HawkShack.com

We need a good, hearty debate here in the offseason, and what better topic than a quarterback ranking. Here's what some members of SI's staff came up with:

1. Patrick Mahomes, Kansas City, 78 points (2 first-place votes)
2. Tom Brady, New England, 77 (1)
3. Andrew Luck, Indianapolis, 73
4. Drew Brees, New Orleans, 65
5. Aaron Rodgers, Green Bay, 61
6. Philip Rivers, L.A. Chargers, 60
7. Ben Roethlisberger, Pittsburgh, 52
(tie)8. Matt Ryan, Atlanta, 50
(tie)8. Carson Wentz, Philadelphia, 50
10. Russell Wilson, Seattle, 43

https://www.si.com/nfl/2019/06/04/top-q ... ECtgU1ypXA

My re-arranged list looks like this:

1. Brady
2. Brees
3. Rodgers
4. Mahomes
5. Wilson
6. Rivers
7. Worthlessburger
8. Luck
9. Ryan
10. Wentz

It's important to note that I am simply re-arranging the list, not adding and subtracting names.

I can see elevating Mahomes above the others if you're a DC trying to game plan against him vs. his body of work, but if that's the case, I don't understand Wilson's #10 ranking behind guys like Wentz and Worthlessburger.

Luck at #3? That's just projecting what they think he could be, not what he has done.
I also think Wilson is better than Ryan, Roethlisberger, and Wentz.

My list would be:
Brees
Rodgers
Brady
Mahomes
Rivers
Wilson
Wentz
Luck
Ryan
Roethlisberger

And I think Mahomes might be overrated considering he's only started for 1 year. I thnk it
takes a couple or more years to get a feel of how good a QB is.

Brees, Rogers, Brady, Wilson. The rest are a step down and not worth the time to sort this close to quittin time.

NorthHawk wrote:Luck at #3? That's just projecting what they think he could be, not what he has done.
I also think Wilson is better than Ryan, Roethlisberger, and Wentz.

And I think Mahomes might be overrated considering he's only started for 1 year. I thnk it
takes a couple or more years to get a feel of how good a QB is.

Agreed on all 3 points. Ranking Luck at #3 is outrageous, and can't be justified either on potential, as one could with Mahomes or on body of work as one could with Brees and Rodgers

Ranking Wentz ahead of Wilson is outrageous. I'd like to know what they were drinking when they made that evaluation. I can see someone ranking Worthlessburger, Rivers, or even Ryan ahead of him, but Wentz?

When Luck and Wentz stay healthy and make it to the playoffs repeatedly, I’ll be happy to consider them on a top 10 list. Until such time, they aren’t and they certainly aren’t better that RW to date. Not even close.

I like Seahawks football, so I’m not complaining or excuse making, but our brand of football is simply not gonna produce the yardage that makes one’s eyes pop out unless they are crafty enough to really pay attention. He was 3rd in TDS last year w/ way fewer attempts than those ahead of and behind him (he had 427 and the dudes just before and after him were in the 600s). He was 3rd in passer rating last year & 2nd all time.

One cannot argue that Drew & Tom (& Aaron though I sports hate that guy) are cream of the crop along with RW. If we crowned the best of the NFL based off of a single season or potential, RG3 & Kaepernick (& others) would’ve still been playing & been better than RW too according to these myopic all-knowing sports writers. Mahomes looks fantastic & likely will be - we shall see. But so too have others who have regressed to the mean before long.

Lists like this start debates, which is the goal, I guess. But so many sheeple take them at face value. If I got to take any QB moving forward, I’d stick with RW. Father Time is gonna get Brees, Rivers, & Brady soon. Big Ben too. So are they saying who had the best 2018 campaign, who will have the best 2019 season, or who is better? The answers are different to each question.

I also think the height prejudice is in play with the list as well.

Hawk Sista wrote:When Luck and Wentz stay healthy and make it to the playoffs repeatedly, I’ll be happy to consider them on a top 10 list. Until such time, they aren’t and they certainly aren’t better that RW to date. Not even close.

