Russ Grimm Elected Into Hall of Fame Class of 2010

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag359

How accurate is the hall? I mean John Stallworth gets elected before Art Monk. And Russ Grimm, the best player on the best O-Line in history has to wait over a decade to get elected? I actually found something interesting. Joe Namaths best season is actually comparable to Cutler in 2009. So today Jay Cutler throws a bunch of picks and he's a complete bust. Joe Namath does it and he's a Hall of Famer. And don't give me that crap about good passing numbers being hard to come by from that time frame.

Bart Starr, Johnny U, and Fran Tarkenton posted at least three 90+ season. Johnny U and Bart even passed the 100 point mark a few times.

I mean I love Terry Bradshaw as a commentator in fact he should go to the hall of fame as one, but as a QB he really has no business being there

In fact if Jason Campbell plays in the 60's and 70's with the numbers he's put up over the last few years then he's a candidate as a first ballot hall of famer. Maybe Skip Bayless was right, it really is the Hall of Good.

Namath gets a bad rap, but he's was actually a much better quarterback than a lot of people give him credit for.

The problem is, Namath supporters speak of him like he was better than Tarkenton, better than Starr, better than Staubach, better than Len Dawson, and he simply wasn't in that class.

But in terms of hall of fame standards, Namath takes a really big hit for his quarterback rating being roughly league average for the era instead of in line with the best statistical quarterbacks of all time. Truth is, Namath was a guy who was a standard deviation above the mean in net yards per attempt, which is a hall of fame type inclusive statistic. He fell closer to Cutler on the Cutler-McNabb sack-interception continuum (that I created just now), but that's not a bad or a good thing inherently. It just is. Namath was very deserving of his HoF nod, even if he got it for all the wrong reasons.

Bradshaw, on the other hand, is a slightly above average player who is there primarily for team-related accomplishments. The 70's Steelers really don't have a single offensive player who was a hall of famer in the truest sense. Franco Harris was probably the best player on that unit, and he was a pro bowler each of his first 9 seasons, so that's probably the best argument for a HoFer from that offense, but they did win four rings, so a whole bunch of people associated with them were getting in. Ken Stabler and Ken Anderson only wish they were so lucky.

[budw38]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Namath gets a bad rap, but he's was actually a much better quarterback than a lot of people give him credit for.

The problem is, Namath supporters speak of him like he was better than Tarkenton, better than Starr, better than Staubach, better than Len Dawson, and he simply wasn't in that class.

But in terms of hall of fame standards, Namath takes a really big hit for his quarterback rating being roughly league average for the era instead of in line with the best statistical quarterbacks of all time. Truth is, Namath was a guy who was a standard deviation above the mean in net yards per attempt, which is a hall of fame type inclusive statistic. He fell closer to Cutler on the Cutler-McNabb sack-interception continuum (that I created just now), but that's not a bad or a good thing inherently. It just is. Namath was very deserving of his HoF nod, even if he got it for all the wrong reasons.

Bradshaw, on the other hand, is a slightly above average player who is there primarily for team-related accomplishments. The 70's Steelers really don't have a single offensive player who was a hall of famer in the truest sense. Franco Harris was probably the best player on that unit, and he was a pro bowler each of his first 9 seasons, so that's probably the best argument for a HoFer from that offense, but they did win four rings, so a whole bunch of people associated with them were getting in. Ken Stabler and Ken Anderson only wish they were so lucky.

Great post GTripp. Guys it is impossible to compare QB's / wr's of todays game with those who played in the 70's . 1972 NFL Leaders and Leaderboards | Pro-Football-Reference.com ,to pass for 20 td's in a season from 70-77 would put you at the top , as you can see in 72 B. Kilmer lead the NFL with 19 td's . As far as Bradshaw , nobody was going to complete 60% / better in the offense they ran , throwing 15-20 yds downfield to the WR's , The TE for the Steelers avg'd 11 recp's per/yr . Bradshaw was at the top in td passes and yds / attempt 1978 NFL Leaders and Leaderboards | Pro-Football-Reference.com ...1978 NFL Leaders and Leaderboards | Pro-Football-Reference.com averaging over 14yds / Attempt . Not saying he was as good as Montana / Marino and some other HOF , but considering his two starting WR's were hurt most of the time , he did ok . You cannot win 4 SB's with a garbage qb , maybe one ... but not 4 .

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Namath gets a bad rap, but he's was actually a much better quarterback than a lot of people give him credit for.

The problem is, Namath supporters speak of him like he was better than Tarkenton, better than Starr, better than Staubach, better than Len Dawson, and he simply wasn't in that class.

But in terms of hall of fame standards, Namath takes a really big hit for his quarterback rating being roughly league average for the era instead of in line with the best statistical quarterbacks of all time. Truth is, Namath was a guy who was a standard deviation above the mean in net yards per attempt, which is a hall of fame type inclusive statistic. He fell closer to Cutler on the Cutler-McNabb sack-interception continuum (that I created just now), but that's not a bad or a good thing inherently. It just is. Namath was very deserving of his HoF nod, even if he got it for all the wrong reasons.

Bradshaw, on the other hand, is a slightly above average player who is there primarily for team-related accomplishments. The 70's Steelers really don't have a single offensive player who was a hall of famer in the truest sense. Franco Harris was probably the best player on that unit, and he was a pro bowler each of his first 9 seasons, so that's probably the best argument for a HoFer from that offense, but they did win four rings, so a whole bunch of people associated with them were getting in. Ken Stabler and Ken Anderson only wish they were so lucky.

Jason Lisk essentially makes the same argument I did here for Namath over at the PFR Blog

Pro-football-reference.com blog » Blog Archive » Joe Namath is a legitimate Hall of Fame Quarterback

It's interesting because the same writer did a similar Vinny Testaverde analysis after I had tried to use Vinny Testaverde's mediocrity to make a point about Brett Favre's greatness...and found that Testaverde was more than a Favre contemporary, but he was actually pretty comparable.

Pro-football-reference.com blog » Blog Archive » Vinny Testaverde was better than you think

I think he's on to me.