Sal Paolantonio opinion - agree or not?

[primetime]

Do not let statistics blind you. The job of the QB is to make the plays that win games. While Marino was asked to throw 40 times, and Bradshaw 20, they both had plays where the game was in their hands, in the playoffs, and Bradshaw almost always came through, Marino almost always failed. That is the true yardstick.

I don't think it's fair to lump all QBs in a single category based on Super Bowl wins. Saying, well, Bradshaw won a lot so he was a better QB than Marino is ludicrous. I think Bradshaw was overrated; his defenses were incredible, but I think of all the players on Sal's list, he's the one I agree with least (besides Romo, but that's just because Romo doesn't belong on any "all-time" lists at this point in his career). On the other hand, I wouldn't consider any of the guys you just mentioned as winners overrated besides Bradshaw. Couldn't tell you why, that's just the way I feel.

I think Jim Kelly is one of the most UNDERRATED QBs because he never won a Super Bowl. Frankly, I think he was better than Aikman. But that doesn't mean I think Aikman is overrated.

 

[makewayhomer]

no, the defense "led the way" all those years

Terry Bradshaw in his 1st SB win: 9/14 for 96 yards, 1 TD
in his 2nd SB win: 9/19 for 209 yards and 2 TD's

in his 19 career playoff games: 30 td's and 26 int's

in his career: 212 TD's and 210 int's

the highest he ever finished in completions was 4th in the NFL. his next best season was 9th. he was seldom asked to be more than a "system" guy

he was a good QB fortunate to play for a historically great defense, but b/c he won 4 SB's, he goes down as an "all-time great". THAT is overrated

 

[Ring 6]

I don't think it's fair to lump all QBs in a single category based on Super Bowl wins. Saying, well, Bradshaw won a lot so he was a better QB than Marino is ludicrous. I think Bradshaw was overrated; his defenses were incredible, but I think of all the players on Sal's list, he's the one I agree with least (besides Romo, but that's just because Romo doesn't belong on any "all-time" lists at this point in his career). On the other hand, I wouldn't consider any of the guys you just mentioned as winners overrated besides Bradshaw. Couldn't tell you why, that's just the way I feel.

I think Jim Kelly is one of the most UNDERRATED QBs because he never won a Super Bowl. Frankly, I think he was better than Aikman. But that doesn't mean I think Aikman is overrated.

I think mostly its because you are looking at statistics across different eras with different rules. Bradshaws numbers were VERY GOOD compared to other QBs at that time, playing under the same rules.
You just cannot compare QB stats pre-1980 to those post-1980 unless you think Dave Krieg is better than Staubach, Bradshaw, Starr, or ANYONE that played before him.

I think we just have a different yardstick. To me everything a QB does is in order to win, and ultimately win championships. I don't put a lot of value of statistics compared to winning. I am 100% certain that what separates teams that win consistent from teams that consistently come up short are the plays the QB makes, or does not make that determine the outcome of the game, and how he plays in a big game. All of the 'winners' listed played their best football in big games and when the game was on the line. Marino played his worst in those situations. Look it up. Marino was the reason his team lost most of the playoff games they lost. I don't care that they created a system where the pressure was on him, because he failed when the pressure was the greatest. All of those other QBs played their best when the pressure was on them, and its unthinkable to me to consider Marino better because he was 'allowed' to put up a whole bunch of numbers in 'less pressured' situaitons prior to failing in the clutch.

 

[Ring 6]

Terry Bradshaw in his 1st SB win: 9/14 for 96 yards, 1 TD
in his 2nd SB win: 9/19 for 209 yards and 2 TD's

in his 19 career playoff games: 30 td's and 26 int's

in his career: 212 TD's and 210 int's

the highest he ever finished in completions was 4th in the NFL. his next best season was 9th. he was seldom asked to be more than a "system" guy

he was a good QB fortunate to play for a historically great defense, but b/c he won 4 SB's, he goes down as an "all-time great". THAT is overrated

Did you watch him play?
Why didn't you include his stats in the other 2 SBs?
What is wrong with 9/19 for 209 and 2 TDs?
This shows the flaw in your argument. THE GAME WAS DIFFERENT IN 1975 than today, or in 1983.

