@craig44 said:
Here is a question unrelated to how great Bradshaw was as a QB.
I have seen many highlight reels from the 70's, but I wasnt old enough to actually attend any games then. Bradshaw seemed to have a cannon for an arm. Did he have the best arm out of any QB from the 1970's?
Bert Jones and Bradshaw were both from Louisiana colleges and both had cannons.
They both liked to throw deep into double coverage similar to Brett Favre.
Some will say Jim Plunkett had the strongest arm. He would wing it 60 yards downfield and just let Branch run under it.
Not sure if anyone had the strongest but those three had cannons.
@craig44 said:
Here is a question unrelated to how great Bradshaw was as a QB.
I have seen many highlight reels from the 70's, but I wasnt old enough to actually attend any games then. Bradshaw seemed to have a cannon for an arm. Did he have the best arm out of any QB from the 1970's?
Bradshaw's arm was great, but Jim Hart, the Cardinals QB, probably had a bit more "cannon" than Bradshaw. Like Bradshaw, it was Hart's only discernible talent, but he could really air it out.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@craig44 said:
Here is a question unrelated to how great Bradshaw was as a QB.
I have seen many highlight reels from the 70's, but I wasnt old enough to actually attend any games then. Bradshaw seemed to have a cannon for an arm. Did he have the best arm out of any QB from the 1970's?
Bradshaw's arm was great, but Jim Hart, the Cardinals QB, probably had a bit more "cannon" than Bradshaw. Like Bradshaw, it was Hart's only discernible talent, but he could really air it out.
Thanks for the reply. I have heard of Hart, but only that. Stat lines on a page. I was alive in the 70's, but only barely, so I have only seen these guys on grainy highlight films. I really started cutting my teeth on the NFL during the 80's. I will have to check out the Youtube and see if Mr. Hart has any film on there!!
@craig44 said:
Here is a question unrelated to how great Bradshaw was as a QB.
I have seen many highlight reels from the 70's, but I wasnt old enough to actually attend any games then. Bradshaw seemed to have a cannon for an arm. Did he have the best arm out of any QB from the 1970's?
Bert Jones and Bradshaw were both from Louisiana colleges and both had cannons.
They both liked to throw deep into double coverage similar to Brett Favre.
Some will say Jim Plunkett had the strongest arm. He would wing it 60 yards downfield and just let Branch run under it.
Not sure if anyone had the strongest but those three had cannons.
I will have to check out some film on Bert and Plunkett.
wasnt the grandfather from those duck dynasty shows Bradshaws backup in college?
@coolstanley said:
Looks like to me 4for4 won yet another debate against these Bradshaw haters
I tend to feel less intelligent whenever I hear that Bradshaw wasn’t awesome.
Maybe you should question your intelligence when you have those two on your side.
Bradshaw simply was NOT awesome.
From 1970-74 he sucked. He threw 81 interceptions and 48 TD's with a Rate of 53.2. Horrible.
In 1974 Swann and Stallworth (along with Lambert) joined the team, Harris had arrived in 1972. Franco went to the Pro Bowl every year from 1972-80. Swann or Stallworth went in 1975, 77-79, 82, 84.
From 1975-79 Bradshaw got a lot better!
BIG SURPRISE!
He still wasn't great, with another 82 interceptions, but he did make 3 Pro Bowls (probably didn't deserve it in 1979, he was 8th in passer rating and missed throwing the most interceptions by 1) and was named OPY once.
Note that in 1976 when Stallworth was hurt, Bradshaw was again horrible, he was benched/shared the starting job with Mike Kruczek!
Bradshaw had 1 superb season (1975) 3 great ones (1978, 81-82), 3 good ones (1977,79-80, although he threw a lot of int's) and 6 below average years.
He got good when he got good receivers to throw to (even then he was picked off a lot) to go with a great running back and one of the best defenses ever.
It really all came together beautifully from 1972-72 when they drafted incredibly well to go along with some already great players, and an average QB, (maybe a little above average) but certainly not an all time great.
P.S. to respond to another silly post; if you don't think getting sacked 7 times in one game has an effect on a QB, you better stick to golf or tennis.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
My thoughts on Jim Hart after watching some highlights.
1. Funny looking guy. looked very unathletic, almost pudgy.
2. appeared to be able to throw pretty well on the move. I saw him hit lots of passes on roll outs.
3. Had an absolute whip. saw one where he threw one off the back foot 45 yards. All arm. seemed pretty effortless. another one where he tossed one about 55 yards into the end zone without having a full wind up because of the rush. also seemed effortless.
lots of arm talent with Mr. Hart. color me impressed!
@craig44 another thing to take note of when watching the Hart clips: funny looking, very unathletic, almost pudgy........but in one piece at all times. why? because he had one of the best o-lines in the history of the NFL blocking for him. they were considered to be the first group to introduce weightlifting, powerlifting and, yes, steroids into a training regimen. i know the latter for a fact because i went to college with Bob Young's son, and he was one of the five who kept Hart on his feet. he was considered to be the strongest man in the NFL for a number of years.
Plunkett reminds me a lot of Warren Moon. At least in the highlights I watched. Threw a beautiful deep ball. lots of air under them with tight spirals. I was unable to get a good idea of the length of his passes because of the camera work.
I didnt get to see any intermediate passes to try and gauge his speed, but if his "bombs" are any indication, I am sure he could get good velocity on the ball.
I was even more impressed with Bert Jones arm. at least in the films I watched. Holy cow could he throw. I saw one pass where he was under pressure on his own end line and he chucked one up, off his back foot, and it sailed past the 50! That is impressive. over 50 yards, under pressure, off the back foot, all arm. I am certain that guy could throw one 70 or 75 if he could really gather himself.
It goes to show that the older guys had the same, and sometimes better, arm talent as the guys today. it is out there, just on grainy film.
@galaxy27 said: @craig44 another thing to take note of when watching the Hart clips: funny looking, very unathletic, almost pudgy........but in one piece at all times. why? because he had one of the best o-lines in the history of the NFL blocking for him. they were considered to be the first group to introduce weightlifting, powerlifting and, yes, steroids into a training regimen. i know the latter for a fact because i went to college with Bob Young's son, and he was one of the five who kept Hart on his feet. he was considered to be the strongest man in the NFL for a number of years.
that is interesting. I did not know that about his O-Line. makes sense, if you are not the most athletic guy around. I believe it about the steroid thing. I have read that the Chargers from the 1960s were also heavy steroid users.
@galaxy27 said:
Jim Hart couldn't beat a snail in the 40, yet he was sacked a grand total of 6 times in 1975
It's almost like football is a team game, and how good any one player looks depends a LOT on how good the players around him are. I know, I know, that's kooky talk, but for some reason I can't shake the thought.
Was Terry Bradshaw better than Jim Hart? Probably, because Bradshaw was at least mobile. But they weren't as far apart in talent as the QB worshipers would have you believe. And no, Jim Hart was not a great QB; it's a stretch to even call him "good".
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@4for4 said:
Tony Dorsett got 6 yards per carry in the 1979 SB and Franco Harris got 3 yards per carry, but according to Joe our defense was the reason we won everything and Bradshaw had nothing to do with it. 😂
Ok Joe. In the 1979 SB our defense failed us, giving up 31 points and couldn’t stop the run.
Our run game failed us, only averaging 3 yards per carry.
How in the world did we score 35 and avoid getting embarrassed by Dallas in that Super Bowl ? 😂
Bradshaw was good that day, he had the best two receivers and that was the difference. His numbers were almost identical to Staubach's.
Two GREAT teams, the better TEAM won that day, not the better QB.
You keep saying that I'm not giving Bradshaw any credit, he does deserve some, but you are giving him WAY TOO MUCH!
As I have said, he had a great arm and was a good/great athlete, he just wasn't sure who was going to catch the ball when he threw it. A lot of times it was the wrong team, he threw WAY too many picks to be considered an all time great.
Football is the "ultimate" team sport, the QB generally gets too much credit when they win. In Bradshaw's case he really had superior team mates, that's why he won.
Bradshaw was actually at his best late in his career (1981&1982) when they didn't make the playoffs one year and lost the WC game the other. Why didn't they win in those two seasons? The offense was scoring 350+ points every year 1978-81. It was the defense that got old, the defense that was primarily the reason for Pittsburgh's dominance, went from giving up 195 points per season to 300.
TEAM SPORT.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
i was actually thinking about this thread and the nauseating debate contained within while watching the Niners-Browns this past weekend.
anyone see that game?
thru 5 weeks, Brock Purdy led the league in QBR and was being elevated to the very top of MVP hierarchy.
then what happened?
Deebo Samuel and Christian McCaffrey exited that game with injuries, and not only did BP all of a sudden look like a bottom-tier QB, but he looked completely helpless out there. 44.4% CMP, 125 yards and a pick for the game. talk about an extreme juxtaposition. and the crazy thing? after that performance he's still #1 in QBR. that's how well he was playing.............when his gun was loaded with bullets.
some quarterbacks can do a lot with a lot, some quarterbacks can do more with less, some quarterbacks can't do jack pop tarts without a robust surrounding cast because they rely so heavily on them.......so on and so forth. this is what separates the legit from the faux when the acronym in the title of this thread is being tossed around. it's up to you to utilize the brain God gave you and place players in the proper category.
it's like me hopping on here like a crackhead and talking about Jim McMahon's unparalleled greatness in 1985
And, even with all that, he still got SF in position to win by making a relatively short FG.
It's a little unfair to judge a QB on how they do when superstars leave mid-game as opposed to if they miss practice all week and sit out.
not unfair to me at all, mid-game injuries happen all the time. that's when he has the golden opportunity to unveil his true worth to the team.
yes, to his credit he drove the team down the field on the last drive of the game, only for the kicker to blow it, but it never should have come to that if he's truly as great as everyone is making him out to be. he did n-o-t-h-i-n-g the rest of the game.
he's a system QB and completely screwed once you strip him of key cogs
And, even with all that, he still got SF in position to win by making a relatively short FG.
It's a little unfair to judge a QB on how they do when superstars leave mid-game as opposed to if they miss practice all week and sit out.
not unfair to me at all, mid-game injuries happen all the time. that's when he has the golden opportunity to unveil his true worth to the team.
yes, to his credit he drove the team down the field on the last drive of the game, only for the kicker to blow it, but it never should have come to that if he's truly as great as everyone is making him out to be. he did n-o-t-h-i-n-g the rest of the game.
he's a system QB and completely screwed once you strip him of key cogs
Hes gotten better, but yea SF has had a preposterous amount of talent at basically every offensive position for him. Theres a ton of QBs that will look good with that around them
@coolstanley said:
Looks like to me 4for4 won yet another debate against these Bradshaw haters
I tend to feel less intelligent whenever I hear that Bradshaw wasn’t awesome.
Maybe you should question your intelligence when you have those two on your side.
I’m actually questioning your intelligence.
Here’s what you said comparing Kershaw to Koufax.
So if the object of the game is to show up and win, and greatness is determined by in your own words “to show up and win” in a team sport, then why isn’t Bradshaw greater then Staubach ?
He played longer, won more, and beat Staubach day and night.
107 wins to 85 in the regular season.
4 and 0 against Staubach lifetime.
4 SBs to Rogers 2.
Roger’s first year in the NFL he joined a Super Bowl team. Terry joined a 1-13-0 team.
Bradshaw was greater than Staubach because in your own words not only did he win much more often, but he beat that guy every time he played him. Not only that, Staubach never played up to Bradshaw’s standards when they played against each other. He just couldn’t beat Terry. He wasn’t good enough all four times. Sad for the Bradshaw haters, but true.
I was even more impressed with Bert Jones arm. at least in the films I watched. Holy cow could he throw. I saw one pass where he was under pressure on his own end line and he chucked one up, off his back foot, and it sailed past the 50! That is impressive. over 50 yards, under pressure, off the back foot, all arm. I am certain that guy could throw one 70 or 75 if he could really gather himself.
It goes to show that the older guys had the same, and sometimes better, arm talent as the guys today. it is out there, just on grainy film.
Bert Jones was incredible. Won league MVP one year also.
Those Colts teams were awesome and he was fun to watch.
@coolstanley said:
Looks like to me 4for4 won yet another debate against these Bradshaw haters
I tend to feel less intelligent whenever I hear that Bradshaw wasn’t awesome.
Maybe you should question your intelligence when you have those two on your side.
I’m actually questioning your intelligence.
Here’s what you said comparing Kershaw to Koufax.
So if the object of the game is to show up and win, and greatness is determined by in your own words “to show up and win” in a team sport, then why isn’t Bradshaw greater then Staubach ?
He played longer, won more, and beat Staubach day and night.
107 wins to 85 in the regular season.
4 and 0 against Staubach lifetime.
4 SBs to Rogers 2.
Roger’s first year in the NFL he joined a Super Bowl team. Terry joined a 1-13-0 team.
Bradshaw was greater than Staubach because in your own words not only did he win much more often, but he beat that guy every time he played him. Not only that, Staubach never played up to Bradshaw’s standards when they played against each other. He just couldn’t beat Terry. He wasn’t good enough all four times. Sad for the Bradshaw haters, but true.
Football QBs dont have records against other QBs, teams do. Thais isnt the UFC, boxing, tennis, golf, or even basketball. This isnt an individual sport.
Roger played less because he went to the Naval Academy and didnt start his career until he was 27. He also played at an older age if how much someone played is an argument. He played as 37 year old, Terry played 1 game at 35.
Rings are also a team accomplishment and Terry only started 7 games and only played in 8 the first year he won a ring. Rodgers stats are better across the board he just had to start his career later.
@coolstanley said:
Looks like to me 4for4 won yet another debate against these Bradshaw haters
I tend to feel less intelligent whenever I hear that Bradshaw wasn’t awesome.
Maybe you should question your intelligence when you have those two on your side.
I’m actually questioning your intelligence.
Here’s what you said comparing Kershaw to Koufax.
So if the object of the game is to show up and win, and greatness is determined by in your own words “to show up and win” in a team sport, then why isn’t Bradshaw greater then Staubach ?
He played longer, won more, and beat Staubach day and night.
107 wins to 85 in the regular season.
4 and 0 against Staubach lifetime.
4 SBs to Rogers 2.
Roger’s first year in the NFL he joined a Super Bowl team. Terry joined a 1-13-0 team.
Bradshaw was greater than Staubach because in your own words not only did he win much more often, but he beat that guy every time he played him. Not only that, Staubach never played up to Bradshaw’s standards when they played against each other. He just couldn’t beat Terry. He wasn’t good enough all four times. Sad for the Bradshaw haters, but true.
Football QBs dont have records against other QBs, teams do. Thais isnt the UFC, boxing, tennis, golf, or even basketball. This isnt an individual sport.
Roger played less because he went to the Naval Academy and didnt start his career until he was 27. He also played at an older age if how much someone played is an argument. He played as 37 year old, Terry played 1 game at 35.
Rings are also a team accomplishment and Terry only started 7 games and only played in 8 the first year he won a ring. Rodgers stats are better across the board he just had to start his career later.
Sorry this question was for Joe based on what he said. It was not intended for anyone else.
If a major league hitter bats .230 his first six years, and then hits .350 his next six years and wins all kinds of award and trophies, was he an awesome player or was he an average player. He ended up hitting .290, was World Series MVP twice, and could have been four times. Won 4 World Series. Was the major star of all those. League MVP. All Star teams.
Was this guy awesome or was he just average ?
Carry on fellas.
If such a player existed they would be very good, such a player does not exist and a WS would also be a team award. Bradshaw didnt come remotely close to "hitting .350 for 6 years" or win all kinds of awards or the major star of his team
@Basebal21 said:
If such a player existed they would be very good, such a player does not exist and a WS would also be a team award. Bradshaw didnt come remotely close to "hitting .350 for 6 years" or win all kinds of awards or the major star of his team
So I checked the 1970’s All Decade team just for fun. Trying to educate myself.
Bradshaw, Greene, Ham and Swann were all voted first team by a non-watered down HOF committee like we have today.
Your analysis does not line up with the HOF committee. It is simply your uneducated opinion.
Bradshaw, Greene, Ham and Swann were the four superstars of that team. Bradshaw not only beat out Staubach, but every other QB from that decade. They voted him the greatest.
I’ll take that strict HOF committee’s opinions over message board wannabees every day of the week.
Bradshaw hater says the reason the Steelers didnt win as much in the early 80's is because the defense got old.
But the last time I checked their offense got old too Both offense and defense team stats dropped in the early 80's. In 1981 both offense and defense ranked #11 in team stats.
I keep hearing that winning the Super Bowl is a "team award." I think it is more nuanced than that. simply stating that it is a "team award" pushes the narrative that each of the 53 players was equally valuable/important for the win. most people, self included, would disagree with this narrative strongly.
Most would consider, at least for most teams, the QB to be the most important player. And usually by far. What would happen to the KC Chiefs, for instance, if Mahomes tore his achilles during practice the week before the super bowl? the same could be said for any number of teams in the same situation. they would most certainly not win. If the same team were to lose a corner back or a lineman or a backer or a RB or a WR, it would be difficult, but a win would still be possible.
While it is different than an individual sport and there are no metrics I know of to quantify it, QB is the most important position in football. Especially now, and by a large margin. losing the best player in any position room is terrible for a team. losing a starting QB, is a season killer.
All that is to say, I dont think it is inaccurate to say a QB "won" x amount of Super Bowls. Because, conversely, if a team loses their starter (with very few exceptions: Jeff Hostetler) they are most certainly NOT winning the Super Bowl.
@coolstanley said:
Looks like to me 4for4 won yet another debate against these Bradshaw haters
I tend to feel less intelligent whenever I hear that Bradshaw wasn’t awesome.
Maybe you should question your intelligence when you have those two on your side.
I’m actually questioning your intelligence.
Here’s what you said comparing Kershaw to Koufax.
So if the object of the game is to show up and win, and greatness is determined by in your own words “to show up and win” in a team sport, then why isn’t Bradshaw greater then Staubach ?
He played longer, won more, and beat Staubach day and night.
107 wins to 85 in the regular season.
4 and 0 against Staubach lifetime.
4 SBs to Rogers 2.
Roger’s first year in the NFL he joined a Super Bowl team. Terry joined a 1-13-0 team.
Bradshaw was greater than Staubach because in your own words not only did he win much more often, but he beat that guy every time he played him. Not only that, Staubach never played up to Bradshaw’s standards when they played against each other. He just couldn’t beat Terry. He wasn’t good enough all four times. Sad for the Bradshaw haters, but true.
There's really no reason to continue here. Bradshaw was nowhere near the QB Staubach was, his TEAMS were better.
If people here can't see that there's 21 other guys, plus a few special teams players, working together to achieve a goal of a championship and you have to have several great players on both sides of the ball, I can't waste my time.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@Applejacks said:
With Bradshaw it comes down to this.
If a major league hitter bats .230 his first six years, and then hits .350 his next six years and wins all kinds of award and trophies, was he an awesome player or was he an average player. He ended up hitting .290, was World Series MVP twice, and could have been four times. Won 4 World Series. Was the major star of all those. League MVP. All Star teams.
Was this guy awesome or was he just average ?
Carry on fellas.
This sounds like a hitter version of Sandy Koufax.
@craig44 said:
I keep hearing that winning the Super Bowl is a "team award." I think it is more nuanced than that. simply stating that it is a "team award" pushes the narrative that each of the 53 players was equally valuable/important for the win. most people, self included, would disagree with this narrative strongly.
Most would consider, at least for most teams, the QB to be the most important player. And usually by far. What would happen to the KC Chiefs, for instance, if Mahomes tore his achilles during practice the week before the super bowl? the same could be said for any number of teams in the same situation. they would most certainly not win. If the same team were to lose a corner back or a lineman or a backer or a RB or a WR, it would be difficult, but a win would still be possible.
While it is different than an individual sport and there are no metrics I know of to quantify it, QB is the most important position in football. Especially now, and by a large margin. losing the best player in any position room is terrible for a team. losing a starting QB, is a season killer.
All that is to say, I dont think it is inaccurate to say a QB "won" x amount of Super Bowls. Because, conversely, if a team loses their starter (with very few exceptions: Jeff Hostetler) they are most certainly NOT winning the Super Bowl.
In 1980 QB Pastorini went down with an injury in the 5th week for the Raiders. Plunkett took over for the rest of the year and led the Raiders to a SB win over the Eagles. So it does happen, but as you stated not that frequently.
Successful transactions:Tookybandit. "Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others".
@coolstanley said:
Looks like to me 4for4 won yet another debate against these Bradshaw haters
I tend to feel less intelligent whenever I hear that Bradshaw wasn’t awesome.
Maybe you should question your intelligence when you have those two on your side.
I’m actually questioning your intelligence.
Here’s what you said comparing Kershaw to Koufax.
So if the object of the game is to show up and win, and greatness is determined by in your own words “to show up and win” in a team sport, then why isn’t Bradshaw greater then Staubach ?
He played longer, won more, and beat Staubach day and night.
107 wins to 85 in the regular season.
4 and 0 against Staubach lifetime.
4 SBs to Rogers 2.
Roger’s first year in the NFL he joined a Super Bowl team. Terry joined a 1-13-0 team.
Bradshaw was greater than Staubach because in your own words not only did he win much more often, but he beat that guy every time he played him. Not only that, Staubach never played up to Bradshaw’s standards when they played against each other. He just couldn’t beat Terry. He wasn’t good enough all four times. Sad for the Bradshaw haters, but true.
There's really no reason to continue here. Bradshaw was nowhere near the QB Staubach was, his TEAMS were better.
If people here can't see that there's 21 other guys, plus a few special teams players, working together to achieve a goal of a championship and you have to have several great players on both sides of the ball, I can't waste my time.
Does the 21 other players rule of yours apply to Kershaw also ?
Or does he hit 1 through 9 in the order and play every fielding position while he pitches also ?
Craig44 is 100% spot on.
The QB position is the most important position on the football field, and Bradshaw was the reason the Steelers won so many big games against Dallas, while your boy Franco could do nothing against Dallas.
@craig44 said:
I keep hearing that winning the Super Bowl is a "team award." I think it is more nuanced than that. simply stating that it is a "team award" pushes the narrative that each of the 53 players was equally valuable/important for the win. most people, self included, would disagree with this narrative strongly.
Most would consider, at least for most teams, the QB to be the most important player. And usually by far. What would happen to the KC Chiefs, for instance, if Mahomes tore his achilles during practice the week before the super bowl? the same could be said for any number of teams in the same situation. they would most certainly not win. If the same team were to lose a corner back or a lineman or a backer or a RB or a WR, it would be difficult, but a win would still be possible.
While it is different than an individual sport and there are no metrics I know of to quantify it, QB is the most important position in football. Especially now, and by a large margin. losing the best player in any position room is terrible for a team. losing a starting QB, is a season killer.
All that is to say, I dont think it is inaccurate to say a QB "won" x amount of Super Bowls. Because, conversely, if a team loses their starter (with very few exceptions: Jeff Hostetler) they are most certainly NOT winning the Super Bowl.
In 1980 QB Pastorini went down with an injury in the 5th week for the Raiders. Plunkett took over for the rest of the year and led the Raiders to a SB win over the Eagles. So it does happen, but as you stated not that frequently.
yes, backups have won the SB, but very very infrequently. to my knowledge, in the 57 year history of the SB, backups have won 5 times. by my count, Earl Morrall, Plunkett, Doug Williams, Jeff Hostetler and Nick Foles.
that would be 8.7%. and 4 of those were before the proliferation of the passing game as we have it today.
@craig44 said:
I keep hearing that winning the Super Bowl is a "team award." I think it is more nuanced than that. simply stating that it is a "team award" pushes the narrative that each of the 53 players was equally valuable/important for the win. most people, self included, would disagree with this narrative strongly.
Most would consider, at least for most teams, the QB to be the most important player. And usually by far. What would happen to the KC Chiefs, for instance, if Mahomes tore his achilles during practice the week before the super bowl? the same could be said for any number of teams in the same situation. they would most certainly not win. If the same team were to lose a corner back or a lineman or a backer or a RB or a WR, it would be difficult, but a win would still be possible.
While it is different than an individual sport and there are no metrics I know of to quantify it, QB is the most important position in football. Especially now, and by a large margin. losing the best player in any position room is terrible for a team. losing a starting QB, is a season killer.
All that is to say, I dont think it is inaccurate to say a QB "won" x amount of Super Bowls. Because, conversely, if a team loses their starter (with very few exceptions: Jeff Hostetler) they are most certainly NOT winning the Super Bowl.
In 1980 QB Pastorini went down with an injury in the 5th week for the Raiders. Plunkett took over for the rest of the year and led the Raiders to a SB win over the Eagles. So it does happen, but as you stated not that frequently.
yes, backups have won the SB, but very very infrequently. to my knowledge, in the 57 year history of the SB, backups have won 5 times. by my count, Earl Morrall, Plunkett, Doug Williams, Jeff Hostetler and Nick Foles.
that would be 8.7%. and 4 of those were before the proliferation of the passing game as we have it today.
You forgot the 4 Bradshaw won. 😁
How about Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson, Joe Flacco and Mark Rypien?
I would rate every one of those guys, at best, as good back up QBs.
Griese didn't have to do much in his 2 victories, 1 TD pass. Joe Theismann isn't going in the HOF, neither is Jim McMahon or Phil Simms.
There's 8 more quarterbacks that didn't have to do much to be a SB winner, 9 if you count Namath (0 TDs).
That's 13 out of 57 right? Actually it looks like there were 34 different QBs that "won" the SB not 57. If you count back up's, back up caliber guys and guys that did little more than hand the ball off, you're up to 41% of the guys who were QBs for the winning team.
I actually didn't count Bradshaw, but I also didn't count Stafford and Eli Manning.
Depending on how tough you are on quarterbacks, fully half the guys who "won" the big game were either back ups, back ups who started because their teams had no real starter or guys that were starters, but not really needed in order to win.
Can we please start to think of this as a team sport?
For some of you, the answer will always be no.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
yes, backups have won the SB, but very very infrequently. to my knowledge, in the 57 year history of the SB, backups have won 5 times. by my count, Earl Morrall, Plunkett, Doug Williams, Jeff Hostetler and Nick Foles.
that would be 8.7%. and 4 of those were before the proliferation of the passing game as we have it today.
That may all be true, but it's not the way to think about it because it's rare for a backup QB to play in the Super Bowl. How often have backups started in a Super Bowl? Of those, how many won? That's the relevant number. If the starting QBs win half the time, and the backup QBs win half the time (I'm not saying they have, because I don't know, but "if") then winning a Super Bowl would appear to be dead as an evaluation tool for QBs.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@craig44 said:
I keep hearing that winning the Super Bowl is a "team award." I think it is more nuanced than that. simply stating that it is a "team award" pushes the narrative that each of the 53 players was equally valuable/important for the win. most people, self included, would disagree with this narrative strongly.
Most would consider, at least for most teams, the QB to be the most important player. And usually by far. What would happen to the KC Chiefs, for instance, if Mahomes tore his achilles during practice the week before the super bowl? the same could be said for any number of teams in the same situation. they would most certainly not win. If the same team were to lose a corner back or a lineman or a backer or a RB or a WR, it would be difficult, but a win would still be possible.
While it is different than an individual sport and there are no metrics I know of to quantify it, QB is the most important position in football. Especially now, and by a large margin. losing the best player in any position room is terrible for a team. losing a starting QB, is a season killer.
All that is to say, I dont think it is inaccurate to say a QB "won" x amount of Super Bowls. Because, conversely, if a team loses their starter (with very few exceptions: Jeff Hostetler) they are most certainly NOT winning the Super Bowl.
In 1980 QB Pastorini went down with an injury in the 5th week for the Raiders. Plunkett took over for the rest of the year and led the Raiders to a SB win over the Eagles. So it does happen, but as you stated not that frequently.
yes, backups have won the SB, but very very infrequently. to my knowledge, in the 57 year history of the SB, backups have won 5 times. by my count, Earl Morrall, Plunkett, Doug Williams, Jeff Hostetler and Nick Foles.
that would be 8.7%. and 4 of those were before the proliferation of the passing game as we have it today.
You forgot the 4 Bradshaw won. 😁
How about Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson, Joe Flacco and Mark Rypien?
I would rate every one of those guys, at best, as good back up QBs.
Griese didn't have to do much in his 2 victories, 1 TD pass. Joe Theismann isn't going in the HOF, neither is Jim McMahon or Phil Simms.
There's 8 more quarterbacks that didn't have to do much to be a SB winner, 9 if you count Namath (0 TDs).
That's 13 out of 57 right? Actually it looks like there were 34 different QBs that "won" the SB not 57. If you count back up's, back up caliber guys and guys that did little more than hand the ball off, you're up to 41% of the guys who were QBs for the winning team.
I actually didn't count Bradshaw, but I also didn't count Stafford and Eli Manning.
Depending on how tough you are on quarterbacks, fully half the guys who "won" the big game were either back ups, back ups who started because their teams had no real starter or guys that were starters, but not really needed in order to win.
Can we please start to think of this as a team sport?
For some of you, the answer will always be no.
none of the guys you mentioned were backup quarterbacks for the team they played for. A teams backup is the 2nd stringer, who enters in relief of the starter.
what do you think would happen to the chiefs if a week before the super bowl Mahomes tore his rotator cuff?
QB is by far the most important position on the field.
yes, backups have won the SB, but very very infrequently. to my knowledge, in the 57 year history of the SB, backups have won 5 times. by my count, Earl Morrall, Plunkett, Doug Williams, Jeff Hostetler and Nick Foles.
that would be 8.7%. and 4 of those were before the proliferation of the passing game as we have it today.
That may all be true, but it's not the way to think about it because it's rare for a backup QB to play in the Super Bowl. How often have backups started in a Super Bowl? Of those, how many won? That's the relevant number. If the starting QBs win half the time, and the backup QBs win half the time (I'm not saying they have, because I don't know, but "if") then winning a Super Bowl would appear to be dead as an evaluation tool for QBs.
do you disagree that the qb position is in the modern game, by far, the most important one on the football field?
Do you disagree that if the starter goes down in the modern game it is a season killer?
Do you disagree that the starting QB in the modern game deserves more credit for a SB win than any other position player?
they handle the ball on every single offensive play. their successes and failures impact their team more than any other single player on the team.
just for definition, lets say the modern game is from maybe after the rule changes in 2007-8 or so.
@craig44 said:
I keep hearing that winning the Super Bowl is a "team award." I think it is more nuanced than that. simply stating that it is a "team award" pushes the narrative that each of the 53 players was equally valuable/important for the win. most people, self included, would disagree with this narrative strongly.
Most would consider, at least for most teams, the QB to be the most important player. And usually by far. What would happen to the KC Chiefs, for instance, if Mahomes tore his achilles during practice the week before the super bowl? the same could be said for any number of teams in the same situation. they would most certainly not win. If the same team were to lose a corner back or a lineman or a backer or a RB or a WR, it would be difficult, but a win would still be possible.
While it is different than an individual sport and there are no metrics I know of to quantify it, QB is the most important position in football. Especially now, and by a large margin. losing the best player in any position room is terrible for a team. losing a starting QB, is a season killer.
All that is to say, I dont think it is inaccurate to say a QB "won" x amount of Super Bowls. Because, conversely, if a team loses their starter (with very few exceptions: Jeff Hostetler) they are most certainly NOT winning the Super Bowl.
In 1980 QB Pastorini went down with an injury in the 5th week for the Raiders. Plunkett took over for the rest of the year and led the Raiders to a SB win over the Eagles. So it does happen, but as you stated not that frequently.
yes, backups have won the SB, but very very infrequently. to my knowledge, in the 57 year history of the SB, backups have won 5 times. by my count, Earl Morrall, Plunkett, Doug Williams, Jeff Hostetler and Nick Foles.
that would be 8.7%. and 4 of those were before the proliferation of the passing game as we have it today.
You forgot the 4 Bradshaw won. 😁
How about Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson, Joe Flacco and Mark Rypien?
I would rate every one of those guys, at best, as good back up QBs.
Griese didn't have to do much in his 2 victories, 1 TD pass. Joe Theismann isn't going in the HOF, neither is Jim McMahon or Phil Simms.
There's 8 more quarterbacks that didn't have to do much to be a SB winner, 9 if you count Namath (0 TDs).
That's 13 out of 57 right? Actually it looks like there were 34 different QBs that "won" the SB not 57. If you count back up's, back up caliber guys and guys that did little more than hand the ball off, you're up to 41% of the guys who were QBs for the winning team.
I actually didn't count Bradshaw, but I also didn't count Stafford and Eli Manning.
Depending on how tough you are on quarterbacks, fully half the guys who "won" the big game were either back ups, back ups who started because their teams had no real starter or guys that were starters, but not really needed in order to win.
Can we please start to think of this as a team sport?
For some of you, the answer will always be no.
none of the guys you mentioned were backup quarterbacks for the team they played for. A teams backup is the 2nd stringer, who enters in relief of the starter.
what do you think would happen to the chiefs if a week before the super bowl Mahomes tore his rotator cuff?
QB is by far the most important position on the field.
I would tell mahomes a rotating cuff isn’t all it’s cracked up to be and he’ll be fine with his stationary cuff.
@craig44 said:
I keep hearing that winning the Super Bowl is a "team award." I think it is more nuanced than that. simply stating that it is a "team award" pushes the narrative that each of the 53 players was equally valuable/important for the win. most people, self included, would disagree with this narrative strongly.
Most would consider, at least for most teams, the QB to be the most important player. And usually by far. What would happen to the KC Chiefs, for instance, if Mahomes tore his achilles during practice the week before the super bowl? the same could be said for any number of teams in the same situation. they would most certainly not win. If the same team were to lose a corner back or a lineman or a backer or a RB or a WR, it would be difficult, but a win would still be possible.
While it is different than an individual sport and there are no metrics I know of to quantify it, QB is the most important position in football. Especially now, and by a large margin. losing the best player in any position room is terrible for a team. losing a starting QB, is a season killer.
All that is to say, I dont think it is inaccurate to say a QB "won" x amount of Super Bowls. Because, conversely, if a team loses their starter (with very few exceptions: Jeff Hostetler) they are most certainly NOT winning the Super Bowl.
In 1980 QB Pastorini went down with an injury in the 5th week for the Raiders. Plunkett took over for the rest of the year and led the Raiders to a SB win over the Eagles. So it does happen, but as you stated not that frequently.
yes, backups have won the SB, but very very infrequently. to my knowledge, in the 57 year history of the SB, backups have won 5 times. by my count, Earl Morrall, Plunkett, Doug Williams, Jeff Hostetler and Nick Foles.
that would be 8.7%. and 4 of those were before the proliferation of the passing game as we have it today.
You forgot the 4 Bradshaw won. 😁
How about Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson, Joe Flacco and Mark Rypien?
I would rate every one of those guys, at best, as good back up QBs.
Griese didn't have to do much in his 2 victories, 1 TD pass. Joe Theismann isn't going in the HOF, neither is Jim McMahon or Phil Simms.
There's 8 more quarterbacks that didn't have to do much to be a SB winner, 9 if you count Namath (0 TDs).
That's 13 out of 57 right? Actually it looks like there were 34 different QBs that "won" the SB not 57. If you count back up's, back up caliber guys and guys that did little more than hand the ball off, you're up to 41% of the guys who were QBs for the winning team.
I actually didn't count Bradshaw, but I also didn't count Stafford and Eli Manning.
Depending on how tough you are on quarterbacks, fully half the guys who "won" the big game were either back ups, back ups who started because their teams had no real starter or guys that were starters, but not really needed in order to win.
Can we please start to think of this as a team sport?
For some of you, the answer will always be no.
none of the guys you mentioned were backup quarterbacks for the team they played for. A teams backup is the 2nd stringer, who enters in relief of the starter.
>
I know what a "backup" QB is, I acknowledged that in my post. Most, but not all of the guys I mentioned sucked, therefore proving that you don't "need" a great QB to win it all.
>
what do you think would happen to the chiefs if a week before the super bowl Mahomes tore his rotator cuff?
>
He would probably play through the pain and win the game. FUNNY, the year he had no offensive line, he wasn't able to win the SB.
>
QB is by far the most important position on the field.
>
>
Nobody has ever disputed that. There's no point there. Even Mahomes can't win without an offensive line that can pass block.
Tarkenton made it to 3 SB's without a great receiver or running back, he was a better QB than Bradshaw, Griese or Stabler, yet with zero running game (look it up, practically nothing on the ground) and no great receiver, he goes 0-3.
Dan Marino was quite possibly the greatest thrower of the football I have ever seen, yet he too was never a SB winner. Elway couldn't win until he got a good RB. Peyton Manning won in Denver when he was a shell of his former self.
How can you explain how Brady could possibly ever lose a single football game much less a SB?
TEAM sport.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
do you disagree that the qb position is in the modern game, by far, the most important one on the football field?
Overall, and more often than any other single player, the QB will be the most important , but absolutely not in every game, and absolutely not in every Super Bowl. Peyton Manning "won" a Super Bowl with Denver and he was, arguably, the worst player on the field in that game.
Do you disagree that if the starter goes down in the modern game it is a season killer?
That depends on how good the backup is, and how much the team depends on passing in order to win.
Do you disagree that the starting QB in the modern game deserves more credit for a SB win than any other position player?
Made as a universal absolute statement as you've made it, absolutely I disagree. When Tampa Bay beat KC any QB in the league could have led TB to the win because KC's crippled offense couldn't score against TB's defense. Ditto for the Jets when Matt Snell and the Jets defense meant Uncle Rico could have played QB and won. As in every single other game, ever, it all depends on 100 other things whether the QB deserves more credit than any other player in a Super Bowl.
they handle the ball on every single offensive play. their successes and failures impact their team more than any other single player on the team.
On any play when a QB "handles the ball" by taking it from the center and handing it to the running back, he is - by far - less important to the success of that play than the RB and anyone on the OL (and perhaps others). When the QB throws the ball sideways or backwards before anyone on the defense gets near him, he is closer to a bystander than he is to the highest impact player. Overall, yes, the QB - a decent one - will usually be the most important player on the offense although by a margin a lot smaller than your questions imply.
What I'd really like to address, though, is the question I asked. How many times has a backup started in a Super Bowl, and how many times did they win?
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@dallasactuary, What I'd really like to address, though, is the question I asked. How many times has a backup started in a Super Bowl, and how many times did they win?
In the modern passing game, which started sometime between 2006-2009, I believe one backup has started. Nick Foles. In the modern game, passing is so overwhelmingly important that most people/analysts realize that a team needs production from the QB position to win, make it to the postseason, win in the postseason and win the SB.
of course there are exceptions, like the 15 Broncos, but exceptions do not make the rule.
an overwhelming amount of human beings have 10 fingers. once in a while there will be one born with 9 or 8. an exception to the rule does not change the fact that the great majority of humans are born with 10 fingers. likewise, the great majority of successful modern NFL teams have great QB play. once in a while there will be a great modern team which gets by without great play from the QB position. that is simply an exception.
@craig44 said: @dallasactuary, What I'd really like to address, though, is the question I asked. How many times has a backup started in a Super Bowl, and how many times did they win?
In the modern passing game, which started sometime between 2006-2009, I believe one backup has started. Nick Foles. In the modern game, passing is so overwhelmingly important that most people/analysts realize that a team needs production from the QB position to win, make it to the postseason, win in the postseason and win the SB.
of course there are exceptions, like the 15 Broncos, but exceptions do not make the rule.
an overwhelming amount of human beings have 10 fingers. once in a while there will be one born with 9 or 8. an exception to the rule does not change the fact that the great majority of humans are born with 10 fingers. likewise, the great majority of successful modern NFL teams have great QB play. once in a while there will be a great modern team which gets by without great play from the QB position. that is simply an exception.
Have you checked how many have won a playoff game so it isn't just the one singular event of having to win the super bowl? I believe the argument would be more compelling to see:
1) What is the w/l record of all backups compared to the starters of their same teams
2)How many backups took their team to the playoffs(and did the starter take those teams the year prior or after?)
3)How many backups won a playoff game(did the starter win any playoff games with them?)
4)How many backups got to the AFC or NFC champiionship game.(how did the starter do?)
5)Backups winning the Super Bowl(how many did the starter win?)
Foles is a good example of why one should not so exclusively use the "He won a Super Bowl," because if that was the determining factor, then Foles(who won one and played very well in it) should have went better than 3-11 after he left Philly.
@craig44 said: @dallasactuary, What I'd really like to address, though, is the question I asked. How many times has a backup started in a Super Bowl, and how many times did they win?
In the modern passing game, which started sometime between 2006-2009, I believe one backup has started. Nick Foles. In the modern game, passing is so overwhelmingly important that most people/analysts realize that a team needs production from the QB position to win, make it to the postseason, win in the postseason and win the SB.
of course there are exceptions, like the 15 Broncos, but exceptions do not make the rule.
an overwhelming amount of human beings have 10 fingers. once in a while there will be one born with 9 or 8. an exception to the rule does not change the fact that the great majority of humans are born with 10 fingers. likewise, the great majority of successful modern NFL teams have great QB play. once in a while there will be a great modern team which gets by without great play from the QB position. that is simply an exception.
Have you checked how many have won a playoff game so it isn't just the one singular event of having to win the super bowl? I believe the argument would be more compelling to see:
1) What is the w/l record of all backups compared to the starters of their same teams
2)How many backups took their team to the playoffs(and did the starter take those teams the year prior or after?)
3)How many backups won a playoff game(did the starter win any playoff games with them?)
4)How many backups got to the AFC or NFC champiionship game.(how did the starter do?)
5)Backups winning the Super Bowl(how many did the starter win?)
Foles is a good example of why one should not so exclusively use the "He won a Super Bowl," because if that was the determining factor, then Foles(who won one and played very well in it) should have went better than 3-11 after he left Philly.
That would be good information to have, I simply do not have the time to take that deep of a dive.
Nobody, certainly not me, is saying that having a better QB (the starter) is the same as having a worse WB (the backup). But that's true at every position, not just QB. What I'm saying is that the difference between using a starting QB vs. a backup QB is not as overwhelmingly large as many of you seem to be implying. Sure, if your backup sucks then you're in a lot of trouble, but if he's good then you're in much less trouble. And, again, that's true of every position. KC got beat bad by TB because they were using backups on the OL; other teams get beat because they're using backups on the DL or in the secondary. But it's a TEAM game; having to use a backup at any one position, even QB, won't change the outcome of the game unless the gap from starter to backup is huge.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@dallasactuary said:
Nobody, certainly not me, is saying that having a better QB (the starter) is the same as having a worse WB (the backup). But that's true at every position, not just QB. What I'm saying is that the difference between using a starting QB vs. a backup QB is not as overwhelmingly large as many of you seem to be implying. Sure, if your backup sucks then you're in a lot of trouble, but if he's good then you're in much less trouble. And, again, that's true of every position. KC got beat bad by TB because they were using backups on the OL; other teams get beat because they're using backups on the DL or in the secondary. But it's a TEAM game; having to use a backup at any one position, even QB, won't change the outcome of the game unless the gap from starter to backup is huge.
But normally the gap between starting QB and Backup QB is huge. at least for teams that have a real shot at the SB in the Modern game. for terrible teams, the gap might not be a mile, but there will still be a gap. Not that it matters because they will not be in contention anyways. Those are not the teams we are discussing.
Do you think that if Tua goes down right now Miami will make it to the playoffs? if they did, would you expect a deep run? What about Josh Allen and the Bills? Mahomes and the Chiefs? Purdey and the 9ers? Of course not. the Vegas odds would plummet. Why would that be? possibly because the most important person on the field went down. the Jets were a contender during the preseason. what about now? they are 500 and lucky to be there. why? their starter went down. their 40-year-old starter. now, do you think the same thing would happen if that team lost their top linebacker for the season? or top DB? it would hurt. and a lot, but it wouldnt doom the team and its fans to wait till next year.
only in very very rare instances, like in SF in the late 80's early 90's does the quality of starter and backup almost equal so there is no dropoff.
But normally the gap between starting QB and Backup QB is huge. at least for teams that have a real shot at the SB in the Modern game. for terrible teams, the gap might not be a mile, but there will still be a gap. Not that it matters because they will not be in contention anyways. Those are not the teams we are discussing.
I thought we were discussing QBs. And you're probably right on this point because teams overpay their QBs to such a ridiculous extent that there's no money left to pay a decent backup.
Do you think that if Tua goes down right now Miami will make it to the playoffs? if they did, would you expect a deep run? What about Josh Allen and the Bills? Mahomes and the Chiefs? Purdey and the 9ers? Of course not.
Entirely different argument than winning a single game. Obviously, if a team has to play a sub-par player then their odds of winning go down. Do it for one game and it makes a little difference; do it for a lot of games or an entire season and it makes a lot of difference. The same is true, obviously, of every position on the field.
i am really surprised you are not getting this.
Ditto.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
after much thought and consideration, here's my goat list for every NFL franchise. feel free to tell me where i went wrong
Arizona Cardinals - Terry Bradshaw
San Francisco 49ers - Joe Greene
Seattle Seahawks - Mel Blount
LA Rams - Rocky Bleier
Tampa Bay Buccaneers - L.C. Greenwood
Minnesota Vikings - Terry Bradshaw
Green Bay Packers - Jack Ham
Detroit Lions - John Stallworth
Chicago Bears - Lynn Swann
NY Giants - Franco Harris
Dallas Cowboys - Terry Bradshaw
Philadelphia Eagles - Steve Furness
Washington Commskins - John Banaszak
Atlanta Falcons - John Fuqua
New Orleans Saints - Roy Gerela
Carolina Panthers - Terry Bradshaw
Houston Texans - Donnie Shell
Indianapolis Colts - Mike Webster
Jacksonville Jaguars- Dwight White
Tennessee Titans - Jon Kolb
Kansas City Chiefs - Terry Bradshaw
San Diego Chargers - Ernie Holmes
Denver Broncos - Russell Wilson
Las Vegas/Los Angeles/Oakland/Sacramento/Tijuana Raiders - Hines Ward
Miami Dolphins - Jerome Bettis
New England Patriots - TB.....Terry Bradshaw
NY Jets - Willie Parker
Buffalo Bills - Antonio Brown
Cleveland Browns - Le'Veon 🔔
Cincinnati Bengals - Rod Woodson
Baltimore Ravens - Troy Polamalu
Pittsburgh Steelers - Roger Staubach
Entirely different argument than winning a single game. Obviously, if a team has to play a sub-par player then their odds of winning go down. Do it for one game and it makes a little difference; do it for a lot of games or an entire season and it makes a lot of difference. The same is true, obviously, of every position on the field.
I disagree. It does make a big difference in one game. of course it does. Why would playing a sub-par QB make "a lot of difference for a season?" All a season is, is a bunch of single games strung together. you dont think losing Tua makes a lot of difference for every game of the season?
What happened to the 49ers during the playoff game when Purdey hurt his arm? they kept him in even though he couldnt throw. they lost.
If losing a starting QB has "little difference" to the outcome of one game, why did the Patriots move heaven and earth to get Brady ready to play against the Jaguars in the 2017 playoff when he had a major hand injury during practice the week before the game? Why not just let the backup play and let Brady heal for an extra week if losing him makes "little difference" to the outcome of one game?
Entirely different argument than winning a single game. Obviously, if a team has to play a sub-par player then their odds of winning go down. Do it for one game and it makes a little difference; do it for a lot of games or an entire season and it makes a lot of difference. The same is true, obviously, of every position on the field.
I disagree. It does make a big difference in one game. of course it does. Why would playing a sub-par QB make "a lot of difference for a season?" All a season is, is a bunch of single games strung together. you dont think losing Tua makes a lot of difference for every game of the season?
What happened to the 49ers during the playoff game when Purdey hurt his arm? they kept him in even though he couldnt throw. they lost.
If losing a starting QB has "little difference" to the outcome of one game, why did the Patriots move heaven and earth to get Brady ready to play against the Jaguars in the 2017 playoff when he had a major hand injury during practice the week before the game? Why not just let the backup play and let Brady heal for an extra week if losing him makes "little difference" to the outcome of one game?
@galaxy27 said:
after much thought and consideration, here's my goat list for every NFL franchise. feel free to tell me where i went wrong
Arizona Cardinals - Terry Bradshaw
San Francisco 49ers - Joe Greene
Seattle Seahawks - Mel Blount
LA Rams - Rocky Bleier
Tampa Bay Buccaneers - L.C. Greenwood
Minnesota Vikings - Terry Bradshaw
Green Bay Packers - Jack Ham
Detroit Lions - John Stallworth
Chicago Bears - Lynn Swann
NY Giants - Franco Harris
Dallas Cowboys - Terry Bradshaw
Philadelphia Eagles - Steve Furness
Washington Commskins - John Banaszak
Atlanta Falcons - John Fuqua
New Orleans Saints - Roy Gerela
Carolina Panthers - Terry Bradshaw
Houston Texans - Donnie Shell
Indianapolis Colts - Mike Webster
Jacksonville Jaguars- Dwight White
Tennessee Titans - Jon Kolb
Kansas City Chiefs - Terry Bradshaw
San Diego Chargers - Ernie Holmes
Denver Broncos - Russell Wilson
Las Vegas/Los Angeles/Oakland/Sacramento/Tijuana Raiders - Hines Ward
Miami Dolphins - Jerome Bettis
New England Patriots - TB.....Terry Bradshaw
NY Jets - Willie Parker
Buffalo Bills - Antonio Brown
Cleveland Browns - Le'Veon 🔔
Cincinnati Bengals - Rod Woodson
Baltimore Ravens - Troy Polamalu
Pittsburgh Steelers - Roger Staubach
POST OF THE YEAR!
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I disagree. It does make a big difference in one game. of course it does. Why would playing a sub-par QB make "a lot of difference for a season?" All a season is, is a bunch of single games strung together. you dont think losing Tua makes a lot of difference for every game of the season?
That's just math - (1-i) vs (1-i) to the 17th power. Use a backup in a game and there's a chance that it costs you that game. Use him for an entire season and it's all but certain that it will cost you a game or more.
What happened to the 49ers during the playoff game when Purdey hurt his arm? they kept him in even though he couldnt throw. they lost.
I don't know what point this is addressing, but it sounds like they should have brought in the backup.
If losing a starting QB has "little difference" to the outcome of one game, why did the Patriots move heaven and earth to get Brady ready to play against the Jaguars in the 2017 playoff when he had a major hand injury during practice the week before the game? Why not just let the backup play and let Brady heal for an extra week if losing him makes "little difference" to the outcome of one game?
Because he's Tom Brady and it was a huge game. Even if using the backup would reduce their chances of winning by (I'll just make up a number) 10%, of course they'll do all they can to avoid that 10% hit.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Comments
Bert Jones and Bradshaw were both from Louisiana colleges and both had cannons.
They both liked to throw deep into double coverage similar to Brett Favre.
Some will say Jim Plunkett had the strongest arm. He would wing it 60 yards downfield and just let Branch run under it.
Not sure if anyone had the strongest but those three had cannons.
Bradshaw's arm was great, but Jim Hart, the Cardinals QB, probably had a bit more "cannon" than Bradshaw. Like Bradshaw, it was Hart's only discernible talent, but he could really air it out.
Thanks for the reply. I have heard of Hart, but only that. Stat lines on a page. I was alive in the 70's, but only barely, so I have only seen these guys on grainy highlight films. I really started cutting my teeth on the NFL during the 80's. I will have to check out the Youtube and see if Mr. Hart has any film on there!!
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I will have to check out some film on Bert and Plunkett.
wasnt the grandfather from those duck dynasty shows Bradshaws backup in college?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Maybe you should question your intelligence when you have those two on your side.
Bradshaw simply was NOT awesome.
From 1970-74 he sucked. He threw 81 interceptions and 48 TD's with a Rate of 53.2. Horrible.
In 1974 Swann and Stallworth (along with Lambert) joined the team, Harris had arrived in 1972. Franco went to the Pro Bowl every year from 1972-80. Swann or Stallworth went in 1975, 77-79, 82, 84.
From 1975-79 Bradshaw got a lot better!
BIG SURPRISE!
He still wasn't great, with another 82 interceptions, but he did make 3 Pro Bowls (probably didn't deserve it in 1979, he was 8th in passer rating and missed throwing the most interceptions by 1) and was named OPY once.
Note that in 1976 when Stallworth was hurt, Bradshaw was again horrible, he was benched/shared the starting job with Mike Kruczek!
Bradshaw had 1 superb season (1975) 3 great ones (1978, 81-82), 3 good ones (1977,79-80, although he threw a lot of int's) and 6 below average years.
He got good when he got good receivers to throw to (even then he was picked off a lot) to go with a great running back and one of the best defenses ever.
It really all came together beautifully from 1972-72 when they drafted incredibly well to go along with some already great players, and an average QB, (maybe a little above average) but certainly not an all time great.
P.S. to respond to another silly post; if you don't think getting sacked 7 times in one game has an effect on a QB, you better stick to golf or tennis.
My thoughts on Jim Hart after watching some highlights.
1. Funny looking guy. looked very unathletic, almost pudgy.
2. appeared to be able to throw pretty well on the move. I saw him hit lots of passes on roll outs.
3. Had an absolute whip. saw one where he threw one off the back foot 45 yards. All arm. seemed pretty effortless. another one where he tossed one about 55 yards into the end zone without having a full wind up because of the rush. also seemed effortless.
lots of arm talent with Mr. Hart. color me impressed!
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
@craig44 another thing to take note of when watching the Hart clips: funny looking, very unathletic, almost pudgy........but in one piece at all times. why? because he had one of the best o-lines in the history of the NFL blocking for him. they were considered to be the first group to introduce weightlifting, powerlifting and, yes, steroids into a training regimen. i know the latter for a fact because i went to college with Bob Young's son, and he was one of the five who kept Hart on his feet. he was considered to be the strongest man in the NFL for a number of years.
Plunkett reminds me a lot of Warren Moon. At least in the highlights I watched. Threw a beautiful deep ball. lots of air under them with tight spirals. I was unable to get a good idea of the length of his passes because of the camera work.
I didnt get to see any intermediate passes to try and gauge his speed, but if his "bombs" are any indication, I am sure he could get good velocity on the ball.
I was even more impressed with Bert Jones arm. at least in the films I watched. Holy cow could he throw. I saw one pass where he was under pressure on his own end line and he chucked one up, off his back foot, and it sailed past the 50! That is impressive. over 50 yards, under pressure, off the back foot, all arm. I am certain that guy could throw one 70 or 75 if he could really gather himself.
It goes to show that the older guys had the same, and sometimes better, arm talent as the guys today. it is out there, just on grainy film.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
that is interesting. I did not know that about his O-Line. makes sense, if you are not the most athletic guy around. I believe it about the steroid thing. I have read that the Chargers from the 1960s were also heavy steroid users.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Jim Hart couldn't beat a snail in the 40, yet he was sacked a grand total of 6 times in 1975
It's almost like football is a team game, and how good any one player looks depends a LOT on how good the players around him are. I know, I know, that's kooky talk, but for some reason I can't shake the thought.
Was Terry Bradshaw better than Jim Hart? Probably, because Bradshaw was at least mobile. But they weren't as far apart in talent as the QB worshipers would have you believe. And no, Jim Hart was not a great QB; it's a stretch to even call him "good".
Bradshaw was good that day, he had the best two receivers and that was the difference. His numbers were almost identical to Staubach's.
Two GREAT teams, the better TEAM won that day, not the better QB.
You keep saying that I'm not giving Bradshaw any credit, he does deserve some, but you are giving him WAY TOO MUCH!
As I have said, he had a great arm and was a good/great athlete, he just wasn't sure who was going to catch the ball when he threw it. A lot of times it was the wrong team, he threw WAY too many picks to be considered an all time great.
Football is the "ultimate" team sport, the QB generally gets too much credit when they win. In Bradshaw's case he really had superior team mates, that's why he won.
Bradshaw was actually at his best late in his career (1981&1982) when they didn't make the playoffs one year and lost the WC game the other. Why didn't they win in those two seasons? The offense was scoring 350+ points every year 1978-81. It was the defense that got old, the defense that was primarily the reason for Pittsburgh's dominance, went from giving up 195 points per season to 300.
TEAM SPORT.
Not a Bradshaw hater, he just wasn't an all time great.
i was actually thinking about this thread and the nauseating debate contained within while watching the Niners-Browns this past weekend.
anyone see that game?
thru 5 weeks, Brock Purdy led the league in QBR and was being elevated to the very top of MVP hierarchy.
then what happened?
Deebo Samuel and Christian McCaffrey exited that game with injuries, and not only did BP all of a sudden look like a bottom-tier QB, but he looked completely helpless out there. 44.4% CMP, 125 yards and a pick for the game. talk about an extreme juxtaposition. and the crazy thing? after that performance he's still #1 in QBR. that's how well he was playing.............when his gun was loaded with bullets.
some quarterbacks can do a lot with a lot, some quarterbacks can do more with less, some quarterbacks can't do jack pop tarts without a robust surrounding cast because they rely so heavily on them.......so on and so forth. this is what separates the legit from the faux when the acronym in the title of this thread is being tossed around. it's up to you to utilize the brain God gave you and place players in the proper category.
it's like me hopping on here like a crackhead and talking about Jim McMahon's unparalleled greatness in 1985
And, even with all that, he still got SF in position to win by making a relatively short FG.
It's a little unfair to judge a QB on how they do when superstars leave mid-game as opposed to if they miss practice all week and sit out.
not unfair to me at all, mid-game injuries happen all the time. that's when he has the golden opportunity to unveil his true worth to the team.
yes, to his credit he drove the team down the field on the last drive of the game, only for the kicker to blow it, but it never should have come to that if he's truly as great as everyone is making him out to be. he did n-o-t-h-i-n-g the rest of the game.
he's a system QB and completely screwed once you strip him of key cogs
Hes gotten better, but yea SF has had a preposterous amount of talent at basically every offensive position for him. Theres a ton of QBs that will look good with that around them
I’m actually questioning your intelligence.
Here’s what you said comparing Kershaw to Koufax.
So if the object of the game is to show up and win, and greatness is determined by in your own words “to show up and win” in a team sport, then why isn’t Bradshaw greater then Staubach ?
He played longer, won more, and beat Staubach day and night.
107 wins to 85 in the regular season.
4 and 0 against Staubach lifetime.
4 SBs to Rogers 2.
Roger’s first year in the NFL he joined a Super Bowl team. Terry joined a 1-13-0 team.
Bradshaw was greater than Staubach because in your own words not only did he win much more often, but he beat that guy every time he played him. Not only that, Staubach never played up to Bradshaw’s standards when they played against each other. He just couldn’t beat Terry. He wasn’t good enough all four times. Sad for the Bradshaw haters, but true.
Bert Jones was incredible. Won league MVP one year also.
Those Colts teams were awesome and he was fun to watch.
Football QBs dont have records against other QBs, teams do. Thais isnt the UFC, boxing, tennis, golf, or even basketball. This isnt an individual sport.
Roger played less because he went to the Naval Academy and didnt start his career until he was 27. He also played at an older age if how much someone played is an argument. He played as 37 year old, Terry played 1 game at 35.
Rings are also a team accomplishment and Terry only started 7 games and only played in 8 the first year he won a ring. Rodgers stats are better across the board he just had to start his career later.
Sorry this question was for Joe based on what he said. It was not intended for anyone else.
With Bradshaw it comes down to this.
If a major league hitter bats .230 his first six years, and then hits .350 his next six years and wins all kinds of award and trophies, was he an awesome player or was he an average player. He ended up hitting .290, was World Series MVP twice, and could have been four times. Won 4 World Series. Was the major star of all those. League MVP. All Star teams.
Was this guy awesome or was he just average ?
Carry on fellas.
If such a player existed they would be very good, such a player does not exist and a WS would also be a team award. Bradshaw didnt come remotely close to "hitting .350 for 6 years" or win all kinds of awards or the major star of his team
So I checked the 1970’s All Decade team just for fun. Trying to educate myself.
Bradshaw, Greene, Ham and Swann were all voted first team by a non-watered down HOF committee like we have today.
Your analysis does not line up with the HOF committee. It is simply your uneducated opinion.
Bradshaw, Greene, Ham and Swann were the four superstars of that team. Bradshaw not only beat out Staubach, but every other QB from that decade. They voted him the greatest.
I’ll take that strict HOF committee’s opinions over message board wannabees every day of the week.
Bradshaw hater says the reason the Steelers didnt win as much in the early 80's is because the defense got old.
Both offense and defense team stats dropped in the early 80's. In 1981 both offense and defense ranked #11 in team stats.
But the last time I checked their offense got old too
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
I keep hearing that winning the Super Bowl is a "team award." I think it is more nuanced than that. simply stating that it is a "team award" pushes the narrative that each of the 53 players was equally valuable/important for the win. most people, self included, would disagree with this narrative strongly.
Most would consider, at least for most teams, the QB to be the most important player. And usually by far. What would happen to the KC Chiefs, for instance, if Mahomes tore his achilles during practice the week before the super bowl? the same could be said for any number of teams in the same situation. they would most certainly not win. If the same team were to lose a corner back or a lineman or a backer or a RB or a WR, it would be difficult, but a win would still be possible.
While it is different than an individual sport and there are no metrics I know of to quantify it, QB is the most important position in football. Especially now, and by a large margin. losing the best player in any position room is terrible for a team. losing a starting QB, is a season killer.
All that is to say, I dont think it is inaccurate to say a QB "won" x amount of Super Bowls. Because, conversely, if a team loses their starter (with very few exceptions: Jeff Hostetler) they are most certainly NOT winning the Super Bowl.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
There's really no reason to continue here. Bradshaw was nowhere near the QB Staubach was, his TEAMS were better.
If people here can't see that there's 21 other guys, plus a few special teams players, working together to achieve a goal of a championship and you have to have several great players on both sides of the ball, I can't waste my time.
This sounds like a hitter version of Sandy Koufax.
In 1980 QB Pastorini went down with an injury in the 5th week for the Raiders. Plunkett took over for the rest of the year and led the Raiders to a SB win over the Eagles. So it does happen, but as you stated not that frequently.
Does the 21 other players rule of yours apply to Kershaw also ?
Or does he hit 1 through 9 in the order and play every fielding position while he pitches also ?
Craig44 is 100% spot on.
The QB position is the most important position on the football field, and Bradshaw was the reason the Steelers won so many big games against Dallas, while your boy Franco could do nothing against Dallas.
yes, backups have won the SB, but very very infrequently. to my knowledge, in the 57 year history of the SB, backups have won 5 times. by my count, Earl Morrall, Plunkett, Doug Williams, Jeff Hostetler and Nick Foles.
that would be 8.7%. and 4 of those were before the proliferation of the passing game as we have it today.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
You forgot the 4 Bradshaw won. 😁
How about Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson, Joe Flacco and Mark Rypien?
I would rate every one of those guys, at best, as good back up QBs.
Griese didn't have to do much in his 2 victories, 1 TD pass. Joe Theismann isn't going in the HOF, neither is Jim McMahon or Phil Simms.
There's 8 more quarterbacks that didn't have to do much to be a SB winner, 9 if you count Namath (0 TDs).
That's 13 out of 57 right? Actually it looks like there were 34 different QBs that "won" the SB not 57. If you count back up's, back up caliber guys and guys that did little more than hand the ball off, you're up to 41% of the guys who were QBs for the winning team.
I actually didn't count Bradshaw, but I also didn't count Stafford and Eli Manning.
Depending on how tough you are on quarterbacks, fully half the guys who "won" the big game were either back ups, back ups who started because their teams had no real starter or guys that were starters, but not really needed in order to win.
Can we please start to think of this as a team sport?
For some of you, the answer will always be no.
That may all be true, but it's not the way to think about it because it's rare for a backup QB to play in the Super Bowl. How often have backups started in a Super Bowl? Of those, how many won? That's the relevant number. If the starting QBs win half the time, and the backup QBs win half the time (I'm not saying they have, because I don't know, but "if") then winning a Super Bowl would appear to be dead as an evaluation tool for QBs.
none of the guys you mentioned were backup quarterbacks for the team they played for. A teams backup is the 2nd stringer, who enters in relief of the starter.
what do you think would happen to the chiefs if a week before the super bowl Mahomes tore his rotator cuff?
QB is by far the most important position on the field.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
do you disagree that the qb position is in the modern game, by far, the most important one on the football field?
Do you disagree that if the starter goes down in the modern game it is a season killer?
Do you disagree that the starting QB in the modern game deserves more credit for a SB win than any other position player?
they handle the ball on every single offensive play. their successes and failures impact their team more than any other single player on the team.
just for definition, lets say the modern game is from maybe after the rule changes in 2007-8 or so.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I would tell mahomes a rotating cuff isn’t all it’s cracked up to be and he’ll be fine with his stationary cuff.
Stupid list…. Mistlin
>
I know what a "backup" QB is, I acknowledged that in my post. Most, but not all of the guys I mentioned sucked, therefore proving that you don't "need" a great QB to win it all.
>
>
He would probably play through the pain and win the game. FUNNY, the year he had no offensive line, he wasn't able to win the SB.
>
>
>
Nobody has ever disputed that. There's no point there. Even Mahomes can't win without an offensive line that can pass block.
Tarkenton made it to 3 SB's without a great receiver or running back, he was a better QB than Bradshaw, Griese or Stabler, yet with zero running game (look it up, practically nothing on the ground) and no great receiver, he goes 0-3.
Dan Marino was quite possibly the greatest thrower of the football I have ever seen, yet he too was never a SB winner. Elway couldn't win until he got a good RB. Peyton Manning won in Denver when he was a shell of his former self.
How can you explain how Brady could possibly ever lose a single football game much less a SB?
TEAM sport.
Overall, and more often than any other single player, the QB will be the most important , but absolutely not in every game, and absolutely not in every Super Bowl. Peyton Manning "won" a Super Bowl with Denver and he was, arguably, the worst player on the field in that game.
That depends on how good the backup is, and how much the team depends on passing in order to win.
Made as a universal absolute statement as you've made it, absolutely I disagree. When Tampa Bay beat KC any QB in the league could have led TB to the win because KC's crippled offense couldn't score against TB's defense. Ditto for the Jets when Matt Snell and the Jets defense meant Uncle Rico could have played QB and won. As in every single other game, ever, it all depends on 100 other things whether the QB deserves more credit than any other player in a Super Bowl.
On any play when a QB "handles the ball" by taking it from the center and handing it to the running back, he is - by far - less important to the success of that play than the RB and anyone on the OL (and perhaps others). When the QB throws the ball sideways or backwards before anyone on the defense gets near him, he is closer to a bystander than he is to the highest impact player. Overall, yes, the QB - a decent one - will usually be the most important player on the offense although by a margin a lot smaller than your questions imply.
What I'd really like to address, though, is the question I asked. How many times has a backup started in a Super Bowl, and how many times did they win?
USA today 100 best quarterbacks of all time.
Bradshaw is ranked #12 out of 100. Tarkenton is at #13.
https://ftw.usatoday.com/2019/09/nfl-100-best-quarterbacks
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
@dallasactuary, What I'd really like to address, though, is the question I asked. How many times has a backup started in a Super Bowl, and how many times did they win?
In the modern passing game, which started sometime between 2006-2009, I believe one backup has started. Nick Foles. In the modern game, passing is so overwhelmingly important that most people/analysts realize that a team needs production from the QB position to win, make it to the postseason, win in the postseason and win the SB.
of course there are exceptions, like the 15 Broncos, but exceptions do not make the rule.
an overwhelming amount of human beings have 10 fingers. once in a while there will be one born with 9 or 8. an exception to the rule does not change the fact that the great majority of humans are born with 10 fingers. likewise, the great majority of successful modern NFL teams have great QB play. once in a while there will be a great modern team which gets by without great play from the QB position. that is simply an exception.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Have you checked how many have won a playoff game so it isn't just the one singular event of having to win the super bowl? I believe the argument would be more compelling to see:
1) What is the w/l record of all backups compared to the starters of their same teams
2)How many backups took their team to the playoffs(and did the starter take those teams the year prior or after?)
3)How many backups won a playoff game(did the starter win any playoff games with them?)
4)How many backups got to the AFC or NFC champiionship game.(how did the starter do?)
5)Backups winning the Super Bowl(how many did the starter win?)
Foles is a good example of why one should not so exclusively use the "He won a Super Bowl," because if that was the determining factor, then Foles(who won one and played very well in it) should have went better than 3-11 after he left Philly.
That would be good information to have, I simply do not have the time to take that deep of a dive.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Nobody, certainly not me, is saying that having a better QB (the starter) is the same as having a worse WB (the backup). But that's true at every position, not just QB. What I'm saying is that the difference between using a starting QB vs. a backup QB is not as overwhelmingly large as many of you seem to be implying. Sure, if your backup sucks then you're in a lot of trouble, but if he's good then you're in much less trouble. And, again, that's true of every position. KC got beat bad by TB because they were using backups on the OL; other teams get beat because they're using backups on the DL or in the secondary. But it's a TEAM game; having to use a backup at any one position, even QB, won't change the outcome of the game unless the gap from starter to backup is huge.
But normally the gap between starting QB and Backup QB is huge. at least for teams that have a real shot at the SB in the Modern game. for terrible teams, the gap might not be a mile, but there will still be a gap. Not that it matters because they will not be in contention anyways. Those are not the teams we are discussing.
Do you think that if Tua goes down right now Miami will make it to the playoffs? if they did, would you expect a deep run? What about Josh Allen and the Bills? Mahomes and the Chiefs? Purdey and the 9ers? Of course not. the Vegas odds would plummet. Why would that be? possibly because the most important person on the field went down. the Jets were a contender during the preseason. what about now? they are 500 and lucky to be there. why? their starter went down. their 40-year-old starter. now, do you think the same thing would happen if that team lost their top linebacker for the season? or top DB? it would hurt. and a lot, but it wouldnt doom the team and its fans to wait till next year.
only in very very rare instances, like in SF in the late 80's early 90's does the quality of starter and backup almost equal so there is no dropoff.
i am really surprised you are not getting this.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I thought we were discussing QBs. And you're probably right on this point because teams overpay their QBs to such a ridiculous extent that there's no money left to pay a decent backup.
Entirely different argument than winning a single game. Obviously, if a team has to play a sub-par player then their odds of winning go down. Do it for one game and it makes a little difference; do it for a lot of games or an entire season and it makes a lot of difference. The same is true, obviously, of every position on the field.
Ditto.
after much thought and consideration, here's my goat list for every NFL franchise. feel free to tell me where i went wrong
Arizona Cardinals - Terry Bradshaw
San Francisco 49ers - Joe Greene
Seattle Seahawks - Mel Blount
LA Rams - Rocky Bleier
Tampa Bay Buccaneers - L.C. Greenwood
Minnesota Vikings - Terry Bradshaw
Green Bay Packers - Jack Ham
Detroit Lions - John Stallworth
Chicago Bears - Lynn Swann
NY Giants - Franco Harris
Dallas Cowboys - Terry Bradshaw
Philadelphia Eagles - Steve Furness
Washington Commskins - John Banaszak
Atlanta Falcons - John Fuqua
New Orleans Saints - Roy Gerela
Carolina Panthers - Terry Bradshaw
Houston Texans - Donnie Shell
Indianapolis Colts - Mike Webster
Jacksonville Jaguars- Dwight White
Tennessee Titans - Jon Kolb
Kansas City Chiefs - Terry Bradshaw
San Diego Chargers - Ernie Holmes
Denver Broncos - Russell Wilson
Las Vegas/Los Angeles/Oakland/Sacramento/Tijuana Raiders - Hines Ward
Miami Dolphins - Jerome Bettis
New England Patriots - TB.....Terry Bradshaw
NY Jets - Willie Parker
Buffalo Bills - Antonio Brown
Cleveland Browns - Le'Veon 🔔
Cincinnati Bengals - Rod Woodson
Baltimore Ravens - Troy Polamalu
Pittsburgh Steelers - Roger Staubach
@dallasactuary
Entirely different argument than winning a single game. Obviously, if a team has to play a sub-par player then their odds of winning go down. Do it for one game and it makes a little difference; do it for a lot of games or an entire season and it makes a lot of difference. The same is true, obviously, of every position on the field.
I disagree. It does make a big difference in one game. of course it does. Why would playing a sub-par QB make "a lot of difference for a season?" All a season is, is a bunch of single games strung together. you dont think losing Tua makes a lot of difference for every game of the season?
What happened to the 49ers during the playoff game when Purdey hurt his arm? they kept him in even though he couldnt throw. they lost.
If losing a starting QB has "little difference" to the outcome of one game, why did the Patriots move heaven and earth to get Brady ready to play against the Jaguars in the 2017 playoff when he had a major hand injury during practice the week before the game? Why not just let the backup play and let Brady heal for an extra week if losing him makes "little difference" to the outcome of one game?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Purdy was the backup QB last year.
POST OF THE YEAR!
That's just math - (1-i) vs (1-i) to the 17th power. Use a backup in a game and there's a chance that it costs you that game. Use him for an entire season and it's all but certain that it will cost you a game or more.
I don't know what point this is addressing, but it sounds like they should have brought in the backup.
Because he's Tom Brady and it was a huge game. Even if using the backup would reduce their chances of winning by (I'll just make up a number) 10%, of course they'll do all they can to avoid that 10% hit.