Luck I can understand somewhat. But I don't get the fascination with Wentz. Sure, he was on track to be the league MVP before getting hurt, but the fact that a rather pedestrian QB took over for him and led that team to a Lombardi suggests that his success was as much if not more due to his surroundings than it was his talent.

Hawk Sista wrote:I like Seahawks football, so I’m not complaining or excuse making, but our brand of football is simply not gonna produce the yardage that makes one’s eyes pop out unless they are crafty enough to really pay attention. He was 3rd in TDS last year w/ way fewer attempts than those ahead of and behind him (he had 427 and the dudes just before and after him were in the 600s). He was 3rd in passer rating last year & 2nd all time.

Very true, which was one of the reasons why some were wondering if Russell was going to find a way to get out of Dodge. He'd have a much better chance of making the HOF with another team that's more offensive orientated.

Hawk Sista wrote:One cannot argue that Drew & Tom (& Aaron though I sports hate that guy) are cream of the crop along with RW. If we crowned the best of the NFL based off of a single season or potential, RG3 & Kaepernick (& others) would’ve still been playing & been better than RW too according to these myopic all-knowing sports writers. Mahomes looks fantastic & likely will be - we shall see. But so too have others who have regressed to the mean before long.

Brady and Rodgers both are not very likeable. That's one of the problems the NFL currently has, no true star or face of the league if you will. The analogy with Mahomes and RG3/Kaepernick is a good one. But I get the sense that Mahomes is different, that he's going to be a star in the league for a lot of years.

Hawk Sista wrote:Lists like this start debates, which is the goal, I guess. But so many sheeple take them at face value. If I got to take any QB moving forward, I’d stick with RW. Father Time is gonna get Brees, Rivers, & Brady soon. Big Ben too. So are they saying who had the best 2018 campaign, who will have the best 2019 season, or who is better? The answers are different to each question.

That's why I started the thread, to breathe some life into this place, and what better topic than a quarterback ranking to stir things up.

I agree on all points - Mahomes included. IMHO, RW is easily top 3-5 in the league and top 2 for this team. Top ONE iffin’ You’re asking this homer.

Hawk Sista wrote:I agree on all points - Mahomes included. IMHO, RW is easily top 3-5 in the league and top 2 for this team. Top ONE iffin’ You’re asking this homer.

Hey sis not sure what you mean by top 2 for this team. Russ is unquestionably the best QB ever for this franchise. I have Hass at 2, Krieg at 3.Honorable mention for Zorn and Moon although one can only wonder what might have been if McCormack and Patera had guaranteed Moons contract instead of Houston and paired him with Steve Largent and those salty defenses of the 80s As for the league overall its just a hard call but I think Russ can beat you in more ways than anyone else, do some amazing improvisational things and throws one of the most accurate wrinkle free deep balls in LEAGUE HISTORY with stats to prove it. Hes clearly top 5 at least.

I drool at the mouth thinking of the potential with this new crop of wide outs including DK coupled with Lockett who seemed to have an internal radio frequency with Russ on deep balls while posting a perfect rating on long balls for the entire season. Dissley is coming back. Russ mentioned Darboh from the podium recently who looked outstanding at Michigan but hadn't cracked the lineup. Moore made some big plays last year. Preseason only 7 weeks away baby

Hawktawk wrote:...although one can only wonder what might have been if McCormack and Patera had guaranteed Moons contract instead of Houston and paired him with Steve Largent and those salty defenses of the 80s.

Being that I'm a charter 12, I'm going to have to correct you on that. Moon was with Edmonton from '78-83, signing with Houston in 1984. Jack Patera was fired halfway through the 1982 season (in the middle of a player strike as I recall) and replaced by Chuck Knox in '83 and it was he and McCormick that were pursuing Moon.

As I recall, it wasn't so much a difference in contract offers that influenced Moon's decision as it was coaching. Moon's former head coach in Edmonton, Hugh Campbell, was hired by Houston, some say primarily to attract Moon. Naturally, Moon decided to go with what he knew and signed with the Oilers in order to reunite with the head coach that he has so much success with in Edmonton. Ironically, Campbell didn't last two seasons as the Oilers HC.

