More Fuel for the Fire
-
Here perhaps is one argument about how Quarterbacks get more than their share of the credit/blame for the performance of a football team:
Note: A QB is just one out of 22 starters on a football team. Or if you will, they constitute 4.5% of a team starting lineup.
However, when using the PFR Career Statistical Average, of the top 250 most "Productive" players...which is what that stat purports to measure.... in NFL history, Quarterbacks account for 47 of these 250 slots.....or 18.8% of them. Obviously a far larger percentage than probably should be expected.
Be that as it may...there are also issues in that the production stat likely favors the deeds or more recent players...particularly QBs. Here are those 47 QBs, in order of their Career Production Average:
1. Peyton Manning
2. Brett Favre
3. Tom Brady
4. Fran Tarkenton
5. Dan Marinio
6. Drew Brees
7. John Elway
8. Steve Young
9. Joe Montana
10. Dan Fouts
11. Ken Anderson
12. Warren Moon
13. Phillip Rivers
14. Johnny Unitas
15. Len Dawson
16. Donovan McNabb
17. Sonny Jurgenson
18. Boomer Esiason
19. Terry Bradshaw
20. Roger Staubach
21. Bob Griese
22. John Hadl
23. Aaron Rodgers
24. Drew Bledsoe
25. Jim Kelly
26. Ben Roethlisberger
27. Steve McNair
28. John Brodie
29. Rich Gannon
30. Jim Hart
31. Roman Gabriel
32. Vinny Testaverde
33. Troy Aikman
33. Dave Kreig
34. Eli Manning
35. Marc Brunell
36. Kurt Warner
37. George Blanda
38. Tony Romo
39. Trent Green
40. Ken Stabler
41. Joe Namath
42. Michael Vick
43. Phil Simms
44. Bart Starr
45. Steve Grogan
46. Carson Palmer
47. Jeff Garcia
To illustrate that more recent QBs achievements get measured, the following HOF QB did not make the Top 250 (or Top 47 amongst QBs): Otto Graham, Norm Van Brocklin, YA Tittle, Bobby Layne, Sammy Baugh, Sid Luckman, Ace Parker, Arnie Herber). No QB whose career did not at least reach into some part of the 1970s is on this top 47 list.
Also, QBs who had long careers get favored here over QBs who may have had brilliant, but short career. Vinny is in here, but Bernie is not. No one would claim that Vinny was a better QB than Bernie.
Then there is the whole Hall of Fame issue. Per this, Ken Anderson, Phil Rivers, Donovan McNabb were some of the most productive QBs in the history of the NFL....but are they HOF worthy?
Italics means active, and likely to move up in ranking.
-
How much does winning count in ultimately judging a QB. Look at the 2 boys traded for each other from the 2004 draft: Phillip Rivers has a far higher CA than Eli Manning.....but Eli as those two rings on his finger. How will each ultimately be judged...particularly if Rivers never gets a ring.
Where would Donovan McNabb be considered if he had pulled in just one title? Or Ken Anderson.
Jurgenson is in....never having even made a Super Bowl.
Joe Namath ranks down with Trent Green and Steve Grogan....but he is an iconic figure that won perhaps the most important Super Bowl in history.....but what if he didn't? Would he be Darryl Lamonica?
-
Anyone that says to me in a QB related conversation "how many rings has he got" immediately gets labelled a numpty.
-
Anyone that says to me in a QB related conversation "how many rings has he got" immediately gets labelled a numpty.
Anyone that says to me in a QB related conversation "how many rings has he got" immediately gets labelled a numpty.
Well, then you are going to have to call the entire ESPN/ABC/CBS/NBC/FoxSports networks....plus the PFHOF voting committees.....plus most of the consumer public "numpty"......because it is in fact a very important consideration to all of those.
It may not be the end all be all of it....but it is given a lot of credence.
Now, sometimes, a QB can have won multiple titles and not be considered one of the greatest: Jim Plunkett is the only QB (besides the actives) that has won 2 SBs that is not in the HOF. Some earlier QBs are in that boat as well: Tommy Thompson of the late 40s Eagles, and Tobin Rote.....the only person in history that led two different teams to titles (almost but not quite matched by Kurt Warner).
And just as clearly some QBs are so good that not having a ring does not matter: see Marino, Fouts
And sometimes losing enough times in the final game gives you sympathy for getting in: See Jim Kelly 4 time SB loser. Fran Tarkenton 3 time SB loser.
But...losing just once despite being very good on the statistic list may not get you in: See Ken Anderson
-
I always lose interest in these qb lists. I think of Bert Jones, of the old Colts.
Perhaps one the greatest qb's to come out of college, but never got to a super bowl, and never made it to the
Pro HOF. Didn't make it on their list in the OP, either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bert_Jones
"In 1990, Jones participated in the first NFL QB challenge. He finished first in the retiree category and third in the regular competition. (The regular competition taking the top three finishers from the alumni competition and adding them to the regular field of current QBs.) Given his strong performance, Bobby Beathard, then the GM of the Chargers, wanted Jones to come out of retirement, but Bert was 39 at the time and chose not to try a comeback.
