Why isn't Joe Theismann in the Hall Of Fame?
coolstanley
Posts: 2,883 ✭✭✭✭✭
His career stats are very similar to Bob Griese. And Joe has a season MVP award.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
0
Comments
Lets take Bob out
Because Griese has two Super Bowls and had the undefeated Season.
Griese was all-pro 8 times Joe 2 times. Joe also got a late start to his career.
He does have the two Super Bowls - as do, of course, all of his teammates - but whatever credit we're giving the QB for the undefeated season mostly goes to Earl Morrall. Earl won 9 regular season games (Griese won 5), and both playoff games, and led the league in passer rating that year. That team was built on defense and the running game; who they slotted in at QB was of relatively minor importance.
In the other SB year, the Dolphins ran for 2,500 yards (3rd in the league) and threw for 1,700 (21st); the QB was even less important than in the undefeated season.
Griese was a fine QB but the only thing that separated him from a dozen other similar QBs was that Griese's team had better defense. That won him a couple of Super Bowls, but it's a very silly reason to put him in the HOF.
all pro , is that like gold glove or summat?
So you are saying Griese should not be in...….maybe, maybe not. But because he's in, we should put Theisman in because he has similar stats? I'm confused.
The two super bowls is probably what pushed Griese into the Hall of Fame.
I didn't say either, but since you ask I don't think of either of them as HOFers. What I am saying is that if you are counting Super Bowls when deciding which QBs to put in the HOF, you are going to get silly results. When allocating credit among the Dolphins for those two Super Bowl seasons, I am confident that Griese is not among the top ten on his own team. Handing off to Csonka, Morris and Kiick does not require HOF level talent, nor does throwing for 88 total yards in a Super Bowl. Just off the top of my head, among QBs just from Griese's era, I think Gabriel and Brodie were better than Griese, and Hadl, Morton, Lamonica, and Morrall were just as good (not even mentioning the multiple QBs from that era that are in the HOF). If being as good as Griese, as Theismann was, means you belong in the HOF, then they're going to need a major expansion in Canton.
Again, Griese was a fine QB, and I always liked him. But he is in the HOF because people give QBs WAAAYYYY too much credit for the performance of their team, and Griese was fortunate enough to be on a great team. (See also Aikman, Troy and Bradshaw, Terry).
Yes, sort of. A guy with 8 is probably better than a guy with 2.
Good points. When the Dolphins destroyed the Vikings in the super bowl, it was with Csonka and the defense. Griese was a fine QB, but any decent QB wins that game. Csonka was a monster that day.
Brodie is very under rated, he's the best of your bunch, and as good, or better than Griese imo.
Of all the QBs I mentioned, including Aikman and Bradshaw, I think Brodie was probably the most deserving of the HOF. Lamonica may have been the best, and of HOF caliber, but he didn't last long enough. But in the 6 years he played full time, he was as good as there was.
Why is Brodie more deserving? Brodie threw alot of interceptions. Aikman and Bradshaw put up big numbers in the big games. More impressive imp than anything Brodie or Griese did.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Ken Stabler got elected the year after his death. Maybe thats how long people like Theismann and Ken Anderson will have to wait.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
In logic terms, this is what's known as "begging the question". Yes, Aikman and Bradshaw put up some big numbers in the big games, but the only reason they were in the big games in the first place is that they were on great teams. That John Brodie toiled away on bad teams meant he never got to play in the big games, but surely that says nothing at all about how good he was. Ask Ted Williams, he can explain it better than I can.
Football is a team sport, and there exists no objective way to disentangle the contributions of the QB from the rest of his teammates. That's a fact, and I state it just to make sure you understand my point. When trying to determine which QB was better than another QB, I rely a great deal on what I saw with my own eyes, and fill in with stats that speak to what the QB himself did, in the context of the team he happened to play for. And to the best of my ability, I try to ignore stats (like wins and losses, playoff appearances, etc.) that tell us more, and often only, about the team rather than the QB.
In my opinion, and ultimately any FB ranking of individual players is little more than opinion, John Brodie was a great QB, and Aikman and Bradshaw were, at their best, above average. I think every QB I mentioned above was better than both of them, yet they are in the HOF and the others I mentioned aren't. Makes no sense to me, but most FB fans seem happy with it.
