Sure we can. And here's why. Here are the league ranks in key stats for the past 9 Super Bowl winners, including their QB rating and the average QB rating in the league for each of those 9 seasons: [TABLE]YEAR|SB WINNER|PASS OFFENSE|RUSH OFFENSE|QB RATING|LEAGUE AVG. QB RATING|PASS DEFENSE|RUSH DEFENSE 2008|PIT|17|23|79.3|81.5|1|2 2007|NYG|21|4|71.3|80.9|11|8 2006|IND|2|18|100.3|78.5|2|32 2005|PIT|24|5|87.5|78.2|16|3 2004|NEW|11|7|91.2|80.9|17|6 2003|NEW|9|27|82.6|76.6|15|4 2002|TAM|15|27|84.7|78.6|1|6 2001|NEW|22|13|83.2|76.6|25|19 2000|BAL|22|5|70.3|76.2|8|1[/TABLE] So let's draw some conclusions from this. The first one that jumps out at me is that every Super Bowl winner but one (the 2001 Patriots) was ranked in the top 10 in the league in at least two categories. That tells me you'd better be very good at a couple things if you expect to contend for a Super Bowl. Number two is that -- contrary to popular belief -- you don't need a stellar QB to win a Super Bowl. In three of the last 9 Super Bowls, the winning QB had a poorer QB rating than the average QB in the league. For four of the remaining six Super Bowl winners, the QB rating was below 90. Only Peyton Manning in 2006 and Tom Brady in 2004 had QB ratings above 90. Third, a very poor QB (defined as a QB with a rating well below average) can win you a Super Bowl only if you have other areas of the team that play at a very high level. For example, the past year's Steelers, with Ben Roethlisberger performing below average in terms of QB rating, had the best defense in the league. And of course the 2000 Baltimore Ravens, with Trent Dilfer, had an elite defense and a very good running game. So what of Chad Pennington? His QB rating last year was 97. That tops all but one (Peyton Manning -- QB rating of 100) of the last 9 Super Bowl winners, and it tops eight of the nine by a significant margin -- 10 rating points or more. It tops Trent Dilfer's Ravens by 27 points, and Eli Manning's Giants by 26. Where did we rank last year in the other categories above? Pass Offense -- 10th Rush Offense -- 11th Pass Defense -- 24th Rush Defense -- 10th Notice we weren't in single digits in any area, which is something only one team was able to win a Super Bowl doing in the last 9 years (the 2001 Patriots). We also might extrapolate from this what we need to become more competitive in the league. I'd say we need to improve our pass defense, and IMO that needs to come from a better inside pass rush. Aside from that, the main gist of the thread is that I think we can debunk a couple of common misconceptions: 1) that you need a stellar QB to win a Super Bowl, and 2) that we can't win one with Chad Pennington. I think it's very clear that Chad Pennington has more than enough to win us a Super Bowl, and I for one think we should put aside any talk about Chad Henne for the time being. Sure Henne may have all the tools to one day be a great QB, but I don't think you replace a QB with a 97 rating and tremendous leadership skills with anybody. I think you strengthen the team around him and go win with him.
I think you have to factor in how those QBs did during the playoffs. For example the 2007 Giants don't win if E. Manning continued playing like he had during the season. So looking at the season QBR may be a bit misleading. That being said I do agree that CP is good enough to win a SB with.
Not to divert from your discussion of Chad Pennington, what this shows me is that more than anything defense wins championships. I know it's cliche but hear me out. Going back to 2000 the lowest a super bowl winner was ranked in rush defense was 8th. Except of course the Colts who were a total aberration of themselves once the playoffs started and the 01 Pats who shouldn't have even been in the game. However, only 4 teams were in the top 10 in pass defense. As for offense, only 2 teams were even in the top 10 in the league in passing and only 4 in rushing. Obviously we all know that statistics and rankings don't tell the whole story. But if I were to take anything from this list it would be that there are three keys to winning the Super Bowl in today's NFL. The first is to be able to stop the run on defense. The advantages of this are obvious. By stopping the run you make your opponent one-dimensional. Being able to dictate the game with your defense makes your offenses job much easier. The second key is to have a balanced offense. 6 of the 10 previous champs have ranked in the top 10 in rushing or passing offense. And obviously you do have to have a strength, and you play to your strength. Our strength is running the ball. But you have to have the balance to be able to run or pass in any situation as the game dictates. The third key, though not indicated by this particular graphic, is to have an efficient offense. If your defense is going to dictate the game and get you the ball in good field position you have to have an offense that a) doesn't turn it over and b) turns their drives into some sort of points. This is the real trademark of great teams. Turnovers are our strength, we don't commit them, at least we didn't last year. We still have to work on turning drives into points. So to answer your question, can we win a super bowl with chad pennington? Yes, of course. Your argument that you don't need a great QB to win the Super Bowl I completely agree with. But the thing I would stress to you is that, it's not can we win a Super Bowl with Chad Pennington, it's can we win a Super Bowl with THIS TEAM. That remains to be seen. I certainly hope so. The homer in me says yes we can but the realist in me says no, not this year. Anyway that's my take on it. I would have put more into it but it's 5am so you'll have to excuse any errors lol
I wonder how accurate their kickers were? The Colts kept on losing to the Pats because Vanderjacht missed field goals after being money all year long. Venatieri was deadly accurate and clutch for the Pats.
Chad Pennington will never WIN a superbowl but he could be the starting QB on a superbowl winning team.
I understand your point, but if the end result is a Miami Dolphins Super Bowl victory (felt good typing those words), I don't really care!!!!
Chad Pennington has the tools and poise to engineer a winning drive in any game. If any of you disagree then you weren't paying attention last season. He might not light up the stat sheet for all 4 quarters, but he is a QB that has proven throughout his career he can make tough plays when it counts.
Yes he can take us on a game winning drive. However he is not a QB that can completly put a team on his shoulders and say go win me a ball game. Chad is great at what he is and thats a great manager of the game.
Regardless, I'd rather have a class act at QB like Pennington and Marino than to win it all with questionable characters on the roster. JMO
And that's what's typical. Based on the data here it's apparent that, with few exceptions, the QB involved usually isn't carrying the team. And the point here isn't that Pennington is going to carry the team. The point is that to think he's like Trent Dilfer and needs something extraordinary from the rest of his team to win a Super Bowl is a serious misconception. He doesn't need anything more from the rest of his team than a typical Super Bowl-winning QB, and in fact, based on his QB rating, he needs less.
Well, I think it's sort of misnomer to say a "Qb can win a Super Bowl" they are merely the most visible part of the team. CP is a SB caliber Qb, the problem is, the Defense has to be the driving force behind a SB appearance and victory. Our offense is not designed to "win" a SB, it's more designed to control the clock, minimize turnovers, and play mistake free football. Our defense simply must maul the opponent if Pennington is to "win" a SB.
But if you look at the data, that's not a "problem." That's true for every team there but one, the 2001 Patriots. Only the Colts were seriously deficient in one area of defense (against the run), and they shaped up their act in the playoffs in that area that year. Defense wins championships, and that's no more true for Chad Pennington than it is the typical Super Bowl-winning quarterback.
If you break down a team into passing and rushing offensee and defense you can't expect a team that is dominant in any one area and average at best in the other three to win a superbowl. Where QBs get all the attention is that they are the single most dominant factor in the success or otherwise of the passing offense. If you're only good at one thing you're stuffed if your opponent can shut that one thing down. Any team that's good enough to make it to a SB can shut down one aspect of their opponent's game. The question then becomes are you good enough to take advantage of it in other aspects of your game. Teams with multiple strengths can find alternate methods of winning, teams with a specalised focus can't.
And I disagree with that conclusion Shou simply because the Pats won SB's in the last two minutes...they may have well have been 31 and 31, they simply pulled off the 2 minute drill and won the games on last second Fg's. And when they did win, they drove against Defenses that were "better" then their offensive ranking. (Rams, Panthers not certain about the Eagles) Of course the Colts are the exception to the rule. Which brings up the pertinent point that every SB is different and what it takes to win one can vary greatly, it can be generally said "Defense wins SB", it also can be said that Two Minute Drives do to.
Great post. I definitely believe that Chad is capable of leading us to a superbowl championship. If he has the same season next year that he had this year than we are in the playoffs again. From there he just needs to be clutch and a winner, stats are irrelevant. I think he has the will and guts to do it.
I hear ya bro, I just think that the quality of our players is what separates us from teams like New England.
Right, but if you look at the way the last nine Super Bowl-winning QBs have played, the vast majority of them have played worse than Pennington did last year, and even worse than he's played on average throughout his career (his career QB rating is 90). I think it's probably time to call Chad Pennington something more than just a game manager. To me he looks like a game-winner.
Right, and that's supported by the data, which say that almost all the Super Bowl winners in the past nine years have been very good (i.e., ranked within the top 10 in the league) in at least two areas. However, passing offense doesn't need to be one of those two areas, as only two of the last nine Super Bowl winners have had passing offenses ranked in the top 10 in the league (the 2003 Patriots and the 2006 Colts). That says you can easily win the big one without a very good passing offense. What this all says to me is that the quarterback's importance in winning a Super Bowl has been seriously overestimated over the years. Sure, if you have a quarterback who performs well below average (such as Trent Dilfer in 2000 -- QB rating of 70), then you probably need some other part(s) of your team to perform at an elite level. Notice the 2000 Ravens did that in three such areas -- rushing and passing defense, and rushing offense. But if your quarterback is either above-average or only slightly below-average, you don't need anything over and above what the typical Super Bowl-winning team gets from the rest of its roster. In other words you don't need even a very good QB to win a Super Bowl. You just need an average one if at least a couple other areas of your team are very good (top-10).
