PDA

View Full Version : Staubach ranked higher over Bradshaw in NFL's Greatest Players list



tube517
10-07-2010, 10:50 PM
http://top100.nfl.com/

Bradshaw #50 - Staubach #46

Steelers Tally so far:

Rod Woodson #41
Mel Blount #44
Terry Bradshaw #50
Jack Ham #60
Mike Webster #68

pepsyman1
10-07-2010, 11:25 PM
Roger definitely put up more consistent numbers over his career, BUT as far as I know he was 0 for CAREER against the Steelers in regular or post season games...and obviously Terry has no Superbowl losses. Terry's playoff statistics are much better than his career stats. NOBODY threw deep route passes like Bradshaw...even today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2U1Xtci4PBw

BPS3akaWirels3
10-07-2010, 11:27 PM
Let me get that for you..


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2U1Xtci4PBw

SirHulka
10-08-2010, 01:58 AM
You have to take into account the COMPLETE body of works. I'm sure that they considered the fact that in his first 5 seasons, Bradshaw threw over 90 picks, and fewer than 50 TD's. He didn't blossom until Swann and Stallworth came along, which begs the question of who made who.

TroysBarber
10-08-2010, 08:41 AM
He didn't blossom until Swann and Stallworth came along, which begs the question of who made who.

Agreed. In 1976, when Bradshaw was injured, Kruzak' came in and performed at a level comparable to Bradshaw. His passer rating was almost identical to Bradshaw's during the latter's glory years. I'm not a Bradshaw hater, but he was an above average QB with a great running game, great O line, 2 HOF receivers, and a defense that gave him good field position. A great supporting cast can make an average QB look great, and a poor supporting cast can make even the best QB look average. I'm not saying that Bradshaw was an average QB, but I don't think that he belongs on this list at all.

CanadianSteel
10-08-2010, 09:37 AM
Ya I have been watching this with great interest as well.
Terry stats dont match up well with many but you cannot deny the 4 rings and the bigger game the better he played. And man what an arm..... one of the best deep balls ever.

Joe Greene better be top ten or something is not right..... Lambert will be up there as well but not likely top ten.

ALLD
10-08-2010, 09:47 AM
Agreed. In 1976, when Bradshaw was injured, Kruzak' came in and performed at a level comparable to Bradshaw. His passer rating was almost identical to Bradshaw's during the latter's glory years. I'm not a Bradshaw hater, but he was an above average QB with a great running game, great O line, 2 HOF receivers, and a defense that gave him good field position. A great supporting cast can make an average QB look great, and a poor supporting cast can make even the best QB look average. I'm not saying that Bradshaw was an average QB, but I don't think that he belongs on this list at all.


"You might lose with me, but you can't win without me."
Brad to Joe Greene

Edman
10-08-2010, 10:52 AM
I have no problem with that.

Staubach has an overall better body of work in terms of stats even though he won only one Super Bowl and lost both Super Bowl matchups against Terry.

CPanther95
10-08-2010, 12:03 PM
I'm not surprised. The bigger mystery to me is how much higher than Staubach that Big Ben will be ranked. If Staubach was "Captain Comeback" with 15 game winning drives and 2 SBs in 11 years, Ben should be significantly higher.

MULLDOG24
10-08-2010, 12:07 PM
Agreed. In 1976, when Bradshaw was injured, Kruzak' came in and performed at a level comparable to Bradshaw. His passer rating was almost identical to Bradshaw's during the latter's glory years. I'm not a Bradshaw hater, but he was an above average QB with a great running game, great O line, 2 HOF receivers, and a defense that gave him good field position. A great supporting cast can make an average QB look great, and a poor supporting cast can make even the best QB look average. I'm not saying that Bradshaw was an average QB, but I don't think that he belongs on this list at all.
I gotta strongly disagree here! The question of "who made who" could be said of all great QB's. Bradshaw had Swann/Stallworth Staubach had Pearson/hill. Terry had the steel curtain, Staubach had Doomsday, Terry had Franco, Staubach had Dorsett, Both had great O-lines and great teams around them.Both even had great HOF coaches! The same can be said about Elway, Montanna, Manning, Brady. Bradshaw won with a great team but so did every other SB winning QB. To say that Bradshaw doesn't belong on this list isn't even justifiable. I'm not gonna argue the placement on this list because of stats but Terry definately belongs on this list. Bradshaw was a leader and a warrior on the field who would scratch and claw to get the win and that can't be measured by stats.

steeldevil
10-08-2010, 12:59 PM
There are so many factors that go into making lists like these that I dont even pay attention to them. You shouldnt get too hyped up if a certain someone is higher than someone else. If you wanna say that superbowls mean everything then Terry should be ranked over Dan Marino... Yea Right.... If you wanna say stats mean everything then Brett Favre is the best QB ever.... Yea Right. Lists like this mean NOTHING guys...

tube517
10-08-2010, 01:48 PM
I posted this because I thought it provides some interesting debate. Just cause I'm bored, I pulled the stats of both QB's and will post them here. I think both should be on the list but the debate of who should be ranked higher is all subjective.


