Hall of Fame Names 2012 Senior Nominees

173 Comments

1. Paul on August 24, 2011 at 4:51 pm

   I have prepared list of the top 20 or so deserving players worth consideration on the previous topic for the 2011 Senior Nominees, but if we consider the apparent list of 19 finalists discussed by the Seniors Nomination Committee today as our starting point, I would place several above Stanfel and Butler, Including: Harris, Howley, Kramer, and Johnny Robinson. But perhaps the Committee is looking first to get the members of the team of the 1950s decade into the HOF as both Stanfel and Butler were named to that team?

   Again all these 19 (and others we have discussed before, getting a list of perhaps 25-30 players) deserve nomination, as do Stanfel and Butler, but the priorities of the order of such elections is what I have issues with.

2. boardgame on August 24, 2011 at 5:22 pm

   Butler retired as 2nd all-time in int’s, respected as a sure tackler, all decade team of the 50’s and possibly missed out on post season honors early in his career because of a low profile team like the Steelers; Butler had excellent seasons before 1955.

   The committee seems to like the high int totals, ala Emmitt Thomas and Dick Lebeau.

   Stanfel was great choice for me and should’ve been inducted the first time he was chosen as a senior nominee.

   He was an intregal part of the Detroit Lions and their three consecutive NFL Championship games(winning two; 1952 and 1953), then with the Redskins he would become one of their ’70 Greatest Redskins’ to this day and eventually chosen to the NFL all decade team of the 50’s.

   Though he did have a short career(seven seasons), every but one he made pro bowl and/or AP 1st team all nfl, including 13 total 1st team all nfl honors(AP, NEA @ UPI) which is a high number even for the best HOF’s.

   I have him scored by my formula as 5/5/13(23), a score over my minimum of 21 and certainly worthy enough for the HOF.

   I give the Stanfel choice an A, while Butler I would give a B. They both are worthy nominees.

3. Robert Ewing on August 24, 2011 at 5:40 pm

   1 Guy I am starting to endorse is OL- Winston Hill 8/8 this guy has been overlooked for years am i crazy to be endorsing winston hill for the hall of fame

4. boknows34 on August 25, 2011 at 1:45 am

   Stanfel is getting a 2nd chance from the Seniors Committee having being rejected as a candidate in 1993. Bob Hayes, Lou Creekmur and Henry Jordan were also elected to Canton the second time around. Perhaps this bodes well eventually for Jerry Kramer. Stanfel waited 19 years for that 2nd chance and Creekmur 16 years. The Class of 2013 would be 16 years after Kramer was snubbed in 1997.

5. bachslunch on August 25, 2011 at 9:28 am

   Very worthy choices both, for the second year in a row now.

   Crossing fingers — maybe the run of bad Senior nominees won’t be back again. Here’s hoping, anyway.

6. bachslunch on August 25, 2011 at 11:40 am

   Re some of the comments:

   -am thinking seniority helped the cases of Butler and Stanfel over the players whose careers began later, such as Jerry Kramer and Johnny Robinson. It’s actually not an unfair way to go.

   -both have somewhat short careers, but it’s interesting to note that Butler’s career didn’t start until age 24 and Stanfel’s until age 25, according to pro-football-reference. Players sometimes had their careers shortened or delayed because of military service obligations back then, so this may have been a factor. And Butler’s career apparently was ended by a knee injury.

   -there’s nothing wrong with thinking Winston Hill has a reasonable HoF argument, though his 1(0AP)/8/allAFL might look less strong compared to Jim Tyrer’s 10(6AP)/9/allAFL and perhaps even Dick Schafrath’s 4(4AP)/6/none at the OT position for Senior eligibles.

7. chris on August 25, 2011 at 11:58 am

   and also the senior commitee is waiting till 2013 to induct jerry kramer because the hof is doing their renovation project to celebrate 50 years of the hall of fame, so maybe thats why guys like jerry kramer, chuck howley, johnny robinson weren’t selected for 2012.

8. Paul on August 25, 2011 at 1:14 pm

   The selection of Butler and Stanfel may also represent the last effort to complete the election of the team of the decade for the 1950s, and former players now over the age of 80. The remaining 2012 finalists played from 1960s and later with 3 players (Anderson, Guy, and Hayes) just coming of the modern candidate list (their careers having ended in 1986). These two players may be the last of the true “old school” with future Seniors being much more “modern”. It may be the end of the road for any remaining pre 1960s players to be consider as Butle and Stanfel were perhaps the best of that group and many more “modern” players have been qualifications.

   Did anyone else catch and wonder about this from the official HOF announcement?

   “The Seniors Committee is comprised of nine members of the overall selection committee. Through mail vote, the 2012 senior nominees were reduced to a final list of candidates. Today, five members of the Seniors committee met in Canton to discuss each of the senior finalists.”

   I knew that the Committee consisted of only 9 members, but only 5 attended the selection meeting, thus only 5 choose these two nominees????

   BTW I doubt that the Committee (made up of writers) gave any thought or consideration to the 2013 class because of the renovation. In fact if you look at the current likely pool of modern candidates and those first timers for 2012 and 2013 the class in 2013 may have little “splash” to the list of nominees. Sure like any class some great players will be selected but the likes of Parcells, Allen, Sheilds, Carter, Dawson, Haley etc.. does not strike me as fantastic – certainly no big name players in high profile positions or among the best to have ever played. None of the caliber of recent classes such as Rice, Deion, or Emmitt. Again no insult or judgment about those elected in 2013, but I think most people would a great that the next few classes are not as strong as some recent ones – just an observation.

9. boardgame on August 25, 2011 at 2:42 pm

   Paul, I would disagree on Larry Allen.

   I could strongly consider him possibly the greatest offensive lineman of all time, atleast right there.

   He certainly was the strongest man to ever play and performed ‘pancakes’ agility for a man his size like maybe the league has never seen.

   It was routine for him to wipe out 2-3 players on running plays even on through well past the line of scrimmage.

   Is it any surprise that the all-time rushing champ was the RB Allen blocked for.

   Though again, he is an offensive lineman and maybe that doesn’t bring the splash of the QB, RB, WR and pass rushers.

   Also, what’s everybody’s opinion of Ken Anderson?

   There seems to be a big push for him and the committee seems to be taking a strong liking to his candiacy.

   I always have thought of Anderson as Hall of Very Good whose career is based on 4 HOF years, a few more ‘good’ seasons, some ‘avg’ ones and ‘terrible’ too; one of the ‘great’ seasons was the strike shortened year of 1982.

   His supporters really pull out the guns for him with all their stats, enough to give someone a head-ache(LOL).

10. Paul on August 25, 2011 at 3:29 pm

    My comments in no way were meant to dismiss the strong qualifications of future HOF candidates, including several potential first ballot selections in coming years. But the selection of Allen (who I support as a 1st time selection) simply will not have the “splash” of much more high profile candidates among the top players of all time that have graced recent elections.

    Some players and positions (such as OL) just do not bring the same level of excitement as the big name QBs, WRs, RBs, and top flight defense players. I say this as someone who has attended a number of the HOF induction events.

    To match the significance of the 50th anniversary and latest renovations to the HOF in 2013, one would need one of the top players in the history of the league. As great as Allen (and other potential inductees in 2013) may be, he does not reach that level, I am not sure he would be considered above Hannah, Parker and Upshaw at G (members of the NFL 75th anniversary team). Larry ranked 95th on the recent top 100 NFL players of all time -a great accomplishment – yet 3 other Gs ranked above him (Matthews, 78; Upshaw, 56; Hannah, 24), as did another 4 Ts.

    If the HOF wants the election and induction of players to match the significance of their 50th anniversary event in 2013 they are going to have to consider an alternative or perhaps expand the usual week of events to add sometime beyond the norm. I am not sure that the makings of the class is going to be up to the event.

    One idea I had was to have two elections and induction events and sweep through all the pre 1980 Seniors for one last time and induct the top 10-15 as the special 50th anniversary “historical” class, then have the usual Saturday night event for the 5 modern inductees.

    Future elections after 2013 would have 1 Senior nominee from the post 1980s Seniors class and make the previous 2nd Senior slot for annual coaches and contributors nominations.

11. Paul on August 25, 2011 at 3:38 pm

    As for Ken Anderson I think he is worthy of consideration, but as someone who never received serious consideration as a modern candidate, why in his first year on the Seniors list is he getting the interest and attention of voters. Certainly there are a number of long standing Senior candidates worth debating and getting nominated first? Many have equal or better qualifications then Anderson, why not get them in first, what is the “big” rush regarding Anderson by the voters? It is not as if he is the first or only modern candidate to fall into the Seniors pool even with solid qualifications for election?

    And I find the fact that only 5 voters attended the meeting this week and their decision alone got the two players selected makes me question the whole process and the commitment of all 9 Senior Committee members to this task. Seems like the individual or collective efforts of only a few people out of those five are getting certain Seniors nominated. For such an important process more people and a better means of selection is needed. No wonder if we can come up with a list of 20-25 Seniors, which closely matched the 20 finalists considered by the committee, that no one can even come close to predicting the outcome since the actions of 5 members results in anyone among the 20-25 players selected with no rhyme or reason to the decision.

12. bachslunch on August 25, 2011 at 3:48 pm

    I think Ken Anderson has an extremely strong HoF case based on stats and definitely think he belongs in. There are several places where such a case has been made in past. Here’s one good example:

    http://newqbrating.blogspot.com/2010/04/c-scores-new-way-to-evaluate-pro.html

    Looking at the three tables, Anderson is the only outlier surrounded by a bunch of HoF QBs. In the “Best 4 Seasons” and “Best 7 Seasons” lists, Anderson comes in 3rd all-time, while in the “Best 10 years” list, he’s 5th. Everyone else placing anywhere in the top 14 of these lists is or probably will be a HoF-er (Peyton Manning, Kurt Warner, Brett Favre).

    I’ve also seen such statistical cases made over at the Football Outsiders and pro-football-reference (in the blog) websites, and again, Anderson sticks out like a sore non-HoF-QB thumb among a group otherwise consisting of clear HoF deserving QBs.

    Like boardgame, I also think Larry Allen is an elite-level HoF-er.

13. boardgame on August 25, 2011 at 5:33 pm

    Hmm,

    Interesting stats, it’s just I remember watching Anderson back in his MVP year of 1981 and until that, I had never thought of him as a HOF.

    I’m still just seeing the four great seasons(1974,75,81@ 82), then a few good ones, a few average ones and a few bad ones.

    Four seasons he was a HOF, but the rest of his career looks like only above-average/good at most.

    For a QB with a losiin playoff record, only two playoff wins and no ring, I’m not sure that’s enough. I’ll keep looking and listening on the matter though.

    He certainly had a great year in 1981 and probably was the first time I ever really started to notice him as an elite player.

    I think 1981 was the first year the Bengals put those stripes on their helmets too.

    Hard to believe that was like 30 years ago because I remember it like yesterday. The NFC Champ gm was “The Catch” and the AFC Champ gm was “The Freezer Bowl”, I remember watching both that year.

    Anderson soundly outplayed Fouts day in the bitter cold. It’s a shame what happened to the Chargers and “Air Coryell” in that cold.

    The Chargers were completely out of their element, much less the week before playing in the sun of Miami in that marathon of a game.

    Imagine the change in weather climate for them in just that one week, absolute torture!

    I remember watching the “Freezer Bowl” and they took a live camera shot of 5 men in the stadium crowd, each holding a beer, with their shirts off in that ice cold weather, hard to believe!!

    Paul, I think Allen’s rating was too low for my blood, but that’s my opinion. I also like the fact at his induction it would bring back the glory days of those great Cowboys’ offensive lines, and who knows, maybe Emmitt Smith is the one that gives the speech for Larry Allen.

14. Robert Ewing on August 25, 2011 at 9:58 pm

    My Nominees List so far what do u guys thinl

    OT- Jim Tyrer 9/6

    G- Dick Schafrath 7/4

    G- Bob Kuechenberg 6/3

    C- Mick Tingelhoff 6/5

    G- Jerry Kramer 3/5

    G- Ed Budde 7/2

    T- Ralph Neely 2/3

    Defense

    DB Johnny Robinson 7/6

    DB- Ed Meador 6/2

    DB- Cliff Harris 6/3

    DB- Bobby Boyd 2/3

    DB- Bobby Dillon 4/4

    DB- Jake Scott 5/2

    DE- Claude Humphrey 6/2

    LB- Dave Robinson 3/1

    LB- Bill Forster 4/3

15. boardgame on August 25, 2011 at 11:58 pm

    Schafrath..6/4/6(16), Kramer..3/6/12(21) and Harris..6/5/9(20) I like the most.

    And then would add Howley..6/6/12(24), Patton..5/6/14(25) and Brazile..7/6/10(23).

    Lemar Parrish..8/5/6(19), Randy Gradishar..7/6/5(18) and Gene Brito..5/5/10(20) would also be acceptable.

    I would LOVE one day to see Mark Gastineau elected into the HOF, but it’s probably a long shot.

    Gastineau was the biggest star and best pass rusher in the NFL for about five years and got to 100 sacks in 100 games; 1980…11(1/2) sacks, 1981…20 sacks, 1982(strike year)…6 sacks, 1983…19 sacks, 1984…22 sacks, 1985…13(1/2) sacks.

    He’s a player whose name will live forever and it’s sad his legacy is looking like it won’t be preserved in Canton. I thought that’s what the HOF is for.

    “Air Coryell” and Mark Gastineau will be remembered forever, but it’s not looking like Don Coryell and Gastineau will be in the HOF. That just doesn’t make sense.

    Again, when I grew up watching the NFL in the early 80’s, “Air Coryell” and the Chargers were the greatest show on earth and Gastineau was the NFL’s biggest star.

    There were three things then that were must-see TV in the NFL: the Dallas Cowboys, “Air Coryell” and Mark Gastineau sacking the QB.

16. Bill on August 26, 2011 at 12:44 am

    Dermontti Dawson is one of the 5 best centers ever. Hopefully, he and Butler both go into the HOF in 2012.

17. bachslunch on August 26, 2011 at 12:37 pm

    Here’s another website article that presents a favorable HoF argument for Ken Anderson, over at Football Outsiders, using adjusted stats:

    http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2006/ken-anderson-and-hall-fame-revisited

    Anderson compares very favorably to all the HoF QBs mentioned here.

18. Paul on August 26, 2011 at 12:40 pm

    Again I have no problem with Ken Anderson receiving attention as a potential Senior nominee. My question is why now and why not during his 24 year on the modern candidate list? He joins the Seniors List and the first year he receives serious consideration, what does that say about the committee, his qualifications and those of the many long serving Seniors on that list???

19. bachslunch on August 26, 2011 at 3:12 pm

    Paul, I can see your point — agreed that it’s unusual to see a fast-track Senior approach of this type, and it’s fair to ask why Anderson should jump to the head of the line immediately, regardless of how deserving he is. There are a lot of worthies who have waited a long time for any chance, after all. I was putting up the links above in response to boardgame’s concerns that Ken Anderson’s stats aren’t at HoF level. There have been good cases made to the contrary, and thought they were appropriate to cite.

20. Bill on August 26, 2011 at 6:25 pm

    Anderson was a HOF finalist twice as a ‘modern era’ candidate (1997, 1998).

21. boardgame on August 27, 2011 at 11:08 pm

    backslunch:

    I’ve never been the biggest fan of adjusted stats, but either way, he probably does compare in a good way to other HOF players at the position.

    I still can’t be swayed though to the YES column on the matter.

    What I see is someone that was a good/very good QB(some great, good, avg and bad years) for his career that never really reached consensus ELITE status over most of his career and was more like a bottom of the top 10 type QB.

    That’s fine for the team he was on, but for me, not quite HOF caliber when also you add in no ring, a losing playoff record and only two career playoff wins.

    And again, one of his four great years was the strike shortened 1982 season(9 games) that ended in a bad playoff loss at home to the Jets.

    I’ll tell ya what though, if you(or anyone else) would like to take the time, write me a 5-6 paragraph biography on him being the basis of which his career should be preserved for all time.

    If he is ever elected to the HOF, there will be a biography of his career on display and on the HOF website. Would that time capsule of his career be worthy to most people looking at it for someone who is being reconized as an immortal?

    What is it that sets Ken Anderson a part that he should be immortilized forever?

    I think most players, and in this case QB’s, in the HOF can show that trait. I’m just not seeing that in Ken Anderson’s career.

    And remember, most of the campaign for him we hear now will never be in his biography for display.

    Adjusted stats and certain cherry picked seasons as compared to other HOF QB’s; it was harder to play QB in the early 70’s; he’s not in the HOF because he played for a franchise like the Bengals; he would’ve been better than Bradshaw or Fouts on those Steelers and Chargers teams; he had to play in the same divison as the power house Steelers during the 70’s; he had an injury to his throwing hand in the late 70’s; the Bengals run defense of the 70’s was terrible and etc, etc, etc.

    You know as well as I do the above will never be included in his actual BIO displayed in the HOF.

    So again, what can we conclude from Ken Anderson’s career that would be in his overall HOF BIO which clearly sets this player a part.

    I really look forward to you and possibly others maybe swaying me with a BIO for him. I’m still just not seeing it though.

22. boardgame on August 27, 2011 at 11:21 pm

    Adding to Bill’s point, Anderson was before considered as a finalist twice.

    The first time in 1996, he and LC Greenwood are still the only two players yet to be inducted from that class of finalists and two years later, he’s the only player not to be inducted from that finalists class.

23. Robert Ewing on August 28, 2011 at 1:15 am

    this is for board game only

    Board game

    Now That you think about it i do agree with you about ur point about anderson he only had 4 seasons of greatness 74,75,81,82 and to me thats not really good enough and also why was he pushed ahead in his first year of senior eliglibity

    i pose this ques to you board game which qbs would u consider for the hof before ken anderson

24. boardgame on August 28, 2011 at 3:08 am

    Well Robert,

    It seems there was a huge push recently, ala Monk, Little and Lebeau, to get him elected into the HOF and as far as now that he’s atleast on the senior ballot, it worked to a small degree.

    I just don’t ever remember him as a HOF up until atleast that 1981 MVP season. Then the next year he had a great season in a strike year that ended horribly for the Bengals @ home vs the Jets in the playoffs.

    After that, sort of down for him from there though he had a decent season in 1983.

    Again, going into that 1981 season when I was watching, NOBODY outside of Bengals territory would ever fathom him as a HOF. And despite what he did in the 1981 season along with his surperb strike shortened 1982 season, that’s just not enough for me considering he some what went down after 1982.

    I always thought of him as not really Elite but some where in the bottom of the top 10 when he was playing. Add to that no rings, losing playoff record and just two playoff wins, he falls short in my book for HOF status.

    However, you can’t argue with what he did in 1974, 75 and 1981. His 1982 season of excellence though was a strike year and it ended badly in the playoffs at home, as I mentioned earlier.

    However, I’m looking and listening on the matter and expect good feedback from Bachslunch and possibly others on the matter, so maybe I’ll still be swayed in the end.

    I would be happy for Anderson if he made the HOF and could certainly accept his induction if it happens. Nice fellow, good team-mate and at his peak, an Elite player in the NFL at it’s most important position.

    Anderson is probably the best of the rest. A short list of them would be Anderson, Stabler, Brodie, Lamonica and maybe a few more or atleast that’s what I could come up with off the top of my head.

25. steelersfan23 on August 30, 2011 at 2:12 pm

    steelersfan23
    Aug 30, 2011
    02:58 PM

    Anderson had more than 4 season of greatness. He broke his hand in the last preseason game of 1978 and the Bengals were 0-4 without him. The Bengals were desparate for him to salvage that season and cut his cast off on a Tuesday and put him to start on Sunday. He threw 13 picks in 4 games. He never should have been playing, but he was not a complainer. Then in 1979, the Bengals bring in another bad head coach Homer Rice and the result is Bengals have worst defense in NFL, and Anderson gets killed sacked more times than any QB in the NFL. Hardly his fault. Then in comes Forrest Gregg, Anthony Munoz, Cris Collinsworth and Anderson becomes MVP of the league in 1981, and breaks season passing record in 1982.

    The bottom line is that Kenny’s numbers still stack up with the best even with those “bad years.” He was a great player that had no weaknesses. He could work with any game plan. He never complained about a lack of support. Football is a team game, the HOF is for individual accomplishments, and Anderson did a lot for his team and the NFL’s modern passing game.

    He played for 5 different coaches and systems, and had to deal with a lot more stuff than any other guy already in the HOF. When he had the coaching and any talent around him, he was one of the best players in the NFL. He was a legitamate MVP candidate in ’74,’75,’81 and ’82.
    He won more passing titles than almost every QB that ever played before him (except Sammy Baugh).
    He was the first QB to run the WCO for Bill Walsh successfully, and he broke records when he did it. He broke a single game passing record (1974 vs. Steel Curtain). Then he broke a Monday
    Night Football passing record (1975 vs. Bills). Then a Super Bowl passing record (SB 16). And then a season passing record (70.55%, 1982).
    Walsh used his workout films with Anderson as the template for every QB he coached after Anderson including, Dan Fouts, Steve DeBerg, Joe Montana and Steve Young.
    He is the most important player in Bengals franchise history and made the Bengals consistent contenders in a way that no other Bengals QB has been able to do before or after.
    Anderson was just like Walsh, whatever you gave him in coaching, or players, he found a way to make the most of it.
    When the Bengals running backs were injured, he did the running. He was the 2nd leading rusher on the Bengals in 1981 with over 300 yds and averaged 7 yds. per carry.
    When Montana shined in the early 80’s, he was coupled with one of the best defensive dynasty’s in NFL history. In Super Bowl 16, in 1981, people lose sight of the fact that the 49ers had the 2nd best defense in the NFL that year.
    Football is a team game. Bradshaw, Stabler, Montana and Tarkenton won consistently because they were surrounded by great defenses.
    Also, the only time that Anderson had a 1000 yd. rusher in his career was 1981 (Pete Johnson), the result was MVP of the league and Bengals go to Super Bowl. Tarkenton had Chuck Foreman, and Bradshaw had Franco Harris as perennial all-pros.
    When Anderson gets compared to other great HOF QBs, also consider that he played in Cincinnati winters and twice a year vs. Steel Curtain. Think of his numbers if he played in Miami, San Diego, or Oakland.
    The funny thing is that when compared to these other QB’s, Anderson could run the football too.Running stats for a QB, actually count in rushing yardage. The years Anderson was one of the top rushers for the Bengals make it look like he had a more balanced rushing game.
    I think you could make an argument that Kenny was certainly one of the best QB’s to ever play the game. The numbers he put up are mind-boggling when you consider the era he did it in, and the lack of a balanced running game, and he never had the defenses that other dynasty QB’s had.
    The bottom line is that Anderson took whatever you gave him and played through 5 different coaches and found ways to win.
    If Bill Walsh would have stayed with the Bengals, I think Anderson would have become the best QB in history. When Walsh was there, he was the best QB in the NFL. Look it up! Unfortunatley, Walsh moved to SF and took the ideas that began with Anderson’s work, and expanded them with the more liberalized passing rules and Montana became the best.
    But, I believe that Joe Montana and Jerry Rice owe a little bit of homage to Kenny Anderson and Isaac Curtis for both their contributions to the modern passing game, and for Isaac’s star helping change the 5 yd. bump rule. Can you imagine the Anderson and Curtis of ’74 and ’75 with the more liberalized passing rules?
    They were the best I have ever seen, unfortunatley not enough HOF voters got to see them

26. bachslunch on August 30, 2011 at 4:05 pm

    boardgame, thanks for the replies so far re Ken Anderson. Let me first ask you a question — do you consider the following QBs to be legitimate HoF-ers?

    -Sonny Jurgensen
    -Dan Fouts
    -Dan Marino
    -Fran Tarkenton
    -Jim Kelly
    -Warren Moon
    -Y.A. Tittle

27. boardgame on August 30, 2011 at 6:15 pm

    Kelly was spurred on by the four straight SB’s and Moon does have the 50,000 pass yrds.

    It’s just would Kelly still be the HOF without those SB appearances and Moon seemed to play for so many teams, I lose count(LOL).

    A lot of people think Tarkenton was over-rated, yet he’s got all those long tenure record stats and Fouts struggled in his early/mid career but exploded in “Air Coryell”.

    Jurgensen and Tittle are before my time and played in the 50’s and 60’s, different eras for them compared to Anderson and the rest of your list except Tarkenton.

    And like Anderson, none of these have a SB ring or AFL/NFL Title.

    All these above certainly reasonable inductees, some greater than others.

    Anderson is not unqualifed either. It’s just he really wasn’t a HOF player going into 1981 and even the Bengals were planning the Jack Thompson era to replace Anderson in the late 1970’s.

    And as you know, Anderson by the late 1970’s was getting heavy boo’s at home games and Bengal fans would even cheer if he got injured during the game.

    He did I think even surprise Bengals Brass/fans with his strong 1981 and 82 seasons, though again kind of fell off from there some.

28. steelersfan23 on August 30, 2011 at 7:46 pm

    Boardgame

    On Anderson: When Anderson got booed from the fans in the late 70’s, they were angered that the Bengals picked Bill “Tiger” Johnson over Bill Walsh as the head coach to replace Anderson. The new offensive coordinator for the Bengals (Boyd Dowler), totally changed the philosophy of what Bill Walsh succeeded at with Kenny. After Anderson led the Bengals to 6 straight winning seasons from 72-77, he broke his hand in the last preseason game in 1978. With “Tiger” as the new head coach and backup QB as the starter, the Bengals were 0-4 with Anderson hurt.

    Paul Brown quickly had Anderson’s cast cut off on a Tuesday, and he was starting that Sunday. He threw 4 picks in the first game and 13 in 4 games. Not his fault, but in Anderson style, he never said a word and took the blame and the booing. “Tiger” got fired and in came Homer Rice. The result was even worse, Anderson got killed (sacked league leading 46 times). Coupled with the worse defense in the NFL, and a 4-12 record and a banged up Anderson. They fired Homer Rice quickly. Nobody knew if Kenny was done or not, so in comes Jack Thompson and when they saw Anderson in training camp, the “throwin Samoan” Thompson project was scrapped and they brought in tools to help Anderson and that would work better in the newer offensive NFL style. Dan Ross, Cris Collinsworth at WR. And beefed up the line over a couple of years with Blair Bush, Max Montoya and Anthony Munoz. Result… Anderson MVP and Super Bowl Bengals!

    Look at the Bengals right now, nobody knows if Carson Palmer is gone or not. If he comes back next year and goes to the Super Bowl and becomes MVP of the league, and sets a season passing record over the next 2 years, I would say he was always that good!

    He would prove the Bengals were bad during his “bad years” and he was always that good. I think Kenny proved to anybody who booed him during those years, it was not his fault. Can you see the similarities?

    I think it should be a positive that he was able to overcome so much adversity without complaining. Paul Brown, Bill Walsh and others would say that a QB needs a short memory and the ability to handle adversity. Nobody was better at that then good old NO. 14!

