Options
How the myth of Terry Bradshaw was created....
Saberman
Posts: 677
in Sports Talk
Way too much credit goes to the QB when a team wins the Super Bowl. They don't win anything without their teammates. In Terry Bradshaw's case, he receives so much credit for the rings, and he just happened to have the best situation in history for a QB, enabling him to BE A PART of four Super Bowl champions.
The problem is that people rate Bradshaw ahead of other superior QB's who did not have the enviable situation of HOF teammates leading the way to Super Bowl victories. Lets breakdown the building of the Bradshaw myth....
Year......TEAM W/L....."D" Rank..."O" Rank.....Bradshaw Y/A.......Bradshaw TD/INT....Bradshaw QB Rating
1970........5-9...............16th.........21st...............6.5...............................6/24..................30.4
1971........6-8...............17th.........17th...............6.1..............................13/22.................59.7
1972........11-3.............5th...........5th.................6.1..............................12/12..................64.1 They added Franco Harris this year
1973........10-4....... ....8th............4th...................6.6............................10/15..................54.5
1974.........10-3-1........2nd...........6th...................5.3......................... ....7/8.....................55.2 SB
1975..........12-2............2nd..........5th...................7.2...........................18/9.....................88. Swann and Stallworth become starters SB
1976........10-4............1st............5th...................6.1............................10/9......................65.4.
1977.......9-5...............17th..........7th...................8.0...........................17/19......................71.4
1978.......14-2..............1st............5th...................7.9..........................28/20.....................84.7 League Wide uptick in passing offense SB
1979........12-4.............5th............1st...................7.9..........................26/25.....................77 SB
1980........9-7..............15th...........10th.................7.9..........................22/24.....................81.4
1981........8-8...............11th...........8th.................7.8...........................22/14.....................83.9
1982........9-7...............4th.............8th.................7.4...........................17/11.....................81.4
Some hard facts:
1)Bradshaw had a sustained level of yards per pass for his first five years. It took a noticeable jump with the addition of Swann/Stallworth as starters
2)Pittsburgh's offense joined the top of the league with the addition of Franco Harris. Before Franco Harris, Bradshaw could only lead them to the 17th best offense
3)In the four Super Bowl years, Pittsburgh's defense was in the top five in each of those years. Nothing to do with Bradshaw.
4)Bradshaw did not make the top ten in the league in passer rating or yards per pass, UNTIL he had Swann and Stallworth as starters. He had FIVE years prior to that to show that HE was the man...but he wasn't good enough to break those ranks.
6)Bradshaw was benched TWICE during the Super Bowl run! In fact, the combined records of his back ups were BETTER than Bradshaw's. The combined passer ratings of his backups were BETTER than Bradshaw's. The team didn't miss a beat with a scrub at the helm.
With this, it is quite evident that Bradshaw led a mediocore team offense until Franco Harris arrived. Bradshaw remained mediocore himself, and didn't improve upon his passing until Swann and Stallworth became full-time starters.
Super Bowl performance?
First Super Bowl was all Harris. 34 carriers 158 yards. Bradshaw only threw 14 times, and complete 9. One 4 yd Td boosted his rating.
Second Super Bowl was all Swann. 4 catches 161 yards. Catches that had all to do with HIS skill.
Third Super Bowl Swann 7 catches 124 yards. Stallworth 3 for 115. More of the same for them.
Fourt Super Bowl Swann 5 for 79, Stallworth 3 for 121.
As you noticed in the regular season, Bradshaw was mediocore until he got those two receivers. They had more to do with his success, than he did. Sure, he could throw it far, but so could Jeff George!
I would have been more impressed with Bradshaw's Super Bowl performances if his third or fourth receiver was getting all those yards(like Manning's in the AFC championsip this year). But it was the same two guys in all three Super Bowls who were doing the catching. So why on earth do people give Bradshaw all that credit??? They need a hero, thats why.
Enter Franco Harris
1972........11-3.............5th...........5th.................6.1..............................12/12..................64.1
Bradshaw improved a hair(due to less INT), and was still mediocore, but they improved on the strength of the defensive gain, and Harris's 5.6 yds per carry and 1,055 yards.
