You are also glossing over the fact that Dallas's dominant running game opened the avenue for a lot of easy and safe passes for Aikman to execute. He didn't have to force the ball like other QB's did that didn't have that dominant running game.
So while it may be true that Emmit running inside the red zone might have taken some TD's away from him, that same running attack also saved him some interceptions and increased his passing % by making it harder for the defense to defend the pass. So that Td/INT ratio is probably a good indicator as it sits.
Not to mention that he had Michael Irvin catch any ball thrown his way with a defender on him. Of course, Irvin got away with pass interfence murder on many of those.
Agree with Saberman here...if anything, quaterbacking in a run-first offense with a back like Smith helps the passing game and overall completion % as the D has to respect the run and can't just tee off and rush the QB. They are also much more susceptible to play action passes, too.
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> 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. >>
There's no way to tell in the sense that Aikman could have played differently if he was on another team, but there is a way to compare apples to apples. Show me another quarterback in the HOF who has similar statistics to Aikman and who played the majority of their career as his contemporary. There isn't one.
You have Marino, Elway, Young, Kelly, and Moon who are in the HOF as his contemporaries.
Moon comes the closest in the accuracy statistics, but he was still superior to Aikman in all categories and had 17,000 more career passing yards. Aikman doesn't come close to any of his HOF contemporaries.
Aikman got in the HOF as a good player who was fortunate enough to play on a dominating team that won 3 Super Bowls. That's what pushed him into the HOF.
Back to Bradshaw and why he won. Look at the years the Steelers won the Super Bowl and what it took for them to win.
1)In all four years, their defense ranked in pts allowed 2nd, 2nd, 1st, and 5th 2) In three of the four years they won all their playoff games at home to get to the Super Bowl. The only exception is 1974 @ Oakland.
What did Bradshaw do that game? He was 8 for 17 with 95 yds, 1TD, 1INT. Bleier went 18-98, and Harris 28-111. What did the defense do? They gave up 13 pts!
3) Home losses occured twice in Bradshaw's playoff tenure. His defense gave up 31, and 21 points in those games.
4) We already went over the weapons Bradhshaw had that carried him.
5)Historically, no QB(except 1 if I remember), has led his team to a Super Bowl victory with a defense that ranked outside the top ten in points allowed.
6) They beat a team in the Super Bowl that was inferior to them. As good as Dallas was, they weren't as good as Pittsburgh. Minny and Den, no need to even bother to compare.
-------------------- Marino keeps getting brought up. How often did he have a team, and situation where they could be in a situation that was similar to Bradshaws?
We know that it isn't realistic to expect a team without a top 10 defense to win the Super Bowl. Here are the yearly ranks of Marino's defenses 1,7,12,26,16,24,22,4,24,11,24,17,10,16,16,1,19.
Stop the presses right here! Knowing that Bradshaw never even sniffed a Super Bowl when he had a defene ranked out of the top FIVE in the league, and that no other QB's won Super Bowls with teams OUTSIDE the top ten in defense, you can eliminate almost all of Marino's teams from having a true shot at the Super Bowl, except a few teams. This leaves three times where Marino had a chance, and two others that were close.
The rest of the seasons, if you are expecting Marino to win a Super Bowl with them, forget it! They simply did not have the defense to do it(not to mention the running back). In situations like that, Bradshaw couldn't do it, Aikman couldn't do it, Brady no, Montana no, Young no, Favre no, Elway no. So get those seasons out.
Lets look at each of those years and see if he had the same luxuries as Bradshaw.
1983, ranked 1st in defense, and lost a home playoff game. Had ok running game. They were better the year before when all they did was run. But they are not to be confused with anything close to HOF level like a Franco Harris. Had one good rookie receiver, Duper. Marino was a rookie QB. As high as they ranked defensively, without a HOF RB, and their QB and best receiver being rookies. That is a lot to ask to win it all.
1984, He got them to the Super Bowl with a good defense. The defense gave up 38 points in the Super Bowl. They lost to the team of the decade. This was his legit shot. Their defense was pure garbage in the Super Bowl.
1990 ranked 4th in defense, but they had to play the Bills ON THE ROAD in the playoffs, and they gave up 44 points. Find a QB that could over come that. Bradshaw never did, nor Aikman...they were bad on the road in the playoffs.
1998 ranked 1st in defene, but again they had a road playoff game where they lost to Denver 38-3. Some may say that Marino threw two picks in this game. But when you are getting blown out, that will happen all the time. Also, no matter how you slice it, even if those two picks led directly to two touchdown returns(which they didn't), that is just too many points to overcome on the road against a team like that.
1985 ranked 12th, so this really shouldn't even be on the list, because defenses ranked this low don't win. They gave up 31 points in thier playoff loss.
1992 ranked 11th, again, shouldn't be on list, lost 29-10 at home. 29 points. Thurman went for 96 rush and 70 receiving. They couldnt stop him.
Weapons around him. Even if you blame Marino's style of game for lack of running game, they STILL did not have a runner that was near HOF caliber. There are running backs that could excel with a great passer, Marshal Faulk did it. Also, keep in mind that he only had Duper/Clayton for a few years together, and they were more a product of him, than the other way around. It isn't like they were making Lynn Swann type Super Bowl catches. Marino's other years he did not have HOF type receivers that would simply catch anything like Michael Irvin. This makes a huge difference, and people simply gloss over it.
Some may look at this as trying to rationalize Marino having never won, but I have no reason to do that. What I am doing is pointing out that when you lambast somebody, or give too much praise for the Super Bowl titles, understand the circumstances.
When looking objectively, Marino really only 'blew' one legit Super Bowl chance, and that was when he was a rookie. The others were blown because the Dolphins weren't good enough, or they were not playing in the right circumstance(home vs. road) to win it.
If you want to say he 'blew' the Super Bowl game/season, go ahead, but I didn't see any other Super Bowl winning QB having to overcome 38 points in any playoff game.
Maybe 1992 when they had the 11th ranked defense, and they lost at home and Marino didn't have a good game, but they still gave up 29 points, and could not stop Thomas. If you are chasing, you will not have good playoff games on the road.
No Super Bowl winning QB had to overcome these circumstances to win a Super Bowl(until maybe this year), so to say Marino is not as good as Terry Bradshaw because Bradshaw had FAR superior teammates, and FAR better circumstances, is simply not a fair assessment.
Bradshaw had other years where his team's should have won even more. In actuality he 'blew' more legit chances than Marino did! The difference is Marion never had the cupcake chances that Bradshaw did...and you can put that in your pipe and smoke it :0
Interesting discussion about QB's, their stats, who was/is better and who was/is the best.
The analysis of Bradshaw in the OP was very good, showing year by year information over his career. Maybe the OP will do the same analysis for the other QB's considered the best.
I think Elway has played in more Super Bowls (5) than any other QB. Montana, Bradshaw and Brady have 4 each. Aikman has three. Brady could pass Elway.
If things had gone just a little bit different, Elway could have easily played in 7 Superbowls.
In the early 1990's (1991 season, 1992 Super Bowl I think) Denver lost to the Bills 10-7 in the AFC Championship game. One extra TD for Denver and Denver would have replaced the Bills as the sacrificial lamb to the NFC winner that year.
In the 1996 season Denver was the best AFC team (13-3 or 14-2) and Elway had a great year. Unfortunately Denver was upset in the AFC playoffs by Jacksonville in a very close game. Had that upset not happened, Denver probably would have played Greenbay in the 1997 Superbowl and the NFC streak of 13 or so straight Superbowl wins may have ended one year early [Denver beat Greenbay in the 1998 Superbowl the following year] to end the NFC streak.
Had Elway played in 7 Superbowls I think his record would be 3-4.
I am biased, but I remember so many games where Elway led fourth quarter comebacks resulting in Denver wins. Cleveland Browns fans still get seriously bent out of shape when they hear the name Elway, hear "The Drive" and hear "The Fumble"
Interesting discussion about QB's, their stats, who was/is better and who was/is the best.
The analysis of Bradshaw in the OP was very good, showing year by year information over his career. Maybe the OP will do the same analysis for the other QB's considered the best.
I think Elway has played in more Super Bowls (5) than any other QB. Montana, Bradshaw and Brady have 4 each. Aikman has three. Brady could pass Elway.
If things had gone just a little bit different, Elway could have easily played in 7 Superbowls.
In the early 1990's (1991 season, 1992 Super Bowl I think) Denver lost to the Bills 10-7 in the AFC Championship game. One extra TD for Denver and Denver would have replaced the Bills as the sacrificial lamb to the NFC winner that year.
In the 1996 season Denver was the best AFC team (13-3 or 14-2) and Elway had a great year. Unfortunately Denver was upset in the AFC playoffs by Jacksonville in a very close game. Had that upset not happened, Denver probably would have played Greenbay in the 1997 Superbowl and the NFC streak of 13 or so straight Superbowl wins may have ended one year early [Denver beat Greenbay in the 1998 Superbowl the following year] to end the NFC streak.
Had Elway played in 7 Superbowls I think his record would be 3-4.
I am biased, but I remember so many games where Elway led fourth quarter comebacks resulting in Denver wins. Cleveland Browns fans still get seriously bent out of shape when they hear the name Elway, hear "The Drive" and hear "The Fumble"
If you are going to speculate as to what might have been, though, you'll also have to take into account that had it not been for The Fumble, then Denver would never have made it to the SB that season. The Fumble and The Drive which led to the Denver victory were easily more improbable than either of the two scenarios you desxcribed that may have resulted in Denver getting to the SB in '92 or '97.
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.
However, I like my speculations to align with my biases, ............................ so,......................... I'll will just move along and try to forget the excellent point you made
However, I like my speculations to align with my biases, ............................ so,......................... I'll will just move along and try to forget the excellent point you made
Well it was a Marty Schottenheimer-coached Cleveland Browns team, so maybe that Denver victory wasn't so improbable after all, 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.
Sanction II, some guys think that the reason of these posts is that I am trying to say that QB's are not important, and that they shouldn't get credit for going to the Super Bowl.
The whole idea is to give approrpriate credit to the players, and understand their surroundings and circumstances in what allowed them to get that far, or not get that far.
The QB's all need the right circumstances to get there, some need more than others(see Bradshaw). Elway was clearly the reason why they got to the first three Super Bowls. His supporting casts those years were so far away from other Super Bowl winning teams.
The two they won he was a main reason too, only this time he had a little more help needed to win them.
Bradshaw doesn't belong in the discussion of top ten all time QB's. As outlined above, he only gets recognition because of his cast allowing him to have the limelight.
Guys like Elway have a right to fight for positioning somewhere in the top 10.
The best job(hardest road) a team did to win the Super Bowl was probably the Giants a couple of years ago. Does that mean that Eli knows how to win the big game, or that one can say that 'winning the big game' is a trait in Eli's personality? No, because without the help of his teammates on defense or his receivers making catches he doesn't win anything.
Or you can say they just caught fire for a few weeks.
Stown,I'll take the heat for saying Bradshaw is one of the greatest QB's in history. He played great at the times he needed to. I'm a Steeler fan and I won't apologize for them winning 6 Super Bowls, 4 with Bradshaw and 2 with Roethlisberger and both are constantly said to be inferior as QB's because they didn't put up the highest #s every year.They played on teams that were made better because they played within the parameters of what was needed by their teams.I would say Marino,Tarkenten,,Foutz would give up 10,000 of their yard totals to have a Super Bowl win!Even Farve to get another !Because a player was on a good team shouldn't be held against him especially when they are integral in the Super bowl wins.
Lou
Collecting Roberto Clemente and Willie Stargell cards.
I just wanted to push this back up to the front. It especially seems relevant now that a quarterback (and his team of course) has won a Super Bowl with a defense ranked in the bottom half statistically. Although, I wonder how turnovers get factored in. The Saints defense did seem to make an unusual amount of big plays, despite surrendering gobs of yards during the season. I don't have the numbers, but how opportunistic were the Dolphins teams of Marino? How many turnovers did they force in relation to the rest of the league? What about defensive touchdowns or blocked kicks? I recall Trace Armstrong and Doug Betters being particularly good at blocking extra points and field goals, but I really don't remember too many spectacular Dolphins defensive plays during Marino's prime. Maybe near the end when he had Jason Taylor, Zack Thomas, and Sam Madison and the rest of em. Although, that group did contribute to a 62-7 Jaguar death march over Miami in Marino's last game (which he was not particularly good in).
Side note: I lived in South Florida back then and I remember during the offseason listening to Jim Mandich's radio show on WQAM. He mentioned one afternoon that he was curious as to how the Dolphins were going to promote the team for season tickets with the retirement of Dan Marino and Jimmy Johnson and the embarrassing way they had finished the 1999 season. I called in and mentioned to him that the Dolphins would be starting the season with a QB that had thrown multiple TD passes in the Dolphins last game and had led his team to victory. It was Jay Fiedler, who had come in after Mark Brunell left in the second quarter with a HUGE lead. I suggested Jim just use his own radio calls (he was the team's color analyst).
Oh, and one last thing. Why didn't Marino win when his team had the #1 ranked defense in the NFL in 1998? His top two rushers: Karim Abdul-Jabbar and John Avery who averaged a robust 3.55 yards per carry between them. The top three receivers: OJ McDuffie, Orande Gadsden, and Lamar Thomas. Nobody could have won the Super Bowl with that kind of skill position talent. The fact that they got to the playoffs and won a game was amazing enough.
Nobody is holding it against them because they were on great teams. Their contribution and consequent overall appraisal as a player is simply being put into appropriate terms.
They are being measured for what THEY were, not what their teammates were or were not. As outlined above, it is very clear what the forces were at work to create those Super teams.
I am also sure that superior QB's to Bradshaw, such as Marino, would give up 10,000 yards for a Super Bowl...but that has nothing to do with the point being made.
Hey look, Swann just saved Bradshaw another interception and turned it into a 45 yard gain instead...
Powdered H20, you are correct. Some defenses may give up a lot of yards/points, but score points or get a lot of turnovers. That would be the Saints this year. Don't get me wrong, Brees was huge, and he was clearly the best player on that team, and the guy with the most credit towards why they won(unlike Bradshaw)...BUT they don't even get to the Super Bowl without that 12th man in the huddle mistake...and the FIVE Minnesota turnovers. So, without a 12th man in the huddle, Brees is just another guy who can't win a big one?
Oh, and one last thing. Why didn't Marino win when his team had the #1 ranked defense in the NFL in 1998? His top two rushers: Karim Abdul-Jabbar and John Avery who averaged a robust 3.55 yards per carry between them. The top three receivers: OJ McDuffie, Orande Gadsden, and Lamar Thomas. Nobody could have won the Super Bowl with that kind of skill position talent. The fact that they got to the playoffs and won a game was amazing enough. >>
You forgot to mention in 1998 Marino was way past his prime. So he is just as much to blame.
But, but, but, he was a WINNER! It was him and him alone who won those super bowls! Romo has never won a super bowl so Bradshaw must be a better QB!!!!
<< <i>But, but, but, he was a WINNER! It was him and him alone who won those super bowls! Romo has never won a super bowl so Bradshaw must be a better QB!!!! >>
<< <i>But, but, but, he was a WINNER! It was him and him alone who won those super bowls! Romo has never won a super bowl so Bradshaw must be a better QB!!!! >>
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.
To the original poster, dont you also think that anyone who knows anything about football also knows that Bradshaw had Harris/Bleier, Swann/Stallworth and the best defense of the 1970's. Come on now.
Here's a question to all of those who say Bradshaw and Aikman were not great QB's. Have you considered the possibility that they always had the talent, but needed receivers that could run good routes and separate and catch the ball?? You still have to have the talent no matter how good the team around the QB!
I have re-read this whole thread and agree with most EXCEPT for the bashing of Bradshaw and Aikman. They both got the job done and took their teams to the SB and have 7 rings to show for it!
Romo is not a joke....but he is not a SB QB yet! I'll be as happy as anyone if he turns into one!
It was good to see that most here realize how good Aikman is. Although most don't seem to give any credit to Bradshaw at all and that is just plain stupid.
As a Cowboy fan I HATE the Steelers, but will give credit where credit is due.
And 1985fan before you bring up the crap about Aikman/Romo and the talent around them.......Romo has always had good receivers and all the years I watched the Cowboys play with Aikman.....I don't ever remember him blowing a game like Romo has time and time again.
<< <i>Here's a question to all of those who say Bradshaw and Aikman were not great QB's. Have you considered the possibility that they always had the talent, but needed receivers that could run good routes and separate and catch the ball?? You still have to have the talent no matter how good the team around the QB! >>
Why are you willing to concede this for these QBs, but single-handedly blame Romo for his team sucking?
<< <i>I have re-read this whole thread and agree with most EXCEPT for the bashing of Bradshaw and Aikman. They both got the job done and took their teams to the SB and have 7 rings to show for it! >>
If Aikman was so 'elite' he could 'take his team to the super bowl' then why did he suck so completely when he didn't have elite teams around him?
<< <i>Romo is not a joke....but he is not a SB QB yet! I'll be as happy as anyone if he turns into one! >>
Yet you're willing to give his defense a pass for allowing 48 points and BLAME HIM for a loss! You're nuts!
<< <i>It was good to see that most here realize how good Aikman is. Although most don't seem to give any credit to Bradshaw at all and that is just plain stupid. >>
When his replacement is able to replicate his success, then, no, he doesn't deserve credit for his team being elite.
<< <i>As a Cowboy fan I HATE the Steelers, but will give credit where credit is due. >>
No, you won't. You refuse to admit Romo is the only reason the Cowboys are competitive.
<< <i>And 1985fan before you bring up the crap about Aikman/Romo and the talent around them.......Romo has always had good receivers and all the years I watched the Cowboys play with Aikman.....I don't ever remember him blowing a game like Romo has time and time again. >>
Romo has always had good receivers (who outside Dez Bryant has been a top flight receiver again?) What running back has he had? Romo has had ONE 1000 yard running back in his entire career. One! And the team defense has, with one exception, been abysmal. You can't win reliably in the NFL without those things! You refuse, time and again, to admit these things, which makes you an ignorant fool! You don't remember Aikman blowing a game?
"He finished 1989 with an 0-11 record as a starter, completing 155 of 293 passes for 1,749 yards, 9 TDs, 18 INTs."
1996 Playoffs, Divisional Round: Aikman 18-36, 165 yards, 1 TD, 3 (!!!) INTs. Dallas loses to Carolina and starts the run of 13 years without a playoff win. 1998 Playoffs, Wild Card Game: Aikman 22-49, 191 yards, 1 TD, 3 (!!!) INTs, Dallas loses to Arizona despite hosting the game. 1999 Playoffs, Wild Card Game: Aikman 22-38, 286 yards, 0 TD, 1 INT, Dallas loses again.
After winning the super bowl in 1995, Aikman's record as starter: 38-37.
I have NEVER REPEAT NEVER said Romo is the reason the Cowboys are a middle of the pack team. I have given him several losses that are all his. If not for his bonehead plays this year alone they would be 8-3!!!!!!!!!!!
AND YES THE DENVER LOSS IS HIS!!!!!!!!! I'm not going to spell that out for you again......you are just too STUPID to understand!!!
<< <i>1985fan - pay attention you freaking IDIOT!!!! >>
What a way to start off. This is going to be good I can tell.
<< <i>I have NEVER REPEAT NEVER said Romo is the reason the Cowboys are a middle of the pack team. >>
What is the reason the Cowboys are a middle of the pack team? Is the league worst running game? Or the league worst defense? If anything, Romo is the reason they've won as many games as they have.
<< <i>I have given him several losses that are all his. If not for his bonehead plays this year alone they would be 8-3!!!!!!!!!!! >>
Or maybe he's the reason the Cowboys have won any games at all? In the games the Cowboys have lost, they've allowed the following yards:
KC: 313 SD: 506 (including 401 by Rivers) Denver: 517 (including 414 by Manning, but Romo outplayed him) Detroit: 623 (including 488 by Stafford) NO: 625 (including 392 by Brees)
Do you see a trend yet, sir? Do you not see that outside the KC game, that allowing over 500 yards in offense is going to net you a loss, no matter how good you play?
His worst game was against New Orleans, and if you want to pin that game on him, fine. But to sit there, in utter and complete ignorance, and blame him for any of these other games is proof positive you, sir, have NO IDEA what football is about.
<< <i>AND YES THE DENVER LOSS IS HIS!!!!!!!!! I'm not going to spell that out for you again......you are just too STUPID to understand!!! >>
Says the guy who can't remember the most important games, dates, or players in his favorite team's history. Excuse me while I disregard your inane and completely foolish ramblings.
<< <i>Here's a question to all of those who say Bradshaw and Aikman were not great QB's. Have you considered the possibility that they always had the talent, but needed receivers that could run good routes and separate and catch the ball?? You still have to have the talent no matter how good the team around the QB!
I have re-read this whole thread and agree with most EXCEPT for the bashing of Bradshaw and Aikman. They both got the job done and took their teams to the SB and have 7 rings to show for it!
Romo is not a joke....but he is not a SB QB yet! I'll be as happy as anyone if he turns into one!
It was good to see that most here realize how good Aikman is. Although most don't seem to give any credit to Bradshaw at all and that is just plain stupid.
As a Cowboy fan I HATE the Steelers, but will give credit where credit is due.
And 1985fan before you bring up the crap about Aikman/Romo and the talent around them.......Romo has always had good receivers and all the years I watched the Cowboys play with Aikman.....I don't ever remember him blowing a game like Romo has time and time again. >>
>>>Says the guy who can't remember the most important games, dates, or players in his favorite team's history. Excuse me while I disregard your inane and completely foolish ramblings. <<<
1985fan:
Why don't you F'ing grow up and quit harping on trivial BS that does not matter. You are the MOST ignorant poster I have ever seen.
<< <i>>>>Says the guy who can't remember the most important games, dates, or players in his favorite team's history. Excuse me while I disregard your inane and completely foolish ramblings. <<<
1985fan:
Why don't you F'ing grow up and quit harping on trivial BS that does not matter. You are the MOST ignorant poster I have ever seen.
Why don't you get lost and make everyone happy!! >>
Trivial? The biggest names, dates, and games in your team's history 'does not matter'? I'm not surprised - you're nothing but a front-running clown who talks about winning but doesn't have clue one about how a football team must be built in order to win. To you, the QB is the only position that matters, and you completely and disregard every thing other than that very fact. Aikman (who like Bradshaw) was fortunate, FORTUNATE to have found himself on elite-level TEAMS which won multiple super bowls.
During the height of the Steelers' run, in 1976, Bradshaw was forced to sit for 6 games due to injury, and his backup went 6-0 in that time, further PROVING that an elite defense + running game can make even the most pedestrian QB a winner. Conversely, when a 'winning' QB like Aikman is not surrounded by top flight teammates, he struggles to put up a winning record and wins exactly ZERO playoff games.
It hasn't sunk into your dense, unyielding skull yet and it never will. Bradshaw, like Aikman, played good ball but was fortunate to play on some of the most dominating teams of all time. These TEAMS won super bowls, the QB didn't do jack squat by themselves, and they surely didn't 'carry' teams like Romo is asked to do, year in and year out. You will never, in a million years, get that single, overriding, FACT through your brain so I will refrain from slapping you around any further like the brat you are.
By your logic, Steve Young is just as good as Joe Montana because he had a high winning % as a backup when Montana didn't play. In fact in 1989 Young was 3-0 as a starter.
It is laid out pretty clearly why Bradshaw was a part of four Super Bowls, and not the 'reason' for four SUPER BOWLS.
For those who give him the credit for Super Bowls, and use that to downgrade other QB's who did not have remotely close the variables as he did, is where you go wrong. Bradshaw's replacements had a better winning percentage than he did when they quarterbacked for those teams. They had as good as passer ratings when they quarterbacked for those teams.
All that evidence, and all the laid out evidence above, paints a pretty strong picture on what created those winning Steeler teams....and there isn't nearly enough(or any) evidence to suggest that Bradshaw deserves the lion's share of the credit. If you want to give Peyton Manning or Tom Brady the Lion's share of the credit for THEIR teams, then you can make a strong case for that. But not for Bradshaw.
Bradshaw was an excellent QB, probably in the top 40 all-time...however, Super Bowl wins has nothing to do with that determination, if you want an accurate determination.
If you want to say the Pittsburgh Steelers were one of the three best TEAMS ever, and better than the 2008-2013 Cowboys, and use the team's record and their championships as evidence, then absolutely.
<< <i>By your logic, Steve Young is just as good as Joe Montana because he had a high winning % as a backup when Montana didn't play. In fact in 1989 Young was 3-0 as a starter. >>
So you're saying there was a dramatic difference in their skill sets or QB ability?
<< <i>It is laid out pretty clearly why Bradshaw was a part of four Super Bowls, and not the 'reason' for four SUPER BOWLS.
For those who give him the credit for Super Bowls, and use that to downgrade other QB's who did not have remotely close the variables as he did, is where you go wrong. Bradshaw's replacements had a better winning percentage than he did when they quarterbacked for those teams. They had as good as passer ratings when they quarterbacked for those teams.
All that evidence, and all the laid out evidence above, paints a pretty strong picture on what created those winning Steeler teams....and there isn't nearly enough(or any) evidence to suggest that Bradshaw deserves the lion's share of the credit. If you want to give Peyton Manning or Tom Brady the Lion's share of the credit for THEIR teams, then you can make a strong case for that. But not for Bradshaw.
Bradshaw was an excellent QB, probably in the top 40 all-time...however, Super Bowl wins has nothing to do with that determination, if you want an accurate determination.
If you want to say the Pittsburgh Steelers were one of the three best TEAMS ever, and better than the 2008-2013 Cowboys, and use the team's record and their championships as evidence, then absolutely. >>
Bradshaw gets most of the credit for all the super bowls because his individual awards speak for themselves. They played a close 35-31 super bowl against the cowboys and Bradshaw threw 4 td's. Without him, the steelers don't win 4 super bowls.
<< <i>It is laid out pretty clearly why Bradshaw was a part of four Super Bowls, and not the 'reason' for four SUPER BOWLS.
For those who give him the credit for Super Bowls, and use that to downgrade other QB's who did not have remotely close the variables as he did, is where you go wrong. Bradshaw's replacements had a better winning percentage than he did when they quarterbacked for those teams. They had as good as passer ratings when they quarterbacked for those teams.
All that evidence, and all the laid out evidence above, paints a pretty strong picture on what created those winning Steeler teams....and there isn't nearly enough(or any) evidence to suggest that Bradshaw deserves the lion's share of the credit. If you want to give Peyton Manning or Tom Brady the Lion's share of the credit for THEIR teams, then you can make a strong case for that. But not for Bradshaw.
Bradshaw was an excellent QB, probably in the top 40 all-time...however, Super Bowl wins has nothing to do with that determination, if you want an accurate determination.
If you want to say the Pittsburgh Steelers were one of the three best TEAMS ever, and better than the 2008-2013 Cowboys, and use the team's record and their championships as evidence, then absolutely. >>
Bradshaw gets most of the credit for all the super bowls because his individual awards speak for themselves. They played a close 35-31 super bowl against the cowboys and Bradshaw threw 4 td's. Without him, the steelers don't win 4 super bowls. >>
Really? How many catches did he have? How many rushing yards? Tackles? Pancakes? We know how well the team did without him...his backups did better. We know how well the team did WITH him when he wasn't surrounded by elite talent...they did poorly. It is all laid out above buddy...only a bind man could fail to see it.
However, lets put your philosophy to the test. How about you and I play against each other in a football game, we will each be quarterbacks for our respective teams...only I get to pick our teams. We will bet to see who the better player is, and the winner of the game determines the better QB. Lets put your belief system to the test and see how fast you still believe in the stuff you say when your wallet is ten grand lighter. You will be the first to cry foul or unfair.
The reason why Bradshaw and Aikman had such good playoff records is because they weren't good enough to carry mediocre teams into the playoffs, and as a result, never have to play in the playoffs as big road underdogs.
12 of Bradshaw's playoff wins came in the four years where they had the elite supporting cast.
That leaves him with 10 other years as an NFL QB. Now tell me, if he is so responsible for 'winning' those four Super Bowls, then how come in those other ten years in his career, he could only manage TWO playoff wins?? Basically, ALL his playoff success came when the team was ultra elite around him, and HE gets the majority of that credit. Yet, this supposed leader that 'knows' how to win, could only manage two playoff wins in his other ten years in his career...most of which happen to be on teams that did not have ultra elite supporting cast. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that HE indeed was not the man responsible for those Super Bowls.
Same for Aikman, his nine playoff wins came when they had an elite team, yet HE gets the credit.
Why was he only able to win two playoff games in his other 9 years??
If Aikman were truly the reason why they won, then how come in those non-super bowl(non elite teams), was he only able to lead his team to a regular season record of 58-61?? Certainly, a man who 'has three rings' and 'knows how to win' and 'plays under pressure' should be able to use those abilities and take those nine teams to a record better than 58-61!
<< <i>How many super bowls did Montana win with the chiefs?
Dude, did Bradshaw screw your girlfriend or something? >>
If you don't realize that your first point completely upholds everything being said about Bradshaw then you are as dense as you make yourself out to be.
TEAMS win titles, not individual PLAYERS. Bradshaw was a JOKE when he didn't have an elite squad around him. If he had this mystical ability to win games, then why was (as was pointed out) his playoff record outside his super bowl winning teams so abysmal? Why did he only win 2 games when he wasn't on a super bowl winning team? Why did his replacements have a better record and better stats?
Because Bradshaw was fortunate to find himself on these teams. He wasn't the leading reason they won.
<< <i>How many super bowls did Montana win with the chiefs?
Dude, did Bradshaw screw your girlfriend or something? >>
Every QB gets too much credit when their team wins the Super Bowl, including Montana. If Montana actually owned a gene or trait that allowed him to play so well in Super Bowls, then why didn't he call upon that trait in league championship games where he was only 4-3 as a starter?? Did he not view those games as important enough? Did he not realize that winning THOSE games would mean he could win more Super Bowls? Is he dumb? Or is he lazy?
Judging individual players based on how many titles a team wins, in a team sport like football, is dumb and inaccurate.
If Bradshaw had a trait that allowed him to call upon it when needed in the Super Bowl, then why did he only use it in the two Super Bowls where he played well?? Why not use it more? Why not use it more when his teammates aren't as good, and bring them to the playoffs more often?
WHY? Because that trait or 'knowing how to win' is a fairy tale among elite NFL QB's! It may be there in Pop Warner, but the guys that can't handle the pressure get weeded out by High School.
The reality is, they win those SUper Bowls because many contributing factors have to go their way...factors that are completely out of their control. There are probably a hundred significant factors that allow them to win Super Bowls, 99 of which they have no control over(and one they do...their own play). Yet, fools give them credit for those other 99 things that go into winning a Super Bowl, even though it has nothing to do with them.
Many of those are outlined very clearly in the beginning of this thread. Only somebody with blinders will ignore them.
I'm still laughing on how Bradshaw's scrub QB replacements actually did better in his stead, in both composite individual performance and team record.
You ask if Bradshaw messed with my girl? No.
But based on how you can't see the obvious, are you in love with Bradshaw or something?
However, guys like Montana and Brady actually deserve the praise they get. Bradshaw and Aikman, not so much.
The QB is considered the leader of the team, so they will always get the most credit for championships. You may not like it, but that's just the way it is.
Bradshaw had a winning record AFTER the steelers 70's dynasty.
<< <i>The QB is considered the leader of the team, so they will always get the most credit for championships. You may not like it, but that's just the way it is.
Bradshaw had a winning record AFTER the steelers 70's dynasty.
Next. >>
Of course I don't like it. I don't like poor methods of evaluating individuals....and that method is about as poor as it gets.
Makes zero difference if that is 'just the way it is'. All it means is that 'just the way it is' is dumb and doesn't work. Otherwise, Bradshaw would have won more than two playoff games in those ten years where he wasn't carried by an elite team
How about we put it to the test and see how you really feel.
Lets have you and I play a game against each other. We will each be the QB, and the player deemed the better QB wins a 5k bet. The determination on who is better is simply whos team wins the game. I will pick the players for my team, and the players for your team. After that is done, lets see if you have the same opinion you have now
Bill Walsh said the quarterback position is the most important on a football team.
Yet we all know that a great QB needs great players around him in order to win.
Terry was fortunate enough to play on a dynasty, and he was an important part of that dynasty.
Bart Starr, Unitas, Elway, Montana, Marino, Staubach, Steve Young, and many others could have flourished with those Steeler teams the same way that Terry did.
I thought Terry Bradshaw was incredible. He could always make a big play in the big games. He never choked in important games the way Romo does.
The Bradshaw Steelers and Romo Cowboys have played some big, important games. Terry always seemed to lift his team when the game was on the line, whether he played great or average. Romo has been prone to make bonehead plays when games are on the line, whether he's played great during that game, or average.
Terry always came through for those great Steeler teams, and he was awesome.
<< <i>Bill Walsh said the quarterback position is the most important on a football team.
Yet we all know that a great QB needs great players around him in order to win.
Terry was fortunate enough to play on a dynasty, and he was an important part of that dynasty.
Bart Starr, Unitas, Elway, Montana, Marino, Staubach, Steve Young, and many others could have flourished with those Steeler teams the same way that Terry did.
I thought Terry Bradshaw was incredible. He could always make a big play in the big games. He never choked in important games the way Romo does.
The Bradshaw Steelers and Romo Cowboys have played some big, important games. Terry always seemed to lift his team when the game was on the line, whether he played great or average. Romo has been prone to make bonehead plays when games are on the line, whether he's played great during that game, or average.
Terry always came through for those great Steeler teams, and he was awesome. >>
Bradshaw was good. He just isn't as good as people make him out to be when they cite those four rings and use that to say he is better than guys with less.
QB is the single most important position on the team...however, it isn't more important than the entire defense, or rest of the offense.
The offensive/defensive line as a whole are more important...as they can turn the ordinary into extraordinary!
If he was as important as people say, then he would have led them to more than two playoff wins when he didn't have the best supporting cast ever.
Bradshaw choked...he got benched in the midst of one of those Super Bowl runs! lol.
His backups did better. If he was as important as you say, then how could backup scrubs lead the team to a better record AND have better individual performances??
<< <i>Bill Walsh said the quarterback position is the most important on a football team.
Yet we all know that a great QB needs great players around him in order to win.
Terry was fortunate enough to play on a dynasty, and he was an important part of that dynasty.
Bart Starr, Unitas, Elway, Montana, Marino, Staubach, Steve Young, and many others could have flourished with those Steeler teams the same way that Terry did.
I thought Terry Bradshaw was incredible. He could always make a big play in the big games. He never choked in important games the way Romo does.
The Bradshaw Steelers and Romo Cowboys have played some big, important games. Terry always seemed to lift his team when the game was on the line, whether he played great or average. Romo has been prone to make bonehead plays when games are on the line, whether he's played great during that game, or average.
Terry always came through for those great Steeler teams, and he was awesome. >>
No, he won two...and that puts him ahead of almost everybody by your definition. By your definition, he is better than Manning, Brees, Fouts, Favre, Marino...as good as Elway.
Lets play that game and see how strong you are in your convictions.
Bradshaw top 10 all-time QB? You mean all-time from the 1970s, right? If not, you have no concept of football or the impact a team has on the performance of the QB.
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>No, he won two...and that puts him ahead of almost everybody by your definition. By your definition, he is better than Manning, Brees, Fouts, Favre, Marino...as good as Elway.
>>
When and if Plunkett makes the hall then you might have an argument. Bradshaw is one of only 2 qb's to win 4. And he won 3 MVP awards.
People like soundgard, and fitz, and dimeman, are all too simple to grasp the reality of what it takes to win a super bowl. They lack the desire or the ability to delve into the numbers even in a small manor to grasp what type of team is needed to win a super bowl. They are more than content to sit there in their ignorance, and look at super bowl wins, and think 'that QB won 4, he must be awesome!' When pointing out the facts like his replacements playing at a higher level, with a higher winning percentage, they go 'he won super bowl MVPs!' as if that's some sort of indicator of a player's worth over a season.
It's kind of sad that these people have been parroting this garbage for decades, and they'll go to their graves lacking the desire to learn anything about the sport they claim to love so much. They say they love football but cannot possibly care enough to open themselves to the unending amount of information that is now readily available.
Comments
You are also glossing over the fact that Dallas's dominant running game opened the avenue for a lot of easy and safe passes for Aikman to execute. He didn't have to force the ball like other QB's did that didn't have that dominant running game.
So while it may be true that Emmit running inside the red zone might have taken some TD's away from him, that same running attack also saved him some interceptions and increased his passing % by making it harder for the defense to defend the pass. So that Td/INT ratio is probably a good indicator as it sits.
Not to mention that he had Michael Irvin catch any ball thrown his way with a defender on him. Of course, Irvin got away with pass interfence murder on many of those.
In a nutshell, Aikman had it made.
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>
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. >>
There's no way to tell in the sense that Aikman could have played differently if he was on another team, but there is a way to compare apples to apples. Show me another quarterback in the HOF who has similar statistics to Aikman and who played the majority of their career as his contemporary. There isn't one.
You have Marino, Elway, Young, Kelly, and Moon who are in the HOF as his contemporaries.
Moon comes the closest in the accuracy statistics, but he was still superior to Aikman in all categories and had 17,000 more career passing yards. Aikman doesn't come close to any of his HOF contemporaries.
Aikman got in the HOF as a good player who was fortunate enough to play on a dominating team that won 3 Super Bowls. That's what pushed him into the HOF.
1)In all four years, their defense ranked in pts allowed 2nd, 2nd, 1st, and 5th
2) In three of the four years they won all their playoff games at home to get to the Super Bowl. The only exception is 1974 @ Oakland.
What did Bradshaw do that game? He was 8 for 17 with 95 yds, 1TD, 1INT. Bleier went 18-98, and Harris 28-111. What did the defense do? They gave up 13 pts!
3) Home losses occured twice in Bradshaw's playoff tenure. His defense gave up 31, and 21 points in those games.
4) We already went over the weapons Bradhshaw had that carried him.
5)Historically, no QB(except 1 if I remember), has led his team to a Super Bowl victory with a defense that ranked outside the top ten in points allowed.
6) They beat a team in the Super Bowl that was inferior to them. As good as Dallas was, they weren't as good as Pittsburgh. Minny and Den, no need to even bother to compare.
--------------------
Marino keeps getting brought up. How often did he have a team, and situation where they could be in a situation that was similar to Bradshaws?
We know that it isn't realistic to expect a team without a top 10 defense to win the Super Bowl. Here are the yearly ranks of Marino's defenses 1,7,12,26,16,24,22,4,24,11,24,17,10,16,16,1,19.
Stop the presses right here! Knowing that Bradshaw never even sniffed a Super Bowl when he had a defene ranked out of the top FIVE in the league, and that no other QB's won Super Bowls with teams OUTSIDE the top ten in defense, you can eliminate almost all of Marino's teams from having a true shot at the Super Bowl, except a few teams. This leaves three times where Marino had a chance, and two others that were close.
1983 ranked 1st
1984 ranked 7th
1990 ranked 4th
1998 ranked 1st
1985 12th
1992 11th
The rest of the seasons, if you are expecting Marino to win a Super Bowl with them, forget it! They simply did not have the defense to do it(not to mention the running back). In situations like that, Bradshaw couldn't do it, Aikman couldn't do it, Brady no, Montana no, Young no, Favre no, Elway no. So get those seasons out.
Lets look at each of those years and see if he had the same luxuries as Bradshaw.
1983, ranked 1st in defense, and lost a home playoff game. Had ok running game. They were better the year before when all they did was run. But they are not to be confused with anything close to HOF level like a Franco Harris. Had one good rookie receiver, Duper. Marino was a rookie QB. As high as they ranked defensively, without a HOF RB, and their QB and best receiver being rookies. That is a lot to ask to win it all.
1984, He got them to the Super Bowl with a good defense. The defense gave up 38 points in the Super Bowl. They lost to the team of the decade. This was his legit shot. Their defense was pure garbage in the Super Bowl.
1990 ranked 4th in defense, but they had to play the Bills ON THE ROAD in the playoffs, and they gave up 44 points. Find a QB that could over come that. Bradshaw never did, nor Aikman...they were bad on the road in the playoffs.
1998 ranked 1st in defene, but again they had a road playoff game where they lost to Denver 38-3. Some may say that Marino threw two picks in this game. But when you are getting blown out, that will happen all the time. Also, no matter how you slice it, even if those two picks led directly to two touchdown returns(which they didn't), that is just too many points to overcome on the road against a team like that.
1985 ranked 12th, so this really shouldn't even be on the list, because defenses ranked this low don't win. They gave up 31 points in thier playoff loss.
1992 ranked 11th, again, shouldn't be on list, lost 29-10 at home. 29 points. Thurman went for 96 rush and 70 receiving. They couldnt stop him.
Weapons around him. Even if you blame Marino's style of game for lack of running game, they STILL did not have a runner that was near HOF caliber. There are running backs that could excel with a great passer, Marshal Faulk did it. Also, keep in mind that he only had Duper/Clayton for a few years together, and they were more a product of him, than the other way around. It isn't like they were making Lynn Swann type Super Bowl catches. Marino's other years he did not have HOF type receivers that would simply catch anything like Michael Irvin. This makes a huge difference, and people simply gloss over it.
Some may look at this as trying to rationalize Marino having never won, but I have no reason to do that. What I am doing is pointing out that when you lambast somebody, or give too much praise for the Super Bowl titles, understand the circumstances.
When looking objectively, Marino really only 'blew' one legit Super Bowl chance, and that was when he was a rookie. The others were blown because the Dolphins weren't good enough, or they were not playing in the right circumstance(home vs. road) to win it.
If you want to say he 'blew' the Super Bowl game/season, go ahead, but I didn't see any other Super Bowl winning QB having to overcome 38 points in any playoff game.
Maybe 1992 when they had the 11th ranked defense, and they lost at home and Marino didn't have a good game, but they still gave up 29 points, and could not stop Thomas. If you are chasing, you will not have good playoff games on the road.
No Super Bowl winning QB had to overcome these circumstances to win a Super Bowl(until maybe this year), so to say Marino is not as good as Terry Bradshaw because Bradshaw had FAR superior teammates, and FAR better circumstances, is simply not a fair assessment.
Bradshaw had other years where his team's should have won even more. In actuality he 'blew' more legit chances than Marino did! The difference is Marion never had the cupcake chances that Bradshaw did...and you can put that in your pipe and smoke it :0
The analysis of Bradshaw in the OP was very good, showing year by year information over his career. Maybe the OP will do the same analysis for the other QB's considered the best.
I think Elway has played in more Super Bowls (5) than any other QB. Montana, Bradshaw and Brady have 4 each. Aikman has three. Brady could pass Elway.
If things had gone just a little bit different, Elway could have easily played in 7 Superbowls.
In the early 1990's (1991 season, 1992 Super Bowl I think) Denver lost to the Bills 10-7 in the AFC Championship game. One extra TD for Denver and Denver would have replaced the Bills as the sacrificial lamb to the NFC winner that year.
In the 1996 season Denver was the best AFC team (13-3 or 14-2) and Elway had a great year. Unfortunately Denver was upset in the AFC playoffs by Jacksonville in a very close game. Had that upset not happened, Denver probably would have played Greenbay in the 1997 Superbowl and the NFC streak of 13 or so straight Superbowl wins may have ended one year early [Denver beat Greenbay in the 1998 Superbowl the following year] to end the NFC streak.
Had Elway played in 7 Superbowls I think his record would be 3-4.
I am biased, but I remember so many games where Elway led fourth quarter comebacks resulting in Denver wins. Cleveland Browns fans still get seriously bent out of shape when they hear the name Elway, hear "The Drive" and hear "The Fumble"
The analysis of Bradshaw in the OP was very good, showing year by year information over his career. Maybe the OP will do the same analysis for the other QB's considered the best.
I think Elway has played in more Super Bowls (5) than any other QB. Montana, Bradshaw and Brady have 4 each. Aikman has three. Brady could pass Elway.
If things had gone just a little bit different, Elway could have easily played in 7 Superbowls.
In the early 1990's (1991 season, 1992 Super Bowl I think) Denver lost to the Bills 10-7 in the AFC Championship game. One extra TD for Denver and Denver would have replaced the Bills as the sacrificial lamb to the NFC winner that year.
In the 1996 season Denver was the best AFC team (13-3 or 14-2) and Elway had a great year. Unfortunately Denver was upset in the AFC playoffs by Jacksonville in a very close game. Had that upset not happened, Denver probably would have played Greenbay in the 1997 Superbowl and the NFC streak of 13 or so straight Superbowl wins may have ended one year early [Denver beat Greenbay in the 1998 Superbowl the following year] to end the NFC streak.
Had Elway played in 7 Superbowls I think his record would be 3-4.
I am biased, but I remember so many games where Elway led fourth quarter comebacks resulting in Denver wins. Cleveland Browns fans still get seriously bent out of shape when they hear the name Elway, hear "The Drive" and hear "The Fumble"
If you are going to speculate as to what might have been, though, you'll also have to take into account that had it not been for The Fumble, then Denver would never have made it to the SB that season. The Fumble and The Drive which led to the Denver victory were easily more improbable than either of the two scenarios you desxcribed that may have resulted in Denver getting to the SB in '92 or '97.
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.
Touche
However, I like my speculations to align with my biases, ............................ so,......................... I'll will just move along and try to forget the excellent point you made
Touche
However, I like my speculations to align with my biases, ............................ so,......................... I'll will just move along and try to forget the excellent point you made
Well it was a Marty Schottenheimer-coached Cleveland Browns team, so maybe that Denver victory wasn't so improbable after all, 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.
The whole idea is to give approrpriate credit to the players, and understand their surroundings and circumstances in what allowed them to get that far, or not get that far.
The QB's all need the right circumstances to get there, some need more than others(see Bradshaw). Elway was clearly the reason why they got to the first three Super Bowls. His supporting casts those years were so far away from other Super Bowl winning teams.
The two they won he was a main reason too, only this time he had a little more help needed to win them.
Bradshaw doesn't belong in the discussion of top ten all time QB's. As outlined above, he only gets recognition because of his cast allowing him to have the limelight.
Guys like Elway have a right to fight for positioning somewhere in the top 10.
The best job(hardest road) a team did to win the Super Bowl was probably the Giants a couple of years ago. Does that mean that Eli knows how to win the big game, or that one can say that 'winning the big game' is a trait in Eli's personality? No, because without the help of his teammates on defense or his receivers making catches he doesn't win anything.
Or you can say they just caught fire for a few weeks.
Lou
Side note: I lived in South Florida back then and I remember during the offseason listening to Jim Mandich's radio show on WQAM. He mentioned one afternoon that he was curious as to how the Dolphins were going to promote the team for season tickets with the retirement of Dan Marino and Jimmy Johnson and the embarrassing way they had finished the 1999 season. I called in and mentioned to him that the Dolphins would be starting the season with a QB that had thrown multiple TD passes in the Dolphins last game and had led his team to victory. It was Jay Fiedler, who had come in after Mark Brunell left in the second quarter with a HUGE lead. I suggested Jim just use his own radio calls (he was the team's color analyst).
Oh, and one last thing. Why didn't Marino win when his team had the #1 ranked defense in the NFL in 1998? His top two rushers: Karim Abdul-Jabbar and John Avery who averaged a robust 3.55 yards per carry between them. The top three receivers: OJ McDuffie, Orande Gadsden, and Lamar Thomas. Nobody could have won the Super Bowl with that kind of skill position talent. The fact that they got to the playoffs and won a game was amazing enough.
Nobody is holding it against them because they were on great teams. Their contribution and consequent overall appraisal as a player is simply being put into appropriate terms.
They are being measured for what THEY were, not what their teammates were or were not. As outlined above, it is very clear what the forces were at work to create those Super teams.
I am also sure that superior QB's to Bradshaw, such as Marino, would give up 10,000 yards for a Super Bowl...but that has nothing to do with the point being made.
Hey look, Swann just saved Bradshaw another interception and turned it into a 45 yard gain instead...
Powdered H20, you are correct. Some defenses may give up a lot of yards/points, but score points or get a lot of turnovers. That would be the Saints this year. Don't get me wrong, Brees was huge, and he was clearly the best player on that team, and the guy with the most credit towards why they won(unlike Bradshaw)...BUT they don't even get to the Super Bowl without that 12th man in the huddle mistake...and the FIVE Minnesota turnovers. So, without a 12th man in the huddle, Brees is just another guy who can't win a big one?
<< <i>
Oh, and one last thing. Why didn't Marino win when his team had the #1 ranked defense in the NFL in 1998? His top two rushers: Karim Abdul-Jabbar and John Avery who averaged a robust 3.55 yards per carry between them. The top three receivers: OJ McDuffie, Orande Gadsden, and Lamar Thomas. Nobody could have won the Super Bowl with that kind of skill position talent. The fact that they got to the playoffs and won a game was amazing enough. >>
You forgot to mention in 1998 Marino was way past his prime. So he is just as much to blame.
<< <i>And I really hope I haven't been sucked into a thread where a guy with two alts is arguing with himself. >>
I nominate for funniest post of the year!
<< <i>But, but, but, he was a WINNER! It was him and him alone who won those super bowls! Romo has never won a super bowl so Bradshaw must be a better QB!!!! >>
Bradshaw is a legend. Romo is a joke.
<< <i>
<< <i>But, but, but, he was a WINNER! It was him and him alone who won those super bowls! Romo has never won a super bowl so Bradshaw must be a better QB!!!! >>
Bradshaw is a legend. Romo is a joke. >>
Thank you for proving my point.
To the original poster, dont you also think that anyone who knows anything about football also knows that Bradshaw had Harris/Bleier, Swann/Stallworth and the best defense of the 1970's. Come on now.
I have re-read this whole thread and agree with most EXCEPT for the bashing of Bradshaw and Aikman. They both got the job done and took their teams to the SB and have 7 rings to show for it!
Romo is not a joke....but he is not a SB QB yet! I'll be as happy as anyone if he turns into one!
It was good to see that most here realize how good Aikman is. Although most don't seem to give any credit to Bradshaw at all and that is just plain stupid.
As a Cowboy fan I HATE the Steelers, but will give credit where credit is due.
And 1985fan before you bring up the crap about Aikman/Romo and the talent around them.......Romo has always had good receivers and all the years I watched the Cowboys play with Aikman.....I don't ever remember him blowing a game like Romo has time and time again.
<< <i>Here's a question to all of those who say Bradshaw and Aikman were not great QB's. Have you considered the possibility that they always had the talent, but needed receivers that could run good routes and separate and catch the ball?? You still have to have the talent no matter how good the team around the QB! >>
Why are you willing to concede this for these QBs, but single-handedly blame Romo for his team sucking?
<< <i>I have re-read this whole thread and agree with most EXCEPT for the bashing of Bradshaw and Aikman. They both got the job done and took their teams to the SB and have 7 rings to show for it!
If Aikman was so 'elite' he could 'take his team to the super bowl' then why did he suck so completely when he didn't have elite teams around him?
<< <i>Romo is not a joke....but he is not a SB QB yet! I'll be as happy as anyone if he turns into one! >>
Yet you're willing to give his defense a pass for allowing 48 points and BLAME HIM for a loss! You're nuts!
<< <i>It was good to see that most here realize how good Aikman is. Although most don't seem to give any credit to Bradshaw at all and that is just plain stupid. >>
When his replacement is able to replicate his success, then, no, he doesn't deserve credit for his team being elite.
<< <i>As a Cowboy fan I HATE the Steelers, but will give credit where credit is due. >>
No, you won't. You refuse to admit Romo is the only reason the Cowboys are competitive.
<< <i>And 1985fan before you bring up the crap about Aikman/Romo and the talent around them.......Romo has always had good receivers and all the years I watched the Cowboys play with Aikman.....I don't ever remember him blowing a game like Romo has time and time again. >>
Romo has always had good receivers (who outside Dez Bryant has been a top flight receiver again?) What running back has he had? Romo has had ONE 1000 yard running back in his entire career. One! And the team defense has, with one exception, been abysmal. You can't win reliably in the NFL without those things! You refuse, time and again, to admit these things, which makes you an ignorant fool! You don't remember Aikman blowing a game?
"He finished 1989 with an 0-11 record as a starter, completing 155 of 293 passes for 1,749 yards, 9 TDs, 18 INTs."
1996 Playoffs, Divisional Round: Aikman 18-36, 165 yards, 1 TD, 3 (!!!) INTs. Dallas loses to Carolina and starts the run of 13 years without a playoff win.
1998 Playoffs, Wild Card Game: Aikman 22-49, 191 yards, 1 TD, 3 (!!!) INTs, Dallas loses to Arizona despite hosting the game.
1999 Playoffs, Wild Card Game: Aikman 22-38, 286 yards, 0 TD, 1 INT, Dallas loses again.
After winning the super bowl in 1995, Aikman's record as starter: 38-37.
I have NEVER REPEAT NEVER said Romo is the reason the Cowboys are a middle of the pack team. I have given him several losses that are all his. If not for his bonehead plays this year alone they would be 8-3!!!!!!!!!!!
AND YES THE DENVER LOSS IS HIS!!!!!!!!! I'm not going to spell that out for you again......you are just too STUPID to understand!!!
<< <i>1985fan - pay attention you freaking IDIOT!!!! >>
What a way to start off. This is going to be good I can tell.
<< <i>I have NEVER REPEAT NEVER said Romo is the reason the Cowboys are a middle of the pack team. >>
What is the reason the Cowboys are a middle of the pack team? Is the league worst running game? Or the league worst defense? If anything, Romo is the reason they've won as many games as they have.
<< <i>I have given him several losses that are all his. If not for his bonehead plays this year alone they would be 8-3!!!!!!!!!!! >>
Or maybe he's the reason the Cowboys have won any games at all? In the games the Cowboys have lost, they've allowed the following yards:
KC: 313
SD: 506 (including 401 by Rivers)
Denver: 517 (including 414 by Manning, but Romo outplayed him)
Detroit: 623 (including 488 by Stafford)
NO: 625 (including 392 by Brees)
Do you see a trend yet, sir? Do you not see that outside the KC game, that allowing over 500 yards in offense is going to net you a loss, no matter how good you play?
His worst game was against New Orleans, and if you want to pin that game on him, fine. But to sit there, in utter and complete ignorance, and blame him for any of these other games is proof positive you, sir, have NO IDEA what football is about.
<< <i>AND YES THE DENVER LOSS IS HIS!!!!!!!!! I'm not going to spell that out for you again......you are just too STUPID to understand!!! >>
Says the guy who can't remember the most important games, dates, or players in his favorite team's history. Excuse me while I disregard your inane and completely foolish ramblings.
<< <i>Here's a question to all of those who say Bradshaw and Aikman were not great QB's. Have you considered the possibility that they always had the talent, but needed receivers that could run good routes and separate and catch the ball?? You still have to have the talent no matter how good the team around the QB!
I have re-read this whole thread and agree with most EXCEPT for the bashing of Bradshaw and Aikman. They both got the job done and took their teams to the SB and have 7 rings to show for it!
Romo is not a joke....but he is not a SB QB yet! I'll be as happy as anyone if he turns into one!
It was good to see that most here realize how good Aikman is. Although most don't seem to give any credit to Bradshaw at all and that is just plain stupid.
As a Cowboy fan I HATE the Steelers, but will give credit where credit is due.
And 1985fan before you bring up the crap about Aikman/Romo and the talent around them.......Romo has always had good receivers and all the years I watched the Cowboys play with Aikman.....I don't ever remember him blowing a game like Romo has time and time again. >>
Agreed 100%
1985fan:
Why don't you F'ing grow up and quit harping on trivial BS that does not matter. You are the MOST ignorant poster I have ever seen.
Why don't you get lost and make everyone happy!!
<< <i>>>>Says the guy who can't remember the most important games, dates, or players in his favorite team's history. Excuse me while I disregard your inane and completely foolish ramblings. <<<
1985fan:
Why don't you F'ing grow up and quit harping on trivial BS that does not matter. You are the MOST ignorant poster I have ever seen.
Why don't you get lost and make everyone happy!! >>
Trivial? The biggest names, dates, and games in your team's history 'does not matter'? I'm not surprised - you're nothing but a front-running clown who talks about winning but doesn't have clue one about how a football team must be built in order to win. To you, the QB is the only position that matters, and you completely and disregard every thing other than that very fact. Aikman (who like Bradshaw) was fortunate, FORTUNATE to have found himself on elite-level TEAMS which won multiple super bowls.
During the height of the Steelers' run, in 1976, Bradshaw was forced to sit for 6 games due to injury, and his backup went 6-0 in that time, further PROVING that an elite defense + running game can make even the most pedestrian QB a winner. Conversely, when a 'winning' QB like Aikman is not surrounded by top flight teammates, he struggles to put up a winning record and wins exactly ZERO playoff games.
It hasn't sunk into your dense, unyielding skull yet and it never will. Bradshaw, like Aikman, played good ball but was fortunate to play on some of the most dominating teams of all time. These TEAMS won super bowls, the QB didn't do jack squat by themselves, and they surely didn't 'carry' teams like Romo is asked to do, year in and year out. You will never, in a million years, get that single, overriding, FACT through your brain so I will refrain from slapping you around any further like the brat you are.
Class is dismissed, son.
For those who give him the credit for Super Bowls, and use that to downgrade other QB's who did not have remotely close the variables as he did, is where you go wrong. Bradshaw's replacements had a better winning percentage than he did when they quarterbacked for those teams. They had as good as passer ratings when they quarterbacked for those teams.
All that evidence, and all the laid out evidence above, paints a pretty strong picture on what created those winning Steeler teams....and there isn't nearly enough(or any) evidence to suggest that Bradshaw deserves the lion's share of the credit. If you want to give Peyton Manning or Tom Brady the Lion's share of the credit for THEIR teams, then you can make a strong case for that. But not for Bradshaw.
Bradshaw was an excellent QB, probably in the top 40 all-time...however, Super Bowl wins has nothing to do with that determination, if you want an accurate determination.
If you want to say the Pittsburgh Steelers were one of the three best TEAMS ever, and better than the 2008-2013 Cowboys, and use the team's record and their championships as evidence, then absolutely.
<< <i>By your logic, Steve Young is just as good as Joe Montana because he had a high winning % as a backup when Montana didn't play. In fact in 1989 Young was 3-0 as a starter. >>
So you're saying there was a dramatic difference in their skill sets or QB ability?
<< <i>It is laid out pretty clearly why Bradshaw was a part of four Super Bowls, and not the 'reason' for four SUPER BOWLS.
For those who give him the credit for Super Bowls, and use that to downgrade other QB's who did not have remotely close the variables as he did, is where you go wrong. Bradshaw's replacements had a better winning percentage than he did when they quarterbacked for those teams. They had as good as passer ratings when they quarterbacked for those teams.
All that evidence, and all the laid out evidence above, paints a pretty strong picture on what created those winning Steeler teams....and there isn't nearly enough(or any) evidence to suggest that Bradshaw deserves the lion's share of the credit. If you want to give Peyton Manning or Tom Brady the Lion's share of the credit for THEIR teams, then you can make a strong case for that. But not for Bradshaw.
Bradshaw was an excellent QB, probably in the top 40 all-time...however, Super Bowl wins has nothing to do with that determination, if you want an accurate determination.
If you want to say the Pittsburgh Steelers were one of the three best TEAMS ever, and better than the 2008-2013 Cowboys, and use the team's record and their championships as evidence, then absolutely. >>
Bradshaw gets most of the credit for all the super bowls because his individual awards speak for themselves. They played a close 35-31 super bowl against the cowboys and Bradshaw threw 4 td's. Without him, the steelers don't win 4 super bowls.
<< <i>
<< <i>It is laid out pretty clearly why Bradshaw was a part of four Super Bowls, and not the 'reason' for four SUPER BOWLS.
For those who give him the credit for Super Bowls, and use that to downgrade other QB's who did not have remotely close the variables as he did, is where you go wrong. Bradshaw's replacements had a better winning percentage than he did when they quarterbacked for those teams. They had as good as passer ratings when they quarterbacked for those teams.
All that evidence, and all the laid out evidence above, paints a pretty strong picture on what created those winning Steeler teams....and there isn't nearly enough(or any) evidence to suggest that Bradshaw deserves the lion's share of the credit. If you want to give Peyton Manning or Tom Brady the Lion's share of the credit for THEIR teams, then you can make a strong case for that. But not for Bradshaw.
Bradshaw was an excellent QB, probably in the top 40 all-time...however, Super Bowl wins has nothing to do with that determination, if you want an accurate determination.
If you want to say the Pittsburgh Steelers were one of the three best TEAMS ever, and better than the 2008-2013 Cowboys, and use the team's record and their championships as evidence, then absolutely. >>
Bradshaw gets most of the credit for all the super bowls because his individual awards speak for themselves. They played a close 35-31 super bowl against the cowboys and Bradshaw threw 4 td's. Without him, the steelers don't win 4 super bowls. >>
Really? How many catches did he have? How many rushing yards? Tackles? Pancakes? We know how well the team did without him...his backups did better. We know how well the team did WITH him when he wasn't surrounded by elite talent...they did poorly. It is all laid out above buddy...only a bind man could fail to see it.
However, lets put your philosophy to the test. How about you and I play against each other in a football game, we will each be quarterbacks for our respective teams...only I get to pick our teams. We will bet to see who the better player is, and the winner of the game determines the better QB. Lets put your belief system to the test and see how fast you still believe in the stuff you say when your wallet is ten grand lighter. You will be the first to cry foul or unfair.
12 of Bradshaw's playoff wins came in the four years where they had the elite supporting cast.
That leaves him with 10 other years as an NFL QB. Now tell me, if he is so responsible for 'winning' those four Super Bowls, then how come in those other ten years in his career, he could only manage TWO playoff wins?? Basically, ALL his playoff success came when the team was ultra elite around him, and HE gets the majority of that credit. Yet, this supposed leader that 'knows' how to win, could only manage two playoff wins in his other ten years in his career...most of which happen to be on teams that did not have ultra elite supporting cast. I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that HE indeed was not the man responsible for those Super Bowls.
Same for Aikman, his nine playoff wins came when they had an elite team, yet HE gets the credit.
Why was he only able to win two playoff games in his other 9 years??
If Aikman were truly the reason why they won, then how come in those non-super bowl(non elite teams), was he only able to lead his team to a regular season record of 58-61?? Certainly, a man who 'has three rings' and 'knows how to win' and 'plays under pressure' should be able to use those abilities and take those nine teams to a record better than 58-61!
Dude, did Bradshaw screw your girlfriend or something?
<< <i>How many super bowls did Montana win with the chiefs?
Dude, did Bradshaw screw your girlfriend or something? >>
If you don't realize that your first point completely upholds everything being said about Bradshaw then you are as dense as you make yourself out to be.
TEAMS win titles, not individual PLAYERS. Bradshaw was a JOKE when he didn't have an elite squad around him. If he had this mystical ability to win games, then why was (as was pointed out) his playoff record outside his super bowl winning teams so abysmal? Why did he only win 2 games when he wasn't on a super bowl winning team? Why did his replacements have a better record and better stats?
Because Bradshaw was fortunate to find himself on these teams. He wasn't the leading reason they won.
<< <i>How many super bowls did Montana win with the chiefs?
Dude, did Bradshaw screw your girlfriend or something? >>
Every QB gets too much credit when their team wins the Super Bowl, including Montana. If Montana actually owned a gene or trait that allowed him to play so well in Super Bowls, then why didn't he call upon that trait in league championship games where he was only 4-3 as a starter?? Did he not view those games as important enough? Did he not realize that winning THOSE games would mean he could win more Super Bowls? Is he dumb? Or is he lazy?
Judging individual players based on how many titles a team wins, in a team sport like football, is dumb and inaccurate.
If Bradshaw had a trait that allowed him to call upon it when needed in the Super Bowl, then why did he only use it in the two Super Bowls where he played well?? Why not use it more? Why not use it more when his teammates aren't as good, and bring them to the playoffs more often?
WHY? Because that trait or 'knowing how to win' is a fairy tale among elite NFL QB's! It may be there in Pop Warner, but the guys that can't handle the pressure get weeded out by High School.
The reality is, they win those SUper Bowls because many contributing factors have to go their way...factors that are completely out of their control. There are probably a hundred significant factors that allow them to win Super Bowls, 99 of which they have no control over(and one they do...their own play). Yet, fools give them credit for those other 99 things that go into winning a Super Bowl, even though it has nothing to do with them.
Many of those are outlined very clearly in the beginning of this thread. Only somebody with blinders will ignore them.
I'm still laughing on how Bradshaw's scrub QB replacements actually did better in his stead, in both composite individual performance and team record.
You ask if Bradshaw messed with my girl? No.
But based on how you can't see the obvious, are you in love with Bradshaw or something?
However, guys like Montana and Brady actually deserve the praise they get. Bradshaw and Aikman, not so much.
Bradshaw had a winning record AFTER the steelers 70's dynasty.
Next.
<< <i>The QB is considered the leader of the team, so they will always get the most credit for championships. You may not like it, but that's just the way it is.
Bradshaw had a winning record AFTER the steelers 70's dynasty.
Next. >>
Of course I don't like it. I don't like poor methods of evaluating individuals....and that method is about as poor as it gets.
Makes zero difference if that is 'just the way it is'. All it means is that 'just the way it is' is dumb and doesn't work. Otherwise, Bradshaw would have won more than two playoff games in those ten years where he wasn't carried by an elite team
How about we put it to the test and see how you really feel.
Lets have you and I play a game against each other. We will each be the QB, and the player deemed the better QB wins a 5k bet. The determination on who is better is simply whos team wins the game. I will pick the players for my team, and the players for your team. After that is done, lets see if you have the same opinion you have now
Yet we all know that a great QB needs great players around him in order to win.
Terry was fortunate enough to play on a dynasty, and he was an important part of that dynasty.
Bart Starr, Unitas, Elway, Montana, Marino, Staubach, Steve Young, and many others could have flourished with those Steeler teams the same way that Terry did.
I thought Terry Bradshaw was incredible. He could always make a big play in the big games. He never choked in important games the way Romo does.
The Bradshaw Steelers and Romo Cowboys have played some big, important games. Terry always seemed to lift his team when the game was on the line, whether he
played great or average. Romo has been prone to make bonehead plays when games are on the line, whether he's played great during that game, or average.
Terry always came through for those great Steeler teams, and he was awesome.
<< <i>Bill Walsh said the quarterback position is the most important on a football team.
Yet we all know that a great QB needs great players around him in order to win.
Terry was fortunate enough to play on a dynasty, and he was an important part of that dynasty.
Bart Starr, Unitas, Elway, Montana, Marino, Staubach, Steve Young, and many others could have flourished with those Steeler teams the same way that Terry did.
I thought Terry Bradshaw was incredible. He could always make a big play in the big games. He never choked in important games the way Romo does.
The Bradshaw Steelers and Romo Cowboys have played some big, important games. Terry always seemed to lift his team when the game was on the line, whether he
played great or average. Romo has been prone to make bonehead plays when games are on the line, whether he's played great during that game, or average.
Terry always came through for those great Steeler teams, and he was awesome. >>
Bradshaw was good. He just isn't as good as people make him out to be when they cite those four rings and use that to say he is better than guys with less.
QB is the single most important position on the team...however, it isn't more important than the entire defense, or rest of the offense.
The offensive/defensive line as a whole are more important...as they can turn the ordinary into extraordinary!
If he was as important as people say, then he would have led them to more than two playoff wins when he didn't have the best supporting cast ever.
Bradshaw choked...he got benched in the midst of one of those Super Bowl runs! lol.
His backups did better. If he was as important as you say, then how could backup scrubs lead the team to a better record AND have better individual performances??
<< <i>Bill Walsh said the quarterback position is the most important on a football team.
Yet we all know that a great QB needs great players around him in order to win.
Terry was fortunate enough to play on a dynasty, and he was an important part of that dynasty.
Bart Starr, Unitas, Elway, Montana, Marino, Staubach, Steve Young, and many others could have flourished with those Steeler teams the same way that Terry did.
I thought Terry Bradshaw was incredible. He could always make a big play in the big games. He never choked in important games the way Romo does.
The Bradshaw Steelers and Romo Cowboys have played some big, important games. Terry always seemed to lift his team when the game was on the line, whether he
played great or average. Romo has been prone to make bonehead plays when games are on the line, whether he's played great during that game, or average.
Terry always came through for those great Steeler teams, and he was awesome. >>
Well said. Bradshaw was awesome.
<< <i>Bradshaw was an exceptional QB. No one is putting him in the top 5 or top 10. >>
Top 10 for sure. He was voted top NFL 50 players of all time by NFL network.
<< <i>
<< <i>Bradshaw was an exceptional QB. No one is putting him in the top 5 or top 10. >>
Top 10 for sure. He was voted top NFL 50 players of all time by NFL network. >>
And there is the textbook definition of overrated
By Soundgard's definition, that puts flacco and dilfer somewhere in the top 25 all-time. Plunkett would then have to be top ten all-time too.
Man, I am dying to get that game together with you. Lets see how strong you are in your convictions
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Bradshaw was an exceptional QB. No one is putting him in the top 5 or top 10. >>
Top 10 for sure. He was voted top NFL 50 players of all time by NFL network. >>
And there is the textbook definition of overrated
By Soundgard's definition, that puts flacco and dilfer somewhere in the top 25 all-time. Plunkett would then have to be top ten all-time too. >>
Plunkett's not in the hall of fame
Lets play that game and see how strong you are in your convictions.
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>No, he won two...and that puts him ahead of almost everybody by your definition. By your definition, he is better than Manning, Brees, Fouts, Favre, Marino...as good as Elway.
>>
When and if Plunkett makes the hall then you might have an argument. Bradshaw is one of only 2 qb's to win 4. And he won 3 MVP awards.
It's kind of sad that these people have been parroting this garbage for decades, and they'll go to their graves lacking the desire to learn anything about the sport they claim to love so much. They say they love football but cannot possibly care enough to open themselves to the unending amount of information that is now readily available.