Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/p ... deKe00.htm

I was prompted to start this thread by this exchange:

bachslunch wrote:

L.C. Greenwood wrote:

Rupert Patrick wrote:With Stabler getting in last year one might expect a push for Ken Anderson, who was in all likelyhood a stronger HOF candidate than Stabler.

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.

Normally I tend to over-emphasize championships and therefore might downgrade a player like Anderson but I saw him play (on TV) and am firmly in the pro-induction camp. His completion percentage was uncanny for his time (yes, we know why) and in a way he presaged the modern NFL QB.
And his Super Bowl loss is by virtue if having to play against the greatest QB of his era, Joe Montana.

He makes me think of a 1970's Sonny Jurgensen (though they threw completely different games) in that they were ahead of their time and, perhaps, the best passer of their contemporaries.

So what do you think?
Ken Anderson for the Hall of Fame?
Yeah or Nay?
(Didn't we used to have a poll around here somewhere?)

A close no for Anderson, and I think it's telling few people were talking about him for the HOF when Boomer Esiason beat him out for the starting job. Modern stats can sometimes elevate the perception of older players, especially if you didn't see them live.

Virgil Carter actually used the West Coast offense before Anderson, but KA deserves credit for the sustained success. Don't see the Sonny Jurgensen comparison, Sonny played for worse teams.

A terrific career, but had few strong postseason games. Was just average in his last two postseason games, the box score was deceiving. In SB16, was horrible in the first half, was part of the reason Cincinnati fell behind big. In the '82 playoff game, threw costly interceptions, helping the Jets upset the Bengals.

L.C. Greenwood wrote:A close no for Anderson, and I think it's telling few people were talking about him for the HOF when Boomer Esiason beat him out for the starting job. Modern stats can sometimes elevate the perception of older players, especially if you didn't see them live.

"People" (broadcasters? fans? sportwriters?) carry all kinds of misconceptions around about player HoF fitness and aren't shy about sharing them. If you believe John Madden during game of the week broadcasts, Charles Haley was the greatest thing to happen to defenses since sliced bread when in fact he's an acceptable if marginal HoFer. And half the world mistakenly thinks Jim Marshall's HoF exclusion is a travesty and Adam Vinatieri is a no-brainer. I don't think that's "telling" at all.

Seeing a player live is not the same thing as good quality film study. The former can lead to things like "he just doesn't feel like a HoFer to me," which is pretty much useless.

Looking at someone's HoF case with some care is what matters. And I see nothing wrong with looking at stats if they're kept in good context. In fact, one can argue that if stats used this way elevate the perception of an older player, that's meaningful and useful. That's part of sabermetric thinking, which I'm in favor of, though it tends to be a dirty word in several football discussion circles.

L.C. Greenwood wrote:Virgil Carter actually used the West Coast offense before Anderson, but KA deserves credit for the sustained success. Don't see the Sonny Jurgensen comparison, Sonny played for worse teams.

Virgil Carter was unsuccessful using this approach. I say the pioneer credit goes to the first to succeed, and Anderson showed it could be highly effective, proving a major influence on the NFL passing game from then on. Without Anderson's success, this would have died on the vine like the Wildcat has. For me, that's significant.

L.C. Greenwood wrote:A terrific career, but had few strong postseason games. Was just average in his last two postseason games, the box score was deceiving. In SB16, was horrible in the first half, was part of the reason Cincinnati fell behind big. In the '82 playoff game, threw costly interceptions, helping the Jets upset the Bengals.

If lack of postseason success were a deal breaker for otherwise HoF worthy QBs, I'd agree. But Tittle, Jurgensen, Fouts, Kelly, Moon, Tarkenton, and Marino are in. Why should this be held against Anderson and not anyone else?

The weakness of sabermetric thinking is valuing data above all else, and the results of the election Tuesday was another good example of the limitations of that approach. Stats are just another tool in the toolbox, because watching games must always be a part of the evaluation. The memory of Ken Anderson as a highly efficient, yet not as dangerous as other elite QBs is not only borne out in his two postseason career wins, but in his 103rd ranking in fourth quarter comebacks. While Aaron Rodgers is an outlier on this list, he's a slam dunk Hall of Famer, with much football left in him. Rodgers has been so dominant, the Packers haven't needed to rally as often as others. But whether it's the first quarter, or fourth, when you do something in sports can be every bit as valuable as the total of the numbers.

Super Bowl 16 is a good illustration of Anderson's career. If you didn't see the game, or your memory has faded, or if you're going just by the box score, Ken Anderson appeared to have a strong game. But in reality, he didn't. 73 yards passing, eight completions, and a key pick, helped put Cincinnati in a huge hole in the first half. Anderson woke up in the second half, but even then, couldn't make the timely plays for victory. The first and goal inside San Francisco's five yard line comes to mind, when the Bengals had to have that TD. Anytime we evaluate QB play, we know it's easier to pass and amass numbers when defenses are playing with a double digit lead. In fact, defensive coordinators will gladly take a eight yard completion to help drain the clock.

