Terry Bradshaw's all time QB rank vs: (1 Viewer)

[Chase Stuart]

Where would you rank Terry Bradshaw on the all time QB list? Where would you rank Franco Harris on the all time RB list? Which number is better?

This question isn't which player was more valuable to the Steelers or how many rings either player would have won without the other. Those are interesting questions, but I'm not really concerned with comparing their value relative to each other. I'm interested in comparing their value compared to other players at their position. If you think Bradshaw's a top 20 QB all time and Harris isn't a top 20 RB all time, but Harris was more valuable to the Steelers success, then you should answer the first poll question by voting for Bradshaw. That sort of thing.

Very curious to see the results here.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Bump

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

He's long since been bumped down the list, but when he retired, Harris was the #3 all time rusher.

 

[Godsbrother]

A lot of people memories of Harris' is his final 2 or 3 years when he had lost a step and was just compiling stats. However Franco at his prime was an awesome back -- I put him in the top 11-15.

I also put Bradshaw in at 11-15. His career numbers don't look great now but he was as good in big games as any QB that ever played the game.

 

[Godsbrother]

Anyone putting Bradshaw or Harris outside of the top 50 are out of their minds.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Slight edge for Bradshaw so far.

 

[zDragon]

Anyone putting Bradshaw or Harris outside of the top 50 are out of their minds.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Forgot about this post, but I meant to give my opinion at some point.

I think Bradshaw's got a slight but real edge on Harris. Franco's post-season resume is good, but on his regular season resume alone he's not a top 30 guy. He's got the most fumbles of any RB ever, tied with Tony Dorsett.

 

[Mr Fantasy]

. Franco's post-season resume is good, but on his regular season resume alone he's not a top 30 guy. He's got the most fumbles of any RB ever, tied with Tony Dorsett.

thats an amazing stat that I wasn't aware of

 

[stevegamer]

Forgot about this post, but I meant to give my opinion at some point.I think Bradshaw's got a slight but real edge on Harris. Franco's post-season resume is good, but on his regular season resume alone he's not a top 30 guy. He's got the most fumbles of any RB ever, tied with Tony Dorsett.

I'd think the career fumbles list is a "Who's who" of RB's - the only way you get to fumble a lot is to be so good that you stay on the field. It's like the career interceptions list for QB's or losses for a pitcher in baseball.

 

[twitch]

Both were tremendous big game players. I voted for Bradshaw. Franco was a great back in his day, but imo he was a huge beneficiary of an incredible Oline. Not that Bradshaw or any of the other skill players werent as well. But Franco just never overly impressed as the 2nd or 3rd greatest of his time, when that's what the #s were indicating. He was nowhere near that level of player, imo. He played on some great, great teams surrounded by other incredible talent. And not to diminish his own. But I rated him right outside of the top 20 all-time. Ive just seen too many other great RBs in my time to view him otherwise. Bradshaw I had right outside of the top 10.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Forgot about this post, but I meant to give my opinion at some point.I think Bradshaw's got a slight but real edge on Harris. Franco's post-season resume is good, but on his regular season resume alone he's not a top 30 guy. He's got the most fumbles of any RB ever, tied with Tony Dorsett.

I'd think the career fumbles list is a "Who's who" of RB's - the only way you get to fumble a lot is to be so good that you stay on the field. It's like the career interceptions list for QB's or losses for a pitcher in baseball.

In some ways, it is. And since returner fumbles are not separated out from RB fumbles, special teams guys will rate highly, too. It also is era specific, as older players fumbled much more frequently.Still, Harris' rate isn't great, either. If you look at the top RBs in history and ignore the guys who also spent lots of time on special teams, only Lenny Moore, Dan Towler (Rams RB of the '50s), Joe Perry, Bills Sims, Chuck Foreman and Tony Dorsett have worse rates. I highly doubt anyone will break the 90 fumble record anymore, because coaches just don't allow RBs to fumble like that. Smith had 61, Sanders 41, Faulk 36, Martin 29, Bettis 41, etc.

 

[SR388]

Forgot about this post, but I meant to give my opinion at some point.

I think Bradshaw's got a slight but real edge on Harris. Franco's post-season resume is good, but on his regular season resume alone he's not a top 30 guy. He's got the most fumbles of any RB ever, tied with Tony Dorsett.

I'd think the career fumbles list is a "Who's who" of RB's - the only way you get to fumble a lot is to be so good that you stay on the field. It's like the career interceptions list for QB's or losses for a pitcher in baseball.

You think wrong.Career leaders in carries:

Player - Att - Fbl - Ave carries between fumbles

Emmitt - 4409 - 61 - 72 carries

Payton - 3838 - 86 - 44 carries

C.Martin - 3518 - 29 - 121 carries

J. Bettis - 3479 - 41 - 84

Sanders - 3062 - 41 - 74

Conversely:

Player - Att - Fbl - Ave carries between fumbles

Harris - 2949 - 90 - 32.7

Dorsett - 2936 - 90 - 32.6

In other words, those two fumbled A LOT.

