Considering the concerns about escalating QB contracts and the positions perceived value to a team, I decided to look for an anomaly in statistics that could prove this theory wrong. After less than an hour of research, I've come to the conclusion that it is not a quarterback driven league. Consider these things:
1. Weak offensive line nullifies a QB.
2. Weak receivers nullify a QB.
3. Being one dimensional nullifies a QB...seeing a pattern here?
There are so many factors that go into the success of a QB, that it's really unreasonable to call it a QB driven league. But what about the teams that have franchise QB's? Aren't they always in the playoffs? Sometimes. Sometimes sub-par QB's get there as well. Need proof? The NFL's golden boy, Andrew Luck, had a QB rating of 76.5.
The anomaly that stands out should have been obvious to me. Turnovers and opportunistic defenses. The two teams representing each conference in the Superb Owl in 2012 averaged over 2 takeaways per playoff game and were successful at getting to the Quarterback. Baltimore beat a team that was better on paper in Houston, because they were able to get timely turnovers.
It's like rock bands that change to stay relevant. Deep down, they're still the same bands, Metallica doesn't count, their early awesomeness probably had more to do with Dave Mustaine and Cliff Burton. I guess, the best way to put it is with an old cliche: The more things change; The more they stay the same.
So, is it a quarterback driven league? No. Quarterbacks can put fans in the seats, but creating turnovers is the real deciding factor. I'm not a betting man, but I'm willing to bet that if you put your money on the team that can generate turnovers, you may get your money back with a little overhead.