It's not a double standard when judging Anderson to point out his paltry total of two postseason wins. He was sometimes a dangerous QB, but not on the level of a Marino or Fouts. I give Anderson credit for beating Fouts in the freezing AFC TG, but Fouts led his team to two AFC TG appearances, and was spectacular in the 1981 AFC playoff win over Miami. Anytime you have a borderline HOF player, the postseason must be taken into account. In terms of Warren Moon, he was helped by his success overcoming adversity as a black QB, and his excellence at an older age.

L.C. Greenwood wrote:The weakness of sabermetric thinking is valuing data above all else, and the results of the election Tuesday was another good example of the limitations of that approach. Stats are just another tool in the toolbox, because watching games must always be a part of the evaluation.

I invite you to read what I wrote again. Did I say anywhere above that I thought sabermetrics are the most important thing to consider? I'd appreciate your keeping straw man characterizations out of this.

L.C. Greenwood wrote:The memory of Ken Anderson as a highly efficient, yet not as dangerous as other elite QBs

Thank you for admitting that Anderson was an elite QB. I agree. However, I always thought being elite makes a QB (or any other position player) a HoFer. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that Anderson has second tier level HoFer attainment, there's plenty of precedent for inducting such folks.

And as I've said, I do not value memory above quality film study and stats well used, for two.

L.C. Greenwood wrote:is not only borne out in his two postseason career wins,

Which is two more than HoFers Tittle and Jurgensen combined and only one less than either Fouts or Moon, none of whom I've heard you characterize as undeserving HoFers.

L.C. Greenwood wrote:but in his 103rd ranking in fourth quarter comebacks.

I'm not familiar with this study. Could you provide a link? Would like to see it. Thanks.

L.C. Greenwood wrote:While Aaron Rodgers is an outlier on this list, he's a slam dunk Hall of Famer, with much football left in him. Rodgers has been so dominant, the Packers haven't needed to rally as often as others. But whether it's the first quarter, or fourth, when you do something in sports can be every bit as valuable as the total of the numbers.

I may be misreading, but you seem willing to make allowances for several elite level QBs here and below (Fouts, Moon) regarding various issues but not Anderson for some reason. There are several HoF level QBs with holes in their resumes, but it's only Anderson you go after. I don't get it.

L.C. Greenwood wrote:Super Bowl 16 is a good illustration of Anderson's career

[snip]

Only if Anderson lost every game he ever played. And I don't see why I'm duty-bound to fully accept your interpretation here.

L.C. Greenwood wrote:It's not a double standard when judging Anderson to point out his paltry total of two postseason wins. He was sometimes a dangerous QB, but not on the level of a Marino or Fouts. I give Anderson credit for beating Fouts in the freezing AFC TG, but Fouts led his team to two AFC TG appearances, and was spectacular in the 1981 AFC playoff win over Miami.

I think it is a double standard given that Anderson got to a Super Bowl and Fouts didn't -- and in fact beat Fouts in doing so. Never mind that Marino, like Anderson, also went to only one Super Bowl and lost.

L.C. Greenwood wrote:Anytime you have a borderline HOF player, the postseason must be taken into account.

Now I'm confused. Is Anderson now borderline instead of elite? Please note that I WILL hold you to what appears to be your characterization of Anderson as elite earlier. Regardless, I don't see why your statement immediately above is necessarily true. Do you think we should throw players like Carl Eller, Mick Tingelhoff, Andre Reed, and Jackie Smith out of the HoF? Not me.

L.C. Greenwood wrote:In terms of Warren Moon, he was helped by his success overcoming adversity as a black QB, and his excellence at an older age.

Are you saying that some kinds of innovator credit matter and others don't? I thought we had already established that Anderson has legitimate innovator credit of his own.

It's unfair to compare QBs who played the bulk of their careers before the expanded playoffs with others who didn't, like Tittle and Jurgensen. Marino and Fouts were up and down in the postseason, but both were saddled with porous defenses, and the 1984 Niners were superior to the 1981 Niner team Anderson faced. Fran Tarkenton's Viking teams were also manhandled defensively Pro Football Reference does indeed rank Anderson as the 103rd ranked passer in the fourth quarter comeback table, which does align with how many who saw him perform. Efficiency is good, but completing the 8 yard pass on 3rd and 11, or completing shorter passes late in games, doesn't get it done against superior competition.

I never suggested winning a title is a prerequisite for HOF induction, but when you don't play well in the final game, or struggle in the playoffs historically, it's an issue. Tony Romo is similar to Anderson in the sense his numbers haven't translated to success in these big games. Big Ben is the polar opposite, not great numbers, but usually hits on the key plays to help his team advance. He'll be a HOF lock, partly due to postseason play.

Anderson was also mediocre in the 1982 playoff game, when Cincinnati was the top seed, and were blown away by the Jets. His accuracy deserted him on costly interceptions which changed the course of the game. And as a veteran QB, everyone realized time wasn't on his side. Stabler, Fouts, Marino, were just considered more dangerous than Anderson, who was more of a surgical QB. We're not talking about a big difference in quality, but the HOF has it right so far. To say Anderson's SB16 and 1982 playoff games were a letdown would be accurate, and that's a memory which is remembered.

LC, bottom line it looks like

-we value different things when considering HoF worth.

-we simply don't see certain things the same way.

No question we don't agree here and doubt that further discussion will prove useful. Good place to end, I guess.