Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

L.C. Greenwood wrote:

bachslunch wrote:

L.C. Greenwood wrote:
Don't know if Anderson will ever get in, Stabler's edge in the postseason makes him a better QB in my opinion. Anderson has good stats, but rarely led the Bengals from behind, and that played out in the playoffs.

I don't agree with this. I think Anderson will be elected as a Senior eventually, and rightly so. Any edge Stabler may have in postseason play (and given that he only won one SB, not sold on how big that edge is) is at least offset and probably surpassed by Anderson being much better in career regular season stats adjusted for era -- rankings by folks such as Stuart and Rasaretnam show Anderson near the top of the heap surrounded by HoFers, while Stabler is at the periphery at best alongside folks like Joe Theismann. And Anderson merits some pioneer/innovator status boost as the first successful West Coast type QB.

As a result, I see Stabler as marginal and Anderson as a no-brainer and thus more deserving.

Stabler was much better than Anderson in the playoffs, with five standout performances, not counting nearly beating the Steelers in '72. Ken Anderson managed just two playoff wins, some of his numbers came when he was trailing by double digits.

1. None of this changes the fact that in every year but one Stabler failed to win the Super Bowl. Sooner or later, he hit a team he couldn't beat.

2. Giving Stabler an implied nod for nearly winning the Immaculate Reception game while ignoring Anderson's play in his Super Bowl loss strikes me as unfair. Anderson lost the game to perhaps the best QB ever at the top of his game in a last minute drive for the ages, and one might perhaps argue that the Cincy defense let him down.

3. Even if we assume Stabler was "much better" than Anderson in the postseason, I contend that Anderson's numbers adjusted for era are significantly better than Stabler's -- which is what all attempts I've seen to rank QBs this way suggest. And I value the edge Anderson has in stats over any supposed postseason edge Stabler has (What hurts Stabler's regular season numbers is having 4-5 fine seasons vs. 9-10 that were mediocre to bad).

4. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Anderson was unsuccessful in the postseason. If lack of postseason success were a HoF deal breaker, you'd have a good point. But that's in fact not the case. None of Jurgensen, Tittle, Moon, Tarkenton, Kelly, Marino, or Fouts did well in the postseason, yet all are in the HoF.

When the bar is lowered the pool of then-qualified players expands.

When a player who when half his career as a specialist (F. Dean) gets in, it opens up the world of specialists\

When a DE who was never All-Pro (Bethea), meaning one of top 2 in NFL but was one of top 3 in his conference 8 times gets in, it is easier to make the case for others.

With Stabler in, it's hard to justify Anderson being out.

Sadly, those with more so-called qualifications (Howley, Gradishar, etc) still are outside, It's like going down a rabbit hole. Leroy kelly leads to Floyd Little, little maybe leads to Chuck Foreman which leads to Lydell Mitchell and so on

bachslunch wrote:
2. Giving Stabler an implied nod for nearly winning the Immaculate Reception game while ignoring Anderson's play in his Super Bowl loss strikes me as unfair. Anderson lost the game to perhaps the best QB ever at the top of his game in a last minute drive for the ages, and one might perhaps argue that the Cincy defense let him down.

I think you mean Esiason and not Anderson.

As for Super Bowl XVI, I believe if the Bengals had come back and won that game, Anderson would have already been in Canton , probably would have been inducted shortly after his five-year wait was up. Still, it was an outstanding game and a fitting conclusion to what I consider the best postseason in NFL history.

Rupert Patrick wrote:

bachslunch wrote:
2. Giving Stabler an implied nod for nearly winning the Immaculate Reception game while ignoring Anderson's play in his Super Bowl loss strikes me as unfair. Anderson lost the game to perhaps the best QB ever at the top of his game in a last minute drive for the ages, and one might perhaps argue that the Cincy defense let him down.

I think you mean Esiason and not Anderson.

As for Super Bowl XVI, I believe if the Bengals had come back and won that game, Anderson would have already been in Canton , probably would have been inducted shortly after his five-year wait was up. Still, it was an outstanding game and a fitting conclusion to what I consider the best postseason in NFL history.

I invite you to switch over to the Ken Anderson thread, it's more specific to the topic. Couldn't agree more about Anderson being in Canton had he played better in Super Bowl 16. Unfortunately, Anderson's strong second half was more than offset by his terrible first half. Ken managed just eight completions for the paltry total of 73 yards, and a huge interception on Cincinnati's first drive in the first half. Anderson's struggles were part of the reason since trailed by 20 entering the third quarter. And even in the second half, we all remember the Bengals being stuffed inside the five yard line when they really needed the TD.

Rupert, thanks for the correction. My mistake. I should reread more carefully when I'm posting while angry.

L.C., my reply is on the parallel thread.

It seems the HOF has gotten so watered down that I really have little interest in it anylonger. It no longer seems that the Hall is regulated to the top 1% of NFL talent. Now it seems as long as you are in the top 10 or 15% you will get in.

lastcat3 wrote:It seems the HOF has gotten so watered down that I really have little interest in it anylonger. It no longer seems that the Hall is regulated to the top 1% of NFL talent. Now it seems as long as you are in the top 10 or 15% you will get in.

I've pretty much given up on the Hall of Fame, too. I don't even pay any attention to their countdown announcements, because I find it all pretty much meaningless.

Like their web-site the Hall of Fame has been "modernized" and so seems alien to we traditionalists.

And like much of our current culture it's now about appearance not substance.
I once had a discussion here where I was told the Hall was about preserving those worthy of Fame not reinforcing a player's popularity.
But things are different now. In the Hall of Fame selection (perhaps like our politics) it is about name recognition and fame, fame, fame... which pretty much translates to how often you are on television and how one can parlay that into... fame.

It doesn't really matter how "good" Floyd Little or Kenny Stabler or Jerome Bettis were.
If they were famous they belong in the Hall of Fame.

Welcome to the 21st Century.

Agreed. I don't like how "large" the Hall has become. The selection committee has lost touch with the idea of only the best of the best truly belonging.

Ken Anderson had great statistics for the era he played in but I never thought of him as being at the level of the guys I feel were the best of the day; Tarkenton, Staubach, Fouts and Stabler...and I don't think Stabler should have been elected.

Heck, I'm not even sold on Bradshaw and Griese. I do understand that Terry saved his best for the postseason in general and the Super Bowls in particular but, for the most part, he was no great shakes in the regular season. Based on that, he deserves his bust in Canton but he's often overrated on lists ranking all-time great QBs. Griese was All-Pro twice, in '71 and '77, but Staubach may have been more deserving both years. He was an excellent QB but a HoFer? I'm on the fence as to whether I agree with it.

Agreed. I don't like how "large" the Hall has become. The selection committee has lost touch with the idea of only the best of the best truly belonging.

The fact that the last 4 or 5 (I think?) HOF classes have been maximum size says something about the "let everyone in" mentality.