• 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.

Which Steelers QB1 Was Better? Ben Roethlisberger or Terry Bradshaw?

Yet somehow that dumb redneck from Louisiana managed to call all his own plays!


Calling their own plays was a product of that era, BEN would be able to call his own as well. That is not an advantage of one being greater than the other.




Salute the nation
 
Great pass but not in the same league as Terry's throws. We were in easy FG range to send game into overtime ,Bradshaw's throws were do or die.
which of Terry's passes was do or die? game on the line final minutes with the Steelers trailing?
 
First of all, I think it is dumb to have to make a choice. Different times/eras. I am just exceedingly happy to have had the enjoyment of watching both. And I agree with your points. But on the opposite end could you imagine Bradshaw not having his receivers touched as they are running routes? How about, and I think this is incredibly important, today you can't hit a QB high or low. Do you realize how that alone probably helps improve accuracy and the ability to stand in there and read the defense? And Terry was no dummy by the way. He still isn't. He just plays one on TV. I also don't think football is as complex as it is made out to be. Some of it is coaches trying to overstate their own importance.

The key with this whole thing though is the truth that Ben could've played in Bradshaw's era, no doubt. And I think Bradshaw would've been fine in Ben's.

Do we know how lucky we have been?
I think there are many truths in your post. These arguments are stupid and both players are great. But when someone says that Ben couldn't play in Terry's era that is preposterous. He is 6'4 240 (off the top of my head) he is virtually bigger than everyone on the defense except the tubs of goo. And people are talking about Ben's arm and legs. Yeah because in his era he could play to damn near 40. When all those things leave you and all you have left is your brain. Young Ben had a rocket arm and was what my friend says ackwardly athletic and agile.
The part of your post I take issue with is the complex nature of football. First off I agree. Terry plays dumb. It's a troupe. But it is very likely based on at least a bit of a truth. As far as the complexity of the game. I coach JV. Our football looks like Terry's era. Obviously not the execution. But the playbook the verbiage. Now even the jump to Varsity which our coaching staff attends camp for, is huge. And you still have university complexity before you get to pro. NFL QB today is about taking the initial play and then knowing all the options based on it and moving from pre snap to post snap and then knowing where to put the ball. That us why so may of these can't miss prospects with all the tangible fail. Ad no I don't think Terry Bradshaw is smart enough to run these offenses.
 
This is money right here. If you transport Ben to '72 he could break the film down for the team no problem. Hell modern High school offenses and defenses are more complex. Terry wouldn't have the mental acumen to run one of these things today. He just wouldn't.
That’s the problem I have with comparing era to era. You could probably say the same thing about half of the avg QBs on any roster today. The game is so much more complex, analysis is advanced, the players are so much much more athletic, prepared and trained. It’s like saying, “Today’s 1st infantry division would kick the ***** of those guys that landed on D-Day.”

Shoot, Lamar Jackson would probably rush for 2000 yards and win multiple Super Bowls if transported back to the 70s.
 
That’s the problem I have with comparing era to era. You could probably say the same thing about half of the avg QBs on any roster today. The game is so much more complex, analysis is advanced, the players are so much much more athletic, prepared and trained. It’s like saying, “Today’s 1st infantry division would kick the ***** of those guys that landed on D-Day.”

Shoot, Lamar Jackson would probably rush for 2000 yards and win multiple Super Bowls if transported back to the 70s.
Exactly. And like it or not. Watch Romo break down a play before it happens. Terry would be capable of saying I think they are gonna pass here
 
I think there are many truths in your post. These arguments are stupid and both players are great. But when someone says that Ben couldn't play in Terry's era that is preposterous. He is 6'4 240 (off the top of my head) he is virtually bigger than everyone on the defense except the tubs of goo. And people are talking about Ben's arm and legs. Yeah because in his era he could play to damn near 40. When all those things leave you and all you have left is your brain. Young Ben had a rocket arm and was what my friend says ackwardly athletic and agile.
The part of your post I take issue with is the complex nature of football. First off I agree. Terry plays dumb. It's a troupe. But it is very likely based on at least a bit of a truth. As far as the complexity of the game. I coach JV. Our football looks like Terry's era. Obviously not the execution. But the playbook the verbiage. Now even the jump to Varsity which our coaching staff attends camp for, is huge. And you still have university complexity before you get to pro. NFL QB today is about taking the initial play and then knowing all the options based on it and moving from pre snap to post snap and then knowing where to put the ball. That us why so may of these can't miss prospects with all the tangible fail. Ad no I don't think Terry Bradshaw is smart enough to run these offenses.
You are right in the sense that football has gotten more and more complex. I'm just saying at the end of the day football is always what it has been...the team that tackles better, blocks better and so on is going to win.
 
