Super Bowl Winning Quarterbacks

[Albany,n.y.]

Sorry for any confusion. Not implying that Plunkett is Hall of Fame material. Rather that he was probably considered a bust until he got to the Raiders -- and into a system that allowed him to be successful.

He wasn't considered a bust with the Patriots. He was the Patriots starting QB from the time he got there until he was injured in 1975. He started every game his 1st 4 seasons in the NFL. When Grogan performed well after Plunkett was injured in 1975 he was shipped to SF for 4 draft choices 3 firsts and a second-hardly what a team would pay to get a bust. The problems he had were with the 49ers and he got cut after starting for 2 seasons. When the Raiders picked him up in 1978 he didn't play that season & had a very hot & cold career the rest of the way.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

I'd add Jim McMahon to that list

 

Concur.

 

One might also consider that when Brady took NE to 2001 SB Championship, he was a 2000 6th round pick who had thrown 3 passes for 6 yards

No one imagined he was a HoF quarterback. I have friends who are Pats fans and I remember it well.

Bledsoe is out for the season? Who is this Brady guy, we're finished. doom gloom gloom doom

 

In 1999 when Kurt Warner and the Rams won the show, Warner had just managed to squirm his way onto an NFL roster the previous year as Ram's 3rd string,

four years after being an UDFA cut by GB b4 the season thereafter hacking around Arena ball and Europe. For the Rams in 1994, Trent Green (who?) was

the starter who would lead the team and when he went down (I live in St Louis and remember this too) it was gloom doom doom gloom we're finished.

Then by 2002, Warner was a flash in the pan who had a couple good years, he was washed up and through, run him out of town. So he retired to Arizona

 

I'm not saying Trent Edwards is Kurt Warner or Tom Brady. Point is, it's easy to recognize a player as a HoF QB in hindsight.

The perception of some of these guys was very different until just before they achieved success.

 

Broaden out the picture to QB in AFC/NFC championship games and QB named to the probowl and you can find more examples of Great Unknowns who make good.

[KD in CA]

Depending on who you asked at certain times, Simms, Warner, Brady and E Manning were all "bad" QBs too.

[Nuncha]

I would even add Joe Namath to that list

look at his stats sometime 1967 was by far his best year

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/N/NamaJo00.htm

12 years 4 of which were serviceable (I do realize it was a different game back in the day and in some ways that make up for it but still, he was SOOO freaking overrated most of his career.

 

 

Dang, I never realized Namath sucked so bad....His stats are horrible.

[Kelly the Dog]

He wasn't considered a bust with the Patriots. He was the Patriots starting QB from the time he got there until he was injured in 1975. He started every game his 1st 4 seasons in the NFL. When Grogan performed well after Plunkett was injured in 1975 he was shipped to SF for 4 draft choices 3 firsts and a second-hardly what a team would pay to get a bust. The problems he had were with the 49ers and he got cut after starting for 2 seasons. When the Raiders picked him up in 1978 he didn't play that season & had a very hot & cold career the rest of the way.

Except for his (6-8) rookie season when he won rookie of the year in a Dennis Shaw kind of season, he was terrible on the Patriots. In five years they never had a winning record. In his second year he threw 8 TDs and 25 interceptions. Only one in five years did he throw more TDs than INTs, and only one in five over 50% completions at 51. He threw about 60 TDs and 80-90 INTs over five years. The fans hated him. He thought he was a bust himself from reading stories about him.

 

Who knows why, but the 49ers traded two first round picks (not three) and Tom Owen for him. And he kept up where he left off, playing terrible for 2-3 years there.

[ConradDobler]

I've always believed TE is a Championship caliber QB and Chan Gailey is going to make my beliefs become reality,

 

I Billieve...

 

Listen, Dog. Until I see Trent breaking the leg of the cornerback (?) who intercepted him, I'm unimpressed.

[Guest dog14787]

Listen, Dog. Until I see Trent breaking the leg of the cornerback (?) who intercepted him, I'm unimpressed.

 

Current and former Bills Players such as Lee Evans Terrell Owens have observed noticeable a change in the demeanor of the Bills #1 signal caller's as of late,

 

Trent Edwards attributes his renewed confidence not to coaching nor better line play, or even the explosiveness of what players like CJ Spiller or Lee Evans brings to the Bills new offense,

 

Trent's catalyst he claims is more his love for the game of football and If it looks like confidence to others because he's playing with a smile on his face then so be it, but he's still here,and he's still standing,

 

now its time for Trent Edwards to deliver...

[reddogblitz]

Listen, Dog. Until I see Trent breaking the leg of the cornerback (?) who intercepted him, I'm unimpressed.

Go Trent, but really, until I see some good games after Halloween, I'm not buying it.