Bradshaw
4 Super Bowl rings
2 Super Bowl MVPs
1 NFL MVP
14-5 playoff record
107-51 career record (regular season)
70.9 career passer rating
212 TD's
210 INT's
51.9 % Comp Pct.
27,989 Yds

Staubach
2 Super Bowl rings
1 Super Bowl MVP
11-6 playoff record
85-29 career record (regular season)
83.4 career passer rating
153 TD's
109 INT's
57.0 Comp Pct.
22,700 Yds

Head to head record:

Bradshaw vs Staubach - 5 wins, 0 losses
Staubach vs Bradshaw - 0 wins, 5 losses

Texasteel
10-08-2010, 02:15 PM
I watched them both their whole carrier and I know that it just isn't true. Don't take my word for it Mel Blount, the best CB to ever play the game, called Bradshaw the best he had ever seen. Of course this is just mine and Mel's opinion.

VTsteel
10-08-2010, 02:18 PM
Bradshaw > Staubach - This is really a no brainer "You play to win the game" And THE Game is the Superbowl!


Bradshaw > Staubach (Not even close)

pepsyman1
10-08-2010, 02:38 PM
Agreed. In 1976, when Bradshaw was injured, Kruzak' came in and performed at a level comparable to Bradshaw. His passer rating was almost identical to Bradshaw's during the latter's glory years. I'm not a Bradshaw hater, but he was an above average QB with a great running game, great O line, 2 HOF receivers, and a defense that gave him good field position. A great supporting cast can make an average QB look great, and a poor supporting cast can make even the best QB look average. I'm not saying that Bradshaw was an average QB, but I don't think that he belongs on this list at all.

Bradshaw was at his best in the biggest games and became better as he got older. All his stats are significantly better the 2nd half of his career and his playoff QB rating rose to 83. At the time he retired he had thrown for more playoff TD's than any other QB at 30. Check out an interesting article about Bradshaw and Montana. Terry was the man in the big games. Staubach had great teams too, with all the same things..running game, defense, o-line, but was never able to beat Bradshaw and the Steelers

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=5850

zulater
10-08-2010, 03:12 PM
Ham at 60 ,is way too low.

Texasteel
10-08-2010, 07:39 PM
Ham at 60 ,is way too low.

Just another list for me to ignore Zu

Count Steeler
10-08-2010, 08:47 PM
Both quarterbacks were elite in their day. Both had good teams surrounding them. In any list or survey, they will be listed higher or lower. If Bradshaw or Staubach have fragile egos, then they will have to deal with being placed where they are. Montana will probably be the highest rated quarterback on this list, and unfortunately, Big Ben will never get the respect he will deserve once his "body of work" is complete. One unchangeable fact is that Bradshaw has 4 rings and would have had 5 except for the injuries in 76.

Butch
10-08-2010, 09:28 PM
Rankings and stats are for losers it's what makes them feel better. We will never get the benefit of these rankings because the media is chock full of haters, and we are winners so they have to show love for the underdog.

Can't get to many Steelers in the Hall because that just wouldn't be fair. When we win it's because of the refs, and when we lose they all rejoice.

To me there was no sweeter victory than when we won XLIII and when I tuned into NFL Network Dipshit Peon was all upset that we won. He was on the set mumbling to himself. You could see the loathing in his words and even more so in his actions. What a whinie ass baby!!! WHA!!!

GBMelBlount
10-08-2010, 10:22 PM
I watched them both their whole carrier and I know that it just isn't true. Don't take my word for it Mel Blount, the best CB to ever play the game, called Bradshaw the best he had ever seen. Of course this is just mine and Mel's opinion.

Sometimes you can throw the stats out the window....

The TRUE greats perform in the clutch when EVERYTHING is on the line.

Bradshaw got it done in the clutch. Period.

...and Mel Blount....a beast above ALL others...nuff said.

SirHulka
10-09-2010, 07:25 AM
And man what an arm..... one of the best deep balls ever.
Yeah, but by itself, that means nothing. Derek Anderson has a great arm, too. So did Ryan Leaf.

oneforthetoe
10-09-2010, 10:32 AM
Yeah, but by itself, that means nothing. Derek Anderson has a great arm, too. So did Ryan Leaf.

I agree, but I don't think that his arm strength needs to be measured by itself. He used that rocket arm as a weapon to hook up with Swann and Stallworth deep in big games at big moments. Very little dinking and dunking down the field.

silver & black
10-09-2010, 10:40 AM
Yeah, but by itself, that means nothing. Derek Anderson has a great arm, too. So did Ryan Leaf.

... and JaMarcus Russell. :sofunny:

cold-hard-steel
10-09-2010, 11:05 AM
Terry did have great pocket ability. He was not that easy to bring down,even if you got a hand on him. Kinda like Ben. I don't even care where he is ranked. He does have 4 rings to admire anytime he chooses to,so that in itself is quite an accomplishment.

melblount
10-09-2010, 11:11 AM
I watched them both their whole carrier and I know that it just isn't true. Don't take my word for it Mel Blount, the best CB to ever play the game, called Bradshaw the best he had ever seen. Of course this is just mine and Mel's opinion.

