Those saying D > QB aren't saying that QB isn't important, just that D is more important.
There were a number of statistical analyses done in previous threads looking at past SB winners. The #1 correlator was Def, the #2 correlator was QB. Hence the argument that QB is extremely important but not as important as D.
Originally Posted by: macbob
Thanks Macbob.
I was one of the people who did the research and concluded that D is #1 and QB is #2 (and RB is irrelevant).
Gay is new to the site so probably hasn't seen that stuff. Long story short, Gay. I had an argument with RaiderPride awhile back. He said "Defense wins championships" and I said he was full of it. So I did research to prove him wrong and ended up proving him right.
If you look at all the SB winners, they generally are in the top 5 in Defense (counted by Points Allowed, the most important defensive stat). Our 4 SB winners were #1,#3,#1, and #2 respectively. No coincidence. Of course, having an elite QB is the #2 factor. In all four of those games, we had elite QBs - Bart Starr, Bart Starr, Brett Favre, and Aaron Rodgers respectively.
The one SB we lost, our D was #5. We didn't get the sacks we did the year before when we were #1. Which of course brings us to 2010 vs 2011. 2010, we had the #2 D and high 40s in sacks. 2011, we had the #19 D and high 20s in sacks. Our 2011 QB was better than our 2010 QB, but there is no doubt in my mind that the 2010 team would have slaughtered the 2011 team if they met in the Playoffs.
So yes, QB is the most important position. No argument there. But as a unit, D is more important than the QB position when it comes to winning Championships.
My man Donald Driver
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. š¹š¹ š²š² š¦š·