@the-gipper said:

His statistical parity with those other QBs, and his two titles, tells me that he probably was just as good as those guys, but the defenses on the teams he played for were lousy and no match for the likes of the Miami Dolphins No Name Defense or certainly not The Steel Curtain.

Probably's and maybe's don't get you into the Hall of Fame. So, back to the original question: No, I don't think he belongs in the Hall of Fame. His .500 career record and statistical resume together aren't enough to get him in the Hall with his two Super bowl rings. Had he won 4 Super Bowls like Bradshaw, or played on a consistent winner like Griese then he would probably get voted in. He didn't. He won't.

You make a great case for him being as good a QB as Bradshaw and Griese had he been on their teams. That didn't happen, he didn't play on those teams. He toiled for bad teams and then got redemption at the end of his career. That doesn't get him in the Hall of Fame. It just doesn't. There's just not enough there for him.

Zombo

Zombo said:

Correct. And Plunkett won two Super Bowls and STILL didn't get in ... because the rest of his resume is nothing but toiling.

Zombo

His statistical parity with those other QBs, and his two titles, tells me that he probably was just as good as those guys, but the defenses on the teams he played for were lousy and no match for the likes of the Miami Dolphins No Name Defense or certainly not The Steel Curtain.

@bodogjoe said:

It just seems in the past 5-10 years or so the idea of letting a rookie sit on the sidelines and slowly lower him into the water is something that is becoming more and more rare. I don't know if its the fans who clammer for instant gratification, or teams looking for instant success. But most rookie QB's thrown directly into the fire do not do very well. Unless you have exceptional talent and are one of the once in a decade type QB's.

It might have something to do with the money they are being paid now.

You can't have that sort of an investment sitting on his ass for 2-3 years. That $$ needs to make a return on its investment.

What used to be the norm...a QB sitting and learning for several years...unless he is a low rounder....like the kid from Arkansas that went to the Pats (name), and the big Osweiler who went to the Broncos.

But a first/second rounder....get them in, get your money's worth.

Formerly Sane said:

Good info but there is a difference between being thrust in to the starting role, mid-season, and succeeding; versus being given the starting role prior to the season starting. The point I am getting at is that there has very, very, seldom been a mindset that a rookie could start at QB in the NFL. Now, due to rule changes, it is becoming the status quo.

I don't know if it is rule changes, or changes in the way colleges operate now....more like the NFL teams. (or is it NFL teams are operating more like college teams?)

But yes, it is certainly a more recent phenomena. Only the first 5 guys on that list above played before like 2000. The rest since. Two just last year.

@the-gipper said:

[color="#8B0000"

If Griese's Dolphins hadn't won two SBs I doubt Griese gets in.

[/color]

Correct. And Plunkett won two Super Bowls and STILL didn't get in ... because the rest of his resume is nothing but toiling.

Zombo

Formerly Sane said:

Gipper:

Since you are a wealth of statistical and historical information, I would really like to see the history of rookie QB's who were named the starter prior to the season opener. Big Ben fell in to the role due to injury and so did Flacco.......and prior to those guys it was virtually unheard of for a rookie QB to play/succeed in the first year.

I don't think you can look up a statistic about "rookie named starter prior to season opener". You can find stats on a players rookie season, but not the other.

But, I do know this much: It was not unheard of for a rookie to play and succeed in his first year. The most obvious example is Dan Marino. And here, Bernie Kosar did lead the Browns to the playoffs his..though he didn't start until a few games into the season. And no doubt there have been others. Hell, Otto Graham won a championship in his rookie season. Of course it was a rookie season for the team and the league. I suspect there have been a few say since the 1966 merger that have led their teams to the playoffs.

I don't know if a google search will give that info is you put in "rookie quarterbacks who have led their team to the playoffs". Like I said, off the top of my head I know both Marino and Kosar did. I believe BR did too.

Edit: I did do a search and found that the following 11 players since the merger were rookies that took their team to the playoffs:

Todd Marinovich

Bernie Kosar

Jim Everett

Shaun King

Dan Marino

Matt Ryan

Ben Roethlisberger

Joe Flacco

Mark Sanchez

Andy Dalton

TJ Yates

and, in a technical sense Kurt Warner was a rookie QB when he led the Rams to the SB title in 1999. Prior to that year he had not played in the NFL, but in Arena Leagues etc.

Sanchez, Flacco, BR, and King won playoff games.

Had to go to the net to get info on him. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/T/ThomTo21.htm

Only once in his final season, 1950, was he the starter the whole way. And he went 6-6 w/ 11 TD vs 22 INT's. His best year was 1948

Playoffs: He played and "won" in 1948 (2-12-07, 0-2) and 1949 (5-9-68, 1-2). Lost to the Chicago Cardinals in 1947 (27-44-297, 1-3).

Doesn't seem HOF worthy to me. Big proviso was that WWII interrupted his career just as he was starting to establish his play in the league.

On the other two...

Hard for me judge Kemp. Numbers were OK for the pass happy AFL, but it was the pass happy AFL.

