The last 10 Superbowl winning quarterbacks

That's Wentz in my book. Foles caught lightening in a bottle for 3 f-ckin games.

And Roeth could have easily been the #1 pick in a top heavy QB draft.

So that's basically 40% of the time in the last ten years the winning team was led by a top pick...

One more thing - Rodgers got screwed in his draft.

.

A top 5 overall pick QB is a "nice to have, but not essential to have" in order to win a Super Bowl.

for those QB's during that time. How many of those were taken in the top 5?

In comment 13872858 Sarcastic Sam said:

Quote:

.

Yeah he really had no part in the Eagles getting the number one seed.

Anyone drafted can be great, you never know. Every drafted player has talent, sometimes it's a matter of a system fitting the talent of a player. Some coaches try to fit a player with a system and it doesn't work.

New England does a great job with specialists. They utilize players to the best of their abilities in most cases. They have a lot of sub packages so players are doing what they do best. They rarely have high stats on O from the RB position yet they run the ball well.

The examples you give above are mostly 1st rounders. Nick Files was a backup forced to start. He played well but he has not been successful as the top guy for an extended period.

LaDanian Tomlinson - 0 SB wins
Adrian Peterson - 0 SB wins
Trent Richardson - 0 rings out of football
CJ Spiller 0 SB wins
Ronnie Brown - 0
Cadillac Williams - 0
Cedric Benson - 0
Darren McFadden - 0

It is far easier to get a solid featured RB after the 1st round than it is to get a QB good enough to win a SB without the help of a great defense and running game.

Sure Brady was a 6th round pick but since he was drafted there hasn't been another good QB to come out of that round.

in free agency when Eli is really done.

Should be tons of them available...all at reasonable prices, and just sitting by the phone for us to call...

Sony Michel? He likely will be there in the 2nd

But hopefully you aren't saying having one wouldn't help?

1- how many of the SB winning teams did "kings ransom draft trade downs?

2- where were the starting RBs of these teams drafted?

3- where were the OGs of thse teams drafted?

Thanks

This shows that if you want a chance at multiple Championships, you need to draft a QB high in round 1. (Brady being the exception to about all QB rules). All the other guys have just won 1 championship.

In comment 13872884 Tim in VA said:

Quote:

But hopefully you aren't saying having one wouldn't help?

What idiot would say having a top RB doesn't help?

or convince yourself?

With a) a RB by committee situation


And b) the worst ranked rush attack in the sport.

Year after year super bowl participants don't feature top-ranked "franchise" RBs

Cannot grasp the burning desire for a RB this high.

About defense for these quarterbacks. That's where it starts and ends.

In comment 13873000 Ten Ton Hammer said:

Quote:

With a) a RB by committee situation And b) the worst ranked rush attack in the sport. Year after year super bowl participants don't feature top-ranked "franchise" RBs Cannot grasp the burning desire for a RB this high.

Agree 100%.

If they love one of the QBs, they have to draft him. If not, they have to get a ransom for the pick. They cannot take Barkley IMO.

Superbowls.

It's not just about superbowls, its about longevity and sustained success.

Out of the 10 QB on this list... Let's take Brady out of this discussion because he is the anomaly, as he has the greatest coach in history, the highest winning percentage of all time, and has played in 8 superbowls.

Eli(1), Peyton(1), Rothlisberger(1) and Wilson(3) are the only ones on this list with multiple Superbowl appearances.

Flacco(1), Wilson(3) and Johnson(9) won Superbowls with top 10 all time Defenses.

Rodgers(1), Peyton(1), Rothlisberger(1), Wilson(3), Flacco(1), are the Qb's on this list with over .600 winning percentages.

So First round QB's play in and win more Superbowls, have higher winning percentages and they are able to carry more poor defenses to superbowls.

We have to take a QB in the first round. Do you remember what it was like to be a Giants fan before Eli(1) and after Phil Simms(1)....

Do you remember Dave Brown(1st pick Supplemental Draft), Kent Graham(8), Danny Kannell(4)?
We finally returned to respectability when we got Kerry Collins(#5 overall pick).

Just looking back over Giants history will show you the importance of a First round QB.

