Joe Montana dubs Dan Marino the GOAT quarterback

doubledragon

Joe Montana said recently that neither he nor Tom Brady is the GOAT quarterback, in his opinion Dan Marino is.

Joe Montana calls Dan Marino the best QB in NFL history

When Joe Montana retired, he was widely regarded as the greatest quarterback in NFL history. Montana has since been surpassed, in the opinion of most NFL observers, by Tom Brady. But Montana says neither he nor Brady is the best.

Dan Marino is the best quarterback in NFL history, Montana says.

Why Marino, who retired without a Super Bowl ring, over four-time champion Montana or seven-time champion Brady? In Montana’s view, Marino deserves the nod because he put up modern-looking passing numbers in an era when the sport hadn’t evolved to make passing as easy as it is now.

In Marino’s greatest season, 1984, he passed for 5,084 yards and 48 touchdowns. Those numbers are comparable with the MVP-winning stats of Patrick Mahomes last season (5,250 yards and 41 touchdowns), and Mahomes had a 17th game and a much, much more quarterback-friendly environment to play in, thanks to years of rules and strategy changes to benefit quarterbacks.

“Put Marino into today’s game where he gets free release . . . and his receivers, holy cow, weren’t very big,” Montana told Men’s Health. “Now these guys are 6'4,” 6'5.” I think [Marino] is probably one of the most unsung heroes of the game. People don’t talk enough about him or realize the numbers that he put up during the times that he put them up.”

Montana says Marino could throw the football in a way that other quarterbacks couldn’t.

“He had a quick release. I had to step into a lot of things to get enough [force] on the ball,” Montana said of Marino. “He had the perfect torque of his upper body and strength to deliver the ball quickly at a fast release with accuracy.”

Picking the best quarterback ever is a largely subjective exercise; no one could possibly know what Marino’s numbers would look like in the more offense-friendly environment Brady played in, or how much more Marino could have done throwing to Jerry Rice in Bill Walsh’s offense the way Montana did. But Marino certainly deserves to be in the conversation of the best quarterbacks ever, and it’s to Montana’s credit that he puts Marino there.

doubledragon

I've read a lot about Montana, and it's clear to me that Montana is a little bitter about Brady dethroning him from GOAT status, that's why he simply refuses to give Brady the credit for being the GOAT. Montana is an alpha male type guy, and he can't stand the fact that Brady took his crown.

thisistheshow

I accidentally posted this in the Patriots thread, then deleted it.

Brady is the GOAT, and it's not just the rings. He did it all, and did it all at high levels, for an extremely long time.

perkdog

Montana was only half right, he wasn't the GOAT QB

perkdog

@thisistheshow said:
I accidentally posted this in the Patriots thread, then deleted it.

Brady is the GOAT, and it's not just the rings. He did it all, and did it all at high levels, for an extremely long time.

100%

dallasactuary

Picking the best quarterback ever is a largely subjective exercise; no one could possibly know what Marino’s numbers would look like in the more offense-friendly environment Brady played in, or how much more Marino could have done throwing to Jerry Rice in Bill Walsh’s offense the way Montana did. But Marino certainly deserves to be in the conversation of the best quarterbacks ever, and it’s to Montana’s credit that he puts Marino there.

BAM! Every single word of this is true. The only quibble I have is the phrase "a largely subjective exercise"; it should say "an almost entirely subjective exercise".

doubledragon

@thisistheshow said:
I accidentally posted this in the Patriots thread, then deleted it.

Brady is the GOAT, and it's not just the rings. He did it all, and did it all at high levels, for an extremely long time.

You Patriots fans are so lucky, you don't know the pain and suffering I've had to endure over the years as a Panthers fan. Losing the Super Bowl, here, just look at this scar on my back, look at it!

erikthredd

@doubledragon said:

@thisistheshow said:
I accidentally posted this in the Patriots thread, then deleted it.

Brady is the GOAT, and it's not just the rings. He did it all, and did it all at high levels, for an extremely long time.

You Patriots fans are so lucky, you don't know the pain and suffering I've had to endure over the years as a Panthers fan. Losing the Super Bowl, here, just look at this scar on my back, look at it!

\/ \/ \/ \/

perkdog

@dallasactuary said:

Picking the best quarterback ever is a largely subjective exercise; no one could possibly know what Marino’s numbers would look like in the more offense-friendly environment Brady played in, or how much more Marino could have done throwing to Jerry Rice in Bill Walsh’s offense the way Montana did. But Marino certainly deserves to be in the conversation of the best quarterbacks ever, and it’s to Montana’s credit that he puts Marino there.

