Why Stafford, Sanchez (or Any QB) Won't Win You the Super Bowl

Your quarterback doesn't matter.

I know what every NFL pundit has told you it does, but they are wrong. Dead wrong.

If your goal is to win the Super Bowl, you don't need a great quarterback. The Trent Dilfers and Mark Rypiens of the world will suit your team just fine.

The John Elways, Brett Favres, and even Tom Bradys may be flashy and get the headlines, but you can win a championship without any of them.

There is no need to waste a first-round pick on a "franchise" quarterback. Matthew Stafford and Mark Sanchez? Let them "slip." Allow them to burden another team.

Go ahead. Call me crazy. Say I don't know football.

But then take a gander at a few stats culled from the past 30 years of Super Bowl-winning teams and rethink those slurs.

From 1979 through 2008, it is defense—and defense alone—that determines which team becomes a champion.

Looking at two main stats, total points allowed and total yards allowed, you can see what really builds a championship team.

First, let's examine the latter, total yards allowed. Of the past 30 Super Bowl-winning teams, five led the league in this category. Five more finished second overall. In fact, 17 of the past 30 champions finished in the top five in yards allowed with only five failing to crack the top 10. The average ranking for Super Bowl-winning teams was sixth overall (if you round up).

Total points allowed shines an even brighter light on the subject. Nine Super Bowl champions led the league in this category, with 11 more finishing in the top five. Only three teams—the '07 Giants, '06 Colts, and '83 Raiders—failed to finish in the top 10 in this category. The average ranking here was fourth overall.

Four teams in the past 30 years finished No. 1 in both total yards and points allowed. These were the '08 Steelers, '02 Buccaneers, '96 Packers, and '85 Bears. The quarterbacks on these teams? Ben Roethlisberger, Brad Johnson, Brett Favre, and Jim McMahon.

Many would argue that neither McMahon nor Johnson (and maybe even Big Ben) "won" the Super Bowl for their respective teams. Those victories were brought about by great defenses, or so the argument goes. Conversely, Farve gets the credit—sometimes all the credit—for the Packers' win. But is that true? They were all defensively ranked NO. 1 across the board. How can you differentiate between these victories based solely on quarterback play?

Another case in point is Tom Brady. Brady has won three Super Bowls, but what about the Patriots' defense?  In '04 they were second in total points allowed, ninth in total yards. In '03, the numbers were even better—first in total points, seventh in yards. Even in '01, Brady's coming-out party, the Patriots ranked sixth in total points allowed while being one of the only five teams in the past 30 years not to finish in the top 10 in yards allowed (the Patriots were ranked 24th). Has the Patriots' success been all on Brady's throwing shoulder or more due to a great defense?

The examples go on and on. The Cowboys' dynasty of the early '90s are often remembered by the triumvirate of Aikman, Emmitt, and Irvin. But their defense was stoic. In '95, it was third in points and ninth in yards. In '93, second and and 10th; '92, fifth and second.

Joe Montana and the 49ers? Again, top-notch defenses. Montana's first ring came with a defense ranked No. 2 in both points and yards. Three years later, they were first in points, 10th in yards. Then the back-to-back years of '88 and '89, the 49ers were eighth and third, then third and fourth. Even in '94, under the guidance of Steve Young, the 49ers defense was sixth in points and eighth in yards.

Are you seeing a pattern here?

This is not to say offense is completely meaningless.  Four times in the past 30 years a Super Bowl winning team was both first in points scored and total yards gained ('99 Rams, '97 Broncos, '89 49ers, and '79 Steelers).

Yet the offensive numbers are historically lower for Super Bowl winning teams.  On average, these championship teams rank 6th in points scored and 9th in total yards.

There is only one true instance in the past 30 years where a team with a horrific defense won the Super Bowl thanks to a great offense.  And that was the '06 Colts which ranked 23rd in points allowed and 21st in yards allowed, but was 2nd in points scored and 3rd in yards gained.  (Yet at the same time, the Colts defense was suddenly switched on during their Super Bowl run, becoming major run-stoppers when they had failed to do so all season long.)

Conversely, there are numerous times the opposite is true.  Last years' Steelers were first in both defensive categories, yet 20th and 22nd on the offensive side.  The '03 Patriots were 1st and 7th in defense in '03, but 12th and 17th in offense.  Similar types of numbers appear when looking at the '02 Buccaneers, the '00 Ravens, the '90 Giants, the '86 Giants, the '82 Redskins, and the '81 49ers.

While most of the mid-'80s through the mid-90s were filled with Super Bowl winning teams that ranked very high on both sides of the ball, since then it is the teams with great defenses and weaker offenses that have won the Super Bowl more often than not.

I believe this pattern will hold true for the foreseeable future.

An upcoming case-in-point may just be the Chicago Bears. Hopes are high in the Windy City with the addition of a franchise quarterback in Jay Cutler, but it was just three years ago that Rex Grossman led the Bears to the Super Bowl. Grossman was backed by a phenomenal defense. What will Culter have backing him? An average one. And where will the Bears finish? Playoffs? Maybe. Super Bowl? No way.

So while you get your hopes up with Stafford, Sanchez, or whomever else is under center for your beloved team, remember:  He likely doesn't really matter. What matters is what's taking place on the other side of the ball.

Defenses win championships. Quarterbacks just get the undeserved credit.