Not that I think you or anyone else will actually do this, but imagine going through the Steelers roster from 1975, or any of their SB years, and allocating the credit you think each player on the roster deserves for the team's success. There are a whole lot of big names - Lambert, Harris, Greene, Swann, Greenwood, Ham, Stallworth, Blount, etc. - that, if you're fair, are going to get some impressive shares, and a whole lot more minor names that you're going to have to give more than minor credit (especially Gerela, Bleier, and Kolb, Gravelle, Mullins, etc. on the OL). When you're finished, you might find that Bradshaw's share is, say, 10% (I know, I know, you want that number to be much higher, but if you'll try this exercise you'll see that it simply can't be). Do the same for Brodie and you won't find a whole lot of other names you recognize, let alone want to assign big shares of credit to, and Brodie might end up with, say, 20% of the credit for his team's success. If the Steelers won 12 games, then Bradshaw gets credit for 1.2 wins, and if the 49ers won 8 games, Brodie gets 1.6 games credit. I haven't done this exercise, but this is a clear way of thinking about it, and while I just made up the numbers here they are more or less how I view Bradshaw and Brodie. Brodie was better, and by a clear margin, but Bradshaw's teams were so much better than Brodie's teams that nobody bothered to notice.
Aikman's career completion % is higher than Dan Marino. I dont think you're giving these guys enough credit, Dallas.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
As I said, my position is that all of this is little more than opinion, so I'm not saying you're wrong. But I am saying that completion percentage is determined by a combination of factors. In no particular order:
The ability of the QB
The ability of the receivers
The ability of the offensive line
The strength of the running game (affects how the defense plays the pass)
For Aikman specifically, he had the 2nd best offensive line in history in front of him (behind the Cardinals of the mid-70's), he had Emmitt Smith in the backfield, he had Irvin running deep, and he had Novacek running short. The way you phrased your post appears to give literally zero credit to the OL, Smith, Irvin, or Novacek. And if you want to fudge the numbers so that Aikman comes out looking like a great QB, that's what you have to do. But give the others the credit they're actually due (whatever that may be), and my bet is that Aikman won't come out looking as important to the Cowboys success as you, and the HOF voters, perceived him to be.
Troy Aikman did NOT have a higher completion % than Dan Marino - the Cowboys had a higher completion % than the Dolphins. Yes, Aikman gets his share of the credit for that, but if you've got that share at 100%, then I think you're missing more than you're seeing.
plus have you seen Aikman lately? his head is weathering like a block of wood!
Each year he looks more and more like one of those creepy puppets in this video
It just makes me LOL when these guys say Aikman & Bradshaw weren't that good!! LOL LOL LOL!!!!! They were both great and in the HOF where they belong.
I remember Brodie beating the Vikings from 1970-72. The Vikes were one of the best teams in the NFL at the time and Brodie seemed to be the man. He did have a pretty good team and Gene Washington was a very good receiver for those three years (and a couple more), but he really didn't have much to work with other than Washington.
He did throw too many interceptions. He also had 10 seasons in the top 10 in both passing yards and touchdowns. I don't see any of the other guys coming near that.
They played the Cowboys pretty tough during that stretch too. Dallas was very, very good.
JON, Bradshaw was NOT a great Quarterback, he just wasn't. He did have a great arm, and one of the best group of team mates ever assembled, he did play well in the playoffs, no argument there. On any average team, he's an average QB.
You should not even mention him in the same sentence as Aikman! Look at the completion %.
Indeed they are where they belong. Haters will always hate. Two great QB's. Bradshaw called his own plays, so he should get alot of the credit. Both players showed up huge in the post season. Aikman was tough as nails and very dependable.