Well, I'm a major Mel Blount fan (as you can tell by my avatar) and I've been a life-long Steeler fan since the early 70's (old fart alert here), but with all due respect I'd have to disagree.

I remember suffering through the early Bradshaw years well enough. The man just flat-out stunk. He was so horrible it was embarrassing to watch. It was comparable to Tommy Maddox's last outing against the Ravens - which ushered in the Big Ben era. But Tommy had one dreadful game; Bradshaw was consistently bad. Many just wanted his head on a plate. Had he played in the modern era, Bradshaw would have ended up as just another Ryan Leaf. It was the running game and defense that got us through those early years. And later, as someone posted earlier - it was Swann and Stallworth. IMHO, those guys made Bradshaw look like a genius.

If anyone here remembers actually watching the games in the 70's, you'll remember that the announcers used to constantly say that what made Swann and Stallworth such great receivers was that "They come back for the ball". I remember as a kid, hearing the commentators say that time and time again. "Look at that Don, see how he comes back for the ball? That's what makes him great..." Most other receivers would give up on a ball when they could see it was under thrown, and the ball would be intercepted. That's what plagued Terry in his early years. But Swann and Stallworth just refused to let that happen. They literally saved Terry's career.

The fact is, Bradshaw was hardly ever on-target. He had a cannon of an arm (nobody could argue with that), and he was tough as nails - but he was wild. That's why a highlight reel of the 70's includes so many circus catches by Swann and Stallworth. Those guys had to make circus catches all the time - because Bradshaw's balls were all over the place! All you have to do is watch the highlights to see that what I'm saying is true. Not many NFL receivers could make those catches - even today. Both of those guys were simply amazing. Before Swann and Stallworth, all the kids in school wanted to be running backs. Everybody used to pretend they were O.J. Simpson (scary in hindsight). After Swann and Stallworth arrived on the scene - every kid wanted to be a receiver. Those guys did for receivers what Mel Blount did for cornerbacks. They changed the game.

Swann and Stallworth may not have the stats of Jerry Rice or some others - but put either one of them on the 49'ers of the 80's with Montana behind center - and there isn't a doubt in my mind that they would have been every bit as good as Rice - if not better.

In the end, of course, it's a team sport. Every player benefits from the players around him and it's impossible to say for certain where one man's contribution begins and another ends. However, having watched both men perform in their prime, and as a life-long Steeler fan and Cowboy hater - I have to admit that if I had to pick a quarterback to lead my team, it would be Staubach over Bradshaw.

Although, in my opinion, Marino was better than either of them! :salute:

cold-hard-steel
10-09-2010, 11:34 AM
wow man, that was some real cuttin on Terry kind of post.Never thought in a million years i would hear such opionated remarks uttered by you.No matter how you want to slice it,if the ball is there and the reciever catches it,who gets the credit? You say the reciever. How did the ball get there?What did Terry have to endure to even get the ball off? Dude,that was wrong of you in my opinion.Oh well.4 rings tell me different.

melblount
10-10-2010, 12:24 AM
wow man, that was some real cuttin on Terry kind of post.Never thought in a million years i would hear such opionated remarks uttered by you.No matter how you want to slice it,if the ball is there and the reciever catches it,who gets the credit? You say the reciever. How did the ball get there?What did Terry have to endure to even get the ball off? Dude,that was wrong of you in my opinion.Oh well.4 rings tell me different.

Well, maybe. But I have always thought that Bradshaw was overrated by most Steeler fans. I'm not saying he didn't eventually become a terrific quarterback - I'm just saying 4 Superbowl rings have made it easy for us to forgive and forget a lot of his shortcomings.

Would the Steelers of the 70's have won four Superbowls with Staubach behind center? In my opinion, yes. In all honesty, I think those guys could have won four Superbowls with Staubach, Fouts or Stabler leading them. However, I can't think of any adequate replacements for Swann, Stallworth, Green, Blount, Lambert, Ham or Webster. They were the absolute best at their positions - maybe of all time. Bradshaw just wasn't.

Think about it: In the entire history of the NFL there are only two quarterbacks with 4 rings - Bradshaw and Montana. So why is it that when people debate about who the greatest football player of all time was, Montana's name is nearly always mentioned - and Bradshaw's never is? I guarantee you that Montana will be ranked in the top 10 players for sure, and maybe in the top 3. Bradshaw isn't even in the discussion. There's a reason for that...

Texasteel
10-10-2010, 06:26 AM
We will just have to disagree mel. I can remember Terry putting the ball between two defenders and right into the hand of the receiver many times. I can also remember a pass to Stallworth in the SB against the Rams that was thrown pretty darn well, one of my favorite plays. Terry did in fact have a lot of faith in his WRs. causing him to some times throw the ball when he shouldn't have, but that does cancel out the fact that he was the one doing the throwing on the completed passes. Also remember he was the one that was calling the plays.