 

[twitch]

Turnovers have just become a much greater issue in the present day and age than they were back in the 70s/80s. Not to say they werent valued back then, just not to the degree they are today. Players performed much more freely back then. INT #s were off the chart also. Walter Payton's fumble #s on that chart are pretty much unacceptable, and he's still one of the 2 or 3 greatest RBs to have ever lived. Dont know if its strictly the change in emphasis, technique, strength and conditioning, or all of the above. But clearly players of the previous day were seemingly turnover machines compared to the present day. So, they should probably be judged in that area largely against players of their own generations.

 

[SR388]

Turnovers have just become a much greater issue in the present day and age than they were back in the 70s/80s. Not to say they werent valued back then, just not to the degree they are today. Players performed much more freely back then. INT #s were off the chart also. Walter Payton's fumble #s on that chart are pretty much unacceptable, and he's still one of the 2 or 3 greatest RBs to have ever lived. Dont know if its strictly the change in emphasis, technique, strength and conditioning, or all of the above. But clearly players of the previous day were seemingly turnover machines compared to the present day. So, they should probably be judged in that area largely against players of their own generations.

I disagree. Fumbles and int's have increased more recently by a lot. Payton, Franco, and Dorsett would probably have a lot less fumbles if they weren't holding the ball out with one hand a lot.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Turnovers have just become a much greater issue in the present day and age than they were back in the 70s/80s. Not to say they werent valued back then, just not to the degree they are today. Players performed much more freely back then. INT #s were off the chart also. Walter Payton's fumble #s on that chart are pretty much unacceptable, and he's still one of the 2 or 3 greatest RBs to have ever lived. Dont know if its strictly the change in emphasis, technique, strength and conditioning, or all of the above. But clearly players of the previous day were seemingly turnover machines compared to the present day. So, they should probably be judged in that area largely against players of their own generations.

I disagree. Fumbles and int's have increased more recently by a lot.

Huh? It's the exact opposite.

 

[SR388]

Turnovers have just become a much greater issue in the present day and age than they were back in the 70s/80s. Not to say they werent valued back then, just not to the degree they are today. Players performed much more freely back then. INT #s were off the chart also. Walter Payton's fumble #s on that chart are pretty much unacceptable, and he's still one of the 2 or 3 greatest RBs to have ever lived. Dont know if its strictly the change in emphasis, technique, strength and conditioning, or all of the above. But clearly players of the previous day were seemingly turnover machines compared to the present day. So, they should probably be judged in that area largely against players of their own generations.

I disagree. Fumbles and int's have increased more recently by a lot.

Huh? It's the exact opposite.

I meant to erase that line prior to posting after I went and looked up the stats.

 

[Koya]

This question isn't which player was more valuable to the Steelers or how many rings either player would have won without the other. Those are interesting questions, but I'm not really concerned with comparing their value relative to each other. I'm interested in comparing their value compared to other players at their position.

Chase, how can you possibly evaluate a player without taking into consideration how valuable they were to the team? That makes NO sense. ESPECIALLY for QBs. What makes some QBs great is that they win. It might not be the stats, they may have a big running game so less attempts... but you would pick them above all but a handful of others QBs BECAUSE they mean so much to their teams ability to win - whether we are talking about the team they actually played on, or some hypothetical "if they were on another team how good would they be"I mean, Harris is not in the discussion of top 10 RBs ever, and those who are there are lightyears ahead of Harris in terms of skill and ability. Bradshaw on the otherhand, is one of the true, great, winners of all time, at the position where that means the absolute most.

Not sure how you can just ignore a players value to the team to discuss how good a player they are. This is a team game after all. It runs counter to what football is about.

 

[stevegamer]

Forgot about this post, but I meant to give my opinion at some point.

I think Bradshaw's got a slight but real edge on Harris. Franco's post-season resume is good, but on his regular season resume alone he's not a top 30 guy. He's got the most fumbles of any RB ever, tied with Tony Dorsett.

I'd think the career fumbles list is a "Who's who" of RB's - the only way you get to fumble a lot is to be so good that you stay on the field. It's like the career interceptions list for QB's or losses for a pitcher in baseball.

You think wrong.Career leaders in carries:

Player - Att - Fbl - Ave carries between fumbles

Emmitt - 4409 - 61 - 72 carries

Payton - 3838 - 86 - 44 carries

C.Martin - 3518 - 29 - 121 carries

J. Bettis - 3479 - 41 - 84

Sanders - 3062 - 41 - 74

Conversely:

Player - Att - Fbl - Ave carries between fumbles

Harris - 2949 - 90 - 32.7

Dorsett - 2936 - 90 - 32.6

In other words, those two fumbled A LOT.

I understand their rate is horrible, but there are couple of things:1. You didn't disprove my comment about career fumbles at all - you just showed a couple of guys high on the carries list aren't up there. I didn't see that stat on P-F-R, couldn't find it to check.

2. I suspect that players today fumble less because of the wussification of the game in some ways:

- ground can't cause a fumble

- rules changes to favor the offense every place you look

 

[Godsbrother]

Forgot about this post, but I meant to give my opinion at some point.

I think Bradshaw's got a slight but real edge on Harris. Franco's post-season resume is good, but on his regular season resume alone he's not a top 30 guy. He's got the most fumbles of any RB ever, tied with Tony Dorsett.

I'd think the career fumbles list is a "Who's who" of RB's - the only way you get to fumble a lot is to be so good that you stay on the field. It's like the career interceptions list for QB's or losses for a pitcher in baseball.

You think wrong.Career leaders in carries:

Player - Att - Fbl - Ave carries between fumbles

Emmitt - 4409 - 61 - 72 carries

Payton - 3838 - 86 - 44 carries

C.Martin - 3518 - 29 - 121 carries

J. Bettis - 3479 - 41 - 84

Sanders - 3062 - 41 - 74

Conversely:

Player - Att - Fbl - Ave carries between fumbles

Harris - 2949 - 90 - 32.7

Dorsett - 2936 - 90 - 32.6

In other words, those two fumbled A LOT.

I understand their rate is horrible, but there are couple of things:1. You didn't disprove my comment about career fumbles at all - you just showed a couple of guys high on the carries list aren't up there. I didn't see that stat on P-F-R, couldn't find it to check.

2. I suspect that players today fumble less because of the wussification of the game in some ways:

- ground can't cause a fumble

- rules changes to favor the offense every place you look

Not to mention instant replay reviews -- they overturn a lot of fumbles by IR.

 

[kethnaab]

as a Steelers fan who grew up watching the Steelers play, I'd put Bradshaw top 10 of all time and Harris somewhere around 25ish.

 

[Scotch Rocks]

It's not really fair to Franco to say he doesn't measure up that well to modern era feature running backs. Remember, the guy was a fullback. A 230 lb bruiser. Yes, he came from the end of an era when a fullback was used as a runner more frequently. But the guy didn't have it in his build, or in his job description, to run a lot of sweeps, counters, and tosses. He was never going to get the chance to look electric compared to a Payton or Dorsett. Because he took the ball short, plowed up the middle, and used his strength and toughness a ton more than those guys. That Franco could and did occasionally get used in more versatile ways only adds to his resume. He was a big back with small back speed, but make no mistake, he was primarily a big back.

If you want to call him less versatile than Walter Payton, go ahead. But would you criticize Warren Sapp for being less versatile than Derrick Brooks? Different roles, different responsibilities, different ways of getting their jobs done.

Franco was one of the top 5 feature fullbacks of all time, on a team built to win with exactly that style. And his place there is secure, because that position is pretty much a dinosaur now.

 

[Ghost of Bill Walsh]

Where would you rank Terry Bradshaw on the all time QB list? Where would you rank Franco Harris on the all time RB list? Which number is better?

This question isn't which player was more valuable to the Steelers or how many rings either player would have won without the other. Those are interesting questions, but I'm not really concerned with comparing their value relative to each other. I'm interested in comparing their value compared to other players at their position. If you think Bradshaw's a top 20 QB all time and Harris isn't a top 20 RB all time, but Harris was more valuable to the Steelers success, then you should answer the first poll question by voting for Bradshaw. That sort of thing.

Very curious to see the results here.

Totally agree with your summation.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Franco was one of the top 5 feature fullbacks of all time, on a team built to win with exactly that style. And his place there is secure, because that position is pretty much a dinosaur now.

True. There's Brown and Taylor and then Joe Perry and Harris. Csonka fit that mold but he wasn't as dominant. After them, who's next? Jim Nance was good for the Pats in the '60s, Roger Craig was actually the 49ers FB, Christian Okoye was only big for one year. William Andres was good for awhile. Riggins was really a halfback when he was at his best. Am I forgetting anyone?

 

[Koya]

Franco was one of the top 5 feature fullbacks of all time, on a team built to win with exactly that style. And his place there is secure, because that position is pretty much a dinosaur now.

True. There's Brown and Taylor and then Joe Perry and Harris. Csonka fit that mold but he wasn't as dominant. After them, who's next? Jim Nance was good for the Pats in the '60s, Roger Craig was actually the 49ers FB, Christian Okoye was only big for one year. William Andres was good for awhile. Riggins was really a halfback when he was at his best. Am I forgetting anyone?

Marion Motley would have to go ahead of Franco.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Franco was one of the top 5 feature fullbacks of all time, on a team built to win with exactly that style. And his place there is secure, because that position is pretty much a dinosaur now.

True. There's Brown and Taylor and then Joe Perry and Harris. Csonka fit that mold but he wasn't as dominant. After them, who's next? Jim Nance was good for the Pats in the '60s, Roger Craig was actually the 49ers FB, Christian Okoye was only big for one year. William Andres was good for awhile. Riggins was really a halfback when he was at his best. Am I forgetting anyone?

Marion Motley would have to go ahead of Franco.

I'm not inclined to consider his AAFC days, and he only had one big season in the NFL. Harris was certainly the better NFL FB.