Another Bryce breakdown

[ForJimmy]

15 minutes ago, KSpan said:

It's not skewed though, that's just the result of the best QBs being on quality teams resulting in Super Bowls. Those guys are just that good and it's the bar that other QBs and teams have to meet or at least approach in order to compete. That's just how the NFL is these days.

Having a dynasty would be great but even just being able to have the stars align and the team perform at an elite level like 2015 would be amazing. Unfortunately though, Cam absolutely played like Superman in elevating that offense to where it was, further supporting the requirement. 

I understand but whenever you say only this number of recent QB Super Bowl winners it just basically takes out those two QBs/teams with the exception of one or two. You are absolutely accurate, but those dynasties are currently skewing numbers IMO. 

[KSpan]

6 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

I understand but whenever you say only this number of recent QB Super Bowl winners it just basically takes out those two QBs/teams with the exception of one or two. You are absolutely accurate, but those dynasties are currently skewing numbers IMO. 

I think the chicken has come before the egg though. They are skewing the numbers because they are THAT good, not because it's some sort of anomaly. Brady came first and now Mahomes, and if you want to win Super Bowls your QB has to be at or near that level. 

[ForJimmy]

3 minutes ago, KSpan said:

I think the chicken has come before the egg though. They are skewing the numbers because they are THAT good, not because it's some sort of anomaly. Brady came first and now Mahomes, and if you want to win Super Bowls your QB has to be at or near that level. 

For example your data starts with Brady winning. Before that dynasty it was more wide open with different teams winning different ways. I don’t think that what they accomplished would be considered any sort of norm for the league (although the Chiefs might be proving me wrong currently). 
I get what you are saying though. Teams just have to be looking for ways to win outside of finding the next Brady or Mahomes, because that’s just not realistic. That’s like counting on winning the lottery as part of your retirement plans. I would focus more on the other teams that have won and how they accomplished it. Most of those were solid, balanced rosters. One could argue the Patriots had a nice defense helping out Brady keeping games close for him to do his clutch drives. Similar to the Chiefs playoff run. Their defense isn’t getting enough credit either because it was tough in the playoffs. 

[KSpan]

33 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

For example your data starts with Brady winning. Before that dynasty it was more wide open with different teams winning different ways. I don’t think that what they accomplished would be considered any sort of norm for the league (although the Chiefs might be proving me wrong currently). 
I get what you are saying though. Teams just have to be looking for ways to win outside of finding the next Brady or Mahomes, because that’s just not realistic. That’s like counting on winning the lottery as part of your retirement plans. I would focus more on the other teams that have won and how they accomplished it. Most of those were solid, balanced rosters. One could argue the Patriots had a nice defense helping out Brady keeping games close for him to do his clutch drives. Similar to the Chiefs playoff run. Their defense isn’t getting enough credit either because it was tough in the playoffs. 

You're not wrong about data starting with Brady, but that was also when the NFL began shifting into the current 'modern' form. They were still running pro sets with Shawn Alexander in 2005 and that all but evaporated within just a couple of years due to the rise of passing/change of WR bump rules.

And you're absolutely right as well about Brady and Mahomes having good defenses. Hell, Spagnuolo was arguably the best non-Mahomes pickup that team has made. But even teams with stellar defenses like the Ravens can't get over the hump with a guy like Lamar.

[pantherclaw]

4 hours ago, WhoKnows said:

They do, just when. I hate to be pessimistic but it’s all about the QB. I can’t recall a QB situation where a bad QB (not bad stats, but looking like they don’t belong) turned a team around. Peyton Manning had a ridiculous amount of interceptions but he didn’t show his future limitations. Usually, it was picking another QB in the draft.

Unfortunately, IMHO, we won’t be really better until we get our Cam v2, someone who can carry the team and not win only if we have a stud lineup around him. That’s why I’m more interested in how the rest of the draft picks do to see if we can actually solve holes like the ones we created losing Olsen, CMC, Moore, Turner/Kalil/Norwell, etc. I want to actually be one QB away not Fitterer’s definition of one player away.

Cam was a generational QB. One that didn't even see his full potential. 

Now you're claiming we won't be good until get another generational QB. 

Incredibly flawed thinking. 

[Jon Snow]

Just now, pantherclaw said:

Cam was a generational QB. One that didn't even see his full potential. 

Now you're claiming we won't be good until get another generational QB. 

Incredibly flawed thinking. 

They don't call them generational for nothing. You can't wait another 2 decades for one to fall in your lap. You have to dance with the one that brung ya. All I can say is nut up buttercups.

[CRA]

11 minutes ago, Jon Snow said:

They don't call them generational for nothing. You can't wait another 2 decades for one to fall in your lap. You have to dance with the one that brung ya. All I can say is nut up buttercups.

sometimes you got to find ways to win with a Jake, Steve or Kerry. 

[pantherclaw]

Every QB needs an offense built around him.  

There isn't a single QB in the league that doesn't have an offense built around them. 

That's how you make the most out of any and every QB,  is build a team around him.  

[pantherclaw]

51 minutes ago, KSpan said:

You're not wrong about data starting with Brady, but that was also when the NFL began shifting into the current 'modern' form. They were still running pro sets with Shawn Alexander in 2005 and that all but evaporated within just a couple of years due to the rise of passing/change of WR bump rules.

And you're absolutely right as well about Brady and Mahomes having good defenses. Hell, Spagnuolo was arguably the best non-Mahomes pickup that team has made. But even teams with stellar defenses like the Ravens can't get over the hump with a guy like Lamar.

Every Superbowl winning team enjoys luck of the bounce more than once on their journey in that season to not only get them to the playoffs, but also to the superbowl.

[CRA]

6 minutes ago, pantherclaw said:

Every QB needs an offense built around him.  

There isn't a single QB in the league that doesn't have an offense built around them. 

That's how you make the most out of any and every QB,  is build a team around him.  

you don't always need a generational QB.  But you better go find some generational types at some position(s). 

End of the day our roster is just Derrick Brown at the moment.  We got a lot of work to do before we can actually be competitive.  Everyone else is potential and hope. 

[KSpan]

1 minute ago, pantherclaw said:

Every Superbowl winning team enjoys luck of the bounce more than once on their journey in that season to not only get them to the playoffs, but also to the superbowl.

Sure, but they also enjoy elite QB play. Feel free to look at the losers in that window too and see how many 'just OK' QBs are there. A few more than on the winning side, sure, but you would expect that from the losing cohort.

It is what it is. Doesn't mean teams just quit, but you don't win without top-tier QB play or historic defense to go with those bounces you mention. That's the reality of today's NFL.

[mrcompletely11]

9 minutes ago, pantherclaw said:

Every QB needs an offense built around him.  

There isn't a single QB in the league that doesn't have an offense built around them. 

That's how you make the most out of any and every QB,  is build a team around him.  

2015.  The offense was "heres the ball cam , good luck"

[mrcompletely11]

7 minutes ago, pantherclaw said:

Every Superbowl winning team enjoys luck of the bounce more than once on their journey in that season to not only get them to the playoffs, but also to the superbowl.

Who knows what would have happened in 03 if Kasey didn't choke on the kick off

[ForJimmy]

18 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

2015.  The offense was "heres the ball cam , good luck"

Cam made Ron some decent money.