29. bachslunch on August 31, 2011 at 8:09 am

    Thanks for the reply, boardgame. My list of QBs above was in response to your observation on Anderson of:

    “no rings, losing playoff record and just two playoff wins, he falls short in my book for HOF status.”

    There is a tradition of HoF QBs with just very good numbers and varying degrees of postseason success (Layne, Griese, Namath, Aikman, Bradshaw). But there’s also one in the HoF for “stat guys” who did not win it all, and all these QBs qualify. Anderson would in fact have plenty of HoF company in that regard.

    More to come.

30. BSLO on August 31, 2011 at 3:34 pm

    Hi All!

    I haven’t been one this site in awhile, but thought I’d chime in on some recent topics.

    First of all, I really like the nominations of Butler and Stanfel. My ideal candidates were Robinson and Kramer, but both of these guys are deserving and are arguably the two biggest snubs from the 1950’s. Looking at the list of finalist provided, all of the names on the list make sense, though there are definitely some big omissions (namely Mick Tingelhoff, Lemar Parrish and LC Greenwood, as well as somewhat surprisingly no names from the 1920’s-1940’s).

    I would be fine with Ken Anderson’s induction, but I’m surprised that he was supposedly that close to a nomination in his first year as a senior’s candidate. He was a finalist two previous times, but those both came in his early years of eligibility. With that said though, I think that he’s definitely the best QB candidate (senior or modern-era) currently eligible for the Hall of Fame. There have obviously been countless opinions for him (his stats, his MVP year) and against him (his lack of consistent production), but I think that it boils down to one thing: he’s got a very balanced profile.

    -Every eligible non-AFL QB that has made 5 or more Pro Bowls is in the HOF. Anderson has 4 which puts him (along with a few others namely Stabler, Esiason and Cunningham) right on the doorstep.
    -While much is made of his inconsistency, he really only had 3 clearly below average years as a starter (1977, 1978 and 1980). He had some average years, but also a couple of others that were Pro Bowl worthy (1973 and 1974).
    -He has an MVP award (1981).
    -He has a winning career record and nearly 100 career wins (91, everybody with over 100 that’s eligible is in the HOF).
    -He led the league in passing yards, QB Rating, Completion % and Passing Yards per game multiple times. This may seem like nothing but only a couple eligible QB’s can claim this.
    -He had arguably the best performance in a Super Bowl by a losing QB not named Kurt Warner.
    -He has a great reputation across the league (that should mean nothing, but it doesn’t hurt him).
    -He was a decent scrambler.

    None of these put him over the top, but I think it’s his lack of weaknesses along with a few solid pieces that make him the best eligible QB not yet inducted and the one of the better senior candidates on the list.

    It’s also worth noting that the Hall of Fame probably won’t want to block any modern-era candidates (think Bob Hayes blocking Cris Carter a few years ago) from being inducted, especially at positions with big logjams like RB, WR, OG, and DE/OLB. This alone increases the chances of a QB getting nominated in future years because there won’t be a decent candidate at the position for 4 more years until Kurt Warner is eligible.

31. boardgame on August 31, 2011 at 5:55 pm

    bachslunch:

    Where would you rank Anderson as a “stat guy(s)”?

    Atleast as far as you comparing him to Marino, Tittle, Fouts, Tarkenton, Moon and etc.

    Kelly is more of the four striaght SB’s than maybe just a stat guy. The Bills didn’t win one, but it still payed dividends for Kelly in that it’s never been done before or since.

    I don’t think Anderson ranks with the Career Value of Marino, Tarkenton and Moon. Marino is obvious, but also don’t forget Tarkenton when he retired was 1st in pass yrdg(47,003) and pass TD’s(342), including (9) Pro Bowls and (3) SB’s.

    Moon also has (9) Pro Bowls and upon retirement, was 3rd in pass yrds with 49,325 and 291 TD’s included.

    I also don’t see a Peak Value with Anderson like a Fouts and Tittle.

    Though he and Anderson clearly played in different eras, Tittle’s peak includes (7) Pro Bowls, (3)Ap first team all-pro and (4) differnet years selected as either AP, UPI or NEA MVP; 1957 with SF, 1961, 62 and 63 with the Giants.

    From 1961-63, Tittle threw 86 TD’s including 36 in 1963; an all time record until 1984 when Marino threw 48. He also led the Giants to three consecutive NFL Title games from 1961-63.

    I still remember the 1984 season and Marino trying to chase Tittle’s TD record and all the attention it got.

    Fouts after a slow start in his career exploded with the arrival of Don Coryell and “Air Coryell”.

    From 1978-85, he was one of the most prolific QB’s in NFL history.

    1979-83 Fouts went to (5) straight Pro Bowls, (2)Ap first team all-pro and led the NFL in pass YPG all five years, including 320.3 ypg in the strike shortened 1982 season; just imagine his pace for a full season.

    Fouts in 1979 became only the 2nd QB in history to throw for 4,000 yrds(4,082) only for him to surpass that mark again the next year with 4,715 and then again he reached another high with 4,802 in 1981; Brian Sipe was the only QB to throw for 4,000(4,132) yrds in that same three year span, doing it in 1980. Fouts again led the NFL in pass yrds with 2,883(320.3 pass ypg) in the 1982 strike season.

    All in all during that span of 1979-82, Fouts every year won the passing yardage title and threw a combined 104 TD’s, leading the Chargers to the playoffs every season and the AFC Championship game two times.

    And remember, Kelly, Tittle and Tarkenton led their teams to multiple Title games, where as Anderson only reached the one SB.

    Who knows if Anderson’s career would be looked at differently if he just reached one more SB, even if it was another defeat. Obviously, making the 1982 horrible playoff loss at home to the Jets feel even worse.

    Anderson is definately in the ball-park with career stats, especially QB rating, but that’s also not always the whole loaf of bread. QB Rating is a good stat but not flawless either.

    Just in the top 40 alone of all-time QB rating, you find more recent players such as Daunte Culpepper, Jeff Garcia, Chad Pennington and Joe Flacco all in the top 15, not to mention others like David Garrard, Jay Cutler, Trent Green, Neil Lomax, Brian Griese, Brad Johnson and Jason Campbell again in the top 40.

    Though then outside of the top 40 are strange placements like Danny White(43) being ranked ahead of Troy Aikman(44) .

    Bernie Kosar(41)/Randall Cunningham(45)/Dave Krieg(45)/Bommer Esiason(48)/Jeff Hostetler(51)/Ken O’Brien(53) and Steve Beuerlein all ranked ahead of era contemporaries Warren Moon(49) and/or John Elway(60).

    Anderson does measure up well in stats vs the other HOF QB’s, but considering some of those are from different eras and more are not known as much for their stats as other ‘marks’ like Championships/etc., that’s not a great tell sign either.

    Anderson is surely a candidate worthy of consideration, but the player I watched before 1981, just didn’t seem HOF material and does very little to reverse that even after two excellent seasons in 1981 and 1982(strike year).

    He sort of fell off again after that and really doen’t have any post-season pedigree to make up for it.

    and etc.

32. boardgame on August 31, 2011 at 6:52 pm

    I’m going to retrieve Hostetler and Beuerlein in the QB rating comparison because they don’t have atleast(or too far below)110 career starts.

    BSLO:

    I don’t really have a problem with your post except I remember Anderson’s SB performance as certainly not great.

    The stats say one thing, but remember the 49er’s defense gave up a lot of easy yards to the Bengals as the game was winding down. They decided to give Anderson gains over the middle to keep the clock running and supporting a 26-14 lead.

    The strategy worked because by the time the Bengals had passed the ball to make it 26-21, there wasn’t much time left for them to get the ball and score another TD.

    Anderson also had (2) costly INt’s and of course who can forget the 49er’s goal-line stand.

    Anderson had a solid game and the Bengals played better in the 2nd half, but it was certainly not a great game for Anderson.

33. boardgame on August 31, 2011 at 7:30 pm

    Steelersfan23:

    That was a nice BIO and though it hasn’t swayed me, it certainly has me thinking on more issues about him.

    I’m just not sure some of your well thought out presentation would be the criteria we use for normal HOF’s, certainly like the would’ve, could’ve, played for a bad team, unselfish, good guy and etc.

    However, your idea of him ushering in the WCO might be able to stick in a real BIO of him in the HOF, I’m thinking so.

    I’m excited about this because even if I’m not quite sold on him, this factoid of WCO brings a new element to his BIO that would be in the HOF, making for a stronger inductee if he was to get elected.

    Anderson to me though was just not a HOF before 1981, that I saw and now researched. I don’t think what he did in 1981 and 1982(strike year) is enough to put him over the top.

    He seems to be ELITE in 1974,75,81 and the strike yr of 82 but just above-avg/good the other years of his career, over all.

    Also, he lacks the playoff pedigree to make up for it.

    I though wouldn’t have a tremendous beef if he does make the HOF either. He’s certainly on the ‘fence’.

34. steelersfan23 on August 31, 2011 at 8:25 pm

    Football is a team game. Tarkenton was a phenomenal QB, one of my favorites. WIth that said the reason why he reached the SB so many times was because he had great defenses in each year he went to the Super Bowl. Either the number 1 or 2 defenses in the NFL. And Chuck Foreman was a perennial all pro as well to balance the offense. He had great skills coupled with a great supporting cast. I believe Tarkenton had 8 HOFers he played with, and possibly more to come.

    The fact that a QB has great years bunched together like Fouts or they are separated proves that a great QB cannot win without some support. What Kenny Anderson was able to do with virtually no regular stars or HOFers is all the more remarkable. You also have to take into consideration the stats of the era with the more liberalized passing rules and the new ball control passing game that was revolutionized by Kenny Anderson and Bill Walsh.

    You also have to give Anderson credit as a bonus that he was the first person to perfect Bill Walsh’s new offensive style. He was patient and disciplined, and that is why Bill Walsh drafted him to help him usher in his new ideas. And if there was any doubt that he was ahead of his time look at all the passing records he shattered while he was revolutionizing the passing game.

    If you put Lynn Swann, Terry Bradshaw in because of Super Bowls, and Joe Namath in for his impact on the AFL/NFL merger, Anderson deserves as much credit for his impact on the modern passing games. He was breaking new ground, and breaking records while he did it.

    The fact that once the new offense was kicking in thanks in part by Anderson, and the 5 yd WR bump rule kicked in thanks to Isaac Curtis, you have to pay homage to them for that. Unfortunatley, when QB’s were now “shooting fish in a barrel”, the Bengals were going through transisition and could not enjoy the fruits of their labor because they had bad coaching and bad teams.

    If there is any doubt that during those bad Bengal years, it was not Anderson’s fault, he came back and won an MVP in 1981, and had a record breaking season in 82. Even with the Bengals “bad years”, his body of work still holds up with the best of the best.

    If you compare Anderson’s 74 and 75 seasons to the rest of the league, they were far more impressive than Fouts big years.

    Just as you say Fouts career changed when he had (air Coryell) good coaching. You can see that Anderson was the best QB in the league when he had Bill Walsh, or Lindy Infante. But if you measure their overall careers, they are very similar, but Anderson won more consistently and beat Fouts in their big game. But look up Fouts career. He never had great defenses. They both belong in the HOF and were great players.

35. steelersfan23 on August 31, 2011 at 8:40 pm

    Boardgame

    On the Super Bowl. Please sit down and watch that game and then tell me Anderson did not play a great game. The interception in the 1st half was not a bad pass. It was actually “short-armed” by Isaac Curtis. At the halftime show with Terry Bradshaw and Roger Staubach, Bradshaw called out that the INT was probably Isaac’s fault and not Anderson’s. You can probably see it on youtube.

    Also, people forget, the 49ers had a great defense, 2nd in the NFL that year. Anderson rallied his troops to a great comeback. With the constant passing, and prevent defense they did finally pick off one of Anderson’s passes, but he put on a dazzling performance against a great defense.
    The other costly turnovers by the Bengals were a kickoff fumble by Archie Griffin, and a Cris Collinsworth fumble. Then of course the goal line stand.

    That does not take away that Anderson did play great, and barely came up short, not a reason in my book to keep him out of the Hall. Montana played a safe, and flawless game, that his defense contolled. But Montana did not win it and Anderson did not lose it, the teams played.

    Most of the great QB’s that got so many chances at rings were partnered with great defenses. Look up the great defenses of Bradshaw, Tarkenton, Griese and Montana. All these guys belong in the HOF, but the reason why they get so much credit for being the best of the best is because they had great teams. Dan Fouts did not have the luxury of great defenses but had great talent on offense. The result for Fouts is a HOF career with no Super Bowl appearances. And Kenny Anderson rarely had a consistently great supporting cast on both sides of the ball. But both belong in the HOF.

36. steelersfan23 on August 31, 2011 at 9:06 pm

    Boardgame

    Thanks for being open minded about Anderson. There is a ton of material out there that has never been discussed about Kenny’s impact on the modern passing game.

    You have to understand that Paul Brown was paranoid when he got fired from the Cleveland Browns and fought every innovation Bill Walsh was working on when he was with the Bengals. He passed up Walsh for Bill “Tiger” Johnson.

    When Walsh left Cincy, he took his playbook and his films of Anderson and made a stop in San Diego, used the films as teaching guides for Dan Fouts. Fouts career turned around about that time. Then he went to Stanford and used those films to teach Guy Benjamin, Steve Dils and then Turk Schonert. When Stanford won those 3 straight passing titles, San Francisco hired Walsh. Walsh used those films with steve DeBerg who led the league in passing , and then Joe Montana. This is farely well documented, but rarely discussed.

    You see, Anderson is not going to boast his accomplishments, it is not his nature. The Bengals were not about to say that the guy they passed up (Bill Walsh), invented the modern passing offense with their all time franchise player(Kenny Anderson). So the Cincinnati Offense became now known as the WCO, and nobody in Cincy said a word.

    Bill Walsh has always said it is the Cincinnati offense, not the WCO. If you want to see more about this, go to the NFL website and type in Walsh /Brown feud and there is a great video on it. Also type in top ten things to change the game WCO, and there is a video on that.

    For an article on Walsh using Anderson’s films, go to Sports Illustrated.com, and look for a 1982 article about Super Bowl 16 called “Walsh’s Boys Go Head to Head” . Read all this and maybe this will push you over the fence.

    The only reason why Kenny stayed in Cincy in my opinion and put up with the lack of support and 5 coaches, is that he came from humble means (his dad was the high school janitor). He got recruited to the division III Augustana to play basketball, and he wrote a letter to the football coach asking for a chance to try out for the team that changed his life.

    Bill Walsh was looking for a kid he could coach and not a superstar as he was working on some new passing ideas. Anderson and Walsh worked out for weeks at a time without even touching a football working on timing and footwork for Walsh’s new offense. It worked!

    Then Bill Walsh left and Kenny would have been gone, but he was so loyal to the team that gave him a chance to play in the NFL. He never had an agent, and just took whatever you gave him, and never complained and made it better.

    Now look at what he did and how he did it and the number he put up, the records he broke and the impact he had on the Bengals franchise and the NFL and let’s get him off the fence and into the HOF where he belongs.

    Thanks again for being open-minded.

37. BSLO on August 31, 2011 at 9:47 pm

    boardgame, thanks for responding. My point wasn’t that he had a great game, just that he had one of the best performances by a losing QB in a Super Bowl. Granted there have been a ton terrible performances by losing QB’s in the Super Bowl so it’s not like he has a ton of competition, but I’d say Anderson’s was easily top 10, and I’d say that only 2 performances were clearly better than his: Jake Delhomme’s and Kurt Warner’s 2nd Super Bowl loss. I wasn’t alive to see the game in person (was born in 1985), so maybe the box score was a lot better than the performance. I certainly can’t argue with that.

    That said, 25-34, 300 Yards, 2 TD’s, 2 INT’s, 1 Rush TD and a 95.2 Rating certainly looks good on paper. Some of those yards may have come in garbage time, but it couldn’t be worse than the garbage time performances of guys like Donovan McNabb in recent Super Bowls. When you’re trying to comeback, you’re always going to end up with garbage yards and slightly padded stats. Like you said, it seems like the one thing that people remember about this Super Bowl was the goal line stand on Pete Johnson in the 3rd quarter. Based on what I’ve typically heard about that Super Bowl, that goal line stand summed up Cincy’s performance…they lost because they couldn’t establish the run. Anderson was solid, the run defense was solid (held them to 3.2 yards/carry) and the defense as a whole didn’t give up any real big plays (nothing over 22 yards).

38. bachslunch on September 1, 2011 at 9:48 am

    boardgame, many thanks for your responses. The answer to your question on how one might argue Ken Anderson compares with the other “stat guys” appears at the links I provided above, but to pull things out (both purport to compare QBs across eras using period adjustment):

    Rasaretnam Best 4, numerical rankings
    -Anderson (3)
    -Tarkenton (6)
    -Jurgensen (11)
    -Tittle (12)
    -Fouts (25)
    -Moon (31)
    -Marino (33)
    -Kelly (44)

    Rasaretnam Best 7, numerical rankings
    -Anderson (3)
    -Tarkenton (5)
    -Tittle (9)
    -Jurgensen (15)
    -Marino (18)
    -Fouts (19)
    -Moon (28)
    -Kelly (32)

    Rasaretnam Best 10, numerical rankings
    -Tarkenton (3)
    -Anderson (5)
    -Tittle (7)
    -Marino (11)
    -Fouts (14)
    -Moon (19)
    -Kelly (22)

    Football Outsiders, 1950-90 only (which will omit Kelly, Moon, Marino), ranked by total PAR
    -Tarkenton (1)
    -Anderson (3)
    -Fouts (5)
    -Jurgensen (6)
    Not sure why Tittle isn’t here, but he’s by far the oldest of the bunch.

    Moon, Marino, and Tarkenton might be seen as compilers. Nothing wrong with that, of course, for HoF membership as far as I’m concerned. None of them won it all (Moon’s starting QB postseason record is 3-7, Marino’s is 8-10, Tarkenton’s is 6-5). Tarkenton also looks to have strong peak value in these tables above that the other two don’t.

    Besides Anderson, Jurgensen and Tittle would appear to have good peak value. None of them won it all, either (Anderson’s starting QB postseason record is 2-4, Tittle’s is 0-4, Jurgensen appears never to have been a starting QB in postseason).

    Fouts looks hardest to pigeon-hole in all this, though in Rasaretnam’s ranking he seems more career than peak oriented, if not a long-range compiler like Tarkenton or Moon. He didn’t win it all either, starting QB postseason record is 3-4.

    Kelly looks weakest in this group on peak and longevity, but had more postseason success than any of them at 9-8 — though again, he didn’t win it all.

    I have no problem whatsoever with any of these players being in the HoF.

    At least that’s how I’m eyeball interpreting what I see here.

39. Paul on September 2, 2011 at 4:42 pm

    my only observation on this level of analysis and discussion (beyond WOW great job guys!) is that too bad the current group of Seniors do not get this level of consideration by the current 9 Senior Committee members, especially the 4 members who did not even attend the meeting last week where the 5 other attending members selected the 2 senior nominees 2012. What a great disservice these great players are getting from the committee.

    I am beginning to understand why it is so hard to predict these selections when a decision by 2 or 3 people creates the resulting two nominations. I am guessing that the several us spend more time debating in here and could make a better informed choice then any of the current 9 selection committee members and I suspect we would all actually attend the election meeting!!!!!!

40. Robert Ewing on September 3, 2011 at 3:34 am

    Paul I see where you going so i think we should come up with the zone blitz pro football hall of fame senior committe first of we would need members and ill be the first whose next to join the committee

41. steelersfan23 on September 3, 2011 at 9:29 am

    All, I did not realize you could post links, so I have attatched links to the following:
    The first is on the Walsh/Brown feud by Steve Sabol. Bob Trumpy told me that Walsh new day 1 what he and Kenny created. His quote was “Bill Walsh could not stop smiling throughout training camp. He now had the perfect quarterback for his new offense. His pupil was now throwing nothing but accurate passes.” Trumpy told me that Paul Brown faught Walsh’s innovations. If you watch this video, you will see at the 2:55 mark when Paul Brown is “miked” Bill Walsh wanting to play Kenny Anderson and Paul Brown’s reaction.

    This really is where the seeds of the template for the modern passing offense as we know it today.

    http://www.nfl.com/videos/cincinnati-bengals/09000d5d8053f111/Bill-Walsh-and-Paul-Brown-feature

    This is the article that touches on Walsh using Anderson’s films to train HOFers Dan Fouts, Joe Montana and Steve Young. Walsh says “I have known for a long time, that Kenny Anderson is the best QB in the NFL.”

    You couple that with early in Kenny’s career when Walsh was in Cincy, he said…”Before it’s over, Kenny will be on top.”

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1125177/1/index.htm

    Good stuff. I believe with Kenny’s stats, broken records, and this stuff, he should have been a 1st ballot HOFer. The only reason he does not get more credit is because the Bengals never wanted to discuss this. It does not make them look good for letting Walsh get away. They went downhill big for a couple of years right after Walsh left. Very good stuff.

42. steelersfan23 on September 6, 2011 at 7:39 am

    I will be the 2nd on zone blitz senior commitee.

43. VOLfan on September 9, 2011 at 2:18 pm

    These were good choices this year.

    I don’t know why Stanfel was rejected the first time he was a senior nominee???

44. VOLfan on September 9, 2011 at 2:22 pm

    It’s strange that though there’s nine members on the senior comm, only five show up to vote on the nominees.

45. VOLfan on September 9, 2011 at 3:06 pm

    I would have to say NO on Ken Anderson for the HOF.

    He has only a couple of playoff wins, bad playoff record and no rings.

    His career stats are good, but I’m not sure HOF great, considering he had no 4,000 yard passing seasons, only three seasons with atleast 2,500 yards passing, no 30(+) TD passing seasons and only two seasons of 20(+)TD passes.

    His main argument is the four passing titles, MVP in 1981, setting the all-time mark in completion% for a season in 1974 and his role in the early day progression of the WCO.

    Anderson has on the bubble stats for the HOF with zilch to show for it in the playoffs. He has the four great years of production(1974,75,81@82), but except for that prime, nonthing really stands out about him the rest of his career.

    And one of the four great years in 1982 was a strike-shortened season(9 regular season games) that ended with a 44-17 loss to the Jets in the playoffs(Anderson had three INT’s in the game).

    I would not vote Ken Anderson into the HOF.

46. VOLfan on September 9, 2011 at 3:14 pm

    Boardgame

    Don’t forget that YA Tittle I believe retired with the most passing yards and passing TD’s in NFL history, only to be chased down by Unitas about a decade later in both categories.

    Tittle not only had a great peak value, as you mention, but also a great career value too.

47. steelersfan23 on September 11, 2011 at 4:18 pm

    VOL fan:

    Teams win championships! Football is a team game. The HOF is about individual accomplishments, and Anderson’s stats measure up, even with at times a weak supporting cast.

    Anderson had to battle the greatest dyansty in the Steelers to get to the playoffs in the 1970’s. His first playoff loss was to the ’73 Dolphins when the Bengals as a wild card winner had to travel to the Orange Bowl and play a team who had an undefeated season the year before and won back to back championships. It would have been a miracle if they had won that game against one of the greatest teams in history. Then in 1975 they played the Oakland Raiders at Oakland and narrowly lost the game 31-28 and the Bengals put 28 pts. on the board. That team had 10 future HOFers on it.

    He did lead his team to their first Super Bowl in 1981 and beat Dan Fouts of the Chargers to get there. Fouts belongs in the HOF, but he threw a lot of passes for a lot of yards but was not as efficient as Anderson. He won less consistently with a better team, and was less of a clutch performer. The same can be said of Warren Moon. Fouts first 4-5 years were very pedestrian. He only got better when the new passing rules changed.

    To say that just because a QB passes a lot and puts up large total passing yards, he is better than a QB who does not have as many total passing yds. is silly. To boot, Anderson was a better runner than Fouts and some others.It reminds me of games when Carson Palmer would put up 400 yds and lose. Then you look at Tom Brady would be 10-17 with 2 TD passes and 220 yards and win. That is the best analogy I can think of to describe what passing for a lot of yards means.

    The reason QB’s like Aikman, Montana, Tarkenton, Bradshaw and others were always in the final dance with chances to win rings is because they were great passers partnered with outstanding defenses.

    Anderson pioneered a new offense. He won passing titles and broke records doing it. The middle of his career unfortunalely was one of a franchise in transition. Meanwhile guys like Fouts, Montana and others teams peaked in the years when Anderson’s new offense hit its stride, and the rules changed to make it even easier to execute a passing game.

    When Anderson had a decent team in 1981, he won MVP of the league. Remeber when the Bengals lost to SF, the 49ers had the 2nd best defense in the NFL.

    The guy should be in the HOF. It is crazy that he is not!

48. VOLfan on September 12, 2011 at 1:39 am

    steelersfan:

    From 1978-84 when the passing game really started to take off in the NFL, there were (55) total 3,000+ yard passing seasons and (54) total 20+ TD passing seasons.

    Anderson in that same time-frame had (1) 3000+ yard season and (1) 20+ TD season, that coming in his MVP year of 1981.

    And again, for his career he only has three 2,500+ yard passing seasons and only two 20+ TD passing seasons.

    For a stat nominee like Anderson will have to be because of no real playoff success, his numbers just aren’t HOF worthy to me.

    The only time he stacks up as a HOF statistically is when you have to use Adjusted Stats, which shouldn’t be legitimate criteria for the HOF.

49. steelersfan23 on September 12, 2011 at 7:47 am

    VOL fan:

    Here is a link to an article that was written about Anderson’s all around stats.

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/web/COM1187173/index.htm

    He led the league in the important passing categories more than most already in the HOF icluding total passing yards in a season. IF you just take total yardage compilers, you would have Vinny Testaverde and Drew Bledsoe ahead of Dan Fouts and countless ahead of Anderson. You do have to take the eras they played in, into consideration. How does Joe Namath get in?

    Also, don’t forget to look at Anderson’s rushing yardage when you evaluate him as a QB, that does not figure into QB comparsons like it should.

    Comparing players in their era is paramount in HOF considerations. Heck the 2 senior nominees that just got elected did not play long enough in today’s world. But, I think one of them served time in the military, so I think the shortness in his career needs to be a factor.

    Anderson’s stats hold up with the best of the best! He won more passing titles (4) that all but 1 who ever played before him, which is the NFL’s own yardstick of a QB’s overall contributions, kinda like a batting average is to a baseball player. Fouts, Aikman, Bradshaw and Moon won none combined.
    He broke passing records in a regular season game, a MNF game, then a Super Bowl, and then a season. He was ahead of his time, and he was that good. He was the first QB to run what is now the West Coast offense. Bill Walsh used Anderson’s films as training guides for HOFers, Dan Fouts, Joe Montana and Steve Young. He was the most important player in his franchise history. Look at the Bengals record both before and after Anderson played with the franchise, and he was a class act.

