Analysis of Superbowl Winning Quarterback [Archive]

FanInAZ

07-06-2020, 06:33 PM

17403

If your goal is more than just winning a bunch of regular season, it's to win the SB, then maybe you should look at the fact about which QBs are actually more likely to win SBs. The above attachment will provides the raw data that's the basis for my following observations.

My Observations

To those who believe that losing teams should tank the end of their seasons in order to get a higher draft pick so they can get a “better” QB, especially since the league became more pass happy since the turn of the millennium. However, the simple charting of those who have reached and those who have Won the SB proves that’s not the case, especially since the league turned pass happy after the turn of the millennium.

❖ 11 QBs who have been taken with the 1st pick of their respective draft are 17-8 as SB starters.
❖ 2 QBs who have been taken with the 2nd pick of their respective draft are 1-2, the only 1 who has reached since the turn of the millennium lost.
❖ 2 QBs who have been taken with the 3rd pick are 0-2, the only 1 who has reached since the turn of the millennium lost.
❖ 1 QB who was taken with the 4th pick is 2-1, none have done so since the turn of the millennium.
❖ 4 QBs who have been taken with the 5th pick are 2-4 in SBs, the only 1 who has reached since the turn of the millennium lost.
❖ 2 QB who was taken with the 6th – 9th picks are 2-0.
❖ 1 QB who has been taken with a 10th pick has reached, and Won, the SB: Patrick Mahomes.
❖ 4 QBs who were taken with the 11th – 20th picks are 3-6 in SBs, the 2 who have reached since the turn of the millennium are 3-3.
❖ 4 QBs who were taken with the 21st – 30th picks are 2-5 in SBs, the 2 has reached since the turn of the millennium and are 1-1.
❖ 12 QBs who were taken with the 51st – 99th picks are 9-8 in SBs, the 4 have reached since the turn of the millennium have a record of 2-3.
❖ 11 QBs who were taken with the 100th or latter picks, including UDFA are 13-12, the 4 who have reached since the turn of the millennium have a record 7-6.

If you believe the more TDs your QB throws the more likely you are to win the SB, simple statistical analysis will disprove it.

❖ 0 QBs who threw 50+ TD passes in a single season won the Superbowl that same year.
❖ 1 QB of the 13 to throw 40+ TD passes in a single season won the Superbowl the same year he did.
❖ 40 times QBs have thrown 35+ TD passes in a single season during the Superbowl era, 3 won the Superbowl the same seasons they did, but 6 missed the playoffs.
❖ 0 QBs who have thrown 35+ TD passes in a single season has won the Superbowl that year since the turn of the Millennium, which is about when NFL began to be promoted as “a passing league.”
❖ You’re statistically more likely to go further in the playoffs if your QB throws 35-39 TDs in a single season than 40-49.

MOtorboat

07-06-2020, 06:50 PM

There’s no correlation or causation between touchdowns thrown and winning the super bowl. You’re not “more statistically likely” to win the Super Bowl with 35-39 TDs. Throwing less touchdowns throughout the season doesn’t mean you’re less likely to win the Super Bowl. That does not correlate.

Correct, no quarterback who’s thrown 50 TDs in one season has won a Super Bowl that season. But only three quarterbacks in the history of the game, so we’re talking about upwards of 50,000 quarterbacks seasons, has thrown for 50 TDs. The sample size is so minutely small that there’s simply no conclusion to draw.

What we can say is that all three quarterbacks to do it have won a Super Bowl in their career. And only 9 quarterbacks have thrown for 40 TDs or more, and six of those have won a Super Bowl. Marino, Luck and Stafford are the three who have thrown 40 touchdowns and have not won a Super Bowl in their career. Marino is one of the greatest quarterbacks to ever live.

What we can say about those levels of production and correlate it to winning, is that to sustain long term winning, it’s a good thing to have one of those guys on your team.

BroncoWave

07-06-2020, 07:01 PM

AZ, I'd recommend considering sample size when you are doing statistical analysis. Nothing you posted has a sample size big enough to draw any meaningful conclusions from.

FanInAZ

07-06-2020, 07:02 PM

What we can say about those levels of production and correlate it to winning, is that to sustain long term winning, it’s a good thing to have one of those guys on your team.