Wouldn't the hiring of Chuck Knox, in itself, be a negative to a FA QB? Ground Chuck vs passing offense in Houston.

For the first time, we all saw the "real" Russell last year, not held back by a Type A-personality Defense that dominated the clubhouse.
10-6 and stud stats with a lot of new faces has convinced me he's well over Luck, Rothlesburger and Wentz, all of which I agree are rated on potential, which is wrong.

Brady
Breez
Rivers
Wilson
Rodgers
Rams QB -
(hard to rate him: Mahomes -- is he another Robert Griffin III... looked great, until the NFL D's figured him out or is he really the next STUD QB?
-
and the rest on NFl island --

jshawaii22 wrote:Wouldn't the hiring of Chuck Knox, in itself, be a negative to a FA QB? Ground Chuck vs passing offense in Houston.

The "ground Chuck" moniker was a bit over done. In 1983, the year before Moon became a free agent, the Seahawks passed the ball roughly 45% of the time. The league average was only 50%, so it's not as if Knox's offense was "3 yards and a cloud of dust." Additionally, the most successful teams in the league in that era, ie the Redskins, Steelers, and Raiders, all ran the ball more than the Hawks did. Even Dan Marino's Dolphins ran the ball more than the Hawks did.

It's important to note that in 1983, the Seahawk offense ranked 6th in the league while Houston's was ranked 22nd. The Oilers were one of the worst teams in the league, finishing at 2-12 while the Hawks had advanced to the conference championship game. The Oilers were in full rebuild mode while the Hawks were already being talked about as SB contenders. I would think that a QB that was in the middle of his career, given a chance to play for a rebuilding team vs. a legitimate SB contender, would have jumped at the chance to come to Seattle, especially given that Moon played his college ball at UW.

I think Russ has the potential to be the #1 QB in our history but I'm hesitant to give him that label until he proves he can win without a ground game. Russ and a passing offense can't carry this team as we've seen since Beast left. He's good and has gotten us to the playoffs with mediocre RBs at best since then but he hasn't carried us to the top level.

That all said, the only other QB to get us to the top level was Hass and he only proved it in one game without a top tier RB. So that one game is the only sliver of difference between the two top QBs in franchise history for me.

idhawkman wrote:I think Russ has the potential to be the #1 QB in our history but I'm hesitant to give him that label until he proves he can win without a ground game. Russ and a passing offense can't carry this team as we've seen since Beast left. He's good and has gotten us to the playoffs with mediocre RBs at best since then but he hasn't carried us to the top level.

That all said, the only other QB to get us to the top level was Hass and he only proved it in one game without a top tier RB. So that one game is the only sliver of difference between the two top QBs in franchise history for me.

I think you might be underrating him to a large degree.
A couple of years ago he was near the top in QB rankings, if not leading some all the while having an OL that couldn't pass block, nor run block.
That's a lot for one person to do on his own in a pass happy league.

idhawkman wrote:I think Russ has the potential to be the #1 QB in our history but I'm hesitant to give him that label until he proves he can win without a ground game. Russ and a passing offense can't carry this team as we've seen since Beast left. He's good and has gotten us to the playoffs with mediocre RBs at best since then but he hasn't carried us to the top level.

That all said, the only other QB to get us to the top level was Hass and he only proved it in one game without a top tier RB. So that one game is the only sliver of difference between the two top QBs in franchise history for me.

NorthHawk wrote:I think you might be underrating him to a large degree. A couple of years ago he was near the top in QB rankings, if not leading some all the while having an OL that couldn't pass block, nor run block.

That's a lot for one person to do on his own in a pass happy league.

I don't think there's any question that Russell is the best QB in Seahawk history. It's not even worth debating IMO.