BAM! Every single word of this is true. The only quibble I have is the phrase "a largely subjective exercise"; it should say "an almost entirely subjective exercise".

It is but the battlefield that this topic is being fought on is right here and it will always be a subject that will be discussed regardless

I think everyone is entitled to their opinions within reason

dallasactuary

@perkdog said:

It is but the battlefield that this topic is being fought on is right here and it will always be a subject that will be discussed regardless

I think everyone is entitled to their opinions within reason

I'm with you. And as long as nobody mentions "rings" in expressing their opinion, I will respect it.

Estil

In terms of overall stats, then Dan (not to be confused with Dandy Don from the King of the Hill episode) is kinda sorta like the NFL's Wayne Gretzky.

doubledragon

@erikthredd said:

@doubledragon said:

@thisistheshow said:
I accidentally posted this in the Patriots thread, then deleted it.

Brady is the GOAT, and it's not just the rings. He did it all, and did it all at high levels, for an extremely long time.

You Patriots fans are so lucky, you don't know the pain and suffering I've had to endure over the years as a Panthers fan. Losing the Super Bowl, here, just look at this scar on my back, look at it!

\/ \/ \/ \/

BLUEJAYWAY

One thing I will agree on is the "quick release"comment" by Joe referring to Dan. Joe Namath had such a release as well.

coolstanley

Both Dan and Joe were great QB's. Just not a GOAT. IMO.

4for4

@dallasactuary said:

@perkdog said:

It is but the battlefield that this topic is being fought on is right here and it will always be a subject that will be discussed regardless

I think everyone is entitled to their opinions within reason

I'm with you. And as long as nobody mentions "rings" in expressing their opinion, I will respect it.

Brady has more rings then Pittsburgh and New England.

galaxy27

idk about this goat stuff, but what I do know is that Marino was putting up modern-era numbers forty years prior to. and he was doing it with a couple of dudes who were 5'9". imagine him airing the sh*t out of the football in the year 2023 to 6'+ guys like Justin Jefferson or Ja'Marr Chase with that blur of a release.

not only would he be the first pick in every fantasy draft, but if he had teammates who were collectively worth a damn his fingers would no longer be lonely

coinkat

We have been through this God knows how many times.

While I believe and maintain there simply is no NFL/AFL GOAT QB, Joe Montana claims there is which only proves that we both can be wrong.

erikthredd

@doubledragon said:

@erikthredd said:

@doubledragon said:

@thisistheshow said:
I accidentally posted this in the Patriots thread, then deleted it.

Brady is the GOAT, and it's not just the rings. He did it all, and did it all at high levels, for an extremely long time.

You Patriots fans are so lucky, you don't know the pain and suffering I've had to endure over the years as a Panthers fan. Losing the Super Bowl, here, just look at this scar on my back, look at it!

\/ \/ \/ \/

First it was Cam,then in the past week its Qb Matt Corral & WR Shi Smith. Its official, BB is trying to turn the NE Patriots into the Carolina Panthers.
Pats fans would appreciate it if you could please release Adam Thielen & Brian Burns next. Thanks! 😉👍

4for4

Tom Brady has made 2 NFL 1st team all decade teams. Dan Marino has made zero. No other QB has made two other then Brady.

https://www.profootballhof.com/news/2020/04/news-nfls-all-decade-teams/

Marino and Montana threw in beautiful weather in Miami and SF. Brady no.

Here’s what 1970’s 1st team all decade QB Bradshaw did once coming to Pittsburgh. I’d take him over Marino any day.

In an era when there was no shotgun really, only 3 receivers in patterns mostly, and you basically threw 15-20 times a game on mostly 3rd and 10 or 15.

craig44

I never liked the dolphins, but I was a dan marino fan growing up. as a pure football talent and thrower of the ball, i have never seen anyone better. I agree with galaxy, if he were throwing the ball today, he would probably have all the records again. very strong arm and quick release.

now obviously tommy is number 1 with his body of work, but as far as raw talent, Danny is as good as it got.

dallasactuary

@4for4 said:
Here’s what 1970’s 1st team all decade QB Bradshaw did once coming to Pittsburgh. I’d take him over Marino any day.