You again revert to stats: "ranked in completions, TD/Int ratio". It shows your ignorance of the argument. In Bradshaws career the rules were different. The QB stats were different. 1:1 TD/Int was NOT the same in the 70s as it is today, in fact 1:1 wasn't that bad.
The fact that Marino threw the ball 3 times as much in an era where it was much easier to throw the ball (imagine where NFL passing games would be today if there was no 5 yard contact zone, in other words you could make contact anywhere downfield, if head slaps were legal for pass rushers, it you couldn't use your hands AT ALL in pass blocking) doesn't make him better, it just makes him more overrated because he had some pretty, yet useless stats.

Look at it this way.
Terry Bradshaw at some point, made plays that won his team a SB. He was the difference in arguably 2 of those SBs. Dan Marino never made the plays that won his team the SB.
The fact that the team was more reliant on the QB in Marinos era than Bradshaw further illustrates Marino was the reason why Miami never won.

 

[makewayhomer]

Bradshaws numbers were VERY GOOD compared to other QBs at that time, playing under the same rules.

I would like to see that argument, using the actual #'s

or to make it easier, compare him to say, Jim Hart, who I doubt 1/4 of the posters here have ever heard of, but played the bulk of his time in Bradshaw's era

 

[Ring 6]

I don't think it's fair to lump all QBs in a single category based on Super Bowl wins. Saying, well, Bradshaw won a lot so he was a better QB than Marino is ludicrous. I think Bradshaw was overrated; his defenses were incredible, but I think of all the players on Sal's list, he's the one I agree with least (besides Romo, but that's just because Romo doesn't belong on any "all-time" lists at this point in his career). On the other hand, I wouldn't consider any of the guys you just mentioned as winners overrated besides Bradshaw. Couldn't tell you why, that's just the way I feel.

I think Jim Kelly is one of the most UNDERRATED QBs because he never won a Super Bowl. Frankly, I think he was better than Aikman. But that doesn't mean I think Aikman is overrated.

I don't know how you could possibly consider Kelly better than Aikman.
Sure, you could total stats, since Buffalos offense passed more than Dallas'.
But Aikmans play (check out his playoff and SB stats) compared to Kellys was the difference in one having 3 SB wins and the other having zero.

Again, my yardstick is that there is one goal above all else, and the QB in 90% of games will win for his team if he makes the plays he needs to in the clutch. I just cannot substitute statistic for getting a job done.

 

[Ring 6]

I would like to see that argument, using the actual #'s

OK, look it up

 

[scout]

I hate to repeat myself, but where the hell is Griese? He should be number one on the list and I can't believe no one has mentioned him yet. As for Bradshaw, his numbers might not have been great, but that was the era when QB's did not wear skirts. Does anyone remember him taking hits that knocked him literally head over toe? Those were brutal pops he would take and get right up and fling it..........or hand off to Franco Harris. That Pittsburgh team is the one in which all dynasties are measured and I'm not sure I want to say that the QB was overrated.

 

[JackPMiller]

Sal Paolantonio is the author of the new book, "The Paolantonio Report: The Most Overrated and Underrated Players, Teams, Coaches & Moments in NFL History." Here are his five most overrated quarterbacks of all-time:

1. Joe Namath: His legend has much more to do with his Super Bowl III performance and his prolific off-field antics than his career stats.

2. Brett Favre: His image in the media has been hyperinflated to the good ol' boy routine, and that's why people like him.

3. Terry Bradshaw: He was ultimately an average quarterback who was surrounded by the greatest cast of talent ever assembled on one NFL roster, including eight Hall of Fame players.

4. Ken Stabler: His only accomplishment was winning the 1976 Super Bowl where the Raiders mostly ran and the defense stifled Fran Tarkenton.

5. Tony Romo: He barely made the team, and after one season of play he became a full-fledged superstar without really accomplishing anything to deserve it.

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel

* I agree for the most part.
The media has overinflated a lot of these guys. Favre, for example, has been given a free ride on a lot of bad decisions in his career. I would even consider putting Manning at 6.

Interesting. Sal is a Philly guy, and there are no Eagles on that list. Brett Farve did get to 2 Super Bowls, where they he is 1-1 in them. I feel that Eli Manning is more overrated than Tony Romo. Phil Simms in my mind was overrated, he has one Super Bowl ring, and was average and sometimes below average in his career. But had one great year. I am a Rams fan, and I will say this, Marc Bulger is overrated. Ever since filling in for Kurt Warner in 2004, he has a losing record. What was Archie mannings record with the Saints?

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Wow.

I've seen the opinion that winning the big one is pretty much everything (I'm closer to this opinion than that of a worshiper of stats in a vacuum, by the way.)

I've seen the opinion that stats are everything.

I've seen the opinion that the QB makes the receivers better, and I've seen the opinion that the receivers make the QB look better.

But I've never seen them all applied at once.

The same guy that says SB wins are overrated contemplates putting Manning, who will likely own most of the stats by the time he's done, 6th on the list of "most overrated."

I mean, what isn't overrated? Some vague and fuzzy impression we can not ever in any way quantify?

If it's Bradshaw or Stabler, they win the SB because the receivers are better than they are. But if it's Brady, he was always good but now he has better receivers... so his super bowl wins count, because his receivers were worse... or something?

I can see knocking Favre for the incredible run of interceptions. Manning is having a really bad time with jersey recognition now that Harrison is down. But he's adjusting, and will adjust more.

I say keep Manning off that list. Put his brother, and P Rivers, on it. I can't believe all the draft-day drama over these two washouts. Favre can stay too. Bradshaw? Four rings. Four rings. Four rings. Did I mention four rings? Come on guys.

PFnV

 

[makewayhomer]

OK, look it up

ok, I did.

here are the 1970-1979 #'s for Terry Bradshaw and Jim Hart

you tell me who was who, and if you think one of these guys is deserving of being called an all time great, while the other is somebody that nobody under the age of 40 has heard of.

Games...Comp...Att...%...........Yards......Y/A...TD's...INT's...
128...1,739...3,386...51.4%..... 23,026....6.80...137...145....
129...1,474...2,859...51.6%......19,918.... 6.97...147...163...

1 guy had 4 Pro Bowl appearances in this span, the other had 3

the other explanation is that one of these guys happened to play for a team that had an amazing defense, and therefore went to the playoffs a bunch of times, won a bunch of SB's largely b/c of it, and became a legend. I wonder.

 

[OtisCampbell]

ok, I did.

here are the 1970-1979 #'s for Terry Bradshaw and Jim Hart

you tell me who was who, and if you think one of these guys is deserving of being called an all time great, while the other is somebody that nobody under the age of 40 has heard of.

Games...Comp...Att...%...........Yards......Y/A...TD's...INT's...
128...1,739...3,386...51.4%..... 23,026....6.80...137...145....
129...1,474...2,859...51.6%......19,918.... 6.97...147...163...

1 guy had 4 Pro Bowl appearances, the other had 3

the other explanation is that one of these guys happened to play for a team that had an amazing defense, and therefore went to the playoffs a bunch of times, won a bunch of SB's largely b/c of it, and became a legend. I wonder.

These statistics are meaningless. To say the 4 rings aren't the most important measurement is not sound. It is a team game, but the QB position is the most important position on the team, times ten. Terry Bradshaw was head and shoulders above all other quarterbacks in the league for at least 5 years, probably longer. I base this on watching, and the rings. The most overrated player on those teams was Franco Harris.

 

[makewayhomer]

but the QB position is the most important position on the team, times ten.

ok, which is why I linked the QB numbers!!

Terry Bradshaw was head and shoulders above all other quarterbacks in the league for at least 5 years, probably longer .

by the subjective measure of "what OtisCampbell happens to selectively remember from 30 years ago", yes.

by the objective measure of "what did the #'s actually look like", no.

remove the "defense" component of Bradshaw and Hart, and you have 2 very similar players. THAT is what is clear.

in fact, combine this with the fact that Bradshaw arguably played with better offensive talent around him, and the argument starts tilting towards Hart

 

[godef]

People make a lot about Favre breaking Marino's career TD mark. He is a good quarterback, borderline hall of fame (and this season's stats may bring him over the top), but his breaking the mark had as much to with longevity than with greatness. And the proof is in the fact that he broke the career INT mark just a few weeks after he broke the TD mark. Granted, only a decent QB can hold this INT record; a bad QB would not ever play enough to get that many (think how strike out records are always owned by the big sluggers--the INT mark is held by a big slinger). But still, it came too soon after his TD mark would makes his career TD/INT ratio too pedestrian.

 

[onegameatatime]

thats usually the stuff that is said about a guy who people want to like but can't find anything else to say. or they are ignoring how many INT's he threw

Favre had a good couple years, but this is the first year in many (at least since 2000) that he has been a top 5 QB

Sounds like we might agree then. For a number of years, he was a top 5 QB and MVP three times.

I think of "exciting" and "fun to watch" as guys who make big plays in tough situations and use a lot of resourcefulness. They can be a little unpredictable at times.

Based on the whole body of work, I do not see how Favre can be considered overrated.

 

[OtisCampbell]

ok, which is why I linked the QB numbers!!




by the subjective measure of "what OtisCampbell happens to selectively remember from 30 years ago", yes.

by the objective measure of "what did the #'s actually look like", no.

remove the "defense" component of Bradshaw and Hart, and you have 2 very similar players. THAT is what is clear.

in fact, combine this with the fact that Bradshaw arguably played with better offensive talent around him, and the argument starts tilting towards Hart

If you want to continue to compare Jim Hart and Terry Bradshaw, feel free. Your arguments for Hart being the better quarterback are actually quite compelling. You're probably the first to make the case.

 

[onegameatatime]

ok, I did.

here are the 1970-1979 #'s for Terry Bradshaw and Jim Hart

you tell me who was who, and if you think one of these guys is deserving of being called an all time great, while the other is somebody that nobody under the age of 40 has heard of.

Games...Comp...Att...%...........Yards......Y/A...TD's...INT's...
128...1,739...3,386...51.4%..... 23,026....6.80...137...145....
129...1,474...2,859...51.6%......19,918.... 6.97...147...163...

1 guy had 4 Pro Bowl appearances in this span, the other had 3

the other explanation is that one of these guys happened to play for a team that had an amazing defense, and therefore went to the playoffs a bunch of times, won a bunch of SB's largely b/c of it, and became a legend. I wonder.

I had family in St Louis, so I was quite familiar with Jim Hart, Mel Gray, and Terry Metcalf. They made the playoffs a few times, I believe.

Not referring to Hart specifically, but one problem with players on bad teams is that they are more likely to play against prevent defenses and rack up garbage stats.

 

[ColtinIraq]

basically agree. SB victories are very, very overrated in judging greatness, and Sal sees this as well.

SB wins = very overrated[/QUOTE]

I cannot believe I just read this on a Pats message board.

 

[makewayhomer]

If you want to continue to compare Jim Hart and Terry Bradshaw, feel free. Your arguments for Hart being the better quarterback are actually quite compelling. You're probably the first to make the case.

I'm really not even arguing that Hart > Bradshaw. the #'s say it's pretty close, but this thread was originally about being "overrated".

the fact that many people would tell you that Bradshaw is an all-time great, but that the vast majority of < 40 YO fans have no idea who Hart was means that Bradshaw is very, very overrated.

that doesn't mean he wasn't good, though.

 

[makewayhomer]

but one problem with players on bad teams is that they are more likely to play against prevent defenses and rack up garbage stats.

this is true. of course there are advantages to being a QB on teams with great RB's and when you are frequently playing with the lead (b/c of your defense) as well