[Geno Smith's Arm]

No, son, defense does win championships. The Steelers D, namely James Harrison, saved that game. Yes the Ben Ro to Holmes TD was the capper, but they would not have been in that spot if not for the play Harrison made. Last year Peyton was driving down the field and the ball was intercepted (that can't be done by the offense by the way). Tampa's D, The Ravens' D, The Giants' D, Pittsburgh's D, the Pats* D in their hayday, shall I continue? Like I said, son, defense wins championships.

 

Offense AND defense wins championships.

 

Why do people have to use tired catch phrases that they heard some coach utter 20 years ago? Acting like they are experts....it's an over-simplification

 

Know who doesn't win championships anymore? Bill Parcells

 

 

The game has changed. The rules are slanted towards the passing game. And you need to have a pretty good defense too.

 

 

PS. I somehow get the feeling that Parcells never wanted to be overshadowed his quarterback, that his ego couldn't accept a QB taking the spotlight away from him.

Edited September 9, 2010 by ThrowIt

[Hplarrm]

Not only are your views on target but when it comes down to decisions about team building, another factor to consider is that even though no one (including Belicheat and Pioli had no expectation of Brady becoming one of the best players ever (if they believed that I doubt they would have passed on drafting him 5 or more times in a row).

 

There were two keys to this story that determined Brady to be the player he was in addition of NE proving to be great talent evaluators.

 

1. One of the big differences between Brady and Ryan Leaf is that by drafting a QB later NE took far less of a risk than SD drafting Leaf, Cincy taking Smith or any of the other early round bust who get a cap premium payment it takes to sign a QB. The main lesson to be taken from the Brady pick is look for your franchise QB later in the draf.

 

2. Dumb luck plays an enormous role as if Bledsoe had not suffered the unusual lung collapse injury likely ME would have had to suffer through a couple of near miss Bledsoe years until they case was built for Belicheat to sit Bledsoe and give Brady a shot.

 

The main rule is do not spend a big draft pick on a QB.

 

Concur.

 

One might also consider that when Brady took NE to 2001 SB Championship, he was a 2000 6th round pick who had thrown 3 passes for 6 yards

No one imagined he was a HoF quarterback. I have friends who are Pats fans and I remember it well.

Bledsoe is out for the season? Who is this Brady guy, we're finished. doom gloom gloom doom

 

In 1999 when Kurt Warner and the Rams won the show, Warner had just managed to squirm his way onto an NFL roster the previous year as Ram's 3rd string,

four years after being an UDFA cut by GB b4 the season thereafter hacking around Arena ball and Europe. For the Rams in 1994, Trent Green (who?) was

the starter who would lead the team and when he went down (I live in St Louis and remember this too) it was gloom doom doom gloom we're finished.

Then by 2002, Warner was a flash in the pan who had a couple good years, he was washed up and through, run him out of town. So he retired to Arizona

 

I'm not saying Trent Edwards is Kurt Warner or Tom Brady. Point is, it's easy to recognize a player as a HoF QB in hindsight.

The perception of some of these guys was very different until just before they achieved success.

 

Broaden out the picture to QB in AFC/NFC championship games and QB named to the probowl and you can find more examples of Great Unknowns who make good.

[Benjamin Barker]

You are wrong. There are rare late round gems at QB, but most successful QBs in the NFL have a solid pedigree and are drafted high. Brady is the exception and not the rule.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Not only are your views on target but when it comes down to decisions about team building, another factor to consider is that even though no one (including Belicheat and Pioli had no expectation of Brady becoming one of the best players ever (if they believed that I doubt they would have passed on drafting him 5 or more times in a row).

 

<...>

 

The main rule is do not spend a big draft pick on a QB.

 

I think that's too broad to be a general rule

 

The point I was trying to make is, HOF great QB often get recognized in hindsight.

If we had a thread to store "at the time commentary" many of them had a period where they were thought to be nothing or busts.

 

I think the general rule is, if a team has a proven starting QB, build talent by looking for a promising QB in the late rounds or UDFA

Hook him in, measure him, if he looks like he can make the step, keep him. If he doesn't, throw him back and try again next year.

You don't draft him early even if you think the world of him because that's not the plan. NO, GB, NE have tried this plan. NE has struck gold 2x.

The success of this backup QB strategy at NO and GB remain to be seen.

 

If a team doesn't have a proven starting QB, then draft early trade or whatever it takes to get the QB you want.

 

The reason the Bills catch flack from fans and media is that they followed the "yes team has proven starter" leg of the decision tree

with a starting QB and backup whose quality many question. It may be they saw too many other holes to go after a quality QB yet.