Common sense dictates you have a better chance of finding a Great quarterback at #2 overall, than the second, third, or 6th round

Giants have won 4 Super. Bowls three of them were quarterbacked by a first round pick; the 4th, a first round pick got them to a 10-0 start to the season.

So what position is critical to pick at #2 that will ensure we win our next Lombardi?

and win a Super Bowl (see the Giants twice). The goal is to challenge for one year after year (like the Steelers). This doesn't happen without a top flight QB. I think that is Gettleman's aim. When he evaluates these QBs, I believe that will be in the back of his mind.

In comment 13872870 Jay on the Island said:

Quote:

LaDanian Tomlinson - 0 SB wins Adrian Peterson - 0 SB wins Trent Richardson - 0 rings out of football CJ Spiller 0 SB wins Ronnie Brown - 0 Cadillac Williams - 0 Cedric Benson - 0 Darren McFadden - 0

Good job, Jay~

pick, Wilson as a 3rd round pick, and Brees as a 2nd round pick is a flawed way to look at them.

If there was a re-draft where do you think they'd go?

If not #1 overall in their respective draft classes then without a doubt pretty close to the top. Because they defied the consensus doesn't make it a repeatable process.

Because the Patriots lucked out by getting Brady with a 6th round comp pick and Brees and Wilson proved their draft spots wrong and they weren't actually too short to play in the NFL, doesn't mean it's a responsible draft strategy to plan on using your 6th round comp pick, or 2nd or 3rd round pick to get your franchise QB when you have an option to select him at #2 overall.

IF, big IF, you believe there is a guy there at 2 who is that franchise QB.

The only thing that matters here is who the GM believes is the best value for the Giants going forward. It is not a positional argument - it is a talent/character argument. There is no question whatsoever that the most impactful position is quarterback. We do not need to argue this point - it is quarterback now and it will be quarterback forever in this league. The question though is, are these three quarterback candidates franchise/HOF/Super Bowl winners with the talent and character to lead the team for a decade? If Gettelman believes that one of them is, he is no doubt salivating at his fortune and will not only take a quarterback, but he wouldn't trade away the pick for anything offered no matter how massive a haul. If he does not, he cannot and must not set this franchise back by wasting the draft pick on the next Ryan Leaf, Tim Couch, David Carr or Jamarcus Russell. It will make "Dave Brown Hell" seem like a balmy dreamscape in comparison! The only debate on this site that has any relevance is whether any of these three guys have the requisite talent and character to be the next Manning, Marino or Rodgers...(I was about to say Brady or Montana but of course, neither of the two best quarterbacks in NFL history were selected even near the first round let alone the first pick in the draft...) If you do believe that one of them will be the next Marino, argue the points logically to convince skeptics like me that they will overcome the numerous valid objections that plague each one of them... as well as doing so in the context of our already having Davis Webb on board for a year with the talent, character and college game film resume that appears to be very respectable in comparison to each one of these three guys....If you have trouble making the case for yourself, I would urge you to consider the view that we either take Barkley or trade the pick for a haul that gets you Nelson plus several other high impact immediate contributor players in the process. Both of these outcomes not only mitigate the severe franchise risk of making a mistake at the QB position, but they also give us a very legitimate chance of being playoff competitive this year with no rebuild period necessary... again, a very difficult paradigm to argue against...

In comment 13873000 Ten Ton Hammer said:

Quote:

With a) a RB by committee situation And b) the worst ranked rush attack in the sport. Year after year super bowl participants don't feature top-ranked "franchise" RBs Cannot grasp the burning desire for a RB this high.

It is not a burning desire for drafting a RB this high...it is their burning desire to cling onto Eli Manning for as long as possible. Makes no sense to me either when they can get guys like Michel or Chubb in later rounds.

I don't care how much some of you love Eli. QB is a huge need for this team. Maybe not this year, but easily as soon as next year. If they pass on a QB they think can be a franchise QB just because they are going all in on Eli then they are making a huge mistake.

