martin
Reggie McNeal
Andy Hall
John Navarre
Bradlee Van Pelt
Brian St. Pierre
Drew Henson
Kliff Kingsbury
Gibran Hamdan
Rohan Davey
Jeff Kelly
Tee Martin
Todd Husak
Jarious Jackson
Joe Hamilton
Stephen McGee
Rhett Bomar
Nate Davis
Tom Brandstater
Mike Teel
Brian Brohm
John David Booty
Josh Johnson
Erik Ainge
Colt Brennan
Andre Woodson
Alex Brink
Drew Stanton
Jeff Rowe
Jordan Palmer
Omar Jacobs
D.J. Shockley
David Greene
Stefan Lefors
Adrian McPherson
James Kilian
Josh Harris
Jeff Smoker
Casey Bramlet
B.J. Symons
Brandon Doman
Steve Bellisari
Seth Burford
Wes Pate
Josh Booty
Josh Heupel
Giovanni Carmazzi
JaJuan Seider
Sure, you might get Matt Schaub. But you're a lot more likely to get Adrian McPherson, Ken Dorsey, Jerrious Jackson or David Greene. I'm not sure it's a great plan to not take a QB in the first round, since your odds of finding a good one are pretty low after that.
As for the line "So there are QBs that can be found outside the first round with much less of an investment. I'd have to be really sold on a guy to take him early in the first round." Well, that applies to every position. There are good players at every position available outside of the first less with less of an investment.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
I posted this in another thread and it seemed to fit in this one as well . . .
Since 1970, here were all the first team All Pro selects for all QBs drafted in the regular NFL draft and the rounds they were taken in:
First round: 5 of 80
Second round: 4 of 41
Third round: 4 of 49 (includes Tom Tupa who made it as a punter)
Fourth round: 2 of 61
Fifth round: 0 of 43
Sixth round: 1 of 70
Seventh round or later: 1 of 254 (Brian Sipe)
Since 1970, here were all the first team All Pro selects for all QBs drafted in the regular NFL draft and the rounds they were taken in:
First round: 5 of 80
Second round: 4 of 41
Third round: 4 of 49 (includes Tom Tupa who made it as a punter)
Fourth round: 2 of 61
Fifth round: 0 of 43
Sixth round: 1 of 70
Seventh round or later: 1 of 254 (Brian Sipe)
But that's not the only way a team can acquire a QB or any other player, and the other option allows you to see how they play in the NFL first. Given that, I think teams should be more risk-aversive in the first round.
Last edited by a moderator:
This right here...plus to add when you wiff on a QB, you look like Reggie Jackson swinging yard and coming up with an Eddie George-like cloud of dust. Missing on a lineman is more like Ozzie Smith watching a strike. Perception can distort reality.
twistd
Footballguy
A couple of things, first I think the list you post would have to be considered as to how many of those guys were even drafted as potential starters. Many of those were probably drafted as potential back ups. The team never expected them to develop in to starters. However, it does appear that the batting average for drafting successful QBs in the first round is improving. From 1999 to 2003 there were 14 QBs drafted in the first round. Of those I'd say 9 were busts. Since 2004 there have been 15 QBs taken in the first. Of those I'd say only four could probably defined as busts, with the jury still out on Leinart.(I'm defining Russell, Quinn, Alex Smith, and Jason Campbell as busts. And I am defining Sanchez and Stafford as successes because so far they have looked good. I actually think Leinart will probably fail, but that Campbell could turn things around with another team.) It will be interesting to see if this is a statistically anomaly, or if the NFL is indeed getting more consistent at drafting first round QBs. Looking at that stat, you would have to say that you are definitely right, and that teams would be much better off drafting their QB in round 1.
Last edited by a moderator:
IDrinkyourMilkshake
Footballguy
Top 5 QB draft picks demand more money than other positions. Its a fair point. But isn't some of the money recovered through increased ticket sales, merchandising etc?
TommyGilmore
Footballguy
Only if that QB becomes a starter AND the team shows improvement on the field.IDrinkyourMilkshake said:
Nice cherry picking of a post. How about including the second part:
The article that started this was comparing QBs and DTs, so I compared QBs and DLs since there have been a significant amout of DLs picked #1 overall. I wasn't using SBs as the only measure of success, just pointing out how over one long time period, just using the #1 overall pick that the difference between QBs and the "safe" pick often mentioned (go OL/DL instead of QB) by fans showed a big difference in success.SBs may not be perfect, so Tommy and Chase, here is something that might be better for comparison, pro bowls.14 QBs from 1970 to 2004: 43 Pro-Bowls for 10 QBs, so they averaged 3 PBs and 71.4% of the picks got to the pro-bowl10 DL over the same period: 18 Pro-Bowls for 3 QBs, so they averaged 1.8 PBs and only 30% of the picks got to the pro-bowlNot even taking into account that the Manning brothers and Palmer are still playing and Bruce Smith accounting for 11 of 18 pro-bowls, this comparison is just as one sided as the SB one.Tommy, would you still take a DL as the safe pick over a QB at the #1 spot as your sarchastic remark seems to indicate? Suh may be the next Bruce Smith, but if Bradford grades out the same, I would take Bradford every time based on history. I might be wrong, but there is a lot better chance of getting a pro-bowl/Super Bowl winner. Oh by the way, even though you may laugh at Smith and Stafford (JaMarcus was only #1 because Al Davis is an idiot), all the HOFers and future HOFers I listed, all went to teams with the #1 pick, i.e. bad teams. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Lions in the Super Bowl if Stafford ends up being a good QB.But, then again, Chase was right, Aikman was incredibly lucky to go to a team that was 4-28 combined the year before he got there and his rookie year. They still had Ed Jones, Dorsett, Tony Hill, Randy White, Pearson, Staubach, oh, maybe they didn't. Peyton went to a great team too, oh, I guess they were a combined 6-26 the year before he got there and his rookie year. Bradshaw, well his team had won at most 5 games the 6 years before he got there too, so they were a juggernaut. Super Bowl teams have a lot of other talent, no doubt, but don't belittle what these QBs brought to the team that picking the best DL that year wouldn't have.
It only happens if any player selected that high becomes a start AND the team shows improvement on the field. If a QB becomes a starter and plays well, that bottom rung team can A) become a perennial playoff contender and B) have a shot at the Super Bowl. Take Suh again as an example. If he becomes a pro-bowl player, do you think the Rams are a SB contender? If Bradford becomes a pro-bowl player, I would bet money that they are a SB contender.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
In the past 15 years, here are the 1st round QBs that have been selected to the Pro Bowl . . .Peyton Manning* Donovan McNabb* Steve McNair* Daunte Culpepper Michael Vick Kerry Collins* Carson Palmer Philip Rivers Trent Dilfer* Ben Roethlisberger* Eli Manning* Aaron Rodgers Jay Cutler Vince Young 7 of the 14 played on a SB team (although we can debate if some of them like Collins or Dilfer really count because they moved around, but I guess that holds true for some of the linemen too).OL players that were first round picks and played in the Super Bowl:Jonathan Ogden* Ruben Brown*Walter Jones* Alan Faneca* Orlando Pace* Steve Hutchinson* Chris Samuels Tony Boselli Willie Anderson Tarik Glenn* Tra Thomas* Leonard Davis Joe ThomasTodd Steussie* Jeff Hartings* Shawn Andrews* Logan Mankins* Jammal BrownNick MangoldJake Long Korey Stringer Jermane Mayberry* Damien Woody* Bryant McKinnieJordan Gross* Davin Joseph D'Brickashaw Ferguson Ryan Clady15 of 28 played on a SB team.First round DL players that made the Pro Bowl . . .Warren Sapp*Casey Hampton* Richard Seymour* Dwight Freeney* Julius Peppers* Kevin Williams Bryant Young*Trevor Pryce Sam Adams* Hugh Douglas*Simeon Rice* Jevon Kearse* John Abraham Marcus Stroud Tommie Harris*Tim Bowens Joe JohnsonWillie McGinest* Luther EllissKevin Carter*Darrell Russell? (Was suspended from the OAK SB team) Patrick Kerney Albert HaynesworthJohn Henderson Vince Wilfork* Mario Williams Greg EllisShaun EllisCorey Simon*Will Smith* Haloti NgataCounting Russell as a non SB guy, 16 of 31 that made the SB.Bottom line, it looks like the ratio for Pro Bowlers making the SB is pretty similar.