I think you posted the wrong thing. You said "Here's what Bradshaw did" but then you posted something that shows what the Steelers did. Nobody is arguing that the Steel Curtain wasn't one of the best defenses in history and that they were responsible for the Steelers winning a whole lot of games, but Bradshaw didn't play defense. What Bradshaw did was considerably less impressive, and why the Steelers actually won a higher percentage of their games when Bradshaw sat out than when he played.

Estil

@dallasactuary said:

@perkdog said:

It is but the battlefield that this topic is being fought on is right here and it will always be a subject that will be discussed regardless

I think everyone is entitled to their opinions within reason

I'm with you. And as long as nobody mentions "rings" in expressing their opinion, I will respect it.

Dan did get a 1984 AFC Championship ring, doesn't that count?

4for4

@dallasactuary said:

@4for4 said:
Here’s what 1970’s 1st team all decade QB Bradshaw did once coming to Pittsburgh. I’d take him over Marino any day.

I think you posted the wrong thing. You said "Here's what Bradshaw did" but then you posted something that shows what the Steelers did. Nobody is arguing that the Steel Curtain wasn't one of the best defenses in history and that they were responsible for the Steelers winning a whole lot of games, but Bradshaw didn't play defense. What Bradshaw did was considerably less impressive, and why the Steelers actually won a higher percentage of their games when Bradshaw sat out than when he played.

You must have missed a lot of the games. Oakland would have won 4 Super Bowls with Terry. Bradshaw to B and B would have been unstoppable.

Minnesota would have won Super Bowls with Terry.

There was no bigger big game player like Terry, thus why Staubach and Stabler finished behind him on the all decade team.

That Steelers defense was great. So was Oaklands and Minnesota’s and Dallas.

Pittsburgh wins no Super Bowls with Tarkenton or Ferguson, and perhaps 2 with Stabler and Staubach.

Terry is #1 1970’s all decade because he was the best then.

Go back and watch film of all those games and you’ll be convinced.

Terry WAS the reason we won 4.

4for4

Next thing I’ll hear is that Kareem Abdul Jabbar wasn’t great because LA went into Philly without him in Game 6 and won the NBA final without him. Lol.

I guess you’re also going to tell me Gretzky wasn’t the most important person on the Oilers 4 cups because they won it again the year he left for LA. Lol

4for4

4for4

Here’s why Oakland with Bradshaw would have been unstoppable.

Tatum, Hendricks, Shell, Upshaw, and the best receivers of the 70’s with Terry !

Terry was a great running QB.
Stabler was a statue.

4for4

Tom Brady averaged 1.6 yards per rush in his career. Bradshaw averaged 5.

Put Brady in the 70’s with QB’s mainly throwing on 3rd and 10 or 15, with mostly no shotgun, and mainly 3 receivers instead of 5, and he’s another Ken Stabler.

4for4

Dallas was great because Staubach could run like Bradshaw.

These QB’s only had 3 receivers and had to scramble to buy time for them to get open or eventually take off.

4for4

@dallasactuary said:

@4for4 said:
Here’s what 1970’s 1st team all decade QB Bradshaw did once coming to Pittsburgh. I’d take him over Marino any day.

I think you posted the wrong thing. You said "Here's what Bradshaw did" but then you posted something that shows what the Steelers did. Nobody is arguing that the Steel Curtain wasn't one of the best defenses in history and that they were responsible for the Steelers winning a whole lot of games, but Bradshaw didn't play defense. What Bradshaw did was considerably less impressive, and why the Steelers actually won a higher percentage of their games when Bradshaw sat out than when he played.

I just reread this and it is such a sad analysis of the importance of the greatest NFL quarterback in the 1970’s. The 70’s needed QB’s like Steve Young and Elway in order to achieve greatness, not Tom Brady’s or Ken Stabler.
Hopefully someday you will see the light. I do apologize if I got too emotional as a Steelers fan to your comment on Bradshaw.
He will always be 1st Team all decade NFL QB whether people agree or disagree. He was the greatest. Staubach right behind him.

dallasactuary

@4for4 said:

You must have missed a lot of the games.

I did miss all of the imaginary games you saw where Bradshaw QBed for Minnesota and Oakland and the ones where Staubach and Stabler QBed for Pittsburgh. And since your analysis rests entirely on what happened in those imaginary games that you saw I think that's why we're talking past each other. I don't need to go back and watch the Steelers games from the 70's because I already saw them, but if you could send me game films of the imaginary games that you saw those might make all the difference.