In comment 13872870 Jay on the Island said:

Quote:

LaDanian Tomlinson - 0 SB wins Adrian Peterson - 0 SB wins Trent Richardson - 0 rings out of football CJ Spiller 0 SB wins Ronnie Brown - 0 Cadillac Williams - 0 Cedric Benson - 0 Darren McFadden - 0

Mike Vick - 0 SB wins, but Drew Brees won 1
Alex Smith - 0 Super Bowls, but Aaron Rodgers did
JaMarcus Russel - 0 rings out of football
Matt Ryan - 0, but Flacco won 1
Sam Bradford - 0
Andrew Luck - 0
RG3 - 0, Russell Wilson won 1


You're right, those highly drafted running backs didn't win any Super Bowls, but as you can see from above neither did any of the quarterbacks drafted ahead of them. However, in most cases a QB taken later in the draft did win a title.

Also, you conveniently left former #2 pick Reggie Bush off your list and he won as Super Bowl and was a pretty integral part of the Saints offense while he was there.

Nick Foles... -Wentz was a top pick, he was the main reason they won the SB
Tom Brady...Yeah, 6th round pick, but they drafted him when they really didn't need a QB. Bledsoe was the man there.
Peyton Manning... top pick
Russell Wilson... another one drafted when they really weren't looking for a starting QB. They had just signed Flynn to big money
Joe Flacco... 18th overall pick
Eli Manning... 1st overall pick
Aaron Rodgers... another team that really didn't "need" a QB with Favre there. The value here was too good to pass up
Drew Brees... I believe he was drafted when flutie was still Flutie, but I could be wrong
Ben Roethlisberger... they really needed a QB
Brad Johnson... Flash in the pan. No sustained success, just a good season.


The reality is, when teams need a QB, they go get em. They don't wait until rd 3/4. QB's that end up being great that were drafted late, are QB's that were drafted to teams that didn't really need a QB.

In comment 13873028 Justlurking said:

Quote:

In comment 13873000 Ten Ton Hammer said: Quote: With a) a RB by committee situation And b) the worst ranked rush attack in the sport. Year after year super bowl participants don't feature top-ranked "franchise" RBs Cannot grasp the burning desire for a RB this high. Agree 100%. If they love one of the QBs, they have to draft him. If not, they have to get a ransom for the pick. They cannot take Barkley IMO.

This

In comment 13873264 NYG07 said:

Quote:

In comment 13873000 Ten Ton Hammer said: Quote: With a) a RB by committee situation And b) the worst ranked rush attack in the sport. Year after year super bowl participants don't feature top-ranked "franchise" RBs Cannot grasp the burning desire for a RB this high. It is not a burning desire for drafting a RB this high...it is their burning desire to cling onto Eli Manning for as long as possible. Makes no sense to me either when they can get guys like Michel or Chubb in later rounds. I don't care how much some of you love Eli. QB is a huge need for this team. Maybe not this year, but easily as soon as next year. If they pass on a QB they think can be a franchise QB just because they are going all in on Eli then they are making a huge mistake.

I definitely get the frustration with Eli and have had my own share of frustration. But he is a quarterback who needs a strong vertical passing attack, a reliable pocket and a strong running game - can't blame him solely for what has transpired here the last several years. And we can't harbor the view that just because we may not believe that he is the answer that these three guys must therefore in fact be the answer. It is a flawed view and we have seen it over and over in chronically bad teams like the Browns... It was the same mistake that was made with letting Tom Coughlin go because there was frustration with the team's lack of success -- it could not be more clear today that you don't let a champion like Coughlin go for a guy like McAdoo... as we have painfully experienced, the desire to end Coughlin's tenure had zero correlation with his successor's level of talent or character...

In comment 13873325 the mike said:

Quote:

