Professional Football Researchers Association Forum
PFRA is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the history of professional football. Formed in 1979, PFRA members include many of the game's foremost historians and writers.
Jeremy Crowhurst wrote:When we talk about Stabler versus Anderson, I completely agree that on the numbers, Anderson should be in and Stabler is questionable. But isn't there a degree to which Stabler gets alot closer in the same way Swann and Namath do, and in a way which Anderson is lacking? Or am I just nuts?
You are not nuts about that. Stabler beats Anderson pretty severely in the "Fame" aspect. One can tell the history of the NFL without mentioning Anderson (Bill Walsh passing attack could be noted without mentioning the quarterbacks). It would be more difficult to do so without mentioning Stabler.
Ken Stabler was WAY more famous (and more significant in NFL history) than Ken Anderson. He was in several iconic games, "Sea of Hands, Ghost to the Post, etc."
Bob Padecky, the writer who had trouble with Stabler in 1979, has endorsed him for the HOF. Padecky wrote something like:
"Would you take Joe Namath or Bob Griese over Stabler for a two minute drill? Not a chance."
Jeremy Crowhurst wrote:When we talk about Stabler versus Anderson, I completely agree that on the numbers, Anderson should be in and Stabler is questionable. But isn't there a degree to which Stabler gets alot closer in the same way Swann and Namath do, and in a way which Anderson is lacking? Or am I just nuts?
You are not nuts about that. Stabler beats Anderson pretty severely in the "Fame" aspect. One can tell the history of the NFL without mentioning Anderson (Bill Walsh passing attack could be noted without mentioning the quarterbacks). It would be more difficult to do so without mentioning Stabler.
Ken Stabler was WAY more famous (and more significant in NFL history) than Ken Anderson. He was in several iconic games, "Sea of Hands, Ghost to the Post, etc."
Bob Padecky, the writer who had trouble with Stabler in 1979, has endorsed him for the HOF. Padecky wrote something like:
"Would you take Joe Namath or Bob Griese over Stabler for a two minute drill? Not a chance."
I'd take Namath but not Griese. Of course, I don't think Griese should be in the HOF any more than Stabler should.
Jeremy Crowhurst wrote:When we talk about Stabler versus Anderson, I completely agree that on the numbers, Anderson should be in and Stabler is questionable. But isn't there a degree to which Stabler gets alot closer in the same way Swann and Namath do, and in a way which Anderson is lacking? Or am I just nuts?
You are not nuts about that. Stabler beats Anderson pretty severely in the "Fame" aspect. One can tell the history of the NFL without mentioning Anderson (Bill Walsh passing attack could be noted without mentioning the quarterbacks). It would be more difficult to do so without mentioning Stabler.
Not so sure I agree that you can tell the history of the NFL without Anderson. He was the first successful example of a West Coast style QB, and one could argue that Walsh's successes in San Francisco might not happen otherwise.
And for me, things like "Ghost to the post" and "Sea of hands" are more media hype than substance historically, kind of like Hogs and Smurfs and Three Amigos and Fun Bunch and Marks Brothers. But maybe that's just me. Perhaps not coincidentally, many of these things involve the Raiders and 'Skins, two franchises that have historically been especially adept at creating buzz around their doings.
Not that I'm such a big fan of this argument re the PFHoF anyway, given that for example you can't adequately tell the history of the NFL without mentioning Jay Berwanger (first ever NFL draft pick, who didn't play a down in the pros) or Alan Ameche (scored the winning TD in the 1958 NFL Championship Game). Neither belongs in the HoF.
Jeremy Crowhurst wrote:When we talk about Stabler versus Anderson, I completely agree that on the numbers, Anderson should be in and Stabler is questionable. But isn't there a degree to which Stabler gets alot closer in the same way Swann and Namath do, and in a way which Anderson is lacking? Or am I just nuts?
You are not nuts about that. Stabler beats Anderson pretty severely in the "Fame" aspect. One can tell the history of the NFL without mentioning Anderson (Bill Walsh passing attack could be noted without mentioning the quarterbacks). It would be more difficult to do so without mentioning Stabler.
Can you tell the history without Daryle Lamonica or Jim Plunkett?
SixtiesFan wrote:Bob Padecky, the writer who had trouble with Stabler in 1979, has endorsed him for the HOF. Padecky wrote something like:
"Would you take Joe Namath or Bob Griese over Stabler for a two minute drill? Not a chance."
Griese's drive at the end of regulation to tie the "Longest Game" at 24-24 was pretty impressive...perhaps more impressive than anything Stabler ever did considering the quality of opponent. I think at the very least its equivalent to Stabler's drive at the end of the Sea of Hands game. In general, Griese seems to get a bad rap on this board...its like he's the 3rd most hated HOFer behind Namath and Swann, and all three have been mentioned to bolster Stabler's HOF argument.
Anyway, here are my thoughts on Stabler, ripped from an earlier thread:
I think the best case for Stabler is to look at his season-by-season passer rating compared to the league average (the Rate+ stat of PFR in the advanced passing grid). Stabler's 1976 season is off the charts, but he also had outstanding seasons in 1973 (63% comp) and 1974 (26 TD 12 INTs). He also had good seasons in 1977 & 1979, and was above average in 1975. The most interesting thing to me is that his alleged point-shaving season of 1978 still gets a Rate+ score of 96, meaning he was slightly worse than the league average (Rate+ of 100), but not anywhere near bad enough to eliminate him from HOF consideration. Stabler's subsequent years in Houston and New Orleans earned Rate+ scores of 94, 94, & 97. Again, slightly worse than league average but not really "bad". His first bad season was his 1983 season in New Orleans (Rate+ of 83), and then Stabler retired after a few appearances in 1984. Compared to his peers, Stabler really was a great QB from 1973-1979, and then was average until his last year as a starter in 1983. I don't think the stats really jive with the narrative of Stabler being an up-and-down QB who completely fizzled out in his waning Oakland days.
Jeremy Crowhurst wrote:When we talk about Stabler versus Anderson, I completely agree that on the numbers, Anderson should be in and Stabler is questionable. But isn't there a degree to which Stabler gets alot closer in the same way Swann and Namath do, and in a way which Anderson is lacking? Or am I just nuts?
You are not nuts about that. Stabler beats Anderson pretty severely in the "Fame" aspect. One can tell the history of the NFL without mentioning Anderson (Bill Walsh passing attack could be noted without mentioning the quarterbacks). It would be more difficult to do so without mentioning Stabler.
Can you tell the history without Daryle Lamonica or Jim Plunkett?
I don't know. It depends whether it is a 3-page report from a grade school kid or something akin to Michael MacCambridge's book on the league's history.
Jeremy Crowhurst wrote:When we talk about Stabler versus Anderson, I completely agree that on the numbers, Anderson should be in and Stabler is questionable. But isn't there a degree to which Stabler gets alot closer in the same way Swann and Namath do, and in a way which Anderson is lacking? Or am I just nuts?
You are not nuts about that. Stabler beats Anderson pretty severely in the "Fame" aspect. One can tell the history of the NFL without mentioning Anderson (Bill Walsh passing attack could be noted without mentioning the quarterbacks). It would be more difficult to do so without mentioning Stabler.
Not so sure I agree that you can tell the history of the NFL without Anderson. He was the first successful example of a West Coast style QB, and one could argue that Walsh's successes in San Francisco might not happen otherwise.
And for me, things like "Ghost to the post" and "Sea of hands" are more media hype than substance historically, kind of like Hogs and Smurfs and Three Amigos and Fun Bunch and Marks Brothers. But maybe that's just me. Perhaps not coincidentally, many of these things involve the Raiders and 'Skins, two franchises that have historically been especially adept at creating buzz around their doings.
Not that I'm such a big fan of this argument re the PFHoF anyway, given that for example you can't adequately tell the history of the NFL without mentioning Jay Berwanger (first ever NFL draft pick, who didn't play a down in the pros) or Alan Ameche (scored the winning TD in the 1958 NFL Championship Game). Neither belongs in the HoF.
I almost stopped after, "You are not nuts about that. Stabler beats Anderson pretty severely in the 'Fame' aspect."
"You can't tell the history of the league without..." is a silly idea to begin with and I usually shy away from going that route myself. One could probably tell the history of the league without mentioning any players. The focus could be the teams and commissioners and maybe a few owners. If you have a 12-year old trying to tell the NFL's history in a 4-page paper, he/she might mention a dozen or so key players. If you were to write a sweeping 500-page history of the league and tried to touch on everything to do with the NFL, then you would need to note many, many players.
In summation, I don't really know what the heck I am writing about when I write things like "One can tell the history of the NFL without mentioning Anderson (Bill Walsh passing attack could be noted without mentioning the quarterbacks). It would be more difficult to do so without mentioning Stabler." I wrote that way back on 2/2/16. I was dopey back then.
Jeremy Crowhurst wrote:When we talk about Stabler versus Anderson, I completely agree that on the numbers, Anderson should be in and Stabler is questionable. But isn't there a degree to which Stabler gets alot closer in the same way Swann and Namath do, and in a way which Anderson is lacking? Or am I just nuts?
You are not nuts about that. Stabler beats Anderson pretty severely in the "Fame" aspect. One can tell the history of the NFL without mentioning Anderson (Bill Walsh passing attack could be noted without mentioning the quarterbacks). It would be more difficult to do so without mentioning Stabler.
Ken Stabler was WAY more famous (and more significant in NFL history) than Ken Anderson. He was in several iconic games, "Sea of Hands, Ghost to the Post, etc."
Bob Padecky, the writer who had trouble with Stabler in 1979, has endorsed him for the HOF. Padecky wrote something like:
"Would you take Joe Namath or Bob Griese over Stabler for a two minute drill? Not a chance."
Stabler would be a sentimental choice, but what about his alleged involvement in gambling? Is all of that being brushed under the rug?
Also, some people say that Stabler should be in the HoF because Namath is in the HoF. However, if the standards have been bent a bit for a few players, it doesn't mean that every comparable player ought to be enshrined. It seems to me that Stabler had two really good, HoF-caliber seasons for a good, high-profile franchise, and I don't see how or why that's good enough.
JWL wrote:
"You can't tell the history of the league without..." is a silly idea to begin with and I usually shy away from going that route myself. One could probably tell the history of the league without mentioning any players. The focus could be the teams and commissioners and maybe a few owners. If you have a 12-year old trying to tell the NFL's history in a 4-page paper, he/she might mention a dozen or so key players. If you were to write a sweeping 500-page history of the league and tried to touch on everything to do with the NFL, then you would need to note many, many players.
In summation, I don't really know what the heck I am writing about when I write things like "One can tell the history of the NFL without mentioning Anderson (Bill Walsh passing attack could be noted without mentioning the quarterbacks). It would be more difficult to do so without mentioning Stabler." I wrote that way back on 2/2/16. I was dopey back then.
David Harris wrote a terrific book about the NFL, "The League," which says very little about players or coaches or what happened on the field.
