Pro Bowl WR not needed for Super Bowl winners

[Pixote]

This article is one of my favorites in a series of articles that the Sun-Times has been running

 

Pro Bowl WR not needed for Super Bowl winners

 

In it there is this quote:

 

"Neither of the last two Super Bowl champions - Pittsburgh in 2008 or the New York Giants in 2007 - had a Pro Bowl wide receiver that season. Neither had a Pro Bowl quarterback, for that matter. The Steelers finished 17th in the NFL in passing and the Giants were 21st.

 

"When the New England Patriots won back-to-back titles in the 2003 and 2004 seasons, their top wideouts failed to crack the NFL's top 30 in receiving those seasons. Deion Branch finished 42nd in 2003 and David Givens 40th in 2004. Baltimore's top wideout in its 2000 championship season was Qadry Ismail, who finished 68th in the NFL.

 

"Only two NFL champions in the 2000 decade lined up a Pro Bowl wide receiver in their Super Bowl seasons - Troy Brown for the Patriots in 2001 and Marvin Harrison for the Indianapolis Colts in 2006. The rest preferred quantity over quality on the flank."

 

It also quotes an article from John Clayton of ESPN where he says he feels JA & LS rank #4 in the NFL as GM/HC Combos:

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/stor...&id=4336648

 

4. Lovie Smith-Jerry Angelo, Chicago Bears: This one might surprise some because Angelo isn't a vocal general manager and the Bears, as a team, usually slip under the radar. They stay in contention most years in the NFC North, and made it to the Super Bowl in 2006. Angelo made one of the biggest moves of the offseason, acquiring quarterback Jay Cutler, who could take the Bears to 11 wins. In the meantime, Smith has taken over the play-calling duties on defense and expects an improved, more aggressive unit this fall.

[Connorbear]

Good stuff. Thanks for posting.

 

Peace

[adam]

That is true. Dominant receivers don't equate to Super Bowls. Great QBs, a great running game, and a great Defense normally do.

 

If look back at the past winners since 2000. Most had a dominant Defense (PIT, NYG, NE, TB, BAL), a great QB (PIT, NYG, IND, NE), and a solid running game (NYG, IND, PIT, NE, BAL). Hell, PIT won last year with their leading receiver having 1,009 yards and leading rusher having 791 yards, but had a sick Defense.

 

I also think Hester will crack the top 30.

[flea]

Pro Bowl dominant receivers aren't needed

 

Non McFarlane toys are

 

 

Lets hope some of the draftees can step up

[balta1701-A]

But...but...but...not having a pro-bowl receiver does not equal not having a top flight receiver. The Giants may not have had a pro bowl receiver in 07, but they had Plax on the outside as their main threat. The Steelers may not have had a pro-bowler but they had former pro-bowler Hines Ward out there. The Patriots teams may not have had pro bowl receivers, but the guys they had were excellent in their system and worked very well with Brady. There's a lot more to it than simply saying "They didn't have a pro-bowl receiver".

[Pixote]

But...but...but...not having a pro-bowl receiver does not equal not having a top flight receiver. The Giants may not have had a pro bowl receiver in 07, but they had Plax on the outside as their main threat. The Steelers may not have had a pro-bowler but they had former pro-bowler Hines Ward out there. The Patriots teams may not have had pro bowl receivers, but the guys they had were excellent in their system and worked very well with Brady. There's a lot more to it than simply saying "They didn't have a pro-bowl receiver".

 

But...but...but...

 

I have to feel we have WRs that can be as effective as Branch, Givens, & Imail. I think Hester will blow those three guys away with his play this year and will be a top 30 WR. I agree on Ward & Plax, but the other 3 I mentioned from the article were never anything special.

[balta1701-A]

But...but...but...

 

I have to feel we have WRs that can be as effective as Branch, Givens, & Imail. I think Hester will blow those three guys away with his play this year and will be a top 30 WR. I agree on Ward & Plax, but the other 3 I mentioned from the article were never anything special.

Not disagreeing on that. Just pointing out that I think the basic idea behind the Sun Times's point or this thread is bogus. Yes, you can win without a dominant WR. But you better be darn good somewhere else to make up for it. You can say that about most positions on the field.

 

The Giants, Steelers weren't the greatest on WR's. But they had solid guys who you couldn't neglect and usually couldn't single cover, and they combined that with QB play that fit their system well, solid running attacks, and ridiculous defense.

 

The key for the Bears and Cutler is to have some of these guys wind up at the "they can beat you if you single cover them" level.

[AZ54]

I think the point is more of what is more important, the Pro Bowl QB or the Pro Bowl WR? The article didn't explicitly put it that way but in terms of building a team that's the way I'm taking it. The article made it clear Pro Bowl caliber talent at WR is not a requirement to win a Superbowl. Given what Brady, Peyton Manning, and Big Ben have done in recent years If given the choice I'm taking the QB.

 

If I look back at history it seems you either need a Pro Bowl QB (or near that caliber) to win the Superbowl or you have a top 5 defense. There are always exceptions to any rule but in looking at recent history that seems to be true:

 

2009 Pittsburgh (top D, and top tier QB tough combo)

2008 Giants (top D, average QB)

2007 Colts (top QB)

2006 Pittsburgh (good D, good QB)

2005 Patriots (top QB)

2004 Patriots (top QB)

2003 Tampa Bay (top D)

2002 Patriots (top QB)

2001 Ravens (top D)

2000 St Louis (top QB)

1999 Denver (top QB)

1998 Denver (top QB)

1997 Green Bay (top QB)

1996 Dallas (top QB)

1995 San Fran (top QB)

1994 Dallas (top QB)

1993 Dallas (top QB)

1992 Washington (exception here with an average QB, average D)

1991 Giants (exception here with an average QB, good D)

1990 San Fran (top QB)

 

For sure I can go back and add which of those teams also had a top WR such as the 49ers with Rice but you don't often see winners without the Pro Bowl QB. That trend also holds if you look at the Superbowl losers who often had one of the better QBs on their team (i.e. Jim Kelly, Kurt Warner, Favre, Elway). Bottom line get the QB and you have a pretty good chance at winning it all.

 

 

[Mongo3451]

I think the point is more of what is more important, the Pro Bowl QB or the Pro Bowl WR? The article didn't explicitly put it that way but in terms of building a team that's the way I'm taking it. The article made it clear Pro Bowl caliber talent at WR is not a requirement to win a Superbowl. Given what Brady, Peyton Manning, and Big Ben have done in recent years If given the choice I'm taking the QB.

 

If I look back at history it seems you either need a Pro Bowl QB (or near that caliber) to win the Superbowl or you have a top 5 defense. There are always exceptions to any rule but in looking at recent history that seems to be true:

 

2009 Pittsburgh (top D, and top tier QB tough combo)

2008 Giants (top D, average QB)

2007 Colts (top QB)

2006 Pittsburgh (good D, good QB)

2005 Patriots (top QB)

2004 Patriots (top QB)

2003 Tampa Bay (top D)

2002 Patriots (top QB)

2001 Ravens (top D)

2000 St Louis (top QB)

1999 Denver (top QB)

1998 Denver (top QB)

1997 Green Bay (top QB)

1996 Dallas (top QB)

1995 San Fran (top QB)

1994 Dallas (top QB)

1993 Dallas (top QB)

1992 Washington (exception here with an average QB, average D)

1991 Giants (exception here with an average QB, good D)

1990 San Fran (top QB)

 

For sure I can go back and add which of those teams also had a top WR such as the 49ers with Rice but you don't often see winners without the Pro Bowl QB. That trend also holds if you look at the Superbowl losers who often had one of the better QBs on their team (i.e. Jim Kelly, Kurt Warner, Favre, Elway). Bottom line get the QB and you have a pretty good chance at winning it all.

 

I agree, a top QB is the most important factor in that everything else becomes better as a result. I still think that top QB's need good reliable wideouts, in order to be top QB's. We'll be hard pressed to find a top QB on this list that didn't have one or two.(some had three and four) Fact is, we have unknown's. Sure most are on the upside, which I like. But they are unproven, to say the least, especially since Cutler is new with them. Going to the next common denominator (D). We are also hopeful that our veteren unit can re-kindle some of the lustre they lost since the Superbowl. I like our chance to win the division this year and maybe get back to the big one. But our WR's, D and Cutler will have to be there with no drop off from Forte.

 

[defiantgiant]

Not disagreeing on that. Just pointing out that I think the basic idea behind the Sun Times's point or this thread is bogus. Yes, you can win without a dominant WR. But you better be darn good somewhere else to make up for it. You can say that about most positions on the field.

 

The Giants, Steelers weren't the greatest on WR's. But they had solid guys who you couldn't neglect and usually couldn't single cover, and they combined that with QB play that fit their system well, solid running attacks, and ridiculous defense.

 

The key for the Bears and Cutler is to have some of these guys wind up at the "they can beat you if you single cover them" level.

 

I think this is right on the money. You don't need a Pro Bowler, you just need a receiver who dictates (at least to some extent) what a defense can and can't do.

