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

[PrometheusFaulk]

...and, just to continue my earlier point using Bradshaw as an example, his passer rating went from a career 70.9 in the regular season to 83.0 in the post season. He played better when the competition was better and the stakes were higher. He's got the right to talk IMO.

Forgot to mention Montana earlier too. He got better when the stakes and competition got tougher.

Brady, Peyton, Marino, Elway...they didn't.

When you set the bar a lot lower in the regular season, it's much easier to exceed it.

Take the 1975 playoff run and Bradshaw's stats in the two games leading up to the Super Bowl as an example. Bradshaw's TD to INT ratio was 1 to 5. In two games he completed 23 passes, averaging about 150 yards per game. But the Steelers defense only allowed 10 points in both games.

There's no way Peyton could have had a stinker like that going against the Jets, Ravens, Steelers or Patriots in even one game with the defense the Colts had those years and have the team hope to advance.

 

[moklerman]

When you set the bar a lot lower in the regular season, it's much easier to exceed it.

Take the 1975 playoff run and Bradshaw's stats in the two games leading up to the Super Bowl as an example. Bradshaw's TD to INT ratio was 1 to 5. In two games he completed 23 passes, averaging about 150 yards per game. But the Steelers defense only allowed 10 points in both games.

There's no way Peyton could have had a stinker like that going against the Jets, Ravens, Steelers or Patriots in even one game with the defense the Colts had those years and have the team hope to advance.

I think you may want to re-check that.

Look at Peyton's only SB victory year. Against KC he throws 1 TD/3 INT and the Colts win 23-8. Against Baltimore he throws 0TD/2 INT and the Colts win 15-6. Even in the SB against the Bears he put up 1 TD/1 INT and the Colts won 29-17.

 

[PrometheusFaulk]

I think you may want to re-check that.

Look at Peyton's only SB victory year. Against KC he throws 1 TD/3 INT and the Colts win 23-8. Against Baltimore he throws 0TD/2 INT and the Colts win 15-6. Even in the SB against the Bears he put up 1 TD/1 INT and the Colts won 29-17.

You're right! Overlooked the stats that year. There's also a game you left out there, but I did with the Bradshaw analysis.

What looking at both tells me is that looking at the passer rating only isn't directly correlated to Bradshaw's "quarterbacks who win at the end" narrative.

BOTH guys put up stinkers in the playoffs in years they were on Championship clubs. They were part of a team. Just so happened that Bradshaw's defenses, throughout his career were a lot better, and IMO the defenses Manning played AGAINST were a lot better, by and large.

 

[Thordaddy]

Then why did Warner's and Rodgers' and Starr's, etc. numbers go up?

But I also don't agree that the officiating gets tighter in the post season. In fact, most seem to think it's gets looser.

Loser hell it gets non existent at times,but that should tell you two things the Db's are gonna get to hold and the o-line does too. The Pittsburgh victory over Seattle where the Pitt back makes the long run Alan Faneca hooks a linebacker so bad that Madden says and "there's the hold" on the first replay before they cut to the commercial ,when they come back he quit referring to the hold and never mentioned it again even though they played the play over with commentary.
The lack of a running game is what most often defeats a SB team IMO,although I still reject the idea we lost the one we did because we didn't run the ball enough, we lost because our defense didn't rise to the occasion when our offense had tied it and we had no healthy right tackle, Lovie loses SB's .

 

[moklerman]

You're right! Overlooked the stats that year. There's also a game you left out there, but I did with the Bradshaw analysis.

What looking at both tells me is that looking at the passer rating only isn't directly correlated to Bradshaw's "quarterbacks who win at the end" narrative.

BOTH guys put up stinkers in the playoffs in years they were on Championship clubs. They were part of a team. Just so happened that Bradshaw's defenses, throughout his career were a lot better, and IMO the defenses Manning played AGAINST were a lot better, by and large.

I'm just not seeing it the same way. You're making it sound like Manning's had to face the '85 Bears each time he's been in the playoffs when a lot of the team's he's faced weren't anything special on defense. It evens out. For every game he faced a tough Patriots defense, Bradshaw faced the Cowboys in the Super Bowl. Or the Raiders in the playoffs.

