Why Bradhshaw's teams won SB's, and Why Marino's didn't
Saberman
Posts: 677
in Sports Talk
Terry 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. Swann/Stallworth vaulted Bradshaw's passing game(see other thread). Harris vaulted the Pittsburgh offense.
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, why he lost. How often did he have a team, and situation where they could be in a situation that was similar to Bradshaws, or other Super Bowl winners?
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 four 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 or receivers). 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 of your mind if you expect him to win.
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. How one can say Marino is a choker because of this is beyond unreasonable.
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.
Marino had ONE team that had a top five defense, and lost a home playoff game. That is it! So really, he only blew one shot that was what Bradshaw had...and that isn't even counting the weapons, because on that team he had no Franco Harris, no Swann and no Stallworth.
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.
One, maybe two shots is all Marino had to win a Super Bowl, and he got there with one of them and his defense blew it. Asking to win those others on the road when the defene is giving up 44 points is a ridiculous request. It is time for now and ever to get rid of the notion of Marino not being able to win the big game, because people that say that simply don't recognize the circumstances.
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
Text
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. Swann/Stallworth vaulted Bradshaw's passing game(see other thread). Harris vaulted the Pittsburgh offense.
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, why he lost. How often did he have a team, and situation where they could be in a situation that was similar to Bradshaws, or other Super Bowl winners?
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 four 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 or receivers). 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 of your mind if you expect him to win.
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. How one can say Marino is a choker because of this is beyond unreasonable.
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.
Marino had ONE team that had a top five defense, and lost a home playoff game. That is it! So really, he only blew one shot that was what Bradshaw had...and that isn't even counting the weapons, because on that team he had no Franco Harris, no Swann and no Stallworth.
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.
One, maybe two shots is all Marino had to win a Super Bowl, and he got there with one of them and his defense blew it. Asking to win those others on the road when the defene is giving up 44 points is a ridiculous request. It is time for now and ever to get rid of the notion of Marino not being able to win the big game, because people that say that simply don't recognize the circumstances.
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
Text
Are you sure about that five minutes!?
0
Comments
If you are talking about 1979 I take exception to this. The steelers won 35-31 thanks to a bogus interference call on Cliff Harris when Lynn Swan rode up his back and fell down. When asked about it later in an interview Lynn said (with tounge in cheek) "I think it was a good call". That call was the absolute worst call I have ever seen. When the defender has the inside track on the ball and the reciever runs into him FROM BEHIND and gets the CALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As far as Bradshaw. He is not as bad a QB as you write him up to be. He certainly wasn't the best ever. But even when you have great weapons around you, you still have to make the plays and get the job done.
<< <i>
As far as Bradshaw. He is not as bad a QB as you write him up to be. He certainly wasn't the best ever. But even when you have great weapons around you, you still have to make the plays and get the job done. >>
Yep.
Marino could beat any team in the regular season.....like the 85 Bears.......but choked every time in the playoffs.
If defense wins championships, then the best defense should win almost every year. But usually they dont....case in point BALTIMORE RAVENS should have multiple championships from the last decade.
Some baseball players have monster years during the regular season but fail to do the same in the post-season.
The last 3 super bowls the steelers won with Bradshaw was won in the air. THE DEFENSE GAVE UP 31 POINTS AGAINST DALLAS AND PITTBURGH STILL WON THE GAME. KEY.....BRADSHAW THREW 4 TOUCHDOWNS.
THE 70'S STEELERS OFFENSE WERE JUST AS GOOD AS THE DEFENSE.
THERE ARE MORE PLAYERS(70'S STEELERS) FROM THE OFFENSE IN THE HALL OF FAME, THEN THERE ARE FROM THE DEFENSE.
YOu need to re-read the original posts, all the answers to those questions you posed are already in there. If it knocks down your hero Bradshaw a bit, find another one you can hitch your wagon to that really doesn't need a false pumping up like Bradshaw.
The only one not touched upon is your example of the baseball player in the post season. It is a MYTH that there is such a thing as a 'post season player'. That has been touched upon enough on these boards that if anyone still believes that type of player exists, they either haven't read these boards, or still believe in the tooth fairy. This latest post season in baseball shed some good light on that subject, although the light was shed on that many moons ago already...some just wanted to hang onto their hero.
What are you going to say next? Jack Morris just 'knew' how to win and could pitch to the score?
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.
Who said anything about boxing..
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.
If you are truly a Steelers fan, you can't possibly state such absolute nonsense. C'mon boy, at least make your statements semi-plausible!
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> Reading 'who's better' debates on the CU boards is a bit like sitting in on Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder arguing the merits of Rembrandt vs. Goya.
Who said anything about boxing.. >>
I predict Rembrandt will knock out Goya in the fifth round.
<< <i>THE 70'S STEELERS OFFENSE WERE JUST AS GOOD AS THE DEFENSE.
If you are truly a Steelers fan, you can't possibly state such absolute nonsense. C'mon boy, at least make your statements semi-plausible! >>
Are you always this cheerful?
If you are truly a Steelers fan, you can't possibly state such absolute nonsense. C'mon boy, at least make your statements semi-plausible! >>
Nonsense nothing. How many players on defense won super bowl MVP'S?
The offense were among the best in the nfl in the 70's
More players on offense than defense in hall of fame.
3 out of 4 super bowls were won in the air.
They were both great.
Super Bowl MVPs? Come on, really, do you really believe the Steelers Defense aka "The Steel Curtain" and arguably the best D of all time, wasn't the primary resaon they got to 4 Super Bowls? Surely you can't be that dense...
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 70'S STEELERS OFFENSE WERE JUST AS GOOD AS THE DEFENSE.
If you are truly a Steelers fan, you can't possibly state such absolute nonsense. C'mon boy, at least make your statements semi-plausible! >>
Nonsense nothing. How many players on defense won super bowl MVP'S?
The offense were among the best in the nfl in the 70's
More players on offense than defense in hall of fame.
3 out of 4 super bowls were won in the air.
They were both great.
Super Bowl MVPs? Come on, really, do you really believe the Steelers Defense aka "The Steel Curtain" and arguably the best D of all time, wasn't the primary resaon they got to 4 Super Bowls? Surely you can't be that dense... >>
Are you that ignorant to know that the primary reason they scored all those points was the great talent they had on offense? Get a clue.
Did the best defensive team win this years super bowl?
If you are truly a Steelers fan, you can't possibly state such absolute nonsense. C'mon boy, at least make your statements semi-plausible! >>
Nonsense nothing. How many players on defense won super bowl MVP'S?
The offense were among the best in the nfl in the 70's
More players on offense than defense in hall of fame.
3 out of 4 super bowls were won in the air.
They were both great.
Super Bowl MVPs? Come on, really, do you really believe the Steelers Defense aka "The Steel Curtain" and arguably the best D of all time, wasn't the primary resaon they got to 4 Super Bowls? Surely you can't be that dense... >>
Are you that ignorant to know that the primary reason they scored all those points was the great talent they had on offense? Get a clue.
Did the best defensive team win this years super bowl?
Yes, I guess you really are that dense after all.
Go back and read Saberman'sposts. I don't have the energy or time to do all that research but the truth is in there if you are willing to find it. Then again, I think you are happy as a clam coming across as an ignorant fool, so in that case, carry on, my friend...
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.
2009 Saints were 20th in points allowed
2007 Giants were 17th in points allowed
2006 Colts were 23rd in points allowed
1976 Raiders were 12th in points allowed
There might be more.
One thing that is missing though, from your argument, is how difficult it is to have a top defense when your offense is based predominantly on throwing the ball. The Dolphins were 1st in the league the year before Marino got there on D.
Aro, my 'stuff' was a couple of years out of date. However, those teams that lately did it, did so by playing lights out defense in the playoffs.
The Dolphins were 1st in the league with Marino at times too, so that statement doesn't hold much. An elite defense would be regardless of what type of offense there is. But those years they had to win on the road in the playoffs, and that just doesn't happen much(winning on the road in the playoffs vs. a superior team, especially when the defense gives up 44 points in that game).
Aro, that is also very telling that Manning did something that no other QB in the history of the Super Bowl years has done...win a Super Bowl with that low of a defense. Yet people say he can't win a big one, or is a mediocre playoff guy. What really is at work is that he DID NOT have the EASY circumstances that Bradshaw had. Bradshaw had the easiest circumstances for a QB in the history of the league. Marino had the worst(among elite QB).
The reality is that when looking at the circumstances, Manning's ONE Super Bowl win is actually more impressive than Bradshaw's four...because Bradshaw's were laid out on a silver platter.
And Bradshaw's Super Bowl play is a product of Swann and Stallworth, just like his regular season yards per attempt were when they took that huge leap with them as starters. He was in the 6.2 range without them, and with them he was in the 8.0 range.
It is no coincidence that Swann/Stallworth made insane catches in the bowl, and had insane yards per catch and total yards. Bradshaw never MADE receivers do stuff like that in his five years prior to them...so why do you keep saying it was Bradshaw's doing with them???
<< <i>Stown, yes it is. >>
Thought it looked familiar.
<< <i>.
And Bradshaw's Super Bowl play is a product of Swann and Stallworth >>
Hilarious
The hilarious thing is this...
Some amateurs have proclaimed Bradshaw a top five QB of all time, and some have said he was the best deep passer of all time. Ask yourself this, if both of those were true, don't you think he would at least make an honest showing in the following measurements, regardless of who his receivers were?
Terry Bradshaw had FIVE seasons as a starter before Swann and Stallworth became starters. How many times did the so called best deep passer in the history of the NFL crack the league's top ten in yards per pass attempt?
From 1970-1974 Terry Bradshaw did not have a single season in the top ten in the league in yards per attempt
From 1970-1974 Terry Bradshaw did not have a single season in the top ten in the league in passer rating.
Enter Swann and Stallworth...
Yards per attempt rank in league, and passer rating rank
1975 ranked 7th & 4th
1977 ranked 1st & 7th
1978 ranked 1st & 2nd
Hmmmm.
Five years in the leauge is plenty long enough to grow and establish oneself. In fact, most elite QB's have established themselves as elite by their second year...and by their fifth year they are already in HOF discussion as an all-time great. But Bradshaw was simply not good enough to do that. It took the merits of other players on his team to vault him into that type of discussion. The credit should be going to his receivers and line, NOT HIM. He was good at throwing jump balls.
Had he truly been a great deep passer, or a great passer in general, don't you think he would have at least showed up ONCE in the top ten in the league in both of those important measures of a QB? Repeat, FIVE YEARS with no top ten finishes, FIVE!
Oh, one might ask what happened in 1976 when he had Swann/Stallworth. Well, Bradshaw was bad in 1976 and his yards per attempt slipped to 6.1. His team went 4-4 with him as a starter with the best weapons in the history of the league. What is startling is that the backup scrub went 6-0 and had a yards per attempt of 8.9!!!
Now it is no wonder that Swann absolutely owned the second Super Bowl, and that Swann and Stallworth both owned the next two. The question always is, which came first, the chicke or the egg?? Based on the above, Bradshaw laid an egg wihtout those two...and those two absolutley carried the passing game, as can be measured by objective analysis like above, and by simply watching them make catches on a consistent basis that only a rare receiver could make.
Had he truly been a great deep passer, or a great passer in general, don't you think he would have at least showed up ONCE in the top ten in the league in both of those important measures of a QB? Repeat, FIVE YEARS with no top ten finishes, FIVE!
As I said in earlier post, Black Label is incapable of considering any analysis more elaborate than "number of rings." Nevermind all these inconveient underlying factors..
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>Blacklabel,
The hilarious thing is this...
Some amateurs have proclaimed Bradshaw a top five QB of all time, and some have said he was the best deep passer of all time. Ask yourself this, if both of those were true, don't you think he would at least make an honest showing in the following measurements, regardless of who his receivers were?
You know what they say about opinions. We all know you are a Bradshaw hater...we get it. But here are the REAL facts.
Bradshaw...first ballot hall of famer and voted the number #1 offensive steeler of all time...by the SPORTING NEWS.....not amateurs.
If swann and stallworth were so much more talented than bradshaw and the biggest reason why they won the super bowls, then why did it TAKE THEM SO LONG TO GET INTO THE HALL OF FAME?
Terry Bradshaw had FIVE seasons as a starter before Swann and Stallworth became starters. How many times did the so called best deep passer in the history of the NFL crack the league's top ten in yards per pass attempt?
How good did the QB do before Bradshaw? Maybe it was because the steelers didnt have any good recievers before swann and stallworth?
From 1970-1974 Terry Bradshaw did not have a single season in the top ten in the league in yards per attempt
From 1970-1974 Terry Bradshaw did not have a single season in the top ten in the league in passer rating.
Simple answer and i heard this once on nfl films presents. "In the early-mid 70's the steelers won by defense and franco harris. In the late 70's they won with defense and Terry bradshaw." so very true.
The steelers have basically ALWAYS been a run-first offense. So that is the biggest reason why Bradshaw and aikman never had the huge regular season stats like some of the other greats.
Yards per attempt rank in league, and passer rating rank
1975 ranked 7th & 4th
1977 ranked 1st & 7th
1978 ranked 1st & 2nd
>>
During Bradshaw's best years, the steelers won super bowls.
Before Bradshaw, the steelers were losers. Enter Bradshaw even before 1974 and he turns them into playoff contenders.
After Bradshaw, the steelers dont win another championship until 26 years later.
To give all the credit to swann and stallworth and not bradshaw is ludicrous. Rocky Bleier also made a great catch in the super bowl. So should he also get all the credit for his catch, and Bradshaw none?
Then Swann/Stallworth became starters, made Bradshaw look good, Etc... This is all laid out clear as day above.
I am surprised you are still here...you look pretty foolish at this point. Or, you are just trying to be a gnat type pest. Either way, read the above again after you do your school work, then you can learn the art of logic and common senese in addition to learning about the Pilgrims.
When it comes to Bradshaw or other quarterbacks, the era has to be considered when comparing things. In his era, the quarterbacks could be hit late, in the head, below the knees, and couldn't slide to avoid getting hit. Also, most quarterbacks called the plays and were expected to be able put there head down and pick up a few first downs a game with their legs. Quarterbacks of any era are leaders on the field and the intangibles involved with that are by definition immeasureable.
Final analysis should take all these things in consideration and the "sight test". I saw Bradshaw and the great Steeler teams of the 70's play and Bradshaw was one tough SOB that fit well with his team. I don't think he was the greatest of all time, but in his era, he, Staubach, Stabler, Tarkenton and Griese were the dominant field generals.
Comparisons to other eras are speculative and good fodder for discussion-nothing more or less.
Putting together a set of 61 Fleer Basketball PSA 7 or better.
Trade references: T,Raf12,Coach Vinny,Iceman,McDee2,Lantz,JSA
Yes, he was a good fit for this team...though not many woulnd't be.
The point isn't about comparing cross era QB's really...it is about the understanding of why he was lucky enough to be on Four Super Bowl teams, and why other Superior Qb's weren't.
It is about giving appropriate credit, plain and simple.
For example, when the Giants won the Bowl a couple of years ago, that may have been the most impressive championship ever won when you consider who they beat to get there(on the road too), and who they beat in there. Manning played great. THAT was impressive. Throwing jump balls to swan and Stallworth, or watching Franco harris carry the team, or watching the defense carry the team just isn't as impressive in Bradshaw's case.
<< <i>A lot of valid points have been brought up on this subject. In a team sport it is difficult to annoint a "greatest". The criteria can be based on individual or team success. the "what if's" don't matter and one can only evaluate reality based on the criteria one decides are important measuring greatness.
When it comes to Bradshaw or other quarterbacks, the era has to be considered when comparing things. In his era, the quarterbacks could be hit late, in the head, below the knees, and couldn't slide to avoid getting hit. Also, most quarterbacks called the plays and were expected to be able put there head down and pick up a few first downs a game with their legs. Quarterbacks of any era are leaders on the field and the intangibles involved with that are by definition immeasureable.
Final analysis should take all these things in consideration and the "sight test". I saw Bradshaw and the great Steeler teams of the 70's play and Bradshaw was one tough SOB that fit well with his team. I don't think he was the greatest of all time, but in his era, he, Staubach, Stabler, Tarkenton and Griese were the dominant field generals.
>>
Well said.
Some amateurs have proclaimed Bradshaw a top five QB of all time, and some have said he was the best deep passer of all time. Ask yourself this, if both of those were true, don't you think he would at least make an honest showing in the following measurements, regardless of who his receivers were?
Terry Bradshaw had FIVE seasons as a starter before Swann and Stallworth became starters. How many times did the so called best deep passer in the history of the NFL crack the league's top ten in yards per pass attempt?
From 1970-1974 Terry Bradshaw did not have a single season in the top ten in the league in yards per attempt
From 1970-1974 Terry Bradshaw did not have a single season in the top ten in the league in passer rating.
Enter Swann and Stallworth...
Yards per attempt rank in league, and passer rating rank
1975 ranked 7th & 4th
1977 ranked 1st & 7th
1978 ranked 1st & 2nd
Hmmmm.
Five years in the leauge is plenty long enough to grow and establish oneself. In fact, most elite QB's have established themselves as elite by their second year...and by their fifth year they are already in HOF discussion as an all-time great. But Bradshaw was simply not good enough to do that. It took the merits of other players on his team to vault him into that type of discussion. The credit should be going to his receivers and line, NOT HIM. He was good at throwing jump balls.
Had he truly been a great deep passer, or a great passer in general, don't you think he would have at least showed up ONCE in the top ten in the league in both of those important measures of a QB? Repeat, FIVE YEARS with no top ten finishes, FIVE!
Oh, one might ask what happened in 1976 when he had Swann/Stallworth. Well, Bradshaw was bad in 1976 and his yards per attempt slipped to 6.1. His team went 4-4 with him as a starter with the best weapons in the history of the league. What is startling is that the backup scrub went 6-0 and had a yards per attempt of 8.9!!!
Now it is no wonder that Swann absolutely owned the second Super Bowl, and that Swann and Stallworth both owned the next two. The question always is, which came first, the chicke or the egg?? Based on the above, Bradshaw laid an egg wihtout those two...and those two absolutley carried the passing game, as can be measured by objective analysis like above, and by simply watching them make catches on a consistent basis that only a rare receiver could make.
Playing quarterback is more than raw stats. His job is to lead his team to victory. Whether that means handing off, calling the right plays, throwing the ball away, taking the sack and living for another series, throwing it 40 times or running for the 1st down.
You mention luck and yes luck has a lot to do with sports, whether it be a dropped ball, fumble, bad call, weather, big game pressure, wide left or an immaculate reception. That's why people are interested. If it was all stats and execution it would be just watching a bunch of guys doing skill drills or calestetics(sp). Luck also comes into play as far as who drafts a player, his coach, his supporting cast, his skill sets matching a teams style, who he is playing behind, strength of opponents and injuries.
The title of this thread is -"Why Bradhshaw's teams won SB's and Why Marino's didn't".
You made a great statistical argument and Bradshaw probably is overrated. but whether Marino would have had the same success with the teams Bradshaw had is only speculation. We will never know.
I think there is no doubt that Marino had a quick release, could throw the ball accurately, was a leader, great competitor and winner. But he was immobile never won the big one. Was he a better passer than Bradshaw?-no doubt. Was he a better football player than Bradshaw?-maybe. Bart Starr won 5 NFL titles with a great supporting cast. He didn't have near the passing skills of many quarterbacks of his or any other era. His playoff record was 9-1. Sometimes the situation you are in dictates the level of team success you are involved in-See Archie Manning, Barry Sanders, Dick Butkus, Gale Sayers, Earl Campbell, and yes-Dan Marino.
Putting together a set of 61 Fleer Basketball PSA 7 or better.
Trade references: T,Raf12,Coach Vinny,Iceman,McDee2,Lantz,JSA