You are right in the sense that football has gotten more and more complex. I'm just saying at the end of the day football is always what it has been...the team that tackles better, blocks better and so on is going to win.
100 percent because they can all keep up with the scheme and complexity part. But if we are gonna say the Tomlin Steelers didn't get out schemed by Belichick that isn't true either.
 
100 percent because they can all keep up with the scheme and complexity part. But if we are gonna say the Tomlin Steelers didn't get out schemed by Belichick that isn't true either.
On some level I always thought teams would lose to NE because they worried about scheme. If I can explain what I mean...take the Steelers, especially in Ben's younger years or the year with Kordell. Ok, you go in knowing that Belechick is gonna scheme you...so you let your athletes be athletes. With Kordell, if you get confused just run. Who gives a **** if they say you aren't a passer, just go. Just win the game. I don't think scheme can account for that. Same with Ben when younger.

I always thought with the Patriots in playoff games you had to be willing to lose big to win. I would have attacked on offense, no huddle, and blitzed Brady all day. Hit him, even a little late. I always thought the Steelers got a little caught up in scheme, playing not to lose.

Of course, I could be full of ****, but that's what it felt like to me when watching those games.

I guess what I am saying is scheme can beat you for sure, but you have to allow it as well. If you have clearly better athletes, which I still say the '01 and '04 Steelers had, let 'em go!
 
The point I will conceed in this is are we talking about born in 1948 and theoretically transported to this time ir born in 1985 or 1990 Terry getting all the same nutrition, training and coaching. Cause that's a big difference. I think all of those great Steelers born at the right time would still be great. But only Mean Joe and Blount could be plopped down with an off season of training. Likewise though I hated him as a kid Gretzky is clearly the GOAT of the NHL. However, plopped down in this game now. He isn't even average.
 
On some level I always thought teams would lose to NE because they worried about scheme. If I can explain what I mean...take the Steelers, especially in Ben's younger years or the year with Kordell. Ok, you go in knowing that Belechick is gonna scheme you...so you let your athletes be athletes. With Kordell, if you get confused just run. Who gives a **** if they say you aren't a passer, just go. Just win the game. I don't think scheme can account for that. Same with Ben when younger.

I always thought with the Patriots in playoff games you had to be willing to lose big to win. I would have attacked on offense, no huddle, and blitzed Brady all day. Hit him, even a little late. I always thought the Steelers got a little caught up in scheme, playing not to lose.

Of course, I could be full of ****, but that's what it felt like to me when watching those games.

I guess what I am saying is scheme can beat you for sure, but you have to allow it as well. If you have clearly better athletes, which I still say the '01 and '04 Steelers had, let 'em go!
Oh I completely agree there was a mental edge there. And teams worrying about changing verbiage and signals didn't help either. But in my opinion the bigger issue was this. They had Brady which was advantage one. Then they drafted very low and went for scheme fit instead of superstar. And the scheme is we are an ameba. What ever you are really good at we will take away. Meanwhile the Steelers have always been we are what we are. We are our identity. The Pats really didn't even think about the division. It was usually a forfeit. So they have all the Steelers tape and they are not going to change what they do best. Meanwhile the Pats could transform from a run play action homerun team to a quick pass ball control offense in a week.
 
There are bad QBs now thriving in today's watered down NFL. To think that Bradshaw would struggle is laughable.
 
There are bad QBs now thriving in today's watered down NFL. To think that Bradshaw would struggle is laughable.
Ok. Let's take Malik Willis. I think he will bust. I really do. But if you honestly believe if he was theoretically transported to 1978 that jaws wouldn't literally drop you are seriously high. And explained the term watered down or me. Because the colleges produce way more pro ready players then ever before. So if you are talking about cartoon spiking a player on his head. Or all that crazy **** yeah. It's watered down from tge pro wrestling days. But if those head hits continued it was literally a matter of time before someone was going to die there in front of 10 million people.
 
