Ben Roethlisberger vs Terry Bradshaw

[polamalubeast]

Right now who is the best QB in steelers history?

Roethlisberger played 13 seasons and 14 seasons for Bradshaw, but in 1983 Bradshaw only played one game, so this may be the right time to ask this question.

[smokin3000gt]

I wasn't even a thought yet in the 70's but I would think you have to give the nod to the man with more SB rings. Tough to say though because if Ben had team TB had I think he would've had more rings....

[st33lersguy]

The tricky thing of Ben vs Bradshaw is on one hand you could argue Ben would have won more Super Bowls than he did had he had Bradshaw's supporting cast. On the other hand you could argue Bradshaw would have had better stats had he played in the pass happy era Ben played in. However, I give the nod to Bradshaw because you could not argue that Bradshaw played better in the big game. Bradshaw engineered 6 TD drives in the 4th quarter, 4 of them turned a one possession game into a 2 possession game

[pczach]

I think Ben has been the better, more consistent player.

Ben has had far less talent around him, and the talent has changed far more often, so Ben has had to adjust and learn timing and ball placement with all the different pass catchers he has played with.

I think Ben would have won a ton of super bowls with the roster that Terry played with, because he is a more consistent performer.

On the other hand, although Terry would have lots of stinker games......even in the playoffs.....it's hard to imagine Ben playing any better than him with some of those super bowl performances Terry had.

We have been very lucky to have both of them.

[86WARD]

Both are Hall of Fame...Bradshaw was Fabre before Fabre with his style of play. If you put Ben on that 70's team, he'd excel. His numbers probably wouldn't be as good as they are now, but I think he'd fit in. I'm not sure that Bradshaw would fit in with today's teams. I tend to think he would, but I'm not as sure as I am that Ben would fit in on Bradshaw's teams. It's a good debate and I don't think either answer is wrong...two of my all time favorite Steelers.

[DesertSteel]

I don't like Terry Bradshaw, but I give him the edge until Ben wins one more ring. TB had the greater team around him, but Ben doesn't have DBs mugging WRs all the way down the field and lineman hitting him in the head.

[Steeldude]

It's hard to say. They come from two different eras.

Note: I have never believed in the notion of more SB wins equates to a better player. Is Dilfer better than Marino?

I will give the nod to Bradshaw.

[Born2Steel]

It's hard to say. They come from two different eras.

Note: I have never believed in the notion of more SB wins equates to a better player. Is Dilfer better than Marino?

I will give the nod to Bradshaw.

I'm the same. Rings are the measuring stick but means nothing for individual ability. I just think Ben would never get sacked by 70s defenders. He would be a giant amongst men. Maybe go deep ball to Bradshaw, everything else to Ben.

[Craic]

Right now who is the best QB in steelers history?

Roethlisberger played 13 seasons and 14 seasons for Bradshaw, but in 1983 Bradshaw only played one game, so this may be the right time to ask this question.

"Best" is too subjective. Who would I rather have in the SB? Bradshaw. He was the ultimate big-game QB. Who would I rather have to get me to the SB? Career-wise, Ben.

I guess if you were looking at pure game I would then choose Ben. But, this league is a championship driven league. Yet, how can you win if you don't get there? Fact of the matter is, Ben got there 3 times, and was within 1 game of getting there five times. So, perhaps, I give the nod to Ben, but then I remember Bradshaw has twice as many SB titles, and three of which are probably won by him, rather than his team or his defense. And around and around it goes.

Suffice it to say, very few teams can boast two franchise, multiple SB-winning QBs. We're lucky to be one of them. And, just thing, we could have had ​three.

[silver & black]

I usually stay out of things between you guys in this forum. But... you have to remember that the game was quite a bit different in the 70's. QB's got hit...hard. WR's got mugged all the way down the field. Hits were vicious... no targeting or helmet to helmet bullshit calls.

It's hard to say who would be the better QB. I'd roll with either one.

[Born2Steel]

I usually stay out of things between you guys in this forum. But... you have to remember that the game was quite a bit different in the 70's. QB's got hit...hard. WR's got mugged all the way down the field. Hits were visious... no targeting or helmet to helmet bullshit calls.

It's hard to say who would be the better QB. I'd roll with either one.

Exactly.

[Moose]

Different era as was said earlier. Early era QBs were the target, now you can't touch them. Now you have to be a pretty smart QB, know how to read the defense's and do alot of 'run and gun' more so than back then. For this era I went with Ben because of the 'run and gun'. Bradshaw more so of a pocket passer.

[teegre]

Similarly, I was perusing the Lions forums, and they had a similar poll about Scott Mitchell and Matthew Stafford...

:wink02:


Joking aside, along with the 49ers, Cowboys, and Packers, we are arguably one of the very few teams with two (let alone one) HOFers at QB. (Do I count the Broncos???)

[43Hitman]

I'm the lone undecided in this poll. I'll take either one. Quite honestly, they're both HOF'ers.

[Steeldude]

I'm the same. Rings are the measuring stick but means nothing for individual ability. I just think Ben would never get sacked by 70s defenders. He would be a giant amongst men. Maybe go deep ball to Bradshaw, everything else to Ben.

Ah, but late hits on the QB weren't called in the 70's so much. You didn't have to pull up or avoid hitting the QB's head. Also, WRs won't be open so easily in the 70's.

Bradshaw would probably be like Favre if he played today.

It's a toss up, IMO

[86WARD]

Similarly, I was perusing the Lions forums, and they had a similar poll about Scott Mitchell and Matthew Stafford...

:wink02:


Joking aside, along with the 49ers, Cowboys, and Packers, we are arguably one of the very few teams with two (let alone one) HOFers at QB. (Do I count the Broncos???)

Who? Brister and Elway?

[teegre]

Who? Brister and Elway?

Peyton Manning...

[86WARD]

Peyton Manning...

[emoji23]

[86WARD]

I was just watching some footage on Bradshaw and I really don't know which one of these guys I would take...they are both pretty damned good. When you talk about All-Time greats, Bradshaw really gets overlooked...he pretty much gets the same treatment that Ben does today...

[tube517]

I was just watching some footage on Bradshaw and I really don't know which one of these guys I would take...they are both pretty damned good. When you talk about All-Time greats, Bradshaw really gets overlooked...he pretty much gets the same treatment that Ben does today...

You are right. Bradshaw's stats suck. Ben has the better overall passing stats. Both big physical QBs who took some vicious hits.

But Bradshaw was clutch even when he had bad games (3 INTs in SB XIV), but he and Stallworth had to put the Rams away because they could not run the ball in that game. Noll even told him on the sidelines, you will have to pass for us to win.

XIII - Bradshaw's best game. He even got strip sacked and threw a pick in the 1st half but threw 4 TDs in that game.

X- he gets knocked the F out by Larry Cole but throws a beautiful bomb to Swann to put the Cryboys away.

IX- 4th quarter bullet to Larry Brown puts the game away.

[st33lersguy]

Similarly, I was perusing the Lions forums, and they had a similar poll about Scott Mitchell and Matthew Stafford...

:wink02:


Joking aside, along with the 49ers, Cowboys, and Packers, we are arguably one of the very few teams with two (let alone one) HOFers at QB. (Do I count the Broncos???)

You can also count the Colts with Peyton and Johnny U