Final Four and do teams really need an elite qb

[fjblair]

Of course you don't need an elite QB to win Super Bowls. Everyone knows this except for the NFL.  You definitely have better odds with an elite QB, but it's not written in stone.

The NFL is obsessed with QB's to a tin foil hat kind of level.

[Bronn]

Kurt Warner - literally from bagging groceries to Super Bowl champ and one of the top offenses in football. Supported by great coaching, great players on offense, and a good defense.

[raleigh-panther]

17 hours ago, mc52beast said:

Heard an interesting discussion this morning on Golic n Wingo. We’re talking about the final four teams in the playoffs and how only the Pats have an established qb.

So they were asking whether it’s really necessary for a team to have an “elite” qb to win. Can you put together a dominant defense and special teams and just ask your qb to not make mistakes? 

Tell that to the Pats and Steelers

go back and look at the list of SB winners, particularly those who have won more than one

yes there are anomalies like the Bucs and Ravens back in the day but they are rare

[thefuzz]

To make the playoffs consistently, you need a good to great QB.

You don't need a good to great QB to win the Super Bowl.

 

Case in point, Big Ben, Rodgers, and Brady are going to make the playoffs almost year in and year out, Saints are the outlier there with a 1st ballot guy, but an awful defense, and happen to play in a good division.

However, there are the outliers that don't need a good/great QB to win it all, but are in and out of the playoffs, will have good years backed up by 2 bad ones...Denver,  and the Flacco led Ravens come to mind...Eli and his Giants are similar as well.

 

Winning a SB isn't just about QB's, or players, or coaching, it's heavily dependent on luck and injuries as well...so the more cracks you get at the playoffs, the more likely you are to win the Lombardi.  It's why I prefer the team to be run with a 5 year outlook, not a 1 year outlook.

[frash.exe]

the only insight happening in this thread is the fact that you guys will take every spurious correlation and turn it into a trend or a rule.

there’s nothing to read into here about this. the vikings beat the saints in a very similar situation that we had where we failed. but it could just as easily been the other way around in both cases if a route was called differently or if a ball was thrown at a slightly different angle. it’s the playoffs and every team is a quality opponent. entire games can be decided by a play. situational football. and if you have a coach that doesn’t fug up the calls in these situations you’re more likely to win.

do teams really need an elite QB? who the fug would say no? 

[Chairman Wow]

34 minutes ago, frash.exe said:

the only insight happening in this thread is the fact that you guys will take every spurious correlation and turn it into a trend or a rule.

there’s nothing to read into here about this. the vikings beat the saints in a very similar situation that we had where we failed. but it could just as easily been the other way around in both cases if a route was called differently or if a ball was thrown at a slightly different angle. it’s the playoffs and every team is a quality opponent. entire games can be decided by a play. situational football. and if you have a coach that doesn’t fug up the calls in these situations you’re more likely to win.

do teams really need an elite QB? who the fug would say no? 

Exactly.

You absolutely do not need an "elite" quarterback to win or challenge for the Super Bowl as history has proven time and time again.

IMHO, approximately 1 in 4 Super Bowls has been won by a mediocre to poor starting quarterback. 

[frash.exe]

28 minutes ago, Chairman Wow said:

Exactly.

You absolutely do not need an "elite" quarterback to win or challenge for the Super Bowl as history has proven time and time again.

IMHO, approximately 1 in 4 Super Bowls has been won by a mediocre to poor starting quarterback. 

taking this comment at face value, there’s not a lot to disagree with, but based on the assumptions you probably made to come to this conclusion, your definitions of what makes a QB “elite” or “mediocre” are either sheerly derived or too incomplete to be taken without a grain of salt.

[TheRed]

Are people really this dumb?

You don't need an elite QB? Did you not watch the Super Bowl last year?

The issue I think is the perception of what people define as "elite". Not every QB has to be a Brady or a Rodgers or have the insane accuracy of Brees. They just need that clutch element that even a guy like Case effing Keenum has displayed.

[SOJA]

it's no coincidence that the final four teams are (outsdie the pats) extremely balanced. 

That being said, if a miracle play doesn't happen two of the four teams have an elite QB and look at the Browns. 

So yea you need a good QB, 95% of the time. dont be victim to the moment