That’s the problem I have with comparing era to era. You could probably say the same thing about half of the avg QBs on any roster today. The game is so much more complex, analysis is advanced, the players are so much much more athletic, prepared and trained. It’s like saying, “Today’s 1st infantry division would kick the ***** of those guys that landed on D-Day.”

Shoot, Lamar Jackson would probably rush for 2000 yards and win multiple Super Bowls if transported back to the 70s.


I doubt the Action Jackson part because he would be broken sooner rather than later. QBs weren't nearly as protected back then as they are today. One after whistle pile drive and Action would be no more.



Salute the nation
 
Add to that, scouting combines had timed him at a somewhat unimpressive 4.8 in the 40-yard dash. And finally, the coaches in the 1974 Senior Bowl played him at defensive back, rather than at wide receiver.
At his college work out for coaches, he ran slow in the rain on a **** surface. Bill Nunn decided to forgo his flight back and stuck around. The next day he had Stallworth run again and the results were much better. I remember the fourth quarter long touchdown he caught to put us ahead of the rams in the SB, he ran away from everyone. Then he caught another deep ball over his shoulder where he had to slow down which allowed the DBs to catch up. Not to mention his short out against the cowboys in the super bowl the year before. He sprinted down the sideline past the cowboys secondary for about 70 yards and a touchdown. John Stallworth was a guy who would be great in any era.
 
Ok. Let's take Malik Willis. I think he will bust. I really do. But if you honestly believe if he was theoretically transported to 1978 that jaws wouldn't literally drop you are seriously high. And explained the term watered down or me. Because the colleges produce way more pro ready players then ever before. So if you are talking about cartoon spiking a player on his head. Or all that crazy **** yeah. It's watered down from tge pro wrestling days. But if those head hits continued it was literally a matter of time before someone was going to die there in front of 10 million people.
Watered down. Ok there are stiffs like Jared Goff, Kirk Cousins and Baker Mayfield putting up numbers that are as good as QBs in the Hall of Fame Today's pussified NFL is all about easy short completions that any QB can compete and thrive in. It doesn't take much to geta 90QB rating and the league is full of bad QBs doing just that.
 
At his college work out for coaches, he ran slow in the rain on a **** surface. Bill Nunn decided to forgo his flight back and stuck around. The next day he had Stallworth run again and the results were much better. I remember the fourth quarter long touchdown he caught to put us ahead of the rams in the SB, he ran away from everyone. Then he caught another deep ball over his shoulder where he had to slow down which allowed the DBs to catch up. Not to mention his short out against the cowboys in the super bowl the year before. He sprinted down the sideline past the cowboys secondary for about 70 yards and a touchdown. John Stallworth was a guy who would be great in any era.
Well said, totally agree. Was thinking about that catch and run in the Super Bowl as well. Stallworth could also High Point a ball just like he did on the first touchdown in that game.

This guy was so tough, fluid, and clutch. I don’t buy that somehow he could not even approach a guy like Diontae Johnson these days.

Stallworth also played in the league until 1987 and was productive. It wasn’t like he just died off after the 70s. Jerry Rice played in that same NFL.
 
At his college work out for coaches, he ran slow in the rain on a **** surface. Bill Nunn decided to forgo his flight back and stuck around. The next day he had Stallworth run again and the results were much better. I remember the fourth quarter long touchdown he caught to put us ahead of the rams in the SB, he ran away from everyone. Then he caught another deep ball over his shoulder where he had to slow down which allowed the DBs to catch up. Not to mention his short out against the cowboys in the super bowl the year before. He sprinted down the sideline past the cowboys secondary for about 70 yards and a touchdown. John Stallworth was a guy who would be great in any era.


I agree with this and point out it's usually just QBs we compare to other eras. Stallworth would have been top 20 in todays action.

It's obvious but Joe Green would have transitioned as well. Not sure on Lambert but I do know his "must win" mentality would be a breath of fresh air on this current team make up. Lambert's size is what my question would be.

Most DL & OL of the 70's would be small by todays standard so not so sure about their transitioning very well but keep in mind there definatel some that would.

EDIT: Can't forget Shell as well



Salute the nation
 
I hope we have a 3rd QB that we can ask this question about soon. I cant pick between Ben and Terry. both brought so much success to our beloved Steelers.
 
Bradshaw was so clearly the #1 overall pick prospect that the next draft that featured a consensus #1 overall pick similar to Bradshaw wouldn’t occur till 1983 with John Elway. Then arguably not again till 1998 with Peyton Manning.

Point being—Bradshaw was far and away the top QB talent.

While Ben Roethlisberger was the #11 overall—just imagine if he went to Ohio State (who did try to recruit him but was late to the table) I’m betting he’d have contended to be #1 overall in 2004 and especially if it was after a Senior season in 2005. Ben was going #4 to Giants but Eli Manning had the “brand” name

Clearly both were top players from their respective drafts.

Where they diverge is in immediate success and eras.

Terry went to an awful team that loved his backup (Terry Hanratty) and mentally wasn’t as tough to a coach who was less emotional than Spock. It wasn’t a good fit, until it was. Chuck’s tough love ultimately made Bradshaw better, something he still doesn’t get to this day. Bradshaw definitely has challenges with relationships overall. Bradshaw struggled badly for many years—even during the Championship seasons of 74 & 75, and his career blossomed with the rules changes late. He might have had more success individually if he was with say, John Madden at the time—but would he have had the same impact over his whole career?

Don’t think so.

Roethlisberger had immediate success and was integrated into a championship caliber team by Bill Cowher, and a demonstration of a master class in coaching. Roethlisberger was protected and gradually was able to expand His game organically to put the Steelers over the top and win the Super Bowl in a second year. What Rothlisberger did not have that Bradshaw did was coming up big in the biggest games, meaning Super Bowls.

Rothlisberger was clearly bad in Super Bowl 40, had a great final drive in Super Bowl 43, and had a terrible first half in Super Bowl 45. And if Ben could’ve pulled off that final drive to win Super Bowl 45 his legacy would be looked at differently, but he did not. Bradshaw however, came up big in all of his four Super Bowls with a touchdown pass in the fourth quarter to seal the game. Ultimately this is what distinguishes one from the other.

If we’re all those burger would’ve won at least one more Super Bowl to have three this would be a very very narrow debate not that it already isn’t already.

Ultimately they are so close but it’s hard to call one above the other unless you’re framing your argument in a certain area
 
I’d say Bradshaw. His regular season stats are nothing special, but the guy was clutch when it mattered most. I mean the guy won 4 SB’s.

I get that it’s a team sport, and Ben never had any teams like those 70’s teams, but who has? On top of that, Ben was coming up small in the playoffs for a while.

I think it’s Bradshaw.
Bradshaw never lost a super bowl either
 
Bradshaw was so clearly the #1 overall pick prospect that the next draft that featured a consensus #1 overall pick similar to Bradshaw wouldn’t occur till 1983 with John Elway. Then arguably not again till 1998 with Peyton Manning.

Point being—Bradshaw was far and away the top QB talent.

While Ben Roethlisberger was the #11 overall—just imagine if he went to Ohio State (who did try to recruit him but was late to the table) I’m betting he’d have contended to be #1 overall in 2004 and especially if it was after a Senior season in 2005. Ben was going #4 to Giants but Eli Manning had the “brand” name

Clearly both were top players from their respective drafts.

Where they diverge is in immediate success and eras.

Terry went to an awful team that loved his backup (Terry Hanratty) and mentally wasn’t as tough to a coach who was less emotional than Spock. It wasn’t a good fit, until it was. Chuck’s tough love ultimately made Bradshaw better, something he still doesn’t get to this day. Bradshaw definitely has challenges with relationships overall. Bradshaw struggled badly for many years—even during the Championship seasons of 74 & 75, and his career blossomed with the rules changes late. He might have had more success individually if he was with say, John Madden at the time—but would he have had the same impact over his whole career?

Don’t think so.

