Ken Stabler... (1 Viewer)

dagogrease · Nov 2, 2006

I know I am showing my age here but Bradshaw, Staubach, Tarkenton, Griese...all the "great" QBs from the 70's are in the HOF and he was as good as any of them. Does anyone from Oakland have any inside information as to why he is not in the HOF?

:shrug:

Was he not liked by media members, sportswriters or other HOF players? It doesn't even seem as if anyone has or is lobbying for this guy which makes me wonder?

If this has been discussed before, I apologize but his name was brought up today and a debate ensued.

dgreen · Nov 2, 2006

dagogrease said:
Bradshaw, Staubach, Tarkenton, Griese...he was as good as any of them.

My guess is this is where you are going wrong. But, I'd love to hear from more of those who watched him or think he is worthy.

RIM · Nov 2, 2006

http://www.profootballreference.com/players/StabKe00.htm

wow, he had a lot of INT's

dagogrease · Nov 2, 2006

dgreen said:
dagogrease said:

Bradshaw, Staubach, Tarkenton, Griese...he was as good as any of them.

Click to expand...

My guess is this is where you are going wrong. But, I'd love to hear from more of those who watched him or think he is worthy.

Yeah, maybe I am rating him too high but growing up as a Steeler's fan in the 70s...it just seemed he was the catalyst of that offense and could beat you at any point on the field. He was the proverbial gunslinger and took a lot of chances but he helped win a lot of games for Oakland during that stretch. It just seems like when you mention the QBs of the 70's his name is right there with the above mentioned guys.Again, maybe I am just reaching here? :rolleyes:

Bob_Magaw · Nov 2, 2006

dagogrease said:
I know I am showing my age here but Bradshaw, Staubach, Tarkenton, Griese...all the "great" QBs from the 70's are in the HOF and he was as good as any of them. Does anyone from Oakland have any inside information as to why he is not in the HOF? Was he not liked by media members, sportswriters or other HOF players? It doesn't even seem as if anyone has or is lobbying for this guy which makes me wonder? If this has been discussed before, I apologize but his name was brought up today and a debate ensued.

HOVG (hall of very good)to secure a HOF nod, besides having good numbers it helps to do something really special to distinguish yourself... not sure what that would be for the snake...bradshaw won four super bowls... staubach was one of the great comeback artists in history even to this day (stabler again good but not sure if he had as many comebacks as staubach or as revered by the public for that reason in the same way)... tark broke scrambling & QB rushing records & revolutionized & redefined the position for his generation... griese was an integral part, maybe the most integral part of the only perfect season in NFL history...

dagogrease · Nov 2, 2006

Bob_Magaw said:
dagogrease said:

I know I am showing my age here but Bradshaw, Staubach, Tarkenton, Griese...all the "great" QBs from the 70's are in the HOF and he was as good as any of them. Does anyone from Oakland have any inside information as to why he is not in the HOF? Was he not liked by media members, sportswriters or other HOF players? It doesn't even seem as if anyone has or is lobbying for this guy which makes me wonder? If this has been discussed before, I apologize but his name was brought up today and a debate ensued.

Click to expand...

HOVG (hall of very good)to secure a HOF nod, besides having good numbers it helps to do something really special to distinguish yourself... not sure what that would be for the snake...bradshaw won four super bowls... staubach was one of the great comeback artists in history even to this day (stabler again good but not sure if he had as many comebacks as staubach or as revered by the public for that reason in the same way)... tark broke scrambling & QB rushing records & revolutionized & redefined the position for his generation... griese was an integral part, maybe the most integral part of the only perfect season in NFL history...

You had me until Griese...I thought Earl Morral played most of those games at QB in 1972?Stabler did win a Super Bowl, played in at least 3 AFC championship games, and who could forget the "Holy Roller"? (Just kidding on that one!)Most of his "bad" touchdown to interception numbers came after he left the Raiders and played on bad teams. I do see your point about Bradshaw, Staubach and Tarkenton though. To me it just seems like his name is always mentioned with those guys but he just has not seemed to get the recognition.

SOONERS · Nov 2, 2006

Snake deserves to be there IMO. Like stated before, could beat you from anywhere & was the catalyst of that offense. Kept lots of plays alive w/his feet for sure.

Probably doesn't have the stats tha everyone loves to see but the bottom line is he was a leader & winner plain & simple. I would pick him over Griese any day.

QB the Raiders to 16-1 season & was league Mvp. Not too shabby!

Dinsy Ejotuz · Nov 2, 2006

The short answer is that the Hall of Fame for QBs is an award based on mysticism and given to guys who played on great teams. It has virtually nothing to do with the quality of player.

And if you're going to talk about 70s QBs who deserve to be in the Hall, you'd be better off to start with Kenny Anderson. He put up better numbers than most of the guys who made it, and did so with an average team (across his whole career).

dgreen · Nov 2, 2006

It appears that pretty much every HOF QB has either gaudy stats or multiple championships (or both).

