Ken Anderson: Hall of Famer?

Definitely one of the most underrated QBs in football history, if not THE most underrated. But can't say that makes him HOF worthy. But I will say he was immeasurably better than a guy like Joe Namath, who is enshrined.

 

Hall of Very Good. Though I'm sure Anderson is in Augustana's Hall of Fame.

 

Switch teams, do those records stay the same? Is Bradshaw still 13-5 playing for the Bengals? Of course not, way to simplistic of an argument. I would like to think the Steel Curtain had just a little bit to do with that playoff record.

I

 

I think he's widely regarded as the best QB who isn't in...

 

Unless you ask giants fans who love phil simms...

 

He's a coffee achiever. That alone should get him in.

 

I often say, if Warren Moon is in then (so and so) should be considered. Moon: 3-7 in the playoffs when the AFC lost every Super Bowl.

 

As opposed to Joe Namath only playing in three post season games in his entire goddamn career? Hey, at least Moon reached double digit playoff games despite spending his prime athletic years in Canada (where he was a frickin super duper mega legend).

Sorry, but when it comes to minimum threshold HOF QBs, Moon comes nowhere near Namath. Other than the fact that he has that Super Bowl ring (you know, sorta like Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson do), there's NOTHING whatsoever about his overall playing numbers that suggests Namath should've been allowed anywhere near Canton.

And, as to the thread topic, I'll again re-state that Ken Anderson deserves far more credit than he's gotten. As to whether he's HOF or not, I don't know, but he was better than QBs that are in and, as someone else noted, arguably the only real qualitative difference between he and contemporaries like Terry Bradshaw and Roger Staubach was supporting cast.

 

Can't tell the story of pro football without Joe Namath.

 

Why? Because of a contract he signed? Because of a boast he once made to the media?

Certainly not because of his actual play, at least no more so than piles of other players not yet, or never to be, inducted. What exactly is the criteria for induction as a player--repeat, NOT as a contributor--but as a player?

 

Do the Steelers win four with Anderson?

Does anyone really want to say the Steelers beat Roger and Doomsday twice with Kenny Anderson? They beat Oakland? They beat Miami? They beat the Purple People Eaters?

 

You know, I really try just to sit back and follow these discussions and stay out of them, but...

This (with a couple added thoughts) is from one of the many previous threads that have gone over this topic:


No, the comparison of Namath to Sayers is not ridiculous. Namath didn't have four good seasons. He had four incredible seasons considering the times, and another couple of really good ones after he was injured.

In an era when a 3,000-yard season was considered sensational -- no one had ever thrown for 3,000 until 1960 when some guy named Unitas did it -- Namath passed for 4,007 yards in 1967. That was unheard of, seemingly impossible at the time. Care to guess when the next 4,000-yard season was? Try 1979, when Dan Fouts passed for 4,082 with two more games in the season and the passing rules loosened immensely in favor of the offense. Namath posted three consecutive 3,000-yard seasons in the mid-60s. Just doing a quickie search on pro-football-reference.com, the only other guy I could find who had done that before the rules were changed in '78 was Lamonica -- not Hall of Famers Unitas or Jurgensen or Blanda or Tarkenton. No one was even close to Namath's three-year total of 10,533 yards. In '69, Namath was second in the league in yards and TDs. And in '72, after the injuries, he came back with another terrific year, leading the league in passing yards, TD passes and yards per attempt (8.7).

BTW, in '72, Namath had the season's only two 400-yard passing games including one that really sums up how much passing attacks have changed over the years. Against the Colts, he passed for 496 yards and six touchdowns on only 28 attempts and 15 completions. That's 33 yards per completion and 17.7 yards per attempt. QBs then were throwing more high-risk passes against defenses that were allowed to manhandle receivers all the way down the field protected from rushers who could use tactics like the head slap by blockers who were not allowed to extend their arms or open their hands. Obviously, the numbers aren't going to look the same (or even close).

As for the interceptions. Yes, Namath threw tons of interceptions. Guess what? So did almost everyone back then. In the nine-team AFL, how many QBs do you think had 20 interceptions when Namath played? In 1966, it was three -- 33 percent. In '67, 5 -- more than half. In '68, only one -- but John Hadl had 32 (and led the league in passing yards). In '69, three. Most of those QBs in the 20s were near the of the league top in yardage, too. For comparison, the past four seasons of the 32-team NFL, there have been three, three, one and three -- less than 10 percent of the passers every season (in two more games per season).

Note: This was posted after the 2010 season. Last season, four QBs threw 20 or more interceptions (12.5 percent) because somehow, Rex Grossman managed to hold a starting job.

And completion percentage? Namath was under 50 percent in 1966 -- and was third-best in the AFL. Passing was much, much more difficult then. Bobby Layne finished his career with a percentage below .500 and almost 50 more interceptions than touchdowns. I don't hear anyone saying he doesn't belong in the Hall.

No, Namath is not the best QB who ever played. But he flashed very brightly for a brief time and had seasons observers at the time considered unimaginable.

Namath is not the only player in the Hall because of a short period of brilliance. There's Sayers, of course. Leroy Kelly got in with three great seasons. Swann's peak was short. And check Floyd Little's record.

Again, I don't think Namath was on a level with Unitas or Layne or Graham. But I think all the bashing is over the top. He deserves to be in the Hall for his play as well as his personality.