Being a SB contender = having a top 10 passing attack
 

Are there really any exceptions to this? Sure, sometimes a team wins the SB without one, but it is luck, and they are certainly not a favorite going into the next year.

Play-not-to-lose football is DEAD.

The 2007 Super Bowl Champion New York Giants were ranked 21st in passing.

Behind the Kansas City Chiefs, who were ranked 20th.

Wow, that was easier than I thought...

Chicago was 14th in 2006.

Im guessing the 2005 Steelers were not ranked too high in passing either?

Were either team a favorite to win it next year? Who are the favs this year?

Seattle was 13th in 2005.

Pittsburgh was 24th.


I'll stop now, this is embarrassing.

They, like the Giants, slipped through with luck, and weren't heard from again. Now, they might be this year, because they will have a good passing attack.

So now were going from cold, hard stats, to someone's judgment as to who MIGHT be the favorite the following year?

Can't help myself.

2004:

Carolina, 9th

Philly, 7th.

Luck huh? back to back to back road wins was all luck?

Ill just stop now to save you from further embarrassment.

Vegas isn't stupid, and they aren't going to make teams favorites for nothing.

Didn't 88 make this same thread like a year ago?

2003:

New England, 9th.

Carolina, 18th.

You don't really understand how Vegas works do you?

Speaking of 'slipping through with luck", I'd say luck is probably a greater factor than a top-10 passing attack. Not that I wouldn't want a top-10 passing attack. But a few bounces over the course of the season/playoffs are really all that separates the teams that finish at the top from the ones in the middle. Not that you can rely on luck or really do anything to change your fortunes in a game played with an oblong ball.

Here's the beauty...

2002:

Oakland, 1st

loses to

Tampa Bay, 15th.

Here's another gem:

2001:

St. Louis, 1st

loses to

New England, 22nd.

2000:

Giants, 13th

Ravens, 22nd.

Chinese food is here.

Ownage over.

Id say if you can rush the passer, stop the run and run the ball effectively, you have a great chance to win some ball games in January. Thats no secret.

sssshhhhhhhh herm might hear you. you are justifying his offensive philosophy

What about the Ravens, was that 2001? Trent Dilfer was the QB. Don't know where they ranked but it couldn't have been too high.

I would say that if you score more points than the opponent, you will win some ball games.

I see you've addressed that.

Yep. Luck cannot be predicted. The teams having a top passing attack can be. That's why the teams projected to have a top passing are the favorites to win the Super Bowl.

85 Bears, 2001 Ravens ARE the exceptions. They were predicted to be good. They dominated the game with defense.

Want to know the real secret?

Superior talent wins games.

You can have pretenders based on defense like the Martyocre Chiefs or pretenders based on offense like the Vermeil Chiefs. Either way, they were just padding their respective stats against the league's weak sisters during the season and then getting exposed when they had to play playoff-calibre squads.

Unfortunately, for another offseason or two, and/or until the players drafted in the last 2-3 years develop into solid pros, we're one of those weak sisters.

Really, what you have to be is great in one facet of the game, and above-average to good in the other two. Whether thats a dominant defense with a solid offense and special teams, or a dominant offense with a solid D and STs. Either way, you can't have any holes. At all.

Vegas odds-makers would laugh at you.

Prove to me that since 95 more teams have won WITH a franchise QB than a journeyman QB...

I dunno. I think Michael Lewis of Moneyball fame is onto something when he writes it's all about QB, LT, and DE. You have to be able to throw the ball, and you have to be able to pressure the QB. If you can't do that.....

For example, does having a top 10 running back really matter these days?

So I guess this means Oakland is not going to the Superbowl this year :(

My guess is those teams that had a franchise QB and won it were big time favorites going into the season, and those that didn't have one weren't, and never made post-season noise again.

.

Do they get an extra 5 games vs. KC this year?...

Vegas slightly bias the odds of the team that public likes to bet on, but ever so slightly, or they get crushed by sharpies.

The favorites usually attract over 50% of the betting volume, but I challenge you to find a contrarian strategy that will win more than 52.5% of the time.

