I have been looking at all the QBs who have won superbowl ever and have been identifying any parallels or trends. Most of them have a lot of things going on for them. Big arm, especially the older era QBs, very good accuracy, and so on.
But one very striking point I noted is they all seem to have one atleast one bowl game in college and almost all of them have been the MVP/ offensive MVP of the bowl game..
This might seem obvious to many of you but the striking thing is, it is not 80-90% of all the QBs. It is difficult to find accurate data for the older era QBs, but every QB I have seen has won a bowl game at the least. They all might have lost a few too but they atleast win one. They dont need to win every bowl game they play.
Also, a particular bowl game doesnt seem to matter. They dont need to win the BCS title or something. Roethlisberger won the GMAC bowl and was the MVP.
Tom Brady was drafted in the 6th round because he was too small to be NFL QB and did not have big arm. But he too won multiple bowl games. Sort of like Kellen Moore if you ask me.
Ofcourse, if you win bowl games doesnt mean you would win superbowl. But atleast it helps us in casting a tighter net.
If we use this theory, we can cast off some of the QBs in this year's draft. This theory has an obvious limitation. The shear number of bowl games played, it's very likely the QBs have won one.
Here's a list of QBs I have been hearing constantly for the Bills this season.
Luck, Locker, Mallet, Newton, Gabbert, Kaepernick, Dalton, Devlin, Ponder, Stanzi, Yates, McElroy, Potts, Tolzien, Jerrod Johnson
Among these, only Gabbert and Jerrod Johnson have not won any bowl games in their college career.
This obviously didnt help us in singling out that one QB who can lead us to superbowl but if you believe in this theory, Gabbert is not the guy - Gabbert should probably stay in school - He should not be drafted let alone at #3.
Its a pretty strong indicator considering every superbowl winner has won something at school as well.
PS (Update): It's a bit tiring to keep replying to comments which basically say the same. So here's an answer. From high school set theory, there is a difference between necessary condition and sufficient condition. My post is talking about only the necessary condition. It is NOT the sufficient condition. No where in my post did I suggest that winning bowl games is ENOUGH to win a superbowl but it definitely appears to be necessary. I hope I saved some effort for you guys in posting a comment.