    If this does not constitute a HOF career. I do not know what does. Let’s just start putting great teams in the HOF instead of individual players. I know I may have picked on Fouts, but I do believe he is a HOFer as well. The only reason in my opinion why he did not get more chances at rings is because like Anderson, he was never matched up with an equally great defense. He did however have a heck of a supporting cast on offense though.

    Anderson put up 4 MVP calibre seasons and won often in spite of at times a lack of a supporting cast, and still put up numbers as good or better than those that had HOFers all around on both sides of the line of scrimmage.

    It is time to change the fact that only QB’s who win Super Bowls get into the HOF. There is so much more than that, that makes a QB great. If Mark Sanchez had won the Super Bowl last year, would that make him the best QB in football, or would New York just have had the best team that played well enough to win it? Right now, the HOF is geared up to put Sanchez into the HOF. They may downgrade Peyton Mannings accomplishments because of his lack of post season success to match up with his regular season success. In my mind Peyton is the best. Look at what the Colts did without Manning yesterday. Brady is great, but plays in a great system that has a lot of talent, and will be darn good with other QB’s as well. Maybe not as good as Brady, but it is a team game. Roethlisberger plays on an unbelievable team with outstanding defense, and makes big plays when he has to do so. I hope you get may point about great teams that surround great QB’s = Championship chances.

    Put Anderson in the HOF, where he belongs more than many already there.

50. VOLfan on September 12, 2011 at 8:41 am

    steelersfan:

    I’ve read that article before and it doesn’t convince me.

    The author is a bigger Anderson fan than you are and all he really does is exclaim on the four great years of Anderson’s career, one being a 9 game strike year, and his role in the early stages of the WCO.

    And the comparison to other HOF QB’s is never that great because some played in different eras and others are known for more things than just stats.

    Anderson is a QB that would have to get in because of stats and as I’ve posted earlier, despite the four great years(one strike shortened), he really doesn’t have great HOF stats: only three 2500+ passing yard seasons and two 20+ TD ones.

    If you want to put Anderson in the HOF because of three great years plus one strike shortened and his role in the early WCO, be my guest.

    However, that alone shouldn’t be enough for him to get in the HOF.

    Ken Anderson was simply not a HOF QB during his career no matter how you try to trivialize it.

51. bachslunch on September 12, 2011 at 8:49 am

    Dick Stanfel was likely rejected by the HoF voters for an unusual reason — because of the way the HoF player advisor that year, Bob St. Clair, handled his nomination. St. Clair is apparently an eccentric fellow to begin with, was a college teammate of Stanfel’s and likely did not disclose that relationship to the committee, and was apparently very aggressive with the committee members about Stanfel’s HoF worth. Chances are this rubbed enough HoF voters the wrong way at the time. There’s some allusion to the issue in this article by HoF committee member Paul Zimmerman:

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/dr_z/news/2003/08/01/insider/

    It’s also true that Stanfel lost two years to military service. Interestingly enough, he did so before going off to college, so he graduated two years later than one might expect. Then after graduating, he tore his knee up, requiring two surgeries that forced him to sit out the year after graduating. As a result, Stanfel didn’t even begin his pro career until age 25. He retired at age 31 to become an assistant coach after playing for seven seasons — but it was common for players to retire early before the pay got halfway-decent in the 60s. The future for a 31-year-old o-lineman is not too bright, generally speaking, but it’s a good time to start a coaching career.

    Butler’s career ended early because of a knee injury. He didn’t begin playing in the NFL until age 24, signed as an undrafted free agent. Butler didn’t even play high school football and apparently hoped to study for entry into the priesthood. That didn’t work out, and he only began playing football fairly late into his college years because his roommates were doing so.

52. steelersfan23 on September 12, 2011 at 11:33 am

    VOL fan:

    I guess you feel that putting up big total yardage number is the key to a QB’s success. Pass more for more yds?

    Unfortunately for Anderson, his teams were horrendous from 78-80, and did not get to enjoy the fruits of his labor in helping usher in a new offensive passing game. Also, Anderson and Isaac Curtis are largely responsible for 5yd. chuck rule change that took place as well.

    But, I believe that the passing combos of the new era owe a tip of the cap to the Cincinnati guys who helped change the passing game. Anderson and Curtis were the Joe Montana and Jerry Rice of the early 1970’s. They had to do what they did without the liberalized passing rules. They were the best at the time, and their numbers reflect that, but compared to numbers of today, they do not look very big. If you do not look at the era adjustments, I guess, you would call Anderson and Curtis very pedestrian players when compared to other eras.

    Don’t get me wrong, the conventional wisdom is that you are correct, win a Super Bowl as a QB, and you are king. Even though, most would say…Defense wins Championships!

    Getting back to Anderson, look at the 4 big years he had those were 4 MVP calibre seasons in 2 different passing eras. If he won one more MVP, he would already be in the HOF. Look at Anderson’s 1975 year, and explain to me why Tarkenton won the MVP over Anderson. The point I am making is that Anderson’s led the NFL in passing yds and rating in ’74, and ’75 and you will not give him the credit he deserves when he was better than everybody in those years. You have to look at that. You just want to pick a big yardage number and there is so much more than that.

    When you say I just want to put Anderson in because of 3 seasons and the WCO contributions, you are trivializing what he did. What makes Joe Namath a HOFer?

    Anderson belongs for his career numbers, including 4 passing titles. Being MVP of the league and leading his team to their first Super Bowl. He belongs in for breaking major passing records and pioneering the new modern passing offense. He was also the most important player in his franchise history. Some skill player belongs in the Bengals HOF. Either Anderson’s receivers for being so good, they made him look good. A running back who rushed was so good, he made the QB’s job easy. A defensive player that led Anderson to mereley serve as a caretaker and stay out of trouble. Either Anderson’s number reflect how great he was, or the other player made him look that good.

    How do you think he was able to perform so well? Keep in mind, when Anderson had the coaching around him with Bill Walsh, he WAS the best QB in football, and maybe the best player in the game. Then when Lindy Infante and Forrest Gregg came he was the best QB in football and maybe the best player in the game again. In 2 different eras.

    The bottom line is he was that good! He unfortunatley had to suffer through 2 horrible coaching decisions in the interim and did not complain, it was not his nature. Keep in mind that Anderson was also able to accomplish all this in spite of the fact that he was sacked more times than any QB in history when he retired.

    Anderson made the most with whatever you gave him, and never complained and accomplished a hell of a lot with very little credit.

    He should have gone to the Pro Bowl in 1974. He should hav been MVP of the league in 1975. It should be called the Cincinnati Offense, not the WCO, and he should be in the HOF.

    You open th

53. Robert Ewing on September 12, 2011 at 3:54 pm

    ok for the sake of this argument im going to compare Ken Anderson to Ken Stabler

    Record Winning Perecentage
    Ken Anderson 91-81-0 .529

    Ken Stabler 96-49-1 .658

    Winning Percentage:Stabler

    Passing Yards (Advantage Anderson)

    Ken Anderson
    32.838

    Ken Stabler

    27,938

    Touchdown Passes Advantage (Anderson)

    Ken Anderson-197

    Ken Stabler -194

    Pro Bowls (Tie)

    Ken Anderson: 4

    Ken Stabler 4

    First Team All Pro (Tie)

    Ken Anderson 1

    Ken Stabler 1

    2nd Team All Pro (Anderson)

    Ken Anderson 2

    Ken Stabler 1

    Playoff Record (Stabler)

    Ken Anderson 2-4

    Ken Stabler 7-5

    Number of Times Hall of Fame Semi- Finalist (Stabler)

    Ken Anderson-0
    Ken Stabler-6 2004-2009

    Number of times Finalist (Stabler)

    Ken Anderson-2 1996-97

    Ken Stabler- 3 1990,1991,2003

    Ken Anderson:3

    Ken Stabler:4
    Even though Anderson has Stabler Beat in 3 categories i would stilll take the snake over Ken anderson

    which qb would u like me to compare with anderson tomorrow

54. VOLfan on September 12, 2011 at 4:18 pm

    steelersfan

    Anderson is a stats nominee without all time great raw numbers, it’s about as simple as that.

    The WCO argument might be compelling enough to slip him in since he’s rings and stats short for the HOF, atleast IMO. I just don’t think so.

    We are just going in circles here, you believe he should be in the HOF, I do not. It doesn’t look like anything will change our mind on that.

    The HOF voters and senior committee though will eventually have the last word on the matter. Time will only tell if he gets in or not.

55. VOLfan on September 12, 2011 at 4:27 pm

    Robert:

    Anderson probably is the best of the rest or atleast it’s him and Stabler as the top two..off the top of my head.

    Stabler should be in the HOF if you only counted the decade of the 70’s, it’s the 80’s that get him in trouble.

    Anderson supporters would give almost anything to have Stabler’s SB ring, that’s for sure!!

    I actually wouldn’t be shocked if Stabler got in one day, maybe even over Anderson. They are both though very much on the outside, IMO.

56. steelersfan23 on September 12, 2011 at 4:37 pm

    First of all, I love the debate.

    Stabler had 10 Hall of Fame players on his team. Nobody is debating that the Oakland Raiders of the 70’s were better than the Bengals. Put Kenny Anderson passing behind Art Shell, Gene Upshaw, Jim Otto/Dave Dalby, Dave Casper etc. in a west coast climate, and his numbers would be off the charts. I love Stabler, he probably belongs in the hall of fame as well, but he had an unbelievable supporting cast, and Anderson still had way better numbers. Some thought Stabler should have won more, so they traded him in 1979, and Jim Plunkett won 2 Super Bowls with the Raiders after Stabler.

    As far as the Pro Bowls, those are not great indicators of the best players in those given years. Look at Anderson’s 1974 numbers, and tell me why he did not make the Pro Bowl. In 1974, he won the passing title and was the league leader in 6 different passing categories including total yards and passer rating. Since his 2 running backs were injured he had to run himself and chipped in 314 yards rushing, averaging 7.3 yds. per carry. He beat MVP Stabler in every category and Anderson’s 314 yds rushing compared to Stablers -2 yds rushing. Anderson broke 2 NFL record that year, one against the Steel Curtain, and again, he did not make the Pro Bowl?

    I understand why Stabler was MVP, buecause the Raiders had the record to match and MVP winner, but Anderson should have made the Pro Bowl, an you count that against him. And by 1975, when Anderson won his 2nd straight passing title, he was the best QB in the league, and maybe the best player in the NFL and should have been MVP of the league over Fran Tarkenton.

    The fact that Stabler was a HOF finalist three times compared to Anderson’s twice is meaningless. Stabler with his Raider credentials was destined to get “good looks”. Anderson was always under stated, that is what the senior commitee is all about, guys who got overlooked.

    Stabler had some monster years with the Raiders, and some not so good ones. He was horrible without them. His career numbers after 1978 are bad.

    Stabler threw way more interceptions to TD’s 194 TD’s to 222 INTs. Anderson was just the opposite 197 TD’s -160 INT’s.

    Anderson beat Stabler in virtually every career category and was a much better runner. And again, Stabler played with an outstanding supporting cast. The only thing that can be said is that Stabler played for a much better team than Anderson.

    This is not even a close debate of who was a better QB by the numbers. I love “the snake”, but to say that he was a better QB than Anderson is totally arbitrary and has no basis in fact and he was a way better running QB to boot.

    And, you have to give Anderson’s HOF criteria bonus points over Stablers for his pioneering contributions on the WCO and the modern passing offense.

    I do hope they both get into the HOF though.

    Here is an article that addresses Anderson vs. Stabler and Anderson’s HOF credentials again. I will send more. The guy belongs in the HOF.

    http://footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2006/ken-anderson-and-hall-fame-revisited

57. Robert Ewing on September 12, 2011 at 10:42 pm

    ok heres a list of my senior semifinalists for 2012

    Offense

    RB- Chuck Foreman 5/4
    WR-Cliff Branch 4/3
    WR- Otis Taylor 3/2
    SE- Mac Speedie 3/2( All NFL 40’s Team)
    LE- Del Shofner 5/5(All NFL 60’s Team)
    G- Bob Talamini 6/3 (All Time All AFL Team)
    G- Jerry Kramer 3/6 (All NFL 60’s Team)
    G- Dick Schafrath 7/4
    T- Jim Tyrer 9/6 (All Time All AFL Team)
    T- Winston Hill 8/0 (All Time AFL Team)
    T- George Kunz 8/1
    C-Mick Tingelhoff 6/6
    G- Ed Budde 7/2 (All Time AFL Team)

    Defense

    DB- Ed Meador 8/5 (All NFL 1960’s Team)

    DB- Dave Grayson 6/4 (All Time AFL Team)

    DB- Cliff Harris 6/3 ( All NFL 1970’s Team)

    DE- LC Greenewood 6/2 (All NFL 1970’s Team)

    DE- Harvey Martin 4/4 (All NFL 1970’s Team)

    DE- Claude Humphrey 6/2
    DT- Alex Karras 4/3- (All NFL 1970’s Team)

    NT- Curley Culp 6/3
    LB- Maxie Baughan 9/6
    LB- Dave Robinson 3/2 (NFL All 60’s Team)
    LB- Chuck Howley 6/5
    LB- Robert Brazile 7/6 NFL All 70’s Team)

    S- Johnny Robinson 9/6 ( All Time AFL Team)

    CB- Lemar Parrish 8/5

    P- Jerrel Wilson 3/3 (All Time AFL Team)
    P- Ray Guy 7/8 (NFL All 70’s Team)

    Well Heres My List

58. Paul Wright on September 22, 2011 at 1:51 pm

    So why is Jack Kemp’s name missing from the senior committee list?

    7× AFL All Star (1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1969)
    5× TSN All-AFL (1960, 1961, 1963, 1965, 1966)
    AFL Champion (1964, 1965)
    AFL MVP (AP, 1965)
    AFL Championship Game MVP (1965)

    Records and Leaderships
    Most first quarter touchdown passes (3), 1964
    AFL career regular season passing attempts
    AFL career regular season passing completions
    AFL career regular season passing yards
    AFL career championship game passing attempts
    AFL career championship game passing completions
    AFL career championship game passing yards
    AFL yards per attempt (1960, 1964)

    Also still #2 all time in rushing TDs by QB behind Steve Young, not including Otto Graham’s AAFC stats. And in addition to leading Bills to back-to-back champioships and fall one game short of a 3-peat and chance to dance in SB I, also lead Chargers to AFL Championship game twice. And if the AFL had included 3 QBs in their all-time team (like NFL did for their 60s team), any doubt the 3rd QB (Namath and Dawson two named) would have been the 3rd?

    Of course their’s the pre-SB and anti-AFL bias to consider as Kemp had other team mates worth consideration besides the one who did eventaully get in as an old timer, Billy Shaw. Check out facts and stats for Tom Sestak, George Saimes, Cookie Gilchrist, Mike Stratton, Butch Byrd, and Stew Barber.

    Yes, lots of competition, but where did they have to go to dig up this year’s old timer nominees? If they keep doing that, any chance for guys like Kemp to make it in?

    Meanwhile, specific to the QB position, sorry to guys like Ken Anderson, Phil Simms, Ken Stabler, Joe Theismann, Boomer Esiason, Brian Sipe, and Rich Gannon. Sorry to say there was just too much competition at their position, the one normally receiving the most credit or criticism for his team’s performance, for the time frames they played in. Of course I have no idea how Warren Moon made it on the first ballot either. Even if he had good career stats and Pro-Bowl selections, didn’t his failure to make it to the SB or be consensus leage MVP or lead league multiple times in passing or be considered the best or 2nd best QB in the league for most of his career leave him a bit short? And doesn’t the Pro-Bowl count get a bit diluted (or over-rated) when you add a 3rd QB every year for each conference or not differentiate between starter, backup, and injury replacement (and now even more so with it missing all the players in the SB?) Of course if the voting’s left up to the selectors of the Bert Bell MVP award, then Randall Cunningham (their 3 time MVP) would be in.

    Also, while I’m on my soap box, I think probably the most deserving player who is eligible and NOT in is Terrell Davis. And if Curtis Martin or Jerome Bettis make it in while he has not, that will be an injustice. Yes his carreer was a bit “short”, but he accomplished more than either of these in their longer carreers (either one an MVP, have 2000 yd season, win 2 SBs, or even be consider the best or 2nd best RB in the league for even a single season?). If Gayle Sayers and Earl Campbell are in, TD should be. If Floyd Little, John Elway, and Shannon Sharpe are in, then TD should be. In the past 20 years, have there been any RBs better than him who are not already in the HOF or guaranteed first ballot selection (Sanders, Smith, Thomas, Faulk, Tomlinson?) And if not for TD would Elway even be in anyone’s conversation with regards to “Best QB of all-time” (being one SB loss short of Jim Kelly before TD) or have been named First team for All-90s team (over multi-MVP, SB winning, and leading league multiple times in multiple categories Favre and Young?). Really, if you look just at the 90s and ignore the 80s does Elway deserve first team? I don’t think so (even with the 80s).

    To the selectors, please listen.

    Regards

    Paul Wright

59. Paul Wright on September 22, 2011 at 1:58 pm

    So why is Jack Kemp’s name missing from the senior committee list?

    7× AFL All Star (1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1969)
    5× TSN All-AFL (1960, 1961, 1963, 1965, 1966)
    AFL Champion (1964, 1965)
    AFL MVP (AP, 1965)
    AFL Championship Game MVP (1965)

    Records and Leaderships
    Most first quarter touchdown passes (3), 1964
    AFL career regular season passing attempts
    AFL career regular season passing completions
    AFL career regular season passing yards
    AFL career championship game passing attempts
    AFL career championship game passing completions
    AFL career championship game passing yards
    AFL yards per attempt (1960, 1964)

    Also still #2 all time in rushing TDs by QB behind Steve Young, not including Otto Graham’s AAFC stats. And in addition to leading Bills to back-to-back championships and fall one game short of a 3-peat and chance to dance in SB I, also lead Chargers to AFL Championship game twice. And if the AFL had included 3 QBs in their all-time team (like NFL did for their 60s team), any doubt the 3rd QB (Namath and Dawson two named) would have been the 3rd?

    Of course their’s the pre-SB and anti-AFL bias to consider as Kemp had other team mates worth consideration besides the one who did eventually get in as an old timer, Billy Shaw. Check out facts and stats for Tom Sestak, George Saimes, Cookie Gilchrist, Mike Stratton, Butch Byrd, and Stew Barber.

    Yes, lots of competition, but where did they have to go to dig up this year’s old timer nominees? If they keep doing that, any chance for guys like Kemp to make it in?

    Meanwhile, specific to the QB position, sorry to guys like Ken Anderson, Phil Simms, Ken Stabler, Joe Theismann, Boomer Esiason, Brian Sipe, and Rich Gannon. Sorry to say there was just too much competition at their position, the one normally receiving the most credit or criticism for his team’s performance, for the time frames they played in. Of course I have no idea how Warren Moon made it on the first ballot either. Even if he had good career stats and Pro-Bowl selections, didn’t his failure to make it to the SB or be consensus leage MVP or lead league multiple times in passing or be considered the best or 2nd best QB in the league for most of his career leave him a bit short? And doesn’t the Pro-Bowl count get a bit diluted (or over-rated) when you add a 3rd QB every year for each conference or not differentiate between starter, backup, and injury replacement (and now even more so with it missing all the players in the SB?) Of course if the voting’s left up to the selectors of the Bert Bell MVP award, then Randall Cunningham (their 3 time MVP) would be in.

    Also, while I’m on my soap box, I think probably the most deserving player who is eligible and NOT in is Terrell Davis. And if Curtis Martin or Jerome Bettis make it in while he has not, that will be an injustice. Yes his career was a bit “short”, but he accomplished more than either of these in their longer careers (either one an MVP, have 2000 yd season, win 2 SBs, or even be consider the best or 2nd best RB in the league for even a single season?). If Gayle Sayers and Earl Campbell are in, TD should be. If Floyd Little, John Elway, and Shannon Sharpe are in, then TD should be. In the past 20 years, have there been any RBs better than him who are not already in the HOF or guaranteed first ballot selection (Sanders, Smith, Thomas, Faulk, Tomlinson?) And if not for TD would Elway even be in anyone’s conversation with regards to “Best QB of all-time” (being one SB loss short of Jim Kelly before TD) or have been named First team for All-90s team (over multi-MVP, SB winning, and leading league multiple times in multiple categories Favre and Young?). Really, if you look just at the 90s and ignore the 80s does Elway deserve first team? I don’t think so (even with the 80s).

    To the selectors, please listen.

    Regards

    Paul Wright

60. BSLO on September 23, 2011 at 12:55 pm

    Paul Wright, you make some solid points regarding the candidacy of Jack Kemp and Terrell Davis.

    I think that despite Jack’s championship wins, MVP award and Pro Bowls, the number one thing holding him back is his stats. I’m not old enough to have seen him play, but even when you consider his era, they just look awful on paper. He never threw more TD’s than INT’s in a season, he only completed over 50% of his passes twice and only threw over 15 TD passes once. His Pro Bowls also look much less impressive when you consider that 3-5 QB’s from the 8-10 team AFL made the team every year. Jack’s “MVP” season’s stats are also borderline hilariously bad: 10 TD’s, 18 INT’s, a 45.8 completion %. As much as you have to respect his post-season hardware, I don’t see a case for him over other AFL QB’s like John Hadl or Daryle Lamonica, even if they had less success in the postseason.

    As for TD, I would personally call him the 3rd biggest snub at his position right now behind Curtis Martin and Roger Craig, with Jerome Bettis right behind him and Ottis Anderson and Ricky Watters leading the Hall of Very Good group.

    I would put Curtis Martin in first because of his remarkable consistency and his success in spite of his often average teams around him. I actually considered him pretty borderline for the Hall of Fame until he had his excellent 2004 season in which I would have considered him to be the best back in the league. Roger Craig may not have great counting stats and he was obviously helped by the team around him (like Terrell Davis), but I think his influence on the position and standing as one of the first great “complete” backs in the league make him very worthy of induction. I’m glad to see his support has increased over the past 5 years.

    TD has a great case based on his 3 all-pros, MVP award and Super Bowl MVP award, but his case will always be held back by 3 things:

    1) His short career
    2) The “zone-blocking effect”
    3) The glut of outstanding backs from his era (Smith, Sanders, Thomas, Faulk, Martin, Bettis)

    I think he will make it in eventually but he may have to wait several years or even for a senior nomination to make it in. It’s too bad, because even as a diehard Chiefs fan, I say he definitely deserves it!

61. Paul on September 23, 2011 at 1:01 pm

    I do believe that Kemp deserves worthy consideration by the Senior Committee, and it is likely that the anti-AFL views, that impact several players with AFL only careers, is also influencing his lack of selection.

    But I also hold the view that making your case for any player (nominated or elected) by bashing the qualifications and elections of others is simply not fair nor helps your case. For example, your Moon versus Cunningham argument. Moon has very impressive career numbers (20,000 yards more than Cunningham!, ), Pro Bowls, and playoff games – all of which surpass Cunningham.

    Again the same for your debate of Martin/Bettis vs Davis as who is the most deserving RB from the 1990s (beyond Sanders, Smith and Thomas). Martin (#4) and Bettis (#5) are in the top 10 for career rushing, which assures their candidacies for the HOF, regardless of whether Davis has a few better years in a much shorter career. The short (although high quality) of Davis’ career is going to plague his HOF candidacy for a long time as a seven year career regardless of accomplishments is going to a worthy debatable issue for many voters. Hopefully at some point he will get into the final 15 and warrant closer discussion by the voters, but with the current and upcoming quality players I do not see Davis making that list for a number of more years. Sorry, but yes both Martin and Bettis deserve selection and will receive it before Davis.

    As to Elway he had impressive career numbers (and deserving membership on the team of the 1990s) and was considered by many as one of the best QBs even before the two SB wins, although it was the 2 SBs that placed him above Young and Farve for the 90s team. He ranked in the top 3 in season passing numbers (yards, tds, attempts, completions) multiple times in the 80s and 90s and was also a NFL MVP (1987). Like Marino his career numbers reset the standard for QBs in the modern passing era and ensured their places in history and as deserving HOF players, regardless of playoffs and SBs.

    Finally, this whole debate other worthiness of first ballot election is a silly one. More than any other factor such elections are a numbers game: who is eligible and who is elected in a given year where only 15 players are on the final ballot and only 5 slots are available for election. For example in the case Elway he clearly was within the top 5 players on that ballot when he first came up for election in 2004, thus among that group he deserved election. I do not think that makes Elway, or any other 1st ballot selection more elite or deserving then others as it simply a numbers game at this point. The debate over whether certain players deserve or not first ballot elections is ridiculous. As far as I am concerns a HOFer is a HOFer regardless of when and how they were elected. More often then not many great players end up waiting years simply because of the limited numbers of spots each election.

62. Paul Wright on September 23, 2011 at 1:56 pm

    @BSLO: RE: Kemp

    No argument, his passing stats “sucked” compared to many modern QBs, but you need to keep in mind the differences in eras when you look at them. Have you ever looked at Namath’s or Bradshaw’s carreer passing stats and passer ratings? Namath barely completed 50% of his passes and had 220 Ints compared to 173 TDs. Lamonica and Hadl’s stats aren’t very impressive either. It was a different game back then and don’t forget the rushing TD record.

    And with regard to any other contemporary QBs not in the HOF, you need to keep in mind that Kemp’s “greatness” kept Lamonica on the bench until he got traded to the Raiders. No other QB lead their teams to the AFL Championship game FIVE times, or lead two different teams to the Championship game (so it wasn’t just a case of an average QB on a great team, which I know we can all think of examples of).

    Kemp was named All AFL five times and there were only 2 QBs named each year. Hadl was 3x All AFL, Lamonica 2x All AFL, 2x MVP, 3x Champ (but 2 on bench behind Kemp)
    (Namath 3x All AFL, 2x MVP, 1x Champion, Dawson 4x All AFL, 1x MVP, 3x Champion)

    Kemps other 2 All Star selections (total of 7) were actually the entire Bills team (AFL Champs) vs the All-Stars for the rest of the league.

    I have to think the pre-SB/Anti-AFL bias or possibly bias towards his post football political carreer are most likely explanations for his not being in the HOF.

63. Paul Wright on September 23, 2011 at 2:15 pm

    If the HOF selectors were willing to overlook the brevity of Gayle Sayers and Earl Campbell’s carreer in lieu of their “greatness”, I don’t see why they can’t do the same for TD. And even Curtis Martin’s one really good year paled compared to TDs two best years.

    If you add in the playoffs, the yards and touchdowns per game make a clear distinction between “good” and “great”. TD had 1140 yrds and 12 TDs in 8 playoff games. And the carreer yards per carry speaks volumes (TD 4.6 regular season, 5.6 playoffs) compared to Martin’s 4.0 regular season and Bettis’ 3.9 regular season.

    Sorry, but slow and steady isn’t always more deserving.

    I personally think the same should apply to baseball as well. Hypothetically, wouldn’t a multiyear MVP, Batting Champ, HR Champ, World Series champ who played 7-8 years with a 0.320 batting average and 300 HRs be more deserving than someone who played 20 years with a .250 batting average, 400 hrs, and 7 or 8 all star appearances, but never won an MVP, batting or HR title, or world series?

    At least the Pro Football HOF is usually a bit more progressive than the baseball HOF. If not, then Dave Kreig, Steve Deberg, and Vinnie Testeverde would all be in.

64. Paul on September 23, 2011 at 2:22 pm

    Hard to compare the career numbers of Namath and Bradshaw to Kemp as Namath had the first 4000 yard season and the first AFL win in SB history (and one of the most famous ones) and of course Bradshaw has the 4 SBs.

    Kemp’s weaker career stats have an impact to the voters and the anti-AFL bias is most certainly another factor (I do not believe his politics is an issue)

65. Paul Wright on September 23, 2011 at 2:29 pm

    Meanwhile, re: my criticism of Elway. No argument he was a great HOF QB, but being named 1st team all 90s for his accomplishments in the 80s, or including him in discussion of “greatest” ever QB with the likes of Montana, Unitas, Staubach, Marino, Manning, Favre, and Brady seems to me to be a little bit over-hyped.

    As for the 90s – besides the 2 SBs, which had more to do with TD than John Elway, what did he accomplish? And if it’s the SB wins, then why not give it to Aikman who had 3? How does Elway compare to what Favre or Steve Young did in that decade? Young did more in his one SB start than the other two did in their two SB games, plus had the multiple MVPS and overall passing stats and leage leader titles on top. Favre had more MVPs plus the big passing yardage and touchdown numbers. If you add up the stats, wins, or MVPs, Elway doesn’t belong in that discussion for the 10 years in question.

    Of course I’d have to say the same thing with Dick Butkus, arugably best ever at his position, being named 1st team for the 70s over Jack Lambert given most of Butkus’s accalades were earned in the 60s and he only played until 1973.

    You could even make an arugement for 1st vs 2nd teams in 2000s, Brady vs Manning, but at least there you have a valid case on either side and aren’t excluding someone more deserving like Young was for the 90s.

    Sorry, but some of the Elway “hype” was unwarranted.

66. Paul Wright on September 23, 2011 at 2:44 pm

    Again, nobody’s saying Namath or Bradshaw don’t belong. Just pointing out that you have an issue with stat comparability over time as neither Namath or Bradshaw are in the top 50 rated passers of all time and even pale compared to contemporaries like Unitas, Dawson, Staubach, and Greise. Obviously Namath’s day of greatness it’s connection to the merger and Bradshaw’s 4 SBs were enough to look past their statistical shortcomings. Doesn’t a 5x All Pro, 2x Champ, MVP who also lead teams to 3 other championship games and held carreer regular season and championship game records in the AFL for passing attempts, completions, and yardage warrant consideration? Add in ancillary things like co-founding the AFL players association, the all time QB rushing TD record (since broken by Young and not including Graham’s AAFC stats), and the 3 TD first quarter game (mentioned just two weeks ago as a great feat when Rodgers duplicated it), and things like being pictured on same cover as 1965 Pro Football preview magazine with Jim Brown, and being good enough to keep the Mad Bomber on the bench for years provide further credentials?

    And not even get mentioned among players considered by this year’s senior committee?

    Meanwhile on politics, there was a bit of a back lash from some selectors two years ago when Paul Tagliabue wrote a letter to some making a case for Kemp, perhaps knowing he didn’t have that many years left. No idea whether this has left any residual effect.

67. steelersfan23 on September 23, 2011 at 2:49 pm

    Love the discussion, love that this keeps going. Now we can all see how arguments can be made for or against so many guys for the HOF.

    Please keep in mind that when we all get caught up in any of the candidacies, that their is a hypocracy in so many of our arguments.

    My favorite is… “defense wins championships”… but we hold so many QB’s accountable for not having rings. When you look at history, the great dynasty’s with famous QB’s are always matched with great defenses.

    Joe Namath is the biggest HOF “blind spot” QB. You have to overlook so many things to put Joe in the HOF. I undersand his 4000 yd. season, and he what he said about the Super Bowl. He somehow even got to be the MVP of the Super Bowl when he shouldn’t have. It should have gone to Matt Snell.

    We all have to get off the fact that a QB is judged by rings. That may separate the “best of the best”. Like it does in basketball and why Bill Russell is regarded as better than Wilt Chamberlain. But to just dwell on it like it for some reason as the secret password into the HOF.

    If a guy plays in enough Super Bowls like Terry Bradshaw and shines in the big games, I do understand why it is a “free pass”.

    Joe Namath’s career does not =HOF. Anybody that makes that argument has to rationlize and be hypocritical of another HOF career. He was ahead of his time in hype. If that is a HOF category then he belongs.

    He had a mediocre career and one incredible season. There are many in so many sports that have done that, and have come nowhere close to the HOF.

    I like your arguments for Jack Kemp, and I see the arguments against. I must admit I was enlightened by both discussions.

    All are doing a great job.

    By the way, I never weighed in on this topic, but the senior 9 senior HOF voters all vote for a final 15. Then 5 of those 9 voters are selected on a rotating basis to pick from those top 15 seniors, 2 to go into the room with the modern day candidates. I thought somebody commented that they couldn’t believe 4 didn’t show up. That is not the case. That is the way the process works.

68. Paul on September 23, 2011 at 2:55 pm

    If you compare SB wins, regular season total yards, TDs, wins, plus playoff numbers, and post season awards; Elway compares pretty good compared to Young and Favre. I think the 2 SBs was the issue that separated him in some voters minds. Unfortunately as great as Aikman was in the 1990s with 3 SBs his passing and TD numbers are just too low when compared to Young, Favre and Elway. I will admit it is a close call between Favre and Elway for team of the 1990s but they did finish 1st and 2nd team even if we disagree on the order.

69. Paul on September 23, 2011 at 3:08 pm

    In regards to Namath in the HOF my only view is that the HOF is about the history of the NFL. You can earn a spot in the HOF and history of the NFL by wining many championships, put up huge record setting career numbers, win many post season awards (all pro, pro bowls) or impact the game, change the game. Someone once noted that the true test of a HOF player is someone who you could not write the history of the game (or a decade) without including that person. The history of the NFL, especially the 1960s, AFL/NFL merger, and early SBs could not be written without discussing the impact of Namath. He had a huge impact on the game of professional football even without the career numbers and SBs.

    Based on that standard (change the history of the game), I could easily name 10-20 other HOFs who have more questionable qualifications for the HOF, for example: Marcus Allen, Floyd Little, Larry Csonka, Joe Perry, Doak Walker, Bob Griese, Bobby Mitchell, Paul Warfield.

    When someone writes the history of the 100th anniversary of the NFL, I can assure you that Namath will get more attention then any of those players.
    Personally I could list 10-15 other HOFers

70. Paul Wright on September 23, 2011 at 3:22 pm

    Actually, my arugment for all 90s is that Young got snubed and Elway wasn’t deserving if you only name 2. No question Elway was named based on his carreer acheivment including his 3 Superbowl losses, ’87 MVP, and The Drive in the 80s.

    Elway was not MVP any year in the 90s. Young was twice, Favre was 3 times.

    Young lead league in passer rating 6 times, completion % 5 times, TDs 4 times.

    Favre had lead league in passing yards twice, had three 4,000 yd seasons, lead in passing TDs three times, with five 30 TD seasons.

    Meanwhile Elway did lead league in passing yards one time, his only 4,000 yd season of his carreer and never had a season with more than 27 TDs.

    While Elway’s total passing yards for the decade were close to Favres and more than Youngs, he trailed both in passing TDs (Favre 235, Young 198, Elway 180)

    Even Jim Kelly was arguably as deserving for all 90s as Elway. Kelly lead league in passer rating and completion % in 1990, passing TDs in 1991, and had the 4 straight SB losses.

    For the 1990s – QBs named All-Pro
    Young 7x
    Kelly, Cunningham, Aikman, Elway, Marino 3x
    Favre, Bledsoe 2x

    Bottom line, if you look just at 1990-1999, I have no idea how you can name Elway over Young.

71. steelersfan23 on September 23, 2011 at 3:27 pm

    Paul, I agree with you on your commentary and that if I was “in the room” with the other HOF voters, I would go with Namath in the HOF for his early history. You stated it very well.

    Also agree there are so many fringe players you mentioned that are non impact players to the game etc.

    You probably know by now, I am a huge Kenny Anderson advocate, and I have to say with the logic of changing the game. Kenny did with the WCO.

    The reason why more has not been said about this is because of Paul Brown’s ego. That is why Walsh left, and the cincinnati offense became the WCO and Kenny never got the credit he deserves. Walsh agrees it is the Cincinnati offense, all the players that Walsh coached afterward have verified they learned the WCO sudying films of Kenny Anderson’s footwork, timing and execution. And most that were there at the beginning would say that Kenny was the perfect fit for because he had talent and could be coached.

    So put the Anderson in with the ‘game changers” and in his case, he also has the stats and broken records to match up with the history. And unlike the guys you mentioned, Marcus Allen, Floyd Little, Csonka, Joe Perry , Griese etc. , Kenny Anderson was the most important guy in his franchise history.

    The only reason why Anderson is not given more credit is because of Paul Brown’s insecurity in letting Bill Walsh go, then his trying to stop Walsh from ever coaching in the NFL. He was not about to admit that his team’s franchise player (Anderson) helped create the template for the modern passing offense in the backyard with a guy he let go.

    He has never acknoldged Walsh’s accomplishments before he died, and neither has Mike Brown. And they won’t.

    And, Anderson believes it is a team game and refuses to take credit for anything. As Dave Lapham has said, he was, “one of a kind”.

    Think about if you played with Anderson, or you were a part of his family, and you see a guy like Floyd Little get in, but Kenny Anderson is not?

72. Paul Wright on September 23, 2011 at 3:38 pm

    Other QBs named All Pro 1x in the 90s: Montana, Moon, Rypien, Harbaugh, Testeverde, Manning, and Warner.

    1980s-
    6x Montana
    5x Marino, Fouts
    2x Elway, Esiason, Moon, Anderson, White, Theismann, Lomax, Everett
    1x-Majkowski, Cunningham, McMahon, Kreig, Bartowski, Sipe, Jaworski, Kramer, Kosar, Schroeder, Dickey

    So Moon total of 3x, along with lack of championship success, another reason I question him being first ballot.

    Another reason I think it should have been Manning 1, Brady 2, along with the stats and league MVPs for 2000s
    2000-2009- All Pro
    7x MANNING
    4x Favre
    3x Gannon, Brees
    2x BRADY, Culpepper
    1x-Warner, McNair, Hasselbeck

73. Paul on September 23, 2011 at 3:45 pm

    “Bottom line, if you look just at 1990-1999, I have no idea how you can name Elway over Young.”

    I am thinking that the 2 SBs of Elway influenced some voters. The same reasoning to select Brady over Manning in the 2000s decade.

    You have to realize that although we may debate (and perhaps over think) the numbers aspect, the voters do not spend as much time on numbers as SBs. Perhaps not right, but it may be the truth of how this voting gets done.

74. bachslunch on September 23, 2011 at 3:49 pm

    Paul W., I don’t really care all that much about someone being “first ballot.” If you’re in, you’re in — and that holds just as true for Carl Eller (13th try in) as Warren Moon (1st try in).

75. Paul Wright on September 23, 2011 at 3:57 pm

    1970-79
    6x Tarkenton
    5x Staubach
    4x Griese
    3x Stabler, Bradshaw
    2x Lamonica, Kilmer, Ken Anderson, Bert Jones
    1x-Brodie, Unitas, Dawson, Landry, Morral, Namath, Hadl, Hart, Morton, Archie Manning, Zorn, Fouts, Sipe, Theismann, Charlie Johnson, Haden

    1960s- NFL
    5x – Unitas, Jurgensen
    4x Starr
    3x Tittle
    2x Meredith
    2x Gabriel, Wade
    1x Plum, Van Brocklyn, Brodie, Bukich, Ryan, Morral, Nelson

    1960s- AFL – find a few more as some years split depending on source – see http://www.pro-football-reference.com
    5x Kemp
    4x Dawson (HOF), Namath (HOF), Blanda (HOF)
    3x Lamonica, Hadl
    1x Dorow, Tripuka, Rote, Parilli, Greise

    Of course you can refine this further with extra credit for first team along with all the other objective data that can be collected.

    And if you look across all the decades, any one besides Kemp as 5x not in HOF?

76. Paul Wright on September 23, 2011 at 4:07 pm

    re: bachslunch:
    September 23, 2011 at 3:49 pm
    Paul W., I don’t really care all that much about someone being “first ballot.” If you’re in, you’re in — and that holds just as true for Carl Eller (13th try in) as Warren Moon (1st try in).

    Try telling that to Carl Eller, his fans, and Viking fans the first 12 times he was a finalist. With all the competition to be in and the qualifications of those on the outside looking in, it say volumes about the respect and admiration shown for a players carreer.

77. Paul Wright on September 23, 2011 at 4:19 pm

    @Paul re: “the voters do not spend as much time on numbers as SBs. Perhaps not right, but it may be the truth of how this voting gets done.”

    I’m suggesting they should put more time and thought into what they’re doing or let someone who will give it more time and thought do it.

    And for the all 90s team- if we want to be technical, Young got two SB rings in the 90s and the stats he put up in the one game he had were better than the combined stats Elway put up in his two games and both had one SB MVP. Even if they don’t want to scrutinize statistics, something like 7x All Pro, 2x MVP and multiple years leading the league in various passing categories, regardless of what they are speaks volumes over 3x All Pro, ZERO MVPs, and not leading the league in much of anything.

    Sorry, but I’ll stick with Elway getting a lifetime acheivement award and credit for his perfomance in the 80s over the 2nd SB win explanation. If Elway had two straight Steve Young (or Doug Williams or Kurt Warner) like SBs and Young/Warner/Manning/Brady/Favre like seasons I might buy it, but they rode TD to the show and he’s getting shafted too.

    At least with Brady-Manning, it was 3-1 in SBs vs 1-1 in SB. I’d still go with Manning first, but can understand the counter arguement better, especially with the one record breaking year from Brady. Again, nobody really lost out like Young did with the 90s team and is just a debate over 1st vs 2nd. (Unless you’re a Favre fan with his 4 All Pros, but with no SB in 90s wouldn’t imagine much arguement).

78. Paul Wright on September 23, 2011 at 5:13 pm

    @Steelersfan23: First, Steelers fan advocate for Bengals QB? If you already mentioned why, I missed it. Second, I can respect your convictions in support of a player you admire the accomplishments of. Yes allot of competition for the Hall.

    Of course it comes down to the selection process being something entirely subjective and no matter how objective we try to make it, those who get to vote may have a completely different and potentially a less informed point of view.

    I’ll have to admit, my first instinct wouldn’t be to put Ken Anderson in ahead of some of the others sitting on the outside looking in based on his carreer performance. I known you have a big disagreement on Stabler, but he does have a ring to go with his MVP and comparable All Pro selections. Several others, both contemporaries and more recent players that I listed before that appear to be in the same boat and I’m not sure as objective a case to make as I think I’ve made for Kemp. Yes, I’m a Bills fan and have that bias, but just look at what he accomplished and his recognition compared to his contemporaries. Might even be some Bengals fans who would put in Esiason before Anderson.

    Of course as a Bills fan, I may also be benefiting from the selectors overhyped view of the SB, even on the losing end, four straight years. On paper and looking just at stats, Reed wouldn’t make it (and still might not), Levy wouldn’t be in, and Kelly probably wouldn’t have been first ballot. Thurman and Bruce most likely would still have made it based on their carreer acheivments. Of course Kemp was one game and a three-peat away from a trip to the first dance. If the SB had started a year or two earlier, who’s to say how he might be viewed in the anals of football history. Of course trading Lamonica for Flores was one of the biggest mistakes the Bills ever made and should have been ready to make the move to Lamonica the same way SF moved from Montana to Young, or more recently GB moving from Favre to Rodgers, or to change sports, the way the Lakers went with Bryant and let Shaq go (and I’m a fan of both Montana and O’Neal and not a fan of the rapist Bryant). Of course other teams have made bigger mistakes.

    I’m not a Bronco fan (neither Denver’s northe one Al Cowlings drove), but think TD is being screwed and think Gradishar should be in.

    Just hoping the selectors might take note and make things right, but I’m not holding my breath.

    Here’s looking forward to another annual Scott Norwood replay this January……or a Music City Mirage, illegal forward pass……

79. bachslunch on September 26, 2011 at 8:20 am

    Paul W., thanks for the reply.

    I’m sure that fans (and privately, the players themselves) get varying degrees of hot and bothered when deserving candidates (in the case of players, sometimes themselves) have to wait a good while before being elected. Eller was not the first and won’t be the last deserving player to be denied for a long time before getting in. It’s a process with plenty of built-in roadblocks — lots of competitiveness in candidates, a multi-tiered system, and a hefty percentage needed for election. Re the fans: there seems to be a cottage industry of sorts among such folks, hometown players, team spokesmen, and even area sportswriters to advocate for HoF snubs ranging from the completely understandable to the completely ridiculous — and that all needs to be taken with a huge grain of salt. And most every team has at least one player they perceive as a HoF snub, in some cases several.

    In Eller’s case, he does have worthy postseason honors in 5(5AP)/6/none. If I were to guess about what likely delayed his specific candidacy, I’d think a combination of:

    -being the second-best DL on his own team behind Alan Page

    -having a checkered personal history featuring drug use

    -being part of the 4-time Super Bowl Vikings losing team meltdown

    -having from all reports a less-than-effective HoF committee member making your case

    were all factors.

    If any Vikes fans or Eller himself (not that I know if the latter occurred or not) whined about how long he took to get elected, I’d tell them to thank heavens this happened at all and get over the long wait. He’s in, and that’s all that matters. And it could have been worse. The wait for Eller, long as it was, pales next to the one Benny Friedman’s family endured, or Jerry Kramer and his supporters endure now. It happens sometimes.

80. Paul on September 26, 2011 at 11:28 am

    The problem with Eller and many other players is that unless your candidacy is a “slam dunk” (multiple post season awards, multiple championships, all time career numbers) it is very easy for the other factors bach is mentioning to dominate the debate by voters and players all too often then are surpassed by the next round of 1st ballot players to the point where over time they fall between the cracks.

81. steelersfan23 on September 26, 2011 at 1:43 pm

    Paul,

    I agree that the debunkers of the debated players are based on what you said, but I think you can rationalize almost any player (except for the “no-doubters) in or out of the HOF.

    Look at the recent elections from the seniors…Stanfel, Butler, Hanburger, Richter, Little and LeBeau. I do not think any of these are slam-dunkers. Nor, do I think any of them are the best players at their positions not in the HOF. Not to say that they are not better than some that are already in, or that they do not belong. I just could not have predicted any of these guys for the senior nominees.

82. bachslunch on September 26, 2011 at 2:22 pm

    Paul W. — more thoughts.

    -despite the existence of some snubs, I think the AFL is not as badly represented in the HoF as some claim. Consider that Jim Otto, Billy Shaw, Ron Mix, Lance Alworth, Don Maynard, George Blanda, Len Dawson, Joe Namath, Buck Buchanan, Nick Buoniconti, Bobby Bell, Willie Brown, and Emmitt Thomas as well as coaches Hank Stram, Sid Gillman, and Ween Ewbank — all of whom had significant AFL playing or coaching time — are already in. Of the snubs, I can see especially strong cases for Johnny Robinson, Larry Grantham, Dave Grayson, Walt Sweeney, and Ed Budde. There’s also at least some kind of case potentially as well for such folks as Lionel Taylor, Art Powell, Otis Taylor, Winston Hill, Clem Daniels, Jerry Mays, Tom Sestak, Houston Antwine, Earl Faison, Mike Stratton, George Saimes, Jerrel Wilson, and Tombstone Jackson — and yes, Jack Kemp as well as John Hadl and Daryle Lamonica. Jim Tyrer would be a no-brainer as well, though his murder/suicide will probably unfairly keep him out. But there’s no way all these folks get in, of course.

    -re Jack Kemp, I agree with BSLO above that Kemp’s stats are rather less than premium — he needs the boost of winning two AFL titles to get in the conversation with Hadl and Lamonica. No need to compare him across eras, which doesn’t really work without some kind of period adjustment, anyway.

    -I for one applaud steelerfan23 for advocating strongly on behalf of Ken Anderson. I feel, as does that poster, that Anderson has an especially strong HoF case. It’s especially important to note that one can be a fan of one team while seeing and backing a good HoF argument for another team’s player, after all. We’ve been doing so above, in fact.

    -re Broncos and the HoF, I also think Randy Gradishar belongs in, and Steve Atwater as well (plus Lionel Taylor and Karl Mecklenburg have solid cases). I can see that a Gale Sayers exception could apply for Terrell Davis. And that exception could also be argued for players as diverse as Mac Speedie, Sterling Sharpe, and Tony Boselli.

83. steelersfan23 on September 26, 2011 at 2:41 pm

    Bachslunch:

    Thanks for your comments and being open-minded about Kenny Anderson.

    Keep in mind that other Bengal “fans” have suggested a “campaign” for Kenny Riley, or Lemar Parrish. You don’t hear me playing those cards, because although they both have a resume builf for Canton (pro bowls, INT’s etc.).

    I have studied the Anderson case and he always “flew under the radar”, and never got the credit that other more popular and larger market QB’s got. Also, his demeanor was always to refuse to take credit and give it to his teammates.

    The reason why I think Anderson belongs so strongly is his impact on the modern passing game has never been really discussed. If you combine his career accomplishments that are already HOF worthy, with his pioneering the modern passing offense, I think that should push him over the top.

    The only reason he has not gotten more credit for the WCO is because Paul Brown let Bill Walsh leave. The biggest mistake in his football career. All because of ego. The Brown family or the Bengals have never given credit to what Bill Walsh did for football. And therefore Kenny Anderson was never given the credit he deserved either. But, you can ask the guys who were there (Bob Trumpy, Greg Cook etc.) and they will tell you what happened.

    The Brown family are probably the only people in football history that have not given glowing testimonials on Bill Walsh.

    Thanks again, there are several Bengal players that deserve a look, but it is a crime that Anderson isn’t in the HOF for what he did, and how he did it.

    I know there are a lot of other great cases as well. But the Bengals have virtually nobody from their early great teams in the HOF. You cannot say we can’t put Kenny in because their are “too many Bengals in the HOF already.”

84. bachslunch on September 26, 2011 at 3:34 pm

    steelersfan23, no need to convince me about Ken Anderson’s HoF worth. I definitely think he belongs in — his stats are too good to argue against, for one thing. And your point about Anderson being a WCO pioneer QB is legitimate and correct.

    I’m all for Lemar Parrish getting elected as well.

85. Paul Wright on September 26, 2011 at 3:38 pm

    @bachslunch:
    -of those you listed, Billy Shaw, another “old timers” selection is only HOF player to have ONLY played in the AFL. And by the way, Shaw didn’t make it on to Buffalo’s own Wall of Fame (started in 1980) until after OJ, Kemp, and Sestak.
    -Re: Kemp v Hadl v Lamonica – Sorry, but even if Kemp had lost the 1964&65 AFL championships (like Hadl did to Kemp while Hadl was sharing QB duties) his 5 All AFL (All Pro) selections, 5 championship game appearances, and 7 All Star Games (Pro Bowls) still outpace either Hadl or Lamonica’s combined AFL and NFL accalades and Hadl was never MVP. Only advantage for Lamonica over Kemp is his 2nd MVP (and as stated trading him one of Buffalo’s biggest mistakes). And have you actually looked at Hadl or Lamonica’s career stats before making that statement? Sorry, Hadl’s career passer rating of 67.4 with 24 more Ints than TDs, or Lamonica’s 72.9 rating with his formative years “protected” on the bench behind Kemp (and Hadl was also “protected” on bench in SD behind Tobin Rote for several years, both like Young’s years in SF) and fewer carrer passing totals (attempts, completions, yards) are not impressive either, even if Kemp’s passer rating was only 57.3. (Namath 65.5 rating, Bradshaw 70.9 rating). Kemp’s passer rating was arguably most likely also negatively impacted with lower TD pass totals as result of his then record 40 rushing TDs by a QB. And as everyone will acknowledge Championships and SBs appear to be a primary consideration, outside of those earned in the AFL before 1966.

    A quick side comparison on regular season rushing stats for the weak passer rating HOFer and not-in-HOFers mentioned:
    Kemp 1,150 yds, 40 TD (122 games)
    Namath 140 yds, 7 TD (140 games)
    Bradshaw 2,257 yds, 32 TD (168 games)
    Lamonica 649 yds, 14 TD (151 games)
    Hadl 461 yds, 4 TD (223 games)

    One more note on Kemp, besides the 5 championship games mentioned, he also took Bills to a one divisional playoff game due to division championship tie with Boston in 1963, thus taking his teams to playoffs a total of 6 times (Chargers 2x, Bills 4x) in 7 years. Bottom line, he was a winner. Bradshaw took Steelers 9 times, Namath only took Jets twice, Lamonica took Raiders 5 times, Hadl was winless starting QB in playoffs 2x (1965, 1973), having played behind Tobin Rote for 1963 & 1964 Championship games.

    Again if AFL play for 1960-66 were given equal billing to NFL play, no doubt Kemp would already be in.

86. Paul Wright on September 26, 2011 at 3:58 pm

    A couple more words on Kemp.

    To put his rushing TDs in perspective, he was 2nd in the league in rushing TDs twice (10th in total TDs both of those years) and 4th in the league in rushing TDs two other times.

    Again I’d focus on the winning, the championships, the All AFL/ All Pro selections, Pro Bowls, and MVP as primary criteria, but rushing stats are good counter balance to criticism of passer rating/effeciency stats.

87. BSLO on September 27, 2011 at 3:26 pm

    Wow, I was gone over the weekend, but it looks like some of my comments have generated a lot of discussion.

    With regards to Kemp, I should have clarified in my original argument that I believed that Kemp’s stats sucked “in his era” (yeah i’m going to stir the pot some more). I will give him a pass on the completion % because upon further investigation, back in the 60’s completing over 50% of your passes was considered a pretty good year. The problems that I have with his candidacy moreso revolve around:

    1) He never led the AFL in any major passing category

    2) He never threw more TD’s than INT’s in a season. I’ll admit that this wasn’t common back then, but Lamonica, Hadl, Dawson, Parilli, Rote, Blanda, even Namath all had at least a season or two in which they did this.

    3) His interception rates and number of fumbles (could be because of his rushing attempts) were routinely among the highest in the AFL.

