Todem
Footballguy
Jeff Hostetler won one with that vaunted NYG defense and Otis Anderson.
That was a wowza one too.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
How Good Must Your QB Be To Win A SuperBowl? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Joe Bryant
- Start date
That was a wowza one too.
SeniorVBDStudent
Footballguy
dont have much to contribute other than flacco >> dilfer. the dilfer ravens were amazing as 90% of their point production came from matt stover.
General Malaise
Footballguy
And he's definitely not going to win you a Super Bowl until he sheds the reputation of making mistakes at pivotal moments in the biggest games.
General Malaise
Footballguy
Did those quarterbacks throw 2 interceptions before halftime, 1 deep in their own territory and the other returned for a TD? 14 points gifted to the other team before Travis Tritt sang at halftime.
That's a problem.
That's a pattern.
Football Jones
Footballguy
The first order of business is what type of QB you’ve got. Pocket passers are going the way of the dinosaur. Brady was pretty much the last of the breed and the trend is only going to lean even more towards athletic QBs as time goes on. Lots of reasons for that, not the least of which is how big and fast defenders are in today’s NFL, not to mention complicated D schemes/personnel groupings. It used to be much simpler for QBs.
Look at the top QBs in the NFL today. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out the type who are best equipped to win you a title. Guys who can play off-schedule, create on their own, and be a threat running the ball are the gold standard. Once you have that, it depends on how they perform. Can they take their skill set and produce given the dynamics of your team (weapons, OL, strength of D, etc.)?
Look at the top QBs in the NFL today. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out the type who are best equipped to win you a title. Guys who can play off-schedule, create on their own, and be a threat running the ball are the gold standard. Once you have that, it depends on how they perform. Can they take their skill set and produce given the dynamics of your team (weapons, OL, strength of D, etc.)?
Last edited:
Anarchy99
Footballguy
This is going to come off like a cop out, but a team needs a QB to be able to outscore the opposition for 3 or 4 games in the playoffs to win a SB. Tom Brady threw for 503/3 in a SB . . . and lost. He also had playoff games with 3 picks and passer ratings in the 50's and won. That's just one example. Look up the numbers for other HOF level QBs and there will be similar outcomes. Joe Montana had games with passer ratings of 100+ and lost . . . and a couple of post season games with 3 INTs and won.
When the Ravens won with Flacco, he went nuts (11 TD, 0 INT, 117 rating). The year they won with Dilfer, he had only had 3 TD in 4 games. The Giants won a SB in every season Eli won a playoff game (twice went on 4-0 runs and were one and done 4 other times). The Giants won earlier one postseason when Phil Simms went nuts (8 TD, 0 INT, 131 rating). The Stellers won a SB with Big Ben going 9 of 21 with a 123/0/2 line and a 21 rating. Even Mahomes had a SB with 2 picks, 2 fumbles (but retained possession), and 4 sacks with a 78 rating . . . and won. Josh Allen one year had 329/4/0 and no turnovers against Mahomes and lost.
IMO, bottom line, it takes a team effort to go on a SB run. A good to great QB performance certainly helps, but isn't always necessary (and isn't always enough). The chances that a great QB lays an egg are slimmer, and that's the benefit of having a top tier, franchise level QB. QBs often get way too much credit when a team wins and even more blame when a team loses.
When the Ravens won with Flacco, he went nuts (11 TD, 0 INT, 117 rating). The year they won with Dilfer, he had only had 3 TD in 4 games. The Giants won a SB in every season Eli won a playoff game (twice went on 4-0 runs and were one and done 4 other times). The Giants won earlier one postseason when Phil Simms went nuts (8 TD, 0 INT, 131 rating). The Stellers won a SB with Big Ben going 9 of 21 with a 123/0/2 line and a 21 rating. Even Mahomes had a SB with 2 picks, 2 fumbles (but retained possession), and 4 sacks with a 78 rating . . . and won. Josh Allen one year had 329/4/0 and no turnovers against Mahomes and lost.
IMO, bottom line, it takes a team effort to go on a SB run. A good to great QB performance certainly helps, but isn't always necessary (and isn't always enough). The chances that a great QB lays an egg are slimmer, and that's the benefit of having a top tier, franchise level QB. QBs often get way too much credit when a team wins and even more blame when a team loses.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
He won me a post-season league that year though.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Da Franchise
Footballguy
Listen, I know nobody thinks much of Mark Rypien but he was excellent for one season. In the 91 Super Bowl year he was 3rd in passing yards, 2nd in TDs, threw the fewest INTs of any full time starter, had the highest QB rating, had the most yards per attempt, yards per catch, and took the fewest sacks in NFL history. He does NOT belong on this bolded list, if we are analyzing the single season of accomplishment. Probably would have been first in yards if they hadn’t iced so many games in the mid 3rd quarter.
Now, the 91 Skins were also one of the greatest teams ever, along with the Dallas teams that followed, so he had tons of help, but he feasted on deep balls and really was just superb all year. He was a huge part of why they were great that year.
And as an aside while on the topic, I always say, the Bills really get a raw deal because they legit faced three of the greatest teams ever from 91-93 and there’s zero shame in getting smoked by them. Their only shot was 90 and the Giants were still tough as nails, born in fire surviving the bloody NFC East and Niners, just nobody expected Hostetler to be able to impersonate Simms well enough to win.
rockaction
Footballguy
When was this? 1997?
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
Kind of, yeah. Cumulative playoff numbers can be skewed, especially since he was awful 9 days ago, but ended up putting tons of garbage yards in the 4th quarter after they were down by 32 at home. That is why just looking at the numbers is not always the best way to go, because they can be misleading.
jvdesigns2002
Footballguy
This is a tough question to tackle (Pun intended). I don’t think there is a distinct line to how good a qb needs to be in order to win a Super Bowl. I think football is truly a team game—and it’s quite possible for great qb’s having great games to still be on the losing side of a Super Bowl push. Josh Allen played pretty well this past week against the Chiefs and still lost. Brady had a huge game one Superbowl and still lost.
I think the clearer line is “how bad can your quarterback not be in order to win a Superbowl”. When we are talking about a Super Bowl—we’re generally talking about two good teams playing one another. The road to the Super Bowl (the playoffs)—generally involves good teams playing one another. Under these circumstances—I think it’s important to determine if we think if it is more likely that
1) a team with a qb that plays well wins
or
2) or if a team with a qb that plays poorly loses.
In the environment of the playoffs—I personally think that it’s far more likely that a team that has a qb that plays poorly is going to lose.
I think the clearer line is “how bad can your quarterback not be in order to win a Superbowl”. When we are talking about a Super Bowl—we’re generally talking about two good teams playing one another. The road to the Super Bowl (the playoffs)—generally involves good teams playing one another. Under these circumstances—I think it’s important to determine if we think if it is more likely that
1) a team with a qb that plays well wins
or
2) or if a team with a qb that plays poorly loses.
In the environment of the playoffs—I personally think that it’s far more likely that a team that has a qb that plays poorly is going to lose.
GregR
Footballguy
I agree that one could argue Purdy is the worst remaining QB in the playoffs, or that some people rank him mid-level.
But it kind of made me chuckle, as right before reading this thread, I was on Pro Football Reference, sorting most every meaningful passing category from best to worst to see where Stroud ranked in each. And one name was kind of prolific for being at the top of each category.
Anyone want to guess where Purdy placed overall?
Completion percent: 4th
TD percent: 1st
INT percent: 26th
Success percent: 1st (pass gains 40% of yards needed on 1st, 60% of yds on 2nd, or 100% on 3rd/4th down)
Yards/Attempt: 1st
Adjusted Yards/Attempt: 1st
Net Yards/Attempt: 1st
Adjusted Net Yds/Attempt: 1st
Yards/Game: 4th
Passer Rating: 1st
QBR: 1st
Interception percent, he had some of the remaining playoff QBs finished ahead of him, and Yds/Game Goff finished ahead of him. Stroud (Yds/Game), Tua (Yds/Game) and Dak (Completion %) were the only eliminated QBs ahead of him in anything other than interceptions.
