FWIW in 1978 Dallas had an equal offense and defense to Pittsburgh.
Yet they lost 35-31 in the big game because of Super Bowl MVP Bradshaw who outplayed Staubach, your #1 guy.
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
You feel it’s more important what Ken and Roger did against the bottom feeders.
The HOF voters and I feel it’s important what you did mono y mono in the big games.
That’s partly the difference.
Terry Bradshaw had the greatest decade of any QB in the 1970’s.
To say Pittsburghs defense helped him is like saying Pittsburghs offense helped the defense by moving the chains and keeping them off the field, rested and strong.
Pittsburghs offense actually made their defense even better, not vice versa. The Oakland and Dallas defenses benefitted from Staubach and Stabler too moving the chains.
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
@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!
They hate Lynn Swann too.
The Steelers had the #1 offense in 1979 and according to these haters, it was because of the defense and Franco Harris LOL.
Humor me Dallas on this one.
What adjectives would you use to describe Bradshaw and Staubachs QB ratings in this mono y mono clash they had in their first Super Bowl. I’m sure Terry will get a “meh” and Roger your #1 guy was “Ken Anderson like”. Your 1970’s #1 guy cost his team a Super Bowl just like your #2 guy did.
Bradshaw outplayed every opposing QB in all four Super Bowls.
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
I'm not going to address what any QB did in any one game because it has nothing to do with who I consider to be "better". All of the QBs mentioned here played well over 100 games, and it is their entire body of work that informs my opinion. If you want to ignore the hundreds of games and focus on only a handful, be my guest, but it's certainly not going to have any effect on my conclusions. I think the only reason the Bengals ever made it to a Super Bowl, and the only reason they ever won any games at all, was Ken Anderson. If you're looking for examples of a QB "carrying his team" then Ken Anderson stands out from the pack. Maybe the Steelers don't win one or more of their Super Bowls without Bradshaw, or maybe they win even more, but with or without him the Steelers were going to win lots and lots of games and go to several Super Bowls. Carrying a team to one more win is great; but carrying a terrible team to a Super Bowl is much more impressive to me.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@dallasactuary said:
I'm not going to address what any QB did in any one game because it has nothing to do with who I consider to be "better". All of the QBs mentioned here played well over 100 games, and it is their entire body of work that informs my opinion. If you want to ignore the hundreds of games and focus on only a handful, be my guest, but it's certainly not going to have any effect on my conclusions. I think the only reason the Bengals ever made it to a Super Bowl, and the only reason they ever won any games at all, was Ken Anderson. If you're looking for examples of a QB "carrying his team" then Ken Anderson stands out from the pack. Maybe the Steelers don't win one or more of their Super Bowls without Bradshaw, or maybe they win even more, but with or without him the Steelers were going to win lots and lots of games and go to several Super Bowls. Carrying a team to one more win is great; but carrying a terrible team to a Super Bowl is much more impressive to me.
Here’s the last thing you don’t understand about the 70’s.
The Steelers had other teams each year that had equal or better defenses.
Here is 1974 when Terry crushed Tarkenton in the Super Bowl.
The Rams, Redskins, Vikings, and Raiders all were similar in O and D.
All the other years are the same with point differentials.
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
@dallasactuary said:
I'm not going to address what any QB did in any one game because it has nothing to do with who I consider to be "better". All of the QBs mentioned here played well over 100 games, and it is their entire body of work that informs my opinion. If you want to ignore the hundreds of games and focus on only a handful, be my guest, but it's certainly not going to have any effect on my conclusions. I think the only reason the Bengals ever made it to a Super Bowl, and the only reason they ever won any games at all, was Ken Anderson. If you're looking for examples of a QB "carrying his team" then Ken Anderson stands out from the pack. Maybe the Steelers don't win one or more of their Super Bowls without Bradshaw, or maybe they win even more, but with or without him the Steelers were going to win lots and lots of games and go to several Super Bowls. Carrying a team to one more win is great; but carrying a terrible team to a Super Bowl is much more impressive to me.
I just noticed your Terry Bradshaw sucks for the first time in your sig line.
I see that there are more intelligent people I can have discussions with about football.
Sorry I wasted my time here.
Sorry Ken Anderson blew that Super Bowl for his superior Bengals against the 49ers. He sucked bad that day.
Just like Tarkenton and Staubach sucked too against the Steelers.
I just put you on ignore so I can not read anymore of your thoughts on any subject. Have a good one.
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
@dallasactuary said:
I'm not going to address what any QB did in any one game because it has nothing to do with who I consider to be "better". All of the QBs mentioned here played well over 100 games, and it is their entire body of work that informs my opinion. If you want to ignore the hundreds of games and focus on only a handful, be my guest, but it's certainly not going to have any effect on my conclusions. I think the only reason the Bengals ever made it to a Super Bowl, and the only reason they ever won any games at all, was Ken Anderson. If you're looking for examples of a QB "carrying his team" then Ken Anderson stands out from the pack. Maybe the Steelers don't win one or more of their Super Bowls without Bradshaw, or maybe they win even more, but with or without him the Steelers were going to win lots and lots of games and go to several Super Bowls. Carrying a team to one more win is great; but carrying a terrible team to a Super Bowl is much more impressive to me.
I just noticed your Terry Bradshaw sucks for the first time in your sig line.
I see that there are more intelligent people I can have discussions with about football.
Sorry I wasted my time here.
Sorry Ken Anderson blew that Super Bowl for his superior Bengals against the 49ers. He sucked bad that day.
Just like Tarkenton and Staubach sucked too against the Steelers.
I just put you on ignore so I can not read anymore of your thoughts on any subject. Have a good one.
This board gives some entertainment. Dallas is a key cog in that source of entertainment. Of all the dust ups I never blocked anyone...that would be boring
@dallasactuary said:
I'm not going to address what any QB did in any one game because it has nothing to do with who I consider to be "better". All of the QBs mentioned here played well over 100 games, and it is their entire body of work that informs my opinion. If you want to ignore the hundreds of games and focus on only a handful, be my guest, but it's certainly not going to have any effect on my conclusions. I think the only reason the Bengals ever made it to a Super Bowl, and the only reason they ever won any games at all, was Ken Anderson. If you're looking for examples of a QB "carrying his team" then Ken Anderson stands out from the pack. Maybe the Steelers don't win one or more of their Super Bowls without Bradshaw, or maybe they win even more, but with or without him the Steelers were going to win lots and lots of games and go to several Super Bowls. Carrying a team to one more win is great; but carrying a terrible team to a Super Bowl is much more impressive to me.
I just noticed your Terry Bradshaw sucks for the first time in your sig line.
I see that there are more intelligent people I can have discussions with about football.
Sorry I wasted my time here.
Sorry Ken Anderson blew that Super Bowl for his superior Bengals against the 49ers. He sucked bad that day.
Just like Tarkenton and Staubach sucked too against the Steelers.
I just put you on ignore so I can not read anymore of your thoughts on any subject. Have a good one.
Hey with all due respect with the amount of traffic in here it will limit the amount of banter if you block guys who you bump elbows with, obviously your well within your rights to do as you chose but part of the fun is to go back.and forth with guys here.
Its all part of Sports Talk no matter where you go, Dallas is a very intelligent fellow and is strong in his beliefs as you are as well but I'm just pointing out that it can be fun to go against guys who have polar opposite opinions of you.
This is just a break from the daily grind don't let it get to you 🍻
totally agree with perk. if everyone shared the exact same views this would be a revolting place. but the bigger point is that it's simply sports swordplay. anything that happens on here is so insignificant in the grand scheme that it isn't even worthy of being deemed a first-world problem.
@galaxy27 said:
totally agree with perk. if everyone shared the exact same views this would be a revolting place. but the bigger point is that it's simply sports swordplay. anything that happens on here is so insignificant in the grand scheme that it isn't even worthy of being deemed a first-world problem.
@dallasactuary said:
I'm not going to address what any QB did in any one game because it has nothing to do with who I consider to be "better". All of the QBs mentioned here played well over 100 games, and it is their entire body of work that informs my opinion. If you want to ignore the hundreds of games and focus on only a handful, be my guest, but it's certainly not going to have any effect on my conclusions. I think the only reason the Bengals ever made it to a Super Bowl, and the only reason they ever won any games at all, was Ken Anderson. If you're looking for examples of a QB "carrying his team" then Ken Anderson stands out from the pack. Maybe the Steelers don't win one or more of their Super Bowls without Bradshaw, or maybe they win even more, but with or without him the Steelers were going to win lots and lots of games and go to several Super Bowls. Carrying a team to one more win is great; but carrying a terrible team to a Super Bowl is much more impressive to me.
I just noticed your Terry Bradshaw sucks for the first time in your sig line.
I see that there are more intelligent people I can have discussions with about football.
Sorry I wasted my time here.
Sorry Ken Anderson blew that Super Bowl for his superior Bengals against the 49ers. He sucked bad that day.
Just like Tarkenton and Staubach sucked too against the Steelers.
I just put you on ignore so I can not read anymore of your thoughts on any subject. Have a good one.
Hey with all due respect with the amount of traffic in here it will limit the amount of banter if you block guys who you bump elbows with, obviously your well within your rights to do as you chose but part of the fun is to go back.and forth with guys here.
Its all part of Sports Talk no matter where you go, Dallas is a very intelligent fellow and is strong in his beliefs as you are as well but I'm just pointing out that it can be fun to go against guys who have polar opposite opinions of you.
This is just a break from the daily grind don't let it get to you 🍻
He blocked me just because I laughed at on of his college football posts
totally agree with perk. if everyone shared the exact same views this would be a revolting place. but the bigger point is that it's simply sports swordplay. anything that happens on here is so insignificant in the grand scheme that it isn't even worthy of being deemed a first-world problem.
Totally agree.
However I choose as Perk said to block him because to say the 1st team all decade QB from the 70’s sucks demonstrates an individual who is antagonistic and disrespectful.
I wholeheartedly accept opposing viewpoints. I would just rather not dialogue with individuals like coolstanley who laugh at people when discussing a serious topic, or someone like Dallas who would say that an NFL HOFamer 2x Super Bowl MVP with 4 rings sucks.
Would he say that to Terry’s face too ? Is he that disrespectful?
I’d rather not converse with disrespectful people. I can find myself stooping to their level, so I put up barriers for myself.
Nothing personal.
I wish him all the best though.
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
@dallasactuary said:
I'm not going to address what any QB did in any one game because it has nothing to do with who I consider to be "better". All of the QBs mentioned here played well over 100 games, and it is their entire body of work that informs my opinion. If you want to ignore the hundreds of games and focus on only a handful, be my guest, but it's certainly not going to have any effect on my conclusions. I think the only reason the Bengals ever made it to a Super Bowl, and the only reason they ever won any games at all, was Ken Anderson. If you're looking for examples of a QB "carrying his team" then Ken Anderson stands out from the pack. Maybe the Steelers don't win one or more of their Super Bowls without Bradshaw, or maybe they win even more, but with or without him the Steelers were going to win lots and lots of games and go to several Super Bowls. Carrying a team to one more win is great; but carrying a terrible team to a Super Bowl is much more impressive to me.
I just noticed your Terry Bradshaw sucks for the first time in your sig line.
I see that there are more intelligent people I can have discussions with about football.
Sorry I wasted my time here.
Sorry Ken Anderson blew that Super Bowl for his superior Bengals against the 49ers. He sucked bad that day.
Just like Tarkenton and Staubach sucked too against the Steelers.
I just put you on ignore so I can not read anymore of your thoughts on any subject. Have a good one.
Hey with all due respect with the amount of traffic in here it will limit the amount of banter if you block guys who you bump elbows with,
I can already tell you’re an awesome guy. Looking forward to chatting with you.
Dallas recently wrote about how Bonds disrespected the game of baseball while Williams honored his country.
Dallas had disrespected an NFL legend instead of honoring him for his achievements.
I’ll enjoy conversing with the quality people this forum has.
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
The final question is this.
If Dallas is so against Bonds for disrespecting the game of baseball, then why does he wholeheartedly approve of himself disrespecting a former champion, league MVP, Super Bowl MVP x2, and HOF ?
Obviously that player did not suck.
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
totally agree with perk. if everyone shared the exact same views this would be a revolting place. but the bigger point is that it's simply sports swordplay. anything that happens on here is so insignificant in the grand scheme that it isn't even worthy of being deemed a first-world problem.
Totally agree.
However I choose as Perk said to block him because to say the 1st team all decade QB from the 70’s sucks demonstrates an individual who is antagonistic and disrespectful.
I wholeheartedly accept opposing viewpoints. I would just rather not dialogue with individuals like coolstanley who laugh at people when discussing a serious topic, or someone like Dallas who would say that an NFL HOFamer 2x Super Bowl MVP with 4 rings sucks.
Would he say that to Terry’s face too ? Is he that disrespectful?
I’d rather not converse with disrespectful people. I can find myself stooping to their level, so I put up barriers for myself.
Nothing personal.
I wish him all the best though.
...
Slightly off topic, @4for4 , but how do you feel about Jim Rice?
totally agree with perk. if everyone shared the exact same views this would be a revolting place. but the bigger point is that it's simply sports swordplay. anything that happens on here is so insignificant in the grand scheme that it isn't even worthy of being deemed a first-world problem.
Totally agree.
However I choose as Perk said to block him because to say the 1st team all decade QB from the 70’s sucks demonstrates an individual who is antagonistic and disrespectful.
I wholeheartedly accept opposing viewpoints. I would just rather not dialogue with individuals like coolstanley who laugh at people when discussing a serious topic, or someone like Dallas who would say that an NFL HOFamer 2x Super Bowl MVP with 4 rings sucks.
Would he say that to Terry’s face too ? Is he that disrespectful?
I’d rather not converse with disrespectful people. I can find myself stooping to their level, so I put up barriers for myself.
Nothing personal.
I wish him all the best though.
...
Slightly off topic, @4for4 , but how do you feel about Jim Rice?
I know he had a good major league career. That in and of itself is amazing.
Is Rice on his S list too ?
BTW. Ignore is a great feature on this forum. You never see their comments. Really like it.
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
totally agree with perk. if everyone shared the exact same views this would be a revolting place. but the bigger point is that it's simply sports swordplay. anything that happens on here is so insignificant in the grand scheme that it isn't even worthy of being deemed a first-world problem.
Totally agree.
However I choose as Perk said to block him because to say the 1st team all decade QB from the 70’s sucks demonstrates an individual who is antagonistic and disrespectful.
I wholeheartedly accept opposing viewpoints. I would just rather not dialogue with individuals like coolstanley who laugh at people when discussing a serious topic, or someone like Dallas who would say that an NFL HOFamer 2x Super Bowl MVP with 4 rings sucks.
Would he say that to Terry’s face too ? Is he that disrespectful?
I’d rather not converse with disrespectful people. I can find myself stooping to their level, so I put up barriers for myself.
Nothing personal.
I wish him all the best though.
...
Slightly off topic, @4for4 , but how do you feel about Jim Rice?
I know he had a good major league career. That in and of itself is amazing.
Is Rice on his S list too ?
BTW. Ignore is a great feature on this forum. You never see their comments. Really like it.
Yes, Rice is on the S list. In fact, he used to reside in the sig line.
Rice is my favorite player, so of course I took note of that years ago and thought it odd. But all these years later, knowing what I know, I appreciate our friend @dallasactuary . He might not appreciate the occasional ribbing he has to endure by me, being tagged whenever Rice's name comes up, etc but nonetheless, he is a very knowledgeable and entertaining contributor.
totally agree with perk. if everyone shared the exact same views this would be a revolting place. but the bigger point is that it's simply sports swordplay. anything that happens on here is so insignificant in the grand scheme that it isn't even worthy of being deemed a first-world problem.
Totally agree.
However I choose as Perk said to block him because to say the 1st team all decade QB from the 70’s sucks demonstrates an individual who is antagonistic and disrespectful.
I wholeheartedly accept opposing viewpoints. I would just rather not dialogue with individuals like coolstanley who laugh at people when discussing a serious topic, or someone like Dallas who would say that an NFL HOFamer 2x Super Bowl MVP with 4 rings sucks.
Would he say that to Terry’s face too ? Is he that disrespectful?
I’d rather not converse with disrespectful people. I can find myself stooping to their level, so I put up barriers for myself.
Nothing personal.
I wish him all the best though.
...
Slightly off topic, @4for4 , but how do you feel about Jim Rice?
I know he had a good major league career. That in and of itself is amazing.
Is Rice on his S list too ?
BTW. Ignore is a great feature on this forum. You never see their comments. Really like it.
Yes, Rice is on the S list. In fact, he used to reside in the sig line.
Rice is my favorite player, so of course I took note of that years ago and thought it odd. But all these years later, knowing what I know, I appreciate our friend @dallasactuary . He might not appreciate the occasional ribbing he has to endure by me, being tagged whenever Rice's name comes up, etc but nonetheless, he is a very knowledgeable and entertaining contributor.
I’m glad you enjoy his dialogue.
I’ve had the great pleasure of being around and talking with the greatest athletes in all four sports.
They would NEVER say another athlete sucks. NEVER.
They’re human beings.
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
@thisistheshow said:
Rice is my favorite player, so of course I took note of that years ago and thought it odd. But all these years later, knowing what I know, I appreciate our friend @dallasactuary . He might not appreciate the occasional ribbing he has to endure by me, being tagged whenever Rice's name comes up, etc but nonetheless, he is a very knowledgeable and entertaining contributor.
I remember the post/thread where you noticed Rice in my sigline. The way you addressed it was hysterical, but then you, unlike some others, have a sense of humor. And I appreciate the kind words, and "the occasional ribbing" is more or less the purpose of this forum, isn't it? Rib away!
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@dallasactuary said:
I'm not going to address what any QB did in any one game because it has nothing to do with who I consider to be "better". All of the QBs mentioned here played well over 100 games, and it is their entire body of work that informs my opinion. If you want to ignore the hundreds of games and focus on only a handful, be my guest, but it's certainly not going to have any effect on my conclusions. I think the only reason the Bengals ever made it to a Super Bowl, and the only reason they ever won any games at all, was Ken Anderson. If you're looking for examples of a QB "carrying his team" then Ken Anderson stands out from the pack. Maybe the Steelers don't win one or more of their Super Bowls without Bradshaw, or maybe they win even more, but with or without him the Steelers were going to win lots and lots of games and go to several Super Bowls. Carrying a team to one more win is great; but carrying a terrible team to a Super Bowl is much more impressive to me.
I just noticed your Terry Bradshaw sucks for the first time in your sig line.
I see that there are more intelligent people I can have discussions with about football.
Sorry I wasted my time here.
Sorry Ken Anderson blew that Super Bowl for his superior Bengals against the 49ers. He sucked bad that day.
Just like Tarkenton and Staubach sucked too against the Steelers.
I just put you on ignore so I can not read anymore of your thoughts on any subject. Have a good one.
Hey with all due respect with the amount of traffic in here it will limit the amount of banter if you block guys who you bump elbows with, obviously your well within your rights to do as you chose but part of the fun is to go back.and forth with guys here.
Its all part of Sports Talk no matter where you go, Dallas is a very intelligent fellow and is strong in his beliefs as you are as well but I'm just pointing out that it can be fun to go against guys who have polar opposite opinions of you.
This is just a break from the daily grind don't let it get to you 🍻
I wholeheartedly agree. 3/4 of the fun of talking sports is the back and forth. Sometimes I will play devils advocate on here just for the fun of it. Occasionally it can also be fun to form arguments opposite of what you actually believe just as a thought exercise.
totally agree with perk. if everyone shared the exact same views this would be a revolting place. but the bigger point is that it's simply sports swordplay. anything that happens on here is so insignificant in the grand scheme that it isn't even worthy of being deemed a first-world problem.
Totally agree.
However I choose as Perk said to block him because to say the 1st team all decade QB from the 70’s sucks demonstrates an individual who is antagonistic and disrespectful.
I wholeheartedly accept opposing viewpoints. I would just rather not dialogue with individuals like coolstanley who laugh at people when discussing a serious topic, or someone like Dallas who would say that an NFL HOFamer 2x Super Bowl MVP with 4 rings sucks.
Would he say that to Terry’s face too ? Is he that disrespectful?
I’d rather not converse with disrespectful people. I can find myself stooping to their level, so I put up barriers for myself.
Nothing personal.
I wish him all the best though.
...
Slightly off topic, @4for4 , but how do you feel about Jim Rice?
oh no you didnt...
And dont you dare bring up that former 3b for the Royals.
@4for4 said:
So nice to come here and not see derogatory comments.
Here’s my final post in this thread.
I said Ken Anderson was an excellent QB. He also was outplayed in every big game when I watched him.
He has the better team that year.
He’s at home.
He gets totally outplayed by a journeyman QB. Totally.
He also cost his team the Super Bowl against SF with his picks.
He was outplayed against the big teams, and killed the bottom of the league, time and time again.
He was not “great” when it was needed. He was great against the bottom feeders mostly.
I honestly see both sides if it, for my team the Patriots they absolutely played like crap against the Giants 2 different times, and never played as dominately in many of their other Super Bowls but it is the Super Bowl and the opposing team is there for playing great football.
Regarding your example it's fair to say that the 1976 Steelers had literally one of the all time great defenses in the history of the NFL
@4for4 said:
So nice to come here and not see derogatory comments.
Here’s my final post in this thread.
I said Ken Anderson was an excellent QB. He also was outplayed in every big game when I watched him.
He has the better team that year.
He’s at home.
He gets totally outplayed by a journeyman QB. Totally.
He also cost his team the Super Bowl against SF with his picks.
He was outplayed against the big teams, and killed the bottom of the league, time and time again.
He was not “great” when it was needed. He was great against the bottom feeders mostly.
I honestly see both sides if it, for my team the Patriots they absolutely played like crap against the Giants 2 different times, and never played as dominately in many of their other Super Bowls but it is the Super Bowl and the opposing team is there for playing great football.
Regarding your example it's fair to say that the 1976 Steelers had literally one of the all time great defenses in the history of the NFL
We gave up 10 points a game that year. The Rams, 49ers, Vikings, and Cowboys gave up 13-14 points per game that year. If as you say they were one of the greatest then those others were right next to them.
Again, on average we gave up 10 per game.
Ken Anderson at home with a better team scored 3.
He was outplayed by a journeyman at home.
That’s the Ken Anderson the voters knew who did not vote him in the Top 3 of 1970’s QBs.
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
@4for4 said:
So nice to come here and not see derogatory comments.
Here’s my final post in this thread.
I said Ken Anderson was an excellent QB. He also was outplayed in every big game when I watched him.
He has the better team that year.
He’s at home.
He gets totally outplayed by a journeyman QB. Totally.
He also cost his team the Super Bowl against SF with his picks.
He was outplayed against the big teams, and killed the bottom of the league, time and time again.
He was not “great” when it was needed. He was great against the bottom feeders mostly.
I honestly see both sides if it, for my team the Patriots they absolutely played like crap against the Giants 2 different times, and never played as dominately in many of their other Super Bowls but it is the Super Bowl and the opposing team is there for playing great football.
Regarding your example it's fair to say that the 1976 Steelers had literally one of the all time great defenses in the history of the NFL
We gave up 10 points a game that year. The Rams, 49ers, Vikings, and Cowboys gave up 13-14 points per game that year. If as you say they were one of the greatest then those others were right next to them.
Again, on average we gave up 10 per game.
Ken Anderson at home with a better team scored 3.
He was outplayed by a journeyman at home.
That’s the Ken Anderson the voters knew who did not vote him in the Top 3 of 1970’s QBs.
Wow I didn't realize those other teams were close at 13/14
I know he won't see it since I hurt his feewings, but just so I can stop pulling my hair out, I want to make sure everyone sees the logical fallacy employed continuously here by @4for4. All of his posts about Ken Anderson - and I do mean literally all of them - assume that a team's offense and a team's QB are exactly the same thing. The offense doesn't score enough - must be the QBs fault. The offense scores a lot - must be the QB. If I ever claimed that the Bengals had as good an offense as the Steelers, or the Cowboys, or any other great TEAM of that era then that would have been a mistake, and it would make one or more of @4for4's posts relevant. But I didn't, and his posts are not.
The Bengals accomplished relatively little with Ken Anderson as their QB, because the Bengals were a bad team. But, what they did accomplish, in my opinion, was due mostly to Ken Anderson. The Bengals would not have gone 6-0 with Mike Kruczek as their QB, because it mattered a great deal more to the Bengals to have Ken Anderson than it did to the Steelers to have Terry Bradshaw (who sucked).
There, I feel better.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@4for4 said:
So nice to come here and not see derogatory comments.
Here’s my final post in this thread.
I said Ken Anderson was an excellent QB. He also was outplayed in every big game when I watched him.
He has the better team that year.
He’s at home.
He gets totally outplayed by a journeyman QB. Totally.
He also cost his team the Super Bowl against SF with his picks.
He was outplayed against the big teams, and killed the bottom of the league, time and time again.
He was not “great” when it was needed. He was great against the bottom feeders mostly.
I honestly see both sides if it, for my team the Patriots they absolutely played like crap against the Giants 2 different times, and never played as dominately in many of their other Super Bowls but it is the Super Bowl and the opposing team is there for playing great football.
Regarding your example it's fair to say that the 1976 Steelers had literally one of the all time great defenses in the history of the NFL
We gave up 10 points a game that year. The Rams, 49ers, Vikings, and Cowboys gave up 13-14 points per game that year. If as you say they were one of the greatest then those others were right next to them.
Again, on average we gave up 10 per game.
Ken Anderson at home with a better team scored 3.
He was outplayed by a journeyman at home.
That’s the Ken Anderson the voters knew who did not vote him in the Top 3 of 1970’s QBs.
Wow I didn't realize those other teams were close at 13/14
Very interesting
Perk-
I would never knock the Steelers defense.
However the 72-73 Dolphins gave up 10 points a game in 72 and 12 points a game in 73.
Just like those Steelers teams.
Know why ?
Both Knoll and Shula ran the ball 80% of the time effectively.
Griese and Bradshaw only threw on 3rd and 8 or more with 3 receivers mostly.
Not ideal for a QB’s percentage.
Landry used the shotgun and Anderson had a passing offense much more then Knoll or Shula allowed.
Many don’t understand this.
Shula ran the ball 50 times with 10 passes 90% of the time.
Knoll was similar but not as strict.
That began to change in the early 80’s.
Defense wasn’t incredible as much as Pittsburgh and Miami’s run game , hence run out the clock and keep the other teams offense off the field was.
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
Joe Namath threw for 4000 yards on 500 attempts in the 1960s in one season.
Bob Griese won the Super Bowl in 1973 passing for 1400 yards on 200 attempts during the season.
Different coaches had different philosophies.
Anderson’s coach and Namath coach let them air it out.
Griese and Bradshaw couldn’t.
They only threw on 3rd and 8-15 mostly and that’s the truth.
Again, Knoll wasn’t as strict as Shula but had the same philosophy.
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
Griese threw 15 times a game in 73.
Namath threw 35 times a game in a few seasons.
As you know the more you throw the more the clock stops. The higher scoring. The more effectively you run and stay inbounds the clock keeps running and lower scoring.
Miami and Pittsburgh had excellent defensive players, but there’s more to it then just numbers.
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
totally agree with perk. if everyone shared the exact same views this would be a revolting place. but the bigger point is that it's simply sports swordplay. anything that happens on here is so insignificant in the grand scheme that it isn't even worthy of being deemed a first-world problem.
Totally agree.
However I choose as Perk said to block him because to say the 1st team all decade QB from the 70’s sucks demonstrates an individual who is antagonistic and disrespectful.
I wholeheartedly accept opposing viewpoints. I would just rather not dialogue with individuals like coolstanley who laugh at people when discussing a serious topic, or someone like Dallas who would say that an NFL HOFamer 2x Super Bowl MVP with 4 rings sucks.
Would he say that to Terry’s face too ? Is he that disrespectful?
I’d rather not converse with disrespectful people. I can find myself stooping to their level, so I put up barriers for myself.
Nothing personal.
I wish him all the best though.
...
Slightly off topic, @4for4 , but how do you feel about Jim Rice?
@4for4 said:
So nice to come here and not see derogatory comments.
Here’s my final post in this thread.
I said Ken Anderson was an excellent QB. He also was outplayed in every big game when I watched him.
He has the better team that year.
He’s at home.
He gets totally outplayed by a journeyman QB. Totally.
He also cost his team the Super Bowl against SF with his picks.
He was outplayed against the big teams, and killed the bottom of the league, time and time again.
He was not “great” when it was needed. He was great against the bottom feeders mostly.
I honestly see both sides if it, for my team the Patriots they absolutely played like crap against the Giants 2 different times, and never played as dominately in many of their other Super Bowls but it is the Super Bowl and the opposing team is there for playing great football.
Regarding your example it's fair to say that the 1976 Steelers had literally one of the all time great defenses in the history of the NFL
We gave up 10 points a game that year. The Rams, 49ers, Vikings, and Cowboys gave up 13-14 points per game that year. If as you say they were one of the greatest then those others were right next to them.
Again, on average we gave up 10 per game.
Ken Anderson at home with a better team scored 3.
He was outplayed by a journeyman at home.
That’s the Ken Anderson the voters knew who did not vote him in the Top 3 of 1970’s QBs.
Wow I didn't realize those other teams were close at 13/14
Very interesting
Perk-
I would never knock the Steelers defense.
However the 72-73 Dolphins gave up 10 points a game in 72 and 12 points a game in 73.
Just like those Steelers teams.
Know why ?
Both Knoll and Shula ran the ball 80% of the time effectively.
Griese and Bradshaw only threw on 3rd and 8 or more with 3 receivers mostly.
Not ideal for a QB’s percentage.
Landry used the shotgun and Anderson had a passing offense much more then Knoll or Shula allowed.
Many don’t understand this.
Shula ran the ball 50 times with 10 passes 90% of the time.
Knoll was similar but not as strict.
That began to change in the early 80’s.
Defense wasn’t incredible as much as Pittsburgh and Miami’s run game , hence run out the clock and keep the other teams offense off the field was.
Yea the 1970's NFL was a completely different game, I just didn't realize the PPG was all that low compared to the Steelers, being honest I just knew through sports talk that the 1976 Steelers were always considered one of the best.
Now regarding the Super Bowl stats you posted I will say it's unfair to judge Anderson just like it would be any other QB based on Super Bowl play, I say that because a lot of guys don't consider Tom Brady's 7 Super Bowl.rings to have anything to do with his GOAT consideration, I base it on overall stats, and longevity and he has that covered.
I used to beat up on Bradshaw and not give Anderson much consideration for anything but over the years I've come to appreciate both of them.
I promise you I'm not playing the middle with the hot topic between you and Dallas I'm saying how I have changed my opinions over the years and legit give Bradshaw and Anderson both credit for solid 1970's style plsy
@4for4 said:
So nice to come here and not see derogatory comments.
Here’s my final post in this thread.
I said Ken Anderson was an excellent QB. He also was outplayed in every big game when I watched him.
He has the better team that year.
He’s at home.
He gets totally outplayed by a journeyman QB. Totally.
He also cost his team the Super Bowl against SF with his picks.
He was outplayed against the big teams, and killed the bottom of the league, time and time again.
He was not “great” when it was needed. He was great against the bottom feeders mostly.
I honestly see both sides if it, for my team the Patriots they absolutely played like crap against the Giants 2 different times, and never played as dominately in many of their other Super Bowls but it is the Super Bowl and the opposing team is there for playing great football.
Regarding your example it's fair to say that the 1976 Steelers had literally one of the all time great defenses in the history of the NFL
We gave up 10 points a game that year. The Rams, 49ers, Vikings, and Cowboys gave up 13-14 points per game that year. If as you say they were one of the greatest then those others were right next to them.
Again, on average we gave up 10 per game.
Ken Anderson at home with a better team scored 3.
He was outplayed by a journeyman at home.
That’s the Ken Anderson the voters knew who did not vote him in the Top 3 of 1970’s QBs.
Wow I didn't realize those other teams were close at 13/14
Very interesting
Perk-
I would never knock the Steelers defense.
However the 72-73 Dolphins gave up 10 points a game in 72 and 12 points a game in 73.
Just like those Steelers teams.
Know why ?
Both Knoll and Shula ran the ball 80% of the time effectively.
Griese and Bradshaw only threw on 3rd and 8 or more with 3 receivers mostly.
Not ideal for a QB’s percentage.
Landry used the shotgun and Anderson had a passing offense much more then Knoll or Shula allowed.
Many don’t understand this.
Shula ran the ball 50 times with 10 passes 90% of the time.
Knoll was similar but not as strict.
That began to change in the early 80’s.
Defense wasn’t incredible as much as Pittsburgh and Miami’s run game , hence run out the clock and keep the other teams offense off the field was.
Yea the 1970's NFL was a completely different game, I just didn't realize the PPG was all that low compared to the Steelers, being honest I just knew through sports talk that the 1976 Steelers were always considered one of the best.
Now regarding the Super Bowl stats you posted I will say it's unfair to judge Anderson just like it would be any other QB based on Super Bowl play, I say that because a lot of guys don't consider Tom Brady's 7 Super Bowl.rings to have anything to do with his GOAT consideration, I base it on overall stats, and longevity and he has that covered.
I used to beat up on Bradshaw and not give Anderson much consideration for anything but over the years I've come to appreciate both of them.
I promise you I'm not playing the middle with the hot topic between you and Dallas I'm saying how I have changed my opinions over the years and legit give Bradshaw and Anderson both credit for solid 1970's style plsy
@4for4 said:
So nice to come here and not see derogatory comments.
Here’s my final post in this thread.
I said Ken Anderson was an excellent QB. He also was outplayed in every big game when I watched him.
He has the better team that year.
He’s at home.
He gets totally outplayed by a journeyman QB. Totally.
He also cost his team the Super Bowl against SF with his picks.
He was outplayed against the big teams, and killed the bottom of the league, time and time again.
He was not “great” when it was needed. He was great against the bottom feeders mostly.
I honestly see both sides if it, for my team the Patriots they absolutely played like crap against the Giants 2 different times, and never played as dominately in many of their other Super Bowls but it is the Super Bowl and the opposing team is there for playing great football.
Regarding your example it's fair to say that the 1976 Steelers had literally one of the all time great defenses in the history of the NFL
We gave up 10 points a game that year. The Rams, 49ers, Vikings, and Cowboys gave up 13-14 points per game that year. If as you say they were one of the greatest then those others were right next to them.
Again, on average we gave up 10 per game.
Ken Anderson at home with a better team scored 3.
He was outplayed by a journeyman at home.
That’s the Ken Anderson the voters knew who did not vote him in the Top 3 of 1970’s QBs.
Wow I didn't realize those other teams were close at 13/14
Very interesting
Perk-
I would never knock the Steelers defense.
However the 72-73 Dolphins gave up 10 points a game in 72 and 12 points a game in 73.
Just like those Steelers teams.
Know why ?
Both Knoll and Shula ran the ball 80% of the time effectively.
Griese and Bradshaw only threw on 3rd and 8 or more with 3 receivers mostly.
Not ideal for a QB’s percentage.
Landry used the shotgun and Anderson had a passing offense much more then Knoll or Shula allowed.
Many don’t understand this.
Shula ran the ball 50 times with 10 passes 90% of the time.
Knoll was similar but not as strict.
That began to change in the early 80’s.
Defense wasn’t incredible as much as Pittsburgh and Miami’s run game , hence run out the clock and keep the other teams offense off the field was.
Yea the 1970's NFL was a completely different game, I just didn't realize the PPG was all that low compared to the Steelers, being honest I just knew through sports talk that the 1976 Steelers were always considered one of the best.
Now regarding the Super Bowl stats you posted I will say it's unfair to judge Anderson just like it would be any other QB based on Super Bowl play, I say that because a lot of guys don't consider Tom Brady's 7 Super Bowl.rings to have anything to do with his GOAT consideration, I base it on overall stats, and longevity and he has that covered.
I used to beat up on Bradshaw and not give Anderson much consideration for anything but over the years I've come to appreciate both of them.
I promise you I'm not playing the middle with the hot topic between you and Dallas I'm saying how I have changed my opinions over the years and legit give Bradshaw and Anderson both credit for solid 1970's style plsy
IMO it’s impossible to discuss a GOAT QB.
Patrick Mahomes on the early 70’s Dolphins is nothing much.
Tom Brady can’t run, has no shotgun, and three receivers mostly with Shula and Knoll.
These two incredible QB’s are squashed under those two coaches great offensive game plans.
Look at Bart Starr with the great Green Bay Packers.
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
IMO there will never be a GOAT QB.
It’s a useless discussion.
Too many variables.
It’s ok to discuss within a 5 to 10 year time frame, or a little more perhaps.
Try comparing Peyton to his dad.
His dad a great runner. Peyton no.
Peyton would have got killed playing for his dad’s teams.
Archie had no shotgun. No five receivers to throw to.
It’s a useless discussion.
His dad may be the only QB in history to have a 60% completion percentage on a 1-15 team. It’s just useless to compare. Archie’s running backs mostly stayed in to block with only three in patterns but that began to change over time.
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
@4for4 said:
IMO there will never be a GOAT QB.
It’s a useless discussion.
Too many variables.
It’s ok to discuss within a 5 to 10 year time frame, or a little more perhaps.
Try comparing Peyton to his dad.
His dad a great runner. Peyton no.
Peyton would have got killed playing for his dad’s teams.
Archie had no shotgun. No five receivers to throw to.
It’s a useless discussion.
His dad may be the only QB in history to have a 60% completion percentage on a 1-15 team. It’s just useless to compare. Archie’s running backs mostly stayed in to block with only three in patterns but that began to change over time.
It's in my opinion that any GOAT talk is for fun personal opinions thst everyone is entitled to
My pick is Brady and I will never back down from that except to say the proper way to rate NFL
players is by decade.
1950's Otto Graham rugby style play was a universe away from Warren Moon and the run n shoot style
@4for4 said:
IMO there will never be a GOAT QB.
It’s a useless discussion.
Too many variables.
It’s ok to discuss within a 5 to 10 year time frame, or a little more perhaps.
Try comparing Peyton to his dad.
His dad a great runner. Peyton no.
Peyton would have got killed playing for his dad’s teams.
Archie had no shotgun. No five receivers to throw to.
It’s a useless discussion.
His dad may be the only QB in history to have a 60% completion percentage on a 1-15 team. It’s just useless to compare. Archie’s running backs mostly stayed in to block with only three in patterns but that began to change over time.
It's in my opinion that any GOAT talk is for fun personal opinions thst everyone is entitled to
5
My pick is Brady and I will never back down from that except to say the proper way to rate NFL
players is by decade.
1950's Otto Graham rugby style play was a universe away from Warren Moon and the run n shoot style
Tom was QB of the decade in two decades. Never been done before.
If he played in the 70’s he’s Ken Stabler. Both can’t run the way Staubach, Anderson and Bradshaw could.
For me it’s impossible and Tom was incredible.
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
Comments
In 1981-82 the Bengals scored 421 points. SF scored 357 points.
Ken was league MVP. Cincinnati had the much better offense.
He threw 2 costly pics in that Super Bowl loss that cost his team the win.
I see that the all decade voters got it right, and you prefer big game losers over big game winners.
That’s fine. To each their own.
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
FWIW in Staubach’s 4 Super Bowls his rating was 95 also.
Bradshaw’s 112 rating WAS the difference between victory or loss between him and Roger yet too put Roger ahead of him also.
SMH
I guess the Super Bowl just isn’t an important NFL game.
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
FWIW in 1978 Dallas had an equal offense and defense to Pittsburgh.
Yet they lost 35-31 in the big game because of Super Bowl MVP Bradshaw who outplayed Staubach, your #1 guy.
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
I think I figured out the dilemma here.
You feel it’s more important what Ken and Roger did against the bottom feeders.
The HOF voters and I feel it’s important what you did mono y mono in the big games.
That’s partly the difference.
Terry Bradshaw had the greatest decade of any QB in the 1970’s.
To say Pittsburghs defense helped him is like saying Pittsburghs offense helped the defense by moving the chains and keeping them off the field, rested and strong.
Pittsburghs offense actually made their defense even better, not vice versa. The Oakland and Dallas defenses benefitted from Staubach and Stabler too moving the chains.
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
They hate Lynn Swann too.
The Steelers had the #1 offense in 1979 and according to these haters, it was because of the defense and Franco Harris LOL.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Humor me Dallas on this one.
What adjectives would you use to describe Bradshaw and Staubachs QB ratings in this mono y mono clash they had in their first Super Bowl. I’m sure Terry will get a “meh” and Roger your #1 guy was “Ken Anderson like”. Your 1970’s #1 guy cost his team a Super Bowl just like your #2 guy did.
Bradshaw outplayed every opposing QB in all four Super Bowls.
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
I'm not going to address what any QB did in any one game because it has nothing to do with who I consider to be "better". All of the QBs mentioned here played well over 100 games, and it is their entire body of work that informs my opinion. If you want to ignore the hundreds of games and focus on only a handful, be my guest, but it's certainly not going to have any effect on my conclusions. I think the only reason the Bengals ever made it to a Super Bowl, and the only reason they ever won any games at all, was Ken Anderson. If you're looking for examples of a QB "carrying his team" then Ken Anderson stands out from the pack. Maybe the Steelers don't win one or more of their Super Bowls without Bradshaw, or maybe they win even more, but with or without him the Steelers were going to win lots and lots of games and go to several Super Bowls. Carrying a team to one more win is great; but carrying a terrible team to a Super Bowl is much more impressive to me.
Here’s the last thing you don’t understand about the 70’s.
The Steelers had other teams each year that had equal or better defenses.
Here is 1974 when Terry crushed Tarkenton in the Super Bowl.
The Rams, Redskins, Vikings, and Raiders all were similar in O and D.
All the other years are the same with point differentials.
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
I just noticed your Terry Bradshaw sucks for the first time in your sig line.
I see that there are more intelligent people I can have discussions with about football.
Sorry I wasted my time here.
Sorry Ken Anderson blew that Super Bowl for his superior Bengals against the 49ers. He sucked bad that day.
Just like Tarkenton and Staubach sucked too against the Steelers.
I just put you on ignore so I can not read anymore of your thoughts on any subject. Have a good one.
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
I often wonder if the 85 Bears would have Thrashed Marino and Co like they did to my Pats.
Someone hold me; I think I'm going to cry.
No offense to your team, but man that was the matchup everyone(I know) wanted.
This board gives some entertainment. Dallas is a key cog in that source of entertainment. Of all the dust ups I never blocked anyone...that would be boring
None taken, I'm pretty sure the Fins would have given them a better game 🍻
Hey with all due respect with the amount of traffic in here it will limit the amount of banter if you block guys who you bump elbows with, obviously your well within your rights to do as you chose but part of the fun is to go back.and forth with guys here.
Its all part of Sports Talk no matter where you go, Dallas is a very intelligent fellow and is strong in his beliefs as you are as well but I'm just pointing out that it can be fun to go against guys who have polar opposite opinions of you.
This is just a break from the daily grind don't let it get to you 🍻
totally agree with perk. if everyone shared the exact same views this would be a revolting place. but the bigger point is that it's simply sports swordplay. anything that happens on here is so insignificant in the grand scheme that it isn't even worthy of being deemed a first-world problem.
you'll never be able to outrun a bad diet
Exactly
He blocked me just because I laughed at on of his college football posts
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
He blocked me because I laughed at one of his college football posts
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
You said the Steelers > @galaxy27 said:
Totally agree.
However I choose as Perk said to block him because to say the 1st team all decade QB from the 70’s sucks demonstrates an individual who is antagonistic and disrespectful.
I wholeheartedly accept opposing viewpoints. I would just rather not dialogue with individuals like coolstanley who laugh at people when discussing a serious topic, or someone like Dallas who would say that an NFL HOFamer 2x Super Bowl MVP with 4 rings sucks.
Would he say that to Terry’s face too ? Is he that disrespectful?
I’d rather not converse with disrespectful people. I can find myself stooping to their level, so I put up barriers for myself.
Nothing personal.
I wish him all the best though.
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
I can already tell you’re an awesome guy. Looking forward to chatting with you.
Dallas recently wrote about how Bonds disrespected the game of baseball while Williams honored his country.
Dallas had disrespected an NFL legend instead of honoring him for his achievements.
I’ll enjoy conversing with the quality people this forum has.
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
The final question is this.
If Dallas is so against Bonds for disrespecting the game of baseball, then why does he wholeheartedly approve of himself disrespecting a former champion, league MVP, Super Bowl MVP x2, and HOF ?
Obviously that player did not suck.
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
...
Slightly off topic, @4for4 , but how do you feel about Jim Rice?
I know he had a good major league career. That in and of itself is amazing.
Is Rice on his S list too ?
BTW. Ignore is a great feature on this forum. You never see their comments. Really like it.
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
This made me laugh so hard my tears fell in the puddle of @4for4's tears.
.....
@4for4
Yes, Rice is on the S list. In fact, he used to reside in the sig line.
Rice is my favorite player, so of course I took note of that years ago and thought it odd. But all these years later, knowing what I know, I appreciate our friend @dallasactuary . He might not appreciate the occasional ribbing he has to endure by me, being tagged whenever Rice's name comes up, etc but nonetheless, he is a very knowledgeable and entertaining contributor.
I’m glad you enjoy his dialogue.
I’ve had the great pleasure of being around and talking with the greatest athletes in all four sports.
They would NEVER say another athlete sucks. NEVER.
They’re human beings.
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
I remember the post/thread where you noticed Rice in my sigline. The way you addressed it was hysterical, but then you, unlike some others, have a sense of humor. And I appreciate the kind words, and "the occasional ribbing" is more or less the purpose of this forum, isn't it? Rib away!
So nice to come here and not see derogatory comments.
Here’s my final post in this thread.
I said Ken Anderson was an excellent QB. He also was outplayed in every big game when I watched him.
He has the better team that year.
He’s at home.
He gets totally outplayed by a journeyman QB. Totally.
He also cost his team the Super Bowl against SF with his picks.
He was outplayed against the big teams, and killed the bottom of the league, time and time again.
He was not “great” when it was needed. He was great against the bottom feeders mostly.
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
Marino's Dolphins were the only team to beat the 85 Bears.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I wholeheartedly agree. 3/4 of the fun of talking sports is the back and forth. Sometimes I will play devils advocate on here just for the fun of it. Occasionally it can also be fun to form arguments opposite of what you actually believe just as a thought exercise.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
oh no you didnt...
And dont you dare bring up that former 3b for the Royals.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I honestly see both sides if it, for my team the Patriots they absolutely played like crap against the Giants 2 different times, and never played as dominately in many of their other Super Bowls but it is the Super Bowl and the opposing team is there for playing great football.
Regarding your example it's fair to say that the 1976 Steelers had literally one of the all time great defenses in the history of the NFL
We gave up 10 points a game that year. The Rams, 49ers, Vikings, and Cowboys gave up 13-14 points per game that year. If as you say they were one of the greatest then those others were right next to them.
Again, on average we gave up 10 per game.
Ken Anderson at home with a better team scored 3.
He was outplayed by a journeyman at home.
That’s the Ken Anderson the voters knew who did not vote him in the Top 3 of 1970’s QBs.
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
Wow I didn't realize those other teams were close at 13/14
Very interesting
I know he won't see it since I hurt his feewings, but just so I can stop pulling my hair out, I want to make sure everyone sees the logical fallacy employed continuously here by @4for4. All of his posts about Ken Anderson - and I do mean literally all of them - assume that a team's offense and a team's QB are exactly the same thing. The offense doesn't score enough - must be the QBs fault. The offense scores a lot - must be the QB. If I ever claimed that the Bengals had as good an offense as the Steelers, or the Cowboys, or any other great TEAM of that era then that would have been a mistake, and it would make one or more of @4for4's posts relevant. But I didn't, and his posts are not.
The Bengals accomplished relatively little with Ken Anderson as their QB, because the Bengals were a bad team. But, what they did accomplish, in my opinion, was due mostly to Ken Anderson. The Bengals would not have gone 6-0 with Mike Kruczek as their QB, because it mattered a great deal more to the Bengals to have Ken Anderson than it did to the Steelers to have Terry Bradshaw (who sucked).
There, I feel better.
Perk-
I would never knock the Steelers defense.
However the 72-73 Dolphins gave up 10 points a game in 72 and 12 points a game in 73.
Just like those Steelers teams.
Know why ?
Both Knoll and Shula ran the ball 80% of the time effectively.
Griese and Bradshaw only threw on 3rd and 8 or more with 3 receivers mostly.
Not ideal for a QB’s percentage.
Landry used the shotgun and Anderson had a passing offense much more then Knoll or Shula allowed.
Many don’t understand this.
Shula ran the ball 50 times with 10 passes 90% of the time.
Knoll was similar but not as strict.
That began to change in the early 80’s.
Defense wasn’t incredible as much as Pittsburgh and Miami’s run game , hence run out the clock and keep the other teams offense off the field was.
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
Joe Namath threw for 4000 yards on 500 attempts in the 1960s in one season.
Bob Griese won the Super Bowl in 1973 passing for 1400 yards on 200 attempts during the season.
Different coaches had different philosophies.
Anderson’s coach and Namath coach let them air it out.
Griese and Bradshaw couldn’t.
They only threw on 3rd and 8-15 mostly and that’s the truth.
Again, Knoll wasn’t as strict as Shula but had the same philosophy.
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
Griese threw 15 times a game in 73.
Namath threw 35 times a game in a few seasons.
As you know the more you throw the more the clock stops. The higher scoring. The more effectively you run and stay inbounds the clock keeps running and lower scoring.
Miami and Pittsburgh had excellent defensive players, but there’s more to it then just numbers.
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
That is gold! lol
Yea the 1970's NFL was a completely different game, I just didn't realize the PPG was all that low compared to the Steelers, being honest I just knew through sports talk that the 1976 Steelers were always considered one of the best.
Now regarding the Super Bowl stats you posted I will say it's unfair to judge Anderson just like it would be any other QB based on Super Bowl play, I say that because a lot of guys don't consider Tom Brady's 7 Super Bowl.rings to have anything to do with his GOAT consideration, I base it on overall stats, and longevity and he has that covered.
I used to beat up on Bradshaw and not give Anderson much consideration for anything but over the years I've come to appreciate both of them.
I promise you I'm not playing the middle with the hot topic between you and Dallas I'm saying how I have changed my opinions over the years and legit give Bradshaw and Anderson both credit for solid 1970's style plsy
....
Terry Bradshaw. The original TB12
IMO it’s impossible to discuss a GOAT QB.
Patrick Mahomes on the early 70’s Dolphins is nothing much.
Tom Brady can’t run, has no shotgun, and three receivers mostly with Shula and Knoll.
These two incredible QB’s are squashed under those two coaches great offensive game plans.
Look at Bart Starr with the great Green Bay Packers.
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
IMO there will never be a GOAT QB.
It’s a useless discussion.
Too many variables.
It’s ok to discuss within a 5 to 10 year time frame, or a little more perhaps.
Try comparing Peyton to his dad.
His dad a great runner. Peyton no.
Peyton would have got killed playing for his dad’s teams.
Archie had no shotgun. No five receivers to throw to.
It’s a useless discussion.
His dad may be the only QB in history to have a 60% completion percentage on a 1-15 team. It’s just useless to compare. Archie’s running backs mostly stayed in to block with only three in patterns but that began to change over time.
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex
It's in my opinion that any GOAT talk is for fun personal opinions thst everyone is entitled to
My pick is Brady and I will never back down from that except to say the proper way to rate NFL
players is by decade.
1950's Otto Graham rugby style play was a universe away from Warren Moon and the run n shoot style
Tom was QB of the decade in two decades. Never been done before.
If he played in the 70’s he’s Ken Stabler. Both can’t run the way Staubach, Anderson and Bradshaw could.
For me it’s impossible and Tom was incredible.
Forum members on ignore
Erba - coolstanley-dallasactuary-SDsportsfan
daltex