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

Jay Z
Posts: 981
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 7:42 pm
Location: Madison WI

Re: Champs you think still win-it-all w/out their starting Q

Post by Jay Z »

Brian wolf wrote:The question with Morton in 1971, was if he could handle the Purple Gang in Minn? Roger showed great poise in beating them at a stadium known for intimidating teams, though the Niners defense took over in the 1970 playoff win there ...
The Cowboys took a 13-3 lead early in the 3rd quarter, it was all turnovers by the Vikings. 5-0 for the game. Staubach did make a couple of good completions on a 50 yard drive that put them up 20-3 later in the 3rd quarter.

The Cowboys' defense more or less won every game and if you don't turn the ball over you win. Staubach did get tackled for a safety against the Vikings which was not so smart. I think it's entirely possible Morton is enough.
Brian wolf
Posts: 3412
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2019 12:43 am

Re: Champs you think still win-it-all w/out their starting Q

Post by Brian wolf »

Good call Jay Z ...

With a career of tremendous highs, its noteworthy that two of Staubach's biggest wins were against Lee and the Vikings. You would think Grant would have a better QB in these huge games but it didnt work that way ... Couzzo or Snead couldnt take over in 70-71 ...
User avatar
Bryan
Posts: 2736
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2014 8:37 am

Re: Champs you think still win-it-all w/out their starting Q

Post by Bryan »

Jay Z wrote:The Cowboys took a 13-3 lead early in the 3rd quarter, it was all turnovers by the Vikings. 5-0 for the game. Staubach did make a couple of good completions on a 50 yard drive that put them up 20-3 later in the 3rd quarter.

The Cowboys' defense more or less won every game and if you don't turn the ball over you win. Staubach did get tackled for a safety against the Vikings which was not so smart. I think it's entirely possible Morton is enough.
The defensive performance by Dallas in the 1970 and 1971 postseason is remarkable to me...probably one of the greatest defensive efforts in history, really. The Eagles had back to back shutouts in 48 and 49, but that was just two games and the weather was more important than the Eagles defense. Dallas should have won SB V just with their defense...and the fact that they made it through that entire postseason with an ailing Morton at QB is pretty amazing. I think they win in 71 with Morton.
CSKreager
Posts: 615
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 8:13 pm

Re: Champs you think still win-it-all w/out their starting Q

Post by CSKreager »

On the flip side, how many SB losers could have made the big game without THEIR starting QB?

For instance: the 82 Dolphins with Strock, the 95 Steelers with Tomczak, the 99 Titans with Neil O'Donnell
Brian wolf
Posts: 3412
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2019 12:43 am

Re: Champs you think still win-it-all w/out their starting Q

Post by Brian wolf »

With that swarming defense, the Bears in 2006 might have made it without Rex Grossman. Brian Griese could throw better but got sacked alot.

I know Jurgensen got hurt in 1972, but could he have came on late to take the Skins to the SB?

Hard to say on Strock in 1982, he could throw better than Woodley but Woodley's mobility helped rest that great Arnsparger pass defense ... Could Strock have beaten the Sack Exchange, though rain held them and Wesley Walker in check ...

I actually think Grogan could have played well for NE with a total team behind him in 1985.

Had Reich played the whole SB against Dallas instead of Jim Kelly in the 92 SB, a loss but alot closer game.

With Warner having thumb problems in 2001, could Green have played better ? Probably not the entire regular season but SB?
CSKreager
Posts: 615
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 8:13 pm

Re: Champs you think still win-it-all w/out their starting Q

Post by CSKreager »

Brian wolf wrote: Hard to say on Strock in 1982, he could throw better than Woodley but Woodley's mobility helped rest that great Arnsparger pass defense ... Could Strock have beaten the Sack Exchange, though rain held them and Wesley Walker in check ...
Woodley brought nothing to the table other than mobility.

I will never understand what Shula saw in that guy
User avatar
74_75_78_79_
Posts: 2476
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:25 pm

Re: Champs you think still win-it-all w/out their starting Q

Post by 74_75_78_79_ »

Let's offer an NHL equivalent to this...

