Consider the champs in the 2000's....
2000 Ravens
QB - Trent Dilfer: 11 g, 59.3%, 1502 yds, 12 td, 11 int, 76.6 rating
QB - Tony Banks: 11 g, 54.7%, 1578 yds, 8 td, 8 int, 69.3 rating
2001 Patriots
QB - Tom Brady: 15 g, 63.9%, 2843 yds, 18 td, 12 int, 86.5 rating
2002 Buccaneers
QB - Brad Johnson: 13 g, 62.3%, 3049 yds, 22 td, 6 int, 92.9 rating
2003 Patriots
QB - Tom Brady: 16 g, 60.2%, 3620 yds, 23 td, 12 int, 85.9 rating
2004 Patriots
QB - Tom Brady: 16 g, 60.8%, 3692 yds, 28 td, 14 int, 92.6 rating
2005 Steelers
QB - Ben Roethlisberger: 12 g, 62.7%, 2385 yds, 17 td, 9 int, 98.6 rating
2006 Colts
QB - Peyton Manning: 16 g, 65.0%, 4397 yds, 31 td, 9 int, 101.0 rating
2007 Giants
QB - Eli Manning: 16 g, 56.1%, 3336 yds, 23 td, 20 int, 73.9 rating
2008 Steelers
QB - Ben Roethlisberger: 16 g, 59.9%, 3301 yds, 17 td, 15 int, 80.1 rating
Out of this group, the guys I would consider to be "great" quarterbacks would be 2004 Tom Brady, 2006 Peyton Manning, and possibly 2008 Ben Roethlisberger (despite very pedestrian numbers).
2001 and 2003 Tom Brady weren't "great" yet...they were good, and 2003 Brady was emerging as "great", but I don't think he was quite there yet. Though maybe 2003 was when he became "great". But the rest?
Eli Manning? Hardly "great". Trent Dilfer? Brad Johnson? The first year of Roethlisberger and Brady?
Even Peyton Manning, who by all definitions was "great" by 2006, didn't have a very good postseason. Here were his combined stats for that year's 4-game playoff run: 97-153 (63.4%), 1034 yds, 3 td, 7 int. Good completion %, but an awful td/int ratio.
So I think it's clear that you don't need a "great" QB to win the Super Bowl. You need to have a very good *team* that's playing well and that catches a few breaks. I'm not suggesting having a great QB is a liability, but obviously it's not necessary to winning the whole thing.
2000 Ravens
QB - Trent Dilfer: 11 g, 59.3%, 1502 yds, 12 td, 11 int, 76.6 rating
QB - Tony Banks: 11 g, 54.7%, 1578 yds, 8 td, 8 int, 69.3 rating
2001 Patriots
QB - Tom Brady: 15 g, 63.9%, 2843 yds, 18 td, 12 int, 86.5 rating
2002 Buccaneers
QB - Brad Johnson: 13 g, 62.3%, 3049 yds, 22 td, 6 int, 92.9 rating
2003 Patriots
QB - Tom Brady: 16 g, 60.2%, 3620 yds, 23 td, 12 int, 85.9 rating
2004 Patriots
QB - Tom Brady: 16 g, 60.8%, 3692 yds, 28 td, 14 int, 92.6 rating
2005 Steelers
QB - Ben Roethlisberger: 12 g, 62.7%, 2385 yds, 17 td, 9 int, 98.6 rating
2006 Colts
QB - Peyton Manning: 16 g, 65.0%, 4397 yds, 31 td, 9 int, 101.0 rating
2007 Giants
QB - Eli Manning: 16 g, 56.1%, 3336 yds, 23 td, 20 int, 73.9 rating
2008 Steelers
QB - Ben Roethlisberger: 16 g, 59.9%, 3301 yds, 17 td, 15 int, 80.1 rating
Out of this group, the guys I would consider to be "great" quarterbacks would be 2004 Tom Brady, 2006 Peyton Manning, and possibly 2008 Ben Roethlisberger (despite very pedestrian numbers).
2001 and 2003 Tom Brady weren't "great" yet...they were good, and 2003 Brady was emerging as "great", but I don't think he was quite there yet. Though maybe 2003 was when he became "great". But the rest?
Eli Manning? Hardly "great". Trent Dilfer? Brad Johnson? The first year of Roethlisberger and Brady?
Even Peyton Manning, who by all definitions was "great" by 2006, didn't have a very good postseason. Here were his combined stats for that year's 4-game playoff run: 97-153 (63.4%), 1034 yds, 3 td, 7 int. Good completion %, but an awful td/int ratio.
So I think it's clear that you don't need a "great" QB to win the Super Bowl. You need to have a very good *team* that's playing well and that catches a few breaks. I'm not suggesting having a great QB is a liability, but obviously it's not necessary to winning the whole thing.