    4) There are already 3 AFL QB’s in the Hall of Fame.

    5) Several of his 7 Pro Bowl appearances and his MVP win just seem like a joke to me. Honestly I have to wonder if they based it mostly on the QB’s team’s record back then because I see no more than 2-3 seasons in which he produced above average stats. It seems like they just picked 3-5 guys out of a hat each year.

    6) He had the rushing TD record, but judging by his pedestrian 3.2 career YPC, I wouldn’t really say he was a prototype rushing QB. A whopping 24 of those 40 TD’s came from the 1-yard line and only 8 of them came from outside the 5. That sounds more like playcalling than skill.

    7) Aside from his solid career record, 2 AFL Championships and bloated amount of post-season awards, I don’t see a case for him being that much more deserving than peers like Lamonica and Hadl who have a couple of solid credentials in their corner. Lamonica had an exceptional career record (70-21-6!) and Hadl has great counting stats plus the fact that he was an All-Pro and Pro Bowler AFTER the merger.

    Kemp’s rushing TD’s are a big plus, but is that really enough to overcome his statistical shortcomings overwise? I personally don’t think so, but respect Paul Wright’s opinion otherwise. I think that he falls somewhere around the 5th most deserving senior candidate at his position behind Anderson, Stabler, Lamonica and Hadl, and possibly others.

    As others have said, Aikman’s 3 Super Bowls, Bradshaw’s 4 Super Bowls, and Namath’s 4000 yard season and the significance of his SB III win were enough to overcome their average stat profiles (though I HIGHLY disagree that that should have been enough for Namath to get in).

    I think that similar to Jim Plunkett, he just has too many shortcomings that bring down his candidacy despite his excellent postseason performance. Maybe there is some AFL bias or political bias against him, but honestly I think it has way more to do with the fact that he was just a decent QB.

88. bachslunch on September 27, 2011 at 5:44 pm

    Paul W. : to cite something I looked at regarding Jack Kemp, I’ll provide a link yet again to Kiran Rasaretnam’s posted online study:

    http://newqbrating.blogspot.com/2010/04/c-scores-new-way-to-evaluate-pro.html

    in which he does a period adjusted comparison of QBs. It’s broken down into “Best 4 seasons,” “Best 7 seasons,” and “Best 10 seasons.”

    In it, for “Best 4,” John Hadl ranks 50th, Daryle Lamonica ranks 85th, and Jack Kemp ranks 112th.

    For “Best 7,” Hadl ranks 40th, Kemp ranks 88th, and Lamonica doesn’t qualify.

    For “Best 10,” only Hadl qualifies, and he ranks 25th.

    Among the threesome of Hadl, Lamonica, and Kemp, Hadl definitely looks to be the best of these folks. Hadl has the top numbers for “Best 4” and “Best 7,” plus he has enough longevity to qualify for a “Best 10.” Lamonica has a better “Best 4” than Kemp, but doesn’t even have enough to qualify for “Best 7,” which Kemp does. Between Lamonica and Kemp, the former has a better peak, the latter has better longevity.

    As noted above, Ken Anderson ranks 3rd in “Best 4,” 3rd in “Best 7,” and 5th in “Best 10.”

89. bachslunch on September 27, 2011 at 6:13 pm

    Paul W., you said: “of those you listed, Billy Shaw, another “old timers” selection is only HOF player to have ONLY played in the AFL.”

    Shaw played in the AFL from 1961-1969 inclusive — and yes, I think he very much belongs in the HoF. However, I don’t see that your observation is meaningful regarding a perceived AFL snub bias, especially given that:

    -Otto, Blanda, Mix, and Maynard played in the AFL every year of its existence (1960-1969), or in other words, one more year than Shaw did.

    -Alworth, Buoniconti, and Dawson played in the AFL only one fewer year than Shaw (1962-1969).

    -Bell’s, Brown’s, and Buchanan’s careers started only a year later then Alworth et al (1963-1969).

    -Stram and Gillman were head coaches during every year of the AFL’s existence (1960-1969), again one more year than Shaw played.

    But most importantly, if we remove their AFL years, the HoF cases of all but one of these coaches and players collapse to pretty much nothing. And Willie Brown’s case would be severely weakened to the point where he likely wouldn’t make it in, either.

    And I’d further argue that what little HoF argument Joe Namath has rests almost fully with his AFL playing days.

90. boknows34 on September 28, 2011 at 12:05 pm

    Just a quick note to mention the prelim list for the 2012 modern era candidates will be released today at 2pm EST.

91. BSLO on September 28, 2011 at 12:40 pm

    That’s awesome!! Thanks for the heads-up boknows34! Looking forward to some more debating with everyone in the future.

92. boknows34 on September 28, 2011 at 1:08 pm

    Here it is.

    http://www.profootballhof.com/enshrinement/2011/9/28/modern-era-nominees-for-the-class-of-2012/

    Running back Tiki Barber, quarterback Drew Bledsoe, wide receiver Keyshawn Johnson, guard Will Shields, and coaches Bill Cowher, Bill Parcells, and Marty Schottenheimer are among the 11 first-year eligible modern-era candidates for the Pro Football Hall of Fame Class of 2012.

    The preliminary list includes 71 players, 14 coaches and 18 contributors.

93. Paul Wright on September 28, 2011 at 3:09 pm

    @BSLO: Feel free to critique Kemps and the other QBs stats until you’re blue in the face. As we all know, various objective and subjective criteria considered for any HOF selection, but I believe the intent is to enshrine players who represented the best at their position or made greatest contribution to the league during the time period in which they played. Obvious room for difference of opinion on what criteria meets this definition, but hopefully you can at least agree on the definition.

    As such, why you continue to discount or ignore Kemps 7 All-Star/Pro Bowl, 5 All AFL/Pro, 2 Championships, MVP, and taking his team to the playoffs 6 times in 7 years (5 times to championship game) which by themselves outweigh any of the 4 QBs you would list ahead of him (Anderson, Stabler, Lamonica, Hadl) is beyond my comprehension. You can try to redefine what you think was great all you want, but the success and awards he received when he played speak for themselves and in my humble opinion weigh more than any statistics given the differences in the game played over time (including more games per season (regular and post season), development of passing game and various rule changes). And if you or anyone want to give extra credit to Ken Anderson for his part in the development of the WCO, then why not give Kemp extra credit for co-founding the AFL Players Assoc and by being one of the AFLs best QBs in it’s formative years which one could argue helped make the league competitive with the NFL and allow it to later draw talent like Namath and eventually take the two leagues down the merger path that they followed.

    Hadl in particular played a long time and was an “average” player the vast majority of it outside his couple good years (never MVP and never won a playoff game, being on team loosing twice to Kemp).

    In my opinion, Lamonica is a a more worthy candidate than Hadl, but still falls short of Kemp in several areas (Pro Bowl / All Star selections, Championships, playoff appearances, career passing yards, attempts, completions, rushing TDs, etc), not to mention not being considered good enough to displace Kemp as starting QB on the same team.
    (Sorry, I’m also not going to agree with anyone who might rank Young ahead of Montana due to higher career passer rating, more years leading league in various passing statistical categories, and career rushing stats, when you weigh the SBs and Young riding the bench behind Montana for years – both named All Pro 7x and MVP 2x) (in other words, Montana was better and won more than Young, and so did Kemp compared to Lamonica)

    With Stabler and Anderson, we’re more clearly dealing with post-merger QBs and while the passing stats were yet to develop and grow to their current levels, they were clearly more predominant than they were in the early-mid 1960s in either league. They also have more competition at their position for the period in which they played as can clearly be seen with the QBs in the Hall and those not yet in the Hall. I wouldn’t say either of these are NOT deserving, but not necessarily any more deserving than other QBs with comparable career achievements (stats, wins/playoffs, championships, Pro Bowls, All Pros, MVPS, etc) like Joe Theismann, but probably put ahead of a guy like Brian Sipe. (I’d actually put Theismann ahead of Anderson with his SB win and SB appearance to go with comparable 3x All Pro and MVP on his resume, even if MVP and SB loss during strike shortened season) Other competition who aren’t seniors yet will of course eventually join them there as well including Cunningham, Gannon, Esiason, and Simms. I don’t think any of these will make it in before then.

    And as far as Plunkett, again he’s part of the post merger NFL with more competition. He didn’t have any significant regular season accomplishments such as being an All Pro even one time (heck, Majkowski was All Pro one time) or MVP and obviously considered a less meaningful piece of the puzzle on his SB teams than many other QBs.

    And as far as my added comments on the rushing TDs, you still seem to be missing the point. Was not making any attempt to define him as a “running QB” like we’ve had in the likes of Young, Cunningham, Vick, etc, but only point out that he’d had thrown allot of those into the end zone rather than run them in, his passing stats would have been better and in either case his efforts allowed his teams to win.

    @bachslunch: Sorry, but Blanda only “half” counts as far as a count for AFL QBS as we all know he would not be in HOF if not for the career scoring, seasons and games played records. Based on achievement at QB position, Kemp and Lamonica are both more deserving than Blanda. And as far as Namath, he got in for one game and two seasons of play and is the All Time King of Hype. Again, bias appears to be mostly against Pre-SB AFL, and it’s not just Kemp. Yes, due to AFL only existing 10 years and Pre-SB being a subset of that, also means anyone left out of the hall due to what was perceived as too short a career who also played just in the AFL would fall into group not in the HOF. Bottom line, he clearly isn’t being given same credit for his MVP, Championships, playoff appearances, and ALL AFL/All Pro achievements due to most of them being earned in the AFL before the first SB. Otherwise he would already be in, wouldn’t he?

    And the points about Shaw were twofold. First, that every other HOFer played part of their career in NFL. Second, he was considered less deserving of HOF than either Kemp or Sestak by his own franchise and that’s before giving any consideration to what Kemp did with the Chargers. He would have been named to Bills Wall of Fame after Cookie Gilchrist also who was the first inductee to an earlier Bills Hall of Fame, but never made the Wall due to his request to be paid to appear.

    Meanwhile all 4 of the NFL QBs who were named All Pro 3 or more times in the NFL in the 1960s are in the HOF (Unitas, Jurgensen, Star, Tittle) and every QB named All Pro 4 or more times since 1960 are in the HOF, besides Kemp, Lamonica, and Hadl. Stabler, Anderson, Theismann, Cunningham, and Gannon join Kemp, Lamonica, and Hadl among QBs named All Pro 3 or more times who have not been selected and are eligible.

94. bachslunch on September 28, 2011 at 3:55 pm

    Paul W. you said: “Sorry, but Blanda only “half” counts as far as a count for AFL QBS as we all know he would not be in HOF if not for the career scoring, seasons and games played records.”

    Please cite anywhere above where I said “George Blanda is in the HoF solely because of his accomplishments as an AFL QB” or something like it. I don’t recall posting this. And assuming I didn’t, please don’t attribute something like that to me and then use it as a springboard to make an argument on behalf of a non-HoF QB.

    You also said re Billy Shaw: “he was considered less deserving of HOF than either Kemp or Sestak by his own franchise and that’s before giving any consideration to what Kemp did with the Chargers.”

    In order to claim this, you have to show that the order of induction of Bills players into their Wall of Fame somehow correlates to their perception of HoF worth by the franchise. I’m not aware of any such idea having been officially put forth by the Bills. If you know of such a thing, please point me to a reliable source, online or otherwise.

    You also said: “the points about Shaw were twofold. First, that every other HOFer played part of their career in NFL.”

    Which as far as I can tell doesn’t negate my argument above. As I already said, if you take away the AFL-based years from the players and coaches I listed above, their HoF cases collapse to pretty much nothing. That strongly suggests to me that they got elected because of what they did in the AFL, not for what they did before or afterward.

    I’m also not sure if you’re differentiating between “1st team” and “2nd team” all pro here. According to pro-football-reference, Kemp was named an AFL 1st team all pro by one or more organization twice (in 1960 and 1965). But so was Daryle Lamonica (in 1967 and 1969). And Namath was three times (1967, 1968, 1969).

95. Paul Wright on September 28, 2011 at 4:15 pm

    A few more thoughts for those compelled to weigh stats higher than wins/losses, championships, AllPro/ProBowls, and MVPs given changes in the game over time.

    You may want to take actually closer look at how all of these have changed over time. If you want to retrospectively discount Kemp’s accomplishments in lieu of modern stats, you should first compare to their contemporaries for the specific years in which they played. Even HOFs Namath and Griese had more Interceptions than TDs in some of the years they were named All Pro and Hadl had more Ints than TDs each of the 3 times he was named AFL All Pro (should also note that the counts used came from pro-football-reference.com and include All league and All Conf (1970 forward) honors from various sources.) The game was different and passing stats were different so All Pros, MVPs, Championships, and winning was more important. And even today, winning is still viewed as more important.

    To break down the 6 QBs with significant AFL experience we’ve been discussing, let’s take closer look at when their honors were earned and whether 1st or 2nd team, league, or conf (conf only after 1970).
    Kemp – 1st team 60 and 65, 2nd team 61, 63, 66
    Blanda – 1st team 61, 2nd team 62, 63, 66
    Dawson – 1st team 62 and 66, 2nd team 64, 68, and 71 (2nd conf only)
    Hadl – 1st team 73 (league), 2nd team 65, 66, 68
    Lamonica – 1st team 67, 69, 2nd team 68, 70 (2nd conf only), 72 (2nd conf only)
    Namath – 1st team 68, 2nd team 67, 69, 72 (2nd league, 1st conf)

    In some cases, especially 2nd team, there were multiple people named for the same year depending on the source.

    Of these 6, only Dawson would probably get into HOF based on passing stats alone, plus he did have an MVP, win championships, and a SB.

    Given most of Kemps achievements were before Jets won SB III and in first 7 years of a newly formed league, there are some selectors who obviously discount his achievements. Of course the NFL wouldn’t be what it is today without the merger and the AFL, so in reality they should really give it the honor and respect they give the early years of the NFL which obviously yield even greater statistical comparison contrasts when you compare to modern players. Even Jim Thorpe, arguably the greatest athlete of all time and most important player in the founding years of the NFL, had pawltry stats compared most modern players.

96. Paul Wright on September 28, 2011 at 4:27 pm

    @bachlunch, my mistake. I misattbuted “3 AFL QBs already in HOF” to you when it was BSLO. Sorry, mixing the arguments being posted against Kemp which I find unwarranted given he’s the only 5x ALL PRO, 2 time champion, and MVP QB not in the HOF (not to mention the other accalades).

97. Paul Wright on September 28, 2011 at 4:38 pm

    @bachlunch, where are you looking to see Namath named 1st team league All Pro more than one time (1968)? Guess it depends on which source you want to site.

    Consensus 1st team for 1967 was Lamonica – he was first by Sporting News, AP, and UPI. Namath first for Newspaper Ent Assoc and NY Daily News. Sorry, but I discount the last two as much as I do Randall Cunningham’s multiple Bert Bell MVPs voted on by the Philadelphia Maxwell Football Club. (i.e. these were biased towards their home football team)

    Consensus 1st team for 1969 was also Lamonica with 5 first and 3 second team selections and Namath with 2 first and 3 second team selections, with same two first as he had in 1968

    Please see this link, they put the consensus 1st team selection in BOLD and you can scroll using the previous season hotlink.
    http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/1969_AFL/allpro.htm

    Had already posted by 1st/2nd team listing for the 6 QBs before I saw you comment.

98. Paul on September 28, 2011 at 4:43 pm

    Given the list of 103 candidates on the nominee list released today, I am willing to go out on a limb right now and state that NO 1st year candidates will be elected for the 2012 class. For a hint of those players most likely to get elected look at the 15 finalists from 2011 not elected (Bettis, Martin, Brown, Carter, Reed, Dawson, Roaf, Doleman, Haley, Kennedy). Obviously five others, perhaps including a few of the 1st year candidates, will fill the roster of 15 finalists, but I am betting that those not elected in 2011 will make up the class of modern candidates in 2012. Yes you heard it here first!!!

99. Paul Wright on September 28, 2011 at 4:45 pm

    typo on last post – should have read “same two first he had in 1967” ref. Namath in 1969.

    In any case we already covered why Namath is in, so a relatively mute point. Dawson and Blanda also in. So only real argument we have now and purpose for all these posts is with regard to who among QBs not in HOF are most deserving to be in HOF. Obviously subjective to various readers, especially those with lack of appreciation for 1960s or AFL, or lack of knowledge of football history and stats that have changed as part of the game over time, or those with lack of respect for winning.

100. Paul Wright on September 28, 2011 at 5:35 pm

     @bachslunch: re: Billy Shaw. Obviously there is no official weighing of HOF worthiness by the Bills or any other franchise, so request to see such is ridiculous. Meanwhile, extrapolating any team’s Wall or Hall of Fame induction order when not dependent on eligibility and time frame the player played is a reasonable logical deduction. Obviously saying something like Kemp being more “worthy” than Kelly for same reason would be illogical due to Kemp already being on the wall before Kelly played for the Bills. Given that Shaw, Simpson, Sestak, and Kemp were all eligible when their wall started in 1980, reasonable to speculate that the franchise and a concensus of it’s fans viewed the careers of those put on the wall as more valuable than those not chosen or chosen later. There is an exception of Gilchrist with their wanting to put him up, but his refusing to appear without pay, which he later retracted, but still never made it up before his death earlier this year. Of course all of this is subjective and speculative, just like any discussion on who best team, or best player at any position, etc.

     The Bills actually put Phil Hansen up on their wall in 2011 when Cookie Gilchrist and Lou Saban are not, which I find ridiculous. Of course I’d also argue that Gilchrist is probably more deserving of the HOF than Flloyd Little who was named by the old timers committee last year. Cookie was an MVP, lead the league in rushing twice, and rushing TDs four times, was 1st team All Pro 3x and in Pro Bowl 4x, won an AFL Championship with the Bills, and was tied for 2nd in scoring in 1962 also playing as kicker. His career in the AFL was unfortunately short, 6 years and 65 games. Meanwhile, Little lead league in rushing one time, was first team all pro one time, and named to 5 Pro Bowls in his 9 year 117 game career. Cookie’s average yards per game were 22% better than Littles and TDs per game were 53% better than Littles. Cookie still tied with record 5 TDs rushing in game (in 1962 against Jets in which he ran for then professional football record 243 yards). Had AFLs first 1,000 yard season.

     If by any chance any of Warren Moon’s CFL accomplishments were given any weight to help make him a first time selection, then should also mention that if you also add Cookie’s CFL play from 1956 to 1961, then he definitely warrants consideration for the HOF. In the CFL he was a 5x All Star , won 1957 Grey Cup, rushed for 4,911 yds, had 1,068 receivng yds, and had 12 interceptions. He was also All Star LB in 1960. His combined CFL-AFL production totaled 9,204 rushing yds rushing. Only NFL player with over 10,000 yards rushing until 1977 was Jim Brown. His combined CFL-AFL TD total of 76 would also be among the all time NFL leaders through the time that he played. He had another 346 pts as a kicker in the CFL and 38 pts as a kicker in the AFL.

101. Paul Wright on September 28, 2011 at 5:52 pm

     @Paul: Re: class of 2012. As a Bills fan, hope you’re right which would mean Reed will most likely make it (going to final cut each of the past 2 years ahead of Carter and Brown). Unfortunately, in part thanks to Scott Norwood and Bill Bellicheck’s Defense, I can’t see Parcells not getting in with his 2 SB wins and taking both the Giants and Pats to the SB. I’m no fan of him or Bellicheck, but can’t see either one of them not being in the HOF. And if the selectors want to try being more politically correct with representation by position, I’d give Shields a good chance too with 12 Pro Bowls and 9 All Pro selections. I agree that the other first timers – Barber, Davis, Johnson, Smith, Vincent, Vanderjagt, Cowher, and Schottenheimer probably will not and most will not even be finalist.

102. BSLO on September 28, 2011 at 7:12 pm

     Paul Wright – First of all, I hope that I’m not offending you on a personal level with my arguments because that’s not my intention. Your initial post asked why Jack Kemp hadn’t been considered for the Hall of Fame and we’ve been providing you with our best answers. Not in a way to discount your opinions, but in an attempt to think the way the Hall of Fame thinks. While I admittedly come off as negative in my Jack Kemp posts, it’s in large part because I think the Hall of Fame voting is a deductive process where players get (perhaps unfairly) passed over because of what they didn’t accomplish over what they did accomplish (so and so didn’t play long enough, didn’t have enough stats, never won a championship, etc.).

     As someone who puts a lot of thought into my posts before I write them, I hope that you don’t think so little of me that you think I am not considering Kemp’s post-season awards/accomplishments or the era in which his stats occurred into my argument. The reason I’m quoting stats until I’m blue in the face is because there are so many red flags that in them that hurt Kemp’s candidacy. You are arguing for him, I’m arguing against him. Since his stats represent the negative side of the coin, of course I’m going to point to them. I don’t think at any point in time, I have failed to qualify my opinion that Kemp’s stats were bad even relative to his era. I haven’t ever explicitly tried to compare Kemp’s stats to Anderson’s, Stabler’s or any QB that came after.

     There is more to a Hall of Fame case than winning. Football is a team sport, but making the Hall of Fame is an individual accomplishment. As such, both need to be considered when you are looking at a player’s credentials. That is why Warren Moon and Troy Aikman are both in the Hall of Fame for very different reasons. With guys like Jim Thorpe it is a completely different story because they basically kept no stats back in the 20’s and early 30’s and in any Hall of Fame, you have to consider the pioneers of a professional sport when you make the first picks for a Hall of Fame.

     In the case of Kemp, he accomplished a lot for the AFL in terms of giving it credibility, being a players association leader, being an outstanding team leader period, and being in some ways the early face of the league. He definitely has the accomplishments when you consider his excellent career record, his Championship wins and his Post-season honours and he clearly had a hand in developing two great QB’s in Lamonica and Hadl. His 5 1st or 2nd All-Pro awards look great and honestly if anything ever puts him over the top, it will be that (although usually the voting body from my understanding gives the Associated Press vote the biggest weight and in Kemp’s case he only made 2 First-Teams and 1 2nd Team). Those are all great accomplishments that you can’t take away from Kemp because they are there.

     Unfortunately since I believe the voting is a deductive process, if you put 44 voters in a room, there is not a chance that they will look at those accomplishments at face value. They’ll point to the fact that Kemp made it to three straight championships with the number one ranked defense and the number one scoring rushing offense all three years. Because of that fact, coupled with his less than stellar stats. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to argue that while he did lead the Bills to three straight championships, he had a lot of help to get there just like other HOF QB’s like Bradshaw and Aikman.

     They’ll also point to the fact that in Kemp’s 6-game Playoff career, he threw 2 touchdown passes and had one rushing touchdown. I don’t care what era you are looking at, the point of football has always been to score points and Kemp did not do that in the playoffs. Like we all have done with Namath’s Super Bowl MVP win, I find it hard not to somewhat question Kemp’s AFL Championship MVP win when he completed 8 passes in the game, ran the ball zero times and his offense scored 1 offensive TD in a 23-0 win. To me, someone on the Bills’ awesome defense should have taken home that award.

     They’ll point to the fact that while he made 7 Pro Bowl appearances, he made 6 of them in an 8-team league (again, nothing to do with the AFL, simply that it’s a small league). The problem with your Pro Bowl argument is this…if there are 8 teams in a league, and half of the QB’s make the Pro Bowl, you need to only be a league average QB to make the Pro Bowl. When you consider that 1 or 2 teams likely have QB’s that didn’t play the whole season due to ineffectiveness or injury, it becomes almost a case where starting all your team’s games gives you a better than 50% chance at making the Pro Bowl. Since Pro Bowls are one of the few things in football that you can somewhat compare over eras, I think it’s also reasonable to say that Kemp’s 7 Pro Bowls are less impressive than say Steve Young’s 7 Pro Bowls, because Steve Young made the Pro Bowl seven times at a time when there were at least 28 teams in the league.

     Those are my best objective arguments as to why Kemp will never be seriously considered by the Senior’s committee.

     As for one final subjective one, I personally believe that Kemp made several of those 7 Pro Bowls and won the League MVP and Championship MVP based more on reputation than anything. I would say that the 3 Pro Bowls he made in 1961, 1963 and 1964 was understandable and somewhat deserved. I also think that his 1960 First-team All-Pro selection was deserved (there was no Pro Bowl that year, so for arguments sake, I’ll give him a 4/1 Profile, the same as Anderson and Stabler). The other 3 Pro Bowls including his 1965 inclusion in his MVP year were wishy-washy when you look at what he accomplished and believe me, I’ve looked at them at a lot of different angles. If you or anyone else can point to something that says he deserved the Pro Bowl, First Team All-Pro, MVP Award and AFLC MVP award (and let’s face it, every newspaper voted that he was great that year) over the rest of the players in the league…please enlighten me because it has me completely confused. Again, you can’t take those accomplishments away from him, but wow, the numbers just don’t tell the story on that one.

     Anyway, I know we are going to continue to agree to disagree but that is my point of view. I know that I haven’t addressed some of your points but I have to eventually stop this post. :)

103. BSLO on September 28, 2011 at 7:20 pm

     As for 2012, nothing crazy stands out about the preliminary list except that it looks like there are less nominees than previous years. I don’t think that any nominees that retired in 2006 will make it in but I think Parcells and Shields stand a good chance of making it to the finalist stage and will be inducted within 3-5 years.

     Of the first-time nominees, the only player that I think got a little bit snubbed here was Corey Dillon. I think he accomplished more in his career than Stephen Davis, so I’m surprised Davis made the list over him. Paul W, I think that this is Reed’s year and I hope that he makes it because I personally thought he was always underrated and his stats were held back by the offense he played in. In my early years of watching football, I considered him the best receiver in the league not named Rice or Irvin. Since I live in Canada and back then we usually only got Bills games n TV at 1 pm, I saw him play a lot and always respected him.

104. Brad on September 28, 2011 at 9:20 pm

     Agreed with Corey Dillon. Corey was a vital player in the Patriots Super Bowl run in 2004. He rushed for 11,241 yards, stephen rushed for 8,052 yards and is a 3x pro bowler vs corey’s 4. No QB worthy in my opinion between Phil Simms and Drew Bledsoe this year. Tim Brown, Cris Carter, Andre Reed, , Roger Craig, Curtis Martin, Jerome Bettis, Terrell Davis, Dermontti Dawson, Willie Roaf,Will Shlelds,, Charles Haley, Cortez Kennedy, Kevin Greene, and Aeneas Williams have good chances for now or future. I hope Andre Reed gets elected before CC and Tim Brown. Maybe 2 get in this year. Along with Curtis Martin who I think will get in this year. Dermontti Dawson has a good chance.

105. BSLO on September 28, 2011 at 9:29 pm

     Just to further my points above and address a couple more of Paul Wright’s arguments:

     1) 40 Rushing TD’s – Maybe I was a bit harshly sarcastic on that point because I knew that your argument was that he this would counterbalance his passing TD’s. It does that a bit, but he still only contributed an average of 15-16 TD’s to his team a year which is nothing to write home about.