The "ground Chuck" moniker was a bit over done. In 1983, the year before Moon became a free agent, the Seahawks passed the ball roughly 45% of the time. The league average was only 50%, so it's not as if Knox's offense was "3 yards and a cloud of dust." Additionally, the most successful teams in the league in that era, ie the Redskins, Steelers, and Raiders, all ran the ball more than the Hawks did. Even Dan Marino's Dolphins ran the ball more than the Hawks did.

It's important to note that in 1983, the Seahawk offense ranked 6th in the league while Houston's was ranked 22nd. The Oilers were one of the worst teams in the league, finishing at 2-12 while the Hawks had advanced to the conference championship game. The Oilers were in full rebuild mode while the Hawks were already being talked about as SB contenders. I would think that a QB that was in the middle of his career, given a chance to play for a rebuilding team vs. a legitimate SB contender, would have jumped at the chance to come to Seattle, especially given that Moon played his college ball at UW.

Out of curiosity, would Moon of been coming in as the presumed starter? RD, I have to admit, i don't have your knowledge base for the 80's.

RiverDog" wrote:The "ground Chuck" moniker was a bit over done. In 1983, the year before Moon became a free agent, the Seahawks passed the ball roughly 45% of the time. The league average was only 50%, so it's not as if Knox's offense was "3 yards and a cloud of dust." Additionally, the most successful teams in the league in that era, ie the Redskins, Steelers, and Raiders, all ran the ball more than the Hawks did. Even Dan Marino's Dolphins ran the ball more than the Hawks did.

It's important to note that in 1983, the Seahawk offense ranked 6th in the league while Houston's was ranked 22nd. The Oilers were one of the worst teams in the league, finishing at 2-12 while the Hawks had advanced to the conference championship game. The Oilers were in full rebuild mode while the Hawks were already being talked about as SB contenders. I would think that a QB that was in the middle of his career, given a chance to play for a rebuilding team vs. a legitimate SB contender, would have jumped at the chance to come to Seattle, especially given that Moon played his college ball at UW.

Idahawkman wrote:Out of curiosity, would Moon of been coming in as the presumed starter? RD, I have to admit, i don't have your knowledge base for the 80's.

Probably. You don't sign a FA quarterback to a big contract then sit them on the bench.

Jim Zorn was the starter at the beginning of 1983 and was replaced by Dave Krieg in mid-season and played well, eventually leading the Hawks to the AFC Championship game but he was both younger, and less experienced than Moon. Especially since Moon played his college ball at UW and led them to a Rose Bowl victory, Moon would have been an immediate fan favorite.

As it was, the Hawks started 1984 like gangbusters even though they lost Curt Warner for the year in their season opener. Although they lost their last regular season game vs. Denver, a game I saw in person, and lost in the playoffs, they finished the season 12-4, a regular season Hawks record that stood for 21 years. Krieg played well that season and people generally forgot about the proposed Moon deal. It's only been since after Krieg retired that some have engaged in the "what if" scenarios. It wasn't a controversy back then.

Goff at least #2

Rambo2014 wrote:Goff at least #2

... let me finish that for you. Goff at least #2 for worst performance by a starting QB in the history of the Super Bowl.

Rambo2014 wrote:Goff at least #2

jshawaii22 wrote:... let me finish that for you. Goff at least #2 for worst performance by a starting QB in the history of the Super Bowl.

Yea, no kidding. It's interesting that an unproven QB like Wentz gets some love but Goff doesn't.

Idahawkman wrote:Out of curiosity, would Moon of been coming in as the presumed starter? RD, I have to admit, i don't have your knowledge base for the 80's.

RiverDog wrote:


Probably. You don't sign a FA quarterback to a big contract then sit them on the bench.

Jim Zorn was the starter at the beginning of 1983 and was replaced by Dave Krieg in mid-season and played well, eventually leading the Hawks to the AFC Championship game but he was both younger, and less experienced than Moon. Especially since Moon played his college ball at UW and led them to a Rose Bowl victory, Moon would have been an immediate fan favorite.