Roethlisberger had immediate success and was integrated into a championship caliber team by Bill Cowher, and a demonstration of a master class in coaching. Roethlisberger was protected and gradually was able to expand His game organically to put the Steelers over the top and win the Super Bowl in a second year. What Rothlisberger did not have that Bradshaw did was coming up big in the biggest games, meaning Super Bowls.

Rothlisberger was clearly bad in Super Bowl 40, had a great final drive in Super Bowl 43, and had a terrible first half in Super Bowl 45. And if Ben could’ve pulled off that final drive to win Super Bowl 45 his legacy would be looked at differently, but he did not. Bradshaw however, came up big in all of his four Super Bowls with a touchdown pass in the fourth quarter to seal the game. Ultimately this is what distinguishes one from the other.

If we’re all those burger would’ve won at least one more Super Bowl to have three this would be a very very narrow debate not that it already isn’t already.

Ultimately they are so close but it’s hard to call one above the other unless you’re framing your argument in a certain area


Nice perspective and recount of each careers, thanks FSF

I'm just glad both where here and finished their respective careers here.



Love re-living both of their glories along the way.




Salute the nation
 
Team success is team success. Bradshaw played with how many HOF players. It is a piece of the puzzle. But far from the whole. The turnover on those great 70s team was minimal. Roethlisberger literally played with Ward led wr, AB, and last bit by committee. How many offensive lines. Then you are talking about the Emperor who is top five HC on any list vs. Tomlin who is at best top 50.
 
Bradshaw was so clearly the #1 overall pick prospect that the next draft that featured a consensus #1 overall pick similar to Bradshaw wouldn’t occur till 1983 with John Elway. Then arguably not again till 1998 with Peyton Manning.

Point being—Bradshaw was far and away the top QB talent.

While Ben Roethlisberger was the #11 overall—just imagine if he went to Ohio State (who did try to recruit him but was late to the table) I’m betting he’d have contended to be #1 overall in 2004 and especially if it was after a Senior season in 2005. Ben was going #4 to Giants but Eli Manning had the “brand” name

Clearly both were top players from their respective drafts.

Where they diverge is in immediate success and eras.

Terry went to an awful team that loved his backup (Terry Hanratty) and mentally wasn’t as tough to a coach who was less emotional than Spock. It wasn’t a good fit, until it was. Chuck’s tough love ultimately made Bradshaw better, something he still doesn’t get to this day. Bradshaw definitely has challenges with relationships overall. Bradshaw struggled badly for many years—even during the Championship seasons of 74 & 75, and his career blossomed with the rules changes late. He might have had more success individually if he was with say, John Madden at the time—but would he have had the same impact over his whole career?

Don’t think so.

Roethlisberger had immediate success and was integrated into a championship caliber team by Bill Cowher, and a demonstration of a master class in coaching. Roethlisberger was protected and gradually was able to expand His game organically to put the Steelers over the top and win the Super Bowl in a second year. What Rothlisberger did not have that Bradshaw did was coming up big in the biggest games, meaning Super Bowls.

Rothlisberger was clearly bad in Super Bowl 40, had a great final drive in Super Bowl 43, and had a terrible first half in Super Bowl 45. And if Ben could’ve pulled off that final drive to win Super Bowl 45 his legacy would be looked at differently, but he did not. Bradshaw however, came up big in all of his four Super Bowls with a touchdown pass in the fourth quarter to seal the game. Ultimately this is what distinguishes one from the other.

If we’re all those burger would’ve won at least one more Super Bowl to have three this would be a very very narrow debate not that it already isn’t already.

Ultimately they are so close but it’s hard to call one above the other unless you’re framing your argument in a certain area
that's what I said
 
Team success is team success. Bradshaw played with how many HOF players. It is a piece of the puzzle. But far from the whole. The turnover on those great 70s team was minimal. Roethlisberger literally played with Ward led wr, AB, and last bit by committee. How many offensive lines. Then you are talking about the Emperor who is top five HC on any list vs. Tomlin who is at best top 50.
The Steelers also faced great teams that also kept their players like the Raiders, Dolphins, etc who were all time great teams . The Steelers dominated in the golden age of the NFL against teams with tons of Hall of Famers. Cuts both ways.
 
Top