Terry Bradshaw on Peyton Manning: If you like losing Super Bowls, he’s your guy

[Thordaddy]

Well sure ,everyone gets to talk trash , but it doesn't mean your trash is valid, welcome ,isn't self serving , and isn't classless.
Bradshaw needs someone like Manning to face his fat tired ass down, and say hey tubby say that shit to my face, nothing endeared me to Martz more than the way he big timed Bradshaw, he paid , success doesn't give you the right to be an ass.

 

[PrometheusFaulk]

It was the same defense during other playoffs though, wasn't it? They were a great defense but they gave up 17+ many times in the post season. And the two times you mention were in the Super Bowl itself. So, Bradshaw played his best in the Super Bowl when the defense wasn't as good as it had been. Twice against Dallas and they even gave up 19(20 if Corral could kick a friggin' XP) to the M.A.S.H. Rams.

They may have given up 17+ in other runs, but that's not your argument. Your argument is that Bradshaw was a better champion. I would argue that the Steelers were a better championship team, and that made Bradshaw's job easier.

The key as always, to me at least, is that the quarterback is a member of the team, not that the team is an accessory to the quarterback.

 

[moklerman]

They may have given up 17+ in other runs, but that's not your argument. Your argument is that Bradshaw was a better champion. I would argue that the Steelers were a better championship team, and that made Bradshaw's job easier.

The key as always, to me at least, is that the quarterback is a member of the team, not that the team is an accessory to the quarterback.

Then how is anyone ever to talk about an individual in football?

Must we put an asterisk next to every championship QB that had a good defense? Unitas, Starr, Staubach, Aikman, Favre...the list goes on and on.

 

[-X-]

They may have given up 17+ in other runs, but that's not your argument. Your argument is that Bradshaw was a better champion. I would argue that the Steelers were a better championship team, and that made Bradshaw's job easier.

The key as always, to me at least, is that the quarterback is a member of the team, not that the team is an accessory to the quarterback.

True. I didn't see Manning make too many mistakes in the Broncos' loss to the seahawks recently.

What I did see was his receivers getting locked down

His O-line not blocking very well (27 yards rushing) and this:

The special teams allowing TDs

And the defense forgetting how to tackle.

 

[jap]

Terry Bradshaw was not even the best QB on his 1974 team---and he knew it and admitted it. That accolade belonged to Joseph "Joe" Wiley Gilliam, the first black QB to start a pro football regular season opening game (he was not the first black starter of a pro football regular season game---that honor belonged to the AFL Denver Broncoes' Marlin Briscoe.) and one of the best pure passers in NFL history. Had Joe held onto the job, he could have been the first Afro-American QB to win a Super Bowl, well before the 'Skins' Doug Williams, and his career record could have easily trumped Terry's ledger.

Unfortunately, Joe Gilliam was unprepared for the reality of being the first black NFL starter in a racially divided USA. The hate mail and death threats disrupted his focus and influenced him to turn to heavy alcoholic drinking, heroin, and cocaine. Nevertheless, it was Joe Gilliam---not Terry Bradshaw---who got the Steelers rolling toward their 1974 first Super Bowl drive, and every Steeler, including Terry, would tell you who the best QB on that team was.

This YouTube video encapsulates Joe's early impact and demise:

 

[PrometheusFaulk]

Then how is anyone ever to talk about an individual in football?

Must we put an asterisk next to every championship QB that had a good defense? Unitas, Starr, Staubach, Aikman, Favre...the list goes on and on.

No. But to me at least when you're having a subjective discussion about who was the best individual player at a position, team context matters.

 

[moklerman]

Terry Bradshaw was not even the best QB on his 1974 team---and he knew it and admitted it. That accolade belonged to Joseph "Joe" Wiley Gilliam, the first black QB to start a pro football regular season opening game (he was not the first black starter of a pro football regular season game---that honor belonged to the AFL Denver Broncoes' Marlin Briscoe.) and one of the best pure passers in NFL history. Had Joe held onto the job, he could have been the first Afro-American QB to win a Super Bowl, well before the 'Skins' Doug Williams, and his career record could have easily trumped Terry's ledger.

Unfortunately, Joe Gilliam was unprepared for the reality of being the first black NFL starter in a racially divided USA. The hate mail and death threats disrupted his focus and influenced him to turn to heavy alcoholic drinking, heroin, and cocaine. Nevertheless, it was Joe Gilliam---not Terry Bradshaw---who got the Steelers rolling toward their 1974 first Super Bowl drive, and every Steeler, including Terry, would tell you who the best QB on that team was.

