Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Kenny Anderson was a fine QB but, in the big picture, was he ever considered on a level with, or better than, any of the hall of famers who played at the same time as him; Tarkenton, Griese, Staubach, Stabler, Bradshaw, Fouts and Montana? If he was, I don't remember it. Other than his tremendous 1981 MVP season, he was a guy who, at the end of the season, I would see his final stats and go, "Wow! Those are good numbers. Where did they come from?". He didn't have the signature moments that are etched in our memories...at least not in mine.

Anderson wouldn't be an embarrassment to the HoF if he got in because the bar has been lowered more than once in the past few years. I just feel like he'd be more of a HoVVG type, if there was such a thing.

JohnH19 wrote:I just feel like he'd be more of a HoVVG type, if there was such a thing.

I was thinking the same thing...
He's kind of the prime example of a borderline case: The Hall of The Very, Very (Damn) Good (But not quite Great).

a few QBs who were really good, were MVPs...no rings
Anderson
Brodie
Gabriel

JohnTurney wrote:a few QBs who were really good, were MVPs...no rings
Anderson
Brodie
Gabriel

Sipe

BD Sullivan wrote:
Sipe

When I first saw that comment I thought it was a misprint.
Then I thought it was a new made-up e-word that I wasn't familiar with - maybe a combination of "Nope" and something else.
Finally it dawned on me that you were referring to the former Browns quarterback.

Shrevedude wrote:Thank you for taking the time to explain that, LC Greenwood. Being a person who hasn't followed NFL all his life, I tend to not really know much about the lesser known facts of these HOF Snubs, and I enjoy in-depth explanations like this.

For me, this is the argument in favor of Ken Anderson in a nutshell:

-every ranking of QBs by career stats period adjusted I've seen contains as its top 20 the following -- 19 HoFers and Ken Anderson. If memory serves, have seen him as high as 3rd and as low as 14th depending on the system.

-I think Anderson merits pioneer credit as the first successful West Coast style QB.

I don't believe lack of postseason success is a HoF deal-breaker, otherwise none of Jurgensen, Tittle, Tarkenton, Fouts, Marino, or Moon would be in.

For me at least, the arguments against Anderson are those that separate an elite HoFer from a second-tier one, not separating a HoFer from a non-HoFer. YMMV.

bachslunch wrote: -every ranking of QBs by career stats period adjusted I've seen contains as its top 20 the following -- 19 HoFers and Ken Anderson. If memory serves, have seen him as high as 3rd and as low as 14th depending on the system.

I was thinking the same thing. Here's one I dug up from footballperspective (14th just like you mentioned): http://www.footballperspective.com/adju ... e-results/

bachslunch wrote:
-I think Anderson merits pioneer credit as the first successful West Coast style QB.

To split the hair of the hair, I don't know how much pioneer credit Ken Anderson should get. In some sense, Virgil Carter was the first QB to have success (perhaps a different thing than "first successful QB"). More importantly, I don't think anyone in the NFL really copied what Bill Walsh was doing at Cincinnati with Ken Anderson. Teams like the Raiders and Steelers still employed a run-first/downfield passing offense throughout the decade. The wholesale changes that Walsh influenced didn't take place until after his 1981 Niners team had success. In other words, I don't think NFL people saw Ken Anderson's success and thought "wow, this is what WE should be doing on offense".

Bryan wrote:

bachslunch wrote:
-I think Anderson merits pioneer credit as the first successful West Coast style QB.

To split the hair of the hair, I don't know how much pioneer credit Ken Anderson should get. In some sense, Virgil Carter was the first QB to have success (perhaps a different thing than "first successful QB"). More importantly, I don't think anyone in the NFL really copied what Bill Walsh was doing at Cincinnati with Ken Anderson. Teams like the Raiders and Steelers still employed a run-first/downfield passing offense throughout the decade. The wholesale changes that Walsh influenced didn't take place until after his 1981 Niners team had success. In other words, I don't think NFL people saw Ken Anderson's success and thought "wow, this is what WE should be doing on offense".

Yeah, not quite sure how finely to split that hair. Greg Cook predates both but played only one year (1969). Virgil Carter was clearly the starting QB in 1970, but by 1971 appears to have been platooning with Ken Anderson, and Anderson took over as the starter in 1972, continuing in that capacity until 1984. Carter went to backup for good in 1972 and was essentially done after that. The West Coast offense really seems to have been Bill Walsh's idea, and definitely took off when he went to San Francisco with Joe Montana (of course, Walsh was the QBs coach in Cincinnati from 1968-1975). But I'd argue it was Anderson who first made a successful, viable career out of being a West Coast QB, and for me that counts for something.

EDIT: Carter was essentially done in the NFL at least after 1972, but did play a successful full season with the WFL's Chicago Fire in 1974. My bad.

Fran Tarkenton was running his own "West Coast Offense" on the east coast with the Giants and then in the mid-west with the Vikings long before anyone gave it a name. Quick reads with a lot of short passes to his backs, tight ends and possession wide outs which set up game-breaking bombs to Homer Jones, John Gilliam and Sammie White.

There is no great genius or magic behind the WCO. It just takes great players and coaches to make it work...just like any other strategy or system.