Interesting Trend: QBs who have thrown 43+ TDs are 0-8 in attempt to win SB

[StockingAnarchyNumber12]

Updated

1984 dolphins: Dan Marino - 48 Touchdowns
1986 Dolphins: Dan Marino - 44 Touchdowns
2004 Colts: Peyton Manning - 49 Touchdowns
2007 Patriots: Tom Brady - 50 Touchdowns
2011 Saints: Drew Brees - 46 Touchdowns
2011 Packers: Aaron Rodgers - 45 Touchdowns
2012 Saints: Drew Brees - 43 Touchdowns
2013 Denver Broncos: Peyton Manning -55 Touchdowns

I investigated and found this peculiar trend. 0-8 no SB win is relevant enough to be a pattern. Not sure if its relevant Sunday, but I find it extremely interesting.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

0-7 in their quest to win the Super Bowl. Not 0-7 overall. Just going though the list:

1984 Marino: 2-1
1988 Marino: DNQ
2004 Manning: 1-1
2007 Brady: 2-1
2011 Brees: 1-1
2011 Rodgers: 0-1 (not on your list)
2013 Manning: 2-1
2018 Mahomes: 1-0

Overall: 9-6 record, 3 SB appearances (of 8 chances).

 

[robbomango]

Also 45 tds Rodgers 2011

 

[IcyPatriot]

Just goes to show that teams win Super Bowls ... or lose them.
Some fans put to much emphasis on the obvious plays ...
The game is still won or loss in the trenches as it is said.

 

[StockingAnarchyNumber12]

0-7 in their quest to win the Super Bowl. Not 0-7 overall. Just going though the list:

1984 Marino: 2-1
1988 Marino: DNQ
2004 Manning: 1-1
2007 Brady: 2-1
2011 Brees: 1-1
2011 Rodgers: 0-1
2013 Manning: 2-1
2018 Mahomes: 1-0

Thats what I mean, crazy!

 

[StockingAnarchyNumber12]

Updated title.

 

[Triumph]

Just goes to show that teams win Super Bowls ... or lose them.
Some fans put to much emphasis on the obvious plays ...
The game is still won or loss in the trenches as it is said.

Basketball does not work.

The Giants proved that vs the Pats in the Super Bowl.

 

[Quest4SevenHomie]

How many TDs have the Saints and Rams thrown for?

 

[Deus Irae]

Not sure if its relevant Sunday

It means nothing on Sunday. Regardless of who wins on Sunday, it will also mean nothing during the SB. The notion that good defenses always beat offenses is nonsense. The notion that high powered offenses don't win Super Bowls is nonsense. It's all nonsense, and both the eye test regarding the SB winners and the scoring stats of the SB winners prove it.

The team that plays best for a few weeks is the team that wins the Super Bowl, regardless of it's general offense/defense/ST level.

 

[StockingAnarchyNumber12]

It means nothing on Sunday. Regardless of who wins on Sunday, it will also mean nothing during the SB. The notion that good defenses always beat offenses is nonsense. The notion that high powered offenses don't win Super Bowls is nonsense. It's all nonsense, and both the eye test regarding the SB winners and the scoring stats of the SB winners prove it.

The team that plays best for a few weeks is the team that wins the Super Bowl, regardless of it's general offense/defense/ST level.

Sure, but its a fact that QBs who have thrown 43+ plus touchdowns are 0-8 (potentially more if I missed one). Very interesting trend. Youd think at least one would have won. I know Kurt Warner did at 41.

Also, never claimed high powered offenses don't win Superbowls. Just providing a fact that is pretty interesting. If Mahomes fails, thats 0-9. Thats a pattern. Already is a pattern. Probably coincidence, but who knows.

 

[vonBobo]

The team that plays best for a few weeks is the team that wins the Super Bowl, regardless of it's general offense/defense/ST level.

Agreed. The colts vs chiefs were like that... "just wasn't their day" type of game.

I don't feel like the Chiefs had a game like that this season, lost by 3, 3, 1, and 7.
Pats: 11, 11, 16, 24 and 1.