This YouTube video encapsulates Joe's early impact and demise:

It's a sad story but I'm not too eager to blame society for all of his problems. Look at what Jackie Robinson, Larry Doby, Kenny Washington, etc. had to face and went through. Gilliam certainly had it tougher than a white QB would but I don't know about blaming racism for his demise.

And I REALLY don't see how you can say he'd have had a better career than Bradshaw. The guy only started 7 games in his career and his numbers were pretty bad. Both QB's struggled in 1974 but just because Bradshaw went on to great things doesn't mean Gilliam would have too.

 

[moklerman]

No. But to me at least when you're having a subjective discussion about who was the best individual player at a position, team context matters.

I don't believe I've discounted team context. The current perception though, seems to be that Manning hasn't been on any good teams and that their success was all because of him.

 

[PrometheusFaulk]

I don't believe I've discounted team context. The current perception though, seems to be that Manning hasn't been on any good teams and that their success was all because of him.

If I gave you the perception that was my argument, that was not my intent.

There are degrees of this thing, to me, it's not a matter of "good vs no good."

The teams Manning played on were good.

It just so happened that the defense Bradshaw played with when they won 4 Super Bowls was possibly the greatest of all time.

So when Bradshaw makes the comment, "Manning loses at the end of the season" and someone feels he is justified in doing so because his teams won 4 championships to Manning's 1, it seems like that's ignoring the vast, vast difference between the Steel Curtain's impact in winning those rings as opposed to the defenses Manning played with, and how that might effect each quarterback's performances.

 

[NJRamsFan]

I'm pretty sure you'd take any top player of today over any top player from 4 decades ago. Seems like a moot point.

But, to further the hypothetical would you also build a pass-first team that Peyton throws the ball 600 times a season? Because I don't think you can say he'd be the same player if he was asked to do what, say, Russel Wilson/Colin Kaepernick are doing in the passing game.

I don't understand why you would ask a qb like Peyton to play like one of those qbs I don't think I understand your point.

 

[jrry32]

If a league MVP, 2-time Super Bowl MVP, HOF QB doesn't have any business talking trash then no one's allowed to talk.

You're right. Nobody aside from Brady and Montana really can talk trash about Manning's ability to QB a team and be taken seriously.

Guy came up big more often than not and has thrown many of the most historic passes in league history. He was not on a pass happy team but he was a very good QB. Had his elbow not given out on him, he'd have enjoyed some of the rules of the '80's that started protecting offensive players. I think if you just look at the stats you also miss a lot of what was going on in those Raiders/Steelers games. His numbers may not have been pretty but those were wars and the Raiders were as dirty as they came. Cheap shots, late hits, head shots, clotheslines, you name it. Today's QB's would have a very tough time IMO.

Which is irrelevant when he didn't play well and his criticisms of Manning relate to Manning's playoff performance. Seems kind of hypocritical for you to trumpet poor performances by Bradshaw while agreeing with his criticisms of Manning's playoff performances.

How many passing titles and MVP's would he have if he was on a run-first, defensive team like Bradshaw?

More than Bradshaw. And he would have helped that team win more Super Bowls than Bradshaw did.

Bradshaw led the league in TD's twice. Won the league MVP. Was top 8 in passer rating 6 times. He compared very well to other QB's of the 70's. As does Manning now but Rodgers, Brady, Brees are all right there with him.

Is top 8 supposed to be impressive for a HOF QB? He never once led the league, was #2 in passer rating only once in his career and was top 5 in passer rating only twice in his career. His career passer rating is below many of his peers. He led the league in passing TDs only twice. He was only named a 1st team All Pro ONE TIME.

Not in Manning's league.

 

[moklerman]

You're right. Nobody aside from Brady and Montana really can talk trash about Manning's ability to QB a team and be taken seriously.

Why would Brady get to talk? That guy's numbers drop in the post season more than Manning's. Unless you're just talking about familiarity.

Which is irrelevant when he didn't play well and his criticisms of Manning relate to Manning's playoff performance.

No, Bradshaw's comments relate to Manning's Super Bowl performances. I expanded the argument to playoffs and mentioning the Raiders.

More than Bradshaw. And he would have helped that team win more Super Bowls than Bradshaw did.

Sorry, but you just don't know that. Manning may have never had a career in the '70's. Ever seen him take a tough hit and not complain? Ever see him win anything until the league changed the rules(again) so receivers couldn't be touched? All of that timing and rhythm passing that he does to accumulate great numbers didn't exist in the '70's. The closest thing that he's faced that resembles how things were was against Seattle and look how that turned out.

