Name a Superbowl winning team with a mediocre QB at the helm...

[billybrew1]

I don't know if you can write off any SB winning QB as "mediocre." But one thing I've noticed is that "gunslinger" style QBs have won far fewer SBs than than less flamboyant "system" QBs.

 

 

Didn't you watch Dilfer win?

 

 

He was god aweful, just terrible.....

 

 

Jaworski was thinking of making a comeback during that game.....

[Toshiero]

People are still bitching about Fitz? he is the QB, and no amount of whining is going to change it. We had a great offseason, the team should be much better, YES we can win a superbowl with Fitz, worse QB's have won it.

 

Christ folks we had a GREAT offseason so far, for once in the last 15 freaking years we can really talk about the positives on this team and there are more than enough of them to keep you busy.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

People are still bitching about Fitz? he is the QB, and no amount of whining is going to change it. We had a great offseason, the team should be much better, YES we can win a superbowl with Fitz, worse QB's have won it.

 

Christ folks we had a GREAT offseason so far, for once in the last 15 freaking years we can really talk about the positives on this team and there are more than enough of them to keep you busy.

 

Hi "People!"!

 

If our D is as good as it should be and the OL as good as it should be and he still fails, Nix MUST move on and get another QB. No way can we keep our wagons hitched to this guy. I for one hopes he puts up probowl numbers and get us a superbowl win, but I am not holding my breath

 

It shows the ineptness of the Bills front office in the past vs now. Pray, Pray to whatever God or Gods you pray to (and if you don't have any, make one up and pray) this guy can fix Fitz. He is always going to be THE reason we don't get to or win a SB with his erratic play. If this new guy can shore him up then we are good.

 

STARTING QB is still weak.

 

[closed thread ]Buddy is making a mistake

Posted 11 May 2012 - 04:14 PM

 

What are they scared of? Look Fitz may be some fan hero but the guy is very average period. We need a guy to come in and compete with him that can have a shot to take the job from him. Either he steps up and becomes a better QB or we get someone better.

 

I don't care what talent we put around him, Fitz isn't going to win us a superbowl. This is a QB league and we don't have one that I feel can win a superbowl and its past time to get one. Last time we had a guy with that type talent we at least got to 4 of them.

 

Nix says VY is here to compete for a backup job, bad call. Quit coddling fitz, give Young a shot at starting no matter how it turns out.

 

We look forward to the scintillating football convo in the positive topics you initiate, Mr. Toshiero.

 

PS Physician, Heal Thyself?

Edited June 25, 2012 by Hopeful

[You herd it hear last]

A Bills forum and no one mentioned Bob Griese? SB against Redskins 8-11 88 yards. But a win. If that's not mediocre what is?

Actually 8.8 yards per attempt is very good... but I agree with your assessment...

 

A Bills forum and no one mentioned Bob Griese? SB against Redskins 8-11 88 yards. But a win. If that's not mediocre what is?

Actually 8 yards per attempt is very good... but I agree with your assessment...yeah, my math sucks today...

Edited June 24, 2012 by madtowntobuffalo

[San Jose Bills Fan]

troy aikman is probably the greatest example of how you can still be a great team with a game manager at qb. imo, fitz is better than aikman.

Well… Troy Aikman was inarguably surrounded by Hall of Famers and was on a great team.

 

In addition I don't remember Aikman ever carrying a team on his shoulders.

 

That said, I think you've overstated your argument.

 

What is interesting is that Aikman recently and emphatically stated his opinion that Tony Romo is a better quarterback than he (Aikman) ever was.

 

 

[Homey D. Clown]

Has there been enough named yet to satisfy the question?

 

I mean, over half the Super Bowls have been won by big name QB's, and Fitz isn't a big name, like Rivers, Vick, Ryan, Flacco, or Dalton, or Schaub, or Cassel.

 

 

All it takes is to win a superbowl, and he'll be a big name. Or just perform at a high level for that matter. Just because we didn't acquire him in a fancy or flashy way doesn't change anything, so it's really all about what happens on the field. Freddie jackson was acquired in the most nondescript way possible, and I'd say he's a big name right now.

[RyanC883]

Giants. 1990. Superbowl 25.

 

Baltimore Ravens. 2000.

 

Trent Dilfer.