@4for4 said:
Next thing I’ll hear is that Kareem Abdul Jabbar wasn’t great because LA went into Philly without him in Game 6 and won the NBA final without him. Lol.

I guess you’re also going to tell me Gretzky wasn’t the most important person on the Oilers 4 cups because they won it again the year he left for LA. Lol

You missed my point. The Steelers, and the Lakers and Oilers, were great teams. That they won big games with Bradshaw (or Jabbar or Gretzky) isn't really evidence of anything. Telling me that a team won or lost a game is either evidence that every single player on the team was the GOAT, or it's not evidence of anything at all with respect to any individual player. Bradshaw was a "meh" quarterback. I say that with confidence having watched him play for a very long time. The Steelers, on the other hand, were one of, if not the, greatest football teams in history. It mattered little if at all who they had playing QB (just ask Mike Kruczek) - they were going to win regardless. If you look at the stats - or if you watched the games without your Steelers-colored glasses on - you can see why they won so many games and it was mostly because of their defense. Add a terrific offensive line and a great RB and you have pretty much all you need to win championships. The QB can't be terrible, for sure, but he doesn't need to be great, and in the Steelers case, he wasn't. He was good enough not to undo what his better teammates did.

coolstanley

@4for4 said:

@dallasactuary said:

@4for4 said:
Here’s what 1970’s 1st team all decade QB Bradshaw did once coming to Pittsburgh. I’d take him over Marino any day.

I think you posted the wrong thing. You said "Here's what Bradshaw did" but then you posted something that shows what the Steelers did. Nobody is arguing that the Steel Curtain wasn't one of the best defenses in history and that they were responsible for the Steelers winning a whole lot of games, but Bradshaw didn't play defense. What Bradshaw did was considerably less impressive, and why the Steelers actually won a higher percentage of their games when Bradshaw sat out than when he played.

You must have missed a lot of the games. Oakland would have won 4 Super Bowls with Terry. Bradshaw to B and B would have been unstoppable.

Minnesota would have won Super Bowls with Terry.

There was no bigger big game player like Terry, thus why Staubach and Stabler finished behind him on the all decade team.

That Steelers defense was great. So was Oaklands and Minnesota’s and Dallas.

Pittsburgh wins no Super Bowls with Tarkenton or Ferguson, and perhaps 2 with Stabler and Staubach.

Terry is #1 1970’s all decade because he was the best then.

Go back and watch film of all those games and you’ll be convinced.

Terry WAS the reason we won 4.

I wouldn't pay any attention to what dallas says. He gives all the credit to the Steelers defense and not any to the offense. Yet it was the offense who scored the points to win those games.

When Bradshaw retired he held all the Post-season passing records.

dallasactuary

@coolstanley said:

I wouldn't pay any attention to what dallas says. He gives all the credit to the Steelers defense and not any to the offense.

Are you lying, or can you not read? I give MOST of the credit to the defense, and I give a lot of credit to the five guys on the offensive line and a lot of credit to Franco Harris. I probably should also have mentioned Stallworth, he was very good to great, too. And at this point, we've described a championship team. The QB has to be a legitimate NFL QB or the team could still lose, but as long as he is, they're good. I (and you, and everyone here) has seen worse QBs than Bradshaw win Super Bowls, and even saw Denver win one with a QB who was the worst player on the field at any position. Great QBs have been necessary for many teams to win, lots of times, but the Steelers were not one of those teams, as they demonstrated.

coolstanley

First ballot Hall of Famers are just that because of their own achievements. Not because of other players achievements.

4for4

@dallasactuary said:

@4for4 said:

You must have missed a lot of the games.

I did miss all of the imaginary games you saw where Bradshaw QBed for Minnesota and Oakland and the ones where Staubach and Stabler QBed for Pittsburgh. And since your analysis rests entirely on what happened in those imaginary games that you saw I think that's why we're talking past each other. I don't need to go back and watch the Steelers games from the 70's because I already saw them, but if you could send me game films of the imaginary games that you saw those might make all the difference.

@4for4 said:
Next thing I’ll hear is that Kareem Abdul Jabbar wasn’t great because LA went into Philly without him in Game 6 and won the NBA final without him. Lol.

