Bryan wrote:
Gabriel had 11 seasons where he started the majority of his team's games at QB...his yearly Rate+ was:
89, 97, 118, 101, 120 (MVP), 107, 112, 99, 124 (Eagles 73), 102, 102, 99
Career AV of 131
Anderson had 13 seasons where he started the majority of his team's games at QB...his yearly Rate+ was:
109,110, 118, 132 (led NFL), 127 (led NFL), 112, 106, 89, 115, 91, 137 (led NFL, MVP), 127 (led NFL), 112, 107
Career AV of 161
To me, Anderson was consistently better over a longer period of time and also had higher peaks than Gabriel.
Was aware of the AV, which is a crap statistic in terms of comparing players from team to team. In fact, not sure what it measures TBH
But when I saw this: Gary Larsen in 1969 = 16, 1970 = 14, and Bob Lilly 1969 = 13 and 1970 = 9 it ended it for me. 1969 may have been Merlin Olsen's best, for sure one of top 2-3. And he's also behind Larsen. So when I see AV in terms of other positions I dismiss it as well. Unless there is something that makes the QB AV different than other positions then it's pretty worthless. I have also checked it with other positions and it's more random than not.
Here is the AV thing showing Greg Landry's 1971 and 1972 being in top six from 1967-82----I just cannot accept it as legit
Rate+ is just passer rating adjusted for year. And Anderson had a higher rating than Gabriel. Passer rating is around 30-40% based on yards per attempt and about that on completion percentage. Gabriel threw a lot of balls away, he just didn't seem to care about completion percentage that much. Of course, he wanted to complete passes, but when he's move in pocket, if nothing was there he'd throw the ball at the linemen's head or away when he was being sacked.
Stats like passer rating are going to favor system QB like Anderson. Walsh was likely first coach to "coach to the statistic" or design things that reflected well. Walsh was a genius in that kind of thing.
But my thing with Anderson is not his stats or any kind of derivative of statistics, they are likely better than any of the QBs not in the HOF. The question is if thay are good enough for HOF. And maybe they are.
The issue with Anderson is consistency. Giving him an "excellent" in 1976 is generous as is a "good" in 1979 but that's a total of 7 EX/GD seasons.
Gabriel, with 8 EX/GD is, in my view, not far behind Anderson, if at all. Giving Gabriel a "red" or "Good" for 1966 and 1972 is also generous. Tried to give all players benefit of doubt to some degree. But I didn't these as a first review, didn't put tons of exacting research in it. So don't go after the charts for that...I'd likely agree with you.
The main point is no one is vastly greater than another and that goes for all the others I listed. It's simply a guide
https://nflfootballjournal.blogspot.com ... r-hof.html But Anderson doesn't dominate when all things are considered.
The thing some miss about Gabriel is from 1962-65 he was 11-11-1 as a starter. Not good, not bad. But other QBs in that same span went like 4-27-2. Anderson was a boon, too, early, but nothing like that.
So when I look at everything, stats, wins, skill set, eye test, I do not see some big gap of Anderson > Gabriel. I'd surely accept it if someone said marginally, Anderson > Gabriel, but not a gap. That could (in my view) only come from stats alone and I have a different view on the 'stats alone' view. It's like the "AP only" approach in honors.
Stats are great, but also skills and "eye test" and honors are also great, But of course, I am in minoriry.
I simply have hard time separating Anderson, Simms, Gabriel, Brodie, etc the "MVP" guys.
I have same issue trying to separate Flores and Johnson, Seifert, Coughlin, Parker, Shanahan and throw in Holmgren...
If Anderson gets in then Brodie, Simms, Gabriel etc all deserve to get in.
If Flores gets in then the 2-win coaches all deserve it, or most, anyway