<< <i>Bradshaw had a great overall team. A tremendous defense to take pressure off the offense and a great RB to offset the opposing team's focus on the passing game. But what's more, I can't help but be amazed by all the crazy and amazing and freakish catches that occurred with Swann/Stallworth/Harris in Bradshaw's highlights. And still he could barely throw for a 50% completion rate. >>
Agreed 100%.
Bradshaw spent about five years as a very mediocre QB before he had the influx of skill position talent. His teams won with a mix from him and the skill position players...but was carried by the defense. He certainly had a great ability to throw downfield, and he was a good QB, but not on par with the other greats.
1. Joe Montana 2. Otto Graham 3. Johnny Unitas 4. Peyton Manning 5. Tom Brady 6. Dan Marino 7. Drew Brees 8. John Elway 9. Dan Fouts 10. Brett Favre Honorable mention - Arnie Herber
<< <i>If Marino isn't in the top 5, then the list if flawed.
Greg M. >>
Greg, what's up brother! lol
Well, I have him #6 on my list with all things considered. Now if we are ranking greatest pure passers of all-time, it's probably a coin flip between Marino and Peyton at #1/#2.
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>#1 we had a JASP sighting. Welcome back Jason.
Here is my list
1. Joe Montana 2. Otto Graham 3. Johnny Unitas 4. Peyton Manning 5. Tom Brady 6. Dan Marino 7. Drew Brees 8. John Elway 9. Dan Fouts 10. Brett Favre Honorable mention - Arnie Herber >>
LOL..It's certainly been awhile man...Subject like this always calls my name.
Brees is definitely climbing my list. Thought he might make my top 10, but just missed. Not ready to put him with the Manning's and Brady's of today just yet. Can't really put my finger on a reason, I mean his numbers speak for themselves. Maybe just need a few more seasons from him to nudge me.
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>If Marino isn't in the top 5, then the list if flawed.
Greg M. >>
Greg, what's up brother! lol
Well, I have him #6 on my list with all things considered. Now if we are ranking greatest pure passers of all-time, it's probably a coin flip between Marino and Peyton at #1/#2. >>
Jason,
Good to hear from you! How is life post HOF rc set been treating you?
It would be tough for me to bump one of the top 5 from your list for Marino, however what most people don't realize is that Marino destroyed nearly every passing mark while playing on some pretty awful teams. Minus Marino, the Dolphins would have been lucky to have won 6 games from the late 80's to the late 90's. He played for a head coach (Shula) who should have retired after they lost the SB in 1985 and then for Jimmy Johnson who completely gutted the team and has indirectly resulted in the scrap heap that has been the Miami Dolphins since Marino retired.
If Marino had a decent cast surrounding him, he would have won several Super Bowls.
Rgs,
Greg M.
Collecting vintage auto'd fb cards and Dan Marino cards!!
Marino doesnt deserve to be in the top 10 because he didnt win anything. You have to perform well in the big games in order to be considered one of the greatest. At least when it comes to QB's.
<< <i>Bradshaw had a great overall team. A tremendous defense to take pressure off the offense and a great RB to offset the opposing team's focus on the passing game. But what's more, I can't help but be amazed by all the crazy and amazing and freakish catches that occurred with Swann/Stallworth/Harris in Bradshaw's highlights. And still he could barely throw for a 50% completion rate. >>
Agreed 100%.
He certainly had a great ability to throw downfield, and he was a good QB, but not on par with the other greats. >>
Disagreed. His MVP awards proves otherwise. Great defenses alone usually doesnt win championships. This year the Steelers are sitting home and had the #1 rated defense in the NFL.
<< <i>Marino doesnt deserve to be in the top 10 because he didnt win anything. You have to perform well in the big games in order to be considered one of the greatest. At least when it comes to QB's. >>
There are 20+ other positions other than QB on a football team, so why does a team failing to win a SB fall completely on the shoulders of a QB?
Rgs,
Greg M.
Collecting vintage auto'd fb cards and Dan Marino cards!!
<< <i>Marino doesnt deserve to be in the top 10 because he didnt win anything. You have to perform well in the big games in order to be considered one of the greatest. At least when it comes to QB's. >>
There are 20+ other positions other than QB on a football team, so why does a team failing to win a SB fall completely on the shoulders of a QB?
Rgs,
Greg M. >>
Marino played on great teams. One year they creamed a Bears team that went 18-1. Marino was a failure in big games.
<< <i>Marino doesnt deserve to be in the top 10 because he didnt win anything. You have to perform well in the big games in order to be considered one of the greatest. At least when it comes to QB's. >>
There are 20+ other positions other than QB on a football team, so why does a team failing to win a SB fall completely on the shoulders of a QB?
Rgs,
Greg M. >>
Marino played on great teams. One year they creamed a Bears team that went 18-1. Marino was a failure in big games. >>
He played on 2 great teams - 1984 and 1985. Go back and check how many Dolphins players, who played during Marino's career, made the pro bowl and hall of fame (only HOFer is Dwight Stephenson who retired after 1987 season). That should give you an indication of the talent that surrounded him.
Rgs,
Greg M.
Collecting vintage auto'd fb cards and Dan Marino cards!!
<< <i>Marino doesnt deserve to be in the top 10 because he didnt win anything. You have to perform well in the big games in order to be considered one of the greatest. At least when it comes to QB's. >>
There are 20+ other positions other than QB on a football team, so why does a team failing to win a SB fall completely on the shoulders of a QB?
Rgs,
Greg M. >>
Marino played on great teams. One year they creamed a Bears team that went 18-1. Marino was a failure in big games. >>
He played on 2 great teams - 1984 and 1985. Go back and check how many Dolphins players, who played during Marino's career, made the pro bowl and hall of fame (only HOFer is Dwight Stephenson who retired after 1987 season). That should give you an indication of the talent that surrounded him.
Rgs,
Greg M. >>
Well he certainly had alot more opportunities than Barry Sanders or Walter Payton. During Marino's career, the Dolphins went to the playoffs 10 times.
<< <i>Bradshaw had a great overall team. A tremendous defense to take pressure off the offense and a great RB to offset the opposing team's focus on the passing game. But what's more, I can't help but be amazed by all the crazy and amazing and freakish catches that occurred with Swann/Stallworth/Harris in Bradshaw's highlights. And still he could barely throw for a 50% completion rate. >>
Agreed 100%.
He certainly had a great ability to throw downfield, and he was a good QB, but not on par with the other greats. >>
Disagreed. His MVP awards proves otherwise. Great defenses alone usually doesnt win championships. This year the Steelers are sitting home and had the #1 rated defense in the NFL. >>
His MPS's don't prove anything.
So Bradshaw is the fifth best QB of all-time, yet, his replacements during his days produced just as good a record as a starting QB for the Steelers, and just as good as passing performances...and he was even benched for a period of time during a Super Bowl record.
Of course it takes an excellent well rounded team to win a Super Bowl or be a Super Bowl caliber team. Only an idiot would give all the credit or blame to a QB for not winning a Super Bowl.
<< <i>Marino doesnt deserve to be in the top 10 because he didnt win anything. You have to perform well in the big games in order to be considered one of the greatest. At least when it comes to QB's. >>
There are 20+ other positions other than QB on a football team, so why does a team failing to win a SB fall completely on the shoulders of a QB?
Rgs,
Greg M. >>
Marino played on great teams. One year they creamed a Bears team that went 18-1. Marino was a failure in big games. >>
He played on 2 great teams - 1984 and 1985. Go back and check how many Dolphins players, who played during Marino's career, made the pro bowl and hall of fame (only HOFer is Dwight Stephenson who retired after 1987 season). That should give you an indication of the talent that surrounded him.
Rgs,
Greg M. >>
Well he certainly had alot more opportunities than Barry Sanders or Walter Payton. During Marino's career, the Dolphins went to the playoffs 10 times. >>
Making the playoffs doesn't mean that he played on great teams. If it wasn't for Marino, they would have had 1/4 of the playoff appearances. He had no running game and generally no defense - yet the team made the playoff 10 times which proves my point of how great a QB he was.
Greg M.
Collecting vintage auto'd fb cards and Dan Marino cards!!
<< <i>Marino doesnt deserve to be in the top 10 because he didnt win anything. You have to perform well in the big games in order to be considered one of the greatest. At least when it comes to QB's. >>
There are 20+ other positions other than QB on a football team, so why does a team failing to win a SB fall completely on the shoulders of a QB?
Rgs,
Greg M. >>
Marino played on great teams. One year they creamed a Bears team that went 18-1. Marino was a failure in big games. >>
He played on 2 great teams - 1984 and 1985. Go back and check how many Dolphins players, who played during Marino's career, made the pro bowl and hall of fame (only HOFer is Dwight Stephenson who retired after 1987 season). That should give you an indication of the talent that surrounded him.
Rgs,
Greg M. >>
Well he certainly had alot more opportunities than Barry Sanders or Walter Payton. During Marino's career, the Dolphins went to the playoffs 10 times. >>
Making the playoffs doesn't mean that he played on great teams. If it wasn't for Marino, they would have had 1/4 of the playoff appearances. He had no running game and generally no defense - yet the team made the playoff 10 times which proves my point of how great a QB he was.
Greg M. >>
Wrong. There were years when the dolphins had top rated defenses. So you say it was because of Marino the dolphins made the playoffs, but was NOT his fault that he lost in the playoffs? Talk about a double standard lol.
<< <i>Bradshaw had a great overall team. A tremendous defense to take pressure off the offense and a great RB to offset the opposing team's focus on the passing game. But what's more, I can't help but be amazed by all the crazy and amazing and freakish catches that occurred with Swann/Stallworth/Harris in Bradshaw's highlights. And still he could barely throw for a 50% completion rate. >>
Agreed 100%.
He certainly had a great ability to throw downfield, and he was a good QB, but not on par with the other greats. >>
Disagreed. His MVP awards proves otherwise. Great defenses alone usually doesnt win championships. This year the Steelers are sitting home and had the #1 rated defense in the NFL. >>
His MPS's don't prove anything.
So Bradshaw is the fifth best QB of all-time, yet, his replacements during his days produced just as good a record as a starting QB for the Steelers, and just as good as passing performances...and he was even benched for a period of time during a Super Bowl record.
Show me some single game or season awards by the replacements, and I will agree with you. The year Brady was injured the pats went 11-5. Does that mean his replacements were just as good? LOL
<< <i>Marino doesnt deserve to be in the top 10 because he didnt win anything. You have to perform well in the big games in order to be considered one of the greatest. At least when it comes to QB's. >>
There are 20+ other positions other than QB on a football team, so why does a team failing to win a SB fall completely on the shoulders of a QB?
Rgs,
Greg M. >>
Marino played on great teams. One year they creamed a Bears team that went 18-1. Marino was a failure in big games. >>
He played on 2 great teams - 1984 and 1985. Go back and check how many Dolphins players, who played during Marino's career, made the pro bowl and hall of fame (only HOFer is Dwight Stephenson who retired after 1987 season). That should give you an indication of the talent that surrounded him.
Rgs,
Greg M. >>
Well he certainly had alot more opportunities than Barry Sanders or Walter Payton. During Marino's career, the Dolphins went to the playoffs 10 times. >>
Making the playoffs doesn't mean that he played on great teams. If it wasn't for Marino, they would have had 1/4 of the playoff appearances. He had no running game and generally no defense - yet the team made the playoff 10 times which proves my point of how great a QB he was.
Greg M. >>
Wrong. There were years when the dolphins had top rated defenses. So you say it was because of Marino the dolphins made the playoffs, but was NOT his fault that he lost in the playoffs? Talk about a double standard lol. >>
Dude - check your stats because you have no idea what you're talking about. Between 1983 and 1999 (Marino's playing years) - a span of 17 years, their defense finished higher than 10th in total points allowed only 4 times (83, 84, 90 and 98). Of the remaining 13 years, they finished in the bottom half of the league in points allowed 10 times. Should I even go into the rushing stats?
Rgs,
Greg M.
Collecting vintage auto'd fb cards and Dan Marino cards!!
No, it doesn't mean that about Brady. Bradshaw's replacements had the same winning percentage in his stead.
Yup, NE went 10-5 in Brady's absence that year. Brady went 1-0 that year.
The year before that they went 16-0. Then they went 10-6, then 14-2. That is not the same as in Bradshaw's case.
Brady's replacement had an 89 QB rating...not bad. The year before Brady's was 117, 96, then 111.
Yeah, not the same case as again.
In a thread a couple years back, I detailed yearly Bradshaw's five years of being average or below. It wasn't until Harris and the running game, then Swann and Stallworth came, where he actually become above average.
You want a single game award that Bradshaw's repalcements earned? Ok, the award was being the starting QB of an NFL team over a benched Bradshaw.
Your responses aren't worthy of a drawn out debate, sorry. Bradshaw simply was not as good as you think. Maybe later I'll post some info for you, maybe not.
<< <i>Marino doesnt deserve to be in the top 10 because he didnt win anything. You have to perform well in the big games in order to be considered one of the greatest. At least when it comes to QB's. >>
There are 20+ other positions other than QB on a football team, so why does a team failing to win a SB fall completely on the shoulders of a QB?
Rgs,
Greg M. >>
Marino played on great teams. One year they creamed a Bears team that went 18-1. Marino was a failure in big games. >>
He played on 2 great teams - 1984 and 1985. Go back and check how many Dolphins players, who played during Marino's career, made the pro bowl and hall of fame (only HOFer is Dwight Stephenson who retired after 1987 season). That should give you an indication of the talent that surrounded him.
Rgs,
Greg M. >>
Well he certainly had alot more opportunities than Barry Sanders or Walter Payton. During Marino's career, the Dolphins went to the playoffs 10 times. >>
Making the playoffs doesn't mean that he played on great teams. If it wasn't for Marino, they would have had 1/4 of the playoff appearances. He had no running game and generally no defense - yet the team made the playoff 10 times which proves my point of how great a QB he was.
Greg M. >>
Wrong. There were years when the dolphins had top rated defenses. So you say it was because of Marino the dolphins made the playoffs, but was NOT his fault that he lost in the playoffs? Talk about a double standard lol. >>
Dude - check your stats because you have no idea what you're talking about. Between 1983 and 1999 (Marino's playing years) - a span of 17 years, their defense finished higher than 10th in total points allowed only 4 times (83, 84, 90 and 98). Of the remaining 13 years, they finished in the bottom half of the league in points allowed 10 times. Should I even go into the rushing stats?
Rgs,
Greg M. >>
Actually it was five years, 83, 84, 90, 95, and 98. And two of those years they had the #1 rated defense.
<< <i>No, it doesn't mean that about Brady. Bradshaw's replacements had the same winning percentage in his stead.
Yup, NE went 10-5 in Brady's absence that year. Brady went 1-0 that year.
The year before that they went 16-0. Then they went 10-6, then 14-2. That is not the same as in Bradshaw's case.
Brady's replacement had an 89 QB rating...not bad. The year before Brady's was 117, 96, then 111.
Yeah, not the same case as again.
In a thread a couple years back, I detailed yearly Bradshaw's five years of being average or below. It wasn't until Harris and the running game, then Swann and Stallworth came, where he actually become above average.
You want a single game award that Bradshaw's repalcements earned? Ok, the award was being the starting QB of an NFL team over a benched Bradshaw.
Your responses aren't worthy of a drawn out debate, sorry. Bradshaw simply was not as good as you think. Maybe later I'll post some info for you, maybe not. >>
Nonsense, its easier to have higher qb ratings if they are handing the ball off most the time. The replacements did not have games with high passing yards. The steelers did not become a dominant passing team until the late 70's. Those were the years Bradshaw won his multiple MVP awards. If Bradshaw's replacements were any good, they wouldve had good careers with other teams.
<< <i>Marino doesnt deserve to be in the top 10 because he didnt win anything. You have to perform well in the big games in order to be considered one of the greatest. At least when it comes to QB's. >>
There are 20+ other positions other than QB on a football team, so why does a team failing to win a SB fall completely on the shoulders of a QB?
Rgs,
Greg M. >>
Marino played on great teams. One year they creamed a Bears team that went 18-1. Marino was a failure in big games. >>
He played on 2 great teams - 1984 and 1985. Go back and check how many Dolphins players, who played during Marino's career, made the pro bowl and hall of fame (only HOFer is Dwight Stephenson who retired after 1987 season). That should give you an indication of the talent that surrounded him.
Rgs,
Greg M. >>
Well he certainly had alot more opportunities than Barry Sanders or Walter Payton. During Marino's career, the Dolphins went to the playoffs 10 times. >>
Making the playoffs doesn't mean that he played on great teams. If it wasn't for Marino, they would have had 1/4 of the playoff appearances. He had no running game and generally no defense - yet the team made the playoff 10 times which proves my point of how great a QB he was.
Greg M. >>
Wrong. There were years when the dolphins had top rated defenses. So you say it was because of Marino the dolphins made the playoffs, but was NOT his fault that he lost in the playoffs? Talk about a double standard lol. >>
Dude - check your stats because you have no idea what you're talking about. Between 1983 and 1999 (Marino's playing years) - a span of 17 years, their defense finished higher than 10th in total points allowed only 4 times (83, 84, 90 and 98). Of the remaining 13 years, they finished in the bottom half of the league in points allowed 10 times. Should I even go into the rushing stats?
Rgs,
Greg M. >>
Actually it was five years, 83, 84, 90, 95, and 98. And two of those years they had the #1 rated defense.
Next. >>
No - they finished HIGHER than 10th four times. In 1995, they finished in 10th place overall.
I still don't understand your point. Are you trying to argue that Marino played on great teams and under-performed in the playoffs? If so, that is a losing argument.
Greg M.
Collecting vintage auto'd fb cards and Dan Marino cards!!
In 1976, Bradshaw went 4-4 as the Steelers starting QB, with a 65.4 rating In 1976, Mike Kruczek went 6-0 as the Steelers starting QB, with a 74.5 rating
In 1974 Bradshaw went 5-2 with a 55.2 rating. In 1974 Joe Gilliam went 4-1-1 with a 55.4 rating
Those are TWO different replacement level QB's that weren't any good, that when playing with the same set of teammates as Bradshaw, AND in a similar amount of games, did better W/L and passing performance wise!
You have him ranked as the third best QB ever, meaning that there are only TWO QB's in the history of the game that could do better than him.................................... I just didn't realize that those two were named Kruczek and Gilliam! LMFAO!!! LOL
On top of that, Bradshaw had his first five years being a below average QB, and his best rankings in passer rating are 2nd, 4th, 6th, 7th, 7th, and 8th. This, with two HOF receivers who made many acrobatic catches that were mostly THEIR doing, and a HOF running game to ensure that defense's could not focus on him or the passing game.
Sorry, none of that adds up to being the fifth best QB ever, let alone the third!
In 1976, Bradshaw went 4-4 as the Steelers starting QB, with a 65.4 rating In 1976, Mike Kruczek went 6-0 as the Steelers starting QB, with a 74.5 rating
In 1974 Bradshaw went 5-2 with a 55.2 rating. In 1974 Joe Gilliam went 4-1-1 with a 55.4 rating
Those are TWO different replacement level QB's that weren't any good, that when playing with the same set of teammates as Bradshaw, AND in a similar amount of games, did better W/L and passing performance wise!
You have him ranked as the third best QB ever, meaning that there are only TWO QB's in the history of the game that could do better than him.................................... I just didn't realize that those two were named Kruczek and Gilliam! LMFAO!!! LOL
He is not worth arguing with.
Rgs,
Greg M.
Collecting vintage auto'd fb cards and Dan Marino cards!!
Terry Bradshaw accounted for only 34 more career TDs than interceptions, good for 50th all-time. Regardless of his 4 Super Bowls, to have this guy anywhere NEAR a top-10 list is just crazy talk. Same with Namath, who was a -40, yes that is NEGATIVE 40, good for dead last of every QB who has ever thrown 139+ TDs.
In 1976, Bradshaw went 4-4 as the Steelers starting QB, with a 65.4 rating In 1976, Mike Kruczek went 6-0 as the Steelers starting QB, with a 74.5 rating
In 1974 Bradshaw went 5-2 with a 55.2 rating. In 1974 Joe Gilliam went 4-1-1 with a 55.4 rating
Those are TWO different replacement level QB's that weren't any good, that when playing with the same set of teammates as Bradshaw, AND in a similar amount of games, did better W/L and passing performance wise!
You have him ranked as the third best QB ever, meaning that there are only TWO QB's in the history of the game that could do better than him.................................... I just didn't realize that those two were named Kruczek and Gilliam! LMFAO!!! LOL
He is not worth arguing with.
Rgs,
Greg M. >>
So, your argument is comparing two of Bradshaw's 14 years he played? Bradshaw played hurt alot during the mid-70's.
<< <i>Terry Bradshaw accounted for only 34 more career TDs than interceptions, good for 50th all-time. Regardless of his 4 Super Bowls, to have this guy anywhere NEAR a top-10 list is just crazy talk. Same with Namath, who was a -40, yes that is NEGATIVE 40, good for dead last of every QB who has ever thrown 139+ TDs. >>
Bradshaw and Namath played in a different era where throwing more interceptions were quite common. They didnt have the rules to protect QB's in those days.
<< <i>Terry Bradshaw accounted for only 34 more career TDs than interceptions, good for 50th all-time. Regardless of his 4 Super Bowls, to have this guy anywhere NEAR a top-10 list is just crazy talk. Same with Namath, who was a -40, yes that is NEGATIVE 40, good for dead last of every QB who has ever thrown 139+ TDs. >>
While there are many reasons not to have Bradshaw or Namath in a top 5 all-time discussion, IMO this is not a good one. You have to take into account the era these players played in, and the rules they played under. Take a look at all of the top QBs from the late 60's early 70's. The average QB threw more INT than TD, this was the norm. So to compare them to players of today, who have different rules they play under to me is not a valid argument.
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
As mentioned earlier, it's impossible to compare QBs from different eras, especially using stats. Today's lowest rating starting QBs would have amongst the best stats in the 60s and early 70s. 1976 is also a bad year to base Bradshaw's replacement value being that they didn't even make it to the SB that year and had two 1000 yard backs. Was there a team in the 70s that won the SB without having a top notch running game? If there was, it was the exception. Off the top of my head...
One could make an argument that almost any QB from the 70s was crap based on stats alone. One could also make an argument that Tony Romo is a top 5 or top 3 QB of all-time when compared to QBs whose careers happened prior to 1980. In baseball, you can measure players from the deadball era using other means such as hits or doubles or OBP. Unfortunately it's more difficult to do so with QBs. Pre-1978 is pretty much the dead ball era of football. Watch a game from that era and you'll see 75% running plays for the most part and then an occassional fly pattern mixed in.
So it's best to compare the best QBs of the pre-1978 era and the QBs from the post-1978 era in separate groups.
<< <i>Terry Bradshaw accounted for only 34 more career TDs than interceptions, good for 50th all-time. Regardless of his 4 Super Bowls, to have this guy anywhere NEAR a top-10 list is just crazy talk. Same with Namath, who was a -40, yes that is NEGATIVE 40, good for dead last of every QB who has ever thrown 139+ TDs. >>
Bradshaw and Namath played in a different era where throwing more interceptions were quite common. They didnt have the rules to protect QB's in those days. >>
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Marino doesnt deserve to be in the top 10 because he didnt win anything. You have to perform well in the big games in order to be considered one of the greatest. At least when it comes to QB's. >>
There are 20+ other positions other than QB on a football team, so why does a team failing to win a SB fall completely on the shoulders of a QB?
Rgs,
Greg M. >>
Marino played on great teams. One year they creamed a Bears team that went 18-1. Marino was a failure in big games. >>
He played on 2 great teams - 1984 and 1985. Go back and check how many Dolphins players, who played during Marino's career, made the pro bowl and hall of fame (only HOFer is Dwight Stephenson who retired after 1987 season). That should give you an indication of the talent that surrounded him.
Rgs,
Greg M. >>
Well he certainly had alot more opportunities than Barry Sanders or Walter Payton. During Marino's career, the Dolphins went to the playoffs 10 times. >>
Making the playoffs doesn't mean that he played on great teams. If it wasn't for Marino, they would have had 1/4 of the playoff appearances. He had no running game and generally no defense - yet the team made the playoff 10 times which proves my point of how great a QB he was.
Greg M. >>
Wrong. There were years when the dolphins had top rated defenses. So you say it was because of Marino the dolphins made the playoffs, but was NOT his fault that he lost in the playoffs? Talk about a double standard lol. >>
Dude - check your stats because you have no idea what you're talking about. Between 1983 and 1999 (Marino's playing years) - a span of 17 years, their defense finished higher than 10th in total points allowed only 4 times (83, 84, 90 and 98). Of the remaining 13 years, they finished in the bottom half of the league in points allowed 10 times. Should I even go into the rushing stats?
Rgs,
Greg M. >>
Actually it was five years, 83, 84, 90, 95, and 98. And two of those years they had the #1 rated defense.
Next. >>
No - they finished HIGHER than 10th four times. In 1995, they finished in 10th place overall.
Greg M. >>
According to pro football reference.com it was 5 years. Marino played on great teams.
<< <i>Terry Bradshaw accounted for only 34 more career TDs than interceptions, good for 50th all-time. Regardless of his 4 Super Bowls, to have this guy anywhere NEAR a top-10 list is just crazy talk. Same with Namath, who was a -40, yes that is NEGATIVE 40, good for dead last of every QB who has ever thrown 139+ TDs. >>
While there are many reasons not to have Bradshaw or Namath in a top 5 all-time discussion, IMO this is not a good one. You have to take into account the era these players played in, and the rules they played under. Take a look at all of the top QBs from the late 60's early 70's. The average QB threw more INT than TD, this was the norm. So to compare them to players of today, who have different rules they play under to me is not a valid argument. >>
There are 11 players who have a better TD to INT rate that played in the '70s or earlier. Otto Graham is a +83, so I don't think it's that bad of a way to create separation between players. Even in his era and the era that came before him, Bradshaw wasn't a top-5 QB.
I agree with a lot of opinions here....especially Greg M.'s opinion of Marino. While it's hard to say who the greatest was because of the way the game has changed over the years, you can't just keep Marino out of it because he never won a Super Bowl. It's a team sport, and while QB may be the most important player on the team you can't just surround him with nobodys. Think fast and name two receivers other than Duper and Clayton that he through to. Unless you were a big Dolphin or Marino fan back then you won't be able to. Now think fast a name a running back he played with. It's hard to either very quickly without the internet or racking your brain. Why? It's because the rest of the players were forgettable. The bad part about all that is that Duper/Clayton weren't with him very long....just a few years if I remember correctly.
Now if you think back to the Super Bowls that have been won you'll most likely be able to put a QB/WR together from a team that won. Aikman had Irvin, Joe had Taylor/Rice, and Farve had Sharp and the 11 guys that wore the other teams jerseys on defense.
I was not a Marino fan.....but I do remember the guy was incredible for a long, long time.
<< <i>I agree with a lot of opinions here....especially Greg M.'s opinion of Marino. While it's hard to say who the greatest was because of the way the game has changed over the years, you can't just keep Marino out of it because he never won a Super Bowl. It's a team sport, and while QB may be the most important player on the team you can't just surround him with nobodys. Think fast and name two receivers other than Duper and Clayton that he through to. Unless you were a big Dolphin or Marino fan back then you won't be able to. Now think fast a name a running back he played with. It's hard to either very quickly without the internet or racking your brain. Why? It's because the rest of the players were forgettable. The bad part about all that is that Duper/Clayton weren't with him very long....just a few years if I remember correctly.
Now if you think back to the Super Bowls that have been won you'll most likely be able to put a QB/WR together from a team that won. Aikman had Irvin, Joe had Taylor/Rice, and Farve had Sharp and the 11 guys that wore the other teams jerseys on defense.
I was not a Marino fan.....but I do remember the guy was incredible for a long, long time. >>
This is with no internet search.
Tony Nathan, Troy Strafford (gotta love the super rookie card) Lorenzo Hempton
Jimmy Cefalo Nat Moore Bruce Hardy Keith Jackson
actually I think I named three TE instead of all WR.
Yeah, I racked my brain for a good few minutes for just seven guys. You are right, nearly all forgettable.
<< <i>Terry Bradshaw accounted for only 34 more career TDs than interceptions, good for 50th all-time. Regardless of his 4 Super Bowls, to have this guy anywhere NEAR a top-10 list is just crazy talk. Same with Namath, who was a -40, yes that is NEGATIVE 40, good for dead last of every QB who has ever thrown 139+ TDs. >>
While there are many reasons not to have Bradshaw or Namath in a top 5 all-time discussion, IMO this is not a good one. You have to take into account the era these players played in, and the rules they played under. Take a look at all of the top QBs from the late 60's early 70's. The average QB threw more INT than TD, this was the norm. So to compare them to players of today, who have different rules they play under to me is not a valid argument. >>
There are 11 players who have a better TD to INT rate that played in the '70s or earlier. Otto Graham is a +83, so I don't think it's that bad of a way to create separation between players. Even in his era and the era that came before him, Bradshaw wasn't a top-5 QB. >>
Again, Otto Graham played in, not only a different area, but much of his career in the AAFC. Now does that mean he's a terrible QB? of course not. In fact, argument can be fairly made that he is a top 5 QB of all-time himself. From 65-75, how many QBs in the NFL had better INT/TD ratios than Namath and Bradshaw? While you are looking, also note the Yards per completion of any QBs you meet that qualification. Because guys like Namath and Bradshaw in that era were on run, run, run, post pattern deep pass offenses. Ken Anderson was really the first "west coast" style QB. He will be on your list of excellent QB/INT ratios from that era, but his you will notice his yards per completion is also much lower. IMO, you have to compare players, particularly QBs vs. what others in that same era did on the field. How much better/dominant they were vs. their peers should assist you in making comparisons to QBs of today or from the 40s/50s.
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>Terry Bradshaw accounted for only 34 more career TDs than interceptions, good for 50th all-time. Regardless of his 4 Super Bowls, to have this guy anywhere NEAR a top-10 list is just crazy talk. Same with Namath, who was a -40, yes that is NEGATIVE 40, good for dead last of every QB who has ever thrown 139+ TDs. >>
While there are many reasons not to have Bradshaw or Namath in a top 5 all-time discussion, IMO this is not a good one. You have to take into account the era these players played in, and the rules they played under. Take a look at all of the top QBs from the late 60's early 70's. The average QB threw more INT than TD, this was the norm. So to compare them to players of today, who have different rules they play under to me is not a valid argument. >>
There are 11 players who have a better TD to INT rate that played in the '70s or earlier. Otto Graham is a +83, so I don't think it's that bad of a way to create separation between players. Even in his era and the era that came before him, Bradshaw wasn't a top-5 QB. >>
Again, Otto Graham played in, not only a different area, but much of his career in the AAFC. Now does that mean he's a terrible QB? of course not. In fact, argument can be fairly made that he is a top 5 QB of all-time himself. From 65-75, how many QBs in the NFL had better INT/TD ratios than Namath and Bradshaw? While you are looking, also note the Yards per attempt of any QBs you meet that qualification. Because guys like Namath and Bradshaw in that era were on run, run, run, post pattern deep pass offenses. Ken Anderson was really the first "west coast" style QB. He will be on your list of excellent QB/INT ratios from that era, but his you will notice his yards per attempt is also much lower. IMO, you have to compare players, particularly QBs vs. what others in that same era did on the field. How much better/dominant they were vs. their peers should assist you in making comparisons to QBs of today or from the 40s/50s. >>
I don't have the focus to do all that work. Why not just tell me why YOU don't think Bradshaw is a top-10 all-time QB. It can't be that much different than my reasoning. He simply wasn't as good as a lot of other great QBs. He played for a behemoth dynasty and his team made him look great. I mean, the pass to Harris is one of the craziest things ever and is a microcosm of Bradshaw's career... luck/timing.
<< <i> I don't have the focus to do all that work. Why not just tell me why YOU don't think Bradshaw is a top-10 all-time QB. It can't be that much different than my reasoning. He simply wasn't as good as a lot of other great QBs. He played for a behemoth dynasty and his team made him look great. I mean, the pass to Harris is one of the craziest things ever and is a microcosm of Bradshaw's career... luck/timing. >>
My opinion there are simply (more than) 10 QBs in NFL Hisotry I think played a better overall game. Bradshaw had a cannon of an arm for sure and had a knack of making big plays in important games at important moments. But his lack of good decision making the majority of his career, combined with his inaccuracy, particularly with passes under 20 yards keeps him around 15-ish on my list of all-time greats.
My initial comment was simply that it isn't a valid argument to say that he isn't a top 10 QB due to INT/TD ration. Simply because the average INT/TD ratio of all QBs during his career was either similar to or worse than Bradshaws. Plenty of other reasons (some of which i just pointed out) that he isn't in my top 10.
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i> I don't have the focus to do all that work. Why not just tell me why YOU don't think Bradshaw is a top-10 all-time QB. It can't be that much different than my reasoning. He simply wasn't as good as a lot of other great QBs. He played for a behemoth dynasty and his team made him look great. I mean, the pass to Harris is one of the craziest things ever and is a microcosm of Bradshaw's career... luck/timing. >>
My opinion there are simply (more than) 10 QBs in NFL Hisotry I think played a better overall game. Bradshaw had a cannon of an arm for sure and had a knack of making big plays in important games at important moments. But his lack of good decision making the majority of his career, combined with his inaccuracy, particularly with passes under 20 yards keeps him around 15-ish on my list of all-time greats.
My initial comment was simply that it isn't a valid argument to say that he isn't a top 10 QB due to INT/TD ration. Simply because the average INT/TD ratio of all QBs during his career was either similar to or worse than Bradshaws. Plenty of other reasons (some of which i just pointed out) that he isn't in my top 10. >>
His terrible TD/INT ratio certainly doesn't help his case as a top-ten QB. I get what you are saying, but I'm fairly confident in saying many QBs of his era, and before it, had better ratios than that. It's a piece of the puzzle, but certainly not the main reason he isn't a top-ten guy.
His terrible TD/INT ratio certainly doesn't help his case as a top-ten QB. I get what you are saying, but I'm fairly confident in saying many QBs of his era, and before it, had better ratios than that. It's a piece of the puzzle, but certainly not the main reason he isn't a top-ten guy. >>
I'd be interested in seeing this list of guys ahead of him from before or during his era. Maybe a project for me tomorrow.
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
List of QBs who threw for at least 75 TDs during the 1970s and how they compare to Bradshaw.
Terry Bradshaw- 147 TD- 163 INT
Frank Tarkenton- 156 TD- 132 INT Roger Staubach- 152 TD- 107 INT Ken Stabler- 150 TD- 143 INT Jim Hart- 145 TD- 145 INT Bob Griese- 140 TD- 118 INT Ken Anderson 125 TD- 101 INT Craig Morton- 110 TD- 121 INT Billy Kilmer- 109 TD- 92 INT John Hadl- 101 TD- 123 INT Dan Pastorini- 96 TD- 139 INT Roman Gabriel- 92 TD- 74 INT Joe Ferguson- 92 TD- 94 INT Steve Grogan- 89 TD- 102 INT Archie Manning-87 TD- 123 INT Jim Plunkett- 85 TD- 118 INT Dan Fouts- 82 TD- 101 INT Brian Sipe- 79 TD- 79 INT Bert Jones- 78 TD- 56 INT Joe Namath- 76 TD- 116 INT
Just a few more INTs in the 70s than we have today...lol
On my all-time great QB list, Bradshaw falls below both Staubach and Tarkenton. Above Stabler, and the rest on this list.
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Nice work Jason. Yeah, those 1970's guys sure threw a lot of picks. Different rules, different era. Those QB's took an absolute beating too while standing in the pocket. Todays QB's have no idea how watered down the violent hits are, as compared to 30+ years ago.
The Marino debate: the QB that I think compares to Marino the most is Dan Fouts. Another pocket passer that threw it downfield and stood tough in the pocket. Both set records for yards in a season, Marino broke Fout's record I believe. Both were great competitors that just fell a little short of winning any titles.
It's kind of hard to believe I don't see Bart Starr on anyone's list. He was only 9-1 in playoff games with a playoff QB rating of 104 (in an era when a rating over 75 was considered great). He lead the Packers to five NFL titles, won one MVP award, lead the NFL in passing three times, and two Super Bowl MVP's. I'm pretty sure the only other QB on some of the above lists to accomplish all of this might be only Joe Montana.
Tony Nathan, Troy Strafford (gotta love the super rookie card) Lorenzo Hempton
Jimmy Cefalo Nat Moore Bruce Hardy Keith Jackson
actually I think I named three TE instead of all WR.
Yeah, I racked my brain for a good few minutes for just seven guys. You are right, nearly all forgettable."
Really? Those were the names that popped right into your head as being linked to Marino?
If that post was to prove you have a very good memory congrats because you do. But I think you've also helped in proving that Marino was surrounded by a lack of talent in Miami during his career. If I have rookie cards of any of those players I'm 100% sure they are sitting in a box of commons.
<< <i>Nice work Jason. Yeah, those 1970's guys sure threw a lot of picks. Different rules, different era. Those QB's took an absolute beating too while standing in the pocket. Todays QB's have no idea how watered down the violent hits are, as compared to 30+ years ago.
The Marino debate: the QB that I think compares to Marino the most is Dan Fouts. Another pocket passer that threw it downfield and stood tough in the pocket. Both set records for yards in a season, Marino broke Fout's record I believe. Both were great competitors that just fell a little short of winning any titles.
It's kind of hard to believe I don't see Bart Starr on anyone's list. He was only 9-1 in playoff games with a playoff QB rating of 104 (in an era when a rating over 75 was considered great). He lead the Packers to five NFL titles, won one MVP award, lead the NFL in passing three times, and two Super Bowl MVP's. I'm pretty sure the only other QB on some of the above lists to accomplish all of this might be only Joe Montana. >>
Agreed, I put Starr very high on my list. Ahead of both Marino and Fouts. One thing that the Bradshaw/steelers haters never bother to mention is his playoff stats. Besides his 2 super bowl MVP's, he threw 30 TD passes, the most in history at the time of his retirement. His 83.0 rating is very good since most of his playoff games were in the difficult passing decade of the 70's. Bradshaw was 14-5 in playoff games, a record until Montana surpassed him at 16-7.
In 1978 the Blount rule was put in effect(no contact after 5 yards). In his next 6 playoff games after the rule change, Bradshaw had QB ratings of 95.8, 89.7, 119.2, 111.0, 90.8, and 101.9.
<< <i>List of QBs who threw for at least 75 TDs during the 1970s and how they compare to Bradshaw.
Terry Bradshaw- 147 TD- 163 INT
Frank Tarkenton- 156 TD- 132 INT Roger Staubach- 152 TD- 107 INT Ken Stabler- 150 TD- 143 INT Jim Hart- 145 TD- 145 INT Bob Griese- 140 TD- 118 INT Ken Anderson 125 TD- 101 INT Craig Morton- 110 TD- 121 INT Billy Kilmer- 109 TD- 92 INT John Hadl- 101 TD- 123 INT Dan Pastorini- 96 TD- 139 INT Roman Gabriel- 92 TD- 74 INT Joe Ferguson- 92 TD- 94 INT Steve Grogan- 89 TD- 102 INT Archie Manning-87 TD- 123 INT Jim Plunkett- 85 TD- 118 INT Dan Fouts- 82 TD- 101 INT Brian Sipe- 79 TD- 79 INT Bert Jones- 78 TD- 56 INT Joe Namath- 76 TD- 116 INT >>
So on that list there are about 12 guys from his era with a better TD/INT ratio. He did have a cannon for an arm, I'll give him that. Bradshaw probably had the best supporting cast in the history of NFL QB's, maybe only Troy Aikman coming close...but at least Aikman was never ranked so low among his peers as Bradshaw was. I think sportscardtheory said it best that the Franco Harris immaculate reception was a microcosm of Bradshaw's career, luck/timing.
Despite having the best offensive cast in the league at the time, Bradshaw only managed to crack the top five in the league in passer rating just two times. With the best offensive supporting cast, the best defensive supporting cast, and him himself being pretty good, that is why they won. He simply isn't top five good, or top ten. He may get top 25, as his deep ball ability gives him a very useful attribute.
PS, there is a factual error from a poster above. Bradshaw never threw 30 TD passes, his high was 28. And that was not the most all time at that time. Unitas had 32 in 1959, which is one of many seasons by QB's that were more than the 28 at that point in time.
<< <i>List of QBs who threw for at least 75 TDs during the 1970s and how they compare to Bradshaw.
Terry Bradshaw- 147 TD- 163 INT
Frank Tarkenton- 156 TD- 132 INT Roger Staubach- 152 TD- 107 INT Ken Stabler- 150 TD- 143 INT Jim Hart- 145 TD- 145 INT Bob Griese- 140 TD- 118 INT Ken Anderson 125 TD- 101 INT Craig Morton- 110 TD- 121 INT Billy Kilmer- 109 TD- 92 INT John Hadl- 101 TD- 123 INT Dan Pastorini- 96 TD- 139 INT Roman Gabriel- 92 TD- 74 INT Joe Ferguson- 92 TD- 94 INT Steve Grogan- 89 TD- 102 INT Archie Manning-87 TD- 123 INT Jim Plunkett- 85 TD- 118 INT Dan Fouts- 82 TD- 101 INT Brian Sipe- 79 TD- 79 INT Bert Jones- 78 TD- 56 INT Joe Namath- 76 TD- 116 INT >>
So on that list there are about 12 guys from his era with a better TD/INT ratio. He did have a cannon for an arm, I'll give him that. Bradshaw probably had the best supporting cast in the history of NFL QB's, maybe only Troy Aikman coming close...but at least Aikman was never ranked so low among his peers as Bradshaw was. I think sportscardtheory said it best that the Franco Harris immaculate reception was a microcosm of Bradshaw's career, luck/timing.
Despite having the best offensive cast in the league at the time, Bradshaw only managed to crack the top five in the league in passer rating just two times. With the best offensive supporting cast, the best defensive supporting cast, and him himself being pretty good, that is why they won. He simply isn't top five good, or top ten. He may get top 25, as his deep ball ability gives him a very useful attribute.
PS, there is a factual error from a poster above. Bradshaw never threw 30 TD passes, his high was 28. And that was not the most all time at that time. Unitas had 32 in 1959, which is one of many seasons by QB's that were more than the 28 at that point in time. >>
Not an error. He had 30 playoff TD's. By your posts, its pretty obvious you ignore what a QB does in the big games. The games that count. Thats what really makes a QB great in my opinion. You dont win 4 super bowls and 3 MVP awards because you are lucky. The NFL network has Bradshaw at #12 greatest QB of all-time. Staubach is #11 and the only QB that is ranked ahead of Bradshaw who played in that era.
Super Bowls are very important, and the Pittsburgh Steelers won four of them during the 70's, a congrats are in order for:
Greene, Harris, Swann, Stallworth, among many others. Winning four championships is the mark of a great TEAM.
I have to ask, why would Bradshaw only choose to play so well in Super Bowls, and not in other games?
Did he view the other games as not as important, thus giving a lower level of play or effort in those other games?
Did he realize that had he played as well in the other games (both regular season and earlier playoff rounds), that he would be in MORE Super Bowls?? Thus more chances to show how good he truly is because they would have been in the Super Bowl more?
Or was it more of a case that four games don't tell a whole lot, and it is very likely that four more Super Bowl games could just as easily go the other way for him; some good, some average, some poor....like he exhibited so many other times in pro football games?
If Bradshaw were indeed a 'big game player', by evidence of the 112 Super Bowl QB rating(of which was in LARGE part due to acrobatic play of the wide receivers), then how do you explain his performances in these Six games:
7 TD, 10 INT....and a QB rating of 62.3. Those are his performances in six Conference Championships. Are those not big games? After all, he does realize that winning those get you to the Super Bowl. Is he psychic? Does he already know they will win, so therefore he does not have to play well, and then just save it for the 'big game'?
I would expect a guy who is hailed as a one of the absolute best big game players ever to be able to do better than that in Conference championship games! Wouldn't you?
The reality is that he just happened to have three of his better performances in the Super Bowl(thanks to Swann and Stallworth), which is not much more than a random event that happens all the time in the scheme of a pro athlete's performance. It doesn't make him a big game player and it is not valid evidence that he is more capable of handling the big game than others. If he truly did have a knack for doing extraordinary in big games, then he would have exhibited that trait in the six conference championships.
<< <i> The reality is that he just happened to have three of his better performances in the Super Bowl(thanks to Swann and Stallworth), which is not much more than a random event that happens all the time in the scheme of a pro athlete's performance. It doesn't make him a big game player and it is not valid evidence that he is more capable of handling the big game than others. If he truly did have a knack for doing extraordinary in big games, then he would have exhibited that trait in the six conference championships. >>
If it was a random event, wouldn't you think Tony Romo would accidentally one time play as well in big game as he does in the others?
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>Here's my list
Terry Bradshaw
Big Ben
Neil O'Donnell
Kordell Stewart
Terry Hanratty
Tommy Maddox
Dick Shiner
Joe Gilliam
Cliff Stoudt
David Woodley >>
I see what you did there...
But what about Bubby Brister and Rudy Bukich. >>
How could you forget the Tom Selleck lookalike, Mark Malone?
<< <i>Bradshaw had a great overall team. A tremendous defense to take pressure off the offense and a great RB to offset the opposing team's focus on the passing game. But what's more, I can't help but be amazed by all the crazy and amazing and freakish catches that occurred with Swann/Stallworth/Harris in Bradshaw's highlights. And still he could barely throw for a 50% completion rate. >>
Agreed 100%.
Bradshaw spent about five years as a very mediocre QB before he had the influx of skill position talent. His teams won with a mix from him and the skill position players...but was carried by the defense. He certainly had a great ability to throw downfield, and he was a good QB, but not on par with the other greats.
Montana
Staubach
Elway
Brady
Marino
Greg M.
References:
Onlychild, Ahmanfan, fabfrank, wufdude, jradke, Reese, Jasp, thenavarro
E-Bay id: greg_n_meg
Here is my list
1. Joe Montana
2. Otto Graham
3. Johnny Unitas
4. Peyton Manning
5. Tom Brady
6. Dan Marino
7. Drew Brees
8. John Elway
9. Dan Fouts
10. Brett Favre
Honorable mention - Arnie Herber
<< <i>If Marino isn't in the top 5, then the list if flawed.
Greg M. >>
Greg, what's up brother! lol
Well, I have him #6 on my list with all things considered. Now if we are ranking greatest pure passers of all-time, it's probably a coin flip between Marino and Peyton at #1/#2.
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>#1 we had a JASP sighting. Welcome back Jason.
Here is my list
1. Joe Montana
2. Otto Graham
3. Johnny Unitas
4. Peyton Manning
5. Tom Brady
6. Dan Marino
7. Drew Brees
8. John Elway
9. Dan Fouts
10. Brett Favre
Honorable mention - Arnie Herber >>
LOL..It's certainly been awhile man...Subject like this always calls my name.
Brees is definitely climbing my list. Thought he might make my top 10, but just missed. Not ready to put him with the Manning's and Brady's of today just yet. Can't really put my finger on a reason, I mean his numbers speak for themselves. Maybe just need a few more seasons from him to nudge me.
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
<< <i>If Marino isn't in the top 5, then the list if flawed.
Greg M. >>
Greg, what's up brother! lol
Well, I have him #6 on my list with all things considered. Now if we are ranking greatest pure passers of all-time, it's probably a coin flip between Marino and Peyton at #1/#2. >>
Jason,
Good to hear from you! How is life post HOF rc set been treating you?
It would be tough for me to bump one of the top 5 from your list for Marino, however what most people don't realize is that Marino destroyed nearly every passing mark while playing on some pretty awful teams. Minus Marino, the Dolphins would have been lucky to have won 6 games from the late 80's to the late 90's. He played for a head coach (Shula) who should have retired after they lost the SB in 1985 and then for Jimmy Johnson who completely gutted the team and has indirectly resulted in the scrap heap that has been the Miami Dolphins since Marino retired.
If Marino had a decent cast surrounding him, he would have won several Super Bowls.
Rgs,
Greg M.
References:
Onlychild, Ahmanfan, fabfrank, wufdude, jradke, Reese, Jasp, thenavarro
E-Bay id: greg_n_meg
<< <i>
<< <i>Bradshaw had a great overall team. A tremendous defense to take pressure off the offense and a great RB to offset the opposing team's focus on the passing game. But what's more, I can't help but be amazed by all the crazy and amazing and freakish catches that occurred with Swann/Stallworth/Harris in Bradshaw's highlights. And still he could barely throw for a 50% completion rate. >>
Agreed 100%.
He certainly had a great ability to throw downfield, and he was a good QB, but not on par with the other greats. >>
Disagreed. His MVP awards proves otherwise. Great defenses alone usually doesnt win championships. This year the Steelers are sitting home and had the #1 rated defense in the NFL.
<< <i>Marino doesnt deserve to be in the top 10 because he didnt win anything. You have to perform well in the big games in order to be considered one of the greatest. At least when it comes to QB's. >>
There are 20+ other positions other than QB on a football team, so why does a team failing to win a SB fall completely on the shoulders of a QB?
Rgs,
Greg M.
References:
Onlychild, Ahmanfan, fabfrank, wufdude, jradke, Reese, Jasp, thenavarro
E-Bay id: greg_n_meg
<< <i>
<< <i>Marino doesnt deserve to be in the top 10 because he didnt win anything. You have to perform well in the big games in order to be considered one of the greatest. At least when it comes to QB's. >>
There are 20+ other positions other than QB on a football team, so why does a team failing to win a SB fall completely on the shoulders of a QB?
Rgs,
Greg M. >>
Marino played on great teams. One year they creamed a Bears team that went 18-1. Marino was a failure in big games.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Marino doesnt deserve to be in the top 10 because he didnt win anything. You have to perform well in the big games in order to be considered one of the greatest. At least when it comes to QB's. >>
There are 20+ other positions other than QB on a football team, so why does a team failing to win a SB fall completely on the shoulders of a QB?
Rgs,
Greg M. >>
Marino played on great teams. One year they creamed a Bears team that went 18-1. Marino was a failure in big games. >>
He played on 2 great teams - 1984 and 1985. Go back and check how many Dolphins players, who played during Marino's career, made the pro bowl and hall of fame (only HOFer is Dwight Stephenson who retired after 1987 season). That should give you an indication of the talent that surrounded him.
Rgs,
Greg M.
References:
Onlychild, Ahmanfan, fabfrank, wufdude, jradke, Reese, Jasp, thenavarro
E-Bay id: greg_n_meg
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Marino doesnt deserve to be in the top 10 because he didnt win anything. You have to perform well in the big games in order to be considered one of the greatest. At least when it comes to QB's. >>
There are 20+ other positions other than QB on a football team, so why does a team failing to win a SB fall completely on the shoulders of a QB?
Rgs,
Greg M. >>
Marino played on great teams. One year they creamed a Bears team that went 18-1. Marino was a failure in big games. >>
He played on 2 great teams - 1984 and 1985. Go back and check how many Dolphins players, who played during Marino's career, made the pro bowl and hall of fame (only HOFer is Dwight Stephenson who retired after 1987 season). That should give you an indication of the talent that surrounded him.
Rgs,
Greg M. >>
Well he certainly had alot more opportunities than Barry Sanders or Walter Payton. During Marino's career, the Dolphins went to the playoffs 10 times.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Bradshaw had a great overall team. A tremendous defense to take pressure off the offense and a great RB to offset the opposing team's focus on the passing game. But what's more, I can't help but be amazed by all the crazy and amazing and freakish catches that occurred with Swann/Stallworth/Harris in Bradshaw's highlights. And still he could barely throw for a 50% completion rate. >>
Agreed 100%.
He certainly had a great ability to throw downfield, and he was a good QB, but not on par with the other greats. >>
Disagreed. His MVP awards proves otherwise. Great defenses alone usually doesnt win championships. This year the Steelers are sitting home and had the #1 rated defense in the NFL. >>
His MPS's don't prove anything.
So Bradshaw is the fifth best QB of all-time, yet, his replacements during his days produced just as good a record as a starting QB for the Steelers, and just as good as passing performances...and he was even benched for a period of time during a Super Bowl record.
Of course it takes an excellent well rounded team to win a Super Bowl or be a Super Bowl caliber team. Only an idiot would give all the credit or blame to a QB for not winning a Super Bowl.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Marino doesnt deserve to be in the top 10 because he didnt win anything. You have to perform well in the big games in order to be considered one of the greatest. At least when it comes to QB's. >>
There are 20+ other positions other than QB on a football team, so why does a team failing to win a SB fall completely on the shoulders of a QB?
Rgs,
Greg M. >>
Marino played on great teams. One year they creamed a Bears team that went 18-1. Marino was a failure in big games. >>
He played on 2 great teams - 1984 and 1985. Go back and check how many Dolphins players, who played during Marino's career, made the pro bowl and hall of fame (only HOFer is Dwight Stephenson who retired after 1987 season). That should give you an indication of the talent that surrounded him.
Rgs,
Greg M. >>
Well he certainly had alot more opportunities than Barry Sanders or Walter Payton. During Marino's career, the Dolphins went to the playoffs 10 times. >>
Making the playoffs doesn't mean that he played on great teams. If it wasn't for Marino, they would have had 1/4 of the playoff appearances. He had no running game and generally no defense - yet the team made the playoff 10 times which proves my point of how great a QB he was.
Greg M.
References:
Onlychild, Ahmanfan, fabfrank, wufdude, jradke, Reese, Jasp, thenavarro
E-Bay id: greg_n_meg
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Marino doesnt deserve to be in the top 10 because he didnt win anything. You have to perform well in the big games in order to be considered one of the greatest. At least when it comes to QB's. >>
There are 20+ other positions other than QB on a football team, so why does a team failing to win a SB fall completely on the shoulders of a QB?
Rgs,
Greg M. >>
Marino played on great teams. One year they creamed a Bears team that went 18-1. Marino was a failure in big games. >>
He played on 2 great teams - 1984 and 1985. Go back and check how many Dolphins players, who played during Marino's career, made the pro bowl and hall of fame (only HOFer is Dwight Stephenson who retired after 1987 season). That should give you an indication of the talent that surrounded him.
Rgs,
Greg M. >>
Well he certainly had alot more opportunities than Barry Sanders or Walter Payton. During Marino's career, the Dolphins went to the playoffs 10 times. >>
Making the playoffs doesn't mean that he played on great teams. If it wasn't for Marino, they would have had 1/4 of the playoff appearances. He had no running game and generally no defense - yet the team made the playoff 10 times which proves my point of how great a QB he was.
Greg M. >>
Wrong. There were years when the dolphins had top rated defenses. So you say it was because of Marino the dolphins made the playoffs, but was NOT his fault that he lost in the playoffs? Talk about a double standard lol.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Bradshaw had a great overall team. A tremendous defense to take pressure off the offense and a great RB to offset the opposing team's focus on the passing game. But what's more, I can't help but be amazed by all the crazy and amazing and freakish catches that occurred with Swann/Stallworth/Harris in Bradshaw's highlights. And still he could barely throw for a 50% completion rate. >>
Agreed 100%.
He certainly had a great ability to throw downfield, and he was a good QB, but not on par with the other greats. >>
Disagreed. His MVP awards proves otherwise. Great defenses alone usually doesnt win championships. This year the Steelers are sitting home and had the #1 rated defense in the NFL. >>
His MPS's don't prove anything.
So Bradshaw is the fifth best QB of all-time, yet, his replacements during his days produced just as good a record as a starting QB for the Steelers, and just as good as passing performances...and he was even benched for a period of time during a Super Bowl record.
Show me some single game or season awards by the replacements, and I will agree with you. The year Brady was injured the pats went 11-5. Does that mean his replacements were just as good? LOL
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Marino doesnt deserve to be in the top 10 because he didnt win anything. You have to perform well in the big games in order to be considered one of the greatest. At least when it comes to QB's. >>
There are 20+ other positions other than QB on a football team, so why does a team failing to win a SB fall completely on the shoulders of a QB?
Rgs,
Greg M. >>
Marino played on great teams. One year they creamed a Bears team that went 18-1. Marino was a failure in big games. >>
He played on 2 great teams - 1984 and 1985. Go back and check how many Dolphins players, who played during Marino's career, made the pro bowl and hall of fame (only HOFer is Dwight Stephenson who retired after 1987 season). That should give you an indication of the talent that surrounded him.
Rgs,
Greg M. >>
Well he certainly had alot more opportunities than Barry Sanders or Walter Payton. During Marino's career, the Dolphins went to the playoffs 10 times. >>
Making the playoffs doesn't mean that he played on great teams. If it wasn't for Marino, they would have had 1/4 of the playoff appearances. He had no running game and generally no defense - yet the team made the playoff 10 times which proves my point of how great a QB he was.
Greg M. >>
Wrong. There were years when the dolphins had top rated defenses. So you say it was because of Marino the dolphins made the playoffs, but was NOT his fault that he lost in the playoffs? Talk about a double standard lol. >>
Dude - check your stats because you have no idea what you're talking about. Between 1983 and 1999 (Marino's playing years) - a span of 17 years, their defense finished higher than 10th in total points allowed only 4 times (83, 84, 90 and 98). Of the remaining 13 years, they finished in the bottom half of the league in points allowed 10 times. Should I even go into the rushing stats?
Rgs,
Greg M.
References:
Onlychild, Ahmanfan, fabfrank, wufdude, jradke, Reese, Jasp, thenavarro
E-Bay id: greg_n_meg
Yup, NE went 10-5 in Brady's absence that year. Brady went 1-0 that year.
The year before that they went 16-0.
Then they went 10-6, then 14-2.
That is not the same as in Bradshaw's case.
Brady's replacement had an 89 QB rating...not bad. The year before Brady's was 117, 96, then 111.
Yeah, not the same case as again.
In a thread a couple years back, I detailed yearly Bradshaw's five years of being average or below. It wasn't until Harris and the running game, then Swann and Stallworth came, where he actually become above average.
You want a single game award that Bradshaw's repalcements earned? Ok, the award was being the starting QB of an NFL team over a benched Bradshaw.
Your responses aren't worthy of a drawn out debate, sorry. Bradshaw simply was not as good as you think. Maybe later I'll post some info for you, maybe not.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Marino doesnt deserve to be in the top 10 because he didnt win anything. You have to perform well in the big games in order to be considered one of the greatest. At least when it comes to QB's. >>
There are 20+ other positions other than QB on a football team, so why does a team failing to win a SB fall completely on the shoulders of a QB?
Rgs,
Greg M. >>
Marino played on great teams. One year they creamed a Bears team that went 18-1. Marino was a failure in big games. >>
He played on 2 great teams - 1984 and 1985. Go back and check how many Dolphins players, who played during Marino's career, made the pro bowl and hall of fame (only HOFer is Dwight Stephenson who retired after 1987 season). That should give you an indication of the talent that surrounded him.
Rgs,
Greg M. >>
Well he certainly had alot more opportunities than Barry Sanders or Walter Payton. During Marino's career, the Dolphins went to the playoffs 10 times. >>
Making the playoffs doesn't mean that he played on great teams. If it wasn't for Marino, they would have had 1/4 of the playoff appearances. He had no running game and generally no defense - yet the team made the playoff 10 times which proves my point of how great a QB he was.
Greg M. >>
Wrong. There were years when the dolphins had top rated defenses. So you say it was because of Marino the dolphins made the playoffs, but was NOT his fault that he lost in the playoffs? Talk about a double standard lol. >>
Dude - check your stats because you have no idea what you're talking about. Between 1983 and 1999 (Marino's playing years) - a span of 17 years, their defense finished higher than 10th in total points allowed only 4 times (83, 84, 90 and 98). Of the remaining 13 years, they finished in the bottom half of the league in points allowed 10 times. Should I even go into the rushing stats?
Rgs,
Greg M. >>
Actually it was five years, 83, 84, 90, 95, and 98. And two of those years they had the #1 rated defense.
Next.
<< <i>No, it doesn't mean that about Brady. Bradshaw's replacements had the same winning percentage in his stead.
Yup, NE went 10-5 in Brady's absence that year. Brady went 1-0 that year.
The year before that they went 16-0.
Then they went 10-6, then 14-2.
That is not the same as in Bradshaw's case.
Brady's replacement had an 89 QB rating...not bad. The year before Brady's was 117, 96, then 111.
Yeah, not the same case as again.
In a thread a couple years back, I detailed yearly Bradshaw's five years of being average or below. It wasn't until Harris and the running game, then Swann and Stallworth came, where he actually become above average.
You want a single game award that Bradshaw's repalcements earned? Ok, the award was being the starting QB of an NFL team over a benched Bradshaw.
Your responses aren't worthy of a drawn out debate, sorry. Bradshaw simply was not as good as you think. Maybe later I'll post some info for you, maybe not. >>
Nonsense, its easier to have higher qb ratings if they are handing the ball off most the time. The replacements did not have games with high passing yards. The steelers did not become a dominant passing team until the late 70's. Those were the years Bradshaw won his multiple MVP awards. If Bradshaw's replacements were any good, they wouldve had good careers with other teams.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Marino doesnt deserve to be in the top 10 because he didnt win anything. You have to perform well in the big games in order to be considered one of the greatest. At least when it comes to QB's. >>
There are 20+ other positions other than QB on a football team, so why does a team failing to win a SB fall completely on the shoulders of a QB?
Rgs,
Greg M. >>
Marino played on great teams. One year they creamed a Bears team that went 18-1. Marino was a failure in big games. >>
He played on 2 great teams - 1984 and 1985. Go back and check how many Dolphins players, who played during Marino's career, made the pro bowl and hall of fame (only HOFer is Dwight Stephenson who retired after 1987 season). That should give you an indication of the talent that surrounded him.
Rgs,
Greg M. >>
Well he certainly had alot more opportunities than Barry Sanders or Walter Payton. During Marino's career, the Dolphins went to the playoffs 10 times. >>
Making the playoffs doesn't mean that he played on great teams. If it wasn't for Marino, they would have had 1/4 of the playoff appearances. He had no running game and generally no defense - yet the team made the playoff 10 times which proves my point of how great a QB he was.
Greg M. >>
Wrong. There were years when the dolphins had top rated defenses. So you say it was because of Marino the dolphins made the playoffs, but was NOT his fault that he lost in the playoffs? Talk about a double standard lol. >>
Dude - check your stats because you have no idea what you're talking about. Between 1983 and 1999 (Marino's playing years) - a span of 17 years, their defense finished higher than 10th in total points allowed only 4 times (83, 84, 90 and 98). Of the remaining 13 years, they finished in the bottom half of the league in points allowed 10 times. Should I even go into the rushing stats?
Rgs,
Greg M. >>
Actually it was five years, 83, 84, 90, 95, and 98. And two of those years they had the #1 rated defense.
Next. >>
No - they finished HIGHER than 10th four times. In 1995, they finished in 10th place overall.
I still don't understand your point. Are you trying to argue that Marino played on great teams and under-performed in the playoffs? If so, that is a losing argument.
Greg M.
References:
Onlychild, Ahmanfan, fabfrank, wufdude, jradke, Reese, Jasp, thenavarro
E-Bay id: greg_n_meg
In 1976, Bradshaw went 4-4 as the Steelers starting QB, with a 65.4 rating
In 1976, Mike Kruczek went 6-0 as the Steelers starting QB, with a 74.5 rating
In 1974 Bradshaw went 5-2 with a 55.2 rating.
In 1974 Joe Gilliam went 4-1-1 with a 55.4 rating
Those are TWO different replacement level QB's that weren't any good, that when playing with the same set of teammates as Bradshaw, AND in a similar amount of games, did better W/L and passing performance wise!
You have him ranked as the third best QB ever, meaning that there are only TWO QB's in the history of the game that could do better than him.................................... I just didn't realize that those two were named Kruczek and Gilliam! LMFAO!!! LOL
On top of that, Bradshaw had his first five years being a below average QB, and his best rankings in passer rating are 2nd, 4th, 6th, 7th, 7th, and 8th. This, with two HOF receivers who made many acrobatic catches that were mostly THEIR doing, and a HOF running game to ensure that defense's could not focus on him or the passing game.
Sorry, none of that adds up to being the fifth best QB ever, let alone the third!
<< <i>During the midst of the Steeler dynasty;
In 1976, Bradshaw went 4-4 as the Steelers starting QB, with a 65.4 rating
In 1976, Mike Kruczek went 6-0 as the Steelers starting QB, with a 74.5 rating
In 1974 Bradshaw went 5-2 with a 55.2 rating.
In 1974 Joe Gilliam went 4-1-1 with a 55.4 rating
Those are TWO different replacement level QB's that weren't any good, that when playing with the same set of teammates as Bradshaw, AND in a similar amount of games, did better W/L and passing performance wise!
You have him ranked as the third best QB ever, meaning that there are only TWO QB's in the history of the game that could do better than him.................................... I just didn't realize that those two were named Kruczek and Gilliam! LMFAO!!! LOL
He is not worth arguing with.
Rgs,
Greg M.
References:
Onlychild, Ahmanfan, fabfrank, wufdude, jradke, Reese, Jasp, thenavarro
E-Bay id: greg_n_meg
<< <i>
<< <i>During the midst of the Steeler dynasty;
In 1976, Bradshaw went 4-4 as the Steelers starting QB, with a 65.4 rating
In 1976, Mike Kruczek went 6-0 as the Steelers starting QB, with a 74.5 rating
In 1974 Bradshaw went 5-2 with a 55.2 rating.
In 1974 Joe Gilliam went 4-1-1 with a 55.4 rating
Those are TWO different replacement level QB's that weren't any good, that when playing with the same set of teammates as Bradshaw, AND in a similar amount of games, did better W/L and passing performance wise!
You have him ranked as the third best QB ever, meaning that there are only TWO QB's in the history of the game that could do better than him.................................... I just didn't realize that those two were named Kruczek and Gilliam! LMFAO!!! LOL
He is not worth arguing with.
Rgs,
Greg M. >>
So, your argument is comparing two of Bradshaw's 14 years he played? Bradshaw played hurt alot during the mid-70's.
<< <i>Terry Bradshaw accounted for only 34 more career TDs than interceptions, good for 50th all-time. Regardless of his 4 Super Bowls, to have this guy anywhere NEAR a top-10 list is just crazy talk. Same with Namath, who was a -40, yes that is NEGATIVE 40, good for dead last of every QB who has ever thrown 139+ TDs. >>
Bradshaw and Namath played in a different era where throwing more interceptions were quite common. They didnt have the rules to protect QB's in those days.
<< <i>Terry Bradshaw accounted for only 34 more career TDs than interceptions, good for 50th all-time. Regardless of his 4 Super Bowls, to have this guy anywhere NEAR a top-10 list is just crazy talk. Same with Namath, who was a -40, yes that is NEGATIVE 40, good for dead last of every QB who has ever thrown 139+ TDs. >>
While there are many reasons not to have Bradshaw or Namath in a top 5 all-time discussion, IMO this is not a good one. You have to take into account the era these players played in, and the rules they played under. Take a look at all of the top QBs from the late 60's early 70's. The average QB threw more INT than TD, this was the norm. So to compare them to players of today, who have different rules they play under to me is not a valid argument.
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
'70 - Garrett/Holmes/McVei
'71 - Thomas/Garrison/Hill
'72-74 - Czonka/Kiick
'75-76 - Harris/Bleier
'77 - Van Eegan/Davis/Banaszak
'78 - Dorsett
'79-80 - Harris/Bleier
One could make an argument that almost any QB from the 70s was crap based on stats alone. One could also make an argument that Tony Romo is a top 5 or top 3 QB of all-time when compared to QBs whose careers happened prior to 1980. In baseball, you can measure players from the deadball era using other means such as hits or doubles or OBP. Unfortunately it's more difficult to do so with QBs. Pre-1978 is pretty much the dead ball era of football. Watch a game from that era and you'll see 75% running plays for the most part and then an occassional fly pattern mixed in.
So it's best to compare the best QBs of the pre-1978 era and the QBs from the post-1978 era in separate groups.
<< <i>
<< <i>Terry Bradshaw accounted for only 34 more career TDs than interceptions, good for 50th all-time. Regardless of his 4 Super Bowls, to have this guy anywhere NEAR a top-10 list is just crazy talk. Same with Namath, who was a -40, yes that is NEGATIVE 40, good for dead last of every QB who has ever thrown 139+ TDs. >>
Bradshaw and Namath played in a different era where throwing more interceptions were quite common. They didnt have the rules to protect QB's in those days. >>
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Marino doesnt deserve to be in the top 10 because he didnt win anything. You have to perform well in the big games in order to be considered one of the greatest. At least when it comes to QB's. >>
There are 20+ other positions other than QB on a football team, so why does a team failing to win a SB fall completely on the shoulders of a QB?
Rgs,
Greg M. >>
Marino played on great teams. One year they creamed a Bears team that went 18-1. Marino was a failure in big games. >>
He played on 2 great teams - 1984 and 1985. Go back and check how many Dolphins players, who played during Marino's career, made the pro bowl and hall of fame (only HOFer is Dwight Stephenson who retired after 1987 season). That should give you an indication of the talent that surrounded him.
Rgs,
Greg M. >>
Well he certainly had alot more opportunities than Barry Sanders or Walter Payton. During Marino's career, the Dolphins went to the playoffs 10 times. >>
Making the playoffs doesn't mean that he played on great teams. If it wasn't for Marino, they would have had 1/4 of the playoff appearances. He had no running game and generally no defense - yet the team made the playoff 10 times which proves my point of how great a QB he was.
Greg M. >>
Wrong. There were years when the dolphins had top rated defenses. So you say it was because of Marino the dolphins made the playoffs, but was NOT his fault that he lost in the playoffs? Talk about a double standard lol. >>
Dude - check your stats because you have no idea what you're talking about. Between 1983 and 1999 (Marino's playing years) - a span of 17 years, their defense finished higher than 10th in total points allowed only 4 times (83, 84, 90 and 98). Of the remaining 13 years, they finished in the bottom half of the league in points allowed 10 times. Should I even go into the rushing stats?
Rgs,
Greg M. >>
Actually it was five years, 83, 84, 90, 95, and 98. And two of those years they had the #1 rated defense.
Next. >>
No - they finished HIGHER than 10th four times. In 1995, they finished in 10th place overall.
Greg M. >>
According to pro football reference.com it was 5 years. Marino played on great teams.
<< <i>
<< <i>Terry Bradshaw accounted for only 34 more career TDs than interceptions, good for 50th all-time. Regardless of his 4 Super Bowls, to have this guy anywhere NEAR a top-10 list is just crazy talk. Same with Namath, who was a -40, yes that is NEGATIVE 40, good for dead last of every QB who has ever thrown 139+ TDs. >>
While there are many reasons not to have Bradshaw or Namath in a top 5 all-time discussion, IMO this is not a good one. You have to take into account the era these players played in, and the rules they played under. Take a look at all of the top QBs from the late 60's early 70's. The average QB threw more INT than TD, this was the norm. So to compare them to players of today, who have different rules they play under to me is not a valid argument. >>
There are 11 players who have a better TD to INT rate that played in the '70s or earlier. Otto Graham is a +83, so I don't think it's that bad of a way to create separation between players. Even in his era and the era that came before him, Bradshaw wasn't a top-5 QB.
Now if you think back to the Super Bowls that have been won you'll most likely be able to put a QB/WR together from a team that won. Aikman had Irvin, Joe had Taylor/Rice, and Farve had Sharp and the 11 guys that wore the other teams jerseys on defense.
I was not a Marino fan.....but I do remember the guy was incredible for a long, long time.
<< <i>I agree with a lot of opinions here....especially Greg M.'s opinion of Marino. While it's hard to say who the greatest was because of the way the game has changed over the years, you can't just keep Marino out of it because he never won a Super Bowl. It's a team sport, and while QB may be the most important player on the team you can't just surround him with nobodys. Think fast and name two receivers other than Duper and Clayton that he through to. Unless you were a big Dolphin or Marino fan back then you won't be able to. Now think fast a name a running back he played with. It's hard to either very quickly without the internet or racking your brain. Why? It's because the rest of the players were forgettable. The bad part about all that is that Duper/Clayton weren't with him very long....just a few years if I remember correctly.
Now if you think back to the Super Bowls that have been won you'll most likely be able to put a QB/WR together from a team that won. Aikman had Irvin, Joe had Taylor/Rice, and Farve had Sharp and the 11 guys that wore the other teams jerseys on defense.
I was not a Marino fan.....but I do remember the guy was incredible for a long, long time. >>
This is with no internet search.
Tony Nathan,
Troy Strafford (gotta love the super rookie card)
Lorenzo Hempton
Jimmy Cefalo
Nat Moore
Bruce Hardy
Keith Jackson
actually I think I named three TE instead of all WR.
Yeah, I racked my brain for a good few minutes for just seven guys. You are right, nearly all forgettable.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Terry Bradshaw accounted for only 34 more career TDs than interceptions, good for 50th all-time. Regardless of his 4 Super Bowls, to have this guy anywhere NEAR a top-10 list is just crazy talk. Same with Namath, who was a -40, yes that is NEGATIVE 40, good for dead last of every QB who has ever thrown 139+ TDs. >>
While there are many reasons not to have Bradshaw or Namath in a top 5 all-time discussion, IMO this is not a good one. You have to take into account the era these players played in, and the rules they played under. Take a look at all of the top QBs from the late 60's early 70's. The average QB threw more INT than TD, this was the norm. So to compare them to players of today, who have different rules they play under to me is not a valid argument. >>
There are 11 players who have a better TD to INT rate that played in the '70s or earlier. Otto Graham is a +83, so I don't think it's that bad of a way to create separation between players. Even in his era and the era that came before him, Bradshaw wasn't a top-5 QB. >>
Again, Otto Graham played in, not only a different area, but much of his career in the AAFC. Now does that mean he's a terrible QB? of course not. In fact, argument can be fairly made that he is a top 5 QB of all-time himself. From 65-75, how many QBs in the NFL had better INT/TD ratios than Namath and Bradshaw? While you are looking, also note the Yards per completion of any QBs you meet that qualification. Because guys like Namath and Bradshaw in that era were on run, run, run, post pattern deep pass offenses. Ken Anderson was really the first "west coast" style QB. He will be on your list of excellent QB/INT ratios from that era, but his you will notice his yards per completion is also much lower. IMO, you have to compare players, particularly QBs vs. what others in that same era did on the field. How much better/dominant they were vs. their peers should assist you in making comparisons to QBs of today or from the 40s/50s.
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Terry Bradshaw accounted for only 34 more career TDs than interceptions, good for 50th all-time. Regardless of his 4 Super Bowls, to have this guy anywhere NEAR a top-10 list is just crazy talk. Same with Namath, who was a -40, yes that is NEGATIVE 40, good for dead last of every QB who has ever thrown 139+ TDs. >>
While there are many reasons not to have Bradshaw or Namath in a top 5 all-time discussion, IMO this is not a good one. You have to take into account the era these players played in, and the rules they played under. Take a look at all of the top QBs from the late 60's early 70's. The average QB threw more INT than TD, this was the norm. So to compare them to players of today, who have different rules they play under to me is not a valid argument. >>
There are 11 players who have a better TD to INT rate that played in the '70s or earlier. Otto Graham is a +83, so I don't think it's that bad of a way to create separation between players. Even in his era and the era that came before him, Bradshaw wasn't a top-5 QB. >>
Again, Otto Graham played in, not only a different area, but much of his career in the AAFC. Now does that mean he's a terrible QB? of course not. In fact, argument can be fairly made that he is a top 5 QB of all-time himself. From 65-75, how many QBs in the NFL had better INT/TD ratios than Namath and Bradshaw? While you are looking, also note the Yards per attempt of any QBs you meet that qualification. Because guys like Namath and Bradshaw in that era were on run, run, run, post pattern deep pass offenses. Ken Anderson was really the first "west coast" style QB. He will be on your list of excellent QB/INT ratios from that era, but his you will notice his yards per attempt is also much lower. IMO, you have to compare players, particularly QBs vs. what others in that same era did on the field. How much better/dominant they were vs. their peers should assist you in making comparisons to QBs of today or from the 40s/50s. >>
I don't have the focus to do all that work. Why not just tell me why YOU don't think Bradshaw is a top-10 all-time QB. It can't be that much different than my reasoning. He simply wasn't as good as a lot of other great QBs. He played for a behemoth dynasty and his team made him look great. I mean, the pass to Harris is one of the craziest things ever and is a microcosm of Bradshaw's career... luck/timing.
<< <i>
I don't have the focus to do all that work. Why not just tell me why YOU don't think Bradshaw is a top-10 all-time QB. It can't be that much different than my reasoning. He simply wasn't as good as a lot of other great QBs. He played for a behemoth dynasty and his team made him look great. I mean, the pass to Harris is one of the craziest things ever and is a microcosm of Bradshaw's career... luck/timing. >>
My opinion there are simply (more than) 10 QBs in NFL Hisotry I think played a better overall game. Bradshaw had a cannon of an arm for sure and had a knack of making big plays in important games at important moments. But his lack of good decision making the majority of his career, combined with his inaccuracy, particularly with passes under 20 yards keeps him around 15-ish on my list of all-time greats.
My initial comment was simply that it isn't a valid argument to say that he isn't a top 10 QB due to INT/TD ration. Simply because the average INT/TD ratio of all QBs during his career was either similar to or worse than Bradshaws. Plenty of other reasons (some of which i just pointed out) that he isn't in my top 10.
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
<< <i>
I don't have the focus to do all that work. Why not just tell me why YOU don't think Bradshaw is a top-10 all-time QB. It can't be that much different than my reasoning. He simply wasn't as good as a lot of other great QBs. He played for a behemoth dynasty and his team made him look great. I mean, the pass to Harris is one of the craziest things ever and is a microcosm of Bradshaw's career... luck/timing. >>
My opinion there are simply (more than) 10 QBs in NFL Hisotry I think played a better overall game. Bradshaw had a cannon of an arm for sure and had a knack of making big plays in important games at important moments. But his lack of good decision making the majority of his career, combined with his inaccuracy, particularly with passes under 20 yards keeps him around 15-ish on my list of all-time greats.
My initial comment was simply that it isn't a valid argument to say that he isn't a top 10 QB due to INT/TD ration. Simply because the average INT/TD ratio of all QBs during his career was either similar to or worse than Bradshaws. Plenty of other reasons (some of which i just pointed out) that he isn't in my top 10. >>
His terrible TD/INT ratio certainly doesn't help his case as a top-ten QB. I get what you are saying, but I'm fairly confident in saying many QBs of his era, and before it, had better ratios than that. It's a piece of the puzzle, but certainly not the main reason he isn't a top-ten guy.
<< <i>
His terrible TD/INT ratio certainly doesn't help his case as a top-ten QB. I get what you are saying, but I'm fairly confident in saying many QBs of his era, and before it, had better ratios than that. It's a piece of the puzzle, but certainly not the main reason he isn't a top-ten guy. >>
I'd be interested in seeing this list of guys ahead of him from before or during his era. Maybe a project for me tomorrow.
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Terry Bradshaw- 147 TD- 163 INT
Frank Tarkenton- 156 TD- 132 INT
Roger Staubach- 152 TD- 107 INT
Ken Stabler- 150 TD- 143 INT
Jim Hart- 145 TD- 145 INT
Bob Griese- 140 TD- 118 INT
Ken Anderson 125 TD- 101 INT
Craig Morton- 110 TD- 121 INT
Billy Kilmer- 109 TD- 92 INT
John Hadl- 101 TD- 123 INT
Dan Pastorini- 96 TD- 139 INT
Roman Gabriel- 92 TD- 74 INT
Joe Ferguson- 92 TD- 94 INT
Steve Grogan- 89 TD- 102 INT
Archie Manning-87 TD- 123 INT
Jim Plunkett- 85 TD- 118 INT
Dan Fouts- 82 TD- 101 INT
Brian Sipe- 79 TD- 79 INT
Bert Jones- 78 TD- 56 INT
Joe Namath- 76 TD- 116 INT
Just a few more INTs in the 70s than we have today...lol
On my all-time great QB list, Bradshaw falls below both Staubach and Tarkenton. Above Stabler, and the rest on this list.
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Different rules, different era. Those QB's took an absolute beating too
while standing in the pocket. Todays QB's have no idea how watered down
the violent hits are, as compared to 30+ years ago.
The Marino debate: the QB that I think compares to Marino the most
is Dan Fouts. Another pocket passer that threw it downfield and stood
tough in the pocket. Both set records for yards in a season, Marino broke
Fout's record I believe. Both were great competitors that just fell a little
short of winning any titles.
It's kind of hard to believe I don't see Bart Starr on anyone's list.
He was only 9-1 in playoff games with a playoff QB rating of 104 (in an era
when a rating over 75 was considered great). He lead the Packers
to five NFL titles, won one MVP award, lead the NFL in passing three times,
and two Super Bowl MVP's. I'm pretty sure the only other QB on some of the
above lists to accomplish all of this might be only Joe Montana.
<< <i>List of QBs who threw for at least 75 TDs during the 1970s and how they compare to Bradshaw.
Terry Bradshaw- 147 TD- 163 INT
Ken Stabler- 150 TD- 143 INT
On my all-time great QB list, Bradshaw falls below both Staubach and Tarkenton. Above Stabler, and the rest on this list. >>
Isn't he Below Stabler?
"This is with no internet search.
Tony Nathan,
Troy Strafford (gotta love the super rookie card)
Lorenzo Hempton
Jimmy Cefalo
Nat Moore
Bruce Hardy
Keith Jackson
actually I think I named three TE instead of all WR.
Yeah, I racked my brain for a good few minutes for just seven guys. You are right, nearly all forgettable."
Really? Those were the names that popped right into your head as being linked to Marino?
If that post was to prove you have a very good memory congrats because you do. But I think you've also helped in proving that Marino was surrounded by a lack of talent in Miami during his career. If I have rookie cards of any of those players I'm 100% sure they are sitting in a box of commons.
<< <i>Nice work Jason. Yeah, those 1970's guys sure threw a lot of picks.
Different rules, different era. Those QB's took an absolute beating too
while standing in the pocket. Todays QB's have no idea how watered down
the violent hits are, as compared to 30+ years ago.
The Marino debate: the QB that I think compares to Marino the most
is Dan Fouts. Another pocket passer that threw it downfield and stood
tough in the pocket. Both set records for yards in a season, Marino broke
Fout's record I believe. Both were great competitors that just fell a little
short of winning any titles.
It's kind of hard to believe I don't see Bart Starr on anyone's list.
He was only 9-1 in playoff games with a playoff QB rating of 104 (in an era
when a rating over 75 was considered great). He lead the Packers
to five NFL titles, won one MVP award, lead the NFL in passing three times,
and two Super Bowl MVP's. I'm pretty sure the only other QB on some of the
above lists to accomplish all of this might be only Joe Montana. >>
Agreed, I put Starr very high on my list. Ahead of both Marino and Fouts. One thing that the Bradshaw/steelers haters never bother to mention is his playoff stats. Besides his 2 super bowl MVP's, he threw 30 TD passes, the most in history at the time of his retirement. His 83.0 rating is very good since most of his playoff games were in the difficult passing decade of the 70's. Bradshaw was 14-5 in playoff games, a record until Montana surpassed him at 16-7.
In 1978 the Blount rule was put in effect(no contact after 5 yards). In his next 6 playoff games after the rule change, Bradshaw had QB ratings of 95.8, 89.7, 119.2, 111.0, 90.8, and 101.9.
<< <i>List of QBs who threw for at least 75 TDs during the 1970s and how they compare to Bradshaw.
Terry Bradshaw- 147 TD- 163 INT
Frank Tarkenton- 156 TD- 132 INT
Roger Staubach- 152 TD- 107 INT
Ken Stabler- 150 TD- 143 INT
Jim Hart- 145 TD- 145 INT
Bob Griese- 140 TD- 118 INT
Ken Anderson 125 TD- 101 INT
Craig Morton- 110 TD- 121 INT
Billy Kilmer- 109 TD- 92 INT
John Hadl- 101 TD- 123 INT
Dan Pastorini- 96 TD- 139 INT
Roman Gabriel- 92 TD- 74 INT
Joe Ferguson- 92 TD- 94 INT
Steve Grogan- 89 TD- 102 INT
Archie Manning-87 TD- 123 INT
Jim Plunkett- 85 TD- 118 INT
Dan Fouts- 82 TD- 101 INT
Brian Sipe- 79 TD- 79 INT
Bert Jones- 78 TD- 56 INT
Joe Namath- 76 TD- 116 INT
>>
So on that list there are about 12 guys from his era with a better TD/INT ratio. He did have a cannon for an arm, I'll give him that. Bradshaw probably had the best supporting cast in the history of NFL QB's, maybe only Troy Aikman coming close...but at least Aikman was never ranked so low among his peers as Bradshaw was. I think sportscardtheory said it best that the Franco Harris immaculate reception was a microcosm of Bradshaw's career, luck/timing.
Despite having the best offensive cast in the league at the time, Bradshaw only managed to crack the top five in the league in passer rating just two times. With the best offensive supporting cast, the best defensive supporting cast, and him himself being pretty good, that is why they won. He simply isn't top five good, or top ten. He may get top 25, as his deep ball ability gives him a very useful attribute.
PS, there is a factual error from a poster above. Bradshaw never threw 30 TD passes, his high was 28. And that was not the most all time at that time. Unitas had 32 in 1959, which is one of many seasons by QB's that were more than the 28 at that point in time.
<< <i>
<< <i>List of QBs who threw for at least 75 TDs during the 1970s and how they compare to Bradshaw.
Terry Bradshaw- 147 TD- 163 INT
Frank Tarkenton- 156 TD- 132 INT
Roger Staubach- 152 TD- 107 INT
Ken Stabler- 150 TD- 143 INT
Jim Hart- 145 TD- 145 INT
Bob Griese- 140 TD- 118 INT
Ken Anderson 125 TD- 101 INT
Craig Morton- 110 TD- 121 INT
Billy Kilmer- 109 TD- 92 INT
John Hadl- 101 TD- 123 INT
Dan Pastorini- 96 TD- 139 INT
Roman Gabriel- 92 TD- 74 INT
Joe Ferguson- 92 TD- 94 INT
Steve Grogan- 89 TD- 102 INT
Archie Manning-87 TD- 123 INT
Jim Plunkett- 85 TD- 118 INT
Dan Fouts- 82 TD- 101 INT
Brian Sipe- 79 TD- 79 INT
Bert Jones- 78 TD- 56 INT
Joe Namath- 76 TD- 116 INT
>>
So on that list there are about 12 guys from his era with a better TD/INT ratio. He did have a cannon for an arm, I'll give him that. Bradshaw probably had the best supporting cast in the history of NFL QB's, maybe only Troy Aikman coming close...but at least Aikman was never ranked so low among his peers as Bradshaw was. I think sportscardtheory said it best that the Franco Harris immaculate reception was a microcosm of Bradshaw's career, luck/timing.
Despite having the best offensive cast in the league at the time, Bradshaw only managed to crack the top five in the league in passer rating just two times. With the best offensive supporting cast, the best defensive supporting cast, and him himself being pretty good, that is why they won. He simply isn't top five good, or top ten. He may get top 25, as his deep ball ability gives him a very useful attribute.
PS, there is a factual error from a poster above. Bradshaw never threw 30 TD passes, his high was 28. And that was not the most all time at that time. Unitas had 32 in 1959, which is one of many seasons by QB's that were more than the 28 at that point in time. >>
Not an error. He had 30 playoff TD's. By your posts, its pretty obvious you ignore what a QB does in the big games. The games that count. Thats what really makes a QB great in my opinion. You dont win 4 super bowls and 3 MVP awards because you are lucky. The NFL network has Bradshaw at #12 greatest QB of all-time. Staubach is #11 and the only QB that is ranked ahead of Bradshaw who played in that era.
Greene, Harris, Swann, Stallworth, among many others. Winning four championships is the mark of a great TEAM.
I have to ask, why would Bradshaw only choose to play so well in Super Bowls, and not in other games?
Did he view the other games as not as important, thus giving a lower level of play or effort in those other games?
Did he realize that had he played as well in the other games (both regular season and earlier playoff rounds), that he would be in MORE Super Bowls?? Thus more chances to show how good he truly is because they would have been in the Super Bowl more?
Or was it more of a case that four games don't tell a whole lot, and it is very likely that four more Super Bowl games could just as easily go the other way for him; some good, some average, some poor....like he exhibited so many other times in pro football games?
If Bradshaw were indeed a 'big game player', by evidence of the 112 Super Bowl QB rating(of which was in LARGE part due to acrobatic play of the wide receivers), then how do you explain his performances in these Six games:
7 TD, 10 INT....and a QB rating of 62.3. Those are his performances in six Conference Championships. Are those not big games? After all, he does realize that winning those get you to the Super Bowl. Is he psychic? Does he already know they will win, so therefore he does not have to play well, and then just save it for the 'big game'?
I would expect a guy who is hailed as a one of the absolute best big game players ever to be able to do better than that in Conference championship games! Wouldn't you?
The reality is that he just happened to have three of his better performances in the Super Bowl(thanks to Swann and Stallworth), which is not much more than a random event that happens all the time in the scheme of a pro athlete's performance. It doesn't make him a big game player and it is not valid evidence that he is more capable of handling the big game than others. If he truly did have a knack for doing extraordinary in big games, then he would have exhibited that trait in the six conference championships.
<< <i>
The reality is that he just happened to have three of his better performances in the Super Bowl(thanks to Swann and Stallworth), which is not much more than a random event that happens all the time in the scheme of a pro athlete's performance. It doesn't make him a big game player and it is not valid evidence that he is more capable of handling the big game than others. If he truly did have a knack for doing extraordinary in big games, then he would have exhibited that trait in the six conference championships. >>
If it was a random event, wouldn't you think Tony Romo would accidentally one time play as well in big game as he does in the others?