How come Terry Bradshaw is never brought up in the GOAT argumemt?

[Shane Bond]

Terry Bradshaw is better than Peyton/Brady/Elway/Marino/Tarkenton/Moon etc etc because he has 4 rings.

[Snowglobe]

If Manning had 3 SB rings, w/o a doubt, you guys would not be downplaying the rings argument. It's just really ironic because the only thing keeping Manning from being regarded as the GOAT is the rings. Yet you guys act like rings don't really matter. So if Manning wins another ring or two, are you still going to say the same 'ol "rings don't really matter" stuff? Of course not. 

 

In fact, there is an argument being made if Brees wins another SB, he is on par or possibly ahead of Manning. He has a better postseason resume and his career averages are basically exactly similar (according to PFR). Guys like Manning, Brees, and Brady have transcended Bradshaw/Dilfer/Aikman based on their regular season resume. Now the postseason is what separates the elite. That's how I see it.

[Shane Bond]

If Manning had 3 SB rings, w/o a doubt, you guys would not be downplaying the rings argument. It's just really ironic because the only thing keeping Manning from being regarded as the GOAT is the rings. Yet you guys act like rings don't really matter. So if Manning wins another ring or two, are you still going to say the same 'ol "rings don't really matter" stuff? Of course not. 

 

In fact, there is an argument being made if Brees wins another SB, he is on par or possibly ahead of Manning. He has a better postseason resume and his career averages are basically exactly similar (according to PFR). Guys like Manning, Brees, and Brady have transcended Bradshaw/Dilfer/Aikman based on their regular season resume. Now the postseason is what separates the elite. That's how I see it.

 

In other words, Terry Bradshaw is better than Brady. He has more rings.

[Moose Of Woe]

4 rings. Can't beat that.

Only player better than him is Joe Montana.

 

Also undefeated in Superbowls unless I'm mistaken. As we all know SB record is all that matters aside from rings. Or is it appearances now?

[BOTT]

If Manning had 3 SB rings, w/o a doubt, you guys would not be downplaying the rings argument. It's just really ironic because the only thing keeping Manning from being regarded as the GOAT is the rings. Yet you guys act like rings don't really matter. So if Manning wins another ring or two, are you still going to say the same 'ol "rings don't really matter" stuff? Of course not. 

 

In fact, there is an argument being made if Brees wins another SB, he is on par or possibly ahead of Manning. He has a better postseason resume and his career averages are basically exactly similar (according to PFR). Guys like Manning, Brees, and Brady have transcended Bradshaw/Dilfer/Aikman based on their regular season resume. Now the postseason is what separates the elite. That's how I see it.

They matter to an extent, but it has become the defacto argument for every fan who is clueless about football.

[Le Neon]

If Manning had 3 SB rings, w/o a doubt, you guys would not be downplaying the rings argument. It's just really ironic because the only thing keeping Manning from being regarded as the GOAT is the rings. Yet you guys act like rings don't really matter. So if Manning wins another ring or two, are you still going to say the same 'ol "rings don't really matter" stuff? Of course not.  In fact, there is an argument being made if Brees wins another SB, he is on par or possibly ahead of Manning. He has a better postseason resume and his career averages are basically exactly similar (according to PFR). Guys like Manning, Brees, and Brady have transcended Bradshaw/Dilfer/Aikman based on their regular season resume. Now the postseason is what separates the elite. That's how I see it.

Why would rings matter if he's already the GOAT. Can't improve upon being the greatest.

I expect dolphins fans think Marino is the greatest, niners fans think Montana is the greatest, broncos have Elway etc etc.

Why Patriots fans come on a Colts board and act surprised by all the "bias" towards Manning is an endless source of entertainment.

[Moose Of Woe]

Why would rings matter if he's already the GOAT. Can't improve upon being the greatest.

I expect dolphins fans think Marino is the greatest, niners fans think Montana is the greatest, broncos have Elway etc etc.

Why Patriots fans come on a Colts board and act surprised by all the "bias" towards Manning is an endless source of entertainment.

Personally, I think Marino is the greatest and I don't even like the Dolphins. The guy essentially dragged that team in to relevance year after year. This in an age where the QB would get drilled. Too bad he never had a team capable of pulling their weight to win a SB.

 

Did Marino have some good players on those teams with him? Sure. Unfortunately those good players didn't make up for the mass of garbage the rest of the team fielded. IE: The entire defense.

[Le Neon]

Personally, I think Marino is the greatest and I don't even like the Dolphins. The guy essentially dragged that team in to relevance year after year. This in an age where the QB would get drilled. Too bad he never had a team capable of pulling their weight to win a SB.

 

Did Marino have some good players on those teams with him? Sure. Unfortunately those good players didn't make up for the mass of garbage the rest of the team fielded. IE: The entire defense.

