• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Manning or Bradshaw?

Hineswardkickedurpanzyass

Well-known member
Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2014
Messages
2,147
Reaction score
144
Points
63
Just saw this on PFT, IMHO this poll is a ******* joke. I mean I know that Bradshaw had a tremendous D, and that he was throwing to 2 HOF WR's. But lets face it, Peyton could have guided our 70's teams to perfect regular seasons only to lose in the playoffs. True greatness is not determined by stats or regular season wins. You are the best when you win the big one.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...rterback-would-you-prefer-bradshaw-or-peyton/
 
Like you said, Bradshaw benefited from having a HoF team around him, but he wasn't an anti-clutch ***** when it matters in the playoffs like Peyton.

Bradshaw > Manning, easy.

Also, it's more than slightly retarded that they're turning this into "Peyton vs. Bradshaw", considering his remarks had nothing to do with him being a better QB than Manning.
 
Last edited:
Still, he was better than Manning.
 
Manning is a better QB, hands down.

Bradshaw is a better SuperBowl winner, hands down.
 
If you scroll down, you will see what I wrote about the subject.

There is a comment by "deljzc"
 
Woops.... my comment was in the original article.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...-if-you-like-losing-super-bowls-hes-your-guy/

I said:

Bradshaw was 14-5 in playoff games and IMPROVED his QB rating in the playoffs by 17% (83.0 vs. 70.1) in an era that averaged 66.6 QB rating throughout the league.

Manning is 11-12 in playoff games and WORSENS his passer rating in the playoffs by 8.2% (89.2 vs. 97.2) in an era that averaged 78.0 QB rating throughout the league.

Bradshaw, even including those stinker games above, actually performed better in the playoffs vs. the mean than Peyton Manning and Bradshaw improved dramatically during the playoffs while Manning does not.

Those are the facts.
 
.

As I recall... Bradshaw (much like Mel Blount) actually changed the game of football in the NFL. In addition, even considering any other perceived flaws... Bradshaw is one the best "clutch" performers in NFL history... and not merely at any position, but at THE position. I cannot think of another QB that I would rather have on the field while playing a "must win" game.

.
 
The real bottom line between the quarterbacks is Bradshaw was not as good in the regular season as Manning but IMPROVED in the playoffs, where Manning worsened in the playoffs. In fact, based on "era averages" Bradshaw was actually a better playoff QB than Manning was.

I still have Manning higher on my "All-Time QB Rankings" because of his regular season accomplishments, but the above statement is true.
 
Back in the days that the QB could be hit in the head, picked up and slammed...Peyton and Marsha wouldn't have lasted a season! TB played with a cast on his hand. Has anyone EVER done that in the new 'QB wear skirts' league? Manning might have had better all around skill but it's like a great 'target shooter' vs. a 'sniper'...let's see how good you do when someone is shooting back at you.

I have 'mad' respect for guys like TB, Staubach, Montana and Moon who were ALL better than these primadonna types we call QBs now. Peyton and Brady do well because they stay 'clean' and their system helps them get rid of the ball quickly. How do either of them look when constantly pressured? Blaine Gabbert, David Carr and other '**** OL' QBs would love to have played behind the OLs Brady and manning have. Ben is one of the FEW of today's QBs who could play 'old school' ball, IMO. BTW, del hit everything else quite accurately. Nice job!
 
Bradshaw and his contemporaries played in an era that allowed much greater contact to both the receivers and the quarterback than is allowed now. It is unlikely that the present day quarterbacks would play for more than 1/2 a season in most cases. Comparisons across different eras are just not valid as far as I am concerned. It would be much akin to comparing drag racers to sprint car racers too different for comparisons to be valid. I think both quarterbacks have strengths that make them great, but Bradshaw won four championships and was in contention for others but lost in the playoffs. Injuries were more of an effect then than now as the rosters were smaller.
 
Bradshaw was one of the ultimate big game winners. 4 Super Bowls with 2 SB MVP's. He also threw one of the best deep balls ever.

He's not as football smart as Peyton but he did call all of his own plays back then. So, he was pretty darn smart. I'd still have to take Bradshaw unless Peyton can win at least another SB.
 
Here is the thing, in which era, are you comparing them to? If you are trying put to Bradshaw into todays game, good luck. Although he would transfer way easier than putting Pineapple head, into terry's era. Now, bring them to the half and half point, Bradshaw benefits way more thus the better QB. Manning, like Brady, just can't take being harassed / hit, where as Bradshaw, seemed to better himself within the harassment. I know my B & G glasses are shining bright, but like many here are saying, BRADSHAW is the man !!!



Salute the nation
 
It has to be Manning, right? RIGHT? I mean, 4th quarter, close game, championship on the line, just compare the two. First, the great and powerful Peyton Manning:

 
Then the awful Terry Bradshaw, who is a terrible passer, blah, blah ...

 
Wait .... something must be wrong with YouTube ... Manning with a horrible interception with the game on the line and Bradshaw with a brilliant 73-yard TD?

