@the-gipper said:

yeah...I was going from memory.....Id add em both to the very good list

@mudfly said:

I think you probably forgot Staubach. He clearly was one of the premiere QBs of the 70s.

and what about Griese?

then there is a loooooong line of very good(but not best ever) types like Anderson, Bradshaw, Namath, Jones, Morton, Theisman, Kramer, Stabler, Hart, Kreig, etc.....who are all about the same to me....

@mudfly said:

I was actually talking about the 70s basically....who you got there?

Marino

Young

Elway

Favre

Moon

Kelly

In that order....(and, to me, Moon and Kelly are a good ways behind the other 4)....and I would say it's EASILY the best era for QB's....by miles and miles......so a few of these hold rank when you add the other eras.....

Zombo said:

Who do you think were the Top 6 QBs of his era?

@the-gipper said:

Team accomplishments again.

There is a reason Al Davis and John Madden are in the Hall, but Stabler isn't.

Upshaw, Shell, Biletnikoff, Capser are in from his offense.

Willie Brown and Ted Hendricks are in from his defense.

Hell, his punter is in the Hall.

But he isn't. Because he wasn't considered the very best at his position during his era. He turned the ball over too much and then had a really poor second half of his career.

Great player. Terrific legend. Just not Hall of Fame at his position.

And no Steve Young. Steve Young is considered one of the greatest passers who ever lived.

Zombo

Zombo said:

I wouldn't be so harsh on Young......he only appeared in one less conference title game than Stabler.

@the-gipper said:

They're not even close to equal.

Zombo

Consider these future RB HOF candidtates.....I see exactly one sure thing. And the rest are borderline or below.

Certain RB: LaDanian Tomlinson

Probably to be looked at and rejected RBs: Edgerinn James, Steven Jackson, Corey Dillon, Warrick Dunn, Ricky Watters, Eddie George, Roger Craig, Shaun Alexander. Duke Johnson. Any others?

I see Roger Craig as the only possible....and he has been long rejected at this point.

But then consider the QB position and those who are considered sure things or borderline:

Certain QBs: Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Drew Brees, Brett Favre, Ben Roethlisberger, Aaron Rodgers, Kurt Warner

Seven certain QBs vs. one certain RB

As for borderline QBs, consider: Testaverde, Bledsoe, Eli Manning Donovan McNabb, Phillip Rivers, Joe Flacco. Any others?

I would conjecture that the chances for borderline QBs to make it are better than those borderline RBs.

Also....the WR position has some pretty sure fire HOFers.....many more than the RBs.

@tour2ma said:

OK.....my primary point was to show how Quarterbacks get a statistical edge in terms of production over the other positions on the field.....as noted.....they are 4.5% of a starting football team....yet constitute 18.8% of the "most productive" top 250 players, by virtue of that measure. Perhaps it is the critical nature of the position.

And, maybe we should look at these statistics into the analysis:

Of those Top 250 in Career Production Average 47 are Quarterbacks......but only 13 are considered Running Backs.

However, when it comes to Hall of Famers, There are 31 Quarterbacks in the HOF.....but there are 45 Running Backs!

Apparently throughout history the RB position may in fact have been equally or more highly valued than the QB position

....but perhaps not so more lately. As I noted, most of those Top 250 are more recent player...60s forward.

A lot more RBs are from the "Pre-Modern era" (generally pre WWII)

Also....FYI, there are exactly the same number of "Ends/WRs" in the HOF as there are QBs: 31 each. (this even though generally there are 2-3 WRs starting for a team as opposed to one QB.

So, even this seems to point to the historical preferential treatment of RBs.

Zombo said:

My point was never to say that Young should not be HOF.....just that I think Stabler....who I think had pretty equal accomplishment....should also be included.

I think we are both ready for training camp ... send in the Steeler fans.

Z

As a magistrate, I recognize what a mountain of evidence is. You sir do not have a mountain of evidence.

You might win your argument by a 51%-49% margin

The other thing is that you are overestimating what you think is a landslide...is merely a dribble....maybe.

Because you refuse to admit that not only was he the best QB of the nineties, but you have him laughingly "6th".

Yes, I refuse to rate him better than Kelly, Marino, Elway, Favre, Aikman

You are just going to have to deal with that assessment.

Problems with computer on this post.

If you just go by that then you must think that Young was better than Otto Graham, Bart Starr, Sid Luckman, Sammy Baugh, Bart Starr....every single "old time QB"

And you must think that some average QBs are better as well: Vinny etc.

And I have noted that while I look at it a lot, CA is not the end all be all of stats. It measures longevity.....and we know that Stabler career was shortened some by injury.

CA is not the end all of stats.

But as I have shown over and over Young beats Stabler in all of the passing stats as well.

And he performed better compared to his contemporaries as well (6 passing titles >1 passing title, 3 All Pros > 1 All Pro).

Everytime you get a fact thrown your way your response is "well if you only go by that stat than so-and-so is better than so-and-so".

Context, Gipper.

Look at all of it in Context.

The same guy that is much higher in CA is much higher in all of the generally accepted passing stats, any kind of efficiency rating possible, was chosen ahead of his peers more times, finished statistically ahead of his peers more times, and is rated ahead of Stabler as a QB by every single person, living or dead, who has ever rated quarterbacks ... except you.

I'm just saying that's a lot of evidence.

... And Weighted CA does not measure career longevity it is actually used for the purpose of balancing peak production against raw career totals

... And Stabler played just as long, actually a little longer, than Young anyway

... so weighted CA, non-weighted CA, raw numbers, percentages, against contemporaries ... any possible way you can compare the two ... Young was better statistically.

