What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Hall of Fame inductions tonight (1 Viewer)

Raider Nation

Devil's Advocate
By Jim Trotter of SI.com, who was in the room for the discussions. I found this pretty interesting.

INDIANAPOLIS -- When the Hall of Fame voting is announced each year, there is typically a loud and immediate uproar about the finalists who did not earn a spot in Canton. This year is no exception.

Before addressing that point, however, let me congratulate the Class of 2012: Steelers center Dermontti Dawson, Vikings defensive end Chris Doleman, Seahawks defensive tackle Cortez Kennedy, Jets running back Curtis Martin, Chiefs offensive tackle Willie Roaf, and senior selection Jack Butler, a cornerback with the Steelers in the 1950s.

Each is more than deserving and should relish his moment in the spotlight. Predictably, however, the gripes about who did not make the cut are threatening to drown out the applause of those who did make it.

The gist of the talk: How could Bill Parcells, a three-time Super Bowl participant and two-time winner, not make it? How could wideouts Cris Carter, Andre Reed and Tim Brown not get in with their Madden-like statistics? How could Eddie DeBartolo Jr., the only single owner of five Super Bowl wins, be left out? And what about linebacker Charles Haley, the only player to win five Super Bowls and a two-time NFC Defensive Player of the Year who ended his career with 100.5 sacks.

The simple answer: Easily.

There are more deserving candidates than there are available spots, which max out at five a year for modern-era nominees. I sincerely believe we voters could have presented the candidates who did NOT make the cut from 10 to five as the Class of 2012 -- Carter, Reed, Haley, Parcells, and cornerback Aenas Williams (seniors candidate **** Stanfel also was not voted in) -- and it would've been worthy of its spot in Canton.

Another explanation for why some guys get in and others don't -- at least when non-voters believe they should get in -- is that 44 voters rarely are going to be in total agreement. There's a better chance of Republicans and Democrats agreeing on tax reform.

If you didn't like the way this year's vote went, get used to it. Things aren't going to change in future years. Consider the first-year candidates who are going to be up for consideration the next three years:

2013 -- guard Larry Allen, defensive end Michael Strahan, left tackle Jonathan Ogden, defensive tackle Warren Sapp, quarterback Steve McNair, safety John Lynch, defensive tackle Bryant Young, kicker Morten Andersen.

2014 -- linebacker Derrick Brooks, wideout Marvin Harrison, coaches Tony Dungy and Mike Holmgren, running back Shaun Alexander, and safety Rodney Harrison.

2015 -- left tackles Walter Jones and Orlando Pace, linebacker Junior Seau, quarterback Kurt Warner, cornerback Ty Law, , and running back Edgerrin James.

In other words, it ain't going to get any easier to get in.

Some thoughts on the voting: It sure had the feel of a good old-fashion housecleaning. That may sound terrible, but in no way is it meant to demean the players who were selected. Each of them is most deserving. But voters were aware of what's coming down the pike, and if certain positions weren't addressed this year it would create major logjams going forward.

For instance, If Dawson and Roaf didn't get in, that would have set up a battle with Ogden and Allen next year -- with left tackles Pace and Jones coming two years behind them. If Doleman didn't get in, he would have had to compete with pass-rushers Strahan and Charles Haley in 2013. If Kennedy didn't make the cut, he would have to go head-to-head with defensive tackle Sapp next year.

To understand just what that type of backlog means, consider the wide receiver class this year. Carter, Reed and Brown were all deserving of admittance, but they likely canceled each other out because voters had different opinions on who was better. As stated earlier, there's no way of knowing the votes went because they are done by private ballot and the final count is not announced.

The situation with Parcells and DeBartolo wasn't much different. There was virtually no chance that two non-players were going to be voted in, as evidenced that Parcells and DeBartolo were debated longer than any other candidates. Parcells took up to 57 minutes, DeBartolo 42. The only other candidate discussed longer than 19 minutes was Reed -- and that was only because he was the last of the receivers presented, so voters were able to compare and contrast the players at that position.

