I think you are right, Stabler is in the memory of he voters, more so than any of the 1960s guys...many of voters (and fans) came of age sometime in the 1970s. I also see that as part of reason Anderson gets a pass...Bryan wrote:I think there is an element of "subjective fame/Namathness" to Stabler's HOF resume. He played a big part in some of the best moments in NFL history (Sea of Hands, Ghost to the Post). In an era where every NFL game wasn't televised, I think casual fans saw Stabler play much moreso than a guy like Gabriel. There is name recognition. Maybe that is the weakest of HOF arguments, but IMO at least its something. I agree that Stabler is probably the worst QB in the HOF (not really sure how Warren Moon got in, either), but I am actually ok with Stabler being the 'baseline'. He does have a place in football history, FWIW.bachslunch wrote:For me, Ken Stabler is probably the worst QB in the HoF. He’s on the short end of everything — titles (1), stats (meh), intangibles (Raider org hype, mostly), you name it. And that doesn’t even count the stuff about end of career questionable behavior. Like Floyd Little did for RBs, Stabler established a lower floor of HoF QBs. Joe Theismann, Charlie Conerly, and John Hadl are essentially the equal of Stabler in several ways (titles, stats, etc.), and I don’t really see any of them as HoFers.
I just don't see anything with Roman Gabriel. I think there is a significant gap between Gabriel's resume and Ken Anderson's resume. I'd have an easier time arguing for Randall Cunningham in the HOF than Gabriel.
On a side note, there was a new Medicare/Medicaid commercial on TV with Joe Namath as the spokesperson giving the line "I guarantee it!". This is in 2019. Namath clearly is still the man and worthy of being inducted into Canton.
So I agree with everythign except Anderson being "a significant gap" between Anderson and Gabriel. To me, at best, they are very similar... in terms of career value but that's just my take. I could be wrong