In comment 13873264 NYG07 said: Quote: In comment 13873000 Ten Ton Hammer said: Quote: With a) a RB by committee situation And b) the worst ranked rush attack in the sport. Year after year super bowl participants don't feature top-ranked "franchise" RBs Cannot grasp the burning desire for a RB this high. It is not a burning desire for drafting a RB this high...it is their burning desire to cling onto Eli Manning for as long as possible. Makes no sense to me either when they can get guys like Michel or Chubb in later rounds. I don't care how much some of you love Eli. QB is a huge need for this team. Maybe not this year, but easily as soon as next year. If they pass on a QB they think can be a franchise QB just because they are going all in on Eli then they are making a huge mistake. I definitely get the frustration with Eli and have had my own share of frustration. But he is a quarterback who needs a strong vertical passing attack, a reliable pocket and a strong running game - can't blame him solely for what has transpired here the last several years. And we can't harbor the view that just because we may not believe that he is the answer that these three guys must therefore in fact be the answer. It is a flawed view and we have seen it over and over in chronically bad teams like the Browns... It was the same mistake that was made with letting Tom Coughlin go because there was frustration with the team's lack of success -- it could not be more clear today that you don't let a champion like Coughlin go for a guy like McAdoo... as we have painfully experienced, the desire to end Coughlin's tenure had zero correlation with his successor's level of talent or character...

He is 37 years old. If he were 32 I would not even think of taking a QB with the 2nd overall pick. I would be all about trading back and accumulating talent. This 2nd overall pick should not in any way be about helping the Giants win the Superbowl in 2018. The draft is to build your team for the long term future. They are sitting in a prime spot to take the QB to lead this team for the next 12 years. Why would they blow this opportunity?

1-- Tom Brady is the greatest QB of all time. He's an aberration that skews the data.

2-- Some teams were incompetent with their star QB's while New England is great with theirs while their QB even agrees to take less money. For example, I never liked that bullshit fast-paced offense the Colts with Payton tried to run. Balance - balance on BOTH sides of the ball is much more important.

3a-- I look at more importantly not what other teams did but what did the Giants do. Three of their 4 super bowl wins were with 1st round QB picks.

3b-- The Giants imo should try to mirror the teams that won it all the last two times vs one of the great dynasty football teams ever and one year arguably before the Super Bowl was considered the best team ever.

3c-- When you draft a QB more than likely he isn't going to be "Tom Brady/Peyton Manning/John Elway" etc. If he is NOT mobile, just like what the Giants had with Eli, you can't skimp on the offensive line.

3d-- On offense if you don't have the Oline and all-time great QB to be a team that can consistently put up a ton of points per game, you need to focus on the front 7 on defense and the front 5 on offense. This bullshit two years ago of drafting Eli Apple while ignoring the offensive line AND linebackers without at least addressing them aggressively from years past has got to stop.

Is that even if you draft a top 3 QB it's about the team that's around him to make a Super Bowl winner. They give the MVP to the QB in most cases just for showing up in the Big Dance, however it's still a team game and win. Some of the best never win a super bowl but that's just a blemish we fans put on their career. Now it's reverse if they win a couple super bowls it's damn near a lock for the HOF past performances not considered.

Are always competing for the playoffs and Super bowls, teams that have good And are usually in the 6-10 win range and then there are the teams with the average and below average And who are generally the 3-6 win teams, sometimes they surprise and get to 8 or 9 wins but mostly don't make the playoffs. Browns, Jets, Buffalo, SF, Houston before Watson. Oakland before Carr. The Giants in the Dave Brown Era.

You can't win consistently without a good QB. That is a fact and you can look at the last 15 years and see that teams with great And make the playoffs almost every year. You could bet every year that Peyton was going to face Brady. A great QB makes everyone better. Running lanes open up because you have to always worry about the pass. The Defense looks better because they are always in the lead or keeping the O fresh.

It is very hard for a great RB to win without a great QB, but a great QB can win consistently without a great RB. Look at Lynch when he was in Buffalo and then look when he went to Seattle. Look at Gurley now that Goff is playing better. Can you name the ribs on new England's Superbowl Teams?

If we draft Barkley and get to 8 wins this season we will have to trade a kings ransom to get back to a spot to pick a qb. I don't think this team is a playoff contender so we may as well take a gamble on a QB. If we don't take a QB and don't make the playoffs with Eli at the helm we probably wind up in QB he'll. We don't know what we have in Webb, if he was such a great prospect I would assume he would have been moved to #2 at some point just to get more reps. I think the Jets screwed us by moving up. If teams know we are not taking a QB, our pick is now much less valuable unless we want to move out of the top 10.

...STARTING A #1 Draft Pick RB.

And don't give me OJ Anderson. His best days were almost a decade behind him.