 

[Deus Irae]

Sure, but its a fact that QBs who have thrown 43+ plus touchdowns are 0-8 (potentially more if I missed one). Very interesting trend. Youd think at least one would have won. I know Kurt Warner did at 41.

Also, never claimed high powered offenses don't win Superbowls. Just providing a fact that is pretty interesting. If Mahomes fails, thats 0-9. Thats a pattern. Already is a pattern. Probably coincidence, but who knows.

But it's a meaningless fact using a cherry picked number as a cutoff. If I'm recalling correctly, beginning at least as far back as the year 2000, no team has won the Super Bowl while having a player with 17 or more sacks, either.

 

[Deus Irae]

Agreed. The colts vs chiefs were like that... "just wasn't their day" type of game.

I don't feel like the Chiefs had a game like that this season, lost by 3, 3, 1, and 7.
Pats: 11, 11, 16, 24 and 1.

Patriots fans who lived through 2007, and saw the gimpy Brady, the missing OL and banged up OG, and watched the defense blow the lead, and the possible game winning pass from Brady to Moss missing by a matter of inches, understand that the number of TD passes thrown by Brady during that regular season had nothing to do with why the team lost a heart breaker in the Super Bowl.

 

[StockingAnarchyNumber12]

But it's a meaningless fact using a cherry picked number as a cutoff. If I'm recalling correctly, beginning at least as far back as the year 2000, no team has won the Super Bowl while having a player with 17 or more sacks, either.

Still interesting that nobody who has thrown 43+ has won the Superbowl in my opinion. If we only count 45+, thatd be less cherry picked.

Youd think one would have managed it. Either way, if anybody can its Mahomes. Its not why they lost the SB, but still a trend.

 

[Deus Irae]

Still interesting that nobody who has thrown 43+ has won the Superbowl in my opinion. If we only count 45+, thatd be less cherry picked.

Youd think one would have managed it.

Why, when there have been so few that have done it? You're acting as if throwing that many TDs has been an every year accomplishment when almost all the occasions (6 of 8) have been within the past 15 years, and you're implying that the weak correlation might be proof of causation. As I pointed out (and again assuming memory is correct), it hasn't been won by a defender with 17+ sacks since 2000, and that's with a lot more candidates theoretically getting chances at it.

Again, if the Patriots defense didn't blow it on the David Tyree drive, this thread wouldn't even be happening. And the Patriots defense didn't blow that drive because Brady had thrown 43+ TD passes in the 2007 regular season. And if Brady, Brees or Goff should end up beating Mahomes and the Chiefs, it's not going to be because Mahomes threw for 43+ TDs in this regular season. It's going to be because one of the other teams with a top 4 offense, two of which had already beaten the Chiefs in the regular season, played well enough to win that one playoff game against the Chiefs.

There is no "there" there.

 

[StockingAnarchyNumber12]

Why, when there have been so few that have done it? You're acting as if throwing that many TDs has been an every year accomplishment when almost all the occasions (6 of 8) have been within the past 15 years, and you're implying that the weak correlation might be proof of causation. As I pointed out (and again assuming memory is correct), it hasn't been won by a defender with 17+ sacks since 2000, and that's with a lot more candidates theoretically getting chances at it.

Again, if the Patriots defense didn't blow it on the David Tyree drive, this thread wouldn't even be happening. And the Patriots defense didn't blow that drive because Brady had thrown 43+ TD passes in the 2007 regular season. And if Brady, Brees or Goff should end up beating Mahomes and the Chiefs, it's not going to be because Mahomes threw for 43+ TDs in this regular season. It's going to be because one of the other teams with a top 4 offense, two of which had already beaten the Chiefs in the regular season, played well enough to win that one playoff game against the Chiefs.

There is no "there" there.

I am confused what you're trying to debate here. I merely posted a fact that I found interesting and you're acting like AndyJohnson.

I'll just take a page out of your playbook and say three people rated my post useful and one hit agree so seems like 4 people at least found it useful. Hehehe. Hahaha.