Would we have won 4 SBs without him? That is hard to say for sure, but I do know that he was considered the MVP of 2 of them. That has to count for something.

melblount
10-10-2010, 11:11 AM
We will just have to disagree mel. I can remember Terry putting the ball between two defenders and right into the hand of the receiver many times. I can also remember a pass to Stallworth in the SB against the Rams that was thrown pretty darn well, one of my favorite plays. Terry did in fact have a lot of faith in his WRs. causing him to some times throw the ball when he shouldn't have, but that does cancel out the fact that he was the one doing the throwing on the completed passes. Also remember he was the one that was calling the plays.

Would we have won 4 SBs without him? That is hard to say for sure, but I do know that he was considered the MVP of 2 of them. That has to count for something.

Yeah, fair enough. I know I cheered as hard as anybody else when he made a great play. In the end, he's the one who got it done. All the rest is just meaningless debate.

cold-hard-steel
10-10-2010, 11:17 AM
He always stepped up for the most part in big games. Never had the stats,but the one stat that stands out is he batted 1000% in the biggest games of all.

pepsyman1
10-10-2010, 11:48 AM
Some will continue to say that Bradshaw is over rated, but it was a very different game back then. Staubach from a QB rating standpoint was one of THE absolute best at the time, but his numbers would be considered mediocre in today's game. Bradshaw's QB rating the first 5 years of his career was so low it would have taken a miracle to make that number look good by the time he retired. Staubach was definitely the more consistent player, but Terry was better in the big games. Staubach's playoff QB rating goes DOWN from his career average, Bradshaw's skyrockets. For anyone who still thinks Terry is overrated, take a quick look at these stats and consider why some of us feel as strong as we do about him in big games.

Playoff QB stats:
1. Joe Montana:
16-7 playoff record
4 NFC Championships
4 Super Bowls
3 Super Bowl MVPs
95.6 playoff passer rating

2. Terry Bradshaw:
14-5 playoff record
4 AFC Championships
4 Super Bowls
2 Super Bowl MVPs
92.4 playoff passer rating

3. Tom Brady:
14-4 playoff record
4 AFC Championships
3 Super Bowls
2 Super Bowl MVPs
85.5 playoff passer rating

4. Troy Aikman:
11-5 playoff record
3 NFC Championships
3 Super Bowls
1 Super Bowl MVP
88.3 playoff passer rating

5. John Elway:
14-8 playoff record
5 AFC Championships
2 Super Bowls
1 Super Bowl MVP
79.7 playoff passer rating

6. Roger Staubach:
12-6 playoff record
4 NFC Championships
2 Super Bowls
1 Super Bowl MVP
76.0 playoff passer rating

7. Jim Plunkett:
8-2 playoff record
2 AFC Championships
2 Super Bowls
1 Super Bowl MVP
81.9 playoff passer rating

8. Kurt Warner:
9-3 playoff record
3 NFC Championships
1 Super Bowl
1 Super Bowl MVP
104.6 playoff passer rating

9. Ben Roethlisberger:
8-2 playoff record
2 AFC Championships
2 Super Bowls
87.2 playoff passer rating

10. Joe Theissmann:
6-2 playoff record
2 NFC Championships
1 Super Bowl
91.4 playoff passer rating

Dino 6 Rings
10-10-2010, 11:54 AM
2 - 0 Terry wins in the Super Bowls head to head. Game Set Match.

Dang Terry was only the QB, which is the most important player on any team, of the greatest team in the history of the NFL.

Talk about no love.

Haven't I scientifically proven that Terry Bradshaw is actually the greatest athlete in the history of Earth? Pretty sure I did that with deductive reasoning already...

The United States is the Greatest Country in the history of the World.
Football is the greatest Sport in the Greatest Country in the World.
The Pittsburgh Steelers of the 1970s are the Greatest Team in the History of the Greatest Sport in the Greatest Country in the world.
Terry Bradshaw was QB (the most important position in Football) of the Greatest Team in the Greatest Sport in the Greatest Country in the World.

By Default, that means, Terry Bradshaw is the Greatest Athlete in the History of the World.

pepsyman1
10-10-2010, 11:57 AM
Dino...I love your logic... LOL

vasteeler
10-10-2010, 12:01 PM
nice Dino....nice!!

melblount
10-10-2010, 01:16 PM
Here's an article from "Cold Hard Football Facts" which is two years old, but on-topic. Basically, he says exactly what I've been saying - so if you don't want to hear about it, don't read it:

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_2280_The_Golden_Age_of_the_passing_game.html

Dino 6 Rings
10-10-2010, 01:30 PM
Here's an article from "Cold Hard Football Facts" which is two years old, but on-topic. Basically, he says exactly what I've been saying - so if you don't want to hear about it, don't read it:

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_2280_The_Golden_Age_of_the_passing_game.html

Cold Hard Football Facts has Already been Disproven as an Opinion Site. Once they ranked Nate Washington as a better receiver than both Holmes and Ward, they lost all credibility. That is FACT!

cold-hard-steel
10-10-2010, 04:07 PM
Somebody got a man-crush on Rodger the Dodger. Yuk

fansince'76
10-10-2010, 04:16 PM
I'm not saying that Bradshaw was an average QB, but I don't think that he belongs on this list at all.

Well, Namath definitely doesn't belong on it, not even at the bottom of it.