Is top 8 supposed to be impressive for a HOF QB? He never once led the league, was #2 in passer rating only once in his career and was top 5 in passer rating only twice in his career. His career passer rating is below many of his peers. He led the league in passing TDs only twice. He was only named a 1st team All Pro ONE TIME.

Because he was on a run first, defensive-minded team. Those few times he actually got to throw the ball later in his career he performed well. If he'd been in St. Louis/San Diego under Coryell he would have put up a lot better numbers. Or Dallas or any of the other passing teams.

Not in Manning's league.

When it comes to Super Bowl numbers and championships? You're right. He's much higher.

 

[jrry32]

Why would Brady get to talk? That guy's numbers drop in the post season more than Manning's. Unless you're just talking about familiarity.

And Manning has better numbers in the post-season than Bradshaw. But I thought it was all about the rings?

No, Bradshaw's comments relate to Manning's Super Bowl performances. I expanded the argument to playoffs and mentioning the Raiders.

Irrelevant. The point remains. You can't trumpet poor performances by Bradshaw when simultaneously backing his comments that question Manning's performances.

Sorry, but you just don't know that. Manning may have never had a career in the '70's. Ever seen him take a tough hit and not complain? Ever see him win anything until the league changed the rules(again) so receivers couldn't be touched? All of that timing and rhythm passing that he does to accumulate great numbers didn't exist in the '70's. The closest thing that he's faced that resembles how things were was against Seattle and look how that turned out.

Bullshit. Laughable bullshit. Peyton Manning on the 70s Steelers is pure dominance.

I've seen him take many tough hits and not complain. I saw him come back from a potentially career ending neck injury and break records in his late 30s. Peyton Manning would be a monster in the 1970s because he wins with his mind and he wins with execution. That works in ANY era.

Because he was on a run first, defensive-minded team. Those few times he actually got to throw the ball later in his career he performed well. If he'd been in St. Louis/San Diego under Coryell he would have put up a lot better numbers. Or Dallas or any of the other passing teams.

That's not even remotely true. If anything, being on a run first defensive minded team boosts efficiency stats like passer rating. Russell Wilson and Colin Kaepernick are two examples of that. And yet Bradshaw's was low compared to his peers.

I don't buy for a second that he'd be some stud on a pass first team with much less talent.

When it comes to Super Bowl numbers and championships? You're right. He's much higher.

Yea and Dilfer is higher than Marino. If that's the extent of your point here, I think we can just go ahead and call this conversation a wrap.

 

[moklerman]

And Manning has better numbers in the post-season than Bradshaw. But I thought it was all about the rings?

89.2 vs. 83.0. Sounds like the same league to me. If you think Bradshaw was so terrible in the post season, what do you think of Manning who's just a tad better in passer rating?

That's not even remotely true. If anything, being on a run first defensive minded team boosts efficiency stats like passer rating. Russell Wilson and Colin Kaepernick are two examples of that. And yet Bradshaw's was low compared to his peers.

What isn't true is that Bradshaw's efficiency numbers were low compared to other QB's of the era. But you seem to be confusing era's again. What works now didn't work back then. Back then, when a team ran, ran, had 3rd and obvious passing situation, it became tough to throw. That's part of why QB's had lower completion % numbers back then.

Yea and Dilfer is higher than Marino. If that's the extent of your point here, I think we can just go ahead and call this conversation a wrap.

Context is precisely what you're struggling with. It's possible that Manning could be plopped down in any era and succeed but it isn't a given. What he excels at wouldn't necessarily work in other eras. Not to mention he's playing with the benefit of years development of the QB position and technology. Alll those dumpoffs, short passes and screens that help set up the intermediate and deep stuff wouldn't exist in the same way. His receivers wouldn't be getting off the line to run those routes for one thing. Hell, the WCO barely existed back then and it certainly hadn't been developed and refined. It was a very different game.

So, while I've been guilty of trying to use numbers to illustrate the relative struggles Manning has had in the post season it seems to be clouding the issue. Which is, does Manning come up big or even to his own standards in the post season? The answer is very clearly "no". It doesn't matter if it was Bradshaw saying it or someone else. Manning is not a good/great/HOF post season QB.

 

[jrry32]

89.2 vs. 83.0. Sounds like the same league to me. If you think Bradshaw was so terrible in the post season, what do you think of Manning who's just a tad better in passer rating?

