Page 3 of 5

Re: Champs you think still win-it-all w/out their starting Q

Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2023 4:33 pm
by Brian wolf
Jackson for Seattle in 2013 sounds interesting but the team needed Wilson's poise to get by SF that year. With Jackson, the 49ers may take the division. Had the young Seahawk defense not given up two passes and a FG in the last minute against Atlanta in the 2012 postseason, Seattle may have challenged the 49ers for the NFC Championship ...

Bratkowski might have had momentum going into the 1965 Championship game against Cleveland but its tough to call. Starr had better chemistry with Carroll Dale, who gave the Packers the early lead against the Browns. People dont remember that Cleveland actually tied the game 13-13 going into the third quarter before the Packers run game took over. The game might have been different had Jim Brown not dropped Ryan's pass in the endzone. Ryan just missed on two other deep passes to Warfield and Collins ...

Re: Champs you think still win-it-all w/out their starting Q

Posted: Mon Jul 24, 2023 4:47 pm
by Sonny9
JuggernautJ wrote:The 1972 Dolphins might do OK with Earl Morrall at the helm...

And the '57 Lions with Tobin Rote...

Sideline: Who else did win Championships with their back-up QBs?
1987 Washington

Re: Champs you think still win-it-all w/out their starting Q

Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2023 4:23 am
by JuggernautJ
How about the 1960 Eagles?
Van Brocklin was the fire in the offense (and MVP) but the back up was no slouch, either.
Sonny Jurgensen actually had a better rating than NVB that season, albeit in a much smaller sample size.
I'm not saying 1960 Jurggy was better than 1960 Norm but.. was he good enough to win it all? And against Vince's Packers to boot? Maybe... not likely but maybe..

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ ... i/1960.htm

Re: Champs you think still win-it-all w/out their starting Q

Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2023 12:29 pm
by 74_75_78_79_
You know, I'm going to do a huge take-back with the '89 Forty Niners featuring Steve Young! No, not say that they definitely don't win-it-all, but simply 'demote' them all the way down to uncertainty as the case with '88. You, Wolf, saying that NYG and Rams would have a say - I now assume you meant during the regular season. I didn't even think of the regular season at all when suggesting them all this time!

Maybe they still win these games with Steve anyway, but those MNF games vs Giants and, later on, the Classic at Rams each could produce an opposite result as well. Not only would losing both result in G-men getting top-seed instead, but also the Rams winning the division instead! And how about Week #3 at the Vet? SF loses that one in addition to the two just mentioned, then perhaps a trip back to the Vet for the Wild Card game! Considering the Eagles' playoff ineptitude under Buddy, SF likely wins but then for them to have to go to the Meadowlands the following week? Doable but still too much uncertainty. Really should have thought of that all along during this thread. Now simply installing Steve in for the playoffs (they already finishing 14-2 top seed under Joe)...San Fran still dominates Min/LA/Den!

Brady is VITAL for 2001 to go as it did! Numerous close wins - including all three playoffs - in which Tom was NEEDED for that Lombardi to be won! And the rest would be History...

Trent Green instead for '99? It definitely would have been his best shot to win a SB! More than sure enough they still finish top-seed, and blow out the soft competition along the way as they did. But that 'extra gear' that Warner offered would clearly be needed for both the NFCC & SB which each could have easily gone the other way. Does Trent bring it to both?

I'm surprised no one has weighed in on 1977 Danny White! Yes, sacrilege to say they do it without 'Captain America', but as I suggest, a simple finish top-seed and its Avellini, Lee, and new-to-the-scene Morton/Weese's Broncos from there. Allowing the Rams to finish top-seed would make things interesting though.

Re: Champs you think still win-it-all w/out their starting Q

Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2023 4:21 pm
by Sonny9
Bukich in 1963 for the Bears? He put up good numbers in '64 and '65. The team was defense anyway.

Re: Champs you think still win-it-all w/out their starting Q

Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2023 4:44 pm
by Jay Z
What about Craig Morton in 1971? Staubach certainly played well, 3 TD passes in 3 games, but he didn't have to throw much at all. 12 points (with a garbage time TD), 3 points, 3 points by the Cowboys' defense. Probably not that much required from the QB really.

Re: Champs you think still win-it-all w/out their starting Q

Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2023 5:35 pm
by Brian wolf
Not sure about White for Dallas in 77' because the Denver defense was swarming in both games, and Roger basically protected the ball. With Dorsett doing the heavy lifting, White might have done well though.

Re: Champs you think still win-it-all w/out their starting Q

Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2023 5:39 pm
by Brian wolf
The question with Morton in 1971, was if he could handle the Purple Gang in Minn? Roger showed great poise in beating them at a stadium known for intimidating teams, though the Niners defense took over in the 1970 playoff win there ...

Re: Champs you think still win-it-all w/out their starting Q

Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2023 7:44 pm
by 7DnBrnc53
Brady is VITAL for 2001 to go as it did! Numerous close wins - including all three playoffs - in which Tom was NEEDED for that Lombardi to be won! And the rest would be History...
Not necessarily. He got bailed out by the refs against the Raiders, and he missed most of the Steeler game. He did have the game-winning drive against the Rams, but he got away with intentional grounding on that drive.

I don't think they would have won with Bledsoe, but they shouldn't have won with Brady, either.

Re: Champs you think still win-it-all w/out their starting Q

Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2023 9:01 pm
by Brian wolf
Youre right 7D ...

The Raiders should have won over Brady and Kurt Warner should have had his second ring. Could he have avoided thumb injuries in 2002?