But both have enough post season games under their belts to establish patterns and overall, Manning's numbers take a noticeable dip and Bradshaw's take a noticeable rise.

 

[PrometheusFaulk]

I'm just not seeing it the same way. You're making it sound like Manning's had to face the '85 Bears each time he's been in the playoffs when a lot of the team's he's faced weren't anything special on defense. It evens out. For every game he faced a tough Patriots defense, Bradshaw faced the Cowboys in the Super Bowl. Or the Raiders in the playoffs.

But both have enough post season games under their belts to establish patterns and overall, Manning's numbers take a noticeable dip and Bradshaw's take a noticeable rise.

Let me take another track.

Let's say the defenses as a whole they played against were relatively comparable (I don't agree, but that's a level of deep diving into subjectivity I'm not prepared for, haha).

Do you know how many times during over the course of Steelers' 4 Super Bowl runs the offense would have had to score more than 17 points in any game to win? Twice.

So what I hear you saying is that Bradshaw is a better playoff quarterback than Peyton because his passer rating got better in the playoffs and Peyton's got worse.

My argument would be:

1.) Peyton's regular season passer rating was significantly higher than Bradshaw's, so improving against it is a more difficult task.

2.) Bradshaw's defenses were littered with hall of famers who kept the scores of the games lower, and so his job was easier. Rather than having to throw into the teeth of a playoff defense who knew what was coming, the Steelers could just as easily run because the score was close enough they could be diverse.

And that's without even getting into the whole "pair of HOF receivers" thing.

 

[LesBaker]

Well sometimes the fact is a QB can carry a team that far (championship) but then if his team is flawed they lose, Elway won back to back once he had a great runner, he got the Broncos there repeatedly basically by himself but the best from the NFC was just better and he got hosed

I totally disagree with Elway carrying his team. He had excellent defenses and some great WR's too. He wasn't a man on an island, his teams were just over matched like many from the AFC were for that two decade span.

The other thing I want to point out is allong the lines of what X said regarding other players bristling at the fact that the QB gets the attention.

IMO yes for sure TDavis helped tremendously in the back to back SB runs. But if you took Shannon Sharpe of that roster the Broncos might not get out of the AFC those two years.

 

[LesBaker]

Do you know how many times during over the course of Steelers' 4 Super Bowl runs the offense would have had to score more than 17 points in any game to win? Twice.

Good grief that is a ridiculous stat and I'd bet not even close to being matched by another team with or without SB wins.

That's just startling!

 

[Ramatik]

when the pain of listening to terry bradshaw becomes too much, i drown it out with copious amounts of chris "carnival barker" berman.

It hasn't gotten that bad for me.

Heh

 

[D-GenX]

Peyton has been coming up small in big spot after big spot as far back as the University Of Tennessee.

It's not "hating" to say this out loud. Its being minimally observant.

 

[PrometheusFaulk]

I totally disagree with Elway carrying his team. He had excellent defenses and some great WR's too. He wasn't a man on an island, his teams were just over matched like many from the AFC were for that two decade span.

The other thing I want to point out is allong the lines of what X said regarding other players bristling at the fact that the QB gets the attention.

IMO yes for sure TDavis helped tremendously in the back to back SB runs. But if you took Shannon Sharpe of that roster the Broncos might not get out of the AFC those two years.

Sharpe was a boss for those teams, as was Rod Smith and Ed McCaffrey. They helped take the pressure off of Davis and the linemen in Gibbs' zone blocking scheme.

But the first championship of Elway's career the unsung hero was the defense. The offense sputtered a bit in road games in KC and Pittsburgh as well as the SB against GB, but guys like Neil Smith, John Mobley and Steve Atwater kept them in those games.

 

[LesBaker]

Sharpe was a boss for those teams, as was Rod Smith and Ed McCaffrey. They helped take the pressure off of Davis and the linemen in Gibbs' zone blocking scheme.

But the first championship of Elway's career the unsung hero was the defense. The offense sputtered a bit in road games in KC and Pittsburgh as well as the SB against GB, but guys like Neil Smith, John Mobley and Steve Atwater kept them in those games.

Yeah, I always kind of wonder why Elway gets credit for "carrying" the team before they won the SB because that was a damn good all around team every time and the SB wins at the end of his career were on teams that were even better.

That's the QB position, blame or love.

 

[PrometheusFaulk]

Yeah, I always kind of wonder why Elway gets credit for "carrying" the team before they won the SB because that was a damn good all around team every time and the SB wins at the end of his career were on teams that were even better.

That's the QB position, blame or love.

This may be kinda simple and incorrect, but I think a lot of folks look at football this way because in say, baseball or basketball, the focal point of responsibility is primarily where the ball is. The pitcher's responsible for the play when the ball is in his hand, then it goes to the hitter, then to where the ball got hit. Everyone else is kinda standing around watching until the ball goes to them.

The idea that guys who are nowhere near the ball have just as much, if not more responsibility for the success or failure of the play depending on the situation and opponent runs contrary to what they see in other sports. Nonetheless that's what actually happening. So you get this quarterback fixation because he's the guy with the ball, even though they may be missing the man behind the curtain. And then the talking heads cater to it because their job is getting the most eyeballs, which is lowest common denominator. And then the ball watching gets justification in kind of an endless loop.

That's my take anyway.

 

[LesBaker]

This may be kinda simple and incorrect, but I think a lot of folks look at football this way because in say, baseball or basketball, the focal point of responsibility is primarily where the ball is. The pitcher's responsible for the play when the ball is in his hand, then it goes to the hitter, then to where the ball got hit. Everyone else is kinda standing around watching until the ball goes to them.

The idea that guys who are nowhere near the ball have just as much, if not more responsibility for the success or failure of the play depending on the situation and opponent runs contrary to what they see in other sports. Nonetheless that's what actually happening. So you get this quarterback fixation because he's the guy with the ball, even though they may be missing the man behind the curtain. And then the talking heads cater to it because their job is getting the most eyeballs, which is lowest common denominator. And then the ball watching gets justification in kind of an endless loop.

That's my take anyway.

Actually I think you are right, this makes all the sense in the world and I had never thought of it in those terms.

 

[LACHAMP46]

Exactly! Throw in Sir Francis Tarkington. I'd take any of those guys over TB. Elway lost a couple before they put a complete team around him, too.

Manning is twice the QB as Bradshaw - period. Take your meds Terry.

LMAO!!!!:X3:

 

[LACHAMP46]

I'm just not seeing it the same way. You're making it sound like Manning's had to face the '85 Bears each time he's been in the playoffs when a lot of the team's he's faced weren't anything special on defense. It evens out. For every game he faced a tough Patriots defense, Bradshaw faced the Cowboys in the Super Bowl. Or the Raiders in the playoffs.

But both have enough post season games under their belts to establish patterns and overall, Manning's numbers take a noticeable dip and Bradshaw's take a noticeable rise.

hmmm...

 

[Zaphod]

You should look his numbers up then. It will give you a new appreciation for just how special he was.

And I misunderstood your first point about the officiating. I thought you meant the officials started calling games more ticky-tack.

But agreeing that defenses are allowed to get away with more only punctuates the point that the really great QB's take their game to a higher level and the stat champions, might be enjoying their success against lesser competition and situations. Which is what Bradshaw basically said.

Nah, I'm just plain too lazy and would rather not let numbers degrade the resolution of my disdain for the guy A douche is a douche.

 

[jrry32]

...and, just to continue my earlier point using Bradshaw as an example, his passer rating went from a career 70.9 in the regular season to 83.0 in the post season. He played better when the competition was better and the stakes were higher. He's got the right to talk IMO.

No, he doesn't. Mark Sanchez also had a better QB Rating in the post-season than the regular season. Doesn't give him the right to talk.

Bradshaw isn't in Manning's league.

 

[Rambition]

It hasn't gotten that bad for me.

Heh

actually, carnival barking is just a side job for berman. his real gig is something much more sinister...

 

[CGI_Ram]

Hate how there's SO MUCH emphasis on the QB, he's acting like it's not a team game.......... A lot of people today are acting like it's not a team game anymore, it's all about the QB. Seattle was the better TEAM that day, and by far. Everything was working the Seahawks way, not just the QB. It's pathetic someone like Bradshaw would go out on a limb and make a comment like that when his TEAM helped him win those 4 rings.

^ this.

Maybe the media is responsible for brainwashing fans into this? QB's get so much attention these days.