What can also be said is that being overly dependant on a single person to single handedly win games might work during the regular season, but the reason fewer TD passes usually results in more SB wins is because a sufficient running game that can take the pressure off the QB is as important as every in win SBs.

FanInAZ

07-06-2020, 07:05 PM

AZ, I'd recommend considering sample size when you are doing statistical analysis. Nothing you posted has a sample size big enough to draw any meaningful conclusions from.

The purpose of posting my observations is to get people asking why they contradict the conventional thinking that the more TDs you QB throws the better your chances of winning a superbowl. The OP is nothing more then a conversation starter.

BroncoWave

07-06-2020, 07:08 PM

What can also be said is that being overly dependant on a single person to single handedly win games might work during the regular season, but the reason fewer TD passes usually results in more SB wins is because a sufficient running game that can take the pressure off the QB is as important as every in win SBs.

16 of the last 19 super bowls have featured either Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, or Ben Roethlisberger. Having a QB is kinda important.

BroncoWave

07-06-2020, 07:10 PM

The purpose of posting my observations is to get people asking why they contradict the conventional thinking that the more TDs you QB throws the better your chances of winning a superbowl. The OP is nothing more then a conversation starter.

No one has ever said that more TDs = more super bowls. What people have said is that you need an elite QB to consistently contend for titles, and that has pretty much been true throughout history. You can count on one hand the number of teams who have had 5+ years straight of super bowl contending success with bad QB play.

FanInAZ

07-06-2020, 07:54 PM

16 of the last 19 super bowls have featured either Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, or Ben Roethlisberger. Having a QB is kinda important.

It helps when teams are demanding average QBs to carry the load of HoFers, instead of building their O around their elite RBs, basically eliminates about 2/3 of the teams before the season even begins. Nevertheless, there are signs that more and more owners are figuring out that modern Ds aren't designed to stop elite running games and are starting to hire coaches that will build Os around elite RBs (Ravens, Titans, 49ers, etc.).

BroncoWave

07-06-2020, 07:57 PM

Poet

07-06-2020, 08:01 PM

It helps when teams are demanding average QBs to carry the load of HoFers, instead of building their O around their elite RBs, basically eliminates about 2/3 of the teams before the season even begins. Nevertheless, there are signs that more and more owners are figuring out that modern Ds aren't designed to stop elite running games and are starting to hire coaches that will build Os around elite RBs (Ravens, Titans, 49ers, etc.).

I don't buy this.

The Ravens sport a MVP QB. The Titans went on a miracle run in the postseason and didn't make the SB. The Niners have an elite offense, and don't have an elite QB, but there's not an Adrian Peterson back there. The Niners had the best talent across the board in the NFL, including defense.

The Chiefs beat all of those teams last year, if memory serves. Granted the Ravens were in the regular season, but Baltimore wasn't good enough to square off in the AFCCG game. The Titans upset them. And then promptly lost to the Chiefs. The biggest difference in that game was between QB's.

The Titans also just paid Tannehill a bunch of money, which indicates that even one of the teams you cite to covets QB play, even if they likely signed a guy who can't give them that. Strange move.

So even if you're right, Mahomes is so good he can beat all the teams that you're saying are heading in the right direction. And, moreover, one of those teams has a MVP QB.

If we limit it to just Mahomes, I don't know what else the guy could do. If we expand it, then the bigger landscape shows us that...QB's win games. And the teams that even draft a young Qb and exploit the cheap contract deal end up resigning their guys to top dollar deals afterwards? Why aren't they in a rush to let their guy walk and just draft another QB?

Poet

07-06-2020, 08:04 PM

Yet Brady, Manning, Wilson, and Mahomes have won 6 of the last 7 super bowls.

GM's are in a tough spot because it's hard to find a QB in the first place. Then it's hard to build a team around them good enough to contend for a SB. Then it's hard to pay the QB and keep the other players who are big contributors. Then again, if you find the right QB, you get to have multiple windows at SB contention. I don't want to go into a game and feel like my QB is just outclassed. Yeah, not everyone can have a top five QB of all-time, but if the other team has a productive QB who is easily going into Canton, and I have a young but talented production QB like Watson -he's the first one who comes to mind- then at least you have a great QB who can make some plays and keep you in it.