The 1990 Edmonton Oilers winning the Stanley Cup...WITHOUT GRETZKY!!
Gary Najman
Posts: 1447
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 1:24 pm
Location: Mexico City, Mexico

Re: Champs you think still win-it-all w/out their starting Q

Post by Gary Najman »

sluggermatt15 wrote:
ChrisBabcock wrote: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.
The 1974 Steelers with Gilliam.
Zero26
Posts: 110
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2021 1:35 am
Location: NYC

Re: Champs you think still win-it-all w/out their starting Q

Post by Zero26 »

GameBeforeTheMoney wrote:
Bryan wrote:
sluggermatt15 wrote:I'll add the 2002 Bucs would have won the SB without Brad Johnson. The defense was the star there as well.
Aha! Or, you could look at it like those Dungy/Gruden Bucs teams had a great defense for a number of years, but the only time they won the SB is when Brad Johnson stayed healthy and had an efficient season. So, in a way, Johnson was the catalyst.
I figured somebody would bring up Brad Johnson in this discussion. Brad Johnson was actually a pretty good QB. Led the league in lowest int percentage twice. Efficient, good arm, seemed to follow game plans well. Maybe you could replace him on that TB team, but you'd have to find somebody at least that good. Johnson was not A+ grade, but he was clearly above average.
Brad Johnson was a pretty good QB but the backup Shaun King almost got that Bucs defensive core to the SB without a passing game. Many Bucs fans think he did get them to the SB because they only lost due to a controversial call. Unlike Trent Dilfer(who was ironically the backup on that 99 Bucs team), Johnson had IMO 2 HOVG worthy WRs Keshawn Johnson and McCardell. Had 2 good TEs in Dilger and Jurevicus. That group was overshadowed by the defense but that was a very good offense at least the talent. King could have worked with that. In 2000 with the addition of Keshawn King was serviceable. And after that Brad Johnson got brought in and King never got a real chance again. In the playoffs both King and Johnson played the Eagles, Kings put up 3, Johnson put up 9(with 4 picks).

Intrestingly Rob Johnson was the 02 Bucs third stringer and he went 2-0. That's a really solid depth chart they had there. Not many teams with a starting caliber third stringer. The Pats with Brissett is the only modern one that comes to mind.
User avatar
Bryan
Posts: 2736
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2014 8:37 am

Re: Champs you think still win-it-all w/out their starting Q

Post by Bryan »

Zero26 wrote: Brad Johnson was a pretty good QB but the backup Shaun King almost got that Bucs defensive core to the SB without a passing game.
I thought this was farce, but I see that you are actually being serious. Ha! Good stuff. It's like when Jay Barker "led" Alabama to the 1992 national title without a passing game and very little semblance of an offense. Surprised that Barker didn't set the NFL on fire.
Zero26 wrote:Many Bucs fans think he did get them to the SB because they only lost due to a controversial call.
What Bucs fans think that Shaun King got them to the SB? Yes, it was a bad call, but not sure if Bucs would have eventually scored a TD on their last drive. IIRC, the Bucs intercepted Warner on the first play of the game and 59 minutes 50 seconds later the Bucs wind up with 6 total points. That Bucs defensive effort was one of the best in NFL history, and King completely wasted it. The Bucs always played the Rams tough in that era.
Zero26 wrote: Unlike Trent Dilfer(who was ironically the backup on that 99 Bucs team), Johnson had IMO 2 HOVG worthy WRs Keshawn Johnson and McCardell. Had 2 good TEs in Dilger and Jurevicus.
A lot wrong here, but I'll just say that Keshawn Johnson is not even HOVG-worthy. He was a terribly inefficient WR.
Zero26 wrote: In the playoffs both King and Johnson played the Eagles, Kings put up 3, Johnson put up 9(with 4 picks).
...and then Johnson put up 27 on the Eagles after putting up 31 on SF and 48 on Oakland to win the Super Bowl.
Post Reply