Year......TEAM W/L....."D" Rank..."O" Rank.....Bradshaw Y/A.......Bradshaw TD/INT....Bradshaw QB Rating
1973.........10-4...........8th............4th...................6.6...............................10/15..................54.5 Bradshaw regressed, but they still go 10-4.
1974.........10-3-1........2nd...........6th...................5.3.................................7/8.....................55.2. Bradshaw is benched! Goes 5-2
....................................................... .GILLIAM.......6.0.................................4/8.....................55.4 Gilliams plays Goes 4-1-1. SUPER BOWL YR
Enter Swann/Stallworth as starters
Year......TEAM W/L....."D" Rank..."O" Rank.....Bradshaw Y/A.......Bradshaw TD/INT....Bradshaw QB Rating
1975..........12-2............2nd..........5th....................7.2................................18/9...................88. Bradshaw's 1st big year. Thanks Lynn&John.
Notice how Bradshaw's Yards per attempt took a big leap with the addition of Swann and Stallworth as starters. They win anthother Super Bowl thanks to the defense again, and the two new receiving threats who boosted Bradshaw's game. Bradshaw had FIVE years of mediocore passing numbers. It didn't change until Swann and Stallworth were playing.
Year......TEAM W/L....."D" Rank..."O" Rank.....Bradshaw Y/A.......Bradshaw TD/INT....Bradshaw QB Rating
1976........10-4............1st............5th...................6.1...........................10/9........................65.4. Huge step backwards for Terry & is Benched!
Bradshaw goes 4-4, Krucek 6-0........... Krucek:..8.9............................0/3..........................74.5. Krucek outplays Terry. This is the year Bradshaw should have won another Super Bowl with the best defense, and weapons all around. Basically he regressed and blew it, and got benched for the second time in the midst of the Super Bowl years.
Year......TEAM W/L....."D" Rank..."O" Rank.....Bradshaw Y/A.......Bradshaw TD/INT....Bradshaw QB Rating
1977.......9-5...............17th..........7th...................8.0.........................17/19......................71.4
1978.......14-2..............1st............5th...................7.9..........................28/20.....................84.7
It is the super Bowl years and the years inbetween that show how much Bradshaw relied on his teammates. When his backups got significant plying time, they did as well, or Better in both performance and team record.
The problem is that people rate Bradshaw ahead of other superior QB's who did not have the enviable situation of HOF teammates leading the way to Super Bowl victories. Lets breakdown the building of the Bradshaw myth....
Year......TEAM W/L....."D" Rank..."O" Rank.....Bradshaw Y/A.......Bradshaw TD/INT....Bradshaw QB Rating
1970........5-9...............16th.........21st...............6.5...............................6/24..................30.4
1971........6-8...............17th.........17th...............6.1..............................13/22.................59.7
1972........11-3.............5th...........5th.................6.1..............................12/12..................64.1 They added Franco Harris this year
1973........10-4....... ....8th............4th...................6.6............................10/15..................54.5
1974.........10-3-1........2nd...........6th...................5.3......................... ....7/8.....................55.2 SB
1975..........12-2............2nd..........5th...................7.2...........................18/9.....................88. Swann and Stallworth become starters SB
1976........10-4............1st............5th...................6.1............................10/9......................65.4.
1977.......9-5...............17th..........7th...................8.0...........................17/19......................71.4
1978.......14-2..............1st............5th...................7.9..........................28/20.....................84.7 League Wide uptick in passing offense SB
1979........12-4.............5th............1st...................7.9..........................26/25.....................77 SB
1980........9-7..............15th...........10th.................7.9..........................22/24.....................81.4
1981........8-8...............11th...........8th.................7.8...........................22/14.....................83.9
1982........9-7...............4th.............8th.................7.4...........................17/11.....................81.4
Some hard facts:
1)Bradshaw had a sustained level of yards per pass for his first five years. It took a noticeable jump with the addition of Swann/Stallworth as starters
2)Pittsburgh's offense joined the top of the league with the addition of Franco Harris. Before Franco Harris, Bradshaw could only lead them to the 17th best offense
3)In the four Super Bowl years, Pittsburgh's defense was in the top five in each of those years. Nothing to do with Bradshaw.
4)Bradshaw did not make the top ten in the league in passer rating or yards per pass, UNTIL he had Swann and Stallworth as starters. He had FIVE years prior to that to show that HE was the man...but he wasn't good enough to break those ranks.
6)Bradshaw was benched TWICE during the Super Bowl run! In fact, the combined records of his back ups were BETTER than Bradshaw's. The combined passer ratings of his backups were BETTER than Bradshaw's. The team didn't miss a beat with a scrub at the helm.
With this, it is quite evident that Bradshaw led a mediocore team offense until Franco Harris arrived. Bradshaw remained mediocore himself, and didn't improve upon his passing until Swann and Stallworth became full-time starters.
Super Bowl performance?
First Super Bowl was all Harris. 34 carriers 158 yards. Bradshaw only threw 14 times, and complete 9. One 4 yd Td boosted his rating.
Second Super Bowl was all Swann. 4 catches 161 yards. Catches that had all to do with HIS skill.
Third Super Bowl Swann 7 catches 124 yards. Stallworth 3 for 115. More of the same for them.
Fourt Super Bowl Swann 5 for 79, Stallworth 3 for 121.
As you noticed in the regular season, Bradshaw was mediocore until he got those two receivers. They had more to do with his success, than he did. Sure, he could throw it far, but so could Jeff George!
I would have been more impressed with Bradshaw's Super Bowl performances if his third or fourth receiver was getting all those yards(like Manning's in the AFC championsip this year). But it was the same two guys in all three Super Bowls who were doing the catching. So why on earth do people give Bradshaw all that credit??? They need a hero, thats why.
Enter Franco Harris
1972........11-3.............5th...........5th.................6.1..............................12/12..................64.1
Bradshaw improved a hair(due to less INT), and was still mediocore, but they improved on the strength of the defensive gain, and Harris's 5.6 yds per carry and 1,055 yards.
Year......TEAM W/L....."D" Rank..."O" Rank.....Bradshaw Y/A.......Bradshaw TD/INT....Bradshaw QB Rating
1973.........10-4...........8th............4th...................6.6...............................10/15..................54.5 Bradshaw regressed, but they still go 10-4.
1974.........10-3-1........2nd...........6th...................5.3.................................7/8.....................55.2. Bradshaw is benched! Goes 5-2
....................................................... .GILLIAM.......6.0.................................4/8.....................55.4 Gilliams plays Goes 4-1-1. SUPER BOWL YR
Enter Swann/Stallworth as starters
Year......TEAM W/L....."D" Rank..."O" Rank.....Bradshaw Y/A.......Bradshaw TD/INT....Bradshaw QB Rating
1975..........12-2............2nd..........5th....................7.2................................18/9...................88. Bradshaw's 1st big year. Thanks Lynn&John.
Notice how Bradshaw's Yards per attempt took a big leap with the addition of Swann and Stallworth as starters. They win anthother Super Bowl thanks to the defense again, and the two new receiving threats who boosted Bradshaw's game. Bradshaw had FIVE years of mediocore passing numbers. It didn't change until Swann and Stallworth were playing.
Year......TEAM W/L....."D" Rank..."O" Rank.....Bradshaw Y/A.......Bradshaw TD/INT....Bradshaw QB Rating
1976........10-4............1st............5th...................6.1...........................10/9........................65.4. Huge step backwards for Terry & is Benched!
Bradshaw goes 4-4, Krucek 6-0........... Krucek:..8.9............................0/3..........................74.5. Krucek outplays Terry. This is the year Bradshaw should have won another Super Bowl with the best defense, and weapons all around. Basically he regressed and blew it, and got benched for the second time in the midst of the Super Bowl years.
Year......TEAM W/L....."D" Rank..."O" Rank.....Bradshaw Y/A.......Bradshaw TD/INT....Bradshaw QB Rating
1977.......9-5...............17th..........7th...................8.0.........................17/19......................71.4
1978.......14-2..............1st............5th...................7.9..........................28/20.....................84.7
It is the super Bowl years and the years inbetween that show how much Bradshaw relied on his teammates. When his backups got significant plying time, they did as well, or Better in both performance and team record.
Are you sure about that five minutes!?
0
Comments
<< <i>Way too much credit goes to the QB when a team wins the Super Bowl. They don't win anything without their teammates. >>
So then lets take away Montana's super bowl MVP's, Brady's, Aikmans because they had great teammates.
Montana won when he had great defenses and failed when they had bad defenses. Elway didnt win a super bowl until he had better teammates. Discredit Bradshaw you have to discredit the other greats.
I thought he was overrated when I watched him as a kid in the 70s.
THE DIFFERENCE between Elway, Montana, Manning, Brady is that they were not mediocore QB's on their teams. As you can see int he chart, Bradshaw was mediocore a number of years, and he only achieved good results with the help of Swann/Stallworth.
His teams only won when they got the best defense int he league, the HOF running back, and the two HOF receivers. Even when he had them, he still got benched two different years, and his BACKUPS did as good or better those years!!
Those other guys were almost NEVER mediocore during their careers, and they achieved success with different sets of players. Except Aikman. He is Bradshaw part 2.
Bradshaw was just another strong arm QB until the elite players showed up on his team. He was just Jeff George.
The bottom line is, Bradshaw was more a product of his teammates, than a product of a supposed top ten QB. Looking above, it just doesn't add up to even remotely put him near the top 10. A true top 10 would have done similar without the top flight guys(like Manning or Favre have done with any receiving corp they have ever played with).
1. How many Super Bowls did Krucek win as a starter ?
2. Why did Chuck Knoll start Bradshaw in the Super Bowls instead of their backup QB's ?
I guess you're smarter then Chuck Knoll
The point is, a great deal of Bradshaw's team success, and personal success was a direct result of how good his teammtes were. Highlighted above lays that out pretty clear.
The fact that scrubs came in and produced as good as Bradshaw, and led the team to better recrods are ONE of the points to illustrate this fact.
Only a fool would read into that and think that there is a case being made that the scrubs should have been the starters.
<< <i>Bradshaw was Trent Dilfer x 4.
>>
Really? How many super bowl mvp's, AP player of the year and season MVP's did Dilfer win??
<< <i>There's two things you need to answer................
1. How many Super Bowls did Krucek win as a starter ?
2. Why did Chuck Knoll start Bradshaw in the Super Bowls instead of their backup QB's ?
I guess you're smarter then Chuck Knoll
AGREED
Trent Dilfer never had Swann, Stallwroth, Harris, and the best defense ever(on a consistent basis).
Bradshaw only won those because he road the coattails. Without them, he never came close to sniffing any title, nor did anything individual.
Blacklabel,
The point is, a great deal of Bradshaw's team success, and personal success was a direct result of how good his teammtes were. Highlighted above lays that out pretty clear.
The fact that scrubs came in and produced as good as Bradshaw, and led the team to better recrods are ONE of the points to illustrate this fact.
Only a fool would read into that and think that there is a case being made that the scrubs should have been the starters.
Blacklabel, I guess you have a friend that doesn't comprehend too well.
1. I don't think there is a Bradshaw myth. Maybe in the 70's or 80's but the analysis you gave is pretty much where most people who know anything about football are at.
2. Aikman is a good comparison. He's like Bradshaw except no one ever believed he was a great quarterback. Everyone knew it was Smith, Irvin, and the D.
3. Quarterback ratings and TD/INT ratios aren't necessarily good indicators of quarterback skill if you take them out of context. Ratings and TD/INT ratios have improved steadily through the years because of rule changes designed to protect the quarterback. Johnny Unitas has a career rating of 78.2 and a TD/INT ratio of 290-253. Rich Gannon has an 84.7 career rating and a TD/INT ratio of 180-104. Was Gannon a better quarterback than Unitas?
4. Make sure your arguments are spin free. In 1976 Terry was benched - Benched! Well yeah, you forgot to mention he was injured for half the season.
3. I like your pun here "Bradshaw improved a hair...." It was his last one.
<< <i>Blacklabel,
Trent Dilfer never had Swann, Stallwroth, Harris, and the best defense ever(on a consistent basis).
Bradshaw only won those because he road the coattails. Without them, he never came close to sniffing any title, nor did anything individual.
>>
Complete hogwash. By your analogy, then you would have to take away Montana's achievements in the post-season because he had some of the best players around him including the best reciever of all-time. So according to you, only Rice gets credit and not Montana. Some even say those 49er's teams were better than the steelers of the 70's.
The 49Ers with Montana won two Super Bowls with no Jery Rice. Did you know that, or were you not born yet?
Joe Montana finished in the top five in passer rating FIVE times before Jerry Rice came along.
What did Bradshaw do before Swann and Stallworth? He was mediocore.
But you are certainly correct, you cannot give all the credit to Montana. He doesn't win anything either without the top defenses they had. Rice did help him when he got there, and Montana did even better than before.
That is why it is foolish to use Super Bowl rings to judge an individual player.
Again, the difference is that Bradshaw was only mediocore without those guys. Montana, Favre, Manning, Brady...they were good even without the studs.
<< <i>A couple of comments:
1. I don't think there is a Bradshaw myth. Maybe in the 70's or 80's but the analysis you gave is pretty much where most people who know anything about football are at.
2. Aikman is a good comparison. He's like Bradshaw except no one ever believed he was a great quarterback. Everyone knew it was Smith, Irvin, and the D.
3. Quarterback ratings and TD/INT ratios aren't necessarily good indicators of quarterback skill if you take them out of context. Ratings and TD/INT ratios have improved steadily through the years because of rule changes designed to protect the quarterback. Johnny Unitas has a career rating of 78.2 and a TD/INT ratio of 290-253. Rich Gannon has an 84.7 career rating and a TD/INT ratio of 180-104. Was Gannon a better quarterback than Unitas?
4. Make sure your arguments are spin free. In 1976 Terry was benched - Benched! Well yeah, you forgot to mention he was injured for half the season.
3. I like your pun here "Bradshaw improved a hair...." It was his last one.
Yea thats for sure LOL.
Also there is a reason why the quarterback is the highest paid player on the team, and Peyton Manning is the highest paid player in the game. The QB position requires the most skill.
<< <i>
That is why it is foolish to use Super Bowl rings to judge an individual player.
Whether YOU, like it or not besides the coach, the QB gets the most credit for wins and most blame for a loss.
Again, the difference is that Bradshaw was only mediocore without those guys. Montana, Favre, Manning, Brady...they were good even without the studs. >>
Yes and thats why i have everyone of those guys high on my list of best ever. This debate was mostly about the difference between Marino and Bradshaw. Bradshaw stepped up in big games while Marino did not. And yes there were years when Marino had great defenses.
Why do you keep glossing over when/why Bradshaw improved personally and when their team improved? It is all laid out above.
He was there before the weapons, and they didn't do anything. He was there when the defense was not the best, and they didn't do anything.
He was there before Swann/Stallworth, and he was mediocore.
I apologize if your entire self esteem is based on how good Terry Bradshaw was viewed as. Pick another hero that wasn't a myth, and you can still feel good about yourelf.
The myth is about Terry Bradshaw. Marino NEVER had the lofty rankings of defense, and not nearly close to a consistent basis. Bradshaw doesn't win any titles without those either, and he didn't. He was mediocore before those guys arrived.
YOU MEAN STALLWORTH, SWANN, and HARRIS made it possible for Bradshaw to look good in big games!!!
I guess the only way you will understand the importance of teammates is if we play that 4 on 4 game where we each QB a team. Only I get to pick your teammates, and mine. We can be 2k per game.
Otherwise, you should probably stop talking.
<< <i>
YOU MEAN STALLWORTH, SWANN, and HARRIS made it possible for Bradshaw to look good in big games!!! >>
But it was Bradshaw who made most of the big plays during the big games. It was Bradshaw who was voted the best offensive steeler of all-time by the sporting news. First ballot hall of famer. I guess most everyone else realizes how great he was but not you.
No two alts.
Blacklabel, all you have to do is look at the year by year breakdown above and you can see clearly why they won. Bradshaw was riding some coattails my friend. He was nothing till Swann and Stallworth played. His long tosses in the Super Bowl are interceptions or incomplete without them. How do we know? Because he did play without them, and he was in the realm of average.
Blacklabel, someday you will realize how important the other players were, and how Bradshaw had THE BEST supporting cast in the HISTORY of the NFL...possibly in the history of ALL SPORTS.
In fact, can anybody find a better supporting cast?
The 92-93 Cowboys were better that the 70 Steelers and the 80's 49'ers.
And your wrong about Aikman. He was a great QB. I'm not saying he was the best ever. But he is there with Montana Elway Mareno Young Manning and the likes. You can't take away from a QB just because he has talent around him. He still has to make the plays.
He has a habit of doing that which only emphasizes his lack of basic comprehension skills. It's certainly no suprise that someone who doesn't realize such obvious facts could be so completely misguided when it comes to advanced analysis of NFL QBs. But Bradshaw has more rings, right, so he must be the greatest, LOL..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>The 92-93 Cowboys were better that the 70 Steelers and the 80's 49'ers.
And your wrong about Aikman. He was a great QB. I'm not saying he was the best ever. But he is there with Montana Elway Mareno Young Manning and the likes. You can't take away from a QB just because he has talent around him. He still has to make the plays. >>
If Aikman had the exact same stats he has today, and played for a non marquee team, he would not be in the HOF, the other guys you mentioned would be.
<< <i>The 92-93 Cowboys were better that the 70 Steelers and the 80's 49'ers.
And your wrong about Aikman. He was a great QB. I'm not saying he was the best ever. But he is there with Montana Elway Mareno Young Manning and the likes. You can't take away from a QB just because he has talent around him. He still has to make the plays. >>
Dimeman, if those Dallas teams were better than the Steelers teams, than that is even more evidence that Aikman won Super Bowls because of his teammates. He needed the weapons too. They had the best 0-line in history, plus Emmitt, Irvin, Novacek.
Aikman was darn good, but he was not as good as Manning, Marino, Favre, Montana, Elway. I agree he was right behind them though. Fans of Aikman use the same argument as the Bradshaw fans, the number of titles. But that argument is severely flawed.
But I would disagree about them being better than the Steeler teams.
Also, you guys keep glossing over the fact that the Steelers and Cowboys had comfortable roads to the Super Bowl, mainly playing at home, and against an inferior team. Bradshaw was 2-3 on the road in the playoffs, Aikman 1-4.
Keep in mind that a lot of QB's who you claim are inferior based on no titles, often never had that comfortable road(or had it once), and rarely had it coupled with the same weapons. The combination of the comfortable road through the playoffs, and the weapons is what allowed them to win those playoff games easily.
When Aikman and Bradshaw were put into positions of having to play on the road in the playoffs, they didnt' do well either...so why do you expect the other QB's to have to do that? And the others didn't even have near the weapons!
Marino was 7-3 at home in the playoffs(with not near the weapons as the Cowboys or Steelers).
Marino was 1-6 on the road in the playoffs(again, not near the weapons).
Favre was 9-3 at home
Favre was 3-6 on the road
Bradshaw was 8-2 at home in the playoffs. Here is how many points their defense gave up in each home palyoff game...7, 21, 14, 10, 10, 10, 5, 14, 13, and 31. Can you guess which two of those home playoff games Bradshaw lost???
<< <i>And I really hope I haven't been sucked into a thread where a guy with two alts is arguing with himself. >>
HA!
Just out of curiosity, who claimed Bradshaw was one of the greatest QBs?
<< <i> Blacklabel, why are you copying and posting that last post? He is saying the same thing I am. Bradshaw was more a product of his team.
He has a habit of doing that which only emphasizes his lack of basic comprehension skills. It's certainly no suprise that someone who doesn't realize such obvious facts could be so completely misguided when it comes to advanced analysis of NFL QBs. But Bradshaw has more rings, right, so he must be the greatest, LOL.. >>
When you are smart enough to know anything about football and acknowledge the importance of a highly skilled QB, let me know.
I never said he was the greatest.
A highly skilled QB is VERY important, unfortunately Bradshaw doesn't fall into that category. Manning, Elway, Staubach, Favre, Marino, Montana, Young, do.
Bradshaw was guy with a great arm, who only produced when two acrobatic HOF receivers joined his team, and only won when they had the best defense, top RB, two HOF receivers, and home field advantage. In other words, he was more a coattail rider, than all-time great.
<< <i>
<< <i>. >>
But I would disagree about them being better than the Steeler teams.
Thats your opinion. He has his. Let it go.
Also, you guys keep glossing over the fact that the Steelers and Cowboys had comfortable roads to the Super Bowl, mainly playing at home, and against an inferior team. Bradshaw was 2-3 on the road in the playoffs, Aikman 1-4.
Why is this important? Home teams especially in playoffs have the advantage. Thats why you try to win as many games as you can, to get homefield advantage.
The combination of the comfortable road through the playoffs, and the weapons is what allowed them to win those playoff games easily.
I disagree. Every playoff team is there for reason. They were pretty good to get there in the first place.
When Aikman and Bradshaw were put into positions of having to play on the road in the playoffs, they didnt' do well either.
The super bowl is played on a neutral field and i can argue in the 80 super bowl against the Rams it was a road game for the steelers because they played in Los Angeles.
Marino was 7-3 at home in the playoffs(with not near the weapons as the Cowboys or Steelers).
Not near the weapons? It was plenty enough to beat one of the best teams in history when they killed the 85 Bears. When no other team could.
Favre was 9-3 at home
Favre was 3-6 on the road
Your point?
Bradshaw was 8-2 at home in the playoffs. Here is how many points their defense gave up in each home palyoff game...7, 21, 14, 10, 10, 10, 5, 14, 13, and 31. Can you guess which two of those home playoff games Bradshaw lost??? >>
That would mean the offense scored more points than the other team during their wins. Who scored all those points like 40 against the colts in 76? Was it the defense? The offense were usually one of the best in the league and they were #1 in 1979
<< <i>Blacklabel,
A highly skilled QB is VERY important, unfortunately Bradshaw doesn't fall into that category. >>
Ur nuts. It DOES take a HIGHLY skilled QB to win 4 super bowls and win 2 MVP'S. And Bradshaw called his own plays but according to you i guess that was all luck too
There is no way the 70's Steelers could play with the 92-93 Cowboys. And I'm not saying that just because I am a Cowboy fan. I mean compair them in all catagories. Cowboys win!
I did't say Troy was the best QB. Just that he was one of the greatest. And I don't go by SB wins. If you did that Marino wouldn't even count.
It's hard to pick the greatest at anything, but if I had to pick it would be between Manning and Steve Young. Manning is so smart and can throw ropes into a window the size of a waste can. And Young had that and could beat you with his legs if you don't stay home on defense.
Young was a terrific QB, but Manning is head and shoulders above him on the all time list..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Aikman had top weapons in Irvin, Harper, and Novacek. If the team's offensive philosophy was more pass oriented, all of those players would have had bigger numbers. TD passes (mainly TD percentage) greatly influences passer rating. With more TD throws, Aikman's numbers would be much more impressive. However, when a team has the personnel and ability to score consistenly on the ground, it makes sense to make the passing game secondary.
There is no doubt that, just like Bradshaw, Aikman benefited greatly by having a superior supporting cast. It is also true that that same cast of players benefited by having a top quality QB like Aikman. Like Dimeman said, Aikman is certainly not among the all-time greats like Montana, Unitas, Marino, etc., put he was no paper tiger.
edited for spelling...and my own cowardice!
Marino played his career scoring 45 points and his team giving up 46 points
<< <i>exactly when did Marino have a great defense?
Marino played his career scoring 45 points and his team giving up 46 points >>
Heh heh, you have a point.
Working on the following: 1970 Baseball PSA, 1970-1976 Raw, World Series Subsets PSA, 1969 Expansion Teams PSA, Fleer World Series Sets, Texas Rangers Topps Run 1972-1989
----------------------
Successful deals to date: thedudeabides,gameusedhoop,golfcollector,tigerdean,treetop,bkritz, CapeMOGuy,WeekendHacker,jeff8877,backbidder,Salinas,milbroco,bbuckner22,VitoCo1972,ddfamf,gemint,K,fatty macs,waltersobchak,dboneesq
Marino had a pretty good defense there at one point. They called them the killer B's. I forgot the years. It wasn't like the Cowboy's or Steelers or Bears, but better than average.
<< <i>Marino had a pretty good defense there at one point. They called them the killer B's. I forgot the years. It wasn't like the Cowboy's or Steelers or Bears, but better than average. >>
Killer B's were the 82 squad, pre Marino.
<< <i>
<< <i>Marino had a pretty good defense there at one point. They called them the killer B's. I forgot the years. It wasn't like the Cowboy's or Steelers or Bears, but better than average. >>
Killer B's were the 82 squad, pre Marino. >>
I think most of the killer b's were on the super bowl 84 squad.
The best defense Marino ever had was rated #7 in 1984, he made the superbowl. However the 49ers had #2 defense. See the difference?
Only one team ever won the superbowl without a top 5 defense, the 2000 Rams. Without a top #5 defense, it's hard to win - you can't say that it was "marino not stepping up"
<< <i>I think most of the killer b's were on the super bowl 84 squad.
The best defense Marino ever had was rated #7 in 1984, he made the superbowl. However the 49ers had #2 defense. See the difference?
Only one team ever won the superbowl without a top 5 defense, the 2000 Rams. Without a top #5 defense, it's hard to win - you can't say that it was "marino not stepping up" >>
Marino wasnt the same qb in the post-season. His teams had some great defenses. in 1990 they had the 4th best defense and 1998 they had the #1 defense.
<< <i>
2. Aikman is a good comparison. He's like Bradshaw except no one ever believed he was a great quarterback. Everyone knew it was Smith, Irvin, and the D.
>>
--------------------------------------------------
If you really believe this, then you have lost all credibility with me. Aikman was a GREAT quarterback. I watched almost every game of his career, and you will never convince me otherwise. His stats are not up there with the Marinos because he was handing the ball off to Emmitt an awful lot. As many of his contempories state...he was the MOST accurate passer they have seen.
View Vintage Football Cards For Sale
<< <i>I think most of the killer b's were on the super bowl 84 squad.
The best defense Marino ever had was rated #7 in 1984, he made the superbowl. However the 49ers had #2 defense. See the difference?
Only one team ever won the superbowl without a top 5 defense, the 2000 Rams. Without a top #5 defense, it's hard to win - you can't say that it was "marino not stepping up" >>
The 2000 Rams didn't go to the Superbowl.
<< <i>Blacklabel, I guess the only way you will understand the importance of teammates is if we play that 4 on 4 game where we each QB a team. Only I get to pick your teammates, and mine. We can be 2k per game. Otherwise, you should probably stop talking >>
Hoopster! How the heck are you?
Geez does everyone around here have an alt but me?
I gotta get me one of those one day.
Steve
<< <i>
<< <i>Blacklabel, I guess the only way you will understand the importance of teammates is if we play that 4 on 4 game where we each QB a team. Only I get to pick your teammates, and mine. We can be 2k per game. Otherwise, you should probably stop talking >>
Hoopster! How the heck are you?
Geez does everyone around here have an alt but me?
I gotta get me one of those one day.
Steve >>
LOL! Not an alt, just a new one.
<< <i>
<< <i>
2. Aikman is a good comparison. He's like Bradshaw except no one ever believed he was a great quarterback. Everyone knew it was Smith, Irvin, and the D.
>>
--------------------------------------------------
If you really believe this, then you have lost all credibility with me. Aikman was a GREAT quarterback. I watched almost every game of his career, and you will never convince me otherwise. His stats are not up there with the Marinos because he was handing the ball off to Emmitt an awful lot. As many of his contempories state...he was the MOST accurate passer they have seen. >>
I watched most of his games as well. He was a good quarterback, but not great, and if he had played for anyone but Dallas in that era, he wouldn't be in the HOF now. TD/INT ratio of 165-141 isn't that great in the modern era, in fact it's almost bad. That's a direct reflection of his accuracy. There's no way he compares with a contemporary such as Steve Young in passing accuracy.
<< <i>...I watched most of his games as well. He was a good quarterback, but not great, and if he had played for anyone but Dallas in that era, he wouldn't be in the HOF now. TD/INT ratio of 165-141 isn't that great in the modern era, in fact it's almost bad. That's a direct reflection of his accuracy. There's no way he compares with a contemporary such as Steve Young in passing accuracy. >>
There is no way to tell if Aikman would have made the HOF playing for any other team but Dallas. That is pure speculation. However, Aikman's TD/INT ratio is not a direct reflecton of his accuracy. It is not any indication of his accuracy whatsoever. Aikman's Poor TD/INT ratio is a result of playing in a run-first, run-often offense. Emmitt Smith did the bulk of the scoring for Aikman's teams. Remember, Smith is the all-time rushing TD leader. Aikman was not called upon to throw in the endzone as often as other QB's, especially when inside the 20 yard line.