I tend to agree on Marino. When i want to go back and watch film on special players he's at the top of my list for qbs, like Sanders at RB or Rice at WR. Sure Montana had more special moments, but Marino had such an amazing delivery. The ball was down field with just a flick of his wrist. Watching him play was a joy, even though I kind of hated him as a divisional rival.

[-JJ-]

I agree 100% with the 2 above posts.

Marino would just burn you.

[The Old Crow]

If Manning had 3 SB rings, w/o a doubt, you guys would not be downplaying the rings argument. It's just really ironic because the only thing keeping Manning from being regarded as the GOAT is the rings. Yet you guys act like rings don't really matter. So if Manning wins another ring or two, are you still going to say the same 'ol "rings don't really matter" stuff? Of course not.

In fact, there is an argument being made if Brees wins another SB, he is on par or possibly ahead of Manning. He has a better postseason resume and his career averages are basically exactly similar (according to PFR). Guys like Manning, Brees, and Brady have transcended Bradshaw/Dilfer/Aikman based on their regular season resume. Now the postseason is what separates the elite. That's how I see it.

I agree that Championships round out the resume in GOAT arguments. Jim Irsay has basically proved Patriots fans right, with his ring obsessed rants and tweets.

[The Old Crow]

I agree 100% with the 2 above posts.

Marino would just burn you.

Marino. , no Championships, no way. Look at Labron James before his Championships. Do you think he would even be in a discussion with Jordan or Magic without Champuonship wins , much less multiple Championship rings.

[IndyTrav]

I didnt think people still used the "Just rings argument". Its a combination of everything. Its just rings are the last part of the equation. 

 

Great Individual success: Stats, ability, League marketability 

 

Great Individual accomplishments: MVPs, Records, 

 

Great Success within a team: Regular Season/Playoff Records

 

SB Success: Rings or Appearances

 

SB Accomplishments: MVP, Records

 

 

These are what makes the GoAT argument.

 

Some guys, Montana/Brady/Manning have every single one of these traits. Other guys, like Marino/Bradshaw/Aikman, only have a few. But in cases like Montana/Brady/Manning since they meet all the criteria, it begins the question what is the most valued of the accomplishments? MVPs? Records? SBs?....Generally it is regarded as SBs..... 

[TAPLOOK]

If Luck retires from Indy with a credentials like Brady's people in Indy would forget all about Peyton Manning and Luck would be their God by a long shot.     

[TAPLOOK]

I didnt think people still used the "Just rings argument". Its a combination of everything. Its just rings are the last part of the equation. 

 

Great Individual success: Stats, ability, League marketability 

 

Great Individual accomplishments: MVPs, Records, 

 

Great Success within a team: Regular Season/Playoff Records

 

SB Success: Rings or Appearances

 

SB Accomplishments: MVP, Records

 

 

These are what makes the GoAT argument.

 

Some guys, Montana/Brady/Manning have every single one of these traits. Other guys, like Marino/Bradshaw/Aikman, only have a few. But in cases like Montana/Brady/Manning since they meet all the criteria, it begins the question what is the most valued of the accomplishments? MVPs? Records? SBs?....Generally it is regarded as SBs..... 

Only Trolls use the ring thing.

[Dustin]

If Luck retires from Indy with a credentials like Brady's people in Indy would forget all about Peyton Manning and Luck would be their God by a long shot.

Get out of here with that nonsense.

[TAPLOOK]

Get out of here with that nonsense.

What's nonsense about that Dusty?

[Dustin]

What's nonsense about that Dusty?

TTat people would "forget about Manning."

You know that's not even remotely true.

[Shane Bond]

Get out of here with that nonsense.

LOL good one

[TAPLOOK]

TTat people would "forget about Manning."

You know that's not even remotely true.

"We had a good QB in Manning but Luck was head and shoulders better". Is that better?

 

Notice how I used words like "If" and "would" in my OP? Because it will never happen. It's become painfully clear that Luck is no Peyton. Not even remotely close. 

[Dustin]

"We had a good QB in Manning but Luck was head and shoulders better". Is that better?

Notice how I used words like "If" and "would" in my OP? Because it will never happen. It's become painfully clear that Luck is no Peyton. Not even remotely close.

Yes, that's better.

[AntonMcG]

He has 4 rings. How this guy isn't considered on par with Montana is mind-bottling.

 

 

I assume you mean 'mind-boggling' ;)

 

I have seen some of Bradshaw's body of work and from the small sample I must say I was never impressed. He had great players making plays around him.

[Dustin]

I assume you mean 'mind-boggling' ;)

 

 

http://youtu.be/X-8dUkXxP_Q?t=4s

[HarryTheCat]

Have you ever looked at stats for the guys in the 70's? Everyone threw outrageous amounts of interceptions back then since the game was at it's prime level when pass interference and roughing the passer calls didn't march a offense down the field consistently cause someone played good defense.