FanInAZ

07-06-2020, 08:07 PM

Yet Brady, Manning, Wilson, and Mahomes have won 6 of the last 7 super bowls.

Von Miller & the Broncos D is the reason that Manning was on the team that won that SB, in spite of all of mounting injuries. Wilson had Marshawn Lynch and an elite D. Although the Seahawks continue to be playoff contenders year after year, haven't won a playoff game since the part ways with "Beast Mode."

BroncoWave

07-06-2020, 08:09 PM

Von Miller & the Broncos D is the reason that Manning was on the team that won that SB, in spite of all of mounting injuries. Wilson had Marshawn Lynch and an elite D. Although the Seahawks continue to be playoff contenders year after year, haven't won a playoff game since the part ways with "Beast Mode."

So what alternative do these teams have? Are you saying KC should let Mahomes walk instead of paying him, and just hope they can find a suitable replacement? Because I can guarantee you that 0/32 GMs would take that route.

MOtorboat

07-06-2020, 08:10 PM

Von Miller & the Broncos D is the reason that Manning was on the team that won that SB, in spite of all of mounting injuries. Wilson had Marshawn Lynch and an elite D. Although the Seahawks continue to be playoff contenders year after year, haven't won a playoff game since the part ways with "Beast Mode."

The Broncos continued to have that dominant defense for three more seasons and didn't sniff shit. There are four fluky instances of a team's defense going off for three or four games and winning a Super Bowl. Having an elite quarterback is the biggest, most important piece to long term success and winning Super Bowls.

Poet

07-06-2020, 08:14 PM

FanInAZ

07-06-2020, 08:21 PM

The Broncos continued to have that dominant defense for three more seasons and didn't sniff shit. There are four fluky instances of a team's defense going off for three or four games and winning a Super Bowl. Having an elite quarterback is the biggest, most important piece to long term success and winning Super Bowls.

Well, if your lacking at QB, you can make up for it at RB. When we won the SB in 2015, in spite of our poor play at QB, we also had a pair of effective RBs. Did we have such RBs during the 3 following years?

BroncoWave

07-06-2020, 08:23 PM

Well, if your lacking at QB, you can make up for it at RB. When we won the SB in 2015, in spite of our poor play at QB, we also had a pair of effective RBs. Did we have such RBs during the 3 following years?

Dude, we didn't suck the next 3 years because of our lack of running backs. If you want to do an analysis, let's see the last time the leading rusher in the NFL won or even sniffed a title.

MOtorboat

07-06-2020, 08:23 PM

Well, if your lacking at QB, you can make up for it at RB.

No. Good grief, no.

FanInAZ

07-06-2020, 08:24 PM

The allure of playing with Peyton Manning helped create an influx of talent on that defense via FA. Manning also carried a lot of bad or average teams into the playoffs and took them far. I know this thread isn't about him, but it was nice to finally see a guy who did so much with so little overall around him get bailed out by a great defense.

I believe Elway was 1 of the Greatest QBs ever because he carried teams light on tallent to 3 SBs in 4 years, but didn't win a SB until he got Terrell Davis.

BroncoWave

07-06-2020, 08:26 PM

FanInAZ

07-06-2020, 08:26 PM

No. Good grief, no.

Then how did the Eagles win their SB? It may be an exception, but it has happened, in spite of the fact that so few teams try that route.

Poet

07-06-2020, 08:28 PM

Then how did the Eagles win their SB? It may be an exception, but it has happened, in spite of the fact that so few teams try that route.

Well the Eagles were in the middle of what was likely to be a MVP run from their star QB. Then the SB happened and Foles had the game of his life and played like an elite QB. The way I view it, it was more about a fluky QB driven win than anything the RB did.

MOtorboat

07-06-2020, 08:30 PM

Then how did the Eagles win their SB? It may be an exception, but it has happened, in spite of the fact that so few teams try that route.

What?

Nick Foles threw for almost 400 yards and 3 TDs.

Poet

07-06-2020, 08:31 PM

I believe Elway was 1 of the Greatest QBs ever because he carried teams light on tallent to 3 SBs in 4 years, but didn't win a SB until he got Terrell Davis.