As it was, the Hawks started 1984 like gangbusters even though they lost Curt Warner for the year in their season opener. Although they lost their last regular season game vs. Denver, a game I saw in person, and lost in the playoffs, they finished the season 12-4, a regular season Hawks record that stood for 21 years. Krieg played well that season and people generally forgot about the proposed Moon deal. It's only been since after Krieg retired that some have engaged in the "what if" scenarios. It wasn't a controversy back then.

FYI - this is JSHawaii's quote not mine.

idhawkman wrote:I think Russ has the potential to be the #1 QB in our history but I'm hesitant to give him that label until he proves he can win without a ground game. Russ and a passing offense can't carry this team as we've seen since Beast left. He's good and has gotten us to the playoffs with mediocre RBs at best since then but he hasn't carried us to the top level.

That all said, the only other QB to get us to the top level was Hass and he only proved it in one game without a top tier RB. So that one game is the only sliver of difference between the two top QBs in franchise history for me.

NorthHawk wrote:I think you might be underrating him to a large degree.
A couple of years ago he was near the top in QB rankings, if not leading some all the while having an OL that couldn't pass block, nor run block.
That's a lot for one person to do on his own in a pass happy league.

Can you be more specific which year? RW is only effective when he has a run game to pull the DBs closer to the LOS. IN all fairness that could be an indictment against his WRs but to me with as many under throws and overthrows that RW has to wide open receivers I put it more on him.

That all said, with this current OL and the RBs of Carson, Penny and McKissic (still not a believer in Prosice), I'm excited about this year since RW will probably benefit greatly from the best run game in the league.

idhawkman wrote:FYI - this is JSHawaii's quote not mine.

My apologies. We can't embed more than one quote so sometimes I don't pay attention when I copy and paste.

RiverDog wrote:
My apologies. We can't embed more than one quote so sometimes I don't pay attention when I copy and paste.

I figured that is what happened. I don't always catch it myself and have confused some posters because of it. Just wanted to clarify, no need to apologize on this.

RiverDog wrote:
I don't think there's any question that Russell is the best QB in Seahawk history. It's not even worth debating IMO.

Aren't you the one in your original post say that you wanted a hearty debate?

RiverDog wrote:I don't think there's any question that Russell is the best QB in Seahawk history. It's not even worth debating IMO.

idhawkman wrote:Aren't you the one in your original post say that you wanted a hearty debate?

What's the thread title? It doesn't say best QB in Seahawk history.

RiverDog wrote:
What's the thread title? It doesn't say best QB in Seahawk history.

Is that part of a robust QB discussion as per your post?

idhawkman wrote:What's the thread title? It doesn't say best QB in Seahawk history.

RiverDog wrote:Is that part of a robust QB discussion as per your post?

Not really. IMO there's very little "robustness" in a best qb in Seahawk history proposition as you have just three viable choices, and even that's being generous.

I'm not sure why you're badgering me about this. All I said was that RW was the best QB in Hawks history and it wasn't worth debating, but if you feel differently and that it merits a more in depth discussion, then fine, start a thread about it and I'll participate. Perhaps start a poll and ask that question and see how many votes Rick Mirer gets.

idhawkman wrote:What's the thread title? It doesn't say best QB in Seahawk history.

RiverDog wrote:Is that part of a robust QB discussion as per your post?

RiverDog wrote:


Not really. IMO there's very little "robustness" in a best qb in Seahawk history proposition as you have just three viable choices, and even that's being generous.

I'm not sure why you're badgering me about this. All I said was that RW was the best QB in Hawks history and it wasn't worth debating, but if you feel differently and that it merits a more in depth discussion, then fine, start a thread about it and I'll participate. Perhaps start a poll and ask that question and see how many votes Rick Mirer gets.

I'm laughing a little becasue your quote attributes are reversed making it look like you are taking my position and I'm taking yours. Gave me a good chuckle today reading it that way.

Can you be more specific which year? RW is only effective when he has a run game to pull the DBs closer to the LOS. IN all fairness that could be an indictment against his WRs but to me with as many under throws and overthrows that RW has to wide open receivers I put it more on him.

