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.