 

The Pro Bowl is kind of a stupid metric to use, anyway, since it relies heavily on subjective things like fan voting and name recognition. Example A: Anquan Boldin was a starter in the last Pro Bowl, whereas Calvin Johnson was only a second alternate and didn't get to go. Yes, the Cards went to the Super Bowl and the Lions went 0-16, but Johnson is a vastly better receiver than Boldin. So when the Sun-Times says that teams can succeed without a Pro Bowl receiver, remember that those teams aren't necessarily devoid of talent at the position: they could still have a guy who put up 1300 yards and a dozen touchdowns.

 

Anyway, I think Balta's right about what you need from a receiver (provided that the running game, defense, and QB are all there) and I think Devin Hester could be that guy, if only because he's very difficult to cover. By the end of last season, teams were devoting double-coverage to him, and he was still giving DBs fits. The various pass-interference calls weren't random mistakes from what I saw, they were cases where Hester had his guy beaten and the DB tried to grab him to avoid giving up a huge completion. I don't know what Hester's actual production will be like in terms of yards and TDs, but I know that defenses are going to have to devote extra attention to him unless they have a legitimately elite corner. Even if you do, he can be a problem: Asante Samuel had some trouble covering him in the Eagles game last season.

[nfoligno]

The way I see it, you don't need a pro bowl WR (and I agree using the pro bowl is weak, compared to just saying upper tier), but I am not sure I would even agree when you said you need a WR that dictates what defenses do.

 

It just so depends on your scheme and the rest of your offense. If you have an offense w/ a very good OL and run game, then what I think you need from your WRs is simply the ability to take advantage of opportunities. Lets pretend for a moment we go to the SB, and do largely behind a great run game. A defense is going to game plan to stop the run. In this situation, you don't have to have a pro bowl or elite WR, nor even a WR that a defense has to game plan around. But you do need a WR(s) that can take advantage of opportunities. For exmaple, if a defense is playing to stop the run, Hester is going to have opportunities downfield, and must take advantage. Your slot receiver(s) are going to likely have more open space, and need to not just catch the ball, but do something after the catch.

 

I would give a reverse example of when we played in the SB against Indy. In that game, I think it is w/o question the game plan was to take away the passing game, particularly the big play. Indy didn't have a great run game that year. Addai was a rookie, and a nice runner, but far from a game breaker, while Rhodes was a nice secondary runner, but nothing special. But in the SB against us, they took advantage as Rhodes carried 21 for over 100 and Addai had 19 for 77 (4.1 avg). Neither were players a defense game planned for, but they took advantage of their opportunities.

 

Look at this past SB. I would argue that Az game planned very much to stop Pitt on the ground, and did the job as they pretty much killed Parker. But S.Holmes was able to take make the most of his opportunities. Holmes was neither an upper tier WR, nor a player that a defense would game plan against going into the game. On the year, he only had 55 catches for 800+ yards. But in the SB, he had 9-131-1, and broke Az's back.

 

 

 

I think this is right on the money. You don't need a Pro Bowler, you just need a receiver who dictates (at least to some extent) what a defense can and can't do.

 

The Pro Bowl is kind of a stupid metric to use, anyway, since it relies heavily on subjective things like fan voting and name recognition. Example A: Anquan Boldin was a starter in the last Pro Bowl, whereas Calvin Johnson was only a second alternate and didn't get to go. Yes, the Cards went to the Super Bowl and the Lions went 0-16, but Johnson is a vastly better receiver than Boldin. So when the Sun-Times says that teams can succeed without a Pro Bowl receiver, remember that those teams aren't necessarily devoid of talent at the position: they could still have a guy who put up 1300 yards and a dozen touchdowns.

 

Anyway, I think Balta's right about what you need from a receiver (provided that the running game, defense, and QB are all there) and I think Devin Hester could be that guy, if only because he's very difficult to cover. By the end of last season, teams were devoting double-coverage to him, and he was still giving DBs fits. The various pass-interference calls weren't random mistakes from what I saw, they were cases where Hester had his guy beaten and the DB tried to grab him to avoid giving up a huge completion. I don't know what Hester's actual production will be like in terms of yards and TDs, but I know that defenses are going to have to devote extra attention to him unless they have a legitimately elite corner. Even if you do, he can be a problem: Asante Samuel had some trouble covering him in the Eagles game last season.

 

[nfoligno]

still think that top QB's need good reliable wideouts, in order to be top QB's. We'll be hard pressed to find a top QB on this list that didn't have one or two.

 

I agree QB and D are the two main ingredients of a SB victory. Like you said, there are exceptions, but I think this is the rule. I disagree on the WR. Sure, you can't have trash at WR, as you likely would not have a great QB if that were the case. But IMHO, we need look no further than the last SB. Pitt simply did not have any special WRs. Ward "may" have once been, but wasn't last year, and Holmes last year wasn't much more than what Hester has already proven. Yet w/ a great D and very good to great QB, they won the SB.