Last edited:
Deamon
Footballguy
Thanks. He will be a HOF'er.
ShamrockPride
Footballguy
Think I agree with this. And after thinking more about it, think I just talked myself into thinking BAL takes the title this year.
BAL: QB, Coach, Defense
KC: QB, Coach
SF: Defense
DET: Coach
Anarchy99
Footballguy
Which "he" are you referring to that will be a HOFer? Rypien? If so, I don't see much chance of him making the HOF. He had one great season but the rest of his career was mostly forgettable. He played 6 years for WAS but after that he had a total of 2 wins playing for 4 other franchises. He never was picked as a HOF semifinalist and hasn't played in 23 years. Are you suggesting he will get in through the Seniors Commitee? Assuming you meant Rypien, what about him would make him a HOFer? He's not in the Top 100 in any major passing category (other than YPA, where he ranks 81st).
FairWarning
Footballguy
Until I see a running qb win one, I’ll pass on them. The two week gap eliminates a lot of scheduling advantages, and heals up tired and injured D’s.
Easy. Factoring all that in I think Prescott is around a #10 QB. And I think that's good enough to win a Super Bowl on this team.
I think to answer my question, I think in general a QB needs to be what I believe to be a top 15 QB. I'd say many do. Of course team and situation matters a ton. That's why I was confused when you had Prescott at 15 and Goff at 14. And so sure Prescott can't win one. But I'm assuming you think Lions have a chance.
Deamon
Footballguy
He deserves to be there.
I'm intrigued...
Da Franchise
Footballguy
Lolololol Rypien ain’t no damn HOF’er. Hope you are referring to someone else, for your sanity’s sake.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
Based on . . . ??? I'd love to hear WHY Rypien deserves to be there. Here's a summary of his career numbers.
- 134th in completion%
- 127th in passing yards
- 127th in passing TD
- 102nd in passer rating
- 129th in game winning drives
- 81st YPA
- 93rd in HOF Monitor Score
- 47-31 record in the regular season and 5-2 in the postseason
- 104 games played in the regular season
- 2 Pro Bowl selections, one time 2nd team All Pro selection
- Only made more than 10 starts in a season 3 times and started 78 total regular season games (the average HOF QB played in 196 games with 178 starts)
Of modern era QBs, the HOF QB with the fewest regular season appearances is Kurt Warner (124 games played with a 67-49 regular season record and 9-4 in the postseason). The HOF QB with the fewest starts is Roger Staubach with 114 (and his record as a starter was 85-29 and 11-6 in the playoffs).
What am I missing that reflects that he deserves any consideration for the HOF?
Ignoratio Elenchi
Footballguy
If Mark Rypien is a HOFer just rip the doors off the building and let everyone in.
Terpman22
Footballguy
This is why I broke it down into 2 categories
Can you win with a QB for one year? Rypien surely proved that.
Can you perennially contend for titles? Rypien also proved that (no is the anwer)
Did the team win b/c of him? Kinda. He WAS MVP after all. 292 yards, 2 TD to 1 pick. Game was never even close. Got up 24-0 to start the game and it was never close.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
I think we collectively need to clarify what it means to have a good QB to win the Super Bowl. Are we discussing just that game? The playoff run? The regular season? All of those?
In Rypien's case, the first game of the post season in his championship year, he was 14-29 for 170/0/1 with a 52 passer rating against the Falcons. But the Skins rushed for 180 yards and Chris Miller was even worse for ATL (4 INT). Certainly Washington didn't win that game because of Rypien . . . and with production like that, they could easily have lost that day.
Deamon
Footballguy
Nah, y'all are wrong. He deserves to be in there.
General Malaise
Footballguy
That's fair, though I would re-rank Goff today based on this last two playoff performances and move him up a tier. I put those rankings together before the Bucs game where he had a 70% completion%, 2TDs and the most important stat for me - Zero interceptions and no fumbles. Passer rating 103.5. That's damn good and I should have had him higher.