 

Steelers, Superbowl 40. (pre-Ben being an all star. Offense relied heavily on Jerome Bettis and Willie Parker. Ben threw like 17 passes a game, albeit good ones)

 

And how many Super Bowls have those guys been to? And did you really put Cassel and Dalton in there?

 

Trent Dilfer, Jeff Hostetler, Doug Williams, Joe Namath, Mark Rypien, Jim McMahon. The fact that these guys have won a Super Bowl and names like Dan Marino, Fran Tarkenton, Johnny Unitas, Earl Morral, Jim Kelly, Warren Moon, Rich Gannon, Dan Fouts have never won a Super Bowl says you know nothing.

 

Good point. And, Peyton Manning only has one ONE super bowl, despite being arguably the best QB of his era.

 

You need a great team and a good (not elite) QB to win. We have that. And I expect Fitz to be much improved: (1) with improved mechanics; (2) not playing injured.

[Chimp]

Could throw Rypien in there too, although he had a fantastic year.

 

The two guys after Dilfer were pretty marginal too - Brady wasn't yet Brady in '01, and Brad Johnson in '02. Those early 2000's were a brutal mini-era.

 

I think Jim Plunkett would qualify too, though I'm too young to really say.

Big Ben in his first

[Buftex]

In regards to the QB's on that list - Eli Manning, in my opinion, is not a low impact, or mediocre, QB. He just has played too good in important games. When he is hot, he's as good as any QB in the NFL.

Now, when it comes to Fitzpatrick, I've been as big a critic as anyone. I've often said I don't think he is an elite QB, and I just don't see him as a Qb who can lead this team to a championship. However, I also have noted that I think he is tremendous at reading defenses, knowing where to throw the ball, and his intangibles are super high. It's always been his accuracy and occasionally his strength. Well, if Lee can change Fitz's mechanics to the point where his accuracy is better, he could very well develop into a top 12 QB. He has the heart. Nevertheless, teams have won championships with great defenses, so I would hope we learn to lean more on our RB's this year and let Fitz surprise teams, instead of trying to always carry ours.

 

 

I might agree with you on the first Super Bowl...but Eli was pretty outstanding most of the 2011 season. It isn't all stats. He was helped by a fierce pass rush from his defense, but Eli has progessed steadily, IMO, to an upper tier QB.

[millbank]

 

Eli Manning, Tom Brady, Troy Aikman , scrolled through this wondering thinking Johnny Unitas would have not been safe, goodness gracious

Edited June 25, 2012 by millbank

[BringBackFlutie]

So let me get this straight, we have:

 

Terry Bradshaw

Tom Brady

Ben Roethlisberger

Bob Griese

Eli Manning

Joe Namath

Ken Stabler

 

Here, I have a few:

 

Joe Montana- He was mediocre in his first SB season.

Steve Young- Never could win the big one or get out of Montana's shadow except for one season.

Troy Aikman- Only looked good because he had Emmitt Smith keeping defenses honest and that Cowboy OL keeping him clean.

Shoot, if these guys can win a SB then Fitz definitely has a shot.

 

 

You stole my only answer with Aikman...

 

But Young? Sure, he was always in Montana's shadow, but the guy was really good. He's still the highest career rated QB in history.

 

There is a trend with elite QBs lately. They tend to win their first Super Bowl with a REALLY good team, and they are just the game managers. As time goes on, they have more and more years in the system and get better and better at making their offense work. GMs can't keep complete teams forever, so it slowly degrades and becomes that once average QB's show, because he's the only consistent leader. I wonder if we can do this? Fitz just keeps working Gailey's system, while our team is built to be better and better. Then when we're healthy it all comes together and we win one as a team, and maybe, just maybe, then our core players (including Fitz) can continue to carry us for awhile. Just a thought, of course.

[BuffOrange]

I disagree that Plunkett was mediocre. He had a great college career, was a #1 overall draft pick in 1971 (by NE) and was offensive rookie of the year. MVP of SB XV in 1980 and won 2 SBs 1980 and 1983 for the Raiders.

 

He may not have been flashy, but he wasn't mediocre.

 

Similar circular argument to the "Eli was clutch in SB's" point. What did he do pre Super Bowl that indicated he could QB 2 SB winning teams - he was good in college and had a nice rookie year? The current backup for the Bills has that going for him too.

 

In any case I agree with those saying the game is so different now that the guys from the 70s/80s aren't too relevant to the quality of QB you need today.