Joe Namath is always the exception.

stevegamer · Nov 2, 2006

Too many QB's in already relative to the population of players - and you get lower quality QB's than other spots.

If the people who want Bledsoe & Testaverde in get their way, Stabler will be following shortly.

dagogrease · Nov 2, 2006

wdcrob said:
The short answer is that the Hall of Fame for QBs is an award based on mysticism and given to guys who played on great teams. It has virtually nothing to do with the quality of player.And if you're going to talk about 70s QBs who deserve to be in the Hall, you'd be better off to start with Kenny Anderson. He put up better numbers than most of the guys who made it, and did so with an average team (across his whole career).

To be honest, I thought of Ken Anderson also, but I think you do have to either help your team win consistantly or put up huge numbers. He did have better talent at the end of his career with Isaac Curtis, Pete Johnson and Dan Ross (may he RIP). Archie Manning in my opinion was also a great QB but not a NFL Hall of Famer.

Gargoylez · Nov 2, 2006

I was thinking of that too... JP Losman is the reincarnation of him ya know.

dagogrease · Nov 2, 2006

It is what it is said:
Personally I believe Kenny Stabler belongs in the HOF and is long overdue. Of the QB's listed above, I believe Stabler was better than all of them (Bradshaw, Tarkenton)...except possibly Roger Staubach. Although Staubach was right there with him, I believe Stabler was the best two minute drill QB of his time. While in Oakland, Stabler had a positive touchdown to interception ratio. Was arguably the most accurate throwing QB of the group. A 4 time Pro Bowler. Snake has won a Super Bowl, when his Raiders destroyed Tarkenton's Vikings 32-14. Stabler's Raiders beat the two legendary teams of the 70's in the playoffs...the undefeated Miami Dolphin team with Griese, in interrupting Miami's two consecutive Super Bowl wins, stopping them from a third Super Bowl...and also Bradshaw's Steelers, in interrupting Pittsburgh's two consecutive Super Bowl wins, stopping them from a third Super Bowl. The immaculate reception is likely all that's holding Stabler's Raider team from having won 2 Super Bowls during that era. The Raiders under Stabler had the best record among all the QB's listed here. Stabler's '74 and '76 years were nothing short of spectacular. Either year for Stabler was a better single season than any of the quarterbacks listed, except arguably Staubach's '79 season. If Bradshaw can get in the HOF with his outstanding supporting cast...there's no reason why Stabler should not be in the HOF with his outsanding supporting cast. Stabler's biggest detriment imo was his brutal honesty on his own and the Raider's teams partying ways back in the day. Other than this, the argument can and has just been made that Stabler was the best QB of his era.

Exactly what I was thinking just didn't have the stats to back it up!!!!

Lefty27 · Nov 2, 2006

How can the HOF vote in a guy who wore a smilie face sticker

on his helmet?!

Snake

:sarcasm:

Snake deserves consideration, especially with Griese and Namath being inducted.

chitlins3 · Nov 2, 2006

It is what it is said:
Kenny Stabler also appears to win the postseason stats among the HOF QB's listed...