And against the Rams, he was even better in terms of completion percentage 82% no turnovers and a rating of 121.8.
In 8 playoff starts, Goff has only 2 INTs total.
Dak has 7 playoffs starts and has thrown 7 INTs.
IMO, Dak needs to cut out the interceptions to be good enough to win a Super Bowl. A reminder that 2 of his interceptions against Green Bay led directly to 14 points scored for the Packers. And his interception against San Francisco killed a drive that would have given Dallas a lead going into halftime. Instead, that interception led to 3 points for the 49ers. Until that stops, I don't think he's good enough to win a Super Bowl. And at 30 years of age, it's not just a problem, it's a pattern.
Terpman22
Footballguy
I mean sure, he didn't have a great game THAT game. But his season was pretty great, for 1991. 3564 yards (4th), 28 TDs (2nd), 97.9 rating (2nd to Steve Young)
And as stated, was Super Bowl MVP. Was definitely a "Lightning in a Bottle" sorta year. And Joe Gibbs was kind of the Kyle Shanahan of his day, could win with any QB. Just also actually won Super Bowls instead of not winning Super Bowls at all.
Deamon
Footballguy
He's actually the reason I'm an Eagles fan. I got into the NFL in '96 and Mark was a backup QB for the Eagles that year so they became my favourite team.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
There’s been talk in this thread of guys like Allen and Prescott not being good enough to win a SB. So that involved games and performance prior to the SB.
I stick by what I said earlier. A playoff team needs to have a QB be good enough to win 3 or 4 games depending on the team’s seed. The outcome of games involves so many other factors (defense, run game, coaching, game planning, special teams, officiating, and good luck / bounces). Sure, a QB could impact the outcome of the game the most, but many games I would suggest a QB might not even account for 50% of the outcome.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I have no opinion on Dak Prescott, but I would not point to guys like Rypien or Hostetler or Dilfer to make my argument. This is a much more QB-centered league than it was when teams were building their offense around the running game. Could a team like the 2000 Ravens win a championship today? Sure, I suppose, but it would be a lot tougher today than it was back then, and they were widely considered a weird outlier by "back then" standards.
Another complicating factor is that nearly every elite QB currently playing in the NFL lives in the AFC (with respect to Dak). A team with so-so QBing stands a decent chance in the NFC but has no chance at all in the AFC. So it's a lot easier to win a SB with a so-so QB if you only have to get lucky and win one game against a top-notch QB as opposed to having to survive 3-4 such games.
Another complicating factor is that nearly every elite QB currently playing in the NFL lives in the AFC (with respect to Dak). A team with so-so QBing stands a decent chance in the NFC but has no chance at all in the AFC. So it's a lot easier to win a SB with a so-so QB if you only have to get lucky and win one game against a top-notch QB as opposed to having to survive 3-4 such games.
Terpman22
Footballguy
Yeah I mean, I agree with everything you said. I think we can get to a point where we can parse it out "Can they win a Super Bowl" and "Will they Win a Super Bowl" and while I agree that QB play probably is less than 50% the reason for this, we might be able to agree that in today's NFL, QB play is by far the highest % contributing factor to whether a team wins/loses a Super Bowl.
I take this statement to convey that a QB isn't good enough to win a Super Bowl until they are. You are moving Goff into the "good enough" range because he had a couple good games after having a pattern of not being good enough (typically the opinion of most people....you are not one of those people)
Just like Peyton could never win the big one.....until he did. I think this discussion is always going to be like this especially for QB's because of the too much credit/blame aspect of the position.
Neil Beaufort Zod
Footballguy
If Mark Sanchez can lead a team to a conference championship game, almost any quarterback can take a team to a Super Bowl. Kind of like Rex Grossman.
Now, to win it? Normally they'd have to be at least mid tier, right? But all it takes is a bad game by the other team, a couple turnovers or some favorable officiating, and that team can win it all.
I'd say any NFL starter could win a Super Bowl with the right team around them. But, as others said, to be competitive enough for that spot every year, it takes an above average player imo.
Now, to win it? Normally they'd have to be at least mid tier, right? But all it takes is a bad game by the other team, a couple turnovers or some favorable officiating, and that team can win it all.
I'd say any NFL starter could win a Super Bowl with the right team around them. But, as others said, to be competitive enough for that spot every year, it takes an above average player imo.
Da Franchise
Footballguy
Yeah but neither of those categories really capture Rypien because he was SO GOOD for one season. His two years prior in 89 and 90 were solid and he took them to the divisional round in 90, but they would more fit the idea of being “good enough” to win with…playoffs 90 as I mentioned and 10-6 but not playoffs in 89 because only 5 teams made it then. And we had an atrocious loss to the 1-15 Cowboys that he didn’t play in due to injury.
1991 Rypien though…I mean, you find me a single QB who ever had a high water season like that compared to the rest of their career. Maybe Rich Gannon? He didn’t win the chip though. Rypien wasn’t just good enough that year, he was driving the damn bus (admittedly the bus was full of studs too).
Deamon
Footballguy
He's my cousin so I'm biased but sticking by my guns that he should be in the HOF
General Malaise
Footballguy
I'd like a mulligan on my Goff rankings. Especially considering his two flawless games in this year's post-season.
FairWarning
Footballguy
Actually Grossman may have been a SB champ, but Lovie made a tactical error. Thomas Jones was running well, but subbed Benson and he fumbled, swinging the momentum.
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
This is it for me.
You CAN win a Super Bowl with a non-elite QB, but your odds are lower than a team with an elite QB. It doesn’t mean that you CAN’T win with a lower tier QB and it doesn’t mean that you WILL win with an elite QB because there’s plenty of evidence to the contrary.
A QB has more impact on a team’s chances to win than any other single position, but it’s still well less than 50% of the contribution.
N Zone
Footballguy
Purdy is the #1 QB in several categories, the most important categories. He's not 12th.
Nick Foles won a Super Bowl because his play in the playoffs and in the Super Bowl was off the charts.
Hostetler, Trent Dilfer, and Brad Johnson won Super Bowls but they had all time great defenses.
Peyton Manning won a Super Bowl with Denver when his arm was shot.
Roethlisberger's first Super Bowl win he was average.
Eli won 2 against Tom Brady and the New England Defense, and everyone thinks he was just a mid-tier QB.
Nick Foles won a Super Bowl because his play in the playoffs and in the Super Bowl was off the charts.
Hostetler, Trent Dilfer, and Brad Johnson won Super Bowls but they had all time great defenses.
Peyton Manning won a Super Bowl with Denver when his arm was shot.
Roethlisberger's first Super Bowl win he was average.
Eli won 2 against Tom Brady and the New England Defense, and everyone thinks he was just a mid-tier QB.
Apple Juice
Footballguy
Teams like the Lions and Niners would absolutely have a chance in the AFC. Other than Baltimore I'd pick them against any of the teams with "elite" QBs in the AFC.
dgreen
Footballguy
I think that's fair, but how much more dependent? Were teams 10% dependent on QBs in the 70s and now it's 50%? Or has it gone from 10% to 15%? I like the way @GroveDiesel put it a few posts up.Brad Johnson
Ken Stabler
Joe Namath
Mark Rypien
Nick Foles
Jeff Hostettlet
Jim McMahon
Doug Williams
All very average QBs.
I wonder if it's fair to say the game has changed and become more dependent on QB?
As others have said, way too much credit and blame is given to QBs. The league is much more of a passing league than other points in history. However, there are many factors to a successful passing game. Obviously the QB is important, but so is the OL, the receivers, and the coaches. For some teams, the running game and ability to do play action is an important aspect of the passing game. I think it's actually possible to argue that there's been a larger increase in the dependence on coaching than the QB in terms of the passing game and offensive production.
