Terry Bradshaw just said something interesting

[Davidson Deac II]

Jake overall was better than Terry as a QB

put him in 1970 and he's probably got HOF status instead of Panther HOF status

Put John Fox in the 70s and he would've won like 90% of the games he coached

the advent of the WC offense, Marino and Montana setting the standard in the 80s, more talented passers being desired in the college ranks and eventually ending up playing pro, and countless rule changes favoring the WRs and QBs have transformed the league. In 1975 two passers had over a 90 QB rating (and also, Jimmy Clausen's rated a better passer in 2010 than Joe Namath was that year lol). This year you have to go down to 14 to find a QB that didn't reach a 90 rating. Getting a franchise QB has never been more important than today and as we go forward it will just get more and more important

Jake was nowhere close to Terry Bradshaw. If Jake had to play under the same rules as Bradshaw, he would have had twice as many int's as he does now.

[monstercat]

In your own words. That is your opinion.

You know, you're right dude, Jimmy Clausen is much tougher than Bradshaw was.

Wanna buy some beachfront property in Arizona?.

[PanthaSan]

[pantherclaw]

A lot of hate for Bradshaw.

The Panthers would be lucky to get a qb that is as good as he was back in his playing days.

[Big Ed]

Amother Franchise QB that took 3 seasons to develope

Cowboys started the Bradshaw is Dumb crap!

Bradshaw was so dumb , He beat the f--k out of those Cowboys L O L !!

In real life Bradshaw was a soft spoken with A D D.

Which made others assume he was dumb

And smart enough to turn it into a career broadcaster

Bradshaw is a H O F QB

Nothing eles Matters

[Pox 08]

I see what Bradshaw is saying.

Marino, for example, probably wouldn't have been selected until the late 4th or mid 5th rounds if he was critiqued as much then before the draft as qbs are now.

[Lumps]

Jake was nowhere close to Terry Bradshaw. If Jake had to play under the same rules as Bradshaw, he would have had twice as many int's as he does now.

Not considering the rules, which I think you shouldn't for the fact that I could probably just as easily turn around and find another rule that could be used to benefit Bradshaw or hurt Delhomme such as a 14 game season for example. Or the fact Terry belonged to a much better team and organization. Or that Jake had more att. per game which is pretty crazy to think a team actually ran it more than the Panthers which also clues us in to how great of talent Bradshaw was surrounded by, but with all that aside...

Jake

.99 INT per games played

Terry

1.25 INT per games played

So giving Jake a whole quarter of a INT per game benefit of the doubt, he is very much like Bradshaw, and at the least can be identified as a very valid comparison, and I would say this most definitely warrants them being "somewhere close". The teams they were on were very similar in style. They both had and more importantly relied on their intangibles for success, but its accurate to say their skills most certainly were not to par of their intangibles.

[monstercat]

Just stop with the stupid Delhomme vs Bradshaw BS. Bradshaw was a better QB and it's not even close.

[Lumps]

and once again mainstream retards who suck down the media's and super bowl ring hype, when determining a single player's value, is once again misconstrued.

The reality is the circumstances that created the truth behind their successes are very very close. Bradshaw is the better QB, obviously, but to say it isn't even close proves you don't know poo about how Terry played because it was almost identical to Delhomme.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090114101942AAyCtmF

Jakes all time QB rating: 80

Terry: 70

Bradshaw did something better than skilled QBs and that is win, he found ways to win and made plays when he had to. For this, he is the greater QB, but that is exactly how Delhomme played, and more efficiently statistically. So how is it possible a more statistically efficient QB, comparably with the same intangibles and game play not have any rings as oppose to four? One isn''t better than another all that much when talking, individually, the answer is Simple, the environment (team) is the difference.

Bradshaw just happened to have a huge advantage in this area, this has nothing to do with individual value, that emphasis (for Terry and Jake) would be placed more so in his intangibles and finding ways to win. Perhaps he was superior to Jake in this area but not enough to grant the huge gap in the difference of success.

This is essentially what the numbers suggest. Being a fan of either is going to contain a lot subjectivity, so that is why I chose to stick with the numbers.

[Mr. Scot]

Amother Franchise QB that took 3 seasons to develope

Cowboys started the Bradshaw is Dumb crap!

Bradshaw was so dumb , He beat the f--k out of those Cowboys L O L !!

In real life Bradshaw was a soft spoken with A D D.

Which made others assume he was dumb

And smart enough to turn it into a career broadcaster

Bradshaw is a H O F QB

Nothing eles Matters

I'd never question his credentials as a Hall of Famer. Regarding his brains though? Two things come to mind.

The first: Joe Buck was hosting a mid-season edition of the Fox Sports pregame. Coming back from break, Buck half-heartedly passed along a "tip" he'd gotten from Bradshaw. The tip was that Jake Delhomme, he reported, had "played his last game for the Panthers, and the team would replace him with their first round pick in the upcoming draft". That eventually did happen (sort of) but Bradshaw got this particular "tip" in 2006 (oops) :frown:

My guess was that the Fox guys knew it was crap, but Bradshaw pushed until they agreed to put it on air. They compromised by airing it in passing on return from commercial and never speaking about it again. Naturally, the message boards went nuts

The second thing was from the start of this past season. They'd had all the Fox analysts put together playoff scenarios up through the Super Bowl. They gave their big game picks first, then ran through their playoff scenarios. When the time came to give his NFC Championship picks, Bradshaw paused, and then had to confess that he'd eliminated his Super Bowl pick in the divisional round of his playoff scenario

Again, I like Bradshaw, but he's not exactly a genius.

[Davidson Deac II]

and once again mainstream retards who suck down the media's and super bowl ring hype, when determining a single player's value, is once again misconstrued.

The reality is the circumstances that created the truth behind their successes are very very close. Bradshaw is the better QB, obviously, but to say it isn't even close proves you don't know poo about how Terry played because it was almost identical to Delhomme.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090114101942AAyCtmF

Jakes all time QB rating: 80

Terry: 70

Bradshaw did something better than skilled QBs and that is win, he found ways to win and made plays when he had to. For this, he is the greater QB, but that is exactly how Delhomme played, and more efficiently statistically. So how is it possible a more statistically efficient QB, comparably with the same intangibles and game play not have any rings as oppose to four? One isn''t better than another all that much when talking, individually, the answer is Simple, the environment (team) is the difference.

Bradshaw just happened to have a huge advantage in this area, this has nothing to do with individual value, that emphasis (for Terry and Jake) would be placed more so in his intangibles and finding ways to win. Perhaps he was superior to Jake in this area but not enough to grant the huge gap in the difference of success.

This is essentially what the numbers suggest. Being a fan of either is going to contain a lot subjectivity, so that is why I chose to stick with the numbers.

You are comparing numbers from an era in which defenders could hit receivers anywhere on the field and toss the qb around like a ragdoll to a time when qb's get protected, and receivers can't be hit after 5 yards.

In 1975, not a single qb finished the season with a rating above a 100. Only two were rated above 90. By comparison, 4 qb's this year finished with ratings above a 100, and 13 were above 90. The game just isn't the same as it was back in Bradshaw's day.

Since you first used the word retarded, I will say that its retarded to compare Bradshaw's numbers to the numbers of QB's today. If you are going to compare his numbers, then it should be against other QB's who played when he did. And in that comparison, he definitely does well.

[Big Ed]

I'd never question his credentials as a Hall of Famer. Regarding his brains though? Two things come to mind.

The first: Joe Buck was hosting a mid-season edition of the Fox Sports pregame. Coming back from break, Buck half-heartedly passed along a "tip" he'd gotten from Bradshaw. The tip was that Jake Delhomme, he reported, had "played his last game for the Panthers, and the team would replace him with their first round pick in the upcoming draft". That eventually did happen (sort of) but Bradshaw got this particular "tip" in 2006 (oops) :frown:

My guess was that the Fox guys knew it was crap, but Bradshaw pushed until they agreed to put it on air. They compromised by airing it in passing on return from commercial and never speaking about it again. Naturally, the message boards went nuts

The second thing was from the start of this past season. They'd had all the Fox analysts put together playoff scenarios up through the Super Bowl. They gave their big game picks first, then ran through their playoff scenarios. When the time came to give his NFC Championship picks, Bradshaw paused, and then had to confess that he'd eliminated his Super Bowl pick in the divisional round of his playoff scenario

Again, I like Bradshaw, but he's not exactly a genius.

Play up to the Dumb Country Image

Not saying Terry has a high I Q

But he's smart enough to sell the dumb image and get paid big $$$

And laugh all the way to the bank in his beat up pick up

I'd say the old dumb boy did well !

[Big Ed]

and once again mainstream retards who suck down the media's and super bowl ring hype, when determining a single player's value, is once again misconstrued.

The reality is the circumstances that created the truth behind their successes are very very close. Bradshaw is the better QB, obviously, but to say it isn't even close proves you don't know poo about how Terry played because it was almost identical to Delhomme.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090114101942AAyCtmF

Jakes all time QB rating: 80

Terry: 70

Bradshaw did something better than skilled QBs and that is win, he found ways to win and made plays when he had to. For this, he is the greater QB, but that is exactly how Delhomme played, and more efficiently statistically. So how is it possible a more statistically efficient QB, comparably with the same intangibles and game play not have any rings as oppose to four? One isn''t better than another all that much when talking, individually, the answer is Simple, the environment (team) is the difference.

Bradshaw just happened to have a huge advantage in this area, this has nothing to do with individual value, that emphasis (for Terry and Jake) would be placed more so in his intangibles and finding ways to win. Perhaps he was superior to Jake in this area but not enough to grant the huge gap in the difference of success.

This is essentially what the numbers suggest. Being a fan of either is going to contain a lot subjectivity, so that is why I chose to stick with the numbers.

If STATS is all you have to go by ,then you never watched both QB's play the game .

Bradshaw was a better QB than Jake

Dan Marino ?

[Mr. Scot]

Play up to the Dumb Country Image

Not saying Terry has a high I Q

But he's smart enough to sell the dumb image and get paid big $$$

And laugh all the way to the bank in his beat up pick up

I'd say the old dumb boy did well !

He's done well for himself. I've got nothing against him. I just don't take it all that seriously when he starts doing "analysis".

Now, when Howie Long starts analyzing something, I pay attention.