Terry Bradshaw gets no respect

[Auriaprottu]

I've been seeing this for years now, and while I don't have a good answer to the question "why"?, perhaps someone here does.

Let's look at the facts.


Rings- 4 each. Even.

Supporting cast: Even.
The Niner's defense was underrated. Jerry Rice and any other very good receiver are equal to Stallworth and Swann. Roger Craig and Franco cancel each other out.

Opponents: Bradshaw in an ugly, lopsided romp. The Niners never played an opponent of the caliber of Staubach's Cowboys. Tarkenton's Vikings and Elway's Broncos were about even. But Marino's Dolphins were great on one side of the ball only. Ken Anderson's '81 Bengals were a one-shot wonder, and Esiason's Bengals weren't much better. The only marginal opponent the Steelers played was the '79 Rams.

System: Niners...
Montana was a beneficiary. Bradshaw called his own plays. Enough said.

Era of the game: Bradshaw. He played before coaching micromanagement took over the game.
Montana played in the Eighties.

Why do we hear so much about Joe Montana and so little about Bradshaw? Is it the media trying to create an image of equality between the modern game and the Golden Era of the 70s? Is it the fact that Bill Walsh's QB-coddling system allowed Montana to throw no picks in his appearances? What? You tell me.

Discuss.

[superdave]

Originally posted by Auriaprottu
I've been seeing this for years now, and while I don't have a good answer to the question "why"?, perhaps someone here does.

Let's look at the facts.


Rings- 4 each. Even.

Supporting cast: Even.
The Niner's defense was underrated. Jerry Rice and any other very good receiver are equal to Stallworth and Swann. Roger Craig and Franco cancel each other out.
That's where you're wrong. Both Terry Hanratty and Joe Gilliam started ahead of Bradshaw while they were building the dynasty. I'm not sure if either started ahead of him in the Super Bowl years, but I think Gilliam did.

The 49ers weren't always looking for a replacement for Montana. There's a reason for that.

[Auriaprottu]

Originally posted by superdave
That's where you're wrong. Both Terry Hanratty and Joe Gilliam started ahead of Bradshaw while they were building the dynasty. I'm not sure if either started ahead of him in the Super Bowl years, but I think Gilliam did.

Noll looked for a replacement because Bradshaw was crap at the start of his career. Hanratty was destined to be a backup, IMO. Gilliam did start some (or most, don't recall how many games) of the '74 season ahead of Bradshaw, but the fact is, once Gilliam drugged himself out of the starting job, Bradshaw got his act together and came through. No, more than that- he was one of the leaders of those championship teams. The media isn't giving him credit for that, and neither are you.

The 49ers weren't always looking for a replacement for Montana. There's a reason for that.

Yes, there is, and the reason is that beyond a certain point, the Niners system was more important than the player. Montana was more successful in that system than a lot of his contemporaries would have been, but Bradshaw would have done the same, had he been the starter. Can you say the same for Montana- having to call his own plays and throw much farther downfield than he usually did (as a rule)? I don't think you can.

Of the modern QBs who have won Super Bowls, I'd give Favre, Elway, Young and maybe Aikman a better chance of 70s success than Montana.

[MikeLastort2]

Originally posted by superdave
That's where you're wrong. Both Terry Hanratty and Joe Gilliam started ahead of Bradshaw while they were building the dynasty. I'm not sure if either started ahead of him in the Super Bowl years, but I think Gilliam did.

The 49ers weren't always looking for a replacement for Montana. There's a reason for that.

Bradshaw won the starting job from Hanratty in 1971 and was the starter until the year before he left the NFL in 1983. In that final season, the starter was Cliff Stoudt who was backed up by Mark Malone.

[CHICO13]

I think it's basically because he played on an awesome TEAM. The great Steelers teams were primarily known for their pounding defense, great special teams and great running game. Swann and Stallworth did everything asked of them and more. Bradshaw was just another star on a team full of stars and maybe somewhat overlooked as a great quaterback because of his surrounding cast. Whatever you may think of him, he was one tough SOB who knew how to win the big game.

ps...The Niners defense might have been underated but cannot compare to the Steel Curtain, one of the greatest defenses in the history of the NFL.