I think your misperception is that running the football is playing-not-to-lose. Beyond that, the modern (meaning current) approach to passing is basically an extended running game anyway. Although often passing teams use the air attack to expose the defense to the ground attack, an attempt to build leads and then run the clock out.

As for top-10 running back? I don't know. But I'd bet it takes a top-10 rushing attack and a solid yards/rush.

What you really want to strive for is balance, an ability to win in a variety of ways. If a team can stop your running game, you can throw. If they can stop your passing, you can run.

I dont think going 3-2 or 2-3 against the Chiefs will help but thanks for the thought :)

It seems to me that it takes a vertical passing game. The WCO/extended running game innovation worked for a while, then the cover-2 evolved to stop it. Even the teams running the WCO seem to be much more vertical than 20 years ago.

My guess is that's irrelevant.

95 was Chargers/Niners.
Journeyman/scrub and Young.
FQB = 1
Journey = 1 appearance, 1 loss.

96
Boys/Steelers
FQB = 2
Journey = 2 appearances, 2 losses.

97
Pats/Packers
FQB= 3
Journey = 3 appearances, 3 losses.

98
Packers/Donks
FQB = 5 appearances, 4 wins.
NA

99
Donks/Falcons
FQB = 6 appearances, 5 wins.
Journey = 4 appearances.

2000
Rams/Titans
FQB = 7 appearances, 4 wins
Journey = 1 win, 5 appearances

2001
Ravens/Gians
FQB = 7 appearances, 4 wins
Journey = 2 wins, 7 appearances.

2002
Rams/Pats
FQB = 8 appearances, 5 wins
Journey = 8 appearances, 2 wins

2003
Raiders/Bucs
FQB = 8 AP - 5 wins
Journey = 10 AP - 3 wins

2004
Pats/Panthers
FQB = 9 AP - 6 wins
Journey = 11 AP - 3 wins

2005
Pats/Eagles
FQB = 11 AP - 7 wins
Journey = 11AP - 3 wins

2006
Seattle/Pitt
FQB = 13 AP - 12 wins
Journey = 11AP - 3 wins

2007
Colts/Bears
FQB = 14 AP - 13 wins
Journey = 11 AP - 3 wins

2008
Pats/Giants
FQB = 16 AP - 14 wins
Journey = 11 AP - 3 wins

So, after all that, you are much more likely to win a SB with a franchise QB. You're almost as likely to show up in the SB with a journeyman QB.

At this point we haven't even won a ****ing playoff game since 93 so I'd be ****ing ecstatic to hit a SB and lose with anyone that can get us there...

More than we're laughing at you?

You were just proved wrong with certifiable, undenyable FACTS.

You do NOT need a Top 10 passing attack to make, or win the Super Bowl.

The relevant question is what strategy maximizes the likelihood of playoff success. Certainly, the best team does not win the SB every year. But the best team is more likely than any other team to win it -- going in.

Continue to beat on that straw man all you want.

If Clark cares at all about this Franchise he'd shitcan King Carl and Herm, because I understand this is a rebuilding phase but some progress needs to be shown which obviously isn't happening.

Competely agree.

Clearly.

It's also clear that while a franchise QB is preferable it's not a necessity. It's a luxury...

I wasn't talking about the WCO, I was talking about today's offenses. I'm not sure that screens and short passing aren't more prevalent now than ever, used in place of the running game to open up the vertical game you're referring to. People get sportcentered, seeing the highlights, and don't remember the other 25 dinks and dunks (some of which end up being huge gainers themselves).

And the NFL is always cyclical. New defensive wrinkles develop to stop the hot offenses, then those offenses change, adjusting to the defenses. It's always been that way and always will be.

I'm beginning to think you're one of the biggest dumbasses on this forum.

He gave you indisputable facts, yet you deny them.

I've given you reasons for the Chiefs offensive failures and current lack of talent yet you deny it.

I think you need to take your show somewhere else.

That "luxury" has won 26 of 42 Super Bowls. If you throw in Brett Favre, who was traded for a number one, Roger Staubach (if not for his military requirement) and HOF'ers such as Joe Montana & Tom Brady (both of whom would have been the #1 overall pick in their respective draft years had anyone known what they'd become) and you're looking at 34 of 42.