 

Chan has the track record of success with QB many regard as "meh" so we'll see

[Hplarrm]

You are wrong. There are rare late round gems at QB, but most successful QBs in the NFL have a solid pedigree and are drafted high. Brady is the exception and not the rule.

 

You are correct about the specifics but incomplete in not taking into full consideration the full array of events. Yes, Brady is a rarity in and of himself (well actually the fact is the other QB of similar achievements (multiple SB wins) Joe Montana was a 3rd round pick and while not at the end of the draft like Brady would not have been a first day pick in today's draft).

 

What I argue is simply this.

 

Does picking a QB with your team's first round choice make sense as a team building strategy?

 

The answer is that almost certainly no based on what has happened in the real world.

 

The two examples of success in using this technique are actually quite recent, Peyton and RoboQB are actually the first QBs to deliver a QB to the team that drafted them in the 1st. This is interesting since many posters seem to argue not based on the fact that even these two successful picks were the first working examples of this approach since the late 80s when Dallas chose Aikman (and even these two real world examples fall behind the # of SB wins delivered by 6th round pick Brady. Also, advocacy of recent approaches to replacing Jimbo by picking the next RoboQN (Leinart? trading the world to get a shot at Bradford) ignore the fact that the Pitts situation with RpbpQN providing the addition to what was already a playoff ready squad or committing your team to the decade of Polian led team building before Peyton pays off is a strategy the 0 for a decade Bills cannot risk (and this even assumes that your QB pick is as good as the rarity Peyton and not like Leaf who went with the next pick).

 

In fact, if one wanted to try to use your first round pick to get a QB, rather than drafting him what has worked at all in the past is to trade for your Elway or Eli Manning as your mechanism for getting the franchise QB rather than trading away value merely to move up a few draft spots to take the QB targeted. Its cheaper and more cap efficient to let someone else pick and then trade for him rather than trading the fantasy commodity of draft position.

 

The simple facts are that franchise QBs (and even first round or at least first day talent like Brees) are more often found by teams which achieve the goal of winning the SB by making more rational proven choices of getting talent on the waiver wire like Dilfer or two time loser Brad Johnson, from being a boxboy at Walmart (one of the last jobs held by Kurt Warner before this stud QB was acquired) or a late round pick like Brady.

 

Is any one of these approaches a rare event to succeed in leading a team to SB glory?

 

You bet.

 

However, the only thing more rare is the individual cases of a team drafting their franchise QB with a top 10 pick. Poster seem to want to argue that the Bills problem has been not committing a top 10 pick (actually the #9 likely will not do it and one would have to trade even more precious resources and all you get in reality is Jamarcus Russell).

 

Folks whine about the Bills using the #4 when they had it on the failed Mike Williams when actually if they had traded yet more value from our weak team to move up to get the best QB available in reality it would mean Joey Harrington.

 

The simple facts indicate that rather drafting a QB in the top 10 as a road to glory that instead the Bills are MORE LIKELY to succeed by passing on picking a top 10 QB and in fact shopping for the franchise QB elsewhere.

[UConn James]

Ever notice how these kinds of topics are only popular among teams which have a pile of warm sh-- for QB?

[Hapless Bills Fan]

You are wrong. There are rare late round gems at QB, but most successful QBs in the NFL have a solid pedigree and are drafted high. Brady is the exception and not the rule.

 

There seem to be quite a few exceptions to your rule. Kurt Warner is perhaps the most famous (UDFA).

Matt Cassel if you favor him on the basis of his year in NE (UDFA). Mark Rypien would be another (6th round) if you regard him, SB winning QB, as successful.

I don't have time except for the top of my head right now, maybe in a week or 2 I can put a more complete list together or someone else will.

 

Question in advance how many exceptions do you need before it's not a rule? Keep in mind there are quite a few 1st round busts too.

 

I think it may have to do with the variability in how college games translate to the pro's (some QB very successful in college offense and can't translate)

Also perhaps QB more than any other position depends on intangibles that are hard to scout -- how well/quickly can a pro-style defense be read?

how deep a student of the game is the guy going to be when he's paid big money to do nothing but play football? how tough is he really? (etc).

 

Point is depending upon how you define "success", there are a surprising # of late round or UDFA who have gone further than QB who were stars up front.

If you want to define success in a very very limited way (say, only winning SB QB of the last 6 years) you can define out a lot of good QB

and find a restricted set where your point is proven.

 

Me, I'd be happy if we just play GOOD fundamental football and are sometimes fun to watch, let alone going to the playoffs every year

How low my expectations have fallen.

[CarolinaBill]

I'm just surprised you put Doug Williams on the list as a "bad" QB. Clearly, that was racially motivated. You sir, are a racist!!

[Kelly the Dog]

The rule is only that there is no rule. Super Bowl winning QBs are found everywhere and there is no strategy to find a SB winning QB.