     2) He kept Lamonica and Hadl on the bench during their formative years – Fine, but I can’t take this argument seriously without also stating that Kemp spent his formative years getting cut by 4 NFL teams, a CFL team and really only got his chance when the AFL opened the door as essentially an expansion of professional football. Also, while the Lamonica argument certainly holds water, Hadl was on the bench as a rookie behind Kemp for 2 games before Kemp missed several games due to injury then got waived.

     3) He threw 3 TD’s in a quarter, which is an NFL record – Sorry but plenty of QB’s have had good quarters of play. It’s a nice accomplishment but nothing that should affect a Hall of Fame resume.

     4) The reason I am comparing Anderson and Stabler with Kemp is because of the fact that all three are senior candidates right now. Considering that there are a lot of QB’s already in the hall of fame, I consider it incredibly unlikely that more than one QB would ever get nominated by the senior committee in a given year. As such, Anderson and Stabler represent some of Kemp’s competition. In my opinion, despite the fact that Kemp beats them in championships, All Pros and Pro Bowls, Anderson and Stabler’s accomplishments are more impressive than his.

     First of all, for Kemp to win a championship all he needed to do was have his team win their division and win one playoff game. If this is all Stabler would have had to do, he would have won 4 Championships in a row from 1973-1976. In Anderson’s case, he would have made 4 Championship appearances and won 1 Championship. When you consider that they both also won MVP awards, made 4 Pro Bowls apiece against more competition and put up solid stats when compared to other Hall of Fame QB’s from their era like Staubach, Bradshaw, Namath, Griese, etc., I give them a clear advantage over Kemp. Especially since Anderson really had to carry his offense for most of his career and Stabler was one of the most clutch QB’s in the league throughout his Raiders career. Kemp spent a good portion of his Bills career with the best defense in the AFL and arguably the best rushing attack in the AFL year after year. Let’s also not forget that Kemp’s playoff record was a pedestrian 2-4.

     When you move over to Lamonica and Hadl, I’ll admit the line gets closer, but I give them the edge over Kemp because I personally believe that they had more to do with their team’s success or failure than Kemp ever did.

     In Lamonica’s case, he has far superior individual passing stats to Kemp and nearly matches his career totals in 3 less years as a starter. He has the same amount of MVP’s and championship wins, was overall a much better playoff performer than Kemp (including a 5 TD and 6 TD game over his career), and has the same amount of career wins. While he only has 4 legit Pro Bowls, he got those in just 6 seasons as a starter. He also matches Kemp with 5 various All-Pro teams. I fully agree that Montana was better than Young no matter what Young did after Montana left. But that’s because Montana is a 3-time Super Bowl winner and 3-time Super Bowl MVP and an 8-time All-Pro who is in the argument for best QB of all-time. Jack Kemp is not. Again, if you consider how Lamonica won his division 4 times and won one AFL Championship, that’s pretty close to Kemp’s post-season accomplishments. As a bonus, Lamonica also was the gold standard of his era when it came to limiting turnovers and avoiding sacks. Kemp was league average for interceptions thrown for much of his career, fumbled a lot and took a lot of sacks.

     Hadl gets my nod as being the 4th most deserving QB because I feel that he put up elite counting stats for his era, consistently led a great passing offense for several years in a row in which he was the driver of its success and overall was mostly held back by his team’s defensive performance. The only 2 times he had a decent defense to help his offense, he made the playoffs. Granted, he stunk to high heaven in the playoffs, never even throwing a TD pass, but honestly his crap playoff performance in my opinion counterbalances Jack Kemp’s crap statistical profile. It’s pretty close between these two, but since I feel that Hadl at least was his offense’s focal point win or lose, I put his crap playoff performance/great counting stats and Pro Bowls a tick above Kemp’s great post-season awards/bad counting stats.

     Again, this is just my opinion, but I think the Hall of Fame rates statistical performance on a much more even level with post-season accomplishments than you do. I don’t care what anyone says, I will never think that Phil Simms, Jim Plunkett, Mark Rypien, Jim McMahon, Doug Williams, etc. deserve Hall of fame consideration more than Boomer Esiason, Randall Cunningham, Rich Gannon or even Drew Bledsoe. With the exception of Simms, all of those QB’s in the first group belong below the second group in the pecking order.

     5) I pretty much completely agree with your other assessments on guys like Sipe, and the other fringe 90’s QB’s but I think Theismann was overrated. The fact that even Skins fans tend to think this leads me to believe I’m on the right track. He is definitely a step down from Anderson and Stabler in my opinion.

106. BSLO on September 28, 2011 at 11:23 pm

     Sorry, one last point. Regarding Hadl, I guess that I should point out that having one of the greatest WR’s of all-time (Lance Alworth) certainly helped him put up some good counting stats with San Diego. His lack of playoff success is what dooms him though as he doesn’t have Sonny Jurgensen-good stats to bail him out. I still find it amazing though that Jurgensen made the hall of fame without ever playing in the playoffs. A fact that doesn’t get nearly as much attention as I think it deserves.

107. Paul on September 29, 2011 at 8:23 am

     This preliminary list consists of players nominated by anyone, as far I as understand the list is not vented or approved by the HOF or selection committee. That is why you see the likes of a Stephen Davis and not Cory Dillon (who could have been nominated by anyone). There is no review of the qualifications of these candidates.

     I do believe that both Parcells and Shields are HOFers, but again election is a numbers game and I think the voters will look at these two candidates and weigh them as first time nominees against the 10 players from last year, many of whom have been serious candidates for several years (Carter, Reed etc…).

     Parcells burned this committee before when he was a finalist who then went back to coaching and had to be pulled from the ballot, some voters will hold that plus his rough treatment of reporters against him. Few coaches are elected in their first year and the debate of selecting coaches and other contributors over players continues by the voters.

     As to Shields even his great post season awards (9/12) may not be enough for a first time selection due to the other OLs also on the ballot. Remember even Randall McDaniel (9/12) was not elected in his first year (in his first year on the ballot 2008 another OL Gary Zimmerman (5/7), a five time finalist was selected).

     I really think that if you look at the 10 and then last 5 finalists from last year not selected, the 2012 election will come from that group. My initial list of 2012 selections of modern candidates is: Dawson, Kennedy, Martin, Reed, Roaf.

108. Paul Wright on September 29, 2011 at 11:22 am

     The things I disagree with most with regard to the counter argurments to Kemp are 1) the continual…”well he didn’t deserve to be All Pro or MVP” statements and 2) the mindset that one QB is better than an other based just on single season or carreer passing stats with no or relatively little consideration for other aspects of their performance including rushing stats and intangible things like play calling and decision making that lead to a team’s success, along with changes in how the game was played. Given how play calling has changed over time, many QBs were actually more resonsible for their teams success in the past than they are today (with most teams having scripted plays and play calls from coaching on the sideline).

     Sorry but Pro Football in the early 1960s compared to even the late 1960s and 1970s were different games. Today’s passer rating calculations weren’t even invented until much later and top QB rankings were determined by rankings of several passing stats which may not weigh the same as today’s passer rating calcs depending on actual performance. For example if all but one or 2 QBs completed less than 50% of their passes or through more Interceptions than TDs, an individual could still rank high compared to their competition for that year. So Kemp being 1st or 2nd team all pro with competition including Dawson, Blanda, Namath, Lamonica, Rote, Hadl, Parilli, etc. still means as much as anyone else named such in any other eras. And sorry, MVP is still MVP. Unless you actually watch the games, how can your argument hold much weight? Of course they’re all subjective and even more recent selections for such awards can be debated, but the selectors do ultimately look at the awards as they were awarded, don’t they?

     Meanwhile if you look at the actual body of work, career win-loss record, and playoffs appearances, sorry, but the win one playoff game arugument to conclude Lamonica or Stabler’s accomplishments were comparable don’t hold any weight when you also consider fewer teams made the playoffs as well and that Kemp accomplished both All Pro status and division titles with two different teams. Taking his teams to playoffs 6 times in 7 years when only one or occasionally two other QBs even went to the playoffs each year says volumes. The fact that he did so with two different teams pretty much negates any arguments that it was due to just other elements of the team or a team’s “scheme” (And related to this, one more argument against Steve Young when you also consider Garcia’s moderate success after him and Young’s lack there of before going to SF and being given time to learn that system)

     Of course the counterargument to any “fewer teams, less competition” arguement is that more teams means diluted talent as the extra players would not even have made it into the league if there were fewer teams. If an AFL or NFL championship win were each given equal weight to a SB win prior to the first SB, then how can you argue with inducting the QB that lead his team to 4 of those and won 2 straight before the first season with a SB?

     And if your argument was that the 4 straight playoff appearances, 3 straight championship games, and 2 straight championship wins with Buffalo meant less due to his team’s defense and running game, then you’d also have to be arguing with Otto Graham being in the HOF due to Jim Brown, or Aikiman being in the HOF due to Emmitt, or Bradshaw being in due to Franco/Rocky and the Steel Curtain, or Bart Starr being in with GBs running game and defense. (It’s not like Kemp was just a Trent Dilfer with Ravens SB win, or just a Jim McMahon with the Bears if you look at Kemp’s long term winning and individual QB recognition) Also good argument against Elway and the all 90s team selection (since the 2 SB wins and getting there those year having more to do with running game and Terrell Davis). Of course Kemp didn’t have that running game or defense when he was with the Chargers and he had a 1st and 2nd team All Pro selection with them and took them to 2 straight championship games. the fact that Anderson, Stabler, Lamonica, and Hadl had few playoff appearances when more teams made the playoffs should weigh this even heavier in Kemp’s favor.

     If you factor in other changes in how the game was played and impact on statistics related to more games in a season, more teams making the playoffs, and teams playing more playoff games, along with human nature to view their perceived current or more recent “greatness” as better than greatness acheived in the past, you can defintely skew the discussion in favor of Anderson, Stabler, Lamonica, and Hadl who had their success more recently. (and most likely same reason Jordan ended up ESPNs #1 athlete for the last century over Thorpe and Ruth)

     If Namath could make it into the Hall mostly based on “reputation”, then why not Kemp who actually won more and received more post season awards?

109. Paul Wright on September 29, 2011 at 11:38 am

     Also, statement about Kemp with regard to Buffalo having top rushing offense and top defense each year is incorrect.

     Bills had #1 rushing offense only one time in the four years Kemp took Buffalo to playoffs (1964)

     In 1963 Bills rushing offense was 3rd.

     In 1965, Bills rushing offense was only 6th out of 8 teams. Cookie Gilchrist had gone to Denver (who had #2 rushing offense that year after having been 8th the prior year) And probably partial reason for Kemp’s MVP and Championship MVP honors.

     In 1966 Bills rushing offense was 3rd.

     Bills did have top defense in 1964, 1965, and 1966. Team defense in 1963 was 5th.

     KC who won championship and went to SB1 had #1rushing offense and #2 defense – so do you want to discount Len Dawson’s accomplishments?

110. bachslunch on September 29, 2011 at 12:06 pm

     Paul W., thanks again for the thoughts. A couple more things:

     -you said “where are you looking to see Namath named 1st team league All Pro more than one time (1968)? Guess it depends on which source you want to site.” I’m looking at the pro-football-reference website as well, and the problem with it is that it seems to recognize all pro teams as being via AP from the 40s and after (that’s the link you provided that puts bold characters on the AP 1st team guy). That’s in fact a serious issue according to several knowledgeable football history folks, as AP was one of several such teams and it’s not clear that any one of them was better than any other (with the sole exception of Sporting News up to 1979, which was in practice was an all-conference level team). According to that website (which does provide detailed all pro team information, not just for AP): Kemp was named 1st team all pro in 1960 by the AFL/AP/UPI and in 1965 by AFL/AP/NEA/UPI/NYDailyNews, Lamonica was named 1st team all pro in 1967 by AP/UPI and1969 by AP/UPI/PFWA/PFWeekly/SN, Namath was named 1st team all pro in 1967 by NEA/NYDailyNews and 1968 by AP/NEA/UPI/PFWA/PFWeekly/NYDailyNews and 1969 by NEA/NYDailyNews. If you care to rank the quality of these teams by relevance, I say good luck — I haven’t come up with a good argument to do so, and neither has anyone else I’ve asked online, except for Sporting News from that period.

     -you said re the Bills Wall of Fame: “Given that Shaw, Simpson, Sestak, and Kemp were all eligible when their wall started in 1980, reasonable to speculate that the franchise and a concensus of it’s fans viewed the careers of those put on the wall as more valuable than those not chosen or chosen later.” Speculation is a funny thing, as we don’t know for sure — there could have been other factors, and I’d prefer more certainty here. Given that o-linemen aren’t all that “visible” compared to QBs and RBs, that could just as easily have been a factor. Besides, when it comes to HoF selection, other factors can come into play — for example, one could argue that Shaw was the best guard from the AFL days, which would have rightly facilitated his election. Sestak is caught in a big logjam of AFL DL from this time with no clear top dog (only Buck Buchanan is in), and the same can also be said for Kemp (as our Hadl/Lamonica/Kemp exchange shows, not to mention the fact that Dawson and Namath have been elected).

111. Paul Wright on September 29, 2011 at 12:20 pm

     I will say that in this exchange I have gained a new appreciation for Lamonica that I did not previously have, but again defer to the championships, honors, and Kemp keeping Lamonica on the bench.

     One other interesting stat. Win-Loss record as starter:

     Kemp 70-43-3 including 2-4 playoffs (2 championship wins) (6 playoff appearances)
     Lamonica 70-21-6, including 4-5 playoffs and 4-0 regular season with Bills (5 playoff appearances)
     Hadl 88-83-9 including 0-2 playoffs (2 playoff appearances)

     Stabler 103-54-1 including 7-5 playoffs (1 SB win) (6 playoff appearances)
     Anderson 93-85 including 2-4 playoffs (4 playoff appearances)
     Theismann 83-49-0, including 5-2 playoffs (1 SB win) (3 playoff appearances)

     Obviously lots of other team elements go into win-loss records, but Kemp, Lamonica, Stabler, and Theismann all have edge over Hadl and Anderson here. Lamonica of course benefited from formative years on bench like Steve Young in SF, but of course Young did have a couple poor years in TB as well. An especially big negative for Hadl if you also consider he spent formative years on bench behind Kemp and Rote (Rote 1st team All AFL in 1963).

     some others of interest:
     Montana 133-54-0 incl 16-7 in playoffs and incl 19-10 in KC (4 SB wins) (11 playoffs)
     Young 102-55-0 incl 8-6 in playoffs and incl 3-16 in TB (1 SB win) (7 playoffs)
     Dawson 98-59-8 incl 5-3 playoffs (1 SB win) (4 playoffs)
     Namath 64-64-4 incl 2-1 playoffs (1 SB win) (2 playoffs)
     Bradshaw 121-56-0 incl 14-5 playoffs (4 SB wins) (9 playoffs)
     Unitas 124-66-4 incl 6-2 playoffs (2 championship wins, 1 SB win) (5 playoffs)
     Blanda 55-52-1 incl 2-2 playoffs (2 championship wins) (4 playoffs)
     Elway 162-89-1 incl 14-7 playoffs (2 SB wins) (9 playoffs)
     Marino 155-103-1 incl 8-10 playoffs (10 playoffs)
     Kelly 110-67-0 incl 9-8 playoffs (8 playoffs)
     Moon 105-108-0 incl 3-7 playoffs (7 playoffs) – so just 102-101 in regular season
     Aikman 105-75-0 incl 11-4 playoffs (3 SB wins) (7 playoffs)
     Favre 199-123-0 incl 13-11 playoffs (1 SB win) (12 playoffs)
     Peyton Manning 150-77-0 incl 9-10 playoffs (1 SB win) (11 playoffs)
     Brady 127-38-0 incl 14-5 playoffs (3 SB win) (8 playoffs)

     I’m still not convinced Warren Moon belong in HOF, yet alone first ballot. Would vote him in ahead of Testeverde, Collins, and Deberg, with a few more pro bowls and playoff appearances, but career stats only marginally better than theirs and his win-loss record and lack of even marginal playoff success is not impressive.

112. Paul Wright on September 29, 2011 at 12:48 pm

     A few more:
     Staubach 96-35-0 incl 11-6 playoffs (2 SB wins) (8 playoffs)
     Tarkenton 130-114-6 incl 6-5 playoffs (5 playoffs)
     Fouts 89-88-1 incl 3-4 playoffs
     Jurgensen 69-73-7 no playoffs and loosing record – he is in and Kemp isn’t? really?
     Tittle 78-56-5, 0-4 playoffs
     Griese 98-61-3, 6-5 playoffs (2 SB wins, 7 playoffs)
     Layne 90-55-5, 2-1 playoffs (2 championship wins, 3 playoffs)
     Starr 103-58-6, 9-1 playoffs (3 championship wins, 2 SB wins) (6 playoffs)
     Van Brocklin 63-38-4, 2-2 (2 championship wins, 4 playoffs)
     Graham 66-16-1, 4-3 playoffs (3 championship wins, 6 playoffs) (not incl AAFC W-L & championships 1946-49)
     Waterfield 15-10, 1-1 (1 championship) (not incl 1945-1949)

     Cunningham 85-58-1 incl 3-6 playoffs (6 playoffs)
     Gannon 80-59-1 incl 4-3 playoffs (3 playoffs)
     Simms 101-68-0 incl 6-4 playoffs (1 SB win, 5 playoffs)
     Esiason 83-95-0 incl 3-2 playoffs (1 playoffs)
     Sipe 57-56-0, incl 0-1 playoffs
     Roethlisberger 81-33-0 incl 10-3 playoffs (2 SB wins, 5 playoffs)
     Brees 85-62-0 incl 4-3 playoffs (1 SB win, 4 playoffs)

113. Paul Wright on September 29, 2011 at 12:51 pm

     McNabb 106-64-1 incl 9-7 playoffs (7 playoffs)

114. Paul Wright on September 29, 2011 at 12:52 pm

     McNair 96-67-0 incl 5-5 playoffs (5 playoffs)

115. Paul Wright on September 29, 2011 at 12:56 pm

     Reasonable to cirtique NEA/NYDailyNews for home team bias and if all the major sources (AP/UPI/SportingNews) named Lamonica over Namath in both 1967 and 1969, it’s reasonable for anyone to give it to Lamonica and not Namath if attempting to make the subjective a little bit more objective.

     Same with Cunningham’s 3 MVPs of the Bert Bell trophy variety, which also gave one to Jaworski when the other sources did not.

116. Paul Wright on September 29, 2011 at 1:00 pm

     If The Buffalo Evening News or Courier Express named Kemp 1st team QB for 1963, 1964, 1965, and 1966 would you buy all 4 years?

117. bachslunch on September 29, 2011 at 1:09 pm

     Paul W., you said: “If Namath could make it into the Hall mostly based on “reputation”, then why not Kemp who actually won more and received more post season awards?”

     The problem with an argument like this is that Namath is at best a marginal HoF-er and arguably a flat-out mistake. His HoF case rests on a high but short peak (marred significantly by injury), winning what is arguably the most significant Super Bowl in history, and some ancillary off-field issues that may or may not actually be HoF-case relevant (being the sole athlete on Nixon’s “enemies” list for example might demonstrate Namath’s unusual level of visibility and cultural significance at the time, especially since Namath wasn’t as far as I know politically visible in any way). And as I’ve said here before, comparing one’s favorite HoF snub to the Hall’s weakest member at the same position is not a good argument — people do this with Lynn Swann all the time.

118. Paul Wright on September 29, 2011 at 1:13 pm

     RE: Anti-AFL/Pre-SB Bias:

     As already pointed out, all 4 NFL QBs named 1st or 2nd team All Pro 3 or more times in HOF while only 3 of 5 AFL QBs with 3 or more recognitions are in the HOF.

     Looking at the all 1960s team (with note that NFL had 3 QBs and AFL only 2 QBs):
     All NFL – 14 of 17 offensive players in HOF, 11 of 17 defensive players in HOF
     All AFL – 7 of 22 offensive players in HOF, 4 of 22 defensive players in HOF

     While each player is subject to their own particular circumstances and carreers that may also fall partially into the 1950s at one end or 1970s at the other, the fact that only half the number of “great” players from the AFL as compared to the NFL would appear to better illustrate the bais than my specific case for Kemp.

119. bachslunch on September 29, 2011 at 1:24 pm

     Paul, NEA’s All Pro teams were very much nationally-based in scope, not at all hometown city based — and I’ve seen reference to the idea in some quarters that NEA’s team may have been more “relevant” than any of the others as it was primarily based on polling the league’s players for significant input. Or supposedly so have said folks like HoF voter Paul Zimmerman, according to a recent post at the pfraforum website. That’s at least part of the reason knowledgeable football folks have an issue with pro-football-reference’s “AP is the only meaningful all pro team” implication.

     I’d also have to be convinced that the NY Daily News all-pro team is necessarily a “homer” team favoring NYC based players. It might be or it might not be — we don’t know that. For all we know, it might be very rigorous in determining its all-pro squads. Which is why I said “If you care to rank the quality of these teams by relevance, I say good luck — I haven’t come up with a good argument to do so, and neither has anyone else I’ve asked online, except for Sporting News from that period.” Do you have solid information I don’t know about? Maybe so.

120. Paul Wright on September 29, 2011 at 1:44 pm

     I stand corrected on the NEA as I see it was a poll of players with Sporting News named as it’s successor. Will need to take closer look at NYDaily News to see if there was any other evidence of bias at other positions.

     As mentioned more than once this is all subjective, but think it’s reasonable to conclude a “concensus” selection with all sources agreeing is a bit more meaningful than when they split. Of course even 1st vs 2nd is subjective as well which is why I started with just a combined count including both.

     In the case of Cunninghams 3 MVPs and Jaworski’s MVP, I do think it’s reasonable to call it home town bias when no other sources agree. Cunningham was named MVP by others in some of the years, but not all 3.

     Of course the discussion of Namath 1st or 2nd for the two years in question bears no weight on the discussion about Kemp and the other QBs not in HOF.

121. Paul Wright on September 29, 2011 at 2:55 pm

     Between 1960 and 1967, the GB Packers went to playoffs 6 times and won 5 championships.
     Over that same period of time there defense was #1 three times, #2 four times, and #3 once.
     Over that same period of time there rushing offense ws #1 three times, #2 three tim, #8 once, and #10 once.
     Is anyone going to tell me Bart Starr is any less deserving to be in HOF because of his team’s defense or running game?

     Between 1972 and 1979, the Steelers went to playoffs 8 times and won 4 SBs
     Team Defense #1 twice, #2 three times, #7 once, #8 once, and #17 once
     Rushing Offense #1 once, #2 four times, #7 once, #8 once, and #14 once
     In the 4 SB years they were 2/2, 2/2, 1/14, and 7/2.
     Going to tell me Bradshaw is less deserving?

     Between 1992 and 1999, the Cowboys went to playoffs 7 times and won 3 SBs
     Team Def #2 once, #3 four times, #5 once, and #14 once
     Rushing Offense #2 twice, #5 twice, #7 once, #8 once, #18 once, and #20 once.
     In 3 SB winning years 5/5, 2/2, 3/2
     Telling me Aikman doesn’t belong?

     Between 1988 and 1996, the Bills went to playoffs 8 times and lost 4 SBs
     Team D – #3 once, #5 once, #6 three times, #14 twice, #19 once, and #22 once.
     Rushing O – #1 twice, #3 once, #6 once, #7 twice, #8 three times.
     In 4 SB years – 6/7, 19/1, 14/1, 5/8
     Kelly?

     For the two SBs Elway won – 1997 #4 Rushing Offense, #7 Defense; 1998 #2 Rushing Offense, #9 Defense
     For the three SBs Elway lost -1986 #20 Rushing O, #15 Def; 1987 #12 Rushing O, #7 Def, 1989 #6 Rushing O, #1 Def

     I’m sure I can go on for many of the all time great QBs who were “winners” and show Good Rushing O and Good D were good part of their teams success. The early 70s Dolphins with the Killer Bs and Csonka/Morris with Griese in HOF would be another example.

122. Paul Wright on September 29, 2011 at 2:55 pm

     Between 1960 and 1967, the GB Packers went to playoffs 6 times and won 5 championships.
     Over that same period of time there defense was #1 three times, #2 four times, and #3 once.
     Over that same period of time there rushing offense ws #1 three times, #2 three tim, #8 once, and #10 once.
     Is anyone going to tell me Bart Starr is any less deserving to be in HOF because of his team’s defense or running game?

     Between 1972 and 1979, the Steelers went to playoffs 8 times and won 4 SBs
     Team Defense #1 twice, #2 three times, #7 once, #8 once, and #17 once
     Rushing Offense #1 once, #2 four times, #7 once, #8 once, and #14 once
     In the 4 SB years they were 2/2, 2/2, 1/14, and 7/2.
     Going to tell me Bradshaw is less deserving?

     Between 1992 and 1999, the Cowboys went to playoffs 7 times and won 3 SBs
     Team Def #2 once, #3 four times, #5 once, and #14 once
     Rushing Offense #2 twice, #5 twice, #7 once, #8 once, #18 once, and #20 once.
     In 3 SB winning years 5/5, 2/2, 3/2
     Telling me Aikman doesn’t belong?

     Between 1988 and 1996, the Bills went to playoffs 8 times and lost 4 SBs
     Team D – #3 once, #5 once, #6 three times, #14 twice, #19 once, and #22 once.
     Rushing O – #1 twice, #3 once, #6 once, #7 twice, #8 three times.
     In 4 SB years – 6/7, 19/1, 14/1, 5/8
     Kelly?

     For the two SBs Elway won – 1997 #4 Rushing Offense, #7 Defense; 1998 #2 Rushing Offense, #9 Defense
     For the three SBs Elway lost -1986 #20 Rushing O, #15 Def; 1987 #12 Rushing O, #7 Def, 1989 #6 Rushing O, #1 Def

     I’m sure I can go on for many of the all time great QBs who were “winners” and show Good Rushing O and Good D were good part of their teams success. The early 70s Dolphins with the Killer Bs and Csonka/Morris with Griese in HOF would be another example.

123. bachslunch on September 29, 2011 at 3:06 pm

     boknows34, thanks for posting the link to this year’s HoF Preliminary Nominees. Agreed with BSLO and Brad about the curious nature of Corey Dillon, but someone has to think to write to the PFHoF to actually nominate people — and it’s possible no one did so.

     Other players with halfway-good or better arguments who did not make the preliminaries list include Mark Gastineau, Irving Fryar, Ben Coates, Deron Cherry, Greg Lloyd, and Pat Swilling. Gastineau has not made this list for a good few years now. It’s also odd that Mark Clayton is listed here but not Mark Duper.

124. bachslunch on September 29, 2011 at 3:08 pm

     Sorry — above I meant to say “curious nature of Corey Dillon’s not being listed.” No aspersions being cast towards Dillon here.