I'd say it's imperitive to have a first round, franchise QB to even have a SHOT at a Super Bowl victory.

Do us both a favor, and put me on ignore.

:spock:

This is YOUR thread, titled:

Being a SB contender = having a Top 10 passing attack

My responses, filled with stats and facts, prove that to be incorrect.

Sorry, but don't see the strawman here...

Some people just can't admit they're wrong.

Here, I'll elaborate.

I was wrong about LJ. He's clearly no longer the best HB on the team.

I was wrong about Herm. His ability to draft/sign does not overpower his obvious SUCK at gameday management and overall faulure to gameplan.

I was wrong about Croyle. I thought the kid at least deserved the sea-....he doesn't. He can't even last week 1.

You don't just need talent you need true game-changing players to win a SB. Every team that's won a SB since 95 has has AT LEAST one.

We don't...

I'm not sure we even know whether we do or not at this point. We're two weeks into the season, and a third of the roster is almost young enough for you or I to be their dad (god, we're getting old). They shouldn't be the same players in December. That doesn't mean they won't be, but they shouldn't be.

Soooooooooo...as of RIGHT NOW, we don't have one.

And haven't in years...

Like everything else... I think the "philosophy" of a team is not as important as having the personnel and coaching to run it effectively.

You could make the case you need a lot of things to win a Super Bowl... because you do. To be the best team, you generally have to run the football, pass the football, and play defense and special teams effectively. That's why you're the best team. Everybody tries to find one or two things that are some kind of key. You're trying to outsmart yourself. Most of these teams could do many things effectively.

There have been Raiders and Patriots teams that pretty much exclusively passed the ball make the Super Bowl. Then you have teams like Pittsburgh and Chicago who were run-first, play defense teams that went to the Super Bowl too. They weren't much alike.

The only common thread among all these teams is that they played great defense in the playoffs to win. Shocker. Oldest cliche in the book, people try too hard to reinvent the wheel.

Last response to this point, take it seriously or laugh at it -- Certainly teams without a top 10 passing attack win SBs, and I stated that in the original post. My point is that those teams that don't have a superior passing attack are teams that won't have consistent playoff appearances/successes. Look at the teams the last few years that have been favorites for the SB, and they all have superior passing attacks. The NY Giants did not, and won the SB. Who were the favs to start this season? NE, Indy, SD, Dallas, GB. Now you can add Philly and Denver to that list for obvious reasons.

Let me go a step further -- when the playoffs come around, and the revised odds come for winning the SB come out, it will be the teams with the top passing attacks that will be the favorites. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THEY WILL WIN THE SB. It means that they have a better shot than the other teams, but luck plays a big role, so anyone could win.

I am really surprised that stating having a top passing attack in necessary for consistent post-season appearances is controversial. The Cowboys of the 1990s are the last team that had a nice multiyear run without their passing attack being the strength of the team. And it was pretty good, and some may argue it was the strength of the team.

Where it gets tricky is drafting -- sure, most of the star QBs are 1st rounders, but the hit rate is so low, what do you do? Do you always take a QB in later rounds hoping for the Romo or Brady, or do you risk getting a Ryan Leaf, Michael Vick, JaMarcus Russell and setting your franchise back for many years by taking them #1.

My problem with Herm is that he's never going to allow a star QB to develop. He wants a game manager, not a star QB. Even if Croyle had star potential, he'd never realize it under Herm. Herm is a run-first guy, and that style of play is all but dead.

I think you just answered your own question..

I think there are some great points in this thread, both sides. I'd also add that I don't think running the football is playing not to lose necessarily. It certainly can be. But like everything else, it's how you do it. the Steelers usually do a good job. They base their offense around the running game, for sure... but aren't afraid to strike at the right opportunity. They just try to play to their strengths.

When they run the football they're trying to attack you. More an attitude than anything. When the Colts won the Super Bowl.. in the playoffs they were primarily a running team. Manning really didn't play that well, so they stuck to the ground game and played off that. And it was obviously the smart move.