As a rule, some voters believe a coach or contributor should never take a spot from a player. That meant the odds were against Parcells and DeBartolo before the discussions even began. There also was an East vs. West, Bad Boy vs. Death Row, Biggie Smalls vs. Tupac component to it.

Parcells, who won two Super Bowls with the New York Giants and lost one with the New England Patriots, was popular with eastern voters. DeBartolo, whose 49ers teams won five championships and had 16 consecutive seasons of at least 10 wins, was a favorite of voters from the West.

When Parcells survived the first cut -- and DeBartolo did not -- he seemed to have a better shot at making the final five. Why he didn't is anyone's guess. Could it have been he won two Super Bowls with Bill Belichick assisting him, but none without Belichick; and Belichick has won three Super Bowls without Parcells? Could he have been knocked down in the eyes of some voters because was negotiating for a job in Tampa while coaching the Patriots in the Super Bowl? Could it have been that some voters simply didn't like him?

The Hall precludes voters from disclosing conversations that took place during the selection process. It also strongly asks that committee members not reveal how they voted. I support the former, but disagree with the latter. As reporters, I feel we should be transparent. So let me try to walk this fine line without betraying any bylaws: I voted for four of the six inductees; the two I voted for who did NOT make it were Carter and Haley.

I'm sure many of you don't like those selections. But I'm equally certain that you'll be just as dissatisfied next year.
 
BTW, looking forward to fat, useless Chris Berman yet again making this event all about himself, cracking stupid jokes, sweating profusely all over the podium and completely mutilating what should be a day of celebration for the best-of-the-best NFL players.

 
'Ramblin Wreck said:
Should be renamed Hall of Very Good now that Curtis Martin is getting in.
These debates have been going on for decades. I still can't get past Namath, Griese and Swann. I don't even think Namath should get into your mythical Hall of Very Good. But I digress.A great (and long) article on the topic was written at the Canon Review. I'll paste it here:

So, without further adieu, here are the most mortal of the immortals, the worst Pro Football Hall of Famers by position, as well as players on the outside looking in who perhaps should be in instead.

Quarterback: Joe Namath, 1965-1977, Inducted 1985

Namath is best known for leading his New York Jets to victory in Super Bowl III after guaranteeing a win against the heavily favored Baltimore Colts. While that is one of the greatest moments in NFL history, it shouldn't be enough to get into the Hall. Looking at Namath's numbers, one wonders just how a quarterback with his numbers could get in. Namath threw more interceptions than touchdowns (220-173) and only threw more touchdown than interceptions in two of his thirteen seasons. His completion percentage (50.1) and quarterback rating (65.5) are downright pedestrian. Namath defenders will say that it was a different game, and those statistics were low for all quarterbacks. Well, maybe so, but over the course of Namath's career (65-77), Namath ranks 33rd in completion percentage and 28th in quarterback rating amongst quarterbacks with over 1000 attempts. Namath ranks behind such legends as Randy Johnson, Bill Munson, and Bob Berry. Bottom line, Namath got in thanks more to the perception that he was a great quarterback rather than reality.

If Namath is in, then why not:

Kenny Stabler? Stabler and Namath are similar in many aspects. Both men led their teams to a Super Bowl win (Stabler in Super Bowl XI). Both men won MVP awards (Namath in 1968, Stabler in 1974). Both men threw more interceptions than touchdowns (222 INTs, 194 TDs for Stabler). Both men quarterbacked at the University of Alabama under Bear Bryant and both men had reputations for scoring both on and off the field. However, Stabler had the better numbers, as he completed 59.8 percent of his passes and finished his career with a quarterback rating of 75.3. While Namath finished his career with a losing record in games he started, Stabler put together a record of 96-49-1 as a starter. Yes Stabler had better teams around him, but Stabler deserves some credit, as he lead his teams on 26 game winning drives late in the game (Namath had 16, btw). Yet after all these years, Stabler is still on the outside looking in.