I'd say yes to Plunkett. I think he showed enough greatness in his later years to qualify. While it is not as unimaginable now, he was the first to lead a Wild Card team to a championship in 1980. At the time a feat considered nearly impossible.

Unfortunately that run included a win by the Lake against our beloved Kardiac Kids.... Red right 88.

Zombo said:

I didn't cherry pick, I showed why Griese is in the Hall of FAME and Plunkett isn't.

Toiling on losing teams for most of your career doesn't get you in the Hall of FAME, winning and throwing touchdowns does.

Griese and Bradshaw were big time winners ... that is what hall voters like.

If you want to argue that Plunkett had the potential to have a better career because he was stuck on shitty teams ... that is one thing ... but he didn't , he toiled too long.

Zombo

EXCEPT, of course....Plunkett DID win 2 titles. Last time I looked winning titles constitutes winning.

If he had not had those two titles, sure, there would be no question.

If Griese's Dolphins hadn't won two SBs I doubt Griese gets in.

Missed you this week.

Zombo said:

I didn't cherry pick, I showed why Griese is in the Hall of FAME and Plunkett isn't.

Toiling on losing teams for most of your career doesn't get you in the Hall of FAME, winning and throwing touchdowns does.

Griese and Bradshaw were big time winners ... that is what hall voters like.

If you want to argue that Plunkett had the potential to have a better career because he was stuck on shitty teams ... that is one thing ... but he didn't , he toiled too long.

Zombo

Good set of logic Zombo your case is well received..............you have been selected to be part of footbal genius inc........now only if you someday understand Offense Wins Championships

@the-gipper said:

The Steelers won 4 SBs. Hell, who knows, if Plunkett had joined the Raiders earlier maybe they would have won some of those matchups vs. the Steelers and would have been the team to win 3-4 that decade instead.

And, you can't just cherry pick certain stats. In 50% of those stats Plunkett was better than Griese, and in another 50% he was better than Bradshaw.

And no, I disagree somewhat with not getting bonus points for being on bad teams. You should get bonus points for being on a bad team, then overcoming it later in your career.

I do think the sacks stats tells a big tale: crappy offensive lines.

I didn't cherry pick, I showed why Griese is in the Hall of FAME and Plunkett isn't.

Toiling on losing teams for most of your career doesn't get you in the Hall of FAME, winning and throwing touchdowns does.

Griese and Bradshaw were big time winners ... that is what hall voters like.

If you want to argue that Plunkett had the potential to have a better career because he was stuck on shitty teams ... that is one thing ... but he didn't , he toiled too long.

Zombo

Zombo said:

Bradshaw won four Super Bowls. End of story, doesn't matter how crappy the beginning of his career was.

Griese was +36 in win/loss record, Plunkett was +0

Griese was +20 in td/int ration, Plunkett was -34

Griese was a 56.2% passer, Plunkett was 52.5

You don't get bonus points for playing for bad teams. Actually it works against you.

Zombo

The Steelers won 4 SBs. Hell, who knows, if Plunkett had joined the Raiders earlier maybe they would have won some of those matchups vs. the Steelers and would have been the team to win 3-4 that decade instead.

And, you can't just cherry pick certain stats. In 50% of those stats Plunkett was better than Griese, and in another 50% he was better than Bradshaw.

And no, I disagree somewhat with not getting bonus points for being on bad teams. You should get bonus points for being on a bad team, then overcoming it later in your career.

I do think the sacks stats tells a big tale: crappy offensive lines.

Griese: 16 4th Qtr. comebacks and 20 Game winning drives

Bradshaw: 19 4th Qtr. comebacks and 27 game winning drives

Plunkett: 19 4th Qtr. comebacks and 23 game winning drives

He compares well there too.

OK, where things don't go so well is that Griese had a 92-56-3 record as a starting QB, Bradshaw a 107-51 record and Plunkett had a 72-72 record.

But, again, Plunketts teams, the Pats and 49ers in those early days sucked swamp water.

Put Bradshaw and Griese on those teams and they do no better.

@the-gipper said:

Lets do some stat checking on Jim Plunkett vs. a couple of his contemporaries who are in the HOF: Bob Griese and Terry Bradshaw:

Games started:

Griese 151

Bradshaw 158

Plunkett 144

Completions/pct.:

Griese 1926 of 3429 56.2%

Bradshaw 2025 of 3901 51.9%

Plunkett 1943 of 3701 52.5%

Yards

Griese 25,092

Bradshaw 27,989

Plunkett 25,882

TDs/pct.:

Griese 192 5.6%

Bradshaw 212 5.4%

Plunket 164 4.4%

INTs/pct:

Griese 172 5.0%

Bradshaw 210 5.4%

Plunkett 198 5.3%

Yards per Attempt:

Griese 7.3

Bradshaw 7.2

Plunkett 7.0

Yards per catch:

Griese 13.0

Bradshaw 13.8

Plunkett 13.3

Yards per game:

Griese 155.9

Bradshaw 166.6

Plunkett 164.9

Quarterback rating:

Griese 77.1

Bradshaw 70.9

Plunkett 67.5

Sacks/yards/pct.

Griese 267 for 2318 yds. 7.2%

Bradshaw 307 for 2694 yds 7.3%

Plunkett 380 for 3279 yds 9.3%

As I see it, there is very marginal statistical differences between these three. And lets face it, those differences can probably attributed to the bad, bad teams that surrounde Plunkett early in his career. He never had the benefit of the quality of players surrounding him that both Bradshaw and Griese had until he went to the Raiders. And he took his team to as many titles as Griese did anyway.

You can't dispute the issue of the quality of the surrounding team.

If there is a big gap between Plunkett and Griese/Bradshaw lets see it. I don't see it that much in the objective stats above. He had a rougher start than those other two sure...but he came on just as well later.

Bradshaw won four Super Bowls. End of story, doesn't matter how crappy the beginning of his career was.

Griese was +36 in win/loss record, Plunkett was +0

Griese was +20 in td/int ration, Plunkett was -34

Griese was a 56.2% passer, Plunkett was 52.5

You don't get bonus points for playing for bad teams. Actually it works against you.

Zombo

Zombo said:

Plunkett's career record was 72-72 with a 67 Rating. Didn't have a good season until he was 33, had his last good season at 36. take out the 2 Super Bowl years and he was 53-67.

Again, look at the surrounding team. Bradshaw took at least 3-4 years to get his act together...and the Steelers really did well to get their act together. Plunkett's teams on the other hand were crap. If Bradshaw had been taken by the Pats, he too may have had the same issues as Plunkett early on. And look at Bradshaw: at the age that Plunkett was winning SBs with his team, Bradshaw's teams were well short of .500 I believe after all that surrounding talent went by the wayside.

Kemp only had one 3,000 yard season, never led the league in any major passing categories, statistics were not good, even for the era. Winner though.

No one had 3000 yard seasons back then, did they? And isn't winning a lot of what counts?

Plunkett didn't have a sustained long-term successful career,

I don't know. He won title in 1980 and again 3 years later in 1983. And the team certainly threatened to win in the interim. His "period of success" was not much shorter than Bradshaws, and possibly longer than Grieses.

Kemp was not as good statistically as his peers.

Zombo

Games started:

Griese 151

Bradshaw 158

Plunkett 144

Completions/pct.:

Griese 1926 of 3429 56.2%

Bradshaw 2025 of 3901 51.9%

Plunkett 1943 of 3701 52.5%

Yards

Griese 25,092

Bradshaw 27,989

Plunkett 25,882

TDs/pct.:

Griese 192 5.6%

Bradshaw 212 5.4%

Plunket 164 4.4%

INTs/pct:

Griese 172 5.0%

Bradshaw 210 5.4%

Plunkett 198 5.3%

Yards per Attempt:

Griese 7.3

Bradshaw 7.2

Plunkett 7.0

Yards per catch:

Griese 13.0

Bradshaw 13.8

Plunkett 13.3

Yards per game:

Griese 155.9

Bradshaw 166.6

Plunkett 164.9

Quarterback rating:

Griese 77.1

Bradshaw 70.9

Plunkett 67.5

Sacks/yards/pct.

Griese 267 for 2318 yds. 7.2%

Bradshaw 307 for 2694 yds 7.3%

Plunkett 380 for 3279 yds 9.3%

As I see it, there is very marginal statistical differences between these three. And lets face it, those differences can probably attributed to the bad, bad teams that surrounde Plunkett early in his career. He never had the benefit of the quality of players surrounding him that both Bradshaw and Griese had until he went to the Raiders. And he took his team to as many titles as Griese did anyway.

You can't dispute the issue of the quality of the surrounding team.

If there is a big gap between Plunkett and Griese/Bradshaw lets see it. I don't see it that much in the objective stats above. He had a rougher start than those other two sure...but he came on just as well later.

@the-gipper said:

Why not just curious?

Plunkett's career record was 72-72 with a 67 Rating. Didn't have a good season until he was 33, had his last good season at 36. take out the 2 Super Bowl years and he was 53-67.

Kemp only had one 3,000 yard season, never led the league in any major passing categories, statistics were not good, even for the era. Winner though.

Plunkett didn't have a sustained long-term successful career, Kemp was not as good statistically as his peers.

Zombo

Glenn Presnell, Lions...30s

Ed Danowski, Giants...30s

Bob Waterfield, Rams...40s

Charlie Conerly, Giants...50s

Joe Theisman, Redskins...80s

Bret Favre, Packers...90s

Kurt Warner, Rams and Cards...90s/00s

Peyton Manning, Colts...00s

The only one of these that is in the HOF is Waterfield. Favre and Warner are likely to be...but aren't eligible yet. Manning of course is still active.

Zombo said:

Don't know much about Thompson, but , No, Kemp and Plunkett do not belong in the Hall. No way, no how.

Zombo

Why not just curious?

@the-gipper said:

Question: any thoughts on whether or not Thompson, Kemp, and Plunkett, should be in the HOF? They are the only QBs in history to win 2 titles but not be in.

Don't know much about Thompson, but , No, Kemp and Plunkett do not belong in the Hall. No way, no how.

Zombo