I believe the league has changed so much since then. To the point where arguably the best RB, Zeke, got paid according to his production and people laughed at his deal. People argued the deal made sense via the short window the Cowboys had. Back in the day the Steelers didn't hesitate to pay Jerome Bettis, Curtis Martin got paid, etc. A little further back than that and Emmitt Smith got paid. Etc. Shit, I think the last time an elite RB was on a consistent SB contender was Tomlinson.

BroncoWave

07-06-2020, 08:34 PM

AZ, this article is from 2014, but it's recent enough to be a good indicator. It simply blows your theory to smitherines.

https://thepowerrank.com/2014/01/10/which-nfl-teams-make-and-win-in-the-playoffs/

When it comes to winning in the NFL, passing is king. Rushing hardly matters.

To quantify this, our football obsessed culture must look past misleading statistics such as rush yards per game. Teams with the lead run the ball to take time off the clock. Any team can rush for 100 yards if they run it 50 times.

To measure true skill, it is better to look at efficiency metrics like yards per attempt. A team can’t fake their way to 5 yards per carry by running the ball more.

Here, efficiency for passing and rushing is defined as yards gained per attempt on offense minus yards allowed per attempt on defense. Higher values indicate more team strength. Sacks count as pass attempts, and these negative yards lower pass efficiency on offense.

From the left panel, playoff teams excel in passing, both throwing the ball on offense and preventing the pass on defense. Only 15 of 120 playoff teams in this era allowed more yards per pass attempt than they gained.

The visual also highlights teams that played in the Super Bowl. Eight of the ten Super Bowl champions were among the NFL’s elite in pass efficiency. However, excellence in the air does not guarantee playoff success. The New York Giants in 2007 and Baltimore in 2012 won the Super Bowl despite subpar pass efficiency.

While the importance of passing in the NFL will not surprise anyone, the insignificance of rushing might. The visual for rush efficiency shows playoff teams as a random scatter of positive and negative values for their regular season statistics. A strong run game on offense and defense does not help a team make the playoffs.

Moreover, teams with a high rush efficiency do not suddenly become clutch in the playoffs. Almost half of the teams that played in the Super Bowl allowed more yards per carry than they gained. In 2006, Indianapolis won the Super Bowl while having the worst rush efficiency in the NFL. Green Bay in 2010 and the New York Giants in 2011 weren’t much better.

How much better are these new guesses? Not much. The error only drops from 3.1 wins to 3.03 wins. In technical jargon, rush efficiency explains only 4.4% of the variance in wins. You might as well guess randomly.

The results get better using pass efficiency, as shown in the left panel. The error in estimating wins drops from 3.1 to 1.96. Pass efficiency explains 62% of the variance in wins in the NFL. The strong relationship is clear from the visual.

BroncoWave

07-06-2020, 08:35 PM

Especially note the bolded parts above in the last quote box, AZ

FanInAZ

07-06-2020, 08:36 PM

Last NFL rushing leader to play in a Super Bowl was Shaun Alexander in 2005, and they lost. Last one to win a Super Bowl was TD in 1998. Having an elite runner is far less of a predictor of success than having an elite passer.

Unless I overlooked something, no QB that's led the league in passing yards has won a SB:
https://aws.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/pass_yds_year_by_year.htm
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/

BroncoWave

07-06-2020, 08:38 PM

Unless I overlooked something, no QB that's led the league in passing yards has won a SB:
https://aws.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/pass_yds_year_by_year.htm
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/

Read the article I linked above. It goes into far greater depth in terms of the importance of passing and rushing.

FanInAZ

07-06-2020, 08:38 PM

What?

Nick Foles threw for almost 400 yards and 3 TDs.

So that qualifies him as an elite QB, or a good enough QB that had a great game?

Poet

07-06-2020, 08:43 PM

So that qualifies him as an elite QB, or a good enough QB that had a great game?

But he had to put up an insane game like he was a great QB to beat a great QB.

MOtorboat

07-06-2020, 08:44 PM

So that qualifies him as an elite QB, or a good enough QB that had a great game?

He falls under the Joe Flacco category. He threw six touchdowns, one INT and threw for 900 yards in three playoff games that year. It's the same type of fluke as the Broncos defense going completely ham and scoring touchdowns throughout the playoffs. Weird things happen in the playoffs.