Running Back: Paul Hornung, 1957-62, 1964-66, Inducted 1986

Hornung is remember as being a key member of the Vince Lombardi era Green Bay Packers of the 1960s, and acquired the nickname 'The Golden Boy' due to his accomplishments at Notre Dame and with the Packers. However, while Hornung was considered a threat to score whenever he handled the ball and not only played running back, but also served as the placekicker for a few years, he seemed to be a jack of all trades but a master of none. In his nine years with the team, Hornung only received 100 or more touches in only four seasons. He never gained more than 1000 yards from scrimmage in a season, and was named to only two Pro Bowl teams in his career. Yes Hornung has 62 career touchdowns and led the NFL in scoring three straight seasons (1959-61). But I have a hard time putting somebody in the Hall of Fame when he was only the second best running back on his team (Jim Taylor got most of the carries for the Packers, btw).

If Hornung is in, then why not:

Timmy Brown? Brown played for three different teams, primarily for the Philadelphia Eagles, from 1959-1968. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever made an argument that Timmy Brown should be in the Hall of Fame. But Brown, drafted in the 27th round in 1959 by the Packers, was actually quite a similar player to Hornung. A three time Pro Bowler, Brown finished his career with more touchdowns than Hornung (64 to 62), more rushing yards (3,862 to 3,711 in nearly the same amount of carries), more receptions (235 to 130) and more yards from scrimmage (7,261 to 5,191). While Hornung helped his club on special teams by kicking field goals, Brown was a special teams maven in his own right, returning five kickoffs and a punt for a touchdown. In 1963, Brown set a record (since broken) by gaining 2,425 all-purpose yards. Yet since Brown toiled away for a mediocre Philadelphia Eagles team, he is hardly remembered today, while Hornung is due to his time with the Packers. I guess that's the way the cookie crumbles.

Wide Receiver: Lynn Swann, 1974-82, Inducted 2001

There may not be a more controversial selection to the Pro Football Hall of Fame than that of Lynn Swann. Swann's induction seems primarily based on his reputation of making spectacular catches, such as the catches he made in Super Bowl X in winning the Super Bowl MVP. Swann's detractors say that his stats weren't that of an elite receiver (336 career catches, no seasons with 1,000 or more receiving yards) and that Swann was nothing more than a beneficiary of playing for such a great team in the Pittsburgh Steelers. Swann's defenders would have you believe that his stats are so low only because the Steelers were a running team first, and only used Swann when a big play was needed. Personally, I feel Swann was a good player but he wasn't even the best wide receiver on his team (John Stallworth, also a Hall of Famer), so, like Hornung, I have a hard time accepting that Swann is a Hall of Famer.

If Swann is in, then why not:

Cliff Branch? During Swann's career, Branch had more catches (413 to 336), more yards (7,257 to 5,462) and more touchdown receptions (59 to 51). Branch was a four-time Pro Bowler and three times was a first team All-Pro, compared to Swann's three Pro Bowls and one All-Pro selection. Branch had 2 seasons of over 1,000 yards receiving, Swann had none. Branch led the NFL in receiving yards in 1974, and in touchdowns in 1974 and 1976. Swann led the NFL in touchdowns only once, in 1975. Swann was a member of four Super Bowl winning teams, but Branch was a member of three such teams himself. Of the two, I'd say Branch had the better career, but since Swann had a big performance on a big stage and was more outgoing than Branch, he's the one in the Hall of Fame.

Offensive Lineman: Bob St. Clair, 1953-1963, Inducted 1990

I'll be honest, this was the hardest position to find a 'worst' for. St. Clair was a very good player for a number of years with the San Francisco 49ers, making five Pro Bowls and allegedly blocking 10 kicks during the 1956 season. The 6'9" St. Clair was a towering presence over his opponents and blocked for fellow Hall of Famers Y.A. Tittle, Joe Perry, Hugh McElhenny and John Henry Johnson. But somebody's got to be here, and St. Clair's lack of a single consensus All-Pro selection puts him on the list.

If St. Clair is in, then why not:

Jerry Kramer? In 1969, the NFL named Kramer one of the two guards on it's all 50th Anniversary Team. Of the players named on that team, Kramer is the only one not to be inducted into the Hall of Fame. Not only was Kramer a key player on the Green Bay Packers' dynasty of the 1960s, the five time All-Pro also served as a placekicker for a couple of seasons for the team, and he threw perhaps the most famous block in the history of the NFL that allowed Bart Starr to score the winning touchdown in the Ice Bowl. The only reason that I can think of as to why the Hall has yet to induct Kramer is that 10 of his Packers teammates are already in, and one more may be too much. To that I say hogwash. After all, Lynn Swann was inducted even though he had 10 or so teammates in the Hall already, and not to belabor the point, but Kramer was a much better player at his position than Swann was.

Defensive Lineman: Dan Hampton, 1979-1990, Inducted 2002

Hampton was a big part of the Super Bowl Champion 1985 Chicago Bears and was named to four Pro Bowl teams during his 12 year career. But for a supposedly dominant defensive lineman, Hampton seems to fall a little short of his reputation. Yes, he was named to four Pro Bowls and 1 consensus All-Pro team, but men such as Bob Baumhower, Fred Smealers, and Joe Klecko, and those guys aren't going to be in the Hall anytime soon. Was Hampton a great player, yes, but there are better lineman than him that are not in the Hall of Fame.

If Hampton is in, then why not:

Richard Dent? It was Dent and not Dan Hampton that was the most destructive force on the legendary Bears defense of the 1980s. Dent is sixth all time in sacks with 137.5, and like Hampton, Dent played in four Pro Bowl and was named an NFL All-Pro once. For years, Dent has been a Hall of Fame finalist, but every year Dent is passed over in favor of lesser candidates such as Fred Dean, Derrick Thomas and Andre Tippett. Eventually, you have to figure that the MVP of Super Bowl XX will join Hampton in the Hall, but until that day comes, we are left to wonder just why Dent has been passed over again and again.

Linebacker: Andre Tippett, 1982-1988, 1990-93, Inducted 2008

During a four year stretch for 1984-1987, Tippett was the best outside linebacker in the NFL not named Lawrence Taylor. In those four seasons, Tippett recorded 57 sacks and was named to the other Pro Bowl after each of those seasons. In his other seven seasons, Tippett was a decent linebacker, but hardly a gamechanger. Yes, Tippett had a spectacular four year run, but so did DE Mark Gastineau and OLB Pat Swilling, and neither one of those players have been mentioned for Hall of Fame consideration.

If Tippett is in, then why not:

Kevin Greene? Greene, like Tippett, was a tremendous pass rusher from the Outside Linebacker position. Greene, like Tippett, played in five Pro Bowls and was named to two All-Pro teams. Unlike Tippett, Greene was more consistent, putting up 10 seasons with 10 or more sacks. Greene's 160 sacks is the third most in NFL history, and yet he has not even been on the final ballot in his five years of eligibility. Tippett did not get in until his ninth year of eligibility, so maybe there's hope for Greene just yet.

Defensive Back: **** Lebeau, 1959-1972, Inducted 2010

Lebeau is the most recent induction on the list, and his 62 interceptions give him a strong case for his induction. However, there are a couple of factors to consider. One, Lebeau played nearly his entire career opposite **** "Night Train" Lane and Lem Barney, two Hall of Fame cornerbacks in their own right. Therefore, Lebeau had a chance to pick more passes off because quarterbacks would rather throw at him than his teammate. Two, Lebeau only made three Pro Bowl, and never was selected a consensus All-Pro. Third, Lebeau gained momentum for his induction largely due to his role as the defensive coordinator of the Pittsburgh Steelers and as the innovator of the zone blitz, which is all well and good but should not be considered into inducting Lebeau the player. I'm happy that Lebeau was inducted after such a long wait, but one must wonder if he would have been inducted if not for his second career.

If Lebeau is in, then why not:

Johnny Robinson? Robinson, a 12-year pro for the Kansas City Chiefs from 1960-1971, was a Hall of Fame finalist six times during the 1980s, but is no longer on the ballot and now must be considered by the Veteran's Committee. He should be. Robinson played in seven Pro Bowls, and was named to the first team AFL and NFL teams six times during his career. Robinson finished his career with 57 interceptions, twice had 10 interceptions in a season, and was named to the NFL's All Decade team of the 1960s. Robinson is probably the greatest defensive back in the history of the AFL, and deserves a spot in the Hall of Fame.

Head Coach: Bud Grant, 1967-1983, 1985, Inducted 1994

Grant coached the Minnesota Vikings for his entire NFL head coaching career, leading them to 12 playoff appearances, 11 division titles, and four Super Bowl appearances during his tenure in Minnesota. However, Grant failed to win a Super Bowl and even one of his team's appearances, and often the games were over by the end of the first half. Yes, the Vikings had a remarkable run, but it seems that a team as talented as they were would at least win one Super Bowl.

If Grant is in, then why not:

Dan Reeves. Like Grant, Reeves took a team to the Super Bowl four times, including three trips in four years. Like Grant, Reeves never coached a team to a Super Bowl victory and often the games were over by halftime. Unlike Grant, Reeves didn't coach teams exactly bursting with talent. Yes, his Broncos teams of the 1980s had John Elway at quarterback, but the rest of the team was primarily league-average talent at best, with a few solid players such as Karl Mecklenberg and Dennis Smith thrown in there. Reeves also led the 1998 Falcons to a 14-2 record and a NFC Title, and I doubt that any non-Falcon fan today could name more than five starters from that team. Yes, Grant has the better record, (158-96-5 to 190-165-2), but Reeves has the better playoff record (11-9 to 10-12) and was able to do more with less than most coaches to ever coach in the game.
 
*Note regarding the article above: Richard Dent did in fact get in the year after that piece was published on the site.

 
Interesting article, RN.

So who is the single weakest player in the HOF? For me, it comes down to Namath and Swann. I think I have to go with Namath.

 
Will be very interesting to see how the entire Saints team (or at least most of them) and Sean Payton acts when Goddell comes out tonight

 
That would have to be the shortest induction speech ever by Jack Butler. :towelwave:
Thank God. This isn't exactly the most charismatic HoF class ever. Martin's speech should be interesting though. He has written nothing down. It's all coming from the heart.
 
"And then when I was playing Pee Wee football, we won a game 6-0. I had 18 sacks. We went to McDonald's afterward."
 
Interesting article, RN.So who is the single weakest player in the HOF? For me, it comes down to Namath and Swann. I think I have to go with Namath.
What about Wayne Millner and Paul Hornung?Namath was the first 4,000 yard passer, made the All-AFL team, was the top rated passer in '72 and was a huge league icon. Would he be on the lower tier of HOFers? Yes? Does he deserve his enshrinement? That is also a yes.Swann's case is not as strong as Namath's, but hey he won four Super Bowls and football is an individual sport,oh wait.
 
These debates have been going on for decades. I still can't get past Namath
Have you seen the HBO documentary?Didn't exactly help his cause.It seemed like most of his games went like this: 1. Play crappy for the first two and a half quarters, get his team deep in the hole.2. Score dramatically on three or four consecutive series--usually with a long bomb--to bring his team back.3. In the final minutes of the game, with the chance to lead his team to victory, make an atrocious throw/decision (usually a combination of both) for an INT.Game over.
 
It seemed like most of his games went like this:

1. Play crappy for the first two and a half quarters, get his team deep in the hole.

2. Score dramatically on three or four consecutive series--usually with a long bomb--to bring his team back.

3. In the final minutes of the game, with the chance to lead his team to victory, make an atrocious throw/decision (usually a combination of both) for an INT.

Game over.
They should have the highlites of this game playing on a loop next to his bust in Canton.
 
What a speech by Curtis. Find myself still thinking about it today. At first, I, too, was thinking why is he sharing some of this,esp his dislike of football! (Though he was always honest about the fact that it was just a job for him). It may have been light on football stories, but it showed the impact of the game on him just the same.

 
Interesting article, RN.So who is the single weakest player in the HOF? For me, it comes down to Namath and Swann. I think I have to go with Namath.
The weakest modern player is clearly Paul Hornung.As for Namath, he's not even the worst QB in the HOF.
Who is?
It's up for debate. Players like Bob Waterfield and George Blanda were more than just quarterbacks, but were certainly worse as passers. Griese, Aikman and Bradshaw were less impressive regular season quarterbacks. Bobby Layne played on some great Lions teams but in his prime he was still behind Graham and Van Brocklin and was never the elite quarterback of his era. Kelly and Moon both played in other leagues but I don't think either reached the sustained level of excellence that Namath did.From a pure QB standpoint, I think it's Waterfield/Blanda, but I think after them, Namath certainly was as good as guys like Starr, Kelly, Aikman, Griese, Layne, Bradshaw and Dawson.Looking at Namath's career numbers and saying he was overrated makes about as much sense as looking at Gale Sayers' career numbers and calling him overrated. Namath's career ended terribly (although that's how Young, Aikman and Bradshaw started their careers) and he played a riskier style in a much different era, so his raw numbers don't hold up. But he had one of the best sack rates in history (which explains the low completion percentage) and had one of the highest yards per completion ratios in football (which counters to some degree both the INT #s and the completion percentage). Obviously his quarterback rating won't look good, but neither does Johnny Unitas' QBR.From '65 to '74 -- the first decade of Namath's career --he was the second best QB in football after Tarkenton. That doesn't make him an upper tier HOFer, but he's certainly not in the bottom rung, either.
 
'Chase Stuart said:
Interesting article, RN.So who is the single weakest player in the HOF? For me, it comes down to Namath and Swann. I think I have to go with Namath.
The weakest modern player is clearly Paul Hornung.As for Namath, he's not even the worst QB in the HOF.
Who is?
It's up for debate. Players like Bob Waterfield and George Blanda were more than just quarterbacks, but were certainly worse as passers. Griese, Aikman and Bradshaw were less impressive regular season quarterbacks. Bobby Layne played on some great Lions teams but in his prime he was still behind Graham and Van Brocklin and was never the elite quarterback of his era. Kelly and Moon both played in other leagues but I don't think either reached the sustained level of excellence that Namath did.From a pure QB standpoint, I think it's Waterfield/Blanda, but I think after them, Namath certainly was as good as guys like Starr, Kelly, Aikman, Griese, Layne, Bradshaw and Dawson.Looking at Namath's career numbers and saying he was overrated makes about as much sense as looking at Gale Sayers' career numbers and calling him overrated. Namath's career ended terribly (although that's how Young, Aikman and Bradshaw started their careers) and he played a riskier style in a much different era, so his raw numbers don't hold up. But he had one of the best sack rates in history (which explains the low completion percentage) and had one of the highest yards per completion ratios in football (which counters to some degree both the INT #s and the completion percentage). Obviously his quarterback rating won't look good, but neither does Johnny Unitas' QBR.From '65 to '74 -- the first decade of Namath's career --he was the second best QB in football after Tarkenton. That doesn't make him an upper tier HOFer, but he's certainly not in the bottom rung, either.
I have to admit, I posted that about Namath without giving it any real thought, just having read the article in the thread. I am happy to concede you know a lot more about this subject than I do.That said, I will also point out that being the second best QB in football for several years doesn't necessarily justify the HOF. It is theoretically possible that all the QBs in the league during that period were bad QBs. :shrug:
 
'Chase Stuart said:
Interesting article, RN.

So who is the single weakest player in the HOF? For me, it comes down to Namath and Swann. I think I have to go with Namath.
The weakest modern player is clearly Paul Hornung.As for Namath, he's not even the worst QB in the HOF.
Who is?
It's up for debate. Players like Bob Waterfield and George Blanda were more than just quarterbacks, but were certainly worse as passers. Griese, Aikman and Bradshaw were less impressive regular season quarterbacks. Bobby Layne played on some great Lions teams but in his prime he was still behind Graham and Van Brocklin and was never the elite quarterback of his era. Kelly and Moon both played in other leagues but I don't think either reached the sustained level of excellence that Namath did.From a pure QB standpoint, I think it's Waterfield/Blanda, but I think after them, Namath certainly was as good as guys like Starr, Kelly, Aikman, Griese, Layne, Bradshaw and Dawson.

Looking at Namath's career numbers and saying he was overrated makes about as much sense as looking at Gale Sayers' career numbers and calling him overrated. Namath's career ended terribly (although that's how Young, Aikman and Bradshaw started their careers) and he played a riskier style in a much different era, so his raw numbers don't hold up. But he had one of the best sack rates in history (which explains the low completion percentage) and had one of the highest yards per completion ratios in football (which counters to some degree both the INT #s and the completion percentage). Obviously his quarterback rating won't look good, but neither does Johnny Unitas' QBR.

From '65 to '74 -- the first decade of Namath's career --he was the second best QB in football after Tarkenton. That doesn't make him an upper tier HOFer, but he's certainly not in the bottom rung, either.
I have to admit, I posted that about Namath without giving it any real thought, just having read the article in the thread. I am happy to concede you know a lot more about this subject than I do.That said, I will also point out that being the second best QB in football for several years doesn't necessarily justify the HOF. It is theoretically possible that all the QBs in the league during that period were bad QBs. :shrug:
Some people want the HOF to be limited to just Jerry Rice, Reggie White, Joe Montana and Barry Sanders. I get that, but there's nothing to debate there. It's a matter of preference whether you want the HOF to be limited to the best 0.5% of NFL players, the best 2%, the best 4%, or whatever. In practice, it seems to be limited to the "best" 3% of players, with there obviously being a QB preference.Generally speaking, there are more than a handful of future HOF QBs at any one time. Obviously this will include rookies and end of career guys, but the early '70s happens to be the high-water mark for HOF QBs. In 1971 and 1973, there were 10 HOF QBs playing (Starr's last year was '71, Fouts' first year was '73) and 9 were active in '72: Blanda, Bradshaw, Dawson, Griese, Jurgensen, Namath, Staubach, Tarkenton and Unitas.

I agree that in theory, being in the top 3 of QBs for a decade doesn't make someone an automatic HOFer. There was a lull in the early '80s, with only Fouts, Montana and Bradshaw as HOF QBs for a two-year period, but on average, there are 7 HOF QBs playing each year. That may be too many for some, but again, that's simply a matter of preference. If you want to limit it to the best of the best, guys like Kelly and Griese and depending on your views, Aikman and Bradshaw, shouldn't be in, either.

As for the article that RN cited, it's pretty naive. It would be akin to saying that Earl Campbell shouldn't be in the HOF because he was a bad receiving back. Yes, Namath ranked below average at CMP% and INT rate and QB Rate (which of course is the same thing), but he was first in sack rate and yards per completion and net yards per attempt. Judging a QB by completion rate is ridiculous, but you already know that. QB rating is close to meaningless, too. I wouldn't say that the author was biased against Namath, but if he was, those would be the stats he would use. But judging QBs by completion percentage, INT rate and QB rating is pointless, especially when looking at a quarterback who had an extremely low sack rate and an extremely high yards per completion average. An incompletion is better than a sack but lowers your cmp%, and a deep pass is better than a short one but is more likely to be intercepted :shrug: . In net yards per attempt and adjusted net yards per attempt, Namath comes across as excellent compared to his peers. And that's ignoring SBIII.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's some nice NY spin, but it's not like Namath was some stud whose overall career numbers were hurt by having some really bad seasons late in his career. He threw more INTs than TDs in 11 of his 13 NFL seasons, for God's sake! I guess the question is, was being one of the better quarterbacks during an era of mostly bad quarterbacking good enough to make you a Hall of Famer? In the case of Namath, the answer was obviously yes (although he probably wouldn't have made it without his guarantee, one that he can thank the defense for, since a 16-7 win is usually considered a defensive win, even back then), but most of the time, the answer will be no.

The bigger joke was the NFL Network putting Namath at number 100 on their list of their 100 Greatest Players Ever.

 
'Ghost Rider said:
That's some nice NY spin, but it's not like Namath was some stud whose overall career numbers were hurt by having some really bad seasons late in his career. He threw more INTs than TDs in 11 of his 13 NFL seasons, for God's sake! I guess the question is, was being one of the better quarterbacks during an era of mostly bad quarterbacking good enough to make you a Hall of Famer? In the case of Namath, the answer was obviously yes (although he probably wouldn't have made it without his guarantee, one that he can thank the defense for, since a 16-7 win is usually considered a defensive win, even back then), but most of the time, the answer will be no. The bigger joke was the NFL Network putting Namath at number 100 on their list of their 100 Greatest Players Ever.
INT/TD rate is one measure of QB play, but certainly not the best one. Namath's style of play was aggressive, which leads to more yards and more interceptions. Obviously looking at INTs would be looking at half the equation. From 1965 to 1974, Namath averaged 7.0 NY/A, a full half-yard ahead of every other quarterback during that time. In 1972 he averaged 8.1 NY/A, 1.30 more NY/A than any other quarterback in the league. If you look at completion percentage and INT rate, Namath looks bad. If you look at yards per completion and sack rate, Namath is historically elite. If you look at NY/A and ANY/A, Namath's prime puts him right in line or ahead of about a third of the modern era HOF QBs.(I also would disagree strongly that the quarterback play of that era was bad.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Having a good YPA doesn't mean a lot to me if you are also a turnover machine in the process, which Namath was:

-He led the league in interceptions four times; finished in the top 5 five other times, which means he finished in the top 5 in interceptions 9 out of his 13 NFL seasons.

If you want to isolate a few stats that make Namath look good (like sacks, which can often be the result of having a great offensive line; See Jay Cutler in Denver and then in Chicago for more on this), have at it, but acting like YPA means everything and INTs suddenly aren't important when it comes to QB play comes off to me as you, a Jets fan, trying to make the best possible case for a former Jets QB being better than he really was.

Also, can I say that Carson Palmer was one of the best QBs in the NFL last season? Sure, he threw 13 TDs to 16 INTs, but those don't matter, right? His YPA of 8.39 was 4th best in the NFL, and that apparently makes him great,

 
Having a good YPA doesn't mean a lot to me if you are also a turnover machine in the process, which Namath was: -He led the league in interceptions four times; finished in the top 5 five other times, which means he finished in the top 5 in interceptions 9 out of his 13 NFL seasons. If you want to isolate a few stats that make Namath look good (like sacks, which can often be the result of having a great offensive line; See Jay Cutler in Denver and then in Chicago for more on this), have at it, but acting like YPA means everything and INTs suddenly aren't important when it comes to QB play comes off to me as you, a Jets fan, trying to make the best possible case for a former Jets QB being better than he really was. Also, can I say that Carson Palmer was one of the best QBs in the NFL last season? Sure, he threw 13 TDs to 16 INTs, but those don't matter, right? His YPA of 8.39 was 4th best in the NFL, and that apparently makes him great,
Sacks have more to do with the QB than interceptions do, so I don't see any reason to ignore them.It's not that interceptions aren't important. It's that they're not everything. NY/A is -- as I've been saying for years -- the best pure measure of passing ability. Adjusted Net Yards per Attempt, which includes a 45-yard penalty for INTs and a 20-yard bonus for TDs, is the best measure of value added. From '65 to '74, Namath was first by a large margin in NY/A. He was in the top three in ANY/A: he averaged 5.54 ANY/A, Sonny Jugensen was at 5.55 and Fran Tarkenton was at 5.59.So even including interceptions he still stands out as elite in his era. If you ignore the things he was best at -- he had one of the fastest releases in history (and a great sack rate), an exceptionally strong arm (and a great yards/completion average) -- then yes, he wasn't great. I don't see how that's useful information, though. He played on some bad teams and was asked to carry the team: When Favre played on bad teams he often threw a lot of INTs, too.He certainly wasn't the efficient, Drew Brees type of passer we see today. There isn't anyone currently playing, with the possible exception of Rivers, who matches the Namath/Lamonica style of the '60s. But that doesn't mean that style wasn't great during its time. Palmer's a complicated question. It's worth noting that he had a really easy schedule last year and only had 10 games of play. But put it this way: if he finishes in the top five in Y/A again in 2012 (or more importantly, NY/A), then he's going to be one of the best QBs this year. And if he does that, I'm sure his TD/INT rate will flip as well.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top