125. BSLO on September 29, 2011 at 3:40 pm

     Thanks for your replies Paul W.

     Just a quick note to start with regards to the rushing offense comment, I did make sure I specifically noted that he had the number one “scoring” rushing offense those three years as opposed to the rushing offense. I recognize that they didn’t produce the most yards but did produce the most points, which admittedly Kemp contributed to as well with his 40 TD’s. I also think you made a great point about only 20% of the league making the playoffs in the AFL, which was a great argument that I never considered.

     I guess to sum up everything I’ve said do far, I just want to say this. There have definitely been QB’s aided by their team’s success. Obviously Montana, Young, Bradshaw, Griese, Dawson, Starr, etc. had great defenses, and people like Aikman, Starr, Elway, Montana, Bradshaw, etc had a ton of help at the skill positions, but in the case of a lot of QB’s in the Hall of Fame, their position in the hall of fame never gets questioned because they also have some good stats to back them up. With the guys that end up being a little more borderline, you have to ask yourself one of two things:

     1) Did they do enough in the postseason to make up for other shortcomings?

     When it comes to Bradshaw, I think even though he wasn’t a great QB, you can’t argue with 3 Super Bowl MVP’s. Put that together with 4 Super Bowls and a couple of years in the late 70’s where he suddenly also became a pretty good QB, I think he’s good enough even though he had help. Same goes for Griese. I think Aikman is more borderline, and not really a first-ballot guy in my eyes, but he didn’t kill his team and he put up modest enough stats that I guess the Hall thought it was enough. I think that if they looked at another guy based on championships, it would be Kemp. It may also be Stabler because although he only won 1 championship, he was always regarded as a clutch performer and both guys fit the “very good QB on a great team” mold.

     2) Did they dominate statistically?

     This is where guys like Moon, Fouts, Jurgensen and probably some others make it. I think that Moon’s 9 Pro Bowls and big counting stats overpower the rest of his shortcomings, even the playoff ones but totally agree he wasn’t a first-ballot guy. I think he’s definitely on a different level than Deberg, Testaverde, Krieg, even Drew Bledsoe. I think Moon’s and Aikman’s induction right away had more to do with the weak field they were nominated against than anything, maybe not as weak as Elway’s competition, but the guys they were nominated against were mostly borderline guys from the 70’s/early 80’s, some 90’s stars that weren’t quite 1st/2nd ballot hall of famers and Reggie White.

     I think every QB in the Hall of Fame fits that criteria

126. BSLO on September 29, 2011 at 3:41 pm

     Oops forgot to end the last sentence with “except Joe Namath”

127. BSLO on September 29, 2011 at 3:42 pm

     Sorry, also meant 2 SB MVP’s for Bradshaw.

128. Paul on September 29, 2011 at 4:20 pm

     Please again can we all get pass this obsession on 1st ballot elections to the HOF. As I (and a few others have noted) 1st ballot elections are often the case of quality (or lack there of) within the field of 15 finalists (3 of them have yet to be elected to the HOF).

     For example with Aikman and Moon, look at the list of finalists from 2006 and tell me that there are more worthy candidates not elected then Aikman (3 SBs, SB MVP, career playoff passing numbers, decade wins by QB) and Moon (49,000+ career passing yards – 3rd when retired still 4th, four 4,000 yard seasons, 9 pro bowls).

129. bachslunch on September 29, 2011 at 4:28 pm

     Paul W., a thought about this:

     “Looking at the all 1960s team (with note that NFL had 3 QBs and AFL only 2 QBs):
     All NFL – 14 of 17 offensive players in HOF, 11 of 17 defensive players in HOF
     All AFL – 7 of 22 offensive players in HOF, 4 of 22 defensive players in HOF”

     With specialists, I actually count 21 total offensive players and 18 total defensive players on the NFL 60s all-decade team, with the same number of HoF players at 14 offensive and 11 defensive.

     With specialists, I get 24 total offensive and 24 total defensive players on the all-AFL team, with 8 offensive players (K George Blanda added) and the same 4 defensive players in the HoF.

     That’s 25 NFL HoF players and 12 AFL HoF players, with the AFL having just under half as many. And if both teams had the same number of roster spots during the decade, that might indeed seem fairly biased.

     But look at this another way — how many teams were in each league each year? Counting each year, the AFL numbered 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 9, 9, 10, and 10 during the decade of its existence. That’s an average of 8.6 teams per year. For the NFL, it comes to 13, 14, 14, 14, 14, 14, 15, 16, 16, and 16 during the decade. That’s an average of 14.6 teams per year.

     Assuming each team had the same number of roster spots each year, the AFL only had somewhat more than half as many roster spots as the NFL did during the decade. And that shortens up any perceived bias a good bit, since the available pool of players for HoF consideration in each league is definitely not the same.

     The percentage may indeed favor the NFL a little bit, but I’m not sure it’s all that large, looking at it this way.

     Further, you’re entirely right to qualify: “While each player is subject to their own particular circumstances and carreers that may also fall partially into the 1950s at one end or 1970s at the other…”

     It would indeed be interesting to see what those variables and “particular circumstances” are. They may or may not change things further. More importantly, trying to figure out HoF voting patterns can tell us a lot, too. The big logjam of AFL defensive linemen is one important issue, as the voters seem to be having trouble deciding who to nominate from:

     DE: Earl Faison- 4(4AP)/5/none
     DT: Tom Sestak- 4(3AP)/4/allAFL
     DE: Rick Jackson- 3(3AP)/3/allAFL
     DT: Ernie Ladd- 3(3AP)/4/none
     DT: Houston Antwine- 4(1AP)/6/allAFL
     DE: Larry Eisenhauer- 4(3AP)/4/none
     DT-DE: Jerry Mays- 4(2AP)/7/allAFL
     DE: Gerry Philbin- 3(2AP)/2/allAFL
     DE: Ron McDole- 3(1AP)/2/allAFL
     DT: Tom Keating- 3(1AP)/2/allAFL

     There’s a good reason why Buck Buchanan is the only AFL DL in the HoF, and I don’t think the problem is anti-AFL bias. Logjams of this kind regrettably often result in no one getting in.

     Jim Tyrer is another good example. Without his murder/suicide, he’d likely have been in the HoF long ago.

     And there’s likely a good reason why there aren’t any AFL HoF RBs from the all-AFL team. Both Cookie Gilchrist and Abner Haynes have terrific but incredibly short AFL careers, and those of Paul Lowe and Clem Daniels aren’t much longer. And players from the 60s and beyond with short careers usually have a tough enough time getting elected as it is. Gale Sayers was lucky he had no comparable short-career RB competition in the NFL when he played (maybe Leroy Kelly, but that’s it), which likely cleared a path for him. In other words, another logjam.

     Sure, there are guys getting screwed from the AFL, such as Johnny Robinson. But that’s also true in the NFL for players like Mick Tingelhoff. Sorry to say, there’s a lot of that going around.

130. Brad on September 29, 2011 at 7:12 pm

     Jerry Kramer is one of the biggest snubs of all time. Joe Fields, Center 1/2/none, is on the ballot. Doesn’t deserve to be really and a guy like Marivin Powell, from USC, is not on.

131. Brad on September 29, 2011 at 7:12 pm

     Marvin Powell*

132. Robert Ewing on September 30, 2011 at 1:15 am

     Brad I agree with you on this one Marvin Powell 5/3 Does Really belong on this ballot instead of fields 1/2 why they put fields ahead of powell is totally beyond me.

     Now on to another thought 2 members of the ny sack exchange with credentialsare up for election they are:

     Joe Klecko 4/2

     Mark Gastineau 5/3

     Which of the 2 would u make a semifinalist I would personally make klecko a semifinalist just because he went to the pro bowl at three different positons

133. bachslunch on September 30, 2011 at 8:46 am

     Agreed that Marvin Powell certainly merits at least a preliminary nomination. He’s in a marginal-HoF-case OT logjam of the time along with Joe Jacoby, Mike Kenn, and Leon Gray. Postseason honors for all:

     -Joe Jacoby, 3(2AP)/4/80s
     -Marvin Powell, 3(3AP)/5/none
     -Mike Kenn, 3(2AP)/5/none
     -Leon Gray, 3(3AP)/4/none

     Given this (unless film study says otherwise), one might wonder if all that separates Jacoby from this group is a fun o-line nickname and visible HoF fan support network.

     Richmond Webb also doesn’t appear on the prelims list.

134. Paul Wright on September 30, 2011 at 10:17 am

     A few more comments:
     TO add to the HOF QB with Good/Great D and Running Game – Tarkenton had Page and the Purple People Eaters along with Chuck Foreman.

     Also with criticism of Kemp’s passing stats and comment about never leading league in category – need to point you to NFL record and fact book which shows Kemps as top rated passer in 1960 using the methodology of the time. He also lead in average yards per attempt two other times. Nothing to tip the scale on the conversation regarding his stats, but just a correction on the comment made.

     If you sum up all the “modern day” QBs in the HOF you obviously have allot of pro’s and con’s, a few that would qualify as the greats of the greats with almost no week spots – i.e. stats, winning %, playoffs, All Pro, Pro Bowl, MVPs, etc. (i.e. Montana,Unitas, Favre, and possibly eventually Manning (with another SB win or higher career numbers approaching Favre) or Brady (with more career numbers) and I guess you can add Elway here if you have to. You then have some where they are stronger in one area than the other, but have some relative weakness.

     For those with lack of playoff or championship success you have a group with superior statistics and obviously Fouts and Marino would fit here. Before Fouts three consecutive 4,000 yard seasons, there was only one other 4,000 yard season which was Namath over a decade earlier. Marino set single season and career passing yardage and TD records among others. For a career, he pushed the bar up from where Tarkenton had taken it, which of course was pushed up from Unitas. Favre of course has since pushed up the bar and Manning has been on pace to push it further and both he and Brady have pushed the single season touchdown mark. Meanwhile for guys like Jurgenson and Moon, we have guys with .500 records or worse, good career numbers, but not anything that really stands out compared to their contemporaries (Jurgenson compared to Unitas?, Moon compared to Marino, Favre, or Elway?). Moon’s 4,000 yard season can’t be compared to Fouts when you consider all the other 4,000 yard seasons during the same time period with Favre having even more than he. Moon’s best year had fewer yards than seasons produced by Marino (2 times), Brees, Warner, Brady, Fouts (2 times), Culpepper, Rivers, and Manning with both Marino’s and Fouts’ two better seasons coming before Moon’s. His best season’s TD pass total of 33 in 1990 & 1995 is tied for 23rd all time and was less than numbers put up by Blanda (36), Lamonica (34), and Tittle (36 and also had one with 33) in the 1960s and Marino’s then two top years (48 and 44). The following have put up single seasons with as many or more passing TDs: Favre 5x, Manning 4x (incl then record 49), Brees 3x, Brady 2x (incl record 50), Warner 2x, Young 2x, Culpepper 2x, Kelly, Cunningham, Beurline, Romo, Testeverde, and Rivers) Moon’s career totals fall short of several contemporaries including Favre, Marino, and Elway and his QB rating was lower than these as well as others like Montana, Young, Kelly, Aikman, etc. Just like a starting pitcher with a career loosing record, I don’t see how a starting QB with a career record around .500 or lower belongs in the HOF. Meanwhile Moon’s 9 Pro Bowls came in era when 6 or more QB make it each year (vs 4 in the past) and with only 3 ALL Pros doesn’t really stand out compared to his contemporaries with as many or more who also had playoff success who are in the hall (Montana, Young, Aikman, Kelly, Elway, Marino, Favre) or even some not in the hall (Cunningham, Gannon, Esiason, etc), or QBs who came before him and are not yet in the HOF (Kemp, Lamonica, Stabler, Anderson, Theismann). Sorry, but I don’t think Moon’s 49,325 yds and 291 TDs belongs in HOF any more than Testeverde (46,233 yds, 275 TDs), Bledsoe (44,611 yds, 251 TDs), Kreig (38,147 yds, 261 TDs), Collins (40,922 yds, 208 TDs), Esiason (37,920 yds, 247 TDs), Deberg (34,241 yrs, 196 TDs), or Hadl (33,503 yds, 244 TDs). Same goes for Jurgesen, although I recognize his career totals were higher ranking at the time he retired (32,224 yrds, 255 TDs) and played in era with fewer games per season and smaller stats.

     Meanwhile on the RBs, do you realize that putting Little in ahead of Gilchrist is about the same as putting Ottis Anderson in ahead of Earl Campbell or putting Eddie George or Corey Dillon in ahead of Terrell Davis? I could add even more to the “before Terrell Davis” list if you look for those with more total career yards and several 1,000 yard seasons who were never MVP caliber nor won multiple SBs. Some seem to think that if you add enough yards, like with Curtis Martin or Jerome Bettis you can tip their scale ahead of Davis, but I would disagree. While Martin and Bettis have more career yards than several other Hall of Famers, neither “pushed the envelope” on regular season or career statistics, or were MVP caliber for much of their career, or had the same playoff/SB accomplishments (i.e. best of the best). I would include Terrell Davis’s name in list with Smith, Sanders, Thomas, Faulk, and Tomlison with regard to best of the best at their position since 1989 but would probably not include Martin, Bettis, E James, F Taylor, Dillon, Dunn, Watters, J Lewis, Barber, George, T Jones, Portis, R Williams, Alexander, A Green, T Allen, Holmes, S Davis, S Jackson, Hearst, or Warren). Would probably include Martin, Bettis, James, Alexander, and Holmes as a 2nd tier each falling a little short with regard to single season greatness, post season success, TDs, or shortness of career. Meanwhile too early to say where Adrian Peterson and Chris Johnson will end up though they appear to head list of active players who appear on pace to eventually warrant HOF consideration. I’m sure there are others currently active who may eventually warrant consideration with McFadden looking awesome this year.
     http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/rush_yds_career.htm

135. bachslunch on September 30, 2011 at 10:43 am

     Paul W., thanks again for your comments.

     Re Floyd Little: if I thought inducting Little were a justified occurrence, I’d agree with you fully. But to me, Little is a terrible HoF choice — as are some other recent HoF Senior inductees such as Dick LeBeau and Emmitt Thomas. He just doesn’t belong in, to my way of thinking — you won’t see me backing Little for the HoF in any way. That’s another prime example of comparing one’s favorite HoF snub to a mistake, which is never a good argument to make. If we start inducting every RB at Little’s level, they’re going to have to build a new wing onto the building to house all the busts.

     Re Terrell Davis: he’s actually a very good HoF choice if you value peak and not longevity. And while I won’t consider it a terrible injustice if he’s never elected, I certainly won’t squawk if he gets in. There are several players I can say that about. But again, HoF voters have historically not been kind to such players, so I wouldn’t hold my breath until he’s in the HoF — you’ll turn very blue indeed.

136. Paul Wright on September 30, 2011 at 10:48 am

     For RBs in the past 20+ years and going forward, haven’t seasons like those put up by Smith, Sanders, Davis, Lewis, Faulk, Alexander, Holmes, Johnson, Tomlinson (i.e 2,000 yard seasons or 20+ TD seasons) and career totals by those like Smith and Sanders moved the bar up some with regard to what it takes to be HOF RB? Especially when you don’t have some other contributing factors such as those like Thomas (MVP, 4 SB losses, 4 straight years leading in yards from scrimmage, plus playoff stats just short of Emmitts) or Davis (MVP, 2 SBs, SB MVP, incl 2,000 yd & 20+ TD season)?

     When you consider that through 1993, only 20+ TD seasons were Riggins 24, OJ 23, rice 23, Sayers 22, Foreman 22, J Brown 21, J Morris 21, L Moore 20, L Kelly 20, Dickerson 20.
     Since then Tomlinson 31 & 20, Alexander 28 & 20, Holmes 27 & 24, Faulk 26 & 21, Smith 25 & 22, Moss 23, T Davis 23. T Allen 21, A Green 20, D Williams 20.

     When you consider that through 1996 only 2,000 yd rushing seasons – Dickerson & OJ (OJ in 14 game sched)
     Since then: Sanders, Davis, Lewis, C Johnson

     Drop that to 1,700 yds rushing in a season:
     Through 1993: Dickerson 3x, Simpson 2x, Brown, Payton, Campbell, M Allen, Riggs
     Since 1996: Sanders 2x, E Smith 2x, T Davis 2x, L Johnson 2x, Lewis, C Johnson, J Anderson, A Green, Barber, E James, Alexander, Tomlinson, R Williams, A Peterson

     Of course you can also look at single season passing yds, passing TDs, receptions, receiving Yds, receiving TDs the same way, which in all cases have resulted in larger number of 10,000 yard rushers, 10,000 yard receivers, 100+ career TD scorers, 500+ reception receivers, 30,000+ yard passers in the past 15 years than in the previous 50 yeards. And look at all the 2,000 plus point scorers added or that will be there soon. And more of these who are not HOFers or “Best of the Best”.

137. steelersfan23 on September 30, 2011 at 12:26 pm

     All, let’s pause for a 2nd and create a HOF report card of sorts:

     What are the criteria that makes one a HOFer. Some quick thoughts and let’s hear from others:

     CAREER STATISTICS
     MVP/OTHER AWARDS
     RUSHING/PASSING/INTERCEPTIONS/SACKS/TACKLES TITLES
     CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE GAME
     CONTRIBUTIONS TO TEAM/FRANCHISE HISTORY
     RECORDS BROKEN
     ALL PRO/ PRO BOWLS
     BEST IN LEAGUE STATS NUMBER OF YEARS
     SUPER BOWL/CLUTCH PERFORMANCES
     POST SEASON INDIVIDUAL/TEAM SUCCESS/FAILURE
     CHARACTER
     MADE TEAMS BETTER/WORSE
     CONSIDERATION OF LIMITATIONS VS. PEERS (i.e. bad teams, lack of support, bad weather vs. good weather etc.)
     LOYALTY/STABILITY (i.e.played with one team vs. team jumper)

     Is there any other criteria?

     We could grade like an “old school” report card and then next to the grade, we could have comments for each topic. i.e. “does not play well with others” “great runner but does not pass block” “solid runner, but look at his receptions as a bonus” “great passing stats, and also a great rusher”
     “put up great numbers with a poor offensive line” “good stats considering he was always double and triple covered” “had a lot of INT’s but people through away from another star on the team” “had a lot of picks, but defensive line had 3 HOFer’s on it” etc.

     What if we ranked the players considered on these criteria with 70% being the C and 90% and up being a A-, and 95% being an A+.

     Let me know your thoughts.

138. bachslunch on September 30, 2011 at 1:01 pm

     steelersfan23, a couple brief thoughts.

     The most important of all, if available and we’re sufficiently knowledgeable, is film study. But I’m not sure how many of us have this access, nor if we really know what to look for. Other than that:

     -for me, the most important issue for skill positions (QBs, RBs, WRs, TEs, as well as PKs and punters) are meaningful stats in good (period-adjusted as needed) context (includes all types), followed closely by “1st team all pro/pro bowl/all decade team” numbers, then by MVP/other awards. For QBs only, Super Bowls/League Championships won can also meaningful, if perhaps less than the first three.

     -the most important issue for non-skill positions (OL, DL, LBs, DBs) are “1st team all pro/pro bowl/all decade team” numbers, followed by MVP/other awards. I’m not a fan of stats or postseason success for evaluating non-skill positions for the most part.

     Contribution to the game or special fulfillment of a particular role, if clearly evident, can make some difference to either side as well, but it’s rare. It’s also subject to potential abuse.

     Consideration of limitation by peers (playing for bad teams, quality of league play, etc.), can play some role if clearly evident. Again, also potentially subject to abuse.

     I’m not a big fan of “clutch performances,” as this is really hard to determine easily. Loyalty/stability is meaningless to me here.

     Character is expressly forbidden as a HoF consideration, and I think it should not matter unless it affects or likely affects on-field performance in some way (gambling on games, racial exclusion policies, etc.). If present in an on-field affecting manner, that’s a major negative.

139. steelersfan23 on September 30, 2011 at 1:25 pm

     I don’t know that there is a clear format in how the HOF voters judge players. I am just trying to put in an objective format 1st. I realize then you look at the what I have set out here and look at other things.

     I liken this to a personality profile test. Use it as a tool, but not the only thing you use when you hire somebody.

     Everything any of us or HOF voters consider is subject to bias and abuse.

     I realize that defenders and non skill position players do not have “stats”. But, we have to throw it down somewhere.

     Even the all-pro/pro bowls are not always indicative of the best players in given years. By way of example, I know Pat McInally from the Bengals beat Ray Guy in certain years on both net/and gross avg. and Guy still made the pro bowl. In some cases the same can be said for the “all-decade” teams as well. I know there are some people at key posititions that probably got beat out by “popularity”.

     Contributions to the game are meant for the Joe Namath’s of the world, and in my mind Kenny Anderson for being the pioneer of the WCO. These are intangibles.

     Let’s face it, clutch performances are already a criteria for HOF. Look at what Super Bowls mean to even guys like Lynn Swann.

     Loyalty/ Stability would favor guys like say Jerry Rice vs. Terelle Owens. I think it should be a factor and let’s face it, he process is so subjective you know it already is a part of it. So let’s put a number on it. We can more heavily weigh some parts of the rating system over others.

     I do agree that all this needs to be taken in context of the era played accross the board. From all=pro, passing yards or receptions to Super Bowl wins.

     Character should be an issue and let’s face it, you know it already is. Look at Jim Marshall, and Lemar Parrish. Let’s face it, when a guy is not a good guy, it will tranlate to bad things anyway, so we might as well put it on the list. Or, you could just have a “catch-all” category called intangibles.

     When we all think and debate HOFers. All these things already play a role.

     Is there a HOF criteria list that already exists?

     As far as film study of these guys, I agree it would be nice, but I doubt there is any chance that the HOF voters study film before they make their selections. Also that can be biased by showing the best stuff.

     Let’s just start somewhere.

     Also, the next question for the senior process is what takes priority? Do you put the best senior guy that’s not in at the top of the list? Or, do you put the guys who has been waiting the longest, even if he is not the best of the seniors?

     Just my 2 cents. But no matter what we do, everything is subject to bias. But, I think it would be a fascinating excercise to have all rate on categories and who comes out on top. I mean if somebody rates Joe Namath as a 90 on career stats, we can all see that we have a biased voter.

     Also if somebody gave Terry Bradshaw a failing grade on clutch performance, we can see they are biased.

140. Brad on September 30, 2011 at 3:06 pm

     I agree with Joe Klecko, but quite frankly, so does Mark, regardless what he did off the field. He was a 3x first team all and 2 sack titles back to back, despite a short career. Larry Grantham should be a senior Nominee someday. 5/5, first 5 seasons he was named to 5 first team all pro and was apart of the Jets super bowl defense, which was pretty good. Same with Winston Hill. Joe Namath is the man. He was part of the reason why the AFL-NFL merged. The football world thought the AFL couldn’t compete with the NFL, but Joe Willy and company proved them wrong, even with his squad being 18 point underdogs and win by 9 on January 12th, 1969, Super Bowl III.

     Will Shaun Alexander make the Hall of fame? To me, it’s a tough pick. at 1/3/00s, the All Pro’s is fine at 1. 3x pro bowler is ok, could be better. But he had “quality seasons” from 2001-2005: 16, 18,16,20,28(total TDs). That is under the radar.

     Id say Priest Holmes at 3/3 isn’t too far back from shaun, maybe better. Neither have 10,000 rushing yards. But one thing I keep in mind is that, the avg. career of a running back is 3.4 seasons, thats it.

141. boardgame on September 30, 2011 at 3:11 pm

     Jurgensen certainly looks like an all-time stats player for me, or one that would be deserving of the HOF on stats alone.

     Some of these highlights would include upon retiring with the 3rd most TD passes(behind Tarkenton and Unitas), 4th in passing yards(behind Tarkenton, Unitas and Tittle), the 2nd highest QB rating behind Otto Graham and along with Graham, the only QB’s up to Jurgensen’s retirement to have led their league in passing yards (5)times.

     Two of Jurgensen’s passing yardage titles were new all-time NFL(non AFL) marks with 3,723 in 1961 and then surpassing that mark for a new NFL record of 3,747 in 1967.

     Jurgensen had (2) of the only five 30(+)TD passing seasons in the decade of the 60’s, including tying Unitas for the all-time NFL(non AFL) mark at the time of 32 TD passes in 1961.

     He also had (5)3,000+ passing yard seasons and just missed another one by about 60 yards, this in an era where the 3,000 yard passing season was certainly no common occurence.

142. Paul Wright on September 30, 2011 at 4:53 pm

     The “report card” style rating could be done, but still have arguments over how much each weighs before you even get to the grading. You’d also need to put rules in place to grade specific areas in context of when the player played, such as the value of a Pro Bowl Appearance for some positions (i.e. QB), value of “benchmark” seasonal stats (3000/4000 yds passing, 1000 yds rushing/receiving, and career stats have “devalued” over time due to various changes in the came, how it is played, games per year, etc. and larger % of teams make the playoffs each year than they did before the wild card system first added one, then two, and now three, along with increased number of divisions. Almost need to “inflation adjust” some of the numbers.

     Also need to answer the question is an AFL or NFL championship before the SB worth the same value as a SB, or just the same as today’s Conference Championships? For those who played before the SB I think this is a bit of a dis-service since they did win a league title and had no other teams to beat when it was done.

     Also some predetermined rules with regard to how you treat different positions. Clearly QB is the most marque position and has higher representation than other positions, especially special teams. While more recent classes appear to be geared towards being more “politically correct” such as not having multiple WRs, I’m not sure this is reasonable. A QB who wins championships gets more credit and criticism and I have no problem with the position having higher representation. Meanwhile for WR the fact that in the past 20+ years you’ve had more teams with bigger passing games and multiple 1000 yd receivers and go with 3 WR or 2 TE sets with just one RB and still only a handful of teams ever to have two 1000 yd rushers on same team, I think the WRs perhaps deserve a little more representation so they can avoid their current bottle neck which is only going to get worse in the next 5 years.

     Maybe I sold Jurgensen a little short given a better comparison to his contemporaries, but really have to question the .500 W-L record. Meanwhile, I know I’ve looked at Moon allot closer and still think he’s less deserving than some of the others who have had to wait.

     As far as criteria for adding old timers, I think they may need to address the soon to be “glut” of “old timers” that up until recently they haven’t really had. Guys like Stabler, Anderson, Simms, etc moving from “modern” to “senior” and the increase in number of teams over the years may make it necessary to open up a little to larger induction classes. If it comes to inducting someone while alive vs postumously, perhaps better to address who’s been waiting longer if the overall difference is rather marginal. i.e. if Kemp still alive, perhaps even those who would argue for Stabler or Anderson might say go ahead and put him in first if he were still alive and as long as the others eventually make it in . Now that he died, maybe less of a priority.