Now, of course, you will come back with "wins + Super Bowls" ... in which they were equally successful in leading their TEAMS.

The problem is not that you have some kind of outlandish opinion on Stabler. It is the fact that you refuse to give Young his due despite the mountainous evidence compiled against you.

Because you refuse to admit that not only was he the best QB of the nineties, but you have him laughingly "6th".

He was mobile, athletic, strong-armed, intelligent, a prolific winner ... I mean what trait in a QB are you looking for that he didn't have? Bad knees? Whiskey breath?

You wanna believe Young wasn't as good as the rest of the world thinks he was, you're entitled to that. But quit trying to prove it by comparing his stats to Kenny Stabler. Jeezus Fuck.

Zombo

Zombo said:

@the-gipper said:

I'm definitely taking Young over Aikman, Staubach and Kelly.

And he certainly earned his way into the conversation with other eight.

Top ten all-time and best of the 90's era, no doubt in my book.

Apparently a lot of people feel the same.

Again, you are misreading me....apparently. I said that Stabler threw more Ints.....and had a higher int. percent....and that that is the major difference statistically between them.

You are correct in that I misread you. I thought you were saying that the reason Stabler threw more interceptions was because he "threw more", meaning more passing attempts. So I stand corrected.

But what you are saying is that the fact that he threw more interceptions is the only major difference statiscally, which is equally wrong.

Young smokes him in comp %, Td% and yards/att as well. Even that stat you seem to like, "yards per completion", Young is higher

Also, despite starting three less games than Stabler, Young threw for over 5,000 more yards, 38 more tds, with 115 less interceptions, a rating 21.5 points higher and rushed for another 4,146 yards and 39 TDs more than Kenny.

Your best path to make a HOF claim for Kenny Stabler is not to compare him statistically to Steve Young. In fact that is about the worst thing you can do. Your best path is compare him to the QBs of his era. If you think he compares favorably to Bradshaw, Tark, Staubach, Griese and Fouts then by all means he belongs in. But I feel he is on a slightly lower level than those guys. But he's certainly a legendary player.

Who knows....maybe if Stabler hadn't thrown so many Ints. he would have won2-3 more SBs.

Good point.

They each got to practically the exact same place in their careers.....but with different methods and styles....as you point out.

Young record: 94-49

Stabler record: 96-49-1

Young postseason record: 8-6

Stabler postseason record: 7-5

Young lost in Conf. Champ: 3 times

Stabler lost in Conf. Champ: 4 times

Young won Super Bowl: 1 time

Stabler won Super Bowl: 1 time

Where it really counts....which is the above.....they are the same

They each led teams that were equally successful.

One was an overall better quarterback compared to his peers.

Which is why Young has 6 passing titles, 3 first-team All Pro selections, 7 Pro Bowls, a Super bowl MVP and a bust in the Hall of Fame while Stabler doesn't.

Look at your list at the top of the page. Young is 8th and Stabler is 40th.

Weighted career AV from PFR (all positions): Young 15th since 1950, Stabler 94th.

Young > Stabler.

Zombo

Zombo said:

As for the Steve Young thing, I simply look at it like this: If I could have any QB play for my team in his prime, Young would not be in the Top Ten on my list.

In his own era he would only be about #6.

In your own mind. Not in the minds of rational thinkers, educated observers, football writers, Hall of fame voters, everyone on this board (tell me when to stop)....

That is my point.

And my point is that statistically, he and Ken Stabler were very much similar except in the interception statistic

No they weren't.

.....Stabler threw a lot more...

No he didn't.

.Young a lot less....and that got Young an upper hand in the QB rating stat.....where int. % is an important factor.

Because he threw less his interception percentage was lower?

Stabler threw 3,793 passes to Young's 4,149.

Their years as starters:

Stabler 1973-1983 3,594 attempts in 150 games = 23.96 attempts per game

Young 1991-1998 3,324 attempts in 114 games = 29.16 attempts per game

In what way did Stabler "throw more" and how does that effect his interception pct. versus Young's?

Actually, they are from different eras, so you should be comparing Stabler's int% to his peers, and Young's to his peers. (Hint: it doesn't help your argument much)

The two had very similar careers except for that.

No they didn't. They were both left-handed and both won a Super Championship.

Other than that:

Stabler was a swashbuckling pocket passer with bad knees who threw verticle down the field, took a lot of chances, lots of guts and glory.

Young was a precision artist, a great athlete who could beat you with his legs or his accuracy, a versatile, accurate machine.

They were both great QBs and legendary. Stabler's last half of his career was pretty poor, and that's probably why he's not in the Hall, Young is considered one of the greatest QBs of all time and was a first ballot HOFer.

Zombo

@wargograw said:

OK, that is obviously an English slang which we don't use here.....Please translate for those of us who are obtuse about the matter!

@mudfly said:

As for the Steve Young thing, I simply look at it like this: If I could have any QB play for my team in his prime, Young would not be in the Top Ten on my list.

In his own era he would only be about #6.

That is my point.

And my point is that statistically, he and Ken Stabler were very much similar except in the interception statistic.....Stabler threw a lot more....Young a lot less....and that got Young an upper hand in the QB rating stat.....where int. % is an important factor.

The two had very similar careers except for that. I don't want to repeat the data here, but if anyone cannot see that they are, in the words of Andy Dufresne to Warden Norton: obtuse.

@the-gipper said:

ahhhh.....kind of like you did in the Steve Young discussion???

I see he's top ten on this list too....numptys?