Why does Bradshaw not get as much respect as Montana when talking best ever ?

Search

Self appointed RX World Champion Handicapper
Joined
Nov 20, 2001
Messages
15,052
Tokens
Any list that gets debated has Bradshaw much lower than Montana .

Why ? They accomplished the same thing ...
 

New member
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
3,375
Tokens
Greatness is solely based upon the number of titles won?

If so, put Robert Horry right up there with Jordan. 1A and 1B.
 
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
20,303
Tokens
Montana overrated?

You know nothing about football to even make such a statement.
 

I'll be in the Bar..With my head on the Bar
Joined
Oct 3, 2004
Messages
9,980
Tokens
Bradshaw admits he would not have won without all the HOF'rs he had on his team. Montana would have been great no matter what team he played on.
 

Rx. Senior
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
5,490
Tokens
If the accomplishment you are talking about is being a quarterback in the NFL, sure that is something they both accomplished

If you are talking about being the best quarterback in NFL history, only Montana accomplished that, Bradshaw certainly didn't
 

Rx. Senior
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
5,490
Tokens
When no one here has even given much of a rating, that is pretty clear he is not being overrated
 

Oh boy!
Joined
Mar 21, 2004
Messages
38,362
Tokens
Bradshaw admits he would not have won without all the HOF'rs he had on his team. Montana would have been great no matter what team he played on.

It's nice to hear Bradshaw admitting that because I've been saying that since he won the Super Bowl in 1980. He would throw the ball down field and either Swann or Stallworth would wrestle the ball from the defender.
 
Joined
Sep 20, 2004
Messages
20,303
Tokens
Montana had loads of talent everywhere thanks to DeBartolo's spend-anything mentality; Steve Young was a superior QB.

Not even close & I respect Steve Young. If you ask followers of the game, who is the 1 QB you would want to make a comeback drive with everything on the line, Montana will trump Young & probably everyone else.
 

New member
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
4,555
Tokens
id rather have montana but could for sure win with bradshaw. both are overrated if you watched em play and not just repeating what some drunk told you at a bar
 

Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
358
Tokens
I started watching football in 1977 and I felt the same way (Bradshaw was great and didn't get his deserved credit)

Found out years later that 1975-1976 he was benched in favor of some nobody. Between that timeframe (performance issues) and the quality of team he played for he gets knocked down a few notches.

To me he is "top ten" but I can see the argument against
 

Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2017
Messages
21,697
Tokens
Probably because Montana was as clutch as it get. He was also on a team predicated on passing and has better numbers. But, comparisons can only be made by era because of the difference in passing stats over the years. I consider Elway one of top five but his numbers aren't super impressive. It's titles, numbers and clutch play that get it done.
 

Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
8,811
Tokens
Funny thread. I can't even see Bradshaw in the top 5 QBs of all time. Montana is clearly 1 or 2. Apparently the OP thinks Superbowls won is the only criteria (not even close).
 

schmuck
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,352
Tokens
montana had a GREAT offensive line. bradshaw had
a great defense and running game around him.
both were blessed with great receivers. both were
winners, but bradshaw was perceived by the media,
especially early in his career, as not too bright and
much more of a thrower rather than a passer. he
definitely improved and became a much better qb
later in his career. playing with the right team, at
the right time, and staying healthy are all critical
components in being recognized as great in the TEAM
sport called football.
 

Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
8,811
Tokens
montana had a GREAT offensive line. bradshaw had
a great defense and running game around him.
both were blessed with great receivers. both were
winners, but bradshaw was perceived by the media,
especially early in his career, as not too bright and
much more of a thrower rather than a passer. he
definitely improved and became a much better qb
later in his career. playing with the right team, at
the right time, and staying healthy are all critical
components in being recognized as great in the TEAM
sport called football.

However you neglect the fact that QBs like Montana and Favre went to other teams and made them great. Both got to their division championship games with these QBs (with clearly lesser talent than the teams they were on previously). A great QB makes others around them great.
 

schmuck
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
1,352
Tokens
can't disagree with that BODY. but it certainly helps being
surrounded by talent, I mean look what it did for Hugh
Hefner's legacy.
 

Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
8,811
Tokens
can't disagree with that BODY. but it certainly helps being
surrounded by talent, I mean look what it did for Hugh
Hefner's legacy.

I agree but as stated, if you looked at the Chiefs playoffs record, it had been 23 years since they got to an AFC Championship. I think that says something. He clearly made them better. At some point you do have to give credit to the "individual".
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,108,216
Messages
13,449,532
Members
99,402
Latest member
jb52197
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com