Greatest Champioship Qbs
-
@boo-radley said:
Bradshaw was a dimwitted hick with about 5 strands of hair left.
Look at Bradshaw today? He was Rain Man before the movie was ever conceived.
HAHA
Bradshaw is an overrated shitbag who was surrounded by roid addled HOFs. You like to bag on Andrew Luck about INTs? Bradsahw threw 25 INTs the last year Pitt won the Super Bowl. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/pit/1979.htm The Steelers won because of defense and running the ball. That was their trademark and Bradshaw was along for the ride. After 79, Bradshaw posted 9-7,8-8,6-3 before he was run out of town. So dont tell me how great things were with Bradshaw.
Wrong
SF won the Super Bowl with Montana in 89 and not for another 5 years until 94 with Young. It wasnt the same team as 89. Dont be goofy.
Don't let the FACTS get in the way of an uniformed person
-
Montana was clutch for sure, but I'd go with Bradshaw overall in their comparison.
Montana's famous toss to Clark, "The Catch," defined his career, as it basically ended the Cowboys' reign on the NFC.
Bradshaw battled Stabler, Griese, even Dan Pastorini in the ultra competitive 70s for AFC glory. I hate those Steelers with a passion, but Bradshaw held that offense together. When he was hurt, Gilliam & Hanratty couldn't get it done.
-
You older fucks see things in the lime light of the glory days, Tom Brady is the greatest QB in history and he is PLAYING NOW, he is a sure firer HOF already no questions asked and he has the ability to add a title any given year he plays and he has a few years left in that tank easily.
In Cleveland failure is an artform. -
@boo-radley said:
Young is in the NFL HOF.
Concussions did him in otherwise he could have won more.
Woulda/shoulda/coulda. If I was naked in bed with Scarlett Johannsen I could have fucked her. But I was neither naked in bed with Scarlett nor did Steve Young play in more than one title game.
My point is: in my listing of the raw data...only taking into account title game appearances and wins, Frank Ryan is ahead of Young on the scale.
And I will wager that you did not see Frank Ryan play. I did see most of his career with the Browns....and I can tell you right here right now that I do NOT believe that Steve Young is any higher at all on the "QB greatness" scale than Frank Ryan was.
-
You older fucks see things in the lime light of the glory days, Tom Brady is the greatest QB in history and he is PLAYING NOW, he is a sure firer HOF already no questions asked and he has the ability to add a title any given year he plays and he has a few years left in that tank easily.
You older fucks see things in the lime light of the glory days, Tom Brady is the greatest QB in history and he is PLAYING NOW, he is a sure firer HOF already no questions asked and he has the ability to add a title any given year he plays and he has a few years left in that tank easily.
No, I think we see things like they are. Tom Brady IS one of the greatest QBs in history. No argument. And he may indeed add another title.
Again, I just provided raw data....and TB has a way to go in terms of raw data. Not a long way, but a way.
-
@king-ghoolie-lives said:
No NFL QB motivated a group of me the way Bradshaw did.He beat more HOF bound players than any of the other named QB, the list reads like a decade long littany of who's who in the NFL. When Bradshaw was hurt, the Steeler's couldn't do shit.
Again, Bradshaw had to beat Tarkenton, Staubach, Stabler, Griese, Andersen, Sipe, Moon, Montana BARELY beat fucking Esiason down at Joe RObbie. He threw a shit pass right into teh hands of Billups who couldn't hang on to it in the endzone. Bradshaw beat HOF QBs, Montana beat Esiason. Wow, he was really good........
Bradshaw........... hands down.
Well, just to set the record straight, Montana did beat Elway and Marino in SB games. And many people put those two among the top 5-10 QBs in history. So he wasn't just up against a litany of lightweights.
Personally I would probably choose Montana over Bradshaw....mainly because his teams were far more Quarterback-centric than the Steelers.....but like I said, there is some validity to Ghoolie's position. But per my recitation of mere raw data, the two are in a dead heat.
-
Joe Montana
Record as a starter: 117-47
Playoff Record: 16-7
Super Bowl Record; 4-0
Games started: 164
3409-5301, 63.2%, 40,551 yds., 273 TD, 139 INT, 7.5 y/a, 92.3 rating
Terry Bradshaw
Record as a starter: 107-51
Playoff Record: 14-5
Super Bowl Record: 4-0
Games started: 158
2025-3901, 51.9%, 27,989 yds., 212 TD, 210 INT, 7.2 y/a, 70.9 rating
The top numbers: very similar. Both winners.
The statistical numbers: Not even close.
Montana Drove his team to championships. Bradshaw was just along for the ride for the first two.
Bradshaw is Hall of Fame worthy, but not a game-changer like Montana.
Zombo
-
Joe Montana
Record as a starter: 117-47
Playoff Record: 16-7
Super Bowl Record; 4-0
Games started: 164
3409-5301, 63.2%, 40,551 yds., 273 TD, 139 INT, 7.5 y/a, 92.3 rating
Terry Bradshaw
Record as a starter: 107-51
Playoff Record: 14-5
Super Bowl Record: 4-0
Games started: 158
2025-3901, 51.9%, 27,989 yds., 212 TD, 210 INT, 7.2 y/a, 70.9 rating
The top numbers: very similar. Both winners.
The statistical numbers: Not even close.
Montana Drove his team to championships. Bradshaw was just along for the ride for the first two.
Bradshaw is Hall of Fame worthy, but not a game-changer like Montana.
Zombo
Zombo said:
Joe Montana
Record as a starter: 117-47
Playoff Record: 16-7
Super Bowl Record; 4-0
Games started: 164
3409-5301, 63.2%, 40,551 yds., 273 TD, 139 INT, 7.5 y/a, 92.3 rating
Terry Bradshaw
Record as a starter: 107-51
Playoff Record: 14-5
Super Bowl Record: 4-0
Games started: 158
2025-3901, 51.9%, 27,989 yds., 212 TD, 210 INT, 7.2 y/a, 70.9 rating
The top numbers: very similar. Both winners.
The statistical numbers: Not even close.
Montana Drove his team to championships. Bradshaw was just along for the ride for the first two.
Bradshaw is Hall of Fame worthy, but not a game-changer like Montana.
Zombo
To be fair, Montana did come in just after the 1978 rule that disallowed the bump and run where Bradshaw played most of his career with the bump and run in effect.
Younger people that didn't see how the game was played in the 60s and 70s may have no clue what a major, major change that rule change was in the fortunes of QB pct. completion success rate.
I don't think any QB of the 50s/60s/70s could match the numbers of QBs post 1978.
I suspect if you went back and looked at Graham, Unitas, Starr etc. etc. their numbers in terms of completion pct, yardage etc. etc. would pale compared to later QBs.
And that change is happening again. I mean, up until the late 70s only 1 QB in history had ever thrown for 4000 yards (Namath). Now, if you don't throw for 4K yards you are a piece of crap. Up to like 2 years ago 1 QB had thrown for 5000 yards (Marino). Now, it seems that a half dozen or more a year are throwing for 5K yards.
So, you have to look at those sea changes in the passing rules and note them when comparing QBs of different eras.
-
Here are their ratings the years they were starting in the league at the same time:
Montana: 87, 88, 88, 94
Bradshaw: 77, 75, 83, 81
Zombo
Zombo said:
Here are their ratings the years they were starting in the league at the same time:
Montana: 87, 88, 88, 94
Bradshaw: 77, 75, 83, 81
Zombo
OK, I said I personally would slightly prefer Montana....but it is close. And it certainly has nothing to do with QB rating.
Jeff Garcia had better QB ratings than Montana had...and certainly better than Bradshaw...but I wouldn't make that trade.
And face it, in the right hands (hint: Pat Shurmur is NOT the right hand), the WCO is a system that is designed to help a QBs "rating". Bradshaw played in a much more high risk, downfield offense than the WCO, so his ratings were never likely to approach that of Montana or other good WCO QBs.
-
Zombo said:
Here are their ratings the years they were starting in the league at the same time:
Montana: 87, 88, 88, 94
Bradshaw: 77, 75, 83, 81
Zombo
OK, I said I personally would slightly prefer Montana....but it is close. And it certainly has nothing to do with QB rating.
Jeff Garcia had better QB ratings than Montana had...and certainly better than Bradshaw...but I wouldn't make that trade.
And face it, in the right hands (hint: Pat Shurmur is NOT the right hand), the WCO is a system that is designed to help a QBs "rating". Bradshaw played in a much more high risk, downfield offense than the WCO, so his ratings were never likely to approach that of Montana or other good WCO QBs.
OK, I said I personally would slightly prefer Montana....but it is close. And it certainly has nothing to do with QB rating.
Jeff Garcia had better QB ratings than Montana had...and certainly better than Bradshaw...but I wouldn't make that trade.
And face it, in the right hands (hint: Pat Shurmur is NOT the right hand), the WCO is a system that is designed to help a QBs "rating". Bradshaw played in a much more high risk, downfield offense than the WCO, so his ratings were never likely to approach that of Montana or other good WCO QBs.
OK whaddya want?
Post-1978: yards per game, TDs per season, wins per season ... pick whatever you want, and Montana is more impressive.