 

Its great to have great RB or WRs, but IMHO, QB and D are the keys. If I were to go further, to the #3 piece, it would be OL.

 

2009 Pittsburgh

Ward had 1,000 yards last year, but was far from great, and Holmes had only 55 catches for 800 yards. Neither were great.

 

2008 Giants (top D, average QB)

NY had Burress, who did nothing in the SB. Toomer was a solid WR, but nothing special.

 

2007 Colts (top QB)

Elite tier WRs.

 

2006 Pittsburgh (good D, good QB)

Ward was a very good WR, but that is about all they had.

 

2005 Patriots (top QB)

2004 Patriots (top QB)

I don't think the Pats had a 1,000 yard WR in either SB season.

 

 

[Mongo3451]

I said, still think that top QB's need good reliable wideouts, in order to be top QB's. We'll be hard pressed to find a top QB on this list that didn't have one or two." to make my point.

 

I highlighted your adjectives for fun. "I disagree on the WR. Sure, you can't have trash at WR, as you likely would not have a great QB if that were the case. But IMHO, we need look no further than the last SB. Pitt simply did not have any special WRs. Ward "may" have once been, but wasn't last year, and Holmes last year wasn't much more than what Hester has already proven. Yet w/ a great D and very good to great QB, they won the SB.

 

Its great to have great RB or WRs, but IMHO, QB and D are the keys. If I were to go further, to the #3 piece, it would be OL.

 

2009 Pittsburgh

Ward had 1,000 yards last year, but was far from great, and Holmes had only 55 catches for 800 yards. Neither were great.

 

2008 Giants (top D, average QB)

NY had Burress, who did nothing in the SB.(how can you diminish his value) Toomer was a solid WR, but nothing special.

 

2007 Colts (top QB)

Elite tier WRs.

 

2006 Pittsburgh (good D, good QB)

Ward was a very good WR, but that is about all they had.

 

2005 Patriots (top QB)

2004 Patriots (top QB)

I don't think the Pats had a 1,000 yard WR in either SB season.

Fact is all of those teams you mentioned had "good reliable" wide receivers. I would even argue that their #2's were better than our best. It's hard to gauge with Brady though, since he might hit 10 different guys a game, which is rare.

 

[AZ54]

Football is a team sport and you can't have trash at certain positions (i.e. WR) and expect that'll work because you have a great QB. I believe everyone on this message board knows that. So let's just assume there is a certain level of competence around the field to be a Superbowl team. The data seems clear:

 

One thing I see in this thread is the debate on the Pro Bowl WR not being necessary but you do need a guy the D has to key on. When you consider the premise of the article, the Pro Bowl QBs are in the year they went to the Superbowl. That is to say, this is a year that offense put it all together. It's reasonable to assume if your offense (and QB) is having a great year then so are the WRs, or at least you'd think your Pro Bowl WR is. Given that you'd think there would be more Pro Bowl WR along with the Pro Bowl QBs on the Superbowl winners. Yet the data doesn't support that. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, just that it's not the norm.

 

Why? We have to go into what gets a WR to the Pro Bowl and what gets a QB to the Pro Bowl. In the interest of time I'll simplify it: big numbers. How does a WR get big numbers? He's usually the best option by far on his team or his QB is really focused on getting him the ball. That might not give the best offense.

 

How does a QB get big numbers? Typically he spreads the ball around thus forcing a defense to cover the entire field and/or taking advantage of what the defense gives him. Of course this doesn't help the WR get his big numbers. The second part is key: Take advantage of what the D gives you. QBs like Kyle Orton spread the ball around yet they don't go to the Pro Bowl. Why not? Because they can't take advantage of what the defense gives them if it's outside their ability. For Kyle that means the deep ball and deep outs aren't a threat so the D gives it up and focuses on the short stuff and run game.

 

Historically option 2 with the Pro Bowl QB has been far more successful. I think there's good reason for this too. Once you get deep in the playoffs history also shows you are facing some of the top defenses. It's easy for a D to take one player out of the play. Average QBs who spent an entire season relying on their Pro Bowl WR probably don't adapt well to losing their favorite target and/or just aren't as good at taking advantage of what the D gave them.

 

It's not a hard and fast rule and for sure I'd love to have a guy like Fitzgerald on the Bears. Just keep in mind he also had a possible future hall-of-fame QB in Warner throwing to him. The best part is that the odds say that having Cutler on hand and continued focus on building our D bodes well for our future. It's interesting to note that the Colts put all their money into the offensive side of the ball and despite having one of hte best QB of all time they only gotten to one Superbowl. Might they have been better off spending more money on D and less on the O?