[ruudboy]

Montana never got respect is more like it, during his career, he was always not as good as Marino or Elway because of arm strength, and size, even though he did the most important part of being a QB, and that was to win, and put the ball perfect so it can be caught. Marino would jus huck it and cram it into like 3-4 guys, Montana would put it perfect into your hands, Elway the same as Marino, million dollar arm, 2cent brain. Elway didn't get smart til Montana retired and when he started playing smart football, alsoi when he got Shanahan, Montana's offensive cordinador at SF as coach, and adopted our offense.

In the end, even though it doesn't snow out here and he has all of his teeth, Montana is the best ever,and the the Niners still represent, even though the Yorks need to sell this team.

[PSU92]

One of the best things I ever saw on Fox was Terry Bradshaw interviewing Buddy Ryan - just after he took the Arizona Cardinals job.

TB: If you could pick any QB (of all time) to take you to the Super Bowl who would it be?

Buddy: Joe Namath.

TB: WHAT??!! Joe Namath!!! He only won one Super Bowl.

Buddy: [Pissed] The Jets won the Super Bowl because of Joe Namath. He wasn't one of these average Quarterbacks who was dragged along by a great team.

[Off Camera] Rest of the FOX Crew is either laughing or saying "Oh Damn!!" or something similar.

---

Terry might be great but Buddy put his arrogant ass in its place that day.

[Ian McCracken]

Terry Bradshaw was an excellent big game QB, a winner, a tough SOB. But, the Steelers of the 70s were AWESOME as a team, much more so than the 49er teams. Basically, the 49ers had Montana, Craig, Rice, Lott as bonafide legendary players. The Steelers, where do I begin or end? Bradshaw, Franco, Webster, Swann, Stallworth, Kolb, Bleier, Ham, Lambert, Russell, Mean Joe, Greenwood, Blount, Shell...it goes on and on. That team was just so damn remarkable that it's no wonder Bradshaw doesn't get as much credit as Montana. The Steelers were also contending with other GREAT teams like Staubach's Cowboys and Stabler's Raiders and Campbell's Oilers...all teams who would be considered among the greatest ever had they not had the misfortune of playing in the Steel Curtain era.

[Auriaprottu]

Originally posted by CHICO13
Bradshaw was just another star on a team full of stars and maybe somewhat overlooked as a great quaterback because of his surrounding cast. Whatever you may think of him, he was one tough SOB who knew how to win the big game.

I probably should have put something like this in my initial post. But I think the Niners' supporting cast hasn't been given as much credit as they deserve. I'm not hating on Montana's accomplishments (he is one of the greats) as much as I'm saying Bradshaw's are perhps greater, having called his own plays and beaten better teams in a tougher era.

Ruudboy[b]
Montana never got respect is more like it

What? This just ain't true at all...

...Marino would jus huck it and cram it into like 3-4 guys, Montana would put it perfect into your hands, Elway the same as Marino, million dollar arm, 2cent brain. Elway didn't get smart til Montana retired and when he started playing smart football

...and neither is this.
Friend, Elway came into the league playing smart football. He'd been to three Super Bowls by Montana's retirement, only to lose to better teams (including Montana's) than the one he played for. Staubach lost two, Tarkenton three, and Unitas one, tho he didn't play in that one until late. Dan Fouts never even got to the big game. I'd put any of those guys on the field ahead of Montana if I didn't want to send plays in every down like they all seem to do these days. Not trying to be arrogant, but are you old enough to have seen a lot of football before offensive micromanagement?

alsoi when he got Shanahan, Montana's offensive cordinador at SF as coach, and adopted our offense.

And this is the telling point. Bradshaw got the job done without Noll or some OC holding his hand.

In the end, even though it doesn't snow out here and he has all of his teeth, Montana is the best ever

Purpose of this thread. See Unitas, Bradshaw, Starr, Staubach, Namath, Elway, Fouts, and Tarkenton. The Auria Poll puts Montana at #5 behind Unitas, Starr, Bradshaw and Staubach. Bradshaw has as many SB wins. Montana is one of the greatest ever, but his era and his opposition are suspect when compared to the top four.

[superdave]

Originally posted by Auriaprottu
I'm saying Bradshaw's are perhps greater, having called his own plays and beaten better teams in a tougher era.

That cuts both ways. Defenses were simpler. The teams the Steelers were trying to outscore also had their QBs call their own plays (except the Cowboys.) It's like saying a bodybuilder from the 50s was great than those today because back then they didn't know the science of steroids so well, so it was harder to win titles without that knowledge.

It's like when Red Auerbach bogusly tries to burnish his credentials as a genius by pointing out that he had to be GM *and* coach.

[skipshady]

Originally posted by superdave
That cuts both ways. Defenses were simpler. The teams the Steelers were trying to outscore also had their QBs call their own plays (except the Cowboys.)People seem to underrate the teams 49ers had to face. It's true that Montana got to play with a fancy new system, but just as offensive coordinators got more and more power, defensive coordinators similarly started coming up with complex blitz and coverage schemes.
What makes Montana special is how he performed even after the defenses started catching up. If he hadn't been injured against the Giants in the 1991 NFC title game, he may have had a couple more Super Bowl runs in him. And he performed quite well in his final couple of seasons in KC.

Montana gets underrated because of his relatively weak arm. But the combination of accuracy, vision and personality (yes, personality is a requisite for QBs) made him the perfect QB for the 80's.

[Thomas A Fina]

Originally posted by PSU92
One of the best things I ever saw on Fox was Terry Bradshaw interviewing Buddy Ryan - just after he took the Arizona Cardinals job.

TB: If you could pick any QB (of all time) to take you to the Super Bowl who would it be?

Buddy: Joe Namath.

TB: WHAT??!! Joe Namath!!! He only won one Super Bowl.

Buddy: [Pissed] The Jets won the Super Bowl because of Joe Namath. He wasn't one of these average Quarterbacks who was dragged along by a great team.

[Off Camera] Rest of the FOX Crew is either laughing or saying "Oh Damn!!" or something similar.

---

Terry might be great but Buddy put his arrogant ass in its place that day.

Buddy Ryan is a neanderthal idiot.

Joe Namath = Very good but overrated QB who was a product of the New York Media Hype Machine (c) because the Colts choked big time in SB III.

[ruudboy]

Auriaprottu, I'm old enough to have watched my team win 5 SBs. All of the QBs you wrote down couldn't even hold Montana's jock, i mean to say he played against weaker opposition, is just crazy talk, LT and the Giants, Irvin and the Cowboys, you got the Bears, alot of tough teams the 49ers had to go through, not to mention the broken back Montana had to come back from. I think what it gets down to is this, older kats think Football has gotten weaker when in reality it's gotten bigger, faster, more technical, and again faster,and that's every position .I think older kats in general just think younger guys are weaker and that Football is nothing compared to back in the days when it was smash mouth Football, it's changed for the better and all of the QBs you mentioned couldn't play in todays game.One last thing, Bradshaw and Collinsworth are the biggest player haters against the 49ers, they are both on Fox and they both lost something very important due to Montana, one was a SB and the other was the title of best QB.

[MikeLastort2]

Anyone who says the Steelers team of the 1970s wasn't the greatest in the history of the NFL is full of crap.

;)

[ThreeApples]

Originally posted by Auriaprottu

Opponents: Bradshaw in an ugly, lopsided romp. The Niners never played an opponent of the caliber of Staubach's Cowboys. Tarkenton's Vikings and Elway's Broncos were about even. But Marino's Dolphins were great on one side of the ball only. Ken Anderson's '81 Bengals were a one-shot wonder, and Esiason's Bengals weren't much better. The only marginal opponent the Steelers played was the '79 Rams.

Simply comparing their Super Bowl opponents is way too simplistic. Montana played during the era when the AFC won 1 of 16 Super Bowls. He had already faced his toughest competition before he got to the Super Bowls. The Cowboys, Redskins, Bears, and Giants that challenged the Niners for NFC dominance during the Montana era are comparable to the opponents the Steelers faced to win their championships.

Also, when you look at supporting casts, remember that Montana won two Super Bowls while Rice was in college. And the Niners' running game was a joke in 1981.

[nicodemus]

Bradshaw is a knob. I saw him soccer bashing on The Tonight Show once. Hence, no respect.

[Auriaprottu]

Well, I can see I'm in the minority here.

I still think Bradshaw's as deserving as Montana of media respect, but given Nico's testimony (it's easy for me to forget how many Americans still live in fear of the Game when most of my soccer related discussions take place here on BS), I'll back off.