Top QBs through Super Bowl LX: Who will be No. 1 in 10 years?

[salamander]

Now that there are 50 Super Bowls in the books, Dave Dameshek -- with the help of Elliot Harrison and Gil Brandt -- is taking a look at how our perception of superior quarterback play has evolved in the Super Bowl era, using every 10th Super Bowl as a check-in point. Over the next week, we'll be presenting the top 10 quarterbacks as of Super Bowl X, Super Bowl XX, Super Bowl XXX, Super Bowl XL and Super Bowl 50 before wrapping things up with a speculative look at the list after the clock runs out in Super Bowl LX.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300...-1-in-10-years

[fansince'76]

The lack of respect Bradshaw gets is ridiculous. Sure, his career numbers blew (thanks largely to the very slow start to his career), but he was money in the biggest games, more so than just about all of the other names on those lists.

Cam Newton and Andrew Luck? LOL

I'd expect this kind of dreck from average fans on some message board/blog, but not so-called "experts" who are actually paid for these opinions.

[polamalubeast]

Unfortunately, people like Michael Irvin think that Bradshaw only gave the ball to his running back.Irvin said that in December!

[fansince'76]

Unfortunately, people like Michael Irvin think that Bradshaw only gave the ball to his running back.Irvin said that in December!

It's a popular myth.

[steelreserve]

lol, Aaron Rodgers as the #2 quarterback of all time. Russell Wilson in the top 10 and Bradshaw not even on the list. Uh, ok.

Unfortunately, this mindless noise served its purpose, which was to get me to click on the link. Now I'm angry at myself.

[hawaiiansteeler]

Unfortunately, people like Michael Irvin think that Bradshaw only gave the ball to his running back.Irvin said that in December!

take whatever Michael Irvin says with a grain of salt...or is that white substance not salt?

[Dwinsgames]

Bradshaw has 4 rings in 4 attempts ... nobody else on the planet can say that that played QB in this league ... end of story

[Count Steeler]

Just shows what audience the new NFL caters to. Only a football novice less than 30 years old with no appreciation of NFL history could declare that Bradshaw is not higher.

Or a Cryboy.

[steelerdude15]

Bradshaw has 4 rings in 4 attempts ... nobody else on the planet can say that that played QB in this league ... end of story

Joe Montana can. He got four rings in four tries while also becoming the first player in history to be the Super Bowl MVP three times and also never threw an interception in a Super Bowl either.

[polamalubeast]

It's a popular myth.

Agree

Maybe that was true for the 1974 season, but after Bradshaw made a lot of big play for the rest of his career.

[steelerdude15]

The lack of respect Bradshaw gets is ridiculous. Sure, his career numbers blew (thanks largely to the very slow start to his career), but he was money in the biggest games, more so than just about all of the other names on those lists.

Cam Newton and Andrew Luck? LOL

I'd expect this kind of dreck from average fans on some message board/blog, but not so-called "experts" who are actually paid for these opinions.

I think there are other reasons as well on why Terry doesn't get the appreciation that he should. If we look at football during that time, it was more of a run heavy league with tough, punishing defenses. Defensive corners could mug receivers all day long. Then, when the rule changes applied in 1978, Terry took off.

If we also look at numbers from other quarterbacks as well from that time period, none of them have crazy stats like today because the game has changed over the years. Just another reason why I think it is unfair to compare quarterbacks and their stats from a different time period compared to today's quarterbacks because the game has changed so much.

[fansince'76]

Joe Montana can. He got four rings in four tries while also becoming the first player in history to be the Super Bowl MVP three times and also never threw an interception in a Super Bowl either.

LOL...



That should-have-been INT would have pretty much iced the game for the Bengals too. Montana generally didn't throw INTs for basically the same reason Brady doesn't now (dink-and-dunk and a TON of YAC for his receivers).

I think there are other reasons as well on why Terry doesn't get the appreciation that he should. If we look at football during that time, it was more of a run heavy league with tough, punishing defenses. Defensive corners could mug receivers all day long. Then, when the rule changes applied in 1978, Terry took off.

If we also look at numbers from other quarterbacks as well from that time period, none of them have crazy stats like today because the game has changed over the years. Just another reason why I think it is unfair to compare quarterbacks and their stats from a different time period compared to today's quarterbacks because the game has changed so much.

Only thing is, Staubach, whom Bradshaw beat head-to-head in the SB twice, made two of the three lists. I could kinda see it from an old Cowboy homer like Brandt, though.

[86WARD]

Bradshaw is just a dumb hick who was the product of all the good players around him!

[ALLD]

They left Brad off for political reasons. He threw a lot of picks and took a lot of massive hits, but he was great in the SB. Only Montana was better. Different styles and eras, but the nod goes to Joe.

*I think BB is better than Brad and could show it more often on the field if they let him call his own plays more often like Brad.

[hawaiiansteeler]