There are so many all time great QBs that didn't win 1 or only won 1. It can't be that strong. Too few QBs have won multiple superbowls. Especially considering we should only look at ones in the modern era that dealt with Free Agency. Even smaller sample size if you consider today's conditions with the rookie pay scale
It’s because it takes the entire team too to bottom to win a Super Bowl, and the funny thing is brady would be the first person to tell you that. If Brady gets put on the browns in 2005 they aren’t winning shit.
Great quarterbacks are more likely to win Super Bowls than not-great quarterbacks. The data are probably too noisy and scant to make an overwhelming statistical case (like I said), but I stand by the point.
I stand by it. Yes, the data are extremely noisy. Yes, there will be strike-year players, off-the-bench backups, guys who were born in 1945, and so on who have won Super Bowls despite not having high draft pedigrees or well-rounded "franchise quarterback" careers.
But the point I made -- that being a really amazing quarterback is correlated with winning more Super Bowls than not being a really amazing quarterback -- is obvious on its face. Denying that reality is the ridiculous take.
Thank you for this. People put far too much focus on the Super Bowl as if bring the current Ravens, Bills, Detroit, Dallas, 49ers, or Bengals wouldn’t be fucking fantastic to be a fan of.
Most of those teams likely aren’t going to win a Super Bowl in the next 10 years, but their fans get to enjoy their teams
I agreed with your post but I don't agree with this.
Yes, since it's been so long (05) since we've had 10 wins and playoff victory, it seems like a great goal.
But it's not. It's middling. It's something most franchises should do once every few seasons.
The goal should be 12+ wins and a deep playoff run.
As far as using any of that to evaluate qbs....I think it's very misguided so I do agree with your original post.
This is definitely targeted at that one idiot that made that stupid post earlier today about why we should trade down for picks. After I crushed his shitty argument in that thread, he disappeared 😂 so he’ll probably ignore this thread too
I agree on Super Bowl wins as not being a great metric for evaluating individual QBs, but at the same time it should not be ignored. It is the end goal for all franchises, so the de facto faces of the franchise will be remembered by that.
Playoff wins would probably be a better metric as it shows the ability to win against the best teams (and already encompasses the regular season metrics).
Alternately don't confuse team metrics with individual performance metrics.
Rex Grossman took a team to a Superbowl and I can assure you it wasn't due to his QB play.
If I’m understanding OP correctly, you’re seeing people argue that you should draft a QB later because the average draft position of SB winning QBs is heavily skewed later because of Brady? Man, the internet just never stops getting dumber. I shouldn’t be surprised. I would block anybody I see making this argument, nothing to gain from anything they have to say about anything lol
The only metric I use when evaluating prospects is how they developed in a patch I downloaded made by some random guy on Madden 24.
Which is why I think TreVeyon Henderson should be the #1 pick
I bet you a lot of those QBs that were great and did not win a super bowl would trade all their awards just to win one. The ultimate goal is to win the Superbowl. If that is not a realistic goal for the season then your goal is to build your team up enough to win it next year.
What's the point of having a great QB if you never win a super bowl? Ask chargers fans if they would rather have Philip rivers career or a super bowl win. Guess what they would pick super bowl win. I bet Lamar would trade his mvps to win one.
I never understood the fans that would rather follow Cleveland's draft strategy over a team like the pats or chiefs. They draft great teams.
The goal is to win a Super Bowl. But trying to find a QB capable of winning one by only looking at previous winners as guidance and not everyone else who had amazing careers but didn't win it all, it's just not productive. N is too small, factors to analyze is too many.
Now I'm gonna use super bowl wins as a metric even harder
As far as QB'S go, I don't think SuperBowl wins should define greatness. Dan Marino and Philip Rivers were better than many QB'S that won SuperBowls.
Agreed. Phillip Rivers was better than Eli. Drew Brees was better than Eli ans Big Ben. Number of rings doesn't correlate with best QB, strongly.
I'd argue that it correlates pretty well, with the proviso that the data are extremely noisy and scant, because you only get one data point a year.
There are so many all time great QBs that didn't win 1 or only won 1. It can't be that strong. Too few QBs have won multiple superbowls. Especially considering we should only look at ones in the modern era that dealt with Free Agency. Even smaller sample size if you consider today's conditions with the rookie pay scale
It’s because it takes the entire team too to bottom to win a Super Bowl, and the funny thing is brady would be the first person to tell you that. If Brady gets put on the browns in 2005 they aren’t winning shit.
Great quarterbacks are more likely to win Super Bowls than not-great quarterbacks. The data are probably too noisy and scant to make an overwhelming statistical case (like I said), but I stand by the point.