Last edited by a moderator:
OK, but I don't think that is quite the same as what I was saying. The ratio at almost every position is probably similar. Teams that make the Super Bowl always have the most pro-bowlers, whether they were deserving or not. I was a huge Cowboys fan when Jimmie Johnson was their coach and Russell Maryland made the Pro-Bowl as did many others, and there isn't a shred of doubt in my mind that Maryland and probably a few others on another team don't make the Pro-Bowl. I would bet on Aikman making the pro-bowl on another team, not Maryland or some of the OL as well.OL and DL become household names like Nate Newton (another Dallas reference) because they are on SB winning teams. Was Nate Newton really the best G in the game? How come he played for 6 years before making a pro-bowl if he was that good? He was good, but he got all 6 of his pro-bowl appearances after the 1992 season when they won their first of 3 SBs.Do you believe that my assertion that if Bradford makes the pro-bowl with the Rams that they are better off as a team than if Suh makes the pro-bowl? If Bradford leads the Rams to the Super Bowl, then there will be other players on the Rams that make it to the pro-bowl because of that. There is no way Bradford makes it to the pro-bowl if the Rams become a defensive juggernaut and he is Trent Dilfer.I also find it interesting that 14 first round QBs made the pro-bowl compared to 28 OL and 31 DL (although I would say McGinest was a LB first, not a DL). The last two drafts had 5 QBs in the first round compared to 12 DL and 13 OL, so a very similar ratio, which makes sense. I asserted early on that I think QBs busting is a myth, all positions probably bust at the exact same amount. For every Tony Gonzalez there is a Kyle Brady, etc.That said, while some of the DL and OL have been good, I have no doubt in my mind that Ryan, Sanchez, Stafford, Flacco and Freeman will have way more impact on their teams future success than the other 25 guys selected. How many GMs on teams without pro-bowl QBs, wouldn't give up every single one of those 25 guys for Ryan and maybe even the rest?
David Yudkin
Footballguy
Since no one bothered to go to the link I posted before, here's the info that again seemed relevant here . . .
David Yudkin
Footballguy
A QB is only as good as the team around him. So a good QB with a terrible defense, WR that can't catch, and no OL will get the snot kicked out of him and lose a ton.A team with a good team and a lousy QB can easily turn things around by adding a good QB. There's been a lot of debate about how different players would have fared if they switched teams with others. For example, put Tom Brady on the Lions and Joey Harrington on the Pats and see how they would have done.If you look at some of the better teams that added QBs, the teams won WITH that QB and most times not BECAUSE OF that QB. Roethlisberger, Brady, Rivers, Aikman come to mind. Their teams were good without them but they became a piece of the pie that made them better. Better stated, if the team didn't have a bunch of solid if not Pro Bowl players around them, they would not have won many games.Put another way, if you had a team of All Pro OLmen, you could have average skill position players and still win. But if you had All Pro level skill position players and no blocking, I think there is a much higher chance of losing (or at a minimum that team would win fewer games than the great OL team would).
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow, I so disagree with you it isn't funny and I normally never disagree with you. Do you actually believe that Brady and Harrington are interchangeable? What part of the Chargers Defense/running game carried them to 13-3 versus Rivers? Do you really believe that the Dallas OL was so good that they made Aikman, Irvin and Smith?Let's examine the Dallas example because I am very familiar with it, shall we? Mark Tunei was a 2 year All-Pro/Pro-Bowl selection who started his career in 1983. Nate Newton was 6x Pro-Bowlers who started in 1986. Mark Stepnoski was a 5 time Pro-Bowler who started in 1989. Irvin was drafted in 1988, Aikman in 1989 and Smith in 1990. The Cowboys were 1-15 in 1989 with Aikman as a rookie and 3-13 in 1988 with just Irvin. Why did they suck so much when in 1989 they had 3 out of 5 pro-bowl lineman on the team. Why did Aikman get pummelled so much until Emmitt Smith came on board and Aikman matured? Are you saying that Erik Williams in his first year starting and John Gesek were the reasons why they won the Super Bowl? Because Stepnoski, Newton and Tunei obviously weren't enough before 1992.Sorry, but no one has a team of All-Pro OL, so I will bet on building a great team around a great QB every time.
David Yudkin
Footballguy
The point of the Brady/Harrington comparison was that if those two switched but the rest of the teams were exactly the same, Detroit would still have been poor and the Pats would still have been good. Detroit may have won a few more games but would have been far from a contender, while the Pats at a minimum should still have been a perennial playoff contender. Unless, of course, you think that Matt Cassel was the second coming.Looking back at the Cowboys, IMO, several other QBs could have done just as well in leading that team that was stacked on offense and defense. The 90s Cowboys were basically a great team for about 5 years (92-96). In that time, besides Aikman, the Cowboys fielded 19 other All Pro players: Irvin, Smith, Novacek, Newton, Stepnowski, Johnston, Erik Williams, Maryland, Norton, Everett, Tuinei, Lett, Haley, Woodson, Donaldson, Allen, Tolbert, Sanders, and Schwantz.While I don't think any QB could have ended up in the HOF, I suspect another QB could have effectively managed that offense and they still would have been a SB winner. So in this case, I don't think the QB made the team.A team where I do think the QB made the team was the Colts with Manning. With another QB, I don't think the Colts would have been anywhere near as good.