 

They are drafted first overall, they are drafted in the first round, they are high draft picks from other teams you signed in FA, they are 3-6th round draft picks, they are guys you traded nobodies for, they are guys you traded first round picks for, they are UDFAs and they were bagging groceries in Safeway. They come from all over. The chances are better if they are #1 picks but even those chances are not "good".

[Hplarrm]

And it is exactly this complex calculus which gets folks to fixate on single players as IF one person is THE solution because it really is too hard to think about a lot of variables.

 

While this tendency to simplify is pretty appropriate for the amount of thinking one should devote to something which is merely a game. Many of us Bills FANatics love TSW because its a chance to commune with others who overthink this game.

 

I guess if this was all so simple as those who want to insist there is ONE right way to do this seem to offer, the game would be a lot more boring.

 

The only real simple truth is that there is more than one way to build a winning team and also that a dose of dumb luck from the way this oddly shaped ball decides to bounce or whether the referee blows the coin-flip is going to be essential to determining a specific game outcome makes me come back for more and also hang around until the final whistle blows in case the TV coverage does not switch to show Heidi while something impossible actually happens.

 

Rule 1 is that there is no rule and Rule 2 is see Rule 1.

 

 

 

The rule is only that there is no rule. Super Bowl winning QBs are found everywhere and there is no strategy to find a SB winning QB.

 

They are drafted first overall, they are drafted in the first round, they are high draft picks from other teams you signed in FA, they are 3-6th round draft picks, they are guys you traded nobodies for, they are guys you traded first round picks for, they are UDFAs and they were bagging groceries in Safeway. They come from all over. The chances are better if they are #1 picks but even those chances are not "good".

[Guest dog14787]

The rule is only that there is no rule. Super Bowl winning QBs are found everywhere and there is no strategy to find a SB winning QB.

 

They are drafted first overall, they are drafted in the first round, they are high draft picks from other teams you signed in FA, they are 3-6th round draft picks, they are guys you traded nobodies for, they are guys you traded first round picks for, they are UDFAs and they were bagging groceries in Safeway. They come from all over. The chances are better if they are #1 picks but even those chances are not "good".

 

Great post Kelly,

 

When you look at teams that have been successful over the long haul, teams like the Packers, Eagles (before Mcnabb was released) or the Patriots you see teams with Franchise QB's in place for long periods of time. Success normally doesn't happen over night and even the best QB's like fine wines generally take time to mature and develop.

 

What I want to know is the Packers secret formula for finding Championship caliber/HOF type QB's / the finest/rarest wines in the world,

 

Like Brett Favre/1787 Chateau Lafite, or Aaron Rodgers/Montrachet 1978 from Domaine de la Romanée-Conti .

 

 

Trent Edwards/ Boone's Farm Snow Creek Berry (kidding folks)

[BuffOrange]

Offense AND defense wins championships.

 

Why do people have to use tired catch phrases that they heard some coach utter 20 years ago? Acting like they are experts....it's an over-simplification

 

Know who doesn't win championships anymore? Bill Parcells

 

I think you answered your own question. They want to sound like experts. So they cherry-pick teams that were better on defense. If a team was better on offense like the Saints, no problem, just cherry-pick a play that the defense made to help them win.

 

I think that's too broad to be a general rule

 

The point I was trying to make is, HOF great QB often get recognized in hindsight.

If we had a thread to store "at the time commentary" many of them had a period where they were thought to be nothing or busts.

 

I think the general rule is, if a team has a proven starting QB, build talent by looking for a promising QB in the late rounds or UDFA

Hook him in, measure him, if he looks like he can make the step, keep him. If he doesn't, throw him back and try again next year.

You don't draft him early even if you think the world of him because that's not the plan. NO, GB, NE have tried this plan. NE has struck gold 2x.

The success of this backup QB strategy at NO and GB remain to be seen.

 

If a team doesn't have a proven starting QB, then draft early trade or whatever it takes to get the QB you want.

 

The reason the Bills catch flack from fans and media is that they followed the "yes team has proven starter" leg of the decision tree

with a starting QB and backup whose quality many question. It may be they saw too many other holes to go after a quality QB yet.

 

Chan has the track record of success with QB many regard as "meh" so we'll see

 

Yah this is true. I've seen the replay of the Giants-Cowboys playoff game a couple of times. Amazing how different perceptions would be if the Giants Special Teams weren't much better that day, or if Patrick Crayton didn't have alligator arms. Eli would be average at best, collecting a paycheck due to his name, with a 1-3 playoff record. Romo would be who knows what depending on how far they advanced. People still think Romo is a pretty boy choke artist, but if he ever wins a SB nobody will ever admit they said that.