Also, calm down tiger. I said, its "not why they lost the SB". So, again. Wtf are you even debating my son. You and Andy are frickening hilarious. These posts are so funny.

 

[Deus Irae]

I am confused what you're trying to debate here. I merely posted a fact that I found interesting and you're acting like AndyJohnson.

I'll just take a page out of your playbook and say three people rated my post useful and one hit agree so seems like 4 people at least found it useful. Hehehe. Hahaha.

Also, calm down tiger. I said, its "not why they lost the SB". So, again. Wtf are you even debating my son. You and Andy are frickening hilarious. These posts are so funny.

First, I'm not sure why you think that second paragraph applies to me. My comments about the rating system tend to be when I think people are inappropriately being down rated. Second, I'm discussing both the relevance and level of "interesting" mentioned in your O.P., though mostly the relevance portion.

You don't need a great:

QB (Foles, 2017)
Offense (Broncos, 2015)
Defense (Giants 2011)
RB (Eagles, 2017)
WR (Eagles, 2017)
CB (Eagles, 2017)
Coach (Broncos, 2015)
Pass Rusher (Patriots, 2016)

but that doesn't mean that having any of those things is bad, just like having the MVP on your team doesn't guarantee that your team will win the SB, but it's not a bad thing, and having a guy who throws a boatload of TDs in a particular season doesn't mean you can't win in the playoffs. You took a meaningless coincidence/correlation, and called it a trend, as if there was some kind of causal link, when there's not.

And my first post was just a response to your question as to whether your "trend" was relevant on Sunday, and consisted of me just dismissing the relevance, and not even singling it out for particular ridicule, as I was including it in with other myths and semi-myths.

It means nothing on Sunday. Regardless of who wins on Sunday, it will also mean nothing during the SB. The notion that good defenses always beat offenses is nonsense. The notion that high powered offenses don't win Super Bowls is nonsense. It's all nonsense, and both the eye test regarding the SB winners and the scoring stats of the SB winners prove it.

The team that plays best for a few weeks is the team that wins the Super Bowl, regardless of it's general offense/defense/ST level.

Then, instead of just acknowledging the obvious validity of my post, or leaving it alone, you doubled down on your O.P.. That's not me being Andy. That's you not knowing when to quit.

So, if you don't like being called out for making lame OPs and then doubling down on those lame OPs, stop making lame OPs and doubling down on them.

 

[StockingAnarchyNumber12]

@Deus Irae Because you once told me two people hit agree with your post to validate your stance against me.

You're arguing for the sake of argument and you made me spit out my mountain dew. You owe me a dollar.

Anyway, what do they put in your drink? You're hilarious and even more funny, you talk with this ego and almost fight to be seen as the victorious one. You're so oblivious and I'm dying over here.

WILL U PAY ME BACK FOR MY MOUNTAIN DEW ANDY DEUS JOHNSON.

 

[Deus Irae]

@Deus Irae Because you once told me two people hit agree with your post to validate your stance against me.

You're arguing for the sake of argument and you made me spit out my mountain dew. You owe me a dollar.

Anyway, what do they put in your drink? You're hilarious and even more funny, you talk with this ego and almost fight to be seen as the victorious one. You're so oblivious and I'm dying over here.

WILL U PAY ME BACK FOR MY MOUNTAIN DEW ANDY DEUS JOHNSON.

Are you daft?

I'm sitting back in a comfy chair, listening to the radio, watching a movie, playing a computer game, enjoying a drink (adult beverage), and talking to someone about Brexit on another forum. I responded because the board is slow and I thought I'd keep it going a bit, and you're acting like an ass hat because I pointed out that there's no relevance. Responding to your post was a moment's thought, that had nothing to do with ego, and everything to do with responding to your comment about relevance.

Not sure if its relevant Sunday

So, since you can't handle such an obvious truth about the relevance of a situationally meaningless statistic, we're done here.

 

[StockingAnarchyNumber12]

ok back to the thread