Here's an article from "Cold Hard Football Facts" which is two years old, but on-topic. Basically, he says exactly what I've been saying - so if you don't want to hear about it, don't read it:

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_2280_The_Golden_Age_of_the_passing_game.html

Since I consider CHFF to be a joke, thanks, I'll pass. Gee, I wonder if Cowher will ever win a Super Bowl, since they said he wouldn't?

Butch
10-10-2010, 04:26 PM
Cold Hard Facts is a freakin' joke!!! What a contradictory name for a show based purely on opinions with nothing substantial to base those opinions on.

BigNastyDefense
10-10-2010, 04:56 PM
I am not going to argue the placement of them on this list, both were all-time great quarterbacks on all-time great teams.

Bradshaw had Swann/Stallworth/Harris.

Staubach had Pearson/Hayes/Dorsett.

Bradshaw and Staubach both had great offensive lines.

Steel Curtain vs. Doomsday Defense

Steelers had Chuck Noll as their head coach, Cowboys had Tom Landry.

It's not like either of these guys won the games on their own, but they were both key cogs.

The Steelers don't win four Super Bowls in the 1970's (including 2-0 vs. Cowboys) without Bradshaw.

The Cowboys don't win two Super Bowls in the same era without Staubach.

And both also played in two different eras. The first one was an era where the forward pass wasn't used much by most teams and the defenses could mug receivers all over the field. The second one made defenses play less physical with receivers, started protected QB's more than before, and really opened up passing games. Once this happened, Bradshaw's career really took off and he started putting up the numbers everyone expected from him.

When the lights shined the brightest, Terry Bradshaw played his very best. He was the epitome of the big game quarterback. He's one of only two quarterbacks to win four Super Bowls (Joe Montana is the other).

Bradshaw deserves to be on this list just as much as Staubach.

I just hope Tom Brady doesn't end up #1.

melblount
10-10-2010, 07:50 PM
Somebody got a man-crush on Rodger the Dodger. Yuk

Haha - no man, like I said, I've always hated the Cowboys. I just don't have a problem giving credit where credit is due, that's all. I do think it's kind of funny that so many people here are bent out of shape just because Terry is ranked a few spots behind Roger. So what? Staubach was a great QB. How does that dimish what the Steelers did? If anything, it makes the Steeler's victories over the Cowboys all that more impressive. The Steelers were clearly the better team. That's all that counts.

Maybe I'm being overly harsh on Bradshaw, I don't know. I think history has been pretty kind to him in general though (Thanks in large part to FOX Sports). I get the feeling that the newer generations have all but forgotten guys like Roger the Dodger and Kenny "The Snake" Stabler. I guess for an old-school type like me, there's something a little sad about that. As much as I hated the Cowboys and Raiders - I have to admit, they were worthy opponents.

cold-hard-steel
10-10-2010, 08:02 PM
Try measuring by the rings dude. Stats don't mean too much. Trophies mean a lot.

melblount
10-10-2010, 08:30 PM
Since I consider CHFF to be a joke, thanks, I'll pass. Gee, I wonder if Cowher will ever win a Super Bowl, since they said he wouldn't?


Cold Hard Football Facts has Already been Disproven as an Opinion Site. Once they ranked Nate Washington as a better receiver than both Holmes and Ward, they lost all credibility. That is FACT!


Cold Hard Facts is a freakin' joke!!! What a contradictory name for a show based purely on opinions with nothing substantial to base those opinions on.


Wow. I had no idea there was such animosity here towards CHFF. So, let me get this straight guys: At some time in the distant past somebody on that website had the audacity to suggest that Cowher would never win a Superbowl - and then at another time someone said Nate Washington would one day be better than Ward or Holmes? Therefore, from here on out, everything that appears on that website is pure nonsense and should not, under any circumstances be believed or taken seriously. Is that how your reasoning actually works?

So, how do you reconcile the fact that unlike the rest of the media, CHFF consider Big Ben to be far more than just a "game manager". In fact, they think he is on his way to becoming one of the greatest QB's of all time...

CAUTION! Reading the following article could cause your brains to explode:

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_2440_It%27s_official:_Big_Ben_one_of_the_best.h tml

cold-hard-steel
10-10-2010, 08:36 PM
Dude,what are you trying to prove? Dallas lost today so you can go back home now.Your true colors shine through.

cold-hard-steel
10-10-2010, 08:44 PM
What would you remember most of all? How many yards you passed for,or maybe how many interceptions you had thrown?
Maybe what your passer rating was ? Or do think maybe you would look at the four of six trophies sittin all shiney and bright in the case? Maybe how many times you got beat in head to head games? You tell me. I want to know. Or could you possibly be the author of the article you are so highly appraising? Are you a writer for them?

BlastFurnace
10-10-2010, 09:00 PM
It's been 27 years since Terry retired. No, he didn't break in and set the league on fire like Ben did as a rookie, but he also didn't have the quality of team Ben did in 1970 either and the rules were significantly different back then. It was much harder for a rookie QB to come in and play well back then. I don't really look at Brad's stats before 1973 when I judge him. Bradshaw's development was slow according to today's standards. Keep in mind, back then, a QB was typically expected to take 3 to 5 years to develop.