No way that can be right.
 
Last edited:
Wait .... something must be wrong with YouTube ... Manning with a horrible interception with the game on the line and Bradshaw with a brilliant 73-yard TD?

No way that can be right.

Bradshaw is quite possibly the best passer we've ever seen. Look at those ******* throws in the Super Bowls.

In my book, he's on the elite level usually reserved for Montana alone. He was definitively better than Elway, Manning, and Brady.
 
I was not alive in the 70's to see Bradshaw play live. This is what I have gathered from watching re-runs and reading about the Steelers back then. Bradshaw during the regular season seemed a little loose and would sometimes make poor decisions because maybe he just felt like airing one out. Which in part is why he and Noll did not get along. Noll seemed to be a by-the-book type of person and play the odds which did not mesh well with Bradshaw's sling it around attitude. Luckily we had a defense and running game that could make up for some errant throws to get into the playoffs. But in those playoffs Bradshaw seemed to tighten up a little and play within the offense a little more and the way Noll wanted knowing a poor decision could not just cost the game but the rest of the season.

I know Bradshaw is very critical of other QB's including our own Ben Roethlisberger but in my opinion Ben and Terry kind of equate to each other in terms of how their careers began. The only thing about Ben is he walked onto a great team which was a little long in the tooth compared to him which helped his early success. Since then the team has gotten older and now transitioned into a younger team and even though his play has improved dramatically his supporting cast has declined. I personally feel if Ben would have came to the Steelers five years sooner he would have 5-6 rings intstead of two. I mean think if Ben was as old or older than guys like Casey Hampton, Aaron Smith, TP, Ike, Harrison, Porter, Hines Ward, Marvel Smith, Alan Faneca, ect... I know it's fantasy but if these guys played together all at the same time in their prime for 10-12 years I easily see 5 rings in that span of time.
 
Luckily we had a defense and running game that could make up for some errant throws to get into the playoffs. But in those playoffs Bradshaw seemed to tighten up a little and play within the offense a little more and the way Noll wanted knowing a poor decision could not just cost the game but the rest of the season.

I'm not sure I agree. Bradshaw's arm was THE reason we won the Rams Super Bowl, a game in which the defense **** the bed and we trailed a 9-7 team in the fourth quarter. And his 4 TDs in the previous Bowl were a big deal, as the defense sucked for much of the game and Franco was useless that day. Most of Bradshaw's th were wild throws deep downfield into coverage, which was basically the only passing game that existed back then.

In the 1970s, terms such as "defenseless receiver" and "helmet-to-helmet hit" didn't exist. Everything was slanted toward the defense. A DB could just maul his WR throughout the entire route - then, when he's not looking, a safety could slam his head across the middle. An OL wasn't allowed to extend his arms while blocking. There was no West Coast offense throughout the league, based on quick, efficient timing routes. In other words, on every passing play, the offense had to deal with a secondary leveling the receivers all the way downfield, a pass rush that they were barely allowed to block, and headhunters just destroying QBs and WRs from whistle to whistle. And they didn't have the option of constantly flicking 1-yard slants to Wes Welker; they won and lost games by tough, ballsy, downfield throws into coverage. Back then, receivers didn't just snag the ball in stride from a yard away and run with it; they had to go into the secondary, beat a DB, wait for the ball, then catch a highly-pressured pass while safeties pounded their heads. That was true of all non-Bill Walsh offenses before the 1980s.

So, you have to throw out just about all of the "important" passing numbers from era to era. Consider this:

Bradshaw currently sits tied for 132nd all-time in passer rating. He's behind Rex Grossman, Mark Sanchez, Bubby Brister, David Carr, and Gus Frerotte. We know that none of those guys are objectively among the top 200 QBs or so, yet they all finish ahead of Bradshaw. So we can throw that out.

Bradshaw posted about the same completion % as Billy Joe Tolliver, Steve Grogan, and Marc Wilson - but also about the same as numerous HOFers from his own era. So I'm throwing that **** out, too. Chad Pennington is 1st all-time, and Daunte Culpepper is 14th, so **** that noise.

Bradshaw is 140th in INT% at 5.4%. That's AWFUL by today's standards; if Ben had a typical season with that INT%, he'd throw 31 picks and be benched, cut, and forgotten. And look at Bradshaw's peers: he's 140th and right in the neighborhood of Johnny Unitas, Len Dawson, Otto Graham, Y.A. Tittle, and Joe Namath - all HOFers who threw INTs at an alarming rate. And everyone I just named comes in with a MUCH worse INT% than Neil O'Donnell (3rd-BEST INT% all-time), Sam Bradford (4th), David Garrard, Jason Campbell (both tied for 9th), Steve Bono (11th), Kyle Orton, Matt Schaub, and Alex Smith (all tied with Joe Montana for 15th). Interception numbers are so unbelievably skewed toward today's QBs - who never have to throw an INT if they don't want to - that we can't use that as a measuring stick at all. Any stat that ranks David Garrard 131 spots ahead of Terry Bradshaw is a **** stat.