I guess you’re also going to tell me Gretzky wasn’t the most important person on the Oilers 4 cups because they won it again the year he left for LA. Lol

You missed my point. The Steelers, and the Lakers and Oilers, were great teams. That they won big games with Bradshaw (or Jabbar or Gretzky) isn't really evidence of anything. Telling me that a team won or lost a game is either evidence that every single player on the team was the GOAT, or it's not evidence of anything at all with respect to any individual player. Bradshaw was a "meh" quarterback. I say that with confidence having watched him play for a very long time. The Steelers, on the other hand, were one of, if not the, greatest football teams in history. It mattered little if at all who they had playing QB (just ask Mike Kruczek) - they were going to win regardless. If you look at the stats - or if you watched the games without your Steelers-colored glasses on - you can see why they won so many games and it was mostly because of their defense. Add a terrific offensive line and a great RB and you have pretty much all you need to win championships. The QB can't be terrible, for sure, but he doesn't need to be great, and in the Steelers case, he wasn't. He was good enough not to undo what his better teammates did.

You speak in circles.

Let me ask you this simple question.

Pittsburgh, Dallas, Oakland, and Minnesota all had equal defenses in the 1970’s.

Why did Pittsburgh win more Super Bowls in the 70’s then all those teams combined ?

4for4

Let me get this straight.

1- You watched Terry
2- Terry was voted the 1st team QB for the 1970’s all decade team by knowledgeable football people.
3- You call him a “meh” QB.

Final analysis is this………

1- Either the all decade voters are clueless or you are. It’s really that simple. Or do you have another way to explain it.

I will further our discussion when you explain that Wayne Gretzky wasn’t the best player on the Oilers or that Craig McTavish was a GOAT.
Because that is more of your circle talk with no real conclusion.
Please make a decision one way or the other.

4for4

My final question is also a simple one.

If the Steelers defense was so incredibly great and the reason why the Steelers won so much, then why in the four most important games of their dominance did not one great player from said defense win Super Bowl MVP ?

Why did Bradshaw (2), Harris and Swann ?

Surely Joe Greene and Lambert must have been SO much better based on your circular analysis .

Seems to me like the people who watched the games saw them as
“meh”.

Especially in that 35-31 win over Dallas. Very “meh” defense yes ?

4for4

I’m sure you can tell us why Alan Page and Lawrence Taylor are the only two defensive players to ever win NFL MVP and why none of these Steelers defensive players did.

Perhaps they were “meh” and no Alan Page ? What say you ?

Why so many other non-Steelers on these sack and INT leaders lists ?

4for4

4for4

Football in the 70’s. A nice left hook to the jaw.

4for4

Perhaps I just don’t understand your meaning of “meh”.

In my analysis the voters got it correct.

1970’s All Decade Team QB

1- Bradshaw
2- Staubach
3- Stabler

Even though I feel Roger was just as good as Terry but was outplayed by Terry in the Super Bowls which cost him the #1 ranking.

Please show me your 1970’s QB rankings list based on your “meh” analysis of Bradshaw.

Thank you.

JoeBanzai

In their victory over my Vikings, Franco and the defense was why the Steelers won those games.

Only someone with less than zero knowledge of football would rate Bradshaw above Tarkenton.

OMFG

4for4

@JoeBanzai said:
In their victory over my Vikings, Franco and the defense was why the Steelers won those games.

Only someone with less than zero knowledge of football would rate Bradshaw above Tarkenton.

OMFG

1960’s all decade QB’s
Unitas 1
Starr 2
Jurgensen 3

1970’s all decade QB’s
Bradshaw 1
Staubach 2
Stabler 3

Tarkenton played from 1961-1978 and didn’t crack the top 3 in either decade.

I guess these NFL voters must have zero knowledge of football?

4for4

Bradshaw a 108 rate
Tarkenton a 14 rate in that Super Bowl. Simply stated, Tarkenton sucked that day and Bradshaw was his awesome self.

4for4

And if you do the math, Bradshaw had the best rushing average that day for both teams. 😂

4for4

Ok.
I’ve learned there’s an anti-Bradshaw camp here.
It’s all good. No reason beating a dead horse. To each their own.
On to better discussions!

countdouglas

@4for4 said:
Ok.
I’ve learned there’s an anti-Bradshaw camp here.
It’s all good. No reason beating a dead horse. To each their own.
On to better discussions!

Get a map of the United States and draw a triangle connecting Columbia, Missouri, Cape Girardeau, Missouri, and Springfield, Illinois on the corners. It has been hypothesized that within that triangle there is something in the water, or the soil, or the air, or perhaps the radio and television waves that beamed out the voices of Jack Buck and Bob Costas that makes those that have resided there think that they are experts on any and every topic, but especially sports. It's almost comical how they repeatedly self-own themselves with their faux intelligence, but they still deserve to be treated with compassion. It's not their fault.

dallasactuary

@4for4 said:

Let me ask you this simple question.

