He didn't even get past the first vote!T.O. not being a first ballot guy is complete horseshit.
Not like you to post something like that.So Stabler gets the Ron Santo treatment. Nothing like dying to give your candidacy a boost.
I'm really just criticizing the election process. Stabler is not one of those under-the-radar guys who needed the Seniors Committee to revive his candidacy because he was overlooked in his own time. He played the most famous position for one of the most famous teams ever, he was properly appreciated during his career (unlike, say, Ken Anderson), he was a three-time HoF finalist in 1990, 1993, and 2001. His candidacy got a thorough vetting. He's not a guy who has really benefitted from better data/analytics (as e.g. Anderson is, if anything analytics have been hard on him). The Seniors Committee can nominate anyone who's been retired for 25 years; Stabler has been eligible since 2009 for Seniors consideration without being nominated.Not like you to post something like that.
Maybe not the media, but I have certainly heard comments about Moss and Gronk as ways of explaining away Brady's success.Has the media ever once made the argument that Brady had better skill players?
OK. My feeling about Stabler is that he's a big game winner, something like David Ortiz but not of that magnitude, who I'm happy to see get in because I hate the stats are the only things that count voting philosophy. As for worst post merger QB in the HOF, you must be considering Namath as one who "straddled" the merger, and Namath's numbers were worse post merger than pre-merger. Also, Namath had probably just one standout high profile game (albeit a huge, huge, one) vs. several for Stabler. And, OK, some of Stabler's votes were probably sympathy votes.I'm really just criticizing the election process. Stabler is not one of those under-the-radar guys who needed the Seniors Committee to revive his candidacy because he was overlooked in his own time. He played the most famous position for one of the most famous teams ever, he was properly appreciated during his career (unlike, say, Ken Anderson), he was a three-time HoF finalist in 1990, 1993, and 2001. His candidacy got a thorough vetting. He's not a guy who has really benefitted from better data/analytics (as e.g. Anderson is, if anything analytics have been hard on him). The Seniors Committee can nominate anyone who's been retired for 25 years; Stabler has been eligible since 2009 for Seniors consideration without being nominated.
Then he dies, and suddenly he gets elected at the very next opportunity. It just illustrates how silly the process is. It's the same thing that happened with Santo -- the publicity resulting from his death led to a renewed appreciation/remembrance/reevaluation of his career which led to his election at the next opportunity. But a process influenced by those sorts of factors is a bad process. The only difference is that Santo was a no-doubt-about-it HoFer when his career was properly evaluated and Stabler is veeery borderline (I wouldn't have voted for him, and he's probably now the weakest post-merger QB in the HoF, but it's not a travesty that he's in).
Never. This is literally made up.Maybe not the media, but I have certainly heard comments about Moss and Gronk as ways of explaining away Brady's success.
So he's clutch like Jeter, with calm eyes and a winning attitude? Ok, I'll show myself out.OK. My feeling about Stabler is that he's a big game winner, something like David Ortiz but not of that magnitude, who I'm happy to see get in because I hate the stats are the only things that count voting philosophy. As for worst post merger QB in the HOF, you must be considering Namath as one who "straddled" the merger, and Namath's numbers were worse post merger than pre-merger. Also, Namath had probably just one standout high profile game (albeit a huge, huge, one) vs. several for Stabler. And, OK, some of Stabler's votes were probably sympathy votes.
Namath straddled the merger but most of his best years (except for 72) were pre-merger, so I wasn't counting him.OK. My feeling about Stabler is that he's a big game winner, something like David Ortiz but not of that magnitude, who I'm happy to see get in because I hate the stats are the only things that count voting philosophy. As for worst post merger QB in the HOF, you must be considering Namath as one who "straddled" the merger, and Namath's numbers were worse post merger than pre-merger. Also, Namath had probably just one standout high profile game (albeit a huge, huge, one) vs. several for Stabler. And, OK, some of Stabler's votes were probably sympathy votes.
Stabler had an 88 INT+ - that's like if Ortiz had a .300 OBP. Ortiz is a borderline candidate whose postseason resume may get him in. Putting aside whether Stabler was even a big game winner as coremiller said, he shouldn't sniff the HOF. He gave the ball to the other team at one of the highest rates in history. That's not good.OK. My feeling about Stabler is that he's a big game winner, something like David Ortiz but not of that magnitude, who I'm happy to see get in because I hate the stats are the only things that count voting philosophy. As for worst post merger QB in the HOF, you must be considering Namath as one who "straddled" the merger, and Namath's numbers were worse post merger than pre-merger. Also, Namath had probably just one standout high profile game (albeit a huge, huge, one) vs. several for Stabler. And, OK, some of Stabler's votes were probably sympathy votes.