[justnzane]

I'll submit Troy Aikman. With the great line and run game he had, and an elite TE and WR in Novacek and "Coke Head" Irvin, he only topped 20 TD passes once in his career. He made it to the Pro Bowl 4 straight years in a row with less than 16 TD passes in a season, in an era of Kelly, Marino, Elway, Moon, Farve, Young, Montana, and even Scott Mitchell (where they were all putting up better numbers than him). How Aikman is a first ballot HOF'er is a mystery, they won despite him.

 

Another HM is Chris Chandler leading the 98 Falcons to SB to lose Elway and TD's Broncos. He is the epitome of a journeyman QB that played for 5 teams before the Falcons, had two good years, and played for two more teams after.

[Orton's Arm]

I'd like to address some of the QBs whose names have been thrown around as "mediocre."

 

Tom Brady. It could be pointed out that in 2001, Tom Brady only averaged 6.9 yards per pass attempt. His career average has since risen to 7.5 yards per attempt. However, even as of 2001, Brady played well enough to move Bledsoe permanently to the bench. The Patriots put Bledsoe on the trading block after the year was over. Also, the Patriots' offense relied (and continues to rely) far more heavily on the passing game than the running game. If the Patriots needed to drive 80 yards for a touchdown, you knew it wasn't going to be up to Antowain Smith to move them that 80 yards.

 

Eli Manning. Eli's career got off to a slow start. In his first five years in the NFL, he never averaged more than 6.8 yards per attempt over the course of a season. That's respectable, but not special. But over the last three years, he's averaged 7.9, 7.4, and 8.4 yards per attempt. His brother Peyton has a career average of 7.6 yards per attempt. Eli Manning has spent the last three years playing at a Hall of Fame level. I'll grant that Eli didn't play at or near a Hall of Fame level during the season leading up to the Giants' first Super Bowl win. That's a big reason why the Giants only went 9-7, and squeaked into the playoffs. But during that postseason, Eli looked a lot like a Hall of Fame QB. For a few games, he played at the same level he would later attain on a more permanent basis.

 

Terry Bradshaw. Terry Bradshaw averaged 7.2 yards per attempt over the course of his career. Admittedly, he had a very talented supporting cast, including two Hall of Fame WRs, a ridiculously good OL, and a great running game to take the pressure off the passing attack. On the other hand, the rules were less friendly to the passing game back in the '70s than they are today. Even with today's rules, 7.2 yards per pass attempt is still considered at or near what one would expect from a franchise QB.

 

Brad Johnson. Brad Johnson averaged 6.7 yards per attempt during his 17 year career. That average is solid and respectable, but not special. However, he had a Pro Bowl year the year the Bucs won the Super Bowl. Granted, his average that year was 6.8--not much above his usual standards. What that made that year special for him was that he threw 22 TDs and only 6 INTs, while playing behind a mediocre offensive line. The Bucs were also aided by the relative weakness of their postseason opponents. (Jeff Garcia and the 49ers in the divisional round, Donovan McNabb and an incomplete Eagles team in the NFC Championship Game, Rich Gannon and an aging Raiders team in the Super Bowl.)

[BuffOrange]

I'd like to address some of the QBs whose names have been thrown around as "mediocre."

 

Tom Brady. It could be pointed out that in 2001, Tom Brady only averaged 6.9 yards per pass attempt. His career average has since risen to 7.5 yards per attempt. However, even as of 2001, Brady played well enough to move Bledsoe permanently to the bench. The Patriots put Bledsoe on the trading block after the year was over. Also, the Patriots' offense relied (and continues to rely) far more heavily on the passing game than the running game. If the Patriots needed to drive 80 yards for a touchdown, you knew it wasn't going to be up to Antowain Smith to move them that 80 yards.

 

Eli Manning. Eli's career got off to a slow start. In his first five years in the NFL, he never averaged more than 6.8 yards per attempt over the course of a season. That's respectable, but not special. But over the last three years, he's averaged 7.9, 7.4, and 8.4 yards per attempt. His brother Peyton has a career average of 7.6 yards per attempt. Eli Manning has spent the last three years playing at a Hall of Fame level. I'll grant that Eli didn't play at or near a Hall of Fame level during the season leading up to the Giants' first Super Bowl win. That's a big reason why the Giants only went 9-7, and squeaked into the playoffs. But during that postseason, Eli looked a lot like a Hall of Fame QB. For a few games, he played at the same level he would later attain on a more permanent basis.