Bradshaw had a HOF RB, Two HOF WRs, HOF Center, All-Pro Tackle ...Yet the team ranked #1 Defensively and middle of the pack offensively.
Montana won his first Super Bowl with Earl Cooper at RB and Freddie Solomon and Dwight Clark at Receiver.
Bradshaw is deservedly a HOF but simply is not in the "Greatest Ever" conversation that Montana is. They're on different levels.
Zombo
-
OK, I said I personally would slightly prefer Montana....but it is close. And it certainly has nothing to do with QB rating.
Jeff Garcia had better QB ratings than Montana had...and certainly better than Bradshaw...but I wouldn't make that trade.
And face it, in the right hands (hint: Pat Shurmur is NOT the right hand), the WCO is a system that is designed to help a QBs "rating". Bradshaw played in a much more high risk, downfield offense than the WCO, so his ratings were never likely to approach that of Montana or other good WCO QBs.
OK whaddya want?
Post-1978: yards per game, TDs per season, wins per season ... pick whatever you want, and Montana is more impressive.
Bradshaw had a HOF RB, Two HOF WRs, HOF Center, All-Pro Tackle ...Yet the team ranked #1 Defensively and middle of the pack offensively.
Montana won his first Super Bowl with Earl Cooper at RB and Freddie Solomon and Dwight Clark at Receiver.
Bradshaw is deservedly a HOF but simply is not in the "Greatest Ever" conversation that Montana is. They're on different levels.
Zombo
Zombo said:
OK whaddya want?
Post-1978: yards per game, TDs per season, wins per season ... pick whatever you want, and Montana is more impressive.
Bradshaw had a HOF RB, Two HOF WRs, HOF Center, All-Pro Tackle ...Yet the team ranked #1 Defensively and middle of the pack offensively.
Montana won his first Super Bowl with Earl Cooper at RB and Freddie Solomon and Dwight Clark at Receiver.
Bradshaw is deservedly a HOF but simply is not in the "Greatest Ever" conversation that Montana is. They're on different levels.
Zombo
OK, your argument is more with Ghoolie than it is with me. Personally, I would rank Joe Cool definitely top 5, and Bradshaw borderline top 10.
I am only saying that in terms of titular accomplishments, they are equals.
-
Here are my "personal" top 20 QBs of all time, in groupings of 5, but in no definitive order amongst each group of 5:
Top 5: Otto Graham, Joe Montana, Tom Brady, John Unitas, John Elway
5-10: Dan Marino, Bart Starr, Sid Luckman, Brett Favre, Peyton Manning
10-15: Terry Bradshaw, Roger Staubach, Dan Fouts, Sammy Baugh, Norm Van Brocklin
15-20: Fran Tarkenton, Troy Aikman, Jim Kelly, George Blanda
That is 19, for number 20 I have about a 5 way tie:
Dawson//Warner/Layne/Namath.
Too soon, but could break in anywhere above by the end of their careers: Brees/E.Manning/Roethlisberger/Rodgers
-
OK, I said I personally would slightly prefer Montana....but it is close. And it certainly has nothing to do with QB rating.
Jeff Garcia had better QB ratings than Montana had...and certainly better than Bradshaw...but I wouldn't make that trade.
And face it, in the right hands (hint: Pat Shurmur is NOT the right hand), the WCO is a system that is designed to help a QBs "rating". Bradshaw played in a much more high risk, downfield offense than the WCO, so his ratings were never likely to approach that of Montana or other good WCO QBs.
OK whaddya want?
Post-1978: yards per game, TDs per season, wins per season ... pick whatever you want, and Montana is more impressive.
Bradshaw had a HOF RB, Two HOF WRs, HOF Center, All-Pro Tackle ...Yet the team ranked #1 Defensively and middle of the pack offensively.
Montana won his first Super Bowl with Earl Cooper at RB and Freddie Solomon and Dwight Clark at Receiver.
Bradshaw is deservedly a HOF but simply is not in the "Greatest Ever" conversation that Montana is. They're on different levels.
Zombo
Zombo said:
OK whaddya want?
Post-1978: yards per game, TDs per season, wins per season ... pick whatever you want, and Montana is more impressive.
Bradshaw had a HOF RB, Two HOF WRs, HOF Center, All-Pro Tackle ...Yet the team ranked #1 Defensively and middle of the pack offensively.
Montana won his first Super Bowl with Earl Cooper at RB and Freddie Solomon and Dwight Clark at Receiver.
Bradshaw is deservedly a HOF but simply is not in the "Greatest Ever" conversation that Montana is. They're on different levels.
Zombo
Exactly correct. The only thing thry have in common is rings. Other then that, Montana was way better
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login