The widely respected scout Ernie Accorsi is quoted as saying that if Bert Jones had played under different circumstances, he probably would have been the greatest player ever. John Riggins has been quoted as saying Bert was the toughest competitor he has ever witnessed. On the eve of Super Bowl XLII New England Patriots head coach Bill Belichick, in discussing his choices for the greatest quarterbacks of all time, described Jones as the best "pure passer" he ever saw.[3]"
-
I always lose interest in these qb lists. I think of Bert Jones, of the old Colts.
Perhaps one the greatest qb's to come out of college, but never got to a super bowl, and never made it to the
Pro HOF. Didn't make it on their list in the OP, either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bert_Jones
"In 1990, Jones participated in the first NFL QB challenge. He finished first in the retiree category and third in the regular competition. (The regular competition taking the top three finishers from the alumni competition and adding them to the regular field of current QBs.) Given his strong performance, Bobby Beathard, then the GM of the Chargers, wanted Jones to come out of retirement, but Bert was 39 at the time and chose not to try a comeback.
The widely respected scout Ernie Accorsi is quoted as saying that if Bert Jones had played under different circumstances, he probably would have been the greatest player ever. John Riggins has been quoted as saying Bert was the toughest competitor he has ever witnessed. On the eve of Super Bowl XLII New England Patriots head coach Bill Belichick, in discussing his choices for the greatest quarterbacks of all time, described Jones as the best "pure passer" he ever saw.[3]"
I always lose interest in these qb lists. I think of Bert Jones, of the old Colts.
Perhaps one the greatest qb's to come out of college, but never got to a super bowl, and never made it to the
Pro HOF. Didn't make it on their list in the OP, either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bert_Jones
"In 1990, Jones participated in the first NFL QB challenge. He finished first in the retiree category and third in the regular competition. (The regular competition taking the top three finishers from the alumni competition and adding them to the regular field of current QBs.) Given his strong performance, Bobby Beathard, then the GM of the Chargers, wanted Jones to come out of retirement, but Bert was 39 at the time and chose not to try a comeback.
The widely respected scout Ernie Accorsi is quoted as saying that if Bert Jones had played under different circumstances, he probably would have been the greatest player ever. John Riggins has been quoted as saying Bert was the toughest competitor he has ever witnessed. On the eve of Super Bowl XLII New England Patriots head coach Bill Belichick, in discussing his choices for the greatest quarterbacks of all time, described Jones as the best "pure passer" he ever saw.[3]"
Jones is one of those guys we talked about elsewhere.....a great flash of Brilliance that burned out way too soon. Injuries were a major part of his problem.....as was playing for the Robert Irsay owned Colts. He had no chance to succeed long term with that guy running the team. Just bad luck for him all the way around.
Unless you have Sandy Koufax or Gale Sayers like success, an injury shortened career can kill your chances of being properly recognized. See Greg Cook....even Bernie some. And to a lesser degree...yes: Tim Couch.
And, of course it happens at other positions: Bo Jackson and many others.
-
-
I cant believe Bernie Kosar is not on this list.....?
I cant believe Bernie Kosar is not on this list.....?
Well, again, it is a career production list. A lot of these guys may have hung on for years of mediocrity...or just above/below.
Vinny
Bledsoe
Hart
Grogan etc. etc.
Not as good as Bernie...but much longer careers....and more chance to pile up numbers.
Bernie only had about 5 really good years.
See the above about Bert Jones. Somewhat similar situation.
-
Anyone that says to me in a QB related conversation "how many rings has he got" immediately gets labelled a numpty.
Well, then you are going to have to call the entire ESPN/ABC/CBS/NBC/FoxSports networks....plus the PFHOF voting committees.....plus most of the consumer public "numpty"......because it is in fact a very important consideration to all of those.
It may not be the end all be all of it....but it is given a lot of credence.
Now, sometimes, a QB can have won multiple titles and not be considered one of the greatest: Jim Plunkett is the only QB (besides the actives) that has won 2 SBs that is not in the HOF. Some earlier QBs are in that boat as well: Tommy Thompson of the late 40s Eagles, and Tobin Rote.....the only person in history that led two different teams to titles (almost but not quite matched by Kurt Warner).
And just as clearly some QBs are so good that not having a ring does not matter: see Marino, Fouts
And sometimes losing enough times in the final game gives you sympathy for getting in: See Jim Kelly 4 time SB loser. Fran Tarkenton 3 time SB loser.
But...losing just once despite being very good on the statistic list may not get you in: See Ken Anderson
Well, then you are going to have to call the entire ESPN/ABC/CBS/NBC/FoxSports networks....plus the PFHOF voting committees.....plus most of the consumer public "numpty".....
ahhhh.....kind of like you did in the Steve Young discussion???
I see he's top ten on this list too....numptys?