Now, there is a statistic that measures the value of each pass by a QB: yards per attempt. The top-12 all-time in this category features 6 HOFers and 3 guys who will be there someday (Roethlisberger, Rodgers, Warner). So it certainly seems to point more toward NFL excellence than those other stats. Here, Bradshaw slots alongside post-1980 superstars like Marino, Moon, Elway, etc. That is incredibly impressive; it means that, even when we include Bradshaw's many incompletions and INTs, he STILL produced just as much per throw as those guys.

Bottom line: it's hard to rank QBs across eras, and most statistics only **** it up worse. Look for value. David Carr completed passes at a great rate, but did nothing with them. Tom Brady completes damn near every pass he throws, but he never tests coverage or goes downfield. Chad Pennington completed his passes, but couldn't throw more than 10 yards. Bradshaw, on the other hand, was an elite talent in an era where the NFL choked the life out of the passing game. Back then, if a QB went 8/15 with 2 picks, it was often a good performance - because he probably hit on 4-5 difficult downfield throws that completely tilted the game for his team. Nowadays, a QB would be benched for that line.
 
Bradshaw had a QB rating of at least 100 in every Super Bowl, threw a clin hing TD pass in the 4th quarter in every game and was always the best QB on the field and 3 times he played against HOF QBs, Manning was never clutch or good in any of his 3 Super Bowls and in fact was awful in his onlhy win and threw the pick 6 with the game on the line in his first loss. Bradshaw was better and his stats were getting way better when the league installed the Blount rule in 1978 leading the ,NFL in YD passes. He would shred todays QB friendly NFL while Manning would be a poor imitator of his often injured dad if he played in the 70s where the defenses could hammer his receivers and destroy the popgun armed timing patterns resulting in a ton of interceptions. Back then a QB had no way to prevent interceptions as the receivers may not ever get to the designated spot as the DBs could just hammer them while they ran their routes.
 
Bradshaw won the big games, Peyton chokes in them. Stats don't mean **** when you choke away Super Bowls.
 
None of you are coaches, players or owners so you shouldn't be talking about this. You people act like you know football. So please stop it.
 
I personally feel if Ben would have came to the Steelers five years sooner he would have 5-6 rings intstead of two. I mean think if Ben was as old or older than guys like Casey Hampton, Aaron Smith, TP, Ike, Harrison, Porter, Hines Ward, Marvel Smith, Alan Faneca, ect... I know it's fantasy but if these guys played together all at the same time in their prime for 10-12 years I easily see 5 rings in that span of time.

Very possible given who they made it to the AFC Championship with at quarterback. Those Super Bowls were very winnable as well. We will look back on those Steelers teams 20 years from now and realize how truly great they were, even if they didn't win that many Super Bowls.
 
Bradshaw is quite possibly the best passer we've ever seen. Look at those ******* throws in the Super Bowls.

In my book, he's on the elite level usually reserved for Montana alone. He was definitively better than Elway, Manning, and Brady.

Montana IS alone.
Four SB appearances, four SB wins. I realize, same for Bradshaw.
Here's where the difference is.
Montana threw 11 TDs and ZERO interceptions. The double perfect. And he threw the ball 111 times combined in those 4 SBs. About 28 times/game.
TB threw 9 TDs and 4 INTS, had FAR superior defenses in all 8 SBs being discussed.

I love my Steelers and I Terry was an AWESOME QB that went four for four in the big one.
But if I could have only 1 QB for my team in a SB? It's not even close.
It's Montana. He IS on a pedestal by himself, and there's no other QB that even enters his atmosphere of SB greatness.
 
Bradshaw would have done even better in the modern era. He ran the offense called the plays and led the team. Imagine how good he would have been with out getting hit, with receivers that could run untouched, with linemen that were allowed to hold. The other guys would not even survived. Bradshaw also threw short passes from time to time and they were bullets that might get deflected and the intercepted but they generally went by the defenders.

The game changed since he played I think he could have played in this era as he would be able to adapt to an easier game.
 
Montana IS alone.
Four SB appearances, four SB wins. I realize, same for Bradshaw.
Here's where the difference is.
Montana threw 11 TDs and ZERO interceptions. The double perfect. And he threw the ball 111 times combined in those 4 SBs. About 28 times/game.
TB threw 9 TDs and 4 INTS, had FAR superior defenses in all 8 SBs being discussed.

I love my Steelers and I Terry was an AWESOME QB that went four for four in the big one.
But if I could have only 1 QB for my team in a SB? It's not even close.
It's Montana. He IS on a pedestal by himself, and there's no other QB that even enters his atmosphere of SB greatness.

Bullshit...Terry had a better defense, but he was facing better defenses also.... The game changed with the Mel Blount rule and Terry and the Steelers offense adapted and exploited it. Defenses were even further handcuffed by Montana's heyday and he had his own studs on offense and a solid defense also....
 
Top