The best way to build a longterm, contending football team is by having a Top 5 quarterback. You won't win the Super Bowl every year, but if you reach the divisional round of the playoffs year after year, the chances you win one or two are much better.

As to the passing yards, that is another statistical anomaly. It is not a causation argument. If you lead the league in passing it does not exclude you from winning the Super Bowl. There's no correlation or causation.

Hawgdriver

07-06-2020, 09:03 PM

MOtorboat

07-06-2020, 09:07 PM

Whoa wut?

Your brain is better at this. But I see no correlation between touchdowns thrown and winning the Super Bowl, as in if you throw 50 touchdowns in a season you cannot win the Super Bowl. Where is the error in my logic?

FanInAZ

07-06-2020, 09:09 PM

Read the article I linked above. It goes into far greater depth in terms of the importance of passing and rushing.

Most of it was incoherent slop, the easiest to expose his assessment of Jim Harbaugh because I'd already been doing research on the fraud that Kaep was.

2011: 3rd in rushing attempts, 12th in rushing TDs, 31st in passing attempts, 24th in passing TDs, 1st in INTs: https://aws.pro-football-reference.com/teams/sfo/2011.htm
2012: 7th in rushing attempts, 6th in rushing TDs, 31st in passing attempts, 16th in passing TDs, 1st in INTs: https://aws.pro-football-reference.com/teams/sfo/2012.htm
2013: 3rd in rushing attempts, 4th in rushing TDs, 32nd in passing attempts, 23rd in passing TDs, 1st in INTs: https://aws.pro-football-reference.com/teams/sfo/2013.htm
2014: 9th in rushing attempts, 21st in rushing TDs, 30th in passing attempts, 22nd in passing TDs, 5th in INTs: https://aws.pro-football-reference.com/teams/sfo/2014.htm

Conclusion, like I've said over and over again, Harbaugh was old school built on a strong running game & a great D. The job of the QB was to take pressure off the RB & to not turn the ball over.

BroncoWave

07-06-2020, 09:15 PM

Most of it was incoherent slop, the easiest to expose his assessment of Jim Harbaugh because I'd already been doing research on the fraud that Kaep was.

2011: 3rd in rushing attempts, 12th in rushing TDs, 31st in passing attempts, 24th in passing TDs, 1st in INTs: https://aws.pro-football-reference.com/teams/sfo/2011.htm
2012: 7th in rushing attempts, 6th in rushing TDs, 31st in passing attempts, 16th in passing TDs, 1st in INTs: https://aws.pro-football-reference.com/teams/sfo/2012.htm
2013: 3rd in rushing attempts, 4th in rushing TDs, 32nd in passing attempts, 23rd in passing TDs, 1st in INTs: https://aws.pro-football-reference.com/teams/sfo/2013.htm
2014: 9th in rushing attempts, 21st in rushing TDs, 30th in passing attempts, 22nd in passing TDs, 5th in INTs: https://aws.pro-football-reference.com/teams/sfo/2014.htm

Conclusion, like I've said over and over again, Harbaugh was old school built on a strong running game & a great D. The job of the QB was to take pressure off the RB & to not turn the ball over.

Your lack of ability to understand a thorough statistical analysis doesn't make that analysis "slop" or "incoherent". There's a reason the top QBs make about triple what top RBs make, and there is a reason multiple QBs go in the first round every year and RBs hardly ever do, and it's not because all 32 GMs are idiots.

FanInAZ

07-06-2020, 09:20 PM

Your lack of ability to understand a thorough statistical analysis doesn't make that analysis "slop" or "incoherent". There's a reason the top QBs make about triple what top RBs make, and there is a reason multiple QBs go in the first round every year and RBs hardly ever do, and it's not because all 32 GMs are idiots.

Making graphs with a bunch of unlabeled dots is slop, and his assessment of Harbaugh is easily exposed as garbage.

BroncoWave

07-06-2020, 09:25 PM

Making graphs with a bunch of unlabeled dots is slop, and his assessment of Harbaugh is easily exposed as garbage.

