what are you talking about? can you explain how through watching games you are magically able to divine who is a better leader? I'm not talking about stats here - I'm talking about ANY SHRED OF EVIDENCE YOU HAVE that Bradshaw "led" while Tarkenton "QB'd".
b/c I watch plenty of football now, and I have no idea if Marc Bulger is a better leader than Matt Hasselbeck. without being in those locker rooms and knowing those teams, NONE OF US know.
it's 500% more likely that the Steelers were simply a better team than the Vikings - they had more talent & they were the first team to widely abuse steroids and this led to more success. but this stuff wasn't known or wasn't sexy to write about, so the few sportwriters and TV guys who were in the public eye came up with hollow cliches and excuses to explain the success in some other way, and everyone just grew up assuming it was true.
That "evidence" you're yearning for has been presented time and again - 4 Super Bowls to none. Those Steelers were willing to follow Bradshaw into Hell and back. Those Viking and Giants teams were willing to follow Tark to the water cooler...maybe.
Yes, it was that evident.
Here, I'll give you and example.
Back around '70 I knew a guy like you. He was a good guy, but a bit full of himself.
He was a Tarkenton fan, less so of the Giants, but still...
That particular season the Giants had enjoyed a modicum of success, and were driving for a possible playoff spot. Of course, they hadn't played much of anybody, so even then I thought their record was a little suspect.
Anyway, the had a game in the offing with the LA Rams, who were at that time one of the bona fide contenders. My friend kept harping at how Tarkenton was so smart, he was going to kill the Rams.
For some reason, the odds makers had the Giants favored (I believe the game was in New York), and the spread was fairly substantial - 9, I think. In retrospect, too bad I was too young to appreciate the finer points of making gambling investments, because I knew in my heart of hearts the Giants were not going to win that game, let alone cover.
Of course, all the Boston and New York sportswriters were chiming in on this, with the venerable Jimmy Cannon pointing out the Giants were favored, "as they should be" (his quote - I still remember it).
Well, long story short, Rams kicked ass all over the field, it was a rout. And the most savoring moment of the game was when Tarkenton was benched. I had a good time with my friend that Monday morning.
It's a small story, but illustrative. I don't recall Bradshaw having been benched during the prime of his career. Maybe it happened, but I've never been aware of it.
The thing is, when big games came up, he disappeared. Bradshaw
lived for those moments. He had leadership qualities that were most evident to even the casual football observer. Responding that way in those types of situations
is the functional definition of leadership.
Nobody really cares if Tark, Jim Hart, or anyone else threw for a bazilloin yards, or went to Pro Bowls galore. The simple fact of the matter was, Bradshaw won, they didn't. And he did it more times than not, once he got himself grounded in the NFL.
You somehow seem to think leadership is restricted to the locker room. It's not. It spills
out from places like that, where you can see it's benefice by those who wield it. I do remember reading an article in SI back then where his teammates thought Tarkenton's "leadership" in the locker room was essentially so much politicking. Whatever the merit of that view, the point here is that leadership on a football team far transcends the locker room.
Your point about the Steelers and the roids is valid, but to take your central theme to it's proper destination, it's 500% more likely that Bradshaw was a better QB than, say Tarkenton, because the results speak for themselves.
Tarkenton could throw a football, and scramble, and cause people to rise up from their seats (invariably they sat down disappointed), but Bradshaw could just win, and that's what the game, in it's essence, is all about.