Career averages are a little hard on Stabler because he had a very peaks-and-valleys career and his case is all peak value. He was legit great in 74 and 76, above average in 72, 73, 77, and 79, and about average in 75. But he stunk pretty badly in his other five seasons (which is why his career numbers are weak), so those 6-7 seasons are basically all his value. Are two elite seasons and 4-5 additional good ones enough for the HoF, esp. given his favorable teammates/coaching? I see the case, but I would draw the line above him.Stabler had an 88 INT+ - that's like if Ortiz had a .300 OBP. Ortiz is a borderline candidate whose postseason resume may get him in. Putting aside whether Stabler was even a big game winner as coremiller said, he shouldn't sniff the HOF. He gave the ball to the other team at one of the highest rates in history. That's not good.
Yeah, he really fell off after leaving Oakland plus he only had 74 attempts in 72 so his entire candidacy is based around 73-79, a period in which he still had a 5.9 INT%. I think we're in agreement that Anderson is a much more deserving contemporary.Career averages are a little hard on Stabler because he had a very peaks-and-valleys career and his case is all peak value. He was legit great in 74 and 76, above average in 72, 73, 77, and 79, and about average in 75. But he stunk pretty badly in his other five seasons (which is why his career numbers are weak), so those 6-7 seasons are basically all his value. Are two elite seasons and 4-5 additional good ones enough for the HoF, esp. given his favorable teammates/coaching? I see the case, but I would draw the line above him.
But dude, that guy in that bar that time...he totally said that. And then on Facebook...Never. This is literally made up.
Perhaps the following will not excuse my hyperbole, but it certainly proves that I am not the only one capable of writing something stupid:Never. This is literally made up.
It’s to Brady’s credit that he’s played well without elite receivers, but it’s also true that he hasn’t looked like the best in the game without weapons like Welker and Gronkowski. That doesn’t apply to Manning. Edgerrin James left, and the Colts won the Super Bowl. Marvin Harrison retired, and Manning won NFL MVP. And then we all said, well, okay, but it’s not like Reggie Wayne is chopped liver. So Manning overcame a career-threatening neck injury, switched to an entirely different team, with entirely new receivers, and set single-season records for yardage and TDs. Eric Decker left in free agency and Welker got suspended, so Manning turned Emmanuel Sanders into a Pro Bowler. Every receiver Manning plays with turns into a superstar. I just don’t know how you look at these two QBs and conclude that Brady is more critical to his team than Manning. It doesn’t match up in the eye test, the passing stats, the receivers, or the team results. When Brady missed the 2008 season, the Patriots still went 11-5. When Manning missed the 2011 season, the Colts dropped to 2-14.
They went 2-14 because they tanked. The patriots don't tankPerhaps the following will not excuse my hyperbole, but it certainly proves that I am not the only one capable of writing something stupid:
http://www.footballperspective.com/guest-post-brad-oremlands-best-qbs-in-history-6-10/
Law is a pretty borderline case. From CBs during his era, he's definitely behind Charles Woodson, Champ Bailey, and Aeneas Williams. Williams is already in, and I would guess the other two get in easily. Then there's a second tier with Law, Ronde Barber, Troy Vincent, and Sam Madison where it's hard to separate them. Law has very good postseason value, but Barber does too. It will come down to how many corners from that 1995-2005ish period they want to put in, but I'd be surprised if any of the 2nd-tier guys make it.The Indianapolis Colts teams from 2001 through 2010 won 114 regular season games (45 losses) and won one super bowl. They are represented in the Hall of Fame by Bill Polian (1998-2011), Tony Dungy (2002-2008), and Marvin Harrison (1996-2008).
The New England Patriots from 2001 through 2010 won 121 regular season games (39 losses) and won three super bowls. They are represented in the Hall of Fame by Junior Seau (2006-2009).
All of the representatives from the Colts may be viable candidates on their own individual terms, and, of course, people who represented either organization (or both in Adam Vinatieri's case) during that century are not yet eligible for the Hall of Fame. Still and all, it just doesn't seem right to me.
I guess what I am saying is that Ty Law should be in the Hall of Fame.