Strawman alert. Strawman alert.

What isn't true is that Bradshaw's efficiency numbers were low compared to other QB's of the era. But you seem to be confusing era's again. What works now didn't work back then. Back then, when a team ran, ran, had 3rd and obvious passing situation, it became tough to throw. That's part of why QB's had lower completion % numbers back then.

And yet there were plenty of QBs from his era that were more efficient. I'm not confusing anything. He wasn't efficient FOR HIS ERA.

Context is precisely what you're struggling with. It's possible that Manning could be plopped down in any era and succeed but it isn't a given. What he excels at wouldn't necessarily work in other eras. Not to mention he's playing with the benefit of years development of the QB position and technology. Alll those dumpoffs, short passes and screens that help set up the intermediate and deep stuff wouldn't exist in the same way. His receivers wouldn't be getting off the line to run those routes for one thing. Hell, the WCO barely existed back then and it certainly hadn't been developed and refined. It was a very different game.

The problem here is you're assuming that post-neck injury Peyton Manning with reduced arm strength is the only Peyton Manning that has ever existed. Winning with your mind and execution worked in any era. /discussion

So, while I've been guilty of trying to use numbers to illustrate the relative struggles Manning has had in the post season it seems to be clouding the issue. Which is, does Manning come up big or even to his own standards in the post season? The answer is very clearly "no". It doesn't matter if it was Bradshaw saying it or someone else. Manning is not a good/great/HOF post season QB.

Not meeting his standards and not being a good post-season QB are miles apart. If you're claiming Manning hasn't been a good or great post-season QB. You stopped watching him play after his first 5 years in the league. That's ludicrous.

 

[moklerman]

Not meeting his standards and not being a good post-season QB are miles apart. If you're claiming Manning hasn't been a good or great post-season QB. You stopped watching him play after his first 5 years in the league. That's ludicrous.

He's had some high points to be sure, but overall? 8 out of 13 seasons his teams are 1 and done, first round exits. The one time his team won it all, he threw a total of 3 TD's that post season(with 8 interceptions). In the Super Bowl, his career totals are 3 TD/4 INT. He just hasn't consistently played well in the post season. After his first 5 years, in 4/15 games he's put up a sub-80 rating, 12/15 games were sub-100.

But I ask again, in the playoffs has Manning generally approached, met or exceeded what he does during the regular season? If he doesn't match or raise his level of play, should he be considered a good post season QB?

Is a losing record and 89.2 career playoff passer rating good to you?

 

[jrry32]

He's had some high points to be sure, but overall? 8 out of 13 seasons his teams are 1 and done, first round exits. The one time his team won it all, he threw a total of 3 TD's that post season(with 8 interceptions). In the Super Bowl, his career totals are 3 TD/4 INT. He just hasn't consistently played well in the post season. After his first 5 years, in 4/15 games he's put up a sub-80 rating, 12/15 games were sub-100.

In the 10 games since that Super Bowl win in 2006, Manning has a total of 1 game with a QB Rating below 80. That was the Super Bowl against the Seahawks. On the flip-side, he has 3 games with a QB Rating above 100. And his lowest QB Rating discounting the Super Bowl against Seattle was 87.9 against the Ravens in 2009.

The guy has been pretty damn consistent of late. In fact, he's been pretty damn consistent over the last decade. The only bad games he's played in that span of time were 2004 AFCCG vs. New England, the first two games of his Super Bowl run, and the Super Bowl loss to Seattle. That's 4 out of 17 games against the best of the best.

But I ask again, in the playoffs has Manning generally approached, met or exceeded what he does during the regular season? If he doesn't match or raise his level of play, should he be considered a good post season QB?

Yes. Because the playoffs are played against the best of the best. Manning setting the bar incredibly high during the regular season doesn't make him a lesser player.

If he had the same playoff stats with Terry Bradshaw's atrocious career QB Rating hovering around 70...would that make him a good post-season QB? After all, he's elevating his play. It's such an illogical argument. Give me the guy that's one of the best there is in NFL history during the regular season and only great in the playoffs over the guy that's nothing special in the regular season and great in the playoffs.

Guys like Montana, Warner, Rodgers, and Brees are INCREDIBLY rare. Most great regular season QBs set the bar too high to actually elevate their performance in the post-season when they come up against only playoff caliber teams.

Is a losing record and 89.2 career playoff passer rating good to you?

Yep, it is. Manning's 89.2 career playoff passer rating is good for 10th best all time among the 50 QBs that qualified.