It's abundantly clear at this point that no amount of facts or reason will sway you on this. You cherry pick anomalies to make your point, and ignore the overwhelming avalanche of proof that teams with good QBs are consistently better than teams with good RBs.

I get that you're trying to convince yourself that the Chiefs giving Mahomes a lot of money was the wrong decision, but there is a reason literally every team does it when they have a stud QB who is finishing his rookie deal, and again, it's not because every team is stupid.

FanInAZ

07-06-2020, 09:56 PM

It's abundantly clear at this point that no amount of facts or reason will sway you on this. You cherry pick anomalies to make your point, and ignore the overwhelming avalanche of proof that teams with good QBs are consistently better than teams with good RBs.

I get that you're trying to convince yourself that the Chiefs giving Mahomes a lot of money was the wrong decision, but there is a reason literally every team does it when they have a stud QB who is finishing his rookie deal, and again, it's not because every team is stupid.

Wrong, my point is that their more than 1 way to win a football game. You base your game plan who you actually have on your team, not who you wish you had. I was all for us throwing it 40+ times a game with Manning because he was an elite QB. Unless Lock works out, we haven't had 1 since and therefore needed to build an O on who we've actually had, which hasn't been much. If he proves to be an elite QB, let Lock throw the ball 40+ times a game. If not, let the RBs carry a bigger load.

If 1 of our RBs proves to be elite, then give him as big of a load as he can handle. If you want to know why teams with elite RBs don't win SBs, its because they often get worn out by the end of the season due to excessive use early on. This was a problem that was acknowledged for LaDainian Tomlinson, which has since resulted in almost all teams being more dependant on their RB core instead of just their featured RB. It's not different then pulling you Cy Young caliber pitcher if his pitch count for a game starts getting a little to high so you don't wear him out early in the season. The more you can trust your bullpen, the less wear & tear you on starting rotation.

A few teams that have dared to go against the norm has had success by combining a playing a style the league isn't designed to stop with the right players to execute that plan. Others have failed because they didn't have the right players to make it happen, just like many teams that are trying to force their average QBs to play like the HoFers that they'll never be. By doing so, I would guess about 2/3 of the league eliminate themselves from SB contention before the season even starts, making it a lot easier for teams with QBs who are HoFers to win more SBs then they otherwise would.

BroncoWave

07-06-2020, 10:02 PM

Sigh. I give up.

FanInAZ

07-06-2020, 10:08 PM

Sigh. I give up.

Good :D

Hawgdriver

07-06-2020, 10:17 PM

Your brain is better at this. But I see no correlation between touchdowns thrown and winning the Super Bowl, as in if you throw 50 touchdowns in a season you cannot win the Super Bowl. Where is the error in my logic?

Oh ok. I'm saying that throwing more touchdowns is going to happen more often with a SB winner than throwing less touchdowns. Carry on.

BroncoWave

07-07-2020, 08:55 AM

If 1 of our RBs proves to be elite, then give him as big of a load as he can handle. If you want to know why teams with elite RBs don't win SBs, its because they often get worn out by the end of the season due to excessive use early on. This was a problem that was acknowledged for LaDainian Tomlinson, which has since resulted in almost all teams being more dependant on their RB core instead of just their featured RB. It's not different then pulling you Cy Young caliber pitcher if his pitch count for a game starts getting a little to high so you don't wear him out early in the season. The more you can trust your bullpen, the less wear & tear you on starting rotation.

I know I said I was done, but I reread this, and you kind of proved the point we're all making with this paragraph.

The fact that you can just have a stable of decent running backs and do well enough is precisely why the QB is so much more valuable. You have to have a stud QB to consistently contend, and it's why guys like Mahomes fetch the money they do.

You can win with a good running game and defense, but if you look back historically, those teams are almost always one-off type champs, and can rarely contend consistently year after year.

You used the Titans as an example as a team that "bucked the trend" and won running the ball this year but you know what they just did? They paid their QB a lot of money.

You also praised the 49ers, both this year and under harbaugh, for winning with running, but you know why they have lost their last two super bowls? Because Kap couldn't match Flacco in that game, and Jimmy G melted in the 4th quarter while Mahomes shined.

You can have your good defense and running game all you want, I'll take the elite QB and take my chances, and I'm usually going to come out ahead.