Pittsburgh, Dallas, Oakland, and Minnesota all had equal defenses in the 1970’s.

Why did Pittsburgh win more Super Bowls in the 70’s then all those teams combined ?

Simply stating that Dallas, Oakland and Minnesota had equal defenses does not make it so, and indeed it was not so. Dallas and Oakland did not have anywhere near equal defenses to Pittsburgh, nor did they have equal offensive lines or running backs. What success they did have was much more attributable to their QBs, who were each significantly better than Bradshaw.

Minnesota did have a defense relatively equal to Pittsburgh's, although in the first part of the decade rather than at the same time as Pittsburgh. But they didn't have a great O-line, nor a great running back, although they, too, did have a QB much better than Bradshaw.

Because it was based on an incorrect premise, your question itself wasn't "simple" but the answer was. You just have to have watched the relevant teams play, and to understand how football works. I don't know which of those two things eludes you.

My best 3 QBs of the 1970s:

Roger Staubach
Ken Anderson
Ken Stabler

The arbitrary restriction of calendar decades does penalize Tarkenton, who would be the clear winner if we shifted to, say, 1965-1974.

JoeBanzai

The bottom line here is it's a team sport, average quarterbacks like Bradshaw get rewarded by playing on teams loaded with talent, while VASTLY SUPERIOR quarterbacks like Tarkenton get overlooked.

Tarkenton played for a horrible expansion team in Minnesota, then when they started getting better he was traded to the Giants, possibly the worst team in the NFL.

Upon returning to the Vikings, Fran (and a great defense) led them to 3 Super Bowls and were one bad call from going to 4 in a row. With virtually no running game, Fran was forced to try to win 3 big games by himself, he couldn't do it. Give him Franco Harris or Larry Csonka and it might have been a different story.

If you can't see that Tarkenton, who despite spending most of his career on horrible teams, was much better of a quarterback than Bradshaw, there's really no hope for you AT ALL.

That is enough on the subject for me.

SDSportsFan

Personally, I consider John Elway the greatest.

What would he have done if the Broncos would've had a running back and an offensive-minded coach earlier in his career, before finally getting Mike Shanahan and Terrell Davis at the end.

Dan Reeves was terrible for Elway.

Steve

Darin

The problem with Marino is he peaked in his 2nd year.
I would argue that Dan Fouts and his coach (air Coryell?)) had more to do with pioneering the modern passing game than Marino. Fouts and Marino both had a total of 2 seasons where they passed for over 4500 yards and Fouts did it first.
Marino in his last 11 seasons only passed for over 4000 yards 1 time.
Marino and Favre later on kind of had that ‘when in doubt throw it up for grabs’ mentality and both had way too many pics.

4for4

@dallasactuary said:

@4for4 said:

Let me ask you this simple question.

Pittsburgh, Dallas, Oakland, and Minnesota all had equal defenses in the 1970’s.

Why did Pittsburgh win more Super Bowls in the 70’s then all those teams combined ?

Simply stating that Dallas, Oakland and Minnesota had equal defenses does not make it so, and indeed it was not so. Dallas and Oakland did not have anywhere near equal defenses to Pittsburgh, nor did they have equal offensive lines or running backs. What success they did have was much more attributable to their QBs, who were each significantly better than Bradshaw.

Minnesota did have a defense relatively equal to Pittsburgh's, although in the first part of the decade rather than at the same time as Pittsburgh. But they didn't have a great O-line, nor a great running back, although they, too, did have a QB much better than Bradshaw.

Because it was based on an incorrect premise, your question itself wasn't "simple" but the answer was. You just have to have watched the relevant teams play, and to understand how football works. I don't know which of those two things eludes you.

My best 3 QBs of the 1970s:

Roger Staubach
Ken Anderson
Ken Stabler

The arbitrary restriction of calendar decades does penalize Tarkenton, who would be the clear winner if we shifted to, say, 1965-1974.

Anderson was very good.
He also had a 95 QB rating in his one Super Bowl loss.
Bradshaw had a 118 QB rating in his 4 Super Bowl wins and 2 Super Bowl MVP’s.

If Ken had a 118 rating in 1982 instead of just 95 his team would have done better then the 26-21 loss

If he was like Bradshaw, he would have propelled his team to victory.
He had the weapons to get it done.