I think that the 3 worst years for OL production including the run game was between 2015 and 2017 when Cable was in charge.
In those years, Wilson had the following stats:

2015
1st in pass rating
3rd in Pass %
6th in TD's

2017
1st in TD's
3rd in TD %

2016 was a bad year for him and he was ranked in the 10 - 15 range in most categories. It's the year he
also had a Grade 3 high ankle sprain and Grade 2 MCL sprain. Both injuries occurred in September of that year.

My list!

Brady
Wilson
Breez
Rothy
Rogers
Rivers
Patty child, really? give him another year folks.

What makes you heroes think that Rogers is better than our guy? 4th quarter comebacks, Check. Doing more with less, check. Head to head, check.

obiken wrote:My list!

Brady
Wilson
Breez
Rothy
Rogers
Rivers
Patty child, really? give him another year folks.

What makes you heroes think that Rogers is better than our guy? 4th quarter comebacks, Check. Doing more with less, check. Head to head, check.

One of the "checks" is a league MVP, which Rodgers has but Russell doesn't. That's no slam on Russell, just one of the things that I took into consideration.

I probably over rated Mahomes more than I did any other QB, but I have a feeling he's going to be a true star.

RiverDog wrote:
One of the "checks" is a league MVP, which Rodgers has but Russell doesn't. That's no slam on Russell, just one of the things that I took into consideration.

I probably over rated Mahomes more than I did any other QB, but I have a feeling he's going to be a true star.

Now that people have had a chance to see Mahomes and game plan for him, this will be the year that tells us more about his star ability. I think about RG3 and how the first year his star was rising fast just to have it come crashing down to earth in year 2. That said, you may be right about Mahomes.

Now that people have had a chance to see Mahomes and game plan for him, this will be the year that tells us more about his star ability.

Yup, and also agree that I think he's the real deal.

However, defensive coordinators are *masters* at spotting tendencies and weaknesses. We'll see.

Now that people have had a chance to see Mahomes and game plan for him, this will be the year that tells us more about his star ability. I think about RG3 and how the first year his star was rising fast just to have it come crashing down to earth in year 2. That said, you may be right about Mahomes.

That's my point ID, IF he has a great 2nd year, then we can have the coronation, but we have to wait. My gut agrees with River.

idhawkman wrote:I think Russ has the potential to be the #1 QB in our history but I'm hesitant to give him that label until he proves he can win without a ground game. Russ and a passing offense can't carry this team as we've seen since Beast left. He's good and has gotten us to the playoffs with mediocre RBs at best since then but he hasn't carried us to the top level.

That all said, the only other QB to get us to the top level was Hass and he only proved it in one game without a top tier RB. So that one game is the only sliver of difference between the two top QBs in franchise history for me.

You do realize even Brady needed a run game to win. In fact I can't remember the last time a team won a SB with at least a productive run game or better. Also what game did Hass play without Alexander that we won that mattered.

idhawkman wrote:Can you be more specific which year? RW is only effective when he has a run game to pull the DBs closer to the LOS. IN all fairness that could be an indictment against his WRs but to me with as many under throws and overthrows that RW has to wide open receivers I put it more on him.

That all said, with this current OL and the RBs of Carson, Penny and McKissic (still not a believer in Prosice), I'm excited about this year since RW will probably benefit greatly from the best run game in the league.

Ahh just 2 years ago he was over 80% of our offensive yards. Over 95% of our offensiventds, NFL record and led us to a winning record with him as the leading rusher.

Anthony wrote:In fact I can't remember the last time a team won a SB with at least a productive run game or better.

Not sure what you are calling "productive" (top half maybe?), but Denver and Peyton Manning won it 4 years ago with the 17th ranked rushing offense. The Packers and Aaron Rodgers won it a few years before that with the 24th ranked rushing offense, and a few years before that, Worthlessburger won a title with the 23rd ranked rushing offense...and Eli Manning won SB 46 with the worst rushing offense in the league.