     While some will argue 1st ballot, vs later ballot, vs old timer is meaningless, I disagree and there have clearly been some players who are the elite of the elite and due more respect and consideration over others good enough to be HOF (i.e. talking about the guys like Jerry Rice, Lance Alworth, Emmitt Smith, Walter Payton, Jim Brown, Barry Sanders, Joe Montana, John Unitas, Dick Butkus, Lawrence Taylor, Reggie White, Bruce Smith, etc (obviously many more) who each were arguably the “best ever” or best in their time period, or top handful to ever play their position through the time that they played. Even OJ would have been in this category, but besides Bruce Smith, my other modern Bills (Kelly, Thomas, Reed) would not be. Glad that 2 are in and the other likely, but all probably warranted a wait (which Thomas did and Reed has). Meanwhile Tasker actually would be, but another special teams position and not likely to make it in, and obviously less important to the teams success than the others.

     Meanwhile with regard to the argument against measuring players against the weakest representative at their position is wrong. I can understand people criticizing this, but until they have a means of removing the less deserving members (which isn’t going to happen) or eliminate questionable additions like Floyd Little, it’s only fair to any player as good as them who isn’t in to get in. Isn’t it?

143. Paul Wright on September 30, 2011 at 5:14 pm

     Meanwhile to those who put stats, time period adjusted or not as their top criteria, I beg to differ. The whole point of the game is to win and a perennial All-Pro/MVP type player who’s a major reason for his teams success (and perhaps even playing within the teams needs to the potential detriment of their individual statistics that they could have achieved on another team) warrants more consideration than a stats guys on a team that never wins. e.g. in the USFL, Kelly showed he could put up Marino like numbers and perhaps in a different offense could have in the NFL.

     As far as the peak vs longevity discussion, there’s also got to be some balance between this as well. In the case of Davis, it wasn’t just one good year, or a couple good years with no championships associated. I would actually rank what he accomplished in his shorter career ahead of Martin and Bettis with their longer and good, but less stellar carreers, but even if those two years by themselves may have been as good as any two years from Barry Sanders or Emmitt Smith, they obviously had the combination of peak and longevity and Smith had the rings. I’ve never argued that Sayers or Campbell didn’t belong. I think they do as do the likes of Davis and even Gilchrist.

     And clearly a guy who wins, but has poor stats will be more difficult to sell, but the poor stats may mean a whole lot less in context of ProBowls, AllPros, MVP, and Championships, alla Kemp. As stated before, wouldn’t apply to Plunket or Dilfer since they didn’t have the All Pros or MVPs or even a comparable time period of being “winners”.

     Of course when all is said in done, it will always be impossible to take all the subjectivity out of the discussion no matter how hard we may try. And not like a single person who actually has a vote would listen anyway.

144. boardgame on September 30, 2011 at 5:14 pm

     BTW,

     Along with Jurgensen, Y.A. Tittle had two more of the 30(+)TD passing seasons of the 60’s.

     In 1962 and 1963, Tittle set the new all-time high(non AFL)NFL record with 33 TD passes(a year after Jurgensen had tied the Unitas mark at 32) and then the next year in 1963 another all time NFL high with 36 TD passes; a mark that lasted until 1984 when it was broken by Marino in his 48 TD pass season.

145. Paul Wright on September 30, 2011 at 5:33 pm

     I also agree team loyalty is meaningless, especially over time given changes in free agency. In fact, in some cases a player’s ability to shine on more than one team and in more than one setting may be more indicative of their greatness. Clearly what Warner did with St Louis and Arizona means allot more than if he only accomplished what he did with one team. I would argue the same with Kemp. When you look at the SF 49ers Walsh/Seifert era and at the success of Montana, Young, and to lesser extent (but still Pro Bowl caliber) Garcia, it seems pretty clear that the system means something. Montana taking KC to AFC Championship game (and loosing to Buffalo) meant something. And what Young did in TB before coming to SF also meant something (i.e. that he wasn’t as good if you’re debating all time greats).

     Wouldn’t mark Bettis or Martin down for their changes in teams either and while I’d put in Davis ahead of them, did not say they don’t deserve to be in. Same with guys like Faulk and Dickerson achieving success on more than one team (and no idea why HOF website has Dickerson with large case letters on both Colts and Rams, but has Faulk with lower case letters on Colts). Meanwhile, guys who move on and do nothing with another team will most likely mostly get measured for what they did on their original team (such as OJ going to SF, Emmitt to Arizona, Franco to Seattle, Dorsett to Denver, Unitas to SD, Thomas to Miami, Rice to Oakland and Seattle (and attempt at Denver), etc)

     I also agree on the character item. Sorry Moss and Owens deserve to be in HOF regardless of their character and what Moss did in NE clearly added to what he accomplished in Minnesota.

     And whoever said Jerry Rice is MORE longevity than PEAK is way off as he was BOTH and would have been in the HOF if his career ended half way through (league leading, single season record breaking, MVP, and SB wins and records). Please don’t try to put any other WR in his category as he’ll be bench mark for all WRs for a long time to come.

146. Paul Wright on September 30, 2011 at 5:48 pm

     Also, for any who only give extra consideration for making playoffs, performance in playoffs, and championships/SBs to just QBs, also have to disagree. Obviously what Emmitt Smith, Thurman Thomas, Franco Harris, John Riggins, Marcus Allen, Terrell Davis, etc did in the post season and contribution to their team’s winning meant something. Same with Rice, Irvin, Reed, Stallworth, Swann, etc.

     If you ignore team success and playoff performance you’d be in the camp putting Tim Brown and Chris Carter in the HOF rather than Reed. And if you don’t want to give Terrel Davis credit for the Broncos winning 2 SBs, you’re probably never going to put him in the HOF even with the 2000yds/20TDs/MVP performance and chalk it up to his career being too short as his regular season stats alone don’t warrant much more consideration than Alexander or Holmes.

147. Paul Wright on September 30, 2011 at 5:52 pm

     Don’t think anyone here’s criticizing Tittle. In fact I mentioned him among my reasons I don’t think Moon should be in HOF and showed mentioned his winning record and ALL Pro selections in earlier posts. Criticism of Jurgensen was based purely on his W-L record and failure to make it to the playoffs even once.

148. Paul Wright on September 30, 2011 at 5:54 pm

     For the AFL defensive lineman log jam, can you thin it out any by looking for those who were part of dominant defenses who won championships ahead of the others? i.e. Sestak

149. Paul Wright on September 30, 2011 at 6:15 pm

     Of course along with trying to evaluate great teams or players and debate like it’s on objective matter when there’s so much subjectiveness to it, also interesting to speculate what could have beens from time to time.

     As you all know, being a Bills fan is almost like being a Cubs fan. We have the 4 straight SB losses with “wide right” and Thomas loosing his helmet among the related memories. We have OJ and the Bronco (granted after his playing days were long past). We have the music city mirage / illegal forward pass by TN which a physics professor PROVED had to be a forward pass. We having trading away Lamonica. And also a Sabers fan we have the fog game and Brett Hull in the crease.

     But Buffalo’s last league champion (if you ignore the indoor lacross Bandits) we’re the back to back ’64 and ’65 Bills who lost the ’66 Title game and trip to SB 1. If you consider they lost the best RB in the league (Gilchrist) after ’64, their repeating was a major accomplishment. If you also consider their head coach (Lou Saban) left after the ’65 Champioship game, also a major accomplishment making it back to the championship game. What if, Gilchrist and Saban were still there in ’66? Would that team and the Bills D have been any match for GB and changed the game as we know it? Would Kemp be even more revered than Namath? Would Kemp have become President? Who knows. Just interesting to consider. Obviously there are Colts fans who wonder what would have been if Elway didn’t force a trade among other speculative would of / could ofs, but thought the Bills story might be of interest given the Kemp and Gilchrist discussions. (And obviously not reasons beyond the facts for inducting either and think I’ve made my case for Kemp. Unfortunately Gilchrist’s career in the AFL was even shorter and you need to look at what he did in the CFL, rather than with the Chargers like Kemp for additional ammo to make a case).

     Of course OJ would never have been a Bill if Kemp hadn’t missed the ’68 season and the team went 1-12-1 . And if Kelly and Cribbs hadn’t gone to the USFL, they probably would have been better than 2-14 in ’85 getting them Smith (1st overall pick) & Reed (4th round) in the draft and 4-12 in ’86 and 7-8 in ’87 allowing them to pick up other pieces of their future great team like Bennett, Conlan, Thomas, etc. Hull also came over after the USFL. Just too bad it’s taken them over a decade of sucking to get where they are now.

150. boardgame on September 30, 2011 at 6:18 pm

     Robert Ewing

     I would be thrilled to see Mark Gastineau in the HOF(as posted many times on this site); also hope to see Don Coryell inducted soon as well.

     “Air Coryell” and Gastineau were ‘must see TV’ in the early 80’s when I was growing up.

     At that time, the Chargers Offense was the greatest show on turf and Gastineau was probably the biggest star in the NFL.

     As far as HOF criteria, I really don’t think character, limitation by peers and loyalty have a place in it.

     When judging clutch factor, I’m not sold as far as say one or two regular season games like, ‘he had a great game vs the steel curtain in 1974 or he set the all-time single game MNF passing yardage mark and etc.

     However, when clutch is compared to the playoffs and his performances at that level carrying a team to wins, I can go for that.

     Though in Jim Marshall’s case, it’s a regular season goof(wrong way run) that has cursed him for years plus an example to the negative degree of clutch in the playoffs, Bullet Bob Hayes in the “Ice Bowl”.

151. boardgame on September 30, 2011 at 6:44 pm

     I just mentioned the Tittle part because though I knew of his 36 TD’s in 1963, I didn’t know he had set the mark a year earlier as well with 33. I thought I would mention it.

     I remember in 1984 when Marino was chasing down Blanda and Tittle’s 36 TD mark. There was a lot of drama in it up until he caught them and eventually easily passed both with 48 TD’s.

     In fact, I think Tittle was even at the game Marino broke the 36 TD mark as a ‘passing of the torch’ kind of moment between him and Marino.

     It’s a shame Tittle couldn’t get that one NFL Title for his career, especially in 1963 when he was so close vs the Bears in the Championship game.

     He had everything else but that: retired the all time leader in passing yardage and passing TD’s, single season passing records, MVP’s, numerous pro-bowls and All-pros; but the biggest prize of all he never got.

152. Paul on October 1, 2011 at 1:20 pm

     One other “rule of thumb”, the more effort and argument that it takes to make the case for a candidate for the HOF, the weaker the case. If it takes numerous detailed numerical analysis to defend a candidate the more marginal the case. All this debate, and great detailed discussions, only reveals the weakness of his case not the strength.

153. Robert Ewing on October 1, 2011 at 11:09 pm

     my semifinalist list(players)

     Semifinalists

     1. Steve Atwater 8/3 1990’s NFL All Decade Team

     2. Jerome Bettis 6/3 5th Leading Rusher

     3. Tim Brown 9/7 1990’s NFL All Decade Team

     4. Joey Browner 6/4 1980’s NFL All Decade Team

     5. Cris Carter 8/3 1990’s NFL All Decade Team

     6. Roger Craig 4/4 1980’s All NFL Decade Team

     7. Dermontti Dawson 7/6 1990’s NFL All Decade Team

     8. Chris Doleman 8/5 1990’s NFL All Decade Team

     9. Kevin Greene 5/3 160 Sacks Most By LB

     10.Charles Haley 5/4 5x Super Bowl Champion

     11. Cortez Kennedy 8/4 NFL 1990’s All Decade Team

     12. Joe Klecko 4/2 Selected to Pro Bowl at 3 Different Postions

     13. Curtis Martin 5/5 4th Leading Rusher

     14. Clay Matthews 4/3

     15. Sam Mills 5/4 Member of Saints Dome Patrol

     16. Andre Reed 7/2

     17. Willie Roaf 11/7 NFL 1990’s and 2000’s All Decade Team

     18. Will Shields 12/9 NFL 2000’s All Decade Team

     Did i Miss anybody how did i do

154. boknows34 on October 2, 2011 at 3:00 am

     Robert:

     There will be 25 names on the semi-finalist list and looking back at last year’s list as a guide you might want to add Terrell Davis, Aeneas Williams, coach Bill Parcells and contributors Paul Tagliabue, George Young, Art Modell and Eddie DeBartolo which gives us 25. Joe Jacoby and Steve Tasker have been semi-finalists in previous years and I’d expect them to gather enough support to return to the last 25, especially now that Coryell, Guy and Hayes, semi-finalists in 2011, have dropped off the modern era list.

155. boknows34 on October 2, 2011 at 4:07 am

     Following up one some of the snubs people here have mentioned.

     Names that should have been on the prelim list:

     Corey Dillon (11,241 rushing yds and 89 career TDs), Mark Bavaro, Irving Fryar (851 rec, 12,785 yds, 88 career TDs), Mark Duper, Richmond Webb, Mark Gastineau, Keith Millard, Greg Lloyd, Hardy Nickerson, Pat Swilling, Deron Cherry, Carnell Lake and Frank Minnifield. How was Webb snubbed with 7 Pro Bowls, 4 AP All-Pros (2 of them 1st team) and a 1990s All-Decade selection? The same also applies to Mark Stepnoski with 5 Pro Bowls, 3 2nd team All-Pros and the 2nd team center on the 1990s All-Decade team.

     PS Marvin Powell retired after the 1987 season so this was his last chance as a modern era candidate. For the Class of 2013 he’ll be among the many names in the Seniors category.

156. Paul on October 2, 2011 at 5:45 pm

     Odd that there so many missing nominations, in years past this list would often exceed 120 names

157. Robert Ewing on October 2, 2011 at 6:55 pm

     Updated List

     1. Steve Atwater 8/3 1990?s NFL All Decade Team

     2. Jerome Bettis 6/3 5th Leading Rusher

     3. Tim Brown 9/7 1990?s NFL All Decade Team

     4. Joey Browner 6/4 1980?s NFL All Decade Team

     5. Cris Carter 8/3 1990?s NFL All Decade Team

     6. Roger Craig 4/4 1980?s All NFL Decade Team

     7. Terrell Davis 3/3 1990’s NFL All Decade Team

     8. Dermontti Dawson 7/6 1990?s NFL All Decade Team

     9. Chris Doleman 8/5 1990?s NFL All Decade Team

     10. Kevin Greene 5/3 160 Sacks Most By LB

     11.Charles Haley 5/4 5x Super Bowl Champion

     12. Joe Jacoby 4/2 NFL 1980’s All Decade Team

     13. Cortez Kennedy 8/4 NFL 1990?s All Decade Team

     14. Joe Klecko 4/2 Selected to Pro Bowl at 3 Different Postions

     15. Curtis Martin 5/5 4th Leading Rusher

     16. Clay Matthews 4/3

     17. Karl Mecklenberg 6/3

     18. Sam Mills 5/4 Member of Saints Dome Patrol

     19. Bill Parcells

     20. Andre Reed 7/2

     21.Willie Roaf 11/7 NFL 1990?s and 2000?s All Decade Team

     22. Will Shields 12/9 NFL 2000?s All Decade Team

     23. Steve Tasker 7/7

     24. Aeneas Williams 8/5 NFL 1990’s All Decade Team

     25. George Young

     All Snub Nominee List

     1.WR Mark Duper 3/2 511 Rec 8869 yds 59 Tds

     2.WR Irving Fryar 5/2 851 Rec 12785 yds 84 Tds

     3.WR Stanley Morgan 4/0 557 100716 yds 72 Tds

     4.DT- Keith Millard 2/4 NFL 1980’s All Decade Team

     5.DE- Mark Gastineau 5/5

     6.LB- Pat Swilling 5/4

     7.LB- Hardy Nickerson 5/4 NFL 1990’s All Decade Team

     8. OT- Richmond Webb 7/5 NFL 1990’s All Decade Team

     9. C- Mark Stepnoski 5/3 NFL 1990’s All Decade Team

     10.S- Deron Cherry 6/5 NFL 1980’s All Decade Team

     11. TE- Jay Novacek 5/5

     12. LB- Greg Lloyd 5/3

     13. LB Vaughan Johnson 4/0

158. steelersfan23 on October 3, 2011 at 7:28 am

     Do you think anybody on the list of the 18 guys you mentioned here had more impact on their franchise, and the NFL than Cincinnati’s Kenny Anderson?

159. Paul on October 3, 2011 at 8:28 am

     Lets move past the debate over Ken Anderson. He is now a Senior Candidate and given that he was a finalist for consideration as a Senior nominee this year (his first year on the Senior ballot) it is likely he will be considered and a possible Senior nominee very soon.

     It does no good in these debates to justify the election of one player by dismissing all the other fine deserving players. And players are not voted in due to their impact on their franchise, but their qualifications from their playing days and place in NFL history. And yes several of the nominees for 2012 (including I would suspect ALL of the 2012 15 finalists) are as, if not more, deserving then Ken Anderson.

160. Paul on October 3, 2011 at 8:28 am

     For your interest Peter King at SI have some thoughts as to the 2012 list of candidates in his MMQB today.

     http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/peter_king/10/02/week.4/1.html

161. steelersfan23 on October 3, 2011 at 9:09 am

     I am not dismissing the other candidates. I just thought you omitted Kenny anderson from you list of senior candidate preliminary nominees. Did I miss something?

162. BSLO on October 3, 2011 at 12:05 pm

     I like all of this discussion around who we think is missing from the preliminary list. I too thought it was weird that there were a lot fewer player nominees this year. I don’t think that they missed anyone that would have a shot at making the semifinalist list but there are definitely more than a few names that I think should be in the conversation. I guess that this is just how the process works when anyone can mail the hall of fame a nomination.

     QB: Given that it’s the glamour position, I was borderline floored that they only named 2 nominees at the position. Bledsoe and Simms were good choices, but what about Esiason, Cunningham and Gannon? All three guys had MVP years during their careers and made 4 Pro Bowls apiece.

     RB: We’ve mentioned Corey Dillon before, but I was also surprised to see Ottis Anderson missing from this list. He’s not hall of fame worthy in my books, but is in opinion the best eligible RB from the early-mid 80’s not yet in the hall. Also, I was a little surprised that nobody mailed in about George Rogers in his last year of eligibility. Again, he’s not worthy but had been on the list in previous years. He might fall more under the Special Teams list, but I think Eric Metcalf also warranted a nomination.

     WR: As others have mentioned, I think that Irving Fryar, Stanley Morgan and Mark Duper belong on this list and I’d have to also add Mike Quick and Andre Rison. I also think that Wes Chandler has been a bit unfairly looked over for years considering he had one of the best years for a WR of all-time in 1982. This was also the final year of eligibility for Dwight Clark, who has been an occasional nominee in the past.

     TE: Almost as big of a surprise as the QB position in terms of the lack of nominees. Christensen is in my opinion now the biggest snub at the position so he’s a good one, as is Coates who I would put at #2. As for Wycheck…not bad, but where’s the love for Keith Jackson, Mark Bavaro or Russ Francis? All of these guys were among the best from their eras and all of them have Super Bowl rings.

     OL: This position always has its fair share of omissions but I can’t understand for the life of me why Richmond Webb and Mark Stepnoski never get nominated year after year. Also warranting discussion are guys like Marvin Powell, Kent Hill and Dennis Harrah, who were in their final years before heading to the Seniors committee, Bruce Armstrong, Max Montoya, Nate Newton, Erik Williams, Ray Donaldson, Bill Fralic and Bart Oates. I feel like they could have offered up a lot more nominees here.

     DL: Another position where I feel they could have put forth a lot more nominees. I don’t think anyone has mentioned them yet, but where exactly are Neil Smith and Michael Dean Perry? Neil Smith’s omission is particularly confusing when he’s got arguably the best DL case of any of the guys that aren’t currently making the semifinalist list on a yearly basis (Kennedy, Haley, Doleman, Greene). He has over 100 sacks, 2 Super Bowl rings, he’s made 6 Pro Bowls and was on the 90’s all-decade team. Unfortunately it doesn’t look like any fans from KC or Denver have gone to bat for him. Other names that should be considered include Gastineau and Millard, along with Ray Childress and Leslie O’Neal.

     LB: Although I’ve complained about other positions, this one is definitely the worst for omissions. Pat Swilling, Hardy Nickerson and Greg Lloyd stand out, but also worthy were Jessie Tuggle, Chris Spielman, Bryce Paup, Wilbur Marshall, Vaughn Johnson, Darryl Talley, Rod Martin and Jessie Armstead. Maybe even Al Wilson, who was in his 1st year of eligibility following an unfortunately abbreviated career.

     DB: I actually like all of the names they mentioned, but again, I think they could have had more. Though I try not to be too biased toward borderline former Chiefs players (they are my favourite team), I think Deron Cherry is definitely a guy that should be on this list every year…yet I only remember him making the preliminary list once in the past few years. I also think that Carnell Lake, Frank Minnifield, Nolan Cromwell (in his final year of eligibility), Tim McDonald, Raymond Clayborn, Dennis Smith, and Terry McDaniel were other names that I think could have made this list.

     I can’t really complain about the Special Teamers and coaches, I think all of the important names are there with the exception of maybe Blanton Collier. Anybody know if you can simply email the hall of fame a nomination? I’d love to see a couple of these guys get onto the preliminary list next year.

163. Brad on October 3, 2011 at 12:45 pm

     I like your list BSLO. And I agree, Todd Christensen is the biggest TE snub. Devin Hester returned his record breaking 11th punt return for TD yesterday. That alone doesn’t necessarily gets him in but I think if any “pure returner” gets in, its should be him. I think he needs at least two more returns than I think he has a good shot. Return yards=overrated…returns TDs are the most important. When they make the 100 year anniversary team, Devin Hester should be on it.

164. Paul on October 3, 2011 at 4:17 pm

     The list of 18 you referred to was one prepared by a posters based on the list of modern candidates preliminary nominees recently announced for the 2012 election. These players and others are not competing with Ken Anderson as he is now on the Seniors Candidate list. I know that the title of this board is on the 2012 Seniors candidates, but with the 2012 Seniors already selected and the process for the 2012 modern candidates now underway, the debate and discussion has shifted away from the Seniors.

165. Paul on October 3, 2011 at 4:27 pm

     It is my understanding that you can mail nominations to the HOF in the spring through summer so they are included in this preliminary list of nominees provided to the HOF voters and publicly released in September.

     Again I am not sure of this process has changed or why the number of preliminary nominees seems so much lower for 2012 (105) then in previous years (2007: 111; 2008:124; 2009:133; 2010: 131; 2011:114). I am not aware of any review or vetting of the list by HOF or the selection committee, although I suppose really out of place nominations of clearly unqualified players may happen???

166. Paul on October 3, 2011 at 4:35 pm

     One last realization, when the HOF went to adding the 2nd stage of elections ( voting for 25 semi-finalist list), perhaps the value and completeness of the initial 100+ preliminary list lost of some its importance to the process. Frankly lets be realistic, you can include more names and get the list from 100 to 120 or 130, but those 25 semi-finalists are not going to come from those added 20 to 30 names.

     Perhaps the Selection Committee members are also failing at their job to ensure all the deserving names are placed on the preliminary list. I recall a discussion from a previous election (perhaps it was from Dr Z. at SI) who noted that the Selection Committee are asked to review the list and add any missing names before it goes to the voters and out to the public??

167. boknows34 on October 4, 2011 at 2:15 pm

     Robert, BSLO and everyone else.

     Maybe we should make the effort to nominate these prelim snubs ourselves by writing to the Pro Football HOF.

168. Paul on October 4, 2011 at 3:35 pm

     good idea boknows34, although too late for the 2012 elections, such a list should be mailed to the HOF next spring in time for the 2013 preliminary list next fall.

169. BSLO on October 4, 2011 at 4:54 pm

     Good idea boknows34! I would definitely be on board with mailing a list in for next year to ensure that some of these overlooked players make the list in the future.

170. Brad on October 4, 2011 at 8:19 pm

     I will like to be involved too.

171. boknows34 on October 8, 2011 at 10:59 pm

     The late Al Davis said the one Raider who is currently not in the HOF and deserves it the most is Cliff Branch.

     Davis also has served as a Hall of Fame presenter nine times which is by far the most by any individual. He served the role of presenter for John Madden (2006), Ted Hendricks (1990), Art Shell (1989), Fred Biletnikoff (1988), Gene Upshaw (1987), Willie Brown (1984), George Blanda (1981), Jim Otto (1980), and Lance Alworth (1978).

172. Paul on October 12, 2011 at 4:04 pm

     Branch is certainly in the mix of several WRs from the 1970s/early 1980s. Unfortunately his career numbers are not outstanding (including all pro and pro bowls) and very comparable with many other WRs from that low passing era not in the HOF (Drew Pearson, Harold Carmichael, Mark Duper, Mary Clayton, Stanley Morgan, Harold Jackson), there is not much that distinguishes him from that group and no “signature” moment. However, I believe the greatest barriers to his selection is in fact the large number of Raiders from 1970s already in the HOF and how his low career numbers are unfairly compared to those WRs from the 1980s to present pass crazy league.

     I do think he is deserving of the HOF (key player in three SBs), but the road will likely be long and hard among the already deep Seniors pool.

173. boardgame on October 12, 2011 at 7:46 pm

     My guess was that after Bob Hayes, there would be no other WR’s added to the HOF from the pre 1980’s. I guess will have to wait and see.

     There are still some good candidates including Pearson, Shofner, Branch, Otis Taylor, Howton among others.

     Hayes stands out in YPC and ‘yards per score'(his 76 career TDs were 41.5 yards per score). Hayes was 8th all time in TD catches when he retired in 1975.

     Hayes was also an IOC HOF Legend who was the World’s fastest man and two time Olympic gold medal winner as a sprinter to go along with three pro bowls and multiple 1st or 2nd team all pro selections in his NFL career; he’s still the only player in NFL history to have a SB ring and Olympic Gold Medal.

     Depending on who you want to believe, Hayes also altered the way the game was played, atleast upon his arrival and dominance the first four or five years of his career.

     My research and watching film highlights of the mid/late 60’s, shows that Zone did exist before Bob Hayes, but was also not the mainstream defense of the time.

     Hayes, more than probably any WR of that time, in his first 4-5 years made opposing defenses go to the Zone more than they ever had before his arrival. He had 49 TD catches his first five seasons with most of those the long ball variety.

     Hayes and Randy Moss are still the only NFL WR’s to have atleast 10(+)receiving TD’s five of their first six seasons and only Jerry Rice, Lance Alworth and Moss had more receiving TD’s their first five seasons than Hayes’ 49.

     His weakness compared to his long wait for the HOF was a short span of dominance causing some what weaker career numbers and of course the ‘”Ice Bowl” fiasco. Others complain that his trouble off the field hurt his chances despite character not suppose to be a guideline in HOF voting.

     I don’t really have a problem if Hayes is the last pre 80’s WR elected to the HOF, but I wouldn’t be shocked if a few still get elected as well. I’ve always liked Otis Taylor myself.