Wins and losses fall on the team...not a single player. I think it's crazy how people try to put the team's success and failure on the back of one player. Nobody ever blames an OT or a LB or a WR for the team losing the Super Bowl. But somehow the wins and losses are on the QB. That's nuts. Why doesn't Mean Joe Greene get the credit for the Steelers winning four Super Bowls? Or Franco Harris? Or John Stallworth? Or Lynn Swann? Or Jack Lambert? Or Jack Ham? Or Mel Blount?

 

[moklerman]

In the 10 games since that Super Bowl win in 2006,

Now you're just moving the goal posts. You specifically said to look at what he's done after his first 5 years.

Guys like Montana, Warner, Rodgers, and Brees are INCREDIBLY rare. Most great regular season QBs set the bar too high to actually elevate their performance in the post-season when they come up against only playoff caliber teams.

At least you're admitting that Manning isn't in their class. "Great" should be reserved for those who actually are. And Manning a'int.

Yep, it is. Manning's 89.2 career playoff passer rating is good for 10th best all time among the 50 QBs that qualified.

Sounds good except Mark Sanchez is 6th and Eli is 9th. Which is a big part of this discussion on stats. Today's stats are the equivalent of Monopoly money. They are skewed and really distort and diminish how good players of the past were.

We just don't value the same things I guess. That you'd minimize a QB who raises his game and performs under pressure and then celebrate a guy who does the exact opposite has me a bit surprised. Maybe Eli and Sanchez didn't set the bar so high during the regular season but they've still performed at a higher level statistically than Peyton in the post season.

What do you think of Roger Staubach? Do you also consider him to be atrocious?

 

[jrry32]

Now you're just moving the goal posts. You specifically said to look at what he's done after his first 5 years.

I'm not moving anything. After those first 5 years that were mentioned earlier, Manning's playoff QB Rating is 93.2 over 20 games. I was moving on and illustrating that the guy has played quite well in the playoffs of late and over the last decade. The Peyton Manning playoff narrative was written over those first 5 years and never revised despite him actually developing into quite an effective playoff QB.

Over the 10 games I mentioned(all since his Super Bowl win in 2006), he has a 96.0 QB Rating and 19 TDs to 9 Ints.

In fact, if you were to extrapolate his numbers to a 16 game season, they would be:
68.0%
4949 yards
7.5 YPA
30 TDs
14 Ints
96.0 QB Rating

Manning struggled in the playoffs early in his career but he's actually developed into quite a good playoff QB as his career has gone on.

At least you're admitting that Manning isn't in their class. "Great" should be reserved for those who actually are. And Manning a'int.

In solely the playoffs? No. As an overall QB, I'd take him over all except maybe Montana...but I wasn't alive to see Montana play in his time so it wouldn't be fair for me to pass judgement.

Sounds good except Mark Sanchez is 6th and Eli is 9th. Which is a big part of this discussion on stats. Today's stats are the equivalent of Monopoly money. They are skewed and really distort and diminish how good players of the past were.

Thing is that Eli and Mark Sanchez both have actually played well in the playoffs(although there's a difference between playing well in your role and actually being great). They're two guys who did elevate their games. However, unlike Bradshaw, Eli doesn't have people making excuses for his inconsistent play during the regular season. People recognize that he's nowhere near the player his brother and the other elite QBs are.

We just don't value the same things I guess. That you'd minimize a QB who raises his game and performs under pressure and then celebrate a guy who does the exact opposite has me a bit surprised. Maybe Eli and Sanchez didn't set the bar so high during the regular season but they've still performed at a higher level statistically than Peyton in the post season.

Nope. We don't. Give me the guy who goes from elite in the regular season to great in the playoffs over the guy that goes from mediocre in the regular season to great in the playoffs. And Sanchez? Not even worth mentioning. Don't care what the stats are in the playoffs, anyone that would take Sanchez in the playoffs over Peyton Manning need not discuss football ever again.

What do you think of Roger Staubach? Do you also consider him to be atrocious?

Why would I? Staubach stacked up quite well to his peers unlike Bradshaw. Hell, he led the NFL in passer rating four out of his eight years as a starter. And was second another time. That's five out of eight years where he was top 2 in the NFL in passer rating.

 

[moklerman]

In solely the playoffs? No.

That pretty much ends the debate, doesn't it? Manning isn't great in the playoffs.

And I think we come full circle. Great regular season stats and lesser playoff performances. Which is exactly what Bradshaw offered of Peyton Manning.