Not saying you're wrong as more times than not the SB winner has a top 10 running game, but not always.

BTW, glad to see you posting again!

RiverDog wrote:
Not sure what you are calling "productive" (top half maybe?), but Denver and Peyton Manning won it 4 years ago with the 17th ranked rushing offense. The Packers and Aaron Rodgers won it a few years before that with the 24th ranked rushing offense, and a few years before that, Worthlessburger won a title with the 23rd ranked rushing offense...and Eli Manning won SB 46 with the worst rushing offense in the league.

Not saying you're wrong as more times than not the SB winner has a top 10 running game, but not always.

BTW, glad to see you posting again!

Thanks about being back been a busy summer LOL

Now as to those run games. For me a run game can be measures several ways.

Yards
YPA
TDs
DVOA
then PLayoff specific

Hwn denver won it they were 17th in total yards but 13th in ypa at 4.2, since 4 ypa is this goal they had a good enough run game to make people have to
watch it. They also had the 6th most Rushing TDs. they makes them a formidable running team. Now was it top of the line....no but it was more than enough to make people think about it. Also in the post Season they ran the ball well and were 2nd of al the teams in the playoffs

Now Greenbay was interesting as during the regular season they did do well in any Rushing category.

Pitt I need to know which Sb or year as they did have a run of 3 out of 5 in there

Now as to NY ahh they had the #4 ranked Run defense in 2007 which is the year they won the SB last and is the 46th https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Super_Bowl_champions.

All that aside though even in the GB team while they did not have a great run game, they did have a great defense, and while I know we are not talking defense, but we need to address it as people are now judging Russ saying he cant win without a great run game, which he already has, but are forgetting he also does not have a great defense either. Yet he is constantly leading us to winning records' ad other than one year the playoffs.

Anthony wrote:Now as to those run games. For me a run game can be measures several ways.

Yards
YPA
TDs
DVOA
then PLayoff specific

Hwn denver won it they were 17th in total yards but 13th in ypa at 4.2, since 4 ypa is this goal they had a good enough run game to make people have to
watch it. They also had the 6th most Rushing TDs. they makes them a formidable running team. Now was it top of the line....no but it was more than enough to make people think about it. Also in the post Season they ran the ball well and were 2nd of al the teams in the playoffs

Now Greenbay was interesting as during the regular season they did do well in any Rushing category.

Pitt I need to know which Sb or year as they did have a run of 3 out of 5 in there

Now as to NY ahh they had the #4 ranked Run defense in 2007 which is the year they won the SB last and is the 46th https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Super_Bowl_champions.

All that aside though even in the GB team while they did not have a great run game, they did have a great defense, and while I know we are not talking defense, but we need to address it as people are now judging Russ saying he cant win without a great run game, which he already has, but are forgetting he also does not have a great defense either. Yet he is constantly leading us to winning records' ad other than one year the playoffs.

It's refreshing to know that you haven't forgotten the art of massaging stats to fit your argument. But there's other teams besides Manning's Broncos that have won the SB in the past 10-15 years...or come damn close to winning it...without a solid, top half of the league rushing attack that you're going to have to manipulate in order to fit your narrative.

The last time the Giants won the Super Bowl was on Feb. 5th, 2012, in the game that featured the catch with the receiver trapping the ball on his helmet. In the 2011 regular season, they ranked dead last in rushing offense:

http://www.espn.com/nfl/statistics/team ... /year/2011

Pittsburgh beat Arizona in SB 43 on Feb. 1st, 2009. In the 2008 regular season, they ranked 23rd in rushing offense:

http://www.espn.com/nfl/statistics/team ... /year/2008

Indianapolis and Peyton Manning were an interception away from winning a SB with the worst rushing offense in the league back when they lost to Drew Brees and the Saints in SB 44 in Feb. of 2010:

http://www.espn.com/nfl/statistics/team ... /year/2009

Like I said, it's normally a characteristic of a SB champ to have a solid running game, but it's certainly not a requirement. Teams have won championships in a variety of ways.