Post Superbowl Thoughts...

[Mongo3451]

To start things off, great game last night!  You can tell what a well built team looks like.  Watching the game from our perspective, tells me that we are not ready yet.  When it comes to conference championships and Superbowls, the defenses are amped up. The DB's become assassins and the pass rush is relentless.

Our team needs became more clarifyed to me.  And I didn't like it.  Defensively, we need two more guys that can rush the passer as starters and one to be situational.  We currently have one.  After that, I'm good with the linebackers and secondary, as safeties are easy to find.  On to the offense, OMG we need help.  We have DJ Moore as our only stud.  As we've all discussed, definite needs are C, OG and WR2.

After seeing how loaded both teams were yesterday, the dilemma of what to do with the number one is wrecking my head right now.  I can only imagine what Lord Poles is thinking...

[BearFan PHX]

4 hours ago, Mongo3451 said:

To start things off, great game last night!  You can tell what a well built team looks like.  Watching the game from our perspective, tells me that we are not ready yet.  When it comes to conference championships and Superbowls, the defenses are amped up. The DB's become assassins and the pass rush is relentless.

Our team needs became more clarifyed to me.  And I didn't like it.  Defensively, we need two more guys that can rush the passer as starters and one to be situational.  We currently have one.  After that, I'm good with the linebackers and secondary, as safeties are easy to find.  On to the offense, OMG we need help.  We have DJ Moore as our only stud.  As we've all discussed, definite needs are C, OG and WR2.

After seeing how loaded both teams were yesterday, the dilemma of what to do with the number one is wrecking my head right now.  I can only imagine what Lord Poles is thinking...

truth. both of those teams are a lot better than us. Both played really tough defense. But only the one with the generational QB won.

We need a lot of things, but without that top QB, none of the rest of it matters.

[adam]

If the Bears extend JJ, that would give them 3-4 blue chippers on defense (depending on how you view Edwards and Edmunds). On offense, at least 2, maybe 3 (Moore, Jenkins, and Wright?). I think guys like Kmet, Brisker, and Gordon are good, but not elite. Stevenson may get there, but not yet, same with Dexter. 

So 5-7 total. The Bears need at least 3-4 more and the QB needs to be one of them. 

[adam]

Also, I was trying to envision what Fields would've done on the last drives. From previous games, it would've been a quick 4 and out, game over; a strip-sack, ballgame, or a bad interception, and the victory formation (for the other team). You can also mix in taking a bad sack in there (while holding the ball too long with receivers open). There is almost zero expectation of him leading a comeback to close out a game, especially if the defense allows a score that loses the lead. 

[ChileBear]

22 minutes ago, adam said:

Also, I was trying to envision what Fields would've done on the last drives. From previous games, it would've been a quick 4 and out, game over; a strip-sack, ballgame, or a bad interception, and the victory formation (for the other team). You can also mix in taking a bad sack in there (while holding the ball too long with receivers open). There is almost zero expectation of him leading a comeback to close out a game, especially if the defense allows a score that loses the lead. 

Ouch! But I was thinking the same thing. And that's why I'm for drafting the QB with the first pick as opposed to trading--though the prospect for a trasure-trove is tempting. We need a reliable QB to bring back the Bears to NFL contention.  

[killakrzydav]

man, Not knowing the rules is brutal

[BearFan PHX]

I was looking at the super bowl quarterbacks over the last 25 years and it really started to jump out at me.

During the last 25 years, the superbowl has been won at least twice in that time by 5 QBs;

Tom Brady (7)
Patrick Mahomes (3)
Peyton Manning (2)
Ben Roesthlisberger (2)
Eli Manning (2)

Together they account for 16 of the 25 superbowl victories. In other words, they own 2/3 of all the Lombardi trophies awarded during that span.

Additionally, they appeared as the losing QB in 7 more superbowls, and in 3 of those, they were beaten by one of the other guys on this list.

18 other QBs not on this list got their teams to the superbowl, but couldnt get past one of these five giants and lost.

only 4 times during the past 25 years did a quarterback NOT on the list manage to beat a QB on the list in the SB. They are:

Aaron Rodgers (beat Roesthlisberger)
Drew Brees (beat Peyton Manning)
Nick Foles (beat Tom Brady)
Russell Wilson (beat Peyton Manning)

The other 5 SB winning QBs did not have to face one of the five guys on the list to get their win. They are: Stafford, Flacco, Johnson, Dilfer, Warner

I think to have a reliable chance of winning superbowls, you need a top QB. There's a lot of chaos, and they don't make the super bowl every year. And sometimes they even lose.

But 2 out of 3 times, the winner of the superbowl ended up being a QB who would win more than once, and get to the superbowl even more often. In fact, of 50 superbowl starting QB slots, these five accounted for 23 of them, which is basically half.

It sure looks like most of the league is exhibition football, and only a handful of QBs are playing for the actual trophy. Even more so when you realize that 3 guys on the list only won twice. Mahomes and Brady prove the rule even within the list. Elite of elite.

And of the guys who disprove the rule? the seven who won that werent on the list:

Aaron Rodgers is a sure fire HOFer
Drew Brees is a sure fire HOFer
Kurt Warner already is a HOFer, and went to three superbowls.

So 1/3 of the non list guys that won are studs too.

All that's left is Dilfer, Johnson, Flacco, Stafford, Foles and Wilson as examples of non stud QBs with teams built around them, but only Foles and Wilson beat a guy on the list of five in the superbowl.

So 2 out of 25 times (8%) a team built around a non stud QB (not one of the five, or a sure HOFer) manages to win in the superbowl against a stud QB.

And this doesnt measure all the teams that had good teams built around lesser QBs that never even made the superbowl. You gotta add that in to the odds of success with that approach.

If youve got a stud QB, youre in the superbowl game, if you dont, you're not in the same league.