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

[Brian wolf]

Cavanaugh would not have won it all in 1984 for SF ...
Fuller would not have won it all in 1985 for Chicago
Young wouldnt have won it all in 1988 for SF but might in 1989
Humphries wouldnt have won it all for Wash in 1991 ...

Could Young or Bono had taken SF all the way in 1991 had the team made the playoffs?

Beuerlein might have won it all in 1993 for Dallas but not 1992. Could Kosar have beaten Buffalo in the 93 SB had he played? Troy won the game despite after-effects of a concussion.

Could Trent Green had won it all for St Louis in 1999?

Banks would not have won it all for Baltimore in 2000, he would not have gotten by the Titans.
Bledsoe would not have won it all in 2001 for NE. The team rallied around Brady, predicted by comedian Wanda Sykes on Inside The NFL ... I still have the episode, well before the playoffs.

Rob Johnson or Shaun King would not have won it all for TB in 2002.

Could Matt Cassell had won it all for NE had they made the playoffs in 2008?

Could Brock Osweiler had won it all for Denver in 2015? ... some "conspiracy theorists" feel the league(Owners)gave the championship to the Broncos and Manning to end his career while sweeping his use of PEDs, convenietly under the rug -- this one is dedicated to Ralph-- since winning this championship, Brady has also won championships with different teams, which had not happened in the NFL since Van Brocklin in 1960.

Wentz had a great year in 2017 but would not have won it all for Philly. The team rallied around backup and former starter Nick Foles.

"Conspiracy Theorists" feel that Mahomes should not have led KC to the 2020 SB after suffering a concussion against the Browns in the playoffs but he did, where they were beaten by Brady in his first season in TB on their SB homefield -- what a coincidence! --

In 2021 for the second consecutive year, the SB home team, the Rams, won the SB with a new QB from another team. Another coincidence or trend ?

[JohnR]

I agree the (correction) '89 Niners w/ Young is a strong bet. How about '65 if Starr can't suit up for Cleveland? Can Zeke beat the Browns? I think he'd be solid, capitalizing on momentum from the playoff win.

How about Lamonica winning it all for the Bills in '65?

[Brian wolf]

If Cecil Isbell were able to get elected to the HOF in the next couple of years, the Packers will have the first and possibly the last set of consecutive starting QBs, make the HOF ...

Consecutive Team Starting QBs Make HOF

Packers -- (30s-40s) Herber Isbell?
Rams -- (40s-50s) Waterfield Van Brocklin
Niners -- (80s-90s) Montana Young
Giants -- (2000s-2010s) Warner E Manning?
Packers -- (90s-2020s) Favre Rodgers

[Bryan]

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.

[Bryan]

How about '65 if Starr can't suit up for Cleveland? Can Zeke beat the Browns? I think he'd be solid, capitalizing on momentum from the playoff win.

How about Lamonica winning it all for the Bills in '65?

Bratkowski seemed to do well when called upon, but not so much when he had to consistently start (kinda like Don Strock). Could the Packers have won SBs 1 & II with Bratkowski? Hard to say. Packers defense was good in both games, but Starr was also the MVP.

Its different with SB IV, where the Chiefs defense was dominant and Dawson really didn't have to do much...KC probably wins with LIvingston at QB. I guess the hypotheticals are complicated...how good the defense is, how much the offense had to do to win, how strong their opponent was, quality of the backup QB. Steelers defense didn't allow a point in SB IX, and Bradshaw only threw for like 88 yards...but do they win that game with Gilliam?

[rhickok1109]

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.

I'm not sure about that. Bledsoe started the first 2 games in 2001, was mediocre at best, and the Pats lost both of those games. Then they went 11-3-0 under Brady.

The week before the Super Bowl, a Boston TV station ran an interesting film, obviously put together by the Patriots. It compared Bledsoe and Brady in similar situations. Thke film revealed that Brady was much quicker at finding and connecting with a secondary receiver when his primary receiver was covered. in several of the clips, Bledsoe was so slow finding the secondary receiver that he was sacked. The film also showed that Brady had a quicker release.

[GameBeforeTheMoney]

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.

[Jay Z]

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.

I'm not sure about that. Bledsoe started the first 2 games in 2001, was mediocre at best, and the Pats lost both of those games. Then they went 11-3-0 under Brady.

The week before the Super Bowl, a Boston TV station ran an interesting film, obviously put together by the Patriots. It compared Bledsoe and Brady in similar situations. Thke film revealed that Brady was much quicker at finding and connecting with a secondary receiver when his primary receiver was covered. in several of the clips, Bledsoe was so slow finding the secondary receiver that he was sacked. The film also showed that Brady had a quicker release.

Bledsoe's numbers had declined a lot in 1999-2000, sacks were part of the issue. But he wasn't some world beater, he'd declined from his peak already. He did have a couple of comeback years with the Bills and Cowboys. But he wasn't an All Pro at that point in his career, just an average vet coming off of a 5-11 season.

[CSKreager]

2013 Seahawks with Tarvaris Jackson

[CSKreager]

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.

Thoughts?

If Houston wins that RFK game vs Stan, WSH maybe doesn't face Buffalo in SB 26

If Humphries loses that close game vs HOU, that means the Oilers get the 2nd seed at 12-4, host Denver (who they blew out at the Astrodome and historically under Dan Reeves were shaky at sea level) rather than the other way around, maybe they take advantage of the faltering AFC-CG BUF offense and I don't think Del Greco misses 3 FG's.

Yes, if Houston beats Washington, I believe we end up with a SB rematch of Week 10