Ken Stabler

Year Opp Result | CMP ATT PYD PTD INT | RSH YD TD

---------------------+--------------------------+-----------------

1975 cin W,31-28 | 17 23 199 3 1 | 2 -4 0

1975 pit L,10-16 | 18 42 246 1 2 | 0 0 0

1976 nwe W,24-21 | 19 32 233 1 0 | 1 1 1

1976 pit W,24-7 | 10 16 88 2 0 | 0 0 0

*1976 min W,32-14 | 12 19 180 1 0 | 0 0 0

1977 bal W,37-31 | 21 40 345 3 2 | 0 0 0

1977 den L,17-20 | 17 35 215 2 1 | 0 0 0

1980 oak L,7-27 | 15 26 243 0 2 | 0 0 0

---------------------+--------------------------+-----------------

TOTAL | 129 233 1749 13 8 | 3 -3 1

Roger Staubach

Year Opp Result | CMP ATT PYD PTD INT | RSH YD TD

---------------------+--------------------------+-----------------

1975 min W,17-14 | 17 29 256 1 0 | 7 24 0

1975 ram W,37-7 | 16 26 220 4 1 | 7 54 0

*1975 pit L,17-21 | 15 24 204 2 3 | 5 22 0

1976 ram L,12-14 | 15 37 150 0 3 | 2 8 0

1977 chi W,37-7 | 8 13 134 1 1 | 4 25 0

1977 min W,23-6 | 12 23 165 1 1 | 4 4 0

*1977 den W,27-10 | 17 25 183 1 0 | 3 6 0

1978 atl W,27-20 | 7 17 105 0 0 | 1 3 0

1978 ram W,28-0 | 13 25 126 2 2 | 3 7 0

*1978 pit L,31-35 | 17 30 228 3 1 | 4 37 0

1979 ram L,19-21 | 13 28 150 1 1 | 1 3 0

---------------------+--------------------------+-----------------

TOTAL | 150 277 1921 16 13 | 41 193 0

Fran Tarkenton

Year Opp Result | CMP ATT PYD PTD INT | RSH YD TD

---------------------+--------------------------+-----------------

1975 dal L,14-17 | 12 26 135 0 1 | 3 32 0

1976 was W,35-20 | 12 21 170 3 2 | 1 3 0

1976 ram W,24-13 | 12 27 143 0 1 | 1 -2 0

*1976 oak L,14-32 | 17 35 205 1 2 | 0 0 0

1978 ram L,10-34 | 18 37 219 1 2 | 1 -2 0

---------------------+--------------------------+-----------------

TOTAL | 71 146 872 5 8 | 6 31 0

Bob Griese

Year Opp Result | CMP ATT PYD PTD INT | RSH YD TD

---------------------+--------------------------+-----------------

1978 hou L,9-17 | 11 28 114 1 2 | 0 0 0

1979 pit L,14-34 | 14 26 118 1 1 | 1 1 0

---------------------+--------------------------+-----------------

TOTAL | 25 54 232 2 3 | 1 1 0

Terry Bradshaw

Year Opp Result | CMP ATT PYD PTD INT | RSH YD TD

---------------------+--------------------------+-----------------

1975 bal W,28-10 | 8 13 103 0 2 | 3 22 1

1975 oak W,16-10 | 15 25 215 1 3 | 2 22 0

*1975 dal W,21-17 | 9 19 209 2 0 | 4 16 0

1976 bal W,40-14 | 14 18 264 3 0 | 0 0 0

1976 oak L,7-24 | 14 35 176 0 1 | 1 4 0

1977 den L,21-34 | 19 37 177 1 3 | 4 21 1

1978 den W,33-10 | 16 29 272 2 1 | 2 4 0

1978 hou W,34-5 | 11 19 200 2 2 | 7 29 0

*1978 dal W,35-31 | 17 30 318 4 1 | 2 -5 0

1979 mia W,34-14 | 21 31 230 2 0 | 0 0 0

1979 hou W,27-13 | 18 30 219 2 1 | 1 25 0

*1979 ram W,31-19 | 14 21 309 2 3 | 3 9 0

1982 sdg L,28-31 | 28 39 325 2 2 | 2 12 1

---------------------+--------------------------+-----------------

TOTAL | 204 346 3017 23 19 | 31 159 3

Although of course, Bradshaw has the bigger overall numbers due to the amount of postseason games he played in...

Those stats only go back to 1975, and thus are missing a lot of playoff games for each guy, especially Griese.

TitusIII · Nov 2, 2006

You throw more ints than td's, you don't belong...

dagogrease · Nov 2, 2006

TitusIII said:
You throw more ints than td's, you don't belong...

Not sure I completely agree with that...Joe Namath? Y.A. Title? Sammy Baugh? Norm VanBrocklin? (I'm sure there is more...)I believe they all have more INTs than TDs and I believe they are deserving? :unsure:

WhoDat · Nov 2, 2006

The Raiders had the highest winning precentage from the late 60's through the early 80's. Not sure on the exact numbers or the percentage but I am replaying a clip from NFL Flims from the memory banks right now and I recall seeing this.

It is what it is, can you dig this up? You have a good handle on NFL history in general but seem to really have a grasp on football from the mid 60's through early 80's.

Stabler won games. Period. Lone undefeated season aside Griese could not caddy for Stabler. Specific to the QB position and winning games, there is a gap between the two. Stabler...QB. Griese...game manager.

Stabler's only problems were the Dolphins and Steelers of the early to mid 70's.

Speaking of stats, people need to realize that rules were very much against the forward pass for a long, long time. They did not change until the late 70's. Defensive backs could pretty much do whatever they wished with a WR. Much has changed...A LOT...since.

WhoDat · Nov 2, 2006

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/raiindex.htm

If I counted right, Stabler went 74-27-1. He won damn near 73% of the games he played during the regular season with Oakland.

Stabler appeared in the 73, 74, 75, 76 and 77 AFC Championship. The team went 1-4.

The franchise went 229-91-11 between 63-85 at a healthy 69% clip.

By the way I really do not like the Raiders but...

The Raiders from that period of time were very, very, very good and are usually a little underrated in terms of historical context and accomplishment.

GregR_2 · Nov 2, 2006

dagogrease said:
...You had me until Griese...I thought Earl Morral played most of those games at QB in 1972?Stabler did win a Super Bowl, played in at least 3 AFC championship games, and who could forget the "Holy Roller"? (Just kidding on that one!)Most of his "bad" touchdown to interception numbers came after he left the Raiders and played on bad teams. I do see your point about Bradshaw, Staubach and Tarkenton though. To me it just seems like his name is always mentioned with those guys but he just has not seemed to get the recognition.

Bob GrieseYear TM | G | Comp Att PCT YD Y/A TD INT | Att Yards TD 1972 mia | 6 | 53 97 54.6 638 6.6 4 4 | 3 11 1 |Earl MorrallYear TM | G | Comp Att PCT YD Y/A TD INT | Att Yards TD 1972 mia | 14 | 83 150 55.3 1360 9.1 11 7 | 17 67 1 |

T Man · Nov 2, 2006

I think the problem is that in Stabler's case he did not put up great numbers. He also never looked pretty and was never a poster boy for the league.

What he did was win, anyway he could. He was a leader. I think he should get in and will get in eventually, but it will be a long time before it happens.

Edit to add: I am not a Raiders fan nor a Stabler fan. The opposite actually, but the guy played his heart out.

Silver & Black · Nov 2, 2006

Just more proof the overall conspiracy by the league against the Raiders.

He was absolutely one of the greatest QB's who left everything on the field. Back in the day, he was like Elway and opponents would never want to leave time on the clock at the end of a game, because he would march down the field and rip your heart out.

:bs:

MarshallRob · Nov 2, 2006

Some reasons Stabler is not in the Hall:

1) He had a hard-partying reputation and some people thought it affected his on-the-field performance. The guy was great in 1974 and 1976 but was horrible in other seasons. He was a very inconsistent player.

2) Unlike the other 70's QB's listed, Stabler couldn't run, plus he was a horrible ball handler, 66 fumbles in only 118 carries. Combine that with all his INT's and the guy was a turnover machine.

3) The year they got rid of him the Raiders won the Super Bowl with a journeyman QB that nobody wanted: Jim Plunkett. They won again with Plunkett 3 years later. :

Tau837 · Nov 2, 2006

MarshallRob said:
Some reasons Stabler is not in the Hall:1) He had a hard-partying reputation and some people thought it affected his on-the-field performance. The guy was great in 1974 and 1976 but was horrible in other seasons. He was a very inconsistent player.2) Unlike the other 70's QB's listed, Stabler couldn't run, plus he was a horrible ball handler, 66 fumbles in only 118 carries. Combine that with all his INT's and the guy was a turnover machine.3) The year they got rid of him the Raiders won the Super Bowl with a journeyman QB that nobody wanted: Jim Plunkett. They won again with Plunkett 3 years later.

Tau837 · Nov 2, 2006

It is what it is said:
Stabler versus Griese

Stabler defeats Griese in completion percentage, passing yards, YPA and touchdowns. Griese has the interception edge. Stabler has the better single season than Griese. Stabler won one Super Bowl, while Griese won two Super Bowls. Stabler has four Pro Bowls, while Griese has eight Pro Bowls (don't ask me why ). Stabler has one league MVP award, while Griese has none.

- Griese was NFL Player of the Year in 1977.- An extra Super Bowl win for a QB is a big edge.

- Griese was All Pro twice; Stabler only once.

It is what it is said:
Stabler versus Bradshaw

Stabler defeats Bradshaw in completion percentage and YPA. Bradshaw has the edge in touchdowns and interceptions. Passing yards between the two is virtually even. Stabler has the better single season than Bradshaw. Stabler won one Super Bowl, while Bradshaw won four Super Bowls. Stabler has four Pro Bowls, while Bradshaw has three Pro Bowls. Stabler and Bradshaw each have one league MVP award.

- QBs always get more credit than deserved for winning... like it or not, QBing 4 Super Bowl champion teams is a huge edge for Bradshaw.- Bradshaw was the Super Bowl MVP twice; Stabler was never Super Bowl MVP.

- Bradshaw accounted for 244 TDs in 168 games, compared to Stabler's 198 TDs in 184 games. Big gap.

It is what it is said:
Stabler versus Staubach

Stabler defeats Staubach in completion percentage, passing yards and touchdowns. Staubach has the edge in YPA and interceptions. Stabler and Staubach both had outstanding single seasons, call it a draw. Stabler won one Super Bowl, while Staubach won two Super Bowls. Stabler has four Pro Bowls, while Staubach has six Pro Bowls. Stabler has one league MVP award, while Staubach has none.

- Staubach was the MVP in 1971.- An extra Super Bowl win for a QB is a big edge.

- 6 Pro Bowls in 11 seasons for Staubach, 4 in 15 seasons for Stabler

- Some have praised Stabler in this thread for the two minute drill, but Staubach had 23 4th quarter comebacks in 131 games, including 17 in the final two minutes

- Staubach lost 5 years in his 20s to Vietnam... and would have been even more accomplished with those seasons

---

I don't see a justifiable case that Stabler is comparable to these three.

MarshallRob · Nov 2, 2006

Griese won the Maxwell Trophy a.ka. the Bert Bell Award for the NFL player of the year in 1977. It's still awarded today but doesn't get the press of the AP award. Back in 1977 it was a big deal though. The AP MVP didn't used to be the only game in town. The Newspaper Enterprise Association gave out MVP awards from 1955-1989. Griese won that in 1971 so he has two MVP's. By the way, Stabler got the Maxwell Trophy in 1976 so he also has two MVP's.

Stabler was a fun player to watch when I was a kid but he wasn't as good as Griese and I don't think he was Hall of Fame caliber.

Billy1x · Nov 3, 2006

dgreen said:
It appears that pretty much every HOF QB has either gaudy stats or multiple championships (or both).Joe Namath is always the exception.

Archie Manning

sheetstainer · Nov 3, 2006

the snake would have had at least 2 more rings if it weren't for the steelers. can he help it he played against one of the best dynasty teams of all time? he deserves to be in if smokin joe is in.

1970's Oakland Raiders Secondary · Nov 3, 2006

That's easy ...

He's a Raider.

There is an obvious media bias against the Raiders.

Stabler, Branch, Guy, etc ...

should all be in the hall.

How the hell can Ray Guy not be in there? He's easily the best at his position EVER.

dgreen · Nov 3, 2006

Billy1x said:
dgreen said:

It appears that pretty much every HOF QB has either gaudy stats or multiple championships (or both).Joe Namath is always the exception.

Click to expand...

Archie Manning

Archie's not in the HOF.

redman · Nov 3, 2006

RIM said:
http://www.profootballreference.com/players/StabKe00.htm

wow, he had a lot of INT's

It was a different era of football. Deeper passes were attempted more often, which led to lower expectations about completion % and TD/INT ratio; yards per attempt tended to be higher too. The Raiders played that way more than anyone - run hard and throw deep. Frankly, you can still see some of that 30+-year old offense being called out there today . . . which is part of the problem.

Tau837 · Nov 3, 2006

1970 said:
That's easy ...

He's a Raider.

There is an obvious media bias against the Raiders.

Stabler, Branch, Guy, etc ...

should all be in the hall.

How the hell can Ray Guy not be in there? He's easily the best at his position EVER.

I see this posted occasionally, and I disagree.Primary HOFers, per NFL team:

Chicago Bears - 26

Green Bay Packers - 21

New York Giants - 18

Pittsburgh Steelers - 17

Washington Redskins - 15

Cleveland Browns - 15

Oakland Raiders - 13

St. Louis Rams - 13

Detroit Lions - 12

San Francisco 49ers - 11

...

Primary HOFers whose careers did not end before 1960, the year the Oakland Raiders started play in the AFL:

Pittsburgh Steelers - 15

Green Bay Packers - 13

Oakland Raiders - 13

Chicago Bears - 11

San Francisco 49ers - 11

Cleveland Browns - 9

New York Giants - 9

St. Louis Rams - 9

Washington Redskins - 9

...

I don't see any bias. And if you're using Stabler and Branch as evidence, that's where you're going wrong... neither deserves to be in.

As for Ray Guy, people claim that he should be in frequently, but I've never seen anything that conclusively shows he is the best punter in NFL history. I'm not saying he isn't, but what exactly is his case?

redman · Nov 3, 2006

Every franchise has at least one guy whose omission from the Hall of Fame is baffling; the franchises that have won a good amount usually have more.

Most Redskins fans talk about Monk, Grimm and Jacoby. I to this day am completely at a loss as to how the best two members of the offensive line that revolutionized football and that won 3 Super Bowls and played in one more are not in the Hall of Fame.

I'll also give you another name for you to consider from a prior era: Chris Hanburger. He was a LB who played for 14 years for the Redskins and who went to the Pro Bowl 9 times. In an interesting aside, he was probably the person primarily responsible for the NFL outlawing clothesline tackles, a move that he excelled at.

Every team's got their own version of Chris Hanburger though.

WhoDat · Nov 3, 2006

MarshallRob said:
Some reasons Stabler is not in the Hall:

1) He had a hard-partying reputation and some people thought it affected his on-the-field performance. The guy was great in 1974 and 1976 but was horrible in other seasons. He was a very inconsistent player.

2) Unlike the other 70's QB's listed, Stabler couldn't run, plus he was a horrible ball handler, 66 fumbles in only 118 carries. Combine that with all his INT's and the guy was a turnover machine.

3) The year they got rid of him the Raiders won the Super Bowl with a journeyman QB that nobody wanted: Jim Plunkett. They won again with Plunkett 3 years later. :

My understanding is that he also had an alleged gambling problem that would mike M. Jordan blush, as well as not being shy about lighthing up the town after hours. The NFL does a great job of keeping their problems in-house, quiet and contained but any such transgressions will keep a borderline HOF candidate out of Canton.

Ed Wood · Nov 3, 2006

It is what it is said:
Although Staubach was right there with him, I believe Stabler was the best two minute drill QB of his time.

Couldn't wait to chime in here since Stabler was my favorite player growing up. Nice writeup, IIWII. :goodposting:

I'll address a couple things in a your post and a few others...On the two-minute drill thing, I agree completely. I grew up with Stabler's Raiders and his last-second miracles were amazing. He never got the credit he should have for those. If he'd be playing today and doing the same things, with the amount of television and internet coverage there is now, he'd be an absolute god.I remember the 1976 opener at home against the defending champion Steelers, and the Raiders were down 28-14 with about 7 minutes left. Boom, boom, boom. Raiders won 31-28. The Steelers never knew what hit 'em. There were countless games like that. The '74 Sea of Hands game against ANOTHER defending champion is the best game I've EVER seen. :yes:

Ed Wood · Nov 3, 2006

It is what it is said:
The immaculate reception is likely all that's holding Stabler's Raider team from having won 2 Super Bowls during that era.

I'm not sure they win the following week when they would have played the undefeated Dolphins with a virtually untested (although unflappable) Stabler. (At least this is what I kept telling myself after the immaculate DECEPTION game in order to keep my sanity). :hot:

I DO know this: had the officials not TOTALLY blown the Rob Lytle fumble TD in the 1977 AFC championship game, the Raiders would have been looking at their second straight Super Bowl victory with Stabler at the helm and we might not even be having this conversation.

igbomb · Nov 3, 2006

More picks than TDs should be an automatic disqualifier. Doesn't matter what era you played in, that's not a HOF QB.

Ed Wood · Nov 3, 2006

It is what it is said:
2) Stabler's fumbles were not soley a product of his carries...far from it. That's a very misleading statistic. Stabler was always willing to stay in the pocket til the last second and take the biggest hits. Stabler was a fearless QB, matching the intensity of the feared Raider team he played on. This is where many of his fumbles occurred...on huge hits.

Boy, I agree with this. Growing up rooting for Snake, I'd cringe at how many times he'd hold the ball until the last split second for a receiver to get open and take a wallop. Sometimes the receiver wouldn't get open and he'd get smacked with the ball and there would be a fumble. People bring up the interceptions, but when he was in his glory years with the Raiders, they were at a minimum, I'm sure well below the league average. In fact, I'd remember watching as a kid and saying all the time, "I'm not at all worried where he's throwing it because I know it's going to be to the right spot." Probably similar to the feeling Pats fans have now with Brady. I haven't had that feeling with a Raider QB since...except with Gannon to some degree.

dagogrease · Nov 3, 2006

igbomb said:
More picks than TDs should be an automatic disqualifier. Doesn't matter what era you played in, that's not a HOF QB.

So then you do not believe that Sammy Baugh, Y.A. Title, Norm VanBrocklin, Joe Namath, etc are hall of famers???? :eek:

dagogrease · Nov 3, 2006

Ed Wood said:
It is what it is said:

2) Stabler's fumbles were not soley a product of his carries...far from it. That's a very misleading statistic. Stabler was always willing to stay in the pocket til the last second and take the biggest hits. Stabler was a fearless QB, matching the intensity of the feared Raider team he played on. This is where many of his fumbles occurred...on huge hits.

Click to expand...

Boy, I agree with this. Growing up rooting for Snake, I'd cringe at how many times he'd hold the ball until the last split second for a receiver to get open and take a wallop. Sometimes the receiver wouldn't get open and he'd get smacked with the ball and there would be a fumble. People bring up the interceptions, but when he was in his glory years with the Raiders, they were at a minimum, I'm sure well below the league average. In fact, I'd remember watching as a kid and saying all the time, "I'm not at all worried where he's throwing it because I know it's going to be to the right spot." Probably similar to the feeling Pats fans have now with Brady. I haven't had that feeling with a Raider QB since...except with Gannon to some degree.

Growing up as a Steeler's fan I always felt if/when we could get past the Raiders we were going to win it all. That for all intensive purposes meant keeping the ball out of Stabler's hands at the end of the game.Anyone from Oakland know if there is any support for Stabler out there to get in the HOF? I know Pitssburgh media lobbyed hard for Swann and Stallworth and that seemed to work...or has Stabler pretty much severed ties with the organization. As much as I hated the Raiders and Stabler growing up, those battles were classics and the deserving players should be recognized.

chuckmorris · Nov 3, 2006

sheetstainer said:
the snake would have had at least 2 more rings if it weren't for the steelers. can he help it he played against one of the best dynasty teams of all time? he deserves to be in if smokin joe is in.

If this were a valid argument (which it isn't) then by that logic Staubach would have had 4 rings, and Stabler still wouldn't stack up well against him. Of course, that would reduce Bradshaw to only 2 rings, giving Stabler and his theoretical 3 rings the edge there. In that case, we wouldn't be thinking of Bradshaw's Steelers as one of the best dynasty teams of all time anyway, and we'd be arguing that if it weren't for the Cowboys, Bradshaw would have had at least 2 more rings. After all, could he help it that he played against Staubach's Cowboys?Chicken ... meet Egg, Egg ... Chicken :shock:

chuckmorris · Nov 3, 2006

One thing to keep in mind is that they named it the "Hall of Fame", and not the "Hall of Skill" for a reason. The intention was to honor those who had the most impact on the game when they were playing, -or- whose skills earned them widespread acclaim. Namath would have earned his way into the HOF regardless of his career stats solely on the basis that his guarantee of victory against the Colts in SB III marked the point in time when the AFL gained acceptance as being on a par with the NFL prior to the merger. Prior to that time, the AFL was widely considered an inferior product, and the changed perception of the AFL following SB III made the merger itself a no-brainer. Staubach's knack for guiding his team to desperate come from behind victories in an era when Cowboys games were widely seen across the country ensured his induction on the basis of the fame that gave him, again regardless of his overall career stats. Bradshaw too earned induction simply due to having led the Steelers to 4 SB wins in a short span, making a strong case for them being the first "dynasty" in the SB era. Staubach and Bradshaw also had the advantage (from a fame perspective) of facing off in 2 SB's that were at the time widely considered to have been the most exciting and competitive SB's played

Don't get me wrong here. Stabler was a feared opponent during his starting days with the Raiders, with a reputation for bringing his team back just when they seemed to be out of it. He wasn't necessarily the best at it in that era though, and his comebacks weren't the most spectacular. Thus his fame simply wasn't quite up to the same level as the others mentioned in this thread. He may well be inducted some day, but his induction simply isn't the no-brainer that Staubach's and Bradshaw's was,

dagogrease · Nov 3, 2006

chuckmorris said:
One thing to keep in mind is that they named it the "Hall of Fame", and not the "Hall of Skill" for a reason. The intention was to honor those who had the most impact on the game when they were playing, -or- whose skills earned them widespread acclaim. Namath would have earned his way into the HOF regardless of his career stats solely on the basis that his guarantee of victory against the Colts in SB III marked the point in time when the AFL gained acceptance as being on a par with the NFL prior to the merger. Prior to that time, the AFL was widely considered an inferior product, and the changed perception of the AFL following SB III made the merger itself a no-brainer. Staubach's knack for guiding his team to desperate come from behind victories in an era when Cowboys games were widely seen across the country ensured his induction on the basis of the fame that gave him, again regardless of his overall career stats. Bradshaw too earned induction simply due to having led the Steelers to 4 SB wins in a short span, making a strong case for them being the first "dynasty" in the SB era. Staubach and Bradshaw also had the advantage (from a fame perspective) of facing off in 2 SB's that were at the time widely considered to have been the most exciting and competitive SB's playedDon't get me wrong here. Stabler was a feared opponent during his starting days with the Raiders, with a reputation for bringing his team back just when they seemed to be out of it. He wasn't necessarily the best at it in that era though, and his comebacks weren't the most spectacular. Thus his fame simply wasn't quite up to the same level as the others mentioned in this thread. He may well be inducted some day, but his induction simply isn't the no-brainer that Staubach's and Bradshaw's was,

I agree that Staubach and Bradshaw accomplishments definitely make them more of a no-brainer than Stabler and I agree that the Hall of Fame has certainly been watered down but I cannot understand what Bob Griese (it has been established that he only played 6 games in '72), Len Dawson, Jim Kelly, Steve Young, etc did as a QB to impact the game to a level higher than Ken Stabler? The Oakland Raiders of the 70's themselves were a huge impact to Pro Football during that time and Ken Stabler was one of the most popular and most important players on that team.Just to be clear, I did not intend to compare the above mentioned QBs I just believe that Stabler accomplishments as the QB of the 70's Oakland Raiders warrant HOF recognition. Just my :2cents:

dgreen · Nov 3, 2006

It is what it is said:
As Dallas NEVER beat Oakland in those days.

As best I can tell, they only played once in the 70s. Oakland won 27-23 in 1974 in Oakland. Not exactly anything that should be used to support any argument.

Ditkaless Wonders · Nov 3, 2006

I remember Stabler well. He was a favorite of mine for his swagger. He had a game that was no better than many contemporaries, but he had an extra commanding presence that convinced you he could get the job done on a big stage, in a big game, when things seemed desperate. Was he statistically better than Darrel LaMonica, John Brodie, Jim Hart, Pasterini, or Manning the Senior, excellent Q.B.'s all, no, not really. Still he had that extra charisma that often seperates the good from the truly memorable.

Boy seeing the above list of great Q.B.'s makes me want to add one last favorite, Kenny Anderson. He was the prototype for todays high percentage west coast passers. Great in a quietly efficient way. Had he been surrounded with better talent he would be in the HOF as would have been true for any of the guys listed above.

Ed Wood · Nov 3, 2006

dagogrease said:
Growing up as a Steeler's fan I always felt if/when we could get past the Raiders we were going to win it all. That for all intensive purposes meant keeping the ball out of Stabler's hands at the end of the game.Anyone from Oakland know if there is any support for Stabler out there to get in the HOF? I know Pitssburgh media lobbyed hard for Swann and Stallworth and that seemed to work...or has Stabler pretty much severed ties with the organization. As much as I hated the Raiders and Stabler growing up, those battles were classics and the deserving players should be recognized.

Great analysis, DG. Boy, I hated the Steelers growing up, probably because I feared them. Some great, great teams. I felt the same way--if the Raiders could just manage to get past the Steelers, they were in good shape.I wouldn't think the acrimony that existed between Stabler and Davis soured him amongst the Oakland media then and ever since but they haven't gone out of their way to promote him either.He didn't leave under the best of circumstances and I don't think things ever got better. I remember Stabler saying he wanted to bury the hatchet--right between Davis' should blades. :eek:

dagogrease · Nov 3, 2006

Ed Wood said:
dagogrease said:

Growing up as a Steeler's fan I always felt if/when we could get past the Raiders we were going to win it all. That for all intensive purposes meant keeping the ball out of Stabler's hands at the end of the game.Anyone from Oakland know if there is any support for Stabler out there to get in the HOF? I know Pitssburgh media lobbyed hard for Swann and Stallworth and that seemed to work...or has Stabler pretty much severed ties with the organization. As much as I hated the Raiders and Stabler growing up, those battles were classics and the deserving players should be recognized.

Click to expand...

Great analysis, DG. Boy, I hated the Steelers growing up, probably because I feared them. Some great, great teams. I felt the same way--if the Raiders could just manage to get past the Steelers, they were in good shape.I wouldn't think the acrimony that existed between Stabler and Davis soured him amongst the Oakland media then and ever since but they haven't gone out of their way to promote him either.He didn't leave under the best of circumstances and I don't think things ever got better. I remember Stabler saying he wanted to bury the hatchet--right between Davis' should blades.

THANKS! I think that alone right there answered my initial question!!!!

dagogrease · Nov 3, 2006

It is what it is said:
I have to give 's to...The OP dagogrease for bringing this subject to the forefront...and his dissecting the myth that Griese played the majority of the games in the undefeated '72 season. Also for being a true Steeler fan who was willing to give his biggest and most despised rival the props they deserve.To SOONERS for inititially bringing up Stabler's MVP season and 16-1 Super Bowl year.To chitlins3 for pointing out my mistake on the playoff records, as Doug Drinen's great site pro-football-reference.com playoff stats are inclusive from 1975 forward.To WhoDat for bringing up the Raider dominance, Stabler's winning percentage, the Stabler-Griese caddy comparison (loved that one ), the lack of the 5 yard chuck rule until '78, when the rule was changed, and Stabler's off field transgressions that may be keeping him out.To GregR for validating dagogrease's Morral-Griese undefeated season argument.To Silver & Black for telling it like it is on Stabler's ability to comeback and "rip teams hearts out" (great line) and the league conspiracy to keep well deserving Raiders out of the HOF...as did 1970's Oakland Raiders Secondary (great name) with the deserving players he listed.To Redman for his breakdown as to the differences between the passing game back then, as compared to now. And of course for throwing in a plug for his own boys deserving in To MarshallRob and JWB for the points they brough up as to why Stabler is not in...and the multiple awards given.To sheetstainer for pointing out the rings Oakland would have had without Pittsburgh in the picture.And of course to Ed Wood for his recollections of his favorite player from back in the day, in pointing out Stabler's historical comebacks, the legendary Sea of Hands game, and the blown call on Lytle's fumble that robbed Oakland of another Super Bowl. Good stuff This has been a great topic for me personally, and an excellent discussion from where I sit...and I suspect the Pro-Stabler people here saw him play far more than the Anti-Stabler people here.

Add you to the list What it is! :goodposting:

redman · Nov 3, 2006

GordonGekko said:
I remember when a guy from ESPN ambushed Sammy Sosa with a camera crew and asked him if he would take a steroids test right then and there.

You mean the reporter who had the gall to take Sosa up on his claim that he would take a steroid test anywhere at any time? :rolleyes:

Ed Wood · Nov 3, 2006

redman said:
Every franchise has at least one guy whose omission from the Hall of Fame is baffling; the franchises that have won a good amount usually have more. Most Redskins fans talk about Monk, Grimm and Jacoby.

Good post on the dissed Redskins, Monk especially. Maybe it's hard to make a call on some linemen since there aren't any stats, but Monk? C'mon. The guy's numbers speak for themselves. And if it's true, Stabler's off field exploits are keeping him out of the NFL, what does that say for Monk, who, by all accounts, was a true gentlemen when he played.

Ken Stabler... (1 Viewer)

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread