Champs you think still win-it-all w/out their starting QB

[74_75_78_79_]

Yes, my post in the '84 Bears/Dolphins SBXIX' thread inspires this.

I opine that had Jim been out all of '85 - Steve Fuller at QB instead - that they still win-it-all. Still have best-record in the NFL, and in dominating-enough fashion throughout, and still win each playoff game convincingly.

Another team that I opine of this are the '91 Redskins. No, nothing at against Rypien. Judging him strictly by '91, he was outstanding! Especially his long-pass accuracy! But I feel that even with Stan as the starter all year instead, that they at the very, very least finish 12-4 which would still earn them top-seed in the NFC. And they'd still roll over each playoff opponent, including 13-3 Bills! But I think it'd be 13-3 in such a case thus only losing one extra game - that close Houston game at RFK. Ready already to be an NFL starter in '91, Stan would have played more-than good enough. And he'd be under...Gibbs & Co so how would he mess up (heck, if he could do 43-yarders to Pupuno & Martin in a big game as heavy underdogs and without Gibbs)? Even a hypo playoff match vs Dallas with Stan, Washington still wins that IMO.

Could Giants pull-off 1986 with Hostetler?? '92 Cowboys with Beuerlein?? A pretty safe 'no' for the '81 Forty Niners with DeBerg, but how about their '84 installment with...Matt Cavanaugh starting all season??

Thoughts?



EDIT - right under my nose...'89 FORTY NINERS with YOUNG (duh! should have mentioned that before '91 Wash w Stan)! But how about '88??

These champs whom you think would still pull it off...its nothing against the QB necessarily, just simply feeling that they still finish the same seed along with the outmatched playoff opponents that'd still be in front of them - backup QB still winning vs all of them anyway.

Now with '88 SF, how does their entire season go with #8 at QB all-campaign? And if they still make it to SBXXIII anyway, how does Steve handle himself vs that inspired-without-Krumrie LeBeau Bengal D that gave Joe all he could possibly handle?

[ChrisBabcock]

2000 Ravens. Honestly it didn't matter who the starting QB of that team was.

[JuggernautJ]

The 1972 Dolphins might do OK with Earl Morrall at the helm...

And the '57 Lions with Tobin Rote...

Sideline: Who else did win Championships with their back-up QBs?

[Brian wolf]

Had Fuller led the Bears team in 85, probably 10 or 11 wins ... Mac inspired the team, especially the offensive line in my opinion. Fuller was mobile but a magnet for pass rushers.

The Redskins win only 9 or 10 games in 1991 without Rypian. Dallas would have beaten them out for the division.

I dont think Young and the Niners would have beaten the Bears in the 1988 Championship game. Had he played all year, he might have won the division, depending on how well he played the Saints. Joe needed both of those wins. A crazy year, because the Giants may have beaten them and made the playoffs as well.

Young may have led the Niners to the SB in 1989 but the Rams and Giants would have had something
to say about that ...

Beurlein may have won the division for Dallas in 92 but not beat the Niners. Aikman had a great postseason and that would have been hard for Steve to duplicate.

Whoever backed up Simms in 1986 wouldnt have gotten past the divisional round. Bears or Redskins all the way ...

[GameBeforeTheMoney]

One of the things that's often overlooked about the 72 Dolphins is that Bob Griese suffered a broken leg and had a severe ankle injury around week 5 vs San Diego. Morrall played QB from then until the second half of the Divisional Playoff. I don't think they win the SB without Griese in the playoffs, though.

Totally agree with the 2000 Ravens - that was the first team that came to my mind.

I don't think the Cowboys win without Aikman.

For some of the teams, it really depends on whom you replace them with IMHO. Rypien wasn't spectacular but he was good enough to have 2 receivers go over 1,000 yards. I don't think you could just randomly put anyone in there. Especially if they have a high int percentage, can't execute the game plan, a lot of factors.

I guess for backups winning a SB - didn't the Eagles do that with Nick Foles? Which makes this question even more interesting - because of the Philly Special. Do the Eagles win with Carson Wentz at QB - not saying one way or another, but it is interesting to contemplate.

[74_75_78_79_]

As good as I feel Beuerlein was and should have had a better career - should have been in better circumstances - (yes, Wolf & Money) I always felt Aikman was vital to '92 (NFCC vs SF key example) just as Montana instead of DeBerg was to '81 ("the Catch" being key example) eleven years earlier.

'88 Forty Niners with Young starting all campaign? The only sure-enough things about that are the two NFC playoff games which were easy victories. So why at all would either be a loss or anything close to it with Steve? But too much uncertainty with me on how that regular season would go. You got a point, Wolf, with those two vital Saints games; and the Giants one. And then Steve vs Cincy in SBXXIII! Maybe he creates his own magic in such events, but too much uncertainty. He was still just beginning his journey.

Now '84 - and I know this sounds sacrilege - but IMO the Forty Niners still win-it-all with Cav as the all-campaign-long starting QB! Again, nothing against the starting QB (especially being that this IS...Joe Cool), and being such a vital component, but its just that the whole rest of the team was dominant as well and far ahead of the rest of the conference. So they don't finish 15-1, but do they actually finish all the way beneath 2nd-seeded 11-5 Washington? I really don't think so. And I'm not seeing Giants or Bears being an obstacle either. And once at Stanford, Miami gives them a closer game for sure but do they actually win? No.