 

Terry Bradshaw. Terry Bradshaw averaged 7.2 yards per attempt over the course of his career. Admittedly, he had a very talented supporting cast, including two Hall of Fame WRs, a ridiculously good OL, and a great running game to take the pressure off the passing attack. On the other hand, the rules were less friendly to the passing game back in the '70s than they are today. Even with today's rules, 7.2 yards per pass attempt is still considered at or near what one would expect from a franchise QB.

 

Brad Johnson. Brad Johnson averaged 6.7 yards per attempt during his 17 year career. That average is solid and respectable, but not special. However, he had a Pro Bowl year the year the Bucs won the Super Bowl. Granted, his average that year was 6.8--not much above his usual standards. What that made that year special for him was that he threw 22 TDs and only 6 INTs, while playing behind a mediocre offensive line. The Bucs were also aided by the relative weakness of their postseason opponents. (Jeff Garcia and the 49ers in the divisional round, Donovan McNabb and an incomplete Eagles team in the NFC Championship Game, Rich Gannon and an aging Raiders team in the Super Bowl.)

 

The Patriots were not a pass-heavy team in 2001; I don't know where you get that from. '03 yes, '01 no. I don't know how many 80yd areal TD drives they had in the reg. season (I would bet no more than average), but I believe they had zero in the postseason. They didn't need to thanks to Walt Coleman, Kordell Stewart, and Ty Law.

 

Re Brad Johnson - it's pretty clear that outlier TD/Int ratios in a single season have a lot to do with luck. See Eli's 2010 season.

 

On Eli you're making the same point as everyone else; he was mediocre until he won the SB.

[atlbillsfan1975]

The statistical argument never cuts it, especially for QBs. And especially for QBs that played in an entirely different era. The reasons would take too long to list and explain here. The stats argument also lacks the context of his actual prowess at the position. Although Namath had as fine an arm and release as anyone that ever played, it was his ability to call plays and execute a game plan that made him great. It's the difference between being a passer and being a QB. He was a great QB in every sense of the word. There's a reason he's in that HOF. And it ain't just because he won the first SB for the AFL. That was icing on the cake.

 

GO BILLS!!!

He is in the HOF because of his charisma. He helped put the NFL on the map. He was the first real 'superstar' in the NFL, maybe all of sports. His personality is why he is in the HOF. He was as beloved a sports figure as you will ever find. The guy was as big as the Beatles for a minute, while the Beatles were the Beatles.

It was a culmination of a lot of things. But to even mention Namath as a great QB is playing revisionist history. He was very good for a couple seasons and Great for one game. Just so happened the one game was the SB and he called the victory.

Edited June 26, 2012 by atlbillsfan1975

[BuffOrange]

Namath is always a good debate. I used to be the first to argue he was a fraud, but he shows up on so many 'overrated' lists now that I've sort of backed off that point some. Not just to be a contrarian, but the more people who say you're overrated, the less overrated you are, ya know?

 

Obviously it's not fair to compare his completion % or yardage to Peyton Manning, but even compared to his contemporaries his TD/INT ratio looks a little out of whack for such a legend. Look at his line from this AFL title game vs the Chiefs the year after SBIII - 14-40, 140yds, 0TDs, 3ints? Ouch.

 

I feel like Vinaterri will get in the HOF for a lot of the same reasons. Ultimately the HoF is as much about telling a story about football as it is selecting the best players. And you can't really tell a story of the league without Namath, so I guess that's fine.

 

Plus almost anyone who saw him play swears he was really good, and I'd prefer to have enough faith in humanity to trust those people weren't all 'brainwashed by charisma' idiots. Then again people still actually argue Ali was the greatest athlete ever, so who knows.

[atlbillsfan1975]

Namath is always a good debate. I used to be the first to argue he was a fraud, but he shows up on so many 'overrated' lists now that I've sort of backed off that point some. Not just to be a contrarian, but the more people who say you're overrated, the less overrated you are, ya know?

 

Obviously it's not fair to compare his completion % or yardage to Peyton Manning, but even compared to his contemporaries his TD/INT ratio looks a little out of whack for such a legend. Look at his line from this AFL title game vs the Chiefs the year after SBIII - 14-40, 140yds, 0TDs, 3ints? Ouch.

 

I feel like Vinaterri will get in the HOF for a lot of the same reasons. Ultimately the HoF is as much about telling a story about football as it is selecting the best players. And you can't really tell a story of the league without Namath, so I guess that's fine.

 

Plus almost anyone who saw him play swears he was really good, and I'd prefer to have enough faith in humanity to trust those people weren't all 'brainwashed by charisma' idiots. Then again people still actually argue Ali was the greatest athlete ever, so who knows.

I get what your saying. I remember people who watched football back then first telling me he was not a great QB. This was in my teens. He was a name i knew and knew the story behind his SB. But had no clue about his career. I recently watched The Namath story on HBO, it was great. The guy had some very good season with the Jets. He however had horrible knees. Not a good thing for a football player, the rules were not the same back then as they are today. Many Qbs took a beating. Personally i like Namath, the HBO show showed him as a very likable guy. He had his troubles, but he was a guy who stood by what he believed in. He even attempted to take on the NFL over his ownership in a club. Unfortunatly most people under 30 who love football will only think of that unfortunate Monday Night game when you bring up Namath.

[Shoto]

Doug Williams

[Orton's Arm]

The Patriots were not a pass-heavy team in 2001; I don't know where you get that from. '03 yes, '01 no. I don't know how many 80yd areal TD drives they had in the reg. season (I would bet no more than average), but I believe they had zero in the postseason. They didn't need to thanks to Walt Coleman, Kordell Stewart, and Ty Law.

 

Re Brad Johnson - it's pretty clear that outlier TD/Int ratios in a single season have a lot to do with luck. See Eli's 2010 season.

 

On Eli you're making the same point as everyone else; he was mediocre until he won the SB.

To address your first point: in 2001, Tom Brady had 413 pass attempts. Drew Bledsoe was the starter for part of the year too, and he had 66 pass attempts during that regular season. That's a total of 479 pass attempts between the two of them. In 2003, Brady started all 16 games, and had 527 pass attempts. The Patriots were slightly more pass-heavy in 2003 than they'd been in 2001. In both 2001 and in 2003, their offense depended far more heavily on the passing attack for success than on the running game.

 

To put those numbers into context, J.P. Losman had 429 pass attempts in the 2006 season, while starting all 16 games.

 

Re. Brad Johnson: it's beside the point whether his good TD/INT ratio for the 2002 season was the result of skill or luck. The bottom line is that the Bucs received very good production from the QB position in the year they won the Super Bowl. Anyone who points to the 2002 Bucs as a team which won despite mediocre QB play is making an inaccurate statement.

 

It is inaccurate to state that Eli "was mediocre until he won the SB." He began playing at a high level in the postseason games leading up to that Super Bowl win. Had that not been the case, the Giants would likely have been eliminated from the playoffs.

[K-9]

He is in the HOF because of his charisma. He helped put the NFL on the map. He was the first real 'superstar' in the NFL, maybe all of sports. His personality is why he is in the HOF. He was as beloved a sports figure as you will ever find. The guy was as big as the Beatles for a minute, while the Beatles were the Beatles.

It was a culmination of a lot of things. But to even mention Namath as a great QB is playing revisionist history. He was very good for a couple seasons and Great for one game. Just so happened the one game was the SB and he called the victory.

 

Again, the statistical argument fails every time. For a lot of reasons. While his popularity didn't hurt him, he made the HOF on the merits of his ability to play the position. People who understand the difference between being a passer and being a QB understand what he brought to the game although he was without peer in terms of arm strength and quick release. Nobody ever called a better game. QBs in that era were measured quite differently than today's.

 

Nobody is suggesting he didn't have flaws. He didn't make it to the HOF on the first ballot after all. He's merely highly deserving of being there. For as many people who you recollect saying he wasn't that good, there a 10 who can verify that he was.

 

As to him being the first real superstar, that's a stretch for sports in general and the NFL in particular. There were many pop icons before him. He was the most visible signing of the AFL vs. the NFL at the time though. And that was because of his outstanding ability as a QB. He was a blue chip out of high school and a blue chip coming out of college. The only thing that prevented him from being even better were the too numerous injuries.

 

Anyway, I'll leave the debate up to those that still have the energy. His place is secure. He's in the HOF forever.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Edited June 27, 2012 by K-9

[BuffOrange]

it's beside the point whether his good TD/INT ratio for the 2002 season was the result of skill or luck.

 

And this would be where we differ. It's beside what point - the point that your most important position, if he's not an elite player, needs to either compile unusually good stats by his own standards in the reg. season, or mount important drives in the 4th Qtr of the postseason to win a championship? Umm yah I would concur that's going to hold true most of the time. That's not saying much more than you need to score more points than the other team.

[reddogblitz]

I think Dilfer always get the short shrift on discussions like this. Maybe he didn't have as good a stats as Dan Fouts, Drew Bledsoe, Matt Hasselbeck, Air McNair etc. But HOF multi SB winner Roger Staubach says a QBs greatest asset is leadership. Trent had that in spades. Next time the NFL Story of the 2000 Baltimore Ravens is on, watch it. That team was going no where with Tony Banks at QB.

 

Trent came in and said no more spreading the football around to everybody etc. He told them he was going to the guy that was open that had the best chance to catch it and run if not score. Some of the guys didn't like it. But once he came in and took over, they started winning. They liked that! He was the leader and helped lead them all the way and played his position pretty well BTW.

 

That counts for more than all stats combined.

 

So I don't put Trent on this list.

[Hplarrm]

I think Dilfer always get the short shrift on discussions like this. Maybe he didn't have as good a stats as Dan Fouts, Drew Bledsoe, Matt Hasselbeck, Air McNair etc. But HOF multi SB winner Roger Staubach says a QBs greatest asset is leadership. Trent had that in spades. Next time the NFL Story of the 2000 Baltimore Ravens is on, watch it. That team was going no where with Tony Banks at QB.

 

Trent came in and said no more spreading the football around to everybody etc. He told them he was going to the guy that was open that had the best chance to catch it and run if not score. Some of the guys didn't like it. But once he came in and took over, they started winning. They liked that! He was the leader and helped lead them all the way and played his position pretty well BTW.

 

That counts for more than all stats combined.

 

So I don't put Trent on this list.

I would put Trent on this list not because he was a bad player (he was just the QB who managed O play at the time for what the Ravens needed) but because of the relative difference between what made this team special between the offense and the defense. Like the 1985 Bears, the 2000 Ravens was one of the few teams a seasoned viewer felt they had a better chance to score when the D was on the field than when the O was out there.

 

This is not how the game is sposed to work. It was simply the case because the D prospered by being so aggressive while the O did what needed to be done while being opportunistic in short yardage fields delivered to it by the turnover generating D and Dilfer doing a good job managing the fame and bit taking a lot of chances which may well produce more or at least dramatic scores but also ran the risk prodcing more turnovers.

 

Was Dilfer QB of a team which had had pretty limited offensive repertoire under his management?

 

Yep!

 

Was this exactly what was needed in order for this Ravens squad to be one of the best teams ever?

 

Yep to that as well!

 

The irony to this football watcher is that both the 2000 Ravens and the 1985 Bears would likely have been poorer performing or worse TEAMs if they had a QB who was more of a consistent go to player at QB.

[Orton's Arm]

And this would be where we differ. It's beside what point - the point that your most important position, if he's not an elite player, needs to either compile unusually good stats by his own standards in the reg. season, or mount important drives in the 4th Qtr of the postseason to win a championship? Umm yah I would concur that's going to hold true most of the time. That's not saying much more than you need to score more points than the other team.

It's saying significantly more than "you need to score more points than the other team."

 

The Bucs got very high quality play from the QB position in 2002. Call it a statistical outlier if you like. Say that Brad Johnson got lucky, and put up better numbers that year than in previous or subsequent years. Fine. But the bottom line is that their Super Bowl win was the result of Pro Bowl QB play + the best defense in 2002.

 

The Bucs are frequently held up as an example of a team which won despite having an average QB. As an example for other teams (such as the Bills) to potentially follow. There are basically two options here. Option 1: obtain an average or slightly above-average QB. Hope that he gives you a much better year than usual. Hope that the QB's one good year happens to overlap with a very good year from your defense. This is the path the Bucs chose, and it worked for them. Option 2: obtain a QB who will give you very good play every year. Then, you build a good supporting cast around him. That way you give yourself many years' worth of chances for everything to all come together into a Super Bowl win.

Edited June 30, 2012 by Edwards' Arm

[Cub Reporter]

I'm not that old, so I could only say Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer.