Terry Bradshaw says Otto Graham is the greatest QB in history. Not Brady
coolstanley
Posts: 3,609 ✭✭✭✭✭
Terry Bradshaw shocked football fans this week when he claimed Otto Graham is the greatest NFL quarterback of all time, and not Tom Brady. Does he have a legitimate argument?
“I always hear people say, ‘Tom Brady’s the greatest quarterback to ever play.’ Okay, is he really? Otto Graham may be the greatest quarterback to ever play,” Terry Bradshaw said during an appearance on the Nothing Left Unsaid podcast.
“How many titles did Otto win? Look it up. And Tom lost three. I was 4-0. Montana was 4-0. Tom was 7-3. Seven minus three is four. Four, four, four. That’s kind of the way I look at it. People are something else. We always want to know who was the best, don’t we?
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ohio State Buckeyes - National Champions
0
Comments
In Bradshaw's defense, Graham holds the NFL record for the highest career winning percentage for a starting quarterback at 81.0%
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ohio State Buckeyes - National Champions
It is no secret that I am an unabashed Otto Graham supporter. To be honest about it, I wish there was more high quality footage available of the NFL prior to 1990-2000 so that fans could actually see these old-time legends play. I am blessed in that regard because I began watching NFL games/highlights in the early 1960's. Granted, that is after Graham retired but footage of him playing was still shown with regularity. Modern fans, tending to be under 40, have witnessed Tom Brady play and have access to archived game footage. Those same fans tend to only have a stat sheet of what older players have done and some random footage they may see. Not to knock Brady because he is truly one of the greatest players and stories in NFL history, but those younger fans have heard all the GOAT talk for so long that it is believed without questioning or investigation.
The NFL record still held by Otto Graham 70 years after he retired that impresses me is the career average yards/pass attempt. Maybe that should be added to the thread about records that may not be broken.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," --- Benjamin Franklin
I've heard other people say that Otto was the best, he was definitely the best of the 1950's but it's impossible to compare the 2
Graham like Bradshaw had HOF'ers all around him, more than Brady ever did.
If people want to say Otto was the best, they can but the correct answer is
"The best of his era" anything else is just stupid and I question if Bradshaw is not senile at this point anyways
Brady was the best of his era, maybe he wouldn't have done as well with the backyard football/rugby mix of play back then and maybe Otto wouldn't have hit all those receivers with guys twice as big and fast on D, and I'm willing to bet 35% of Grahams and Bradshaw's completions wouldn't have held up under review like Brady's era
Great points both perkdog and maywood. No doubt its hard to compare different era's. To think those records that Graham still holds in that he did it in an era when there was no protection for QB's is pretty amazing.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ohio State Buckeyes - National Champions
With most of these types of sports related questions, fans such as us, are least well-equipped and informed to give an honest assessment. That's why I enjoy watching/listening to interviews with the old-timers. They have seen both sides of most of these debates and also played, so their perspective is much more informed. To my part, I'm a Browns fan so there's bias. On your part, a Patriot fan and don't like Bradshaw, so there's bias.
I wonder what Brady would say about Graham?? Have you ever seen him comment on that??
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," --- Benjamin Franklin
I don't dislike Bradshaw at all, I think he was tough as nails and an iconic player of the 70's
I have always held Graham in high regard as well even as a Patriots fan, I've also always said he was the greatest of the 1950's
No matter what Brady's opinion of Graham would be, Brady talks out of his rear end and you'll never get a straight answer out of him regardless so his opinion is a mute point and I've never heard him mention a whole lot about that many of the old time greats so no idea where he stands
I didnt realize this until I just looked up these stats. Brady, Graham, and Bart Starr all have 7 rings.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ohio State Buckeyes - National Champions
Brady did it in a far more competitive era for sure...but put that aside and just proclaim each the best of their era. Once that is established, knowing that Brady has every QB tool in his arsenal(assuming they are equal to Graham's since he was the best of his era); to break that 'tie' I'm taking the QB that also has the physical measurable's in his favor...Brady at a legit six foot five with a canon for an arm, and also the overall athletic ability to play pro baseball as a catcher...it's an easy call.
Brady.
PS, we always hear about the talk how the league was rougher back then, which it was less 'penalized', but the guys were indeed smaller and not as strong back then, thus causing less physical damage. In the end, people act like nobody now would survive the league back then...yet guys like George Blanda played until age 48 through those times, so we do have to take a step back and see that it wasn't as 'unsurvivable' like it is made out to be.
It is more likely that it is harder to survive one legit hit from a 325 pound muscular train playing right now than multiple hits by smaller guys back then.
All good points, players are far bigger and stronger now than ever, some of these College National Championship teams of today would beat the 1950 Browns just on size and speed alone but I don't hold that against Graham at all.
The thing about 1950's football was it was insanely brutal, pound for pound it was tougher back then with the late hits, legit targeting, piling on and straight up assaults on each other.
Guys like Hardy Brown wouldn't consider it a good game unless he knocked someone out or knocked someone's teeth out.
The biggest thing is the stats for receivers is the amount of catches that were probably drops that couldn't be looked at like they are now that's why with all the technology today it's impossible to impartially compare players from different eras.
The training argument has value but if you gave the 50's guys the same training and nutrition regime they would catch up but it's fantasy talk in reality.
I had no idea about Bart Starr
Yup, and regardless of the benefits of training etc...Otto Graham weighed 195 pounds and Tom Brady weighed 225 pounds. If Otto Graham is getting hit by guys with an average weight of 225 pounds and Tom Brady is getting hit by guys with an average weight of 265 pounds(and moving just as fast as those 225 pound guys); it may have been 'tougher' then, but the force of the hits is much greater now than it was then. All it takes is one catastrophic hit. A catastrophic hit is more likely now than before due to the size/speed/strength.
If the 50's rules were allowed today, then no team would have.a starting QB and Otto Graham wouldn't survive either. Graham's bones weren't made of steel and his ligaments weren't super human.
Many QB's had long careers then, so even if it was 'tougher' it certainly wasn't knocking them out due to major injuries. Graham himself only missed a few starts in his career. Unitas missed hardly any starts in the 50's/60's.
It seems like guys get folded in half more now than back then.
Again, as for better. Graham only had a 12 year career. Is it even a discussion when Brady basically had two twelve year careers all at an elite level?
Average weight of a defensive tackle now is about 315 pounds. It was around 225 pounds in the early 50's. There is a monumental difference getting hit by each of those and how it relates in terms of causing injury.
Another thing to consider in regard to the championships. The format was completely different then and isn't even a valid comparison. If you were the best team you either had to win just one or two games to be the champion.
In five of Graham's titles they just had to win one post season game to be champion. His other two titles they had to win two games.
Also, Graham's first FOUR titles were in the AAFC and in those same years the NFL had their own champion. So they had two different pro leagues and Graham only had to win one post season game in his league to be considered champions.
So in other words, todays post season is watered down, with mediocre teams making the playoffs.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ohio State Buckeyes - National Champions
Compared to Grahams day I'd have to agree.
But again we can't hold it against Graham, his situation was his and he definitely dominated at a high level
Watered down would mean that the favorite wins every time. Its much harder to have to win 2-4 games than 1
Fire AJ Preller
Before 1994, only 4 teams made the playoffs in baseball. Does that mean all those Championship teams pre 1994 weren't as good as today's teams? I think not.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ohio State Buckeyes - National Champions
No, but they all had to win more than 1 game
Fire AJ Preller
So if they expand the playoffs again, does that mean Brady's records will be less relevant? What's your point?
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ohio State Buckeyes - National Champions
The argument appears to have devolved to the point where winning championships has become important, let alone relevant. It's not relevant, and it's certainly not important. The argument begins and ends with "they were playing different games".
Was Otto Graham better than Tom Brady? Was Jim Brown better than Mickey Mantle? The two questions are the same, and there is no answer.
thank you for saying this before i had a chance to say it. this isn't an apples & oranges comparison, it's apples & jackfruit. but by all means my esteemed brethren -- proceed with this futile debate.
Terry Bradshaw has been a bit of an embarrassment lately. It’s an interesting thought experiment but obviously today’s athletes have every advantage. Different game. Different time.
All true, but I think QB's get more recognition for winning big games than say baseball players do, because the QB is considered the leader of the team.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ohio State Buckeyes - National Champions
Not at all. It made it easy for the best team to win a championship. In football, the saying 'any given sunday' is there for a reason, so when you have to go through three teams in the playoffs, a land mind could explode in any one of those games.
Graham's teams had a whole other league he didn't even play against. So they really weren't champions. It would be like winning the AFC West and saying you were a champion.
Not to mention that football itself was watered down talent wise level.
They also barely had any integration in the early 50's.
In the end, the talent Brady competed against was 10X better than what Graham did.
Not watered down because baseball was not watered down pre 1994 because baseball was fully integrated in 1990 and it had already begun using world wide talent, and the US population player pool was high after the baby boom provided more candidates. Now if you go earlier in time, then kinda yes.
If you are the best team or two, then yes, it is harder to win an expanded playoff because there are more chances for you to get knocked off by other really good teams. If you are the wild card teams, then it is easier to win an expanded playoffs because you wouldn't even be there without the expanded playoff.
Football in the 50's still had barely integrated. The talent pool was smaller in the country. There were two pro leagues. THAT is watered down.
Try again.
I have long been a supporter of Graham (and many other old time legends) Football is so different now than back then. It was inarguably a more violent sport then. It was more violent just 20-25 years ago.
I believe the greats would be great in any era. the playing fields would be evened out by training, nutrition, healthcare and rule changes. that said, it is just so hard to compare across eras. some players do stick out when compared against peers: Graham, Brown, Unitas, OJ, Montana, Brady.
My bias points me strongly towards Brady, but Graham is in my all time QB top 5. I think that list of greats, where a top 5 or top 10 only contain players from the last 20 years do not hold much water.
similarly, as much as i LOVE Barry Sanders, when I look at how dominant Jim Brown was in his era, it is impossible for me not to choose Brown as the greatest RB.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Past all his prowess as a QB the one thing that stands out to me about Brady is the fact that he really never perfected the art of running. Back in "the day" he would have been termed a Truck. The few times I remember seeing him run he looked quite awkward. The thing is, he never really needed to run. I recall a play where he somehow ended up as an uncovered receiver and caught a pass. I guess he could be called sneaky fast!!
And to those who think the old time players weren't as tough, consider that they played without helmet facemasks until around 1954-55 and that they weren't required by NFL rule until 1962.
As to the "watered down" philosophy, that's one way to think about it. The main difference between then and now is the number of teams. Back then the NFL was a 12 and eventually 14 and eventually 16 game schedule. To the point of "winning the Division" that is a fallacy. There was a time when everyone played everyone else each season(1950, 13 teams in the NFL and a 12 game schedule) so that relative strength in the Championship had already been determined. And before anyone wants to knock the AAFC as being weak, the Championship games were competitive with the exception of 1948.
A last point I would add is that the NFL didn't want to merge with the AAFC, much like they fought the merger with the AFL in the 1960's. To "punish" the AAFC reigning Champion Browns they scheduled their first game against the reigning NFL Champion Eagles in an effort to prove that the upstart league just didn't belong.
Cleveland won that game, 35-10.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," --- Benjamin Franklin
Oh yeah, those "smaller" guys back then couldn't hit hard?? Go ask about Dick Butkus.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," --- Benjamin Franklin
The 1950s-1970s generation of sports for all sports I really cant figure out how to rank. So many guys that would have been pros were drafted into WW2 or Vietnam and it takes more than a couple years to build that back up from a sports perspective. I do agree the best of the best would be the same today, but I'm just not sure it was that in that time frame with what was going on
Fire AJ Preller
I don't know how you can say "Impossible" when Barry Sanders dominated against bigger and faster players while being much smaller than opposing DL and LB's
I got no problem with people saying Brown is their top choice but to say impossible tells me your not really looking at what Barry Sanders did, he had over a 1000 yards every season he played
The guy run's for 2000 yards then followed it up with almost 1500 yards the next season and retired
There were two pro leagues in the 80's as well, so I disagree his Championships were watered down. Its hard to compare different era's of any sport.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ohio State Buckeyes - National Champions
There were also two pro leagues in the 1960s.
Steve
I am a HUGE Barry fan. watched him every year he was in the league. for me he is number 2. it is because Brown dominated his era more than Barry did his.
just a couple of stats (and there are more)
Sanders led league in rushing 4 out of 10 seasons
Brown led 8 of his 9 seasons. the one he didnt, he played through injury. otherwise, he would have led that year.
Sanders one MVP in 10 seasons. 6 AP-1
Brown 3 MVP in 9. 8 AP-1
just compare their pro football reference pages. much more black ink for Brown
to add, Brown had 1000 yards 7 out of 9 seasons with 12 and 14 game schedules. the 2 years he didnt reach that mark he led the league with 942 yards in a 12 game schedule in his rookie season and had 996 in an injury plagued 14 game season.
Then Jim Brown retired at age 29 after winning the MVP award to be a "movie star"
Brown was a straight up truck.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
@craig44 said: Brown led 8 of his 9 seasons. the one he didnt, he played through injury. otherwise, he would have led that year.
It has always amazed me that Jim Brown never missed a game due to injury.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," --- Benjamin Franklin
If you mean the USFL that is partly true for a few years as they did steal some star players. Other than that the point still stands.
However, since there were more viable players in the US in the 1980's, it made more sense to have a USFL. I would bet that the best USFL team would have beat the 1950 Browns fairly easily....and it has nothing to do with training advantages. There were simply more athletes available.
There were only about a dozen black players in 1950. If I were an owner, I could have created a team from the existing US population that wasn't even being used and made an instant contender that could have easily beaten the Browns.
Not to mention the obvious fact that there were far less 25 year old men overall in 1950 in the US compared to the last forty years.
So no, try again. You made an effort but haven't refuted anything I said.
Has nothing to do with training advantages. The player population was simply vastly larger in the last 40 years compared to 1950....and of course 1950 was basically still pre-integration.
As for Jim Brown, if he is plowing over 250 pound defensive lineman that were just 20 pounds heaviler then him, ,then how would training make him plow over 320 pound defensive lineman in the same fashion? You sayin Brown would have been 300 pounds and running the same speed??? The reality is that unless Brown used a different style of running, his 'dominant' running vs small defenders would not work the same against larger defenders, plain and simple.
@craig44 in 1957 Jim Brown absolutely dominated the league in Rushing Yards per game...and of the top 13 players in that category, 9 of them were white players. Watch the NFL today and tell me he would dominate to the same degree with a much larger pool of players capable of doing the same thing. NO CHANCE.
@craig44 in 1957 Jim Brown absolutely dominated the league in Rushing Yards per game...and of the top 13 players in that category, 9 of them were white running backs. Watch the NFL today and tell me he would dominate to the same degree against a much larger pool of players capable of doing the same thing. NO CHANCE.
Has really nothing to do with training and more to do with more people and more competition. Jim Brown would not have double the yards per game in 2024 than the next leading rusher. IT SIMPLY WOULD NOT HAPPEN. Anyone with eyes could see that.
Sure Brown might still be one of the top backs now, but he would certainly not be leading the league every year like he did, and certainly not to that degree...because now there are enough people similar in size and strength/speed/ability that one of them would jump up and have a big year and lead the league. Or one of them be in a system conducive to running where. they might not even be as good but have a bigger rushing year.
Again there is ZERO chance Brown would be 127 yds per game and the next guy in the league at 65 yards per game, lol, no fLLucking chance....yet everyone's case for Brown is his 'dominance' over his league. NOPE. Doesn't add up.
Brown's dominance is due more to the make up society/population/and the league more than his ability, because that same dominance would not be possible in 2024.
@perkdog I agree with you.
There were only about a dozen black players in 1950. If I were an owner, I could have created a team from the existing US population that wasn't even being used and made an instant contender that could have easily beaten the Browns.
What is really funny about this post is that I believe you're serious and believe it!!
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," --- Benjamin Franklin
*1958 above not 1957
Comparing players across eras is an exercise we engage in here with regularity. It is fun but not realistic. I was thinking about it yesterday and there seems to be only one way any kind of comparison worth any merit could be done.
--- nothing can be done with players from the 40's, 50's, 60's or any other time, they're all dead or too old.
--- time transport hasn't yet been invented so current players are trapped in today.
What could be done is to have current players compete in today's NFL with the equipment from the 1950's and adhering to the rules in place during that time. I really think most fans and most members here would be surprised by the way play would be affected. They actually called holding back then and there was no hand fighting between receiver and defender. Offensive lineman couldn't extend their arms outside of their bodies to slow rushers. There was no such thing as "hands to the face" or many other current penalties. Quarterbacks actually had to call their own plays or have it run in from the sidelines, no helmet communication. Lots of other stuff, but you should get the idea.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," --- Benjamin Franklin
@craig44 for Jim Brown to replicate his 1958 dominance in 2024 would have to average 245 yards per game rushing. That isn't a testament to how good he was, it was the reality that the player pool and competition is much different and such feats not possible. When 9 of the 13 top backs were white running backs in 1958 it is pretty clear to see that not every player was even being used...and of course the overall population of athletic players available was much smaller.
@Maywood your bias is evident. Everything you said is rooted in bias, so it is clear why you can't comprehend reality and logic. More power to you and the hero worship.
Economics has done the most to change sports and the average athletic ability of the participants. "the best baseball player of the 1900's never picked up a bat". Money brought science and technology to sports, but the most important advancement that affected the quality of athletic competition has been opportunity and accessibility.
Call it bias if you want to, I think of it as being objective. I would add that I was actually at games to watch Jim Brown play.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," --- Benjamin Franklin
a couple of years ago i found a box of brand new Maxfli balata balls that i had stashed away. never been used, pristine condition. fun as hell to play with. you could spin the crap out of them. the downside, however, was not only how far they went, but also how durable they were. one slight mishit and you permanently distorted the shape and gave your golf ball a smiley face. those were the balls tour pros used prior to the 90s when they were largely phased out.
one day i decided to set aside my Pro V1s and play an entire round with my newfound Maxflis. i was regularly driving the ball 30-40 yards shorter off of every tee. using more club to get to every green. for instance, instead of using a 9-iron from 150 out, i had to use a 5 or 6-iron to get there. it felt like i was in high school all over again..........when i played competitively in the latter half of the 80s. sure, it was sheer joy once i got 100 yards away on in, but it felt like i was grinding like a mother to get to that point.
sometimes i go back and look at the stats on the back of my Miller Press cards. they are my favorite golf cards. i pulled out my '84 MP Seve Ballesteros last night (my fav player back in the day, RIP) and flipped it. during the '84 PGA Tour season he averaged 265 yards off the tee. Seve was never considered to be a masher, but he wasn't exactly short either. he hit the ball the requisite distance to win the Masters twice and the Open Championship (British Open) three times. this season, Rory McIlroy averaged 323. imagine being in the same group with a guy who could drive the ball ~60 yards farther than you. hitting a handful of clubs less into every green. advantage? that's an understatement. A mexican jumping bean was coming off Seve's club back in the day; a bullet is launched from Rory's today.
and i haven't even touched on the disparate nature of the clubs used. go back 4 decades and take the piece of wood out of Seve hands and give him a technological sword instead. and vice versa with Rory today. it would make a colossal difference. the balls, the clubs, the length of the tracks.............it's an effort in futility trying to figure out who was truly better than whom because it was a completely different game then vs now. just like pro football.
peers, not eras
The drivers today have a sweet spot larger than the entire cub head from 40 years ago, not to mention what they’re made of. When I first started to golf in the late 60’s the Woods were actually made of wood.
Technology has really helped the weekend golfer like what I was till my shoulders betrayed me.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," --- Benjamin Franklin
I'm following Swells logic here
Let me explain, in 1950 I think or 1949 George Talieferro was the first Black guy to get drafted in the NFL which that in itself is completely ridiculous, the amount of Black players that were not given a chance seriously diminished the talent pool, I don't know the ratio or numbers but football was predominately made up of white players for a number of reasons and not all them were good reasons.
I'm not saying it definitely would have impacted Browns stats or what he accomplished but I'm willing to bet that had the ratio of Blacks in the league been higher like it was in Sanders day I absolutely believe the level of competition would have been a lot better.
Not trying to put politics or social discrimination into the conversation too much but it's a point that should be brought up
Speaking of economics, these athletes were rarely full time althletes
Most of them had other jobs in the off-season
In 1991 I started playing in beer league softball leagues, I used to bench press 340 and squat 425, I rarely hit HR's with those 1980:s aluminum bats and "Soft" 'balls, around 2004 I got my first composite bat and we started using red and blue dot balls which were harder balls and I went from being a slap hitter to hitting bombs, like 300 + foot HR's, we had a 280 fence and I used to launch them well over the fence regularly, technology in sports even at that level turned the game around big time
Seve used to practice with pine cones. He wasn't much for the gym as I recall. Greg Norman is one of the guys who I credit with changing the game. He wasn't much for the pressure, but the guy was one of the first to really bring weight training to golf.
Perk you know why I know I am right? The NFL agreed with me because that is exactly what they ended up doing. It just took them a little longer. Someone could have done it all in one year if they wanted to.
It is pretty easy to see when Jim Brown averaged 127 yds a game and the next best guy in the league averaged 65...and knowing the dynamics of society and the growing country at play...and the growing economics too BGR...and then see that Brown would have to average 245 yds a game to replicate that 'dominance' now...it shouldn't hard for anyone with a sense of logic or common sense to figure that the main reason why he dominated to that degree is because the competition was easier to dominate than Saquon Barkley had to compete against last year. I guess unless someone really thinks Brown would average 245 yds a game in the modern NFL.
@1948_Swell_Robinson said: for Jim Brown to replicate his 1958 dominance in 2024 would have to average 245 yards per game rushing
I'm not following this at all, can you explain what you're trying to say??
In 1958 Jim Brown rushed for 1,527 yards on 245 attempts. That averages to 5.9 yards/attempt and 21.4 attempts/game. To extrapolate further, he averaged 127.3 yards/game during a 12 game schedule in 1958. If he did that during 2024 in a 17 game schedule he'd end up with 2,164 yards.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," --- Benjamin Franklin
He averaged 127 yds a game. The next guy in the league averaged 65. That is dominance. No doubt. Of course it is fairly obvious(to me and a few others at least) why an elite specimen like Brown would dominate that league at that time in our country's history to that degree.
In order for Jim Brown to dominate to that same degree over the next best back in the league in 2024, he would have to beat Saqon Barkley by that same percentage. Barkley averaged 125 yds a game. It would take Brown 245 yds to dominate Barkley in that same manner. Derrik Henry averaged 113 as third best.
The reality is that back then, Brown's size and speed made him a unicorn. Now that size and speed isn't uncommon. There are even bigger and faster guys now(Henry). In any given year any one of those games who are just as physically gifted as Brown could emerge for their big year...so there is ZERO chance Brown would lead the modern NFL in rushing nine years in a row and less than zero chance he could dominate the same degree he did back then because there are more better players(for whatever reason you want to apply as to why, there simply are).
Now I do want to be clear that this does not automatically exclude Brown from the possibility that he was better than any running back in 2024...we can only guess on that. It does put the dominance factor into clear reality though, so whenever someone uses the nine rushing titles or the domainance over league as their measure...those don't really hold water due to the dynamics at play unique to certain eras.
However, while it does not exclude Brown from being considered the best back ever...it certainly should make you question the knee jerk reaction that automatically proclaims him the best for the typical reasons used.