 

Most quarterbacks in today's age wouldn't last half a season in 1976 playing real defenses and not getting pampered with so many penalties.

It was also the era of the "bump-and-run", where DBs could essentially assault a receiver all the way down the field. That now-banned substance known as "Stickum" was also responsible for more than a few picks. I once saw Lester Hayes, who would slather the stuff all over his arms and hands, get a pick when the ball stuck to his forearm.

[AntonMcG]

Marino. , no Championships, no way. Look at Labron James before his Championships. Do you think he would even be in a discussion with Jordan or Magic without Champuonship wins , much less multiple Championship rings.

 

Basketball = 5 players on each team, can fulfill any role at any time, can be on court for entire game.

 

Football = 11 on offense, defense and special teams... can only fulfil one role at any time, can only be on field when their unit is on the field, is reliant on teammates doing their jobs.

 

 

Stop trying to compare things that aren't comparable to justify your silly little arguments.

[-JJ-]

This is easy people. 

 

THERE IS NO GOAT.

 

Give it up :-)

 

 

 

Their are great QBs and I could name a bunch.

Even Warren Moon

[Le Neon]

Basketball = 5 players on each team, can fulfill any role at any time, can be on court for entire game. Football = 11 on offense, defense and special teams... can only fulfil one role at any time, can only be on field when their unit is on the field, is reliant on teammates doing their jobs.  Stop trying to compare things that aren't comparable to justify your silly little arguments.

Exactly. A frequent excuse/explanation for Manning is that he doesn't play defense. Well LeBron DOES play defense.

Jordan was not only scoring on his contemporaries, he was defending them as well.

[The Old Crow]

Basketball = 5 players on each team, can fulfill any role at any time, can be on court for entire game.

Football = 11 on offense, defense and special teams... can only fulfil one role at any time, can only be on field when their unit is on the field, is reliant on teammates doing their jobs.

Stop trying to compare things that aren't comparable to justify your silly little arguments.

Irrelevant. The point is greatness is defined by Championships in any sport. Guys like Ernie Banks or Dan Marino will never be in these discussions because they never won. The other components are there , stats, MVP's, and the like, but without Championships , no way, no how.

[amfootball]

Irrelevant. The point is greatness is defined by Championships in any sport. Guys like Ernie Banks or Dan Marino will never be in these discussions because they never won. The other components are there , stats, MVP's, and the like, but without Championships , no way, no how.

I agree. And although b-ball and football are not comparable sports in many ways, the fact remains that Lebron went to Miami precisely to win rings as he was on his way in Cleveland to becoming the most statistically dominant player of all time. But he knew if he wanted to get in the discussion of the greatest to ever play he would need the rings.

[AntonMcG]

Irrelevant. The point is greatness is defined by Championships in any sport. Guys like Ernie Banks or Dan Marino will never be in these discussions because they never won. The other components are there , stats, MVP's, and the like, but without Championships , no way, no how.

 

Oh, okay, because I thought it was very relevant.

 

Media and fans constantly try to individualize team sports because it makes it so much easier to sell and worship players.

 

The fact is, no one player has ever won a championship in football by being the only great player on their team, and they never will.

 

It has happened in basketball, soccer and every individual sport there is. But not football, because not even the QB has enough control over a game to do it themselves.

 

You arguments are as lazy as your justification for Flacco's mediocrity being that 'he just wins'... completely negating the fact that 52 other players on his team also 'just win'.

[IndyTrav]

Oh, okay, because I thought it was very relevant.

 

Media and fans constantly try to individualize team sports because it makes it so much easier to sell and worship players.

 

The fact is, no one player has ever won a championship in football by being the only great player on their team, and they never will.

 

It has happened in basketball, soccer and every individual sport there is. But not football, because not even the QB has enough control over a game to do it themselves.

 

You arguments are as lazy as your justification for Flacco's mediocrity being that 'he just wins'... completely negating the fact that 52 other players on his team also 'just win'.

 

Unfortunately for a discussion like this,  football is the ultimate team game. EVERYTHING thing in football is....From SB Wins to Stats. 

 

You can't simply say "so and so is better, more Rings" b/c like you said its a team.....but same with stats "so and so has more TDs" because again, its a team....

 

 

The best thing you can do in this is accumulate all things that can be considered. Record/Stats/Wins/Postseason and get the best idea possible as to who could be the greatest...

[amfootball]

Oh, okay, because I thought it was very relevant.

 

Media and fans constantly try to individualize team sports because it makes it so much easier to sell and worship players.

 

The fact is, no one player has ever won a championship in football by being the only great player on their team, and they never will.