Was he better than Roger? In big games, I would say yes. There is evidence to support that. In comparing their prime years, I would also say yes. Is the difference in prime year stats huge between them...No. The big difference is in Super Bowl wins and Terry beat Roger twice.

But...I also think the Steelers could have won Super Bowls with Roger as their QB as well...Just like I think they could have won with Bert Jones and Archie Manning.

Look at other 1970's QB's and their TD/Int Ratio. Dan Fouts, as an example, only had 12 more TD's than INT's.

fansince'76
10-10-2010, 09:14 PM
Therefore, from here on out, everything that appears on that website is pure nonsense and should not, under any circumstances be believed or taken seriously. Is that how your reasoning actually works?

My biggest problem with CHFF is that there are a bunch of slobbering Pats homers that run it, and their homerism tends to bleed into a LOT of their articles. The gratuitous potshots at Peyton Manning that show up in many of their pieces, especially when they are in no way germane to the topic itself are beyond annoying, for one example. Pretty disingenuous when they are trying to pass themselves off as objective. Sorry, but IMO, they are far from objective. So you'll have to pardon me if I choose not to give their site hits. I think their articles are mostly tripe.

Texasteel
10-10-2010, 09:15 PM
Wow. I had no idea there was such animosity here toward CHFF. So, let me get this straight guys: At some time in the distant past somebody on that website had the audacity to suggest that Cowher would never win a Superbowl - and then at another time someone said Nate Washington would one day be better than Ward or Holmes? Therefore, from here on out, everything that appears on that website is pure nonsense and should not, under any circumstances be believed or taken seriously. Is that how your reasoning actually works?

So, how do you reconcile the fact that unlike the rest of the media, CHFF consider Big Ben to be far more than just a "game manager". In fact, they think he is on his way to becoming one of the greatest QB's of all time...

CAUTION! Reading the following article could cause your brains to explode:

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_2440_It%27s_official:_Big_Ben_one_of_the_best.h tml


Mel, I think what they are saying is that they find CHFF unreliable, and that an least some of their writings in the past have been way off target. That doesn't necessarily make everything they write nonsense, but it does effect their credibility. Again its a matter of a persons opinion. You may chose to believe and agree with what is written, and others chose to disregard it as an unreliable source.

GBMelBlount
10-10-2010, 09:53 PM
Haha - no man, like I said, I've always hated the Cowboys. I just don't have a problem giving credit where credit is due, that's all. I do think it's kind of funny that so many people here are bent out of shape just because Terry is ranked a few spots behind Roger. So what? Staubach was a great QB. How does that dimish what the Steelers did? If anything, it makes the Steeler's victories over the Cowboys all that more impressive. The Steelers were clearly the better team. That's all that counts.

Maybe I'm being overly harsh on Bradshaw, I don't know. I think history has been pretty kind to him in general though (Thanks in large part to FOX Sports). I get the feeling that the newer generations have all but forgotten guys like Roger the Dodger and Kenny "The Snake" Stabler. I guess for an old-school type like me, there's something a little sad about that. As much as I hated the Cowboys and Raiders - I have to admit, they were worthy opponents.

It is simply your opinion brother.

CHFF has their opinions and each of us as steelers fans have ours as well....

Right or wrong these are all simply OPINIONS we have as passionate fans..

Regardless, great posts Mel and welcome to the board friend. :drink:

Dino 6 Rings
10-10-2010, 10:43 PM
Passer Rating in the Biggest game, the Super Bowl.

Bradshaw, 4 Games, Rating = 112.80
Staubach, 4 Games, Rating = 96.33

Bradshaw, 4 Games, Completions = 49, Yards 932, 9 Touchdowns
Staubach, 4 Games, Completions = 61, Yards 734, 8 Touchdowns

Cold Hard Fact, in the Biggest Game, the one that matters the most. Terry Bradshaw Out Shines Roger Staubach Every Single Time.

melblount
10-10-2010, 11:10 PM
What would you remember most of all? How many yards you passed for,or maybe how many interceptions you had thrown?
Maybe what your passer rating was ? Or do think maybe you would look at the four of six trophies sittin all shiney and bright in the case? Maybe how many times you got beat in head to head games? You tell me. I want to know. Or could you possibly be the author of the article you are so highly appraising? Are you a writer for them?

No, I'm not a writer for them. I just happened across that Ben article a while back and liked it so much I started checking out their site, that's all. I've found a lot of their articles to be pretty on-target so far. I also loved the fact that they call out John Elway for being over-rated. That's something you don't often hear from the mainstream media, and I happen to agree with it. If they are biased towards the Patriots (as "fansince76" suggests), I certainly haven't noticed it as of yet. I hope I don't see that because it would turn me off for sure. But I digress...

I'm not trying to prove anything, really. I'm just joining in the discussion and presenting my opinion. You said I was horribly wrong of me to suggest Bradshaw was brutal in his early years (and even in many games in his later years). I'm trying to show you (and anybody else who cares) that I'm not just making it up. It's a fact. I must admit I'm finding that fact kind of hard to prove, though. It's tough when you present a third-party source that backs up your opinion in every respect - only to find the article discounted out-of-hand, without even reading it or considering the stats that it provides. Where do I go from there?

Look, if it makes you feel any better. I agree with you. If your only criteria for a quarterback's value is going to be the number of Superbowl rings that he has then - yes, you're absolutely right: Bradshaw has 4 rings and Staubach has 2. Bradshaw wins. Bradshaw is tied with Joe Montana and they are clearly the two best quarterbacks to ever play the game. End of discussion.

I guess I was under the impression that some folks here might want to delve a little deeper than that. My mistake.

melblount
10-10-2010, 11:13 PM
It is simply your opinion brother.

CHFF has their opinions and each of us as steelers fans have ours as well....

Right or wrong these are all simply OPINIONS we have as passionate fans..

Regardless, great posts Mel and welcome to the board friend. :drink:


Thanks fellow Mel Blount fan. I appreciate it. :usa2:

melblount
10-10-2010, 11:24 PM
Passer Rating in the Biggest game, the Super Bowl.

Bradshaw, 4 Games, Rating = 112.80
Staubach, 4 Games, Rating = 96.33

Bradshaw, 4 Games, Completions = 49, Yards 932, 9 Touchdowns
Staubach, 4 Games, Completions = 61, Yards 734, 8 Touchdowns

Cold Hard Fact, in the Biggest Game, the one that matters the most. Terry Bradshaw Out Shines Roger Staubach Every Single Time.

Didn't you just get through pontificating about how that site has no credibility? Oh I get it, when someone else quotes them they have no credibility, but you get to quote them all you want. Is that how it works?
What do you think that says about your credibility?

fansince'76
10-10-2010, 11:27 PM
I'm not trying to prove anything, really. I'm just joining in the discussion and presenting my opinion. You said I was horribly wrong of me to suggest Bradshaw was brutal in his early years (and even in many games in his later years). I'm trying to show you (and anybody else who cares) that I'm not just making it up. It's a fact. I must admit I'm finding that fact kind of hard to prove, though. It's tough when you present a third-party source that backs up your opinion in every respect - only to find the article discounted out-of-hand, without even reading it or considering the stats that it provides. Where do I go from there?

....I guess I was under the impression that some folks here might want to delve a little deeper than that. My mistake.

Sorry, what I said was nothing against you personally, I'm just not a fan of CHFF, that's all. I really don't care ultimately where some subjective list ranks Staubach and Bradshaw - it doesn't matter all that much to me. I feel privileged to have seen both play, even if I was a kid at the time. :drink:

melblount
10-11-2010, 12:18 AM
Sorry, what I said was nothing against you personally, I'm just not a fan of CHFF, that's all. I really don't care ultimately where some subjective list ranks Staubach and Bradshaw - it doesn't matter all that much to me. I feel privileged to have seen both play, even if I was a kid at the time. :drink:

Naw, I never took anything you said personally - no need to apologize. As far as I'm concerned, everyone's entitled to their opinion and that's all any of this is.
:tt03:

Dino 6 Rings
10-11-2010, 11:16 AM
Didn't you just get through pontificating about how that site has no credibility? Oh I get it, when someone else quotes them they have no credibility, but you get to quote them all you want. Is that how it works?
What do you think that says about your credibility?

Actually, I got my stats from this site:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/

See its just Real Stats without any opinion thrown in.

My Real Stats show that Terry is truly a WINNER over Staubach every time.

melblount
10-11-2010, 09:08 PM
Actually, I got my stats from this site:
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/

My Real Stats show that Terry is truly a WINNER over Staubach every time.

And if Bradshaw and Staubach were tennis players, that would be a really great point. As it happens, they are football players - which means there are at lot of other people who had a major influence on the results of those games.

If Jackie Smith doesn't drop a ball in the end-zone in Superbowl XIII - Bradshaw and Staubach are most-likely tied at 3 Superbowls apiece. But what does Smith catching or dropping that ball have to do with Staubach's skill as a quarterback? If Bradshaw doesn't have Lynn Swann making catches that most modern NFL receivers would never come down with, we lose. What is it about "team sport" that you have such difficulty comprehending? Both of those guys depended heavily on the performances of the men around them. Figuring out who the best quarterback really is means you got to dig a little deeper than the numbers on the scoreboard.

Furthermore, I'd like to point out that this thread is concerned with the NFL Networks show, "The Top 100 NFL Players". Notice that title isn't, "The Top 100 NFL Players Who Played Great in the Big Games".

See, when NFL Networks rank the players, they're taking the entire career into consideration. Now, I know you don't like them apples - 'cause they sho don't work in Terry's favor. I'm real sorry about that. But like it or not - that's the way it is. So here are some stats that are actually relevent to this discussion. I'll go ahead and use your website so you can have no complaints:

Career Passer Rating:
Roger Staubach 83.4
Bart Starr 80.9
Fran Tarkenten 80.4
Dan Fouts 80.2
Terry Bradshaw 70.9 (As you can see, brutal even for the era in which he played)

YDS Per Pass Attempt (Career)
Staubach 7.7 (tied for 14th all-time, along with Payton Manning and Aaron Rodgers)
Bradshaw 7.2 (tied for 49th all-time, along with Charley Johnson and Milt Plum)

Completion % (Career)
Staubach 57% (Just ahead of Elway and just behind Sonny Jurgenson)
Bradshaw 51.9% (Behind Mike Livingston and Rudy Bukich)

Fumbles (Career)
Staubach 55
Bradshaw 84

TD/Interceptions
Staubach 153/109
Bradshaw 212/210

Like it or not, Dino, those are the stats that the boys at NFL Networks were looking at. Not too difficult to see why they ranked Roger higher now is it?

