Anonymous asked in SportsFootball (American) · 1 decade ago

Terry Bradshaw the Most OVER-RATED QB in NFL History FTW?

He's Hella Overrated I cant even describe in words, I don't hate him or anything he's a cool guy, I even read his book.

Anywho.....his stats are Far from Impressive, his career TD-Interceptions are 212 Tds and 210 Interceptions. Holy crap thats Soooo mediocre. And his 4 SB rings were won on Pure Defense, not because of Bradshaw.

People are brainwashed by the media to think he's a great QB because of his rings much like Joe Montana. I think SB rings are bad way to determine a Good QB because thats a total team effort, guys like Dan Marino are so much better. Montana and Bradshaw's stats don't even compare to Marino's

Anyways' my question is whether you think Bradshaw is Overrated, this question isn't about Marino so don't talk about him.


Bradshaw's Career QB Rating is: 70.9. Ahaha damn

Update 2:

Everret you must be a Steelers fan lol...So Dellusional

Update 3:

I'm a Jets fan, but I'll admit that Joe Namath and Brett Favre are both overrated too....but not as bad as Terry Bradshaw.

33 Answers

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    It's all about winning and Terry did just that. Hard to knock success. Now if you want to know who the most overrated Quarterback of all time is it would have to be Dan Fouts. This guy had THE best offensive line maybe in history. He had all day long to find recievers and tight ends. Even then they had to do acrobatics to get to his passes. He had great runningbacks and that line opening up lanes I could have looked great running through. An average quarterback could have been successful with all the time in the world he had to find wide open recievers or handoff to a halfback that has wide open gapping holes in front of him. Remember Jefferson and Winslow having to do heroic catches because their QB couldn't throw tight passes. The guy couldn't scramble or run but it wasn't an issue because his line protected him and he never had to run it because his line opened holes and his recievers got open. If it sounds like I have a personal thing against the guy I do. I met him and he's a pompous *ss. The facts remain the same though. If Bradshaw played for the chargers with the same line up he probably would have had 6 Superbowl rings.

  • 1 decade ago

    If you choose to completely ignore the fact that Bradshaw did win 4 Superbowls then make an argument that he wasn't a great QB, then I think you're missing the point.

    There have been plenty of NFL teams over the years who have had great defenses but didn't win 1 Superbowl, let alone 4. Virtually every year the league's best defensive team DOES NOT win the Superbowl, so apparently it's not just a great defense that wins someone a Superbowl championship.

    To your point on Bradshaw's passer rating, I'd argue that Bradshaw's passer rating is basically irrelevant if compared to today's NFL QBs. In Bradshaw's day, NFL offenses didn't just dink and dunk with 5 yard passes for most of the game like they do in today's NFL. Of course Bradshaw's QB rating isn't going to be great if he wasn't "padding" his QB rating by throwing ten to fifteen 2-yard-passes per game like they do in today's NFL.

    QB rating is just a stat that rewards QBs for making a lot of easy, short throws and never taking any risks. That super conservative style of QB play apparently didn't win you championships in the 1970s or Bradshaw wouldn't have 4 rings.

  • 1 decade ago

    Terry Bradshaw is Eli Manning with 4 rings. If you go back to Steeler history mid-way through their first championship season they switched to Bradshaw and by most players accounts on that team he was the difference. Along with stats goes, heart, personality, that ability to handle pressure, toughness (especially in that era), etc. all of which go to the his greatness as a player. Two is a accident, Three a trend, and Four deserves all the praise that can come with such an accomplishment. The bottom line is you cannot overrate someone with 'THAT MANY RINGS". This thought that stat-stuffers like Marino and P. Manning are somehow more important on a non-Super Bowl winning team is madness. Who remembers that Joe Montana beat Marino in a Super Bowl, in a sport where that is the ultimate accomplishment (everyone)...not stats, MVP's, or post-season awards. S-U-P-E-R B-O-W-L's measure the whole team...and the most important position on a football team is the QB and a 4 time winner did something right. Just like that 4 game stretch Eli had during the post-season run. Eli with 4 rings...

  • 1 decade ago

    He is over-rated yes. Besides Franco Harris - he also had Rocky Blier in the backfield as well (another 1000yd rusher). And his receivers were great and known for their acrobatic catches (couldn't he hit them in stride?)

    I do believe that you can't compare QBs from the 70s to the QBs from beyond - when they changed all the rules to make it easier to pass. But you also can't have SB rings decide their greatness either.

    Fran Tarkenton played at the same time as Bradshaw - and threw for 20,000 more yards than he did, but never won the SB. So is Bradshaw better than Tarkenton? It is retoricle dont answer that.

    Also if Archie Manning was taken by Pittsburgh and Terry Bradshaw was taken by the Saints - instead of the other way. Pittsburgh may have won 6 straight SBs instead of 4 in 6 years - and no one besides Saints and hard core football fans would even know who Terry Bradshaw was.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 3 years ago

    Terry Bradshaw Rings

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I am a Steeler fan and I agree that Bradshaw is not the greatest QB, but he is certainly in the top 10-15. I also happen to agree that Superbowl rings is not the total measure of QB greatness but you do have to figure it in to some degree. The team won the Superbowl. The QB is an integral part of that success.

    BTW, to the comment that he did not have great receivers. Both John Stallworth and Lynn Swann are enshrined in Canton, OH along with Terry Bradshaw.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Yes I think he was a little over rated. Not that he wasn't a great QB but I would not put him in the top 25 of all time QB's. Probably just outside it. I could listen to arguements and maybe go a little higher, butr a lot on here list him in the top 5 and that is just rediculous.

    Also I do not put a lot of stock into the QB rating. Football was different then and the QB rating rewards these new pass happy offenses. Rating also does not measure leadership. (Which your boy Marino was not) Stats are not everything.

  • 1 decade ago

    Joe Namath was the most overrated QB in history.

    All of Bradshaw's numbers are better than Namath's in every category.

    TD's - Bradshaw 212 Namath 173

    INT's - Bradshaw 210 Namath 220

    Yards - Bradshaw 27,989 Namath 27,663

    Career QB rating - Bradshaw 70.9 Namath 65.5

    Super Bowl Rings - Bradshaw 4 Namath 1

  • 1 decade ago

    Terry Bradshaw was a decent qb in the right place at the right time.

    He was surrounded by offensive hall of famer's Franco Harris, Lynn Swann, and John Stallworth. All he had to do was manage the game well and get these guy the ball.

    He aslo had the one of the NFL's best defense year in and out giving him turnovers and great field position.

    Add these two together with Hall of Fame coach Chuck Knoll and you get 4 Super Bowl wins which is all Bradshaw has going for him.

  • GaryE
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    1) he called his own plays (the last nfl quarterback to do that)

    2) He is one of the great leaders of all time (along with Sam Huff and Brett Favre)

    3) He played when QB's were treated just like any other player (none of this hands off stuff)

    4) He played when Defensive backs were allowed to hit WR's until the ball was released (not just in the first 5 yards).

    5) He played without the benefit of modern surgical techniques and modern training techniques. If he played today his elbow injury would have been no big deal and he would have played effectively for at least 2 more seasons.

    Because of #3 and #4 QB's of his era will never have the QB rating of modern QB's. So comparing numbers is just not valid.

    He is in no way over rated. He is one of the top 10 QB's of all time.

    --- Edit

    Jim Kelly only called his own plays when they ran the no-huddle. Bradshaw called his own plays *every* play. By that definition every QB today calls his own plays. Come on!

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.