And should I dare suggest...'83 Raiders with Marc?? All he would simply have to do is pile up enough wins with the already-outstanding team around him to stay above the 9-7 Seahawks/Broncos in the division, and also above the 3rd-seeded 10-6 Steelers in the conference. Even a 2nd-seed finish would still assure them Pittsburgh in the divisonal, and then Seattle the following week due to they knocking off Miami. Considering how easy both those playoff wins were with Plunkett, no reason to think they don't at least just merely win them as well with Marc. Avoiding Miami (he-vs-Dan) would be key here! 3rd-seed finish with Steelers hosting WC-winner, Seahawks, instead...LA is toast (Plunkett would be needed)! But onto SBXVIII with Miami never in the way, considering how great Raiders played in all aspects of the game - not just at QB - does a 38-9 thumping lower itself all the way down to a loss with Marc instead at QB? No. Once again, nothing at all on the actual starting QB. Plunkett was vital as well (and needed to be at helm for the ever-tight 1980 run; even vs Eagles in SBXV which, IMO, Marc nor Pastorini wins that game), but the surrounding team was so dominant in '83, and the three playoff opponents which Raiders did face were so under-matched (Washington on that particular day, at least), that Wilson at the controls could have landed his team the Lombardi as well, if however maybe a rougher landing.

Responding to you, Chris, on the 2000 Ravens - not trying to pump up Dilfer, but does Banks get them out of Adelphia in that divisional? Does he lead them all the way to 12-4 in the first place? The answer may be yes, but a worthy question. Trent's role is slightly underrated if however, perhaps, very slightly.

Back to San Fran - '89 now, responding again to Wolf - if Rams lost 30-3 in the NFCCG, can't at all see a different result with Young there instead (same with Vikings in the divisional). Giants vs Young in the playoffs may have been the only possible legit obstacle. But then again, that also goes for had Joe been present as well. But G-men didn't get past Rams so its San Fran still finishing with the best record in the league and easily beating all three playoff opponents with #8 starting all year!

Thought maybe I end this post where I began, in Dallas. How about...Danny White starting all-year in '77?? Simply propel them to top-seed, and its smooth-sailing from there considering the three whom they played. Sound sensible?

[sluggermatt15]

2000 Ravens. Honestly it didn't matter who the starting QB of that team was.

I'll add the 2002 Bucs would have won the SB without Brad Johnson. The defense was the star there as well.

I may also think the 2001 Patriots would have still won if Drew Bledsoe hadn't been injured. The Pats had a solid running game with Antowain Smith (1157 rushing yards and 12 rushing TDs that year) and a very underrated and stingy defense. In 2002 with Buffalo, Bledsoe had a 24/15 TD/INT year and over 4,300 yards passing. He hadn't started to go downhill until 2003.

[conace21]

Drew Bledsoe began to go downhill exactly halfway through the 1999 season. The Patriots were 6-2. Their only losses were in the final 25 seconds: Vinatieri missed a FG as time expired, and Damon Huard threw a TD pass in the final 25 seconds. Bledsoe had thrown 13 TD's, 4 INT's, and had a 97.9 passer rating. He looked to he taking the next step to becoming a truly great QB.

Instead, it all fell apart. He threw 6 TD's, 17 INT's the rest of the year, with 33 sacks and a 52.9 passer rating. The Patriots went 2-6 the rest of the way (in both wins, the offense scored 13 points,) and Pete Carroll was fired.

In 2000, Bledsoe emphasized on cutting down on interceptions. But he still took 45 sacks and New England's offense was ineffective. This trend continued in the first 2 games of 2001. Even in the AFC Championship Game, Bledsoe led a TD drive when he replaced Brady, but could only muster a FG in the 2nd half. He also had one pass dropped by a Pittsburgh defender.

2000 Ravens. Honestly it didn't matter who the starting QB of that team was.

I'll add the 2002 Bucs would have won the SB without Brad Johnson. The defense was the star there as well.

I may also think the 2001 Patriots would have still won if Drew Bledsoe hadn't been injured. The Pats had a solid running game with Antowain Smith (1157 rushing yards and 12 rushing TDs that year) and a very underrated and stingy defense. In 2002 with Buffalo, Bledsoe had a 24/15 TD/INT year and over 4,300 yards passing. He hadn't started to go downhill until 2003.

[Lee Elder]

Bob Waterfield started the games for the Rams in 1951 but Norm Van Brocklin typically played in the second and fourth quarters. It is reasonable to think that the 1951 Rams COULD have won the title game had Waterfield been injured. Van Brocklin threw the TD pass that beat the Browns for the title in '51.

Waterfield, of course, went all the way when the Rams won the title in 1945, their final year in Cleveland. Van Brocklin was not yet a pro by then. The 1945 Rams probably had to have Waterfield to win that game.

This is an interesting question!

[Lee Elder]

Bob Waterfield started the games for the Rams in 1951 but Norm Van Brocklin typically played in the second and fourth quarters. It is reasonable to think that the 1951 Rams COULD have won the title game had Waterfield been injured. Van Brocklin threw the TD pass that beat the Browns for the title in '51.

Waterfield, of course, went all the way when the Rams won the title in 1945, their final year in Cleveland. Van Brocklin was not yet a pro by then. The 1945 Rams probably had to have Waterfield to win that game.

This is an interesting question!