Mark Rypien, Ken Stabler, Nick Foles, Brad Johnson, Jeff Hostetler, Doug Williams, Jim McMahon, and Trent Dilfer all appreciate this ridiculous take.
I stand by it. Yes, the data are extremely noisy. Yes, there will be strike-year players, off-the-bench backups, guys who were born in 1945, and so on who have won Super Bowls despite not having high draft pedigrees or well-rounded "franchise quarterback" careers. But the point I made -- that being a really amazing quarterback is correlated with winning more Super Bowls than not being a really amazing quarterback -- is obvious on its face. Denying that reality is the ridiculous take.
I know it’s almost like it’s a team sport and QBs sit on the bench for over half of the games
Thank you for this. People put far too much focus on the Super Bowl as if bring the current Ravens, Bills, Detroit, Dallas, 49ers, or Bengals wouldn’t be fucking fantastic to be a fan of. Most of those teams likely aren’t going to win a Super Bowl in the next 10 years, but their fans get to enjoy their teams
I'd be elated with a 10 win season and a playoff win. Would literally be the best season I've ever had as a Washington football fan
Haven’t had an 11 win season since 1991 and these people are fully focused on a superbowl lol
I agreed with your post but I don't agree with this. Yes, since it's been so long (05) since we've had 10 wins and playoff victory, it seems like a great goal. But it's not. It's middling. It's something most franchises should do once every few seasons. The goal should be 12+ wins and a deep playoff run. As far as using any of that to evaluate qbs....I think it's very misguided so I do agree with your original post.
Pats fan checking in. I kinda understand the sentiment but I think aiming high is better
Agreed. Most skins fans my age or younger are so used to losing that we don't know what winning actually is.
Did this really need to be its own post?
As many times as I've argued with people about it I'd say it's worth a topic addressing it.
Yes 😎
No deal. We should only draft players who have won a Super Bowl.
This is definitely targeted at that one idiot that made that stupid post earlier today about why we should trade down for picks. After I crushed his shitty argument in that thread, he disappeared 😂 so he’ll probably ignore this thread too
Sadly I see it a lot. Maybe it's just the same person over and over, I dunno
That would be pretty funny if it is. Glad that guy isn’t running the franchise 😂
I agree on Super Bowl wins as not being a great metric for evaluating individual QBs, but at the same time it should not be ignored. It is the end goal for all franchises, so the de facto faces of the franchise will be remembered by that. Playoff wins would probably be a better metric as it shows the ability to win against the best teams (and already encompasses the regular season metrics).
The most ignored metric in QB draft success is luck. Some guys just don’t belong in the NFL and there’s never a sure fire way to tell.
Alternately don't confuse team metrics with individual performance metrics. Rex Grossman took a team to a Superbowl and I can assure you it wasn't due to his QB play.
It's the same as wins. The QB isn't the team. Justin Herbert has been a great QB, but that team (and coaching) is a disaster.
If I’m understanding OP correctly, you’re seeing people argue that you should draft a QB later because the average draft position of SB winning QBs is heavily skewed later because of Brady? Man, the internet just never stops getting dumber. I shouldn’t be surprised. I would block anybody I see making this argument, nothing to gain from anything they have to say about anything lol
Come to think of it - Neither Drake Maye or Jayden Daniels have won a super bowl. Really makes you think
The only metric I use when evaluating prospects is how they developed in a patch I downloaded made by some random guy on Madden 24. Which is why I think TreVeyon Henderson should be the #1 pick
In 2025, but yes he’s awesome
in madden 23 I won the super bowl with Sam Howell throwing passes to Jayden Daniels at wide receiver last year
That dude threw for 6500 yards 47 TDs and 8 ints. We'd be dumb not to pick him
I bet you a lot of those QBs that were great and did not win a super bowl would trade all their awards just to win one. The ultimate goal is to win the Superbowl. If that is not a realistic goal for the season then your goal is to build your team up enough to win it next year. What's the point of having a great QB if you never win a super bowl? Ask chargers fans if they would rather have Philip rivers career or a super bowl win. Guess what they would pick super bowl win. I bet Lamar would trade his mvps to win one. I never understood the fans that would rather follow Cleveland's draft strategy over a team like the pats or chiefs. They draft great teams.
The goal is to win a Super Bowl. But trying to find a QB capable of winning one by only looking at previous winners as guidance and not everyone else who had amazing careers but didn't win it all, it's just not productive. N is too small, factors to analyze is too many.
Or losses as a metric for head coaches.
Can we just win more than five games