Zero26 wrote:[The question is whether or not they could have won without their starter not whether the backup was better than the starter.
Thanks for clarifying. If you were actually arguing that Shaun King was better than Brad Johnson, that would have taken things to another level of ridiculousness. I don't think the Bucs win the Super Bowl in 2002 with Shaun King. They lost with King despite one of the greatest defensive performances in NFL history...they would need three consecutive great performances in order to win with King in 2002 IMO, and that is asking a lot.
Zero26 wrote:And Shaun King got a worse team especially on his side of the ball very close.
Very close to what? Winning more than one playoff game? Participating in a Super Bowl? In the 99 divisional round, the Bucs trailed the mediocre Redskins 13-0 despite the defense limiting the Redskins to 157 yards....can you imagine losing a playoff game at home when your opponent can only get 150 yards of offense? I don't see how the 99 Bucs defense could have played any better, and they went 1-1 in the postseason.
Zero26 wrote:Saying Johnson put up 48 in the SB when the defense scored 21 points is a tad misleading. He put up 159,215 and 252 yards with over 30 attempts. He was a solid QB.
The Bucs were leading 27-3 in the Super Bowl before the defense scored a point. I am fine with that accomplishment. If you think Shaun King could have led Tampa's offense to 27 points in a little over two periods of action, more power to you. I do not think that is likely.