-
-
Well, then you are going to have to call the entire ESPN/ABC/CBS/NBC/FoxSports networks....plus the PFHOF voting committees.....plus most of the consumer public "numpty".....
ahhhh.....kind of like you did in the Steve Young discussion???
I see he's top ten on this list too....numptys?
ahhhh.....kind of like you did in the Steve Young discussion???
I see he's top ten on this list too....numptys?
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.
-
That's numptIEs
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!
-
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
-
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
Zombo said:
In your own mind. Not in the minds of rational thinkers, educated observers, football writers, Hall of fame voters, everyone on this board (tel me when to stop)....
At the point where you say that you will take Steve Young over Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, John Elway, Dan Marino, Brett Favre, Troy Aikman, Joe Montana, Roger Staubach, John Unitas, Otto Graham, Jim Kelly
You can stop right there.
No they weren't.
No he didn't.
Here you are saying that Stabler did NOT throw a lot more interceptions than Young.....that was the point you were responding to. Do you know that?
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?
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.
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)
It wasn't part of my argument.....other than to say that about the only statistical advantage that Young had over Stabler.
Who knows....maybe if Stabler hadn't thrown so many Ints. he would have won2-3 more SBs.
No they didn't. They were both left-handed and both won a Super Championship.
AND they both started about the same number of games
AND they both appeared in the same number of Conference title games
AND Stabler had a better overall winning percentage.
AND Stabler's teams performed as well or better overall as Young's teams.
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.
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.
Zombo
-
Zombo said:
In your own mind. Not in the minds of rational thinkers, educated observers, football writers, Hall of fame voters, everyone on this board (tel me when to stop)....
At the point where you say that you will take Steve Young over Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, John Elway, Dan Marino, Brett Favre, Troy Aikman, Joe Montana, Roger Staubach, John Unitas, Otto Graham, Jim Kelly
You can stop right there.
No they weren't.
No he didn't.
Here you are saying that Stabler did NOT throw a lot more interceptions than Young.....that was the point you were responding to. Do you know that?
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?
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.
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)
It wasn't part of my argument.....other than to say that about the only statistical advantage that Young had over Stabler.
Who knows....maybe if Stabler hadn't thrown so many Ints. he would have won2-3 more SBs.
No they didn't. They were both left-handed and both won a Super Championship.
AND they both started about the same number of games
AND they both appeared in the same number of Conference title games
AND Stabler had a better overall winning percentage.
AND Stabler's teams performed as well or better overall as Young's teams.
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.
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.
Zombo
Zombo said:
In your own mind. Not in the minds of rational thinkers, educated observers, football writers, Hall of fame voters, everyone on this board (tel me when to stop)....
At the point where you say that you will take Steve Young over Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, John Elway, Dan Marino, Brett Favre, Troy Aikman, Joe Montana, Roger Staubach, John Unitas, Otto Graham, Jim Kelly
You can stop right there.
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:
In your own mind. Not in the minds of rational thinkers, educated observers, football writers, Hall of fame voters, everyone on this board (tel me when to stop)....
At the point where you say that you will take Steve Young over Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, John Elway, Dan Marino, Brett Favre, Troy Aikman, Joe Montana, Roger Staubach, John Unitas, Otto Graham, Jim Kelly
You can stop right there.
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:
I'm definitely taking Young over Aikman, Staubach and Kelly.
Not me.
And he certainly earned his way into the conversation with other eight.
The other 8 better QBs? No
Top ten all-time and best of the 90's era, no doubt in my book.
No higher than 6th in that era....no doubt in my book.
Apparently a lot of people feel the same.
Not Me
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.
Sorry to be misleading
But what you are saying is that the fact that he threw more interceptions is the only major difference statiscally, which is equally wrong.
Nope, pretty much right.
Young smokes him in comp %, Td% and yards/att as well. Even that stat you seem to like, "yards per completion", Young is higher
Slightly higher. "Smoked" would be inaccurate.
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.
And those somewhat higher numbers did not add up to one damned single more win in his career.....and no more playoff appearances.
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.
I would put most of those above Young as well.
Good point.
They each led teams that were equally successful.
One was an overall better quarterback compared to his peers.
No....if given the fact that Tark/Bradshaw/Staubach/Griese and Fouts were better than Stabler....that would make him 6th best of his era....exactly where I put Young in his era.
Which is why Young has 6 passing titles, 3 first-team All Pro selections, 7 Pro Bowls, a Super bowl MVP
I am sure that Stabler has some of those.....and yet none of those gave Young one goddamed more win in his career.
and a bust in the Hall of Fame while Stabler doesn't.
But Stabler should in my view.
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.
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.
Zombo
-
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
-
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.
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.
-
So these 10,000 posts and hours of research on Pro Football Reference were worth it ... I am the first poster to ever get you to admit that there might be a 51% chance you are wrong.
I think we are both ready for training camp ... send in the Steeler fans.
Z
-
I love a good spillover...
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login