How important is your passing game to win the Super Bowl?

[SaltwaterServr]

Saw this thread on the New Jersey forums. They are just coming to grips with the fact that their rookies are exactly that, untested rookies. The rest of their receiving corps is loaded with #3's and #4's who'll now be facing team's best cornerbacks.

So they've been trying to talk themselves into the illusion that you don't need a #1 (or a bona fide #2) WR to win the Big One in Miami. Here's an attempt at the argument that you need to have a quality passing game to win it all despite not relying on it during the regular season:

First off, the passing rankings (Yards Per Game) of the last 9 Super Bowl champions, in the regular season...

Baltimore (2000-2001) 23rd
New England (2001-2002) 21st
Tampa Bay (2002-2003) 15th
New England (2003-2004) 8th
New England (2004-2005) 13th
Pittsburgh (2005-2006) 25th
Indy (2006-2007) 2nd
N.Y. Giants (2007-2008) 22nd
Pittsburgh (2008-2009) 15th

First and foremost, let's get the obvious out of the way. In the last two Super Bowls, the final 4 scoring drives totaled 315 yards. Of those 315 yards, 11 of them were designed running plays called on two downs.

TWO rushing attempts for 11 yards out of 315 total yards. Nah, a viable field stretching receiving corps isn't necessary, but I digress.

What I'm going to look at is yards per attempt in the passing game, regular season vs. the post season and see how the post season YPA would rank in the regular season. The point for doing this is that you are running up against much tougher defenses in the post season and yards are much harder to come by in batches. However, you'll still need a decent YPA in order to move the ball effectively down field.

2000 Baltimore - 21st regular season, comparable post season 3rd

2001 New England - 11th regular season, comparable post season - 30th (wow)

2002 Tampa Bay - 19th regular season, CPS - 9th

2003 New England - 12th regular season, CPS 21st

2004 New England - 8th regular season, CPS 15th

2005 Steelers - 1st regular season, CPS 1st - they improved in the post season in YPA as the same as moving up 5-10 spots had they not been first already. Their Yards Per Game was 24th at under 190 YPG.

2006 Colts - 3rd regular season, CPS 19th.

2007 Vagiants - 27th regular season, CPS 17th

2008 Steelers - 12th regular season, CPS 6th

Now, get inside the numbers a bit and see why I included the regular season passing rankings to start off. First, you have to look at how strong a passing game each team possessed in the regular season.

Obviously if they are pretty good in passing numbers they've got a good passing offense which isn't necessarily the same as a pass first offense. Secondarily they could be playing in a very weak pass defense division or have a favorable schedule against poor passing defenses. Third, they could have two of the best quarterbacks in the NFL flinging the ball around at will which was cut down to an extent by better defenses in the post season.

Am I trying to explain away the fact that there are 4 instances of where the YPA's went down in the post season or am I pointing out that Brady and Peyton were the quarterbacks on those teams? In the regular season they destroyed anything they came up against, but when things got tight in the playoffs they still got their yards albeit in smaller chunks.

The striking thing though is the poor passing games and how they ratcheted up their effectiveness in the post season. The three quintessential bus-driver quarterbacks in Dilfer, Brad Johnson, and Eli all managed to improve their yards per attempt in the post season against a better overall quality of defense that would have equated to a 10 spot jump in YPA regular season rankings.

That then brings me to a debatable point, you have to have a somewhat effective passing game in the regular season because it is going to be hugely important come playoff time. No matter your strength, you've got to be able to pick up 8 yards on 3rd and 7 by the air when the playoffs come around no matter if you've been getting it on the ground all year long.

You may now dissect this at will.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

I think the most important thing to winning the SB game(or any game for that matter) is.............. scoring more points than the other team.







I dont care how... just score more.......

 

[TwoDeep3]

This question and then statistical response reminds me of the fable The Elephant and the Blind Men.

It depends on what you are wanting to support with stats as to how your outcome will be colored.

Kinda like a documentary, which is always the point-of-view of the film maker.

Years ago it was said you couldn't win the Super Bowl if you had the regular season's rushing leader.

Then Emmitt did it twice.

So what is the truth?

You can do it either way. Just like a passing attack.

But a balanced offense is really what makes a team tough to beat. Just like a balance between your offense and defense.

 

[fannypack]

I don't know how much of a conclusion you can draw with that sample size, because something like this requires more. But I am impressed by the work you put into it.

I'd say you cannot say with certainty that a team has to have a good passing attack to go to or win a Superbowl, but I'm betting that if you have a great ground game and a mediocre passing attack you're more than likely going to get some opportunities you may otherwise not have gotten due to the commitment of teams to stop the run.

So the Giants could be a good passing team due to that fact.

 

[robb01]

I think the most important thing to winning the SB game(or any game for that matter) is.............. scoring more points than the other team.







I dont care how... just score more.......

Yep, I'd say thats pretty important

 

[MichaelWinicki]

What's really important for a Super Bowl are playoff wins.


Whatever those are...