I feel like I see a lot of QBs hitting wide open receivers from a clean pocket and then hearing commentators heap praise on the QB. Once, recently, an announcer said "What a dart!" on a standard pass to an open receiver with no pass rush pressure. It was quite literally a pass I could have completed.
Anarchy99
Footballguy
Not singling you out, but my thoughts pertained to some of the discussion in here.I think that's fair, but how much more dependent? Were teams 10% dependent on QBs in the 70s and now it's 50%? Or has it gone from 10% to 15%? I like the way @GroveDiesel put it a few posts up.Brad Johnson
Ken Stabler
Joe Namath
Mark Rypien
Nick Foles
Jeff Hostettlet
Jim McMahon
Doug Williams
All very average QBs.
I wonder if it's fair to say the game has changed and become more dependent on QB?
As others have said, way too much credit and blame is given to QBs. The league is much more of a passing league than other points in history. However, there are many factors to a successful passing game. Obviously the QB is important, but so is the OL, the receivers, and the coaches. For some teams, the running game and ability to do play action is an important aspect of the passing game. I think it's actually possible to argue that there's been a larger increase in the dependence on coaching than the QB in terms of the passing game and offensive production.
I feel like I see a lot of QBs hitting wide open receivers from a clean pocket and then hearing commentators heap praise on the QB. Once, recently, an announcer said "What a dart!" on a standard pass to an open receiver with no pass rush pressure. It was quite literally a pass I could have completed.
We all watch the games each week with the perception that the league has gone all out passing crazy. That may appear to be true (especially for winning teams), but the average passing total across the league has actually been trending downward. The average per game passing total peaked in 2015 at 243.8 yards/gm. In 2022, it had fallen off to 218.5 yards/gm (a drop off of 10%). In 2023, passing yards per game ticked up slightly to 218.9 yards/gm.
Similarly, the perception is that teams don't run the football much anymore . . . except the numbers show the opposite as well. In 2022, the average rushing output per team was 121.6 yards/gm . . . the highest total since 1987. The game has evolved way past the 70s, when there were seasons where the league averaged more rushing yards per game than passing.
That being said, there could be many explanations as to why the leaguewide passing / rushing totals have shifted over the past few years. I don't really have the time or the desire to research it, but there could be more penalties on passing plays called that move the ball downfield without counting as passing yardage. There could have been more injuries to top QBs with backups not as successful. As far as rushing totals, I would think a reasonable guess would be that there are more QBs that run the ball than in the past . . . which also could have curtailed some of the passing yardage. And we are also seeing more teams using more RBs in specialist roles (or just using more backs in general) . . . creating an illusion that teams don't run as much because there aren't many bell cow backs anymore.
IMO, as far as the thread topic goes, the key to winning consistently has always been winning the turnover battle. Teams that do so have a 78% win rate. To me, that means a QB that is smart with the ball that doesn't make dumb decisions is a key ingredient to success. But the other element of that is having a defense that can force turnovers. Teams with top defensive units win titles at a lot higher rate than teams that don't. IMO, even a great QB can't always overcome a poor defensive effort.
fightingillini
Footballguy
It certainly can happen. You need a decent QB who doesn't make mistakes, a good running game and a really good defense. SF made the Super Bowl in 2020 with Jimmy G as their average QB (at best).
But it is just harder in this era, since you pretty much can't hit the QB without drawing a 15 yard roughing penalty, so the game is much more skewed towards elite QB play.
But it is just harder in this era, since you pretty much can't hit the QB without drawing a 15 yard roughing penalty, so the game is much more skewed towards elite QB play.
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
Agreed. If anything Goff is a sign of optimism for Dak. Because prior to this year Goff was pretty trash in the playoffs. Then all of the sudden this year he's been amazing.
Dak has had a few pretty great playoff games. He just hasn't strung them together. But with such small sample sizes, there's a chance that will change. Heck it's only been a whopping 2 games difference for Goff and all of the sudden we're proclaiming him as this great playoff QB.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
See: Chiefs beating Bills because they left 13 seconds on the clock.
Similar threads