Source: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/

GBMelBlount
10-11-2010, 09:52 PM
I really don't care ultimately where some subjective list ranks Staubach and Bradshaw - it doesn't matter all that much to me. I feel privileged to have seen both play, even if I was a kid at the time. :drink:

Agreed Gary...and fortunately they didn't factor in singing or acting or Bradshaw would be much farther behind....:chuckle:

SteelMember
10-12-2010, 11:38 AM
Since I consider CHFF to be a joke, thanks, I'll pass. Gee, I wonder if Cowher will ever win a Super Bowl, since they said he wouldn't?

Speaking of jokes...

Not one about Jojo being "under" Terry.

Too easy I guess.

:chuckle:

Dino 6 Rings
10-12-2010, 12:25 PM
And if Bradshaw and Staubach were tennis players, that would be a really great point. As it happens, they are football players - which means there are at lot of other people who had a major influence on the results of those games.

If Jackie Smith doesn't drop a ball in the end-zone in Superbowl XIII - Bradshaw and Staubach are most-likely tied at 3 Superbowls apiece. But what does Smith catching or dropping that ball have to do with Staubach's skill as a quarterback? If Bradshaw doesn't have Lynn Swann making catches that most modern NFL receivers would never come down with, we lose. What is it about "team sport" that you have such difficulty comprehending? Both of those guys depended heavily on the performances of the men around them. Figuring out who the best quarterback really is means you got to dig a little deeper than the numbers on the scoreboard.

Furthermore, I'd like to point out that this thread is concerned with the NFL Networks show, "The Top 100 NFL Players". Notice that title isn't, "The Top 100 NFL Players Who Played Great in the Big Games".

See, when NFL Networks rank the players, they're taking the entire career into consideration. Now, I know you don't like them apples - 'cause they sho don't work in Terry's favor. I'm real sorry about that. But like it or not - that's the way it is. So here are some stats that are actually relevent to this discussion. I'll go ahead and use your website so you can have no complaints:

Career Passer Rating:
Roger Staubach 83.4
Bart Starr 80.9
Fran Tarkenten 80.4
Dan Fouts 80.2
Terry Bradshaw 70.9 (As you can see, brutal even for the era in which he played)

YDS Per Pass Attempt (Career)
Staubach 7.7 (tied for 14th all-time, along with Payton Manning and Aaron Rodgers)
Bradshaw 7.2 (tied for 49th all-time, along with Charley Johnson and Milt Plum)

Completion % (Career)
Staubach 57% (Just ahead of Elway and just behind Sonny Jurgenson)
Bradshaw 51.9% (Behind Mike Livingston and Rudy Bukich)

Fumbles (Career)
Staubach 55
Bradshaw 84

TD/Interceptions
Staubach 153/109
Bradshaw 212/210

Like it or not, Dino, those are the stats that the boys at NFL Networks were looking at. Not too difficult to see why they ranked Roger higher now is it?

Source: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/

First off. Jackie did drop the ball, and even if he catches it, it doesn't mean that the Cowboys win. We owned them, they were our Bitch in big games. Staubach is Terry's Bitch. He "kicked his ass everytime they played." That's Terry's quote. Look it up.

So using your logic. Since only Career Stats matter...

Total Completions:
Bradshaw 2,025
Staubach 1,685

That must mean there are 81 QBs better than Staubach, including Danny White and Bernie Kosar.

Oh and passing yards, Bradshaw 27,989
Staubach 22,700. That must mean their are 73 QBs better than Staubach. Including Neil Lomax and Jim Harbaugh.

I mean, lets not count Big Games or playoffs. Just Career numbers right?

And since Joe Montana is only 10th in all time passing yards, that must mean there are 9 other QBs in the history of the NFL Better than Joe Montana. I mean right? Joe wasn't that great after all if he's only ranked 10th in Passing Yards behind Vinny Testaverde and Drew Bledsoe.

And I mean, Warren Moon must be a better QB than Joe Montana since he had more TD throws over his career. Lets just ignore all the Super Bowl stats and big plays that Joe made and the fact he went to the Super Bowl 4 times and won all four.

or does the Ignore Big Game Play only apply to Terry Bradshaw?

Since Steve Young has the highest passer rating in Pro Football History, he must be the best QB ever right? I mean, what else is there to look at? Just ignore the Big Game stats and not pay attention to the fact that what matters most in the NFL is how many trophies you bring to your team.

Since Staubach threw 109 interceptions, and Mike Tomczack only threw 106, that must mean that Mike is a better QB than Staubach right? Or does winning SBs come into play now?