 

It has happened in basketball, soccer and every individual sport there is. But not football, because not even the QB has enough control over a game to do it themselves.

 

You arguments are as lazy as your justification for Flacco's mediocrity being that 'he just wins'... completely negating the fact that 52 other players on his team also 'just win'.

I didn't realize basketball and soccer were individual sports.

[Shane Bond]

I didn't realize basketball and soccer were individual sports.

 

Of course they are. Just like how only Brady is responsible for all the Pats win. 

 

I am sure you understand it better now.

[AntonMcG]

I didn't realize basketball and soccer were individual sports.

 

Inability to read for someone as inept at understanding simple sporting concepts as yourself is hardly surprising.

 

They are sports where individuals can have much more of an impact... they are always on the court/field and can move around it freely. They are still very much reliant on the team as a whole, but not nearly as much as football.

[amfootball]

Inability to read for someone as inept at understanding simple sporting concepts as yourself is hardly surprising.

 

They are sports where individuals can have much more of an impact... they are always on the court/field and can move around it freely. They are still very much reliant on the team as a whole, but not nearly as much as football.

Right. Still a team sport though even if not to the extent as football. Lebron did leave Cleveland to go to Miami specifically because he needed Wade and Bosh to win the champ.

[rsrobinson]

You can't compare QB stats from the ''60s and '70s to the modern era. DBs could mug receivers back then and QBs threw downfield more often rather than the high percentage dinks and dunks you see today. Passing was more of a high risk/high reward affair.

Having said that, while Bradshaw was a legit Hall of Famer I wouldn't rank him among the greatest. Very good for his era but there have been better before and since.

[TAPLOOK]

Oh, okay, because I thought it was very relevant.

 

Media and fans constantly try to individualize team sports because it makes it so much easier to sell and worship players.

 

The fact is, no one player has ever won a championship in football by being the only great player on their team, and they never will.

 

It has happened in basketball, soccer and every individual sport there is. But not football, because not even the QB has enough control over a game to do it themselves.

 

You arguments are as lazy as your justification for Flacco's mediocrity being that 'he just wins'... completely negating the fact that 52 other players on his team also 'just win'.

 

 

For a team to win consistently and regularly compete for championships in the NFL having a great QB is an absolute must. No other single player has anywhere near the impact on every single game played. Flacco isn't a great QB he's serviceable there for Baltimore isn't a perennial SB contender.

[southwest1]

They matter to an extent, but it has become the defacto argument for every fan who is clueless about football.

Good point BOTT. Every game even the SuperBowl comes down to about 4-5 critical team plays. If a QB gets to the big dance & loses, I still respect the hades out of him for getting there. My respect for Marino & Jim Kelly has never wavered or diminished decades later either.

 

Also, way off topic, but I must give you credit for claiming that Chip Kelly would not be a bust in Philadelphia.

 

I was wrong & I accept full responsibility for being wrong. You were just more patient that I was I guess.   College coaches, outside of Jimmy Johnson, seldom succeed in the NFL, but there are always rare exceptions to the rule naturally. 

[AntonMcG]

For a team to win consistently and regularly compete for championships in the NFL having a great QB is an absolute must. No other single player has anywhere near the impact on every single game played. Flacco isn't a great QB he's serviceable there for Baltimore isn't a perennial SB contender.

 

Na, plenty of teams have been regular contenders without elite QBs. Steelers did it for years.

 

It certainly helps though.

[AntonMcG]

Right. Still a team sport though even if not to the extent as football. Lebron did leave Cleveland to go to Miami specifically because he needed Wade and Bosh to win the champ.

 

Try reading before commenting.

 

Of course they are team sports, but individuals can make much greater impacts.

 

And what Lebron did is irrelevant to my argument... football players want to win championships too, but they cannot do it by themselves to anywhere near the extent of basketball.

[PATS16N0]

I think the reason is simple: Because Montana was clearly better.

 

Therefore, there is no GOAT argument when it comes to these guys.

 

However, I do think Terry Bradshaw is vastly underrated. Championships are championships, and a quarterback is no spectator at the Superbowl. A great quarterback can overcome a bad supporting cast, and a bad quarterback can undo a great team. Terry Bradshaw has four championship rings. That makes him a certifiable bad #$$

 

Stats are for losers, as they say.

 

Who is, ultimately, the better quarterback? A proflic passer who has incredible mechanics and skills, but can't handle the bright lights and comes up short all the time, maybe wilts before a tough defense, and gets eaten by the pressure of the moment, or a guy who may be "inferior" in some ways, but superior in other, more intangible ways, and leads you to the glory land?

 

As a Patriot fan who came crashing back down to earth with the helmet catch, and who has remained a lot more humble there ever since, I've come to acknowledge the truth behind Bill Belichick's line, "stats are for losers."