According to Dallas, it sounds like the whole team should be in, instead of a few individuals.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
I like Brodie alot as well. Borderline HOF. He had some great years. But his lackluster playoff performances and the high int total dont impress me.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Yes, I like that idea. If you transplant Bradshaw onto the Saints there is zero doubt - seriously, tell me if you doubt this and I'll just stop trying to discuss this intelligently with you - that he would never have been in a single "big game" and he would never have even been considered for the HOF. And that's what makes no sense to me - it shouldn't matter what team a QB is on, how many points his team's defense allows, or how good his RB and WR are when deciding how good the QB is. The 49ers did get pretty good near the end of Brodie's career, but for most of his career he was on a team as bad as the 1970's Saints. Had Brodie been on the Packers instead he'd have a handful of championships and be in the HOF, and you'd agree that he should be. But he was on a bad team, he isn't in the HOF, and you agree that he shouldn't be. I'd ask you to explain that to me, but I won't because it would just make my head hurt. Brodie was exactly as good as he was, and he was exactly as good on the 49ers winning 5 or 6 games a season as he would have been on the Packers winning 10 or 11 games a season; to say one of them is a HOFer and the other isn't when they are the exact same person makes. no. sense. But it's what the HOF voters say, and it's what Dimeman says, and I think it's what you're saying.
Sometime, when you're really bored, start assigning shares of credit to the 1975 Steelers and tell me what share you end up assigning to everyone. If you mange to get Bradshaw out of single digits I want to see which HOFers and Pro Bowlers on the Steelers you had to screw over to get him that high.
Fun fact: in the Steelers four SB seasons, they had a record of 37-16 with Bradshaw at QB, and 6-1 with backups as QB. Most of that backup record was compiled by the awesome Mike Kruczek, who went 6-0 in 1976. Anyone here remember Kruczek? Anyone with his hand up is a lying dog-faced pony soldier. And there's no reason you should remember him; filling in as QB for that team and winning every game, or at least nearly every game, is what is expected. It demonstrates a minimum level of competence, not greatness. "Just don't blow it, and the team will win" - that's the only direction a Steeler QB needed, and the list of QBs who could have won the same four Super Bowls that Bradshaw won is longer than my arm. (Ditto for Aikman.)
I disagree that Kruczek would've won four super bowls. During his 6 wins that year, he threw for zero touchdown passes. Unlike Bradshaw, he did not have a strong arm.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
That is your right to disagree. But recognize that it is also merely your opinion, and one for which you have no evidence. And recognize that the Steelers were so good everywhere else that giving up a little on their passing game didn't stop them from winning. Also recognize that despite throwing for no TDs Kruczek still had a higher QB rating than Bradshaw - he threw fewer interceptions, completed a higher percentage of passes, and had more yards gained per pass than Bradshaw.
What little evidence there is points to Kruczek being better than Bradshaw in 1976, and the Steelers winning more games with him at QB than they did with Bradshaw. How far you choose to extrapolate that information is up to you, but extrapolating from that information that Bradshaw was a great QB and the Steelers owe their SB wins to him is very much farther than I am willing to go. But I will admit that my confidence that the Steelers would have won all four SB with Kruczek at QB is low; I think they surely win one, probably win two, have a fair chance at three, and maybe a one in 10 chance at all four. But, substitute a regular, full-time career QB like Archie Manning, Jim Hart, or Billy Kilmer and I think it's a virtual lock that they win all four. Substitute a great QB like Ken Anderson, and I think they win five or six.
Dallas, if you happen to look up the biggest NFL QB busts in history, Kruczek is on that list. His longest pass is like 19 yards. Give it up already lol.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
You'll have to forgive me, but it's posts like this that make me question whether I'm on Candid Camera or in the Twilight Zone or something. Because, of course, Kruczek's longest pass in 1976 - the year I thought we were discussing - was 64 yards, while Bradshaw's longest that year was only 50 yards. You said what you said presumably because you thought it meant something, but since what you said was so wrong, I don't know how to respond. I'd respond to your thoughts on everything else I said, but you didn't address any of it, so here we are.
The key question, should you choose to address it, is why did the Steelers win more games with Kruczek at QB than they did with Bradshaw. What does that tell us about the Steelers, and what does that tell us about Bradshaw? My opinion, supported by 100% of the available evidence, is that it didn't really matter who the Steelers used as their QB - they were so good they won 100% of their games with a QB that was, in your estimation, one of the biggest busts in NFL history. If there is a path from the information we have to the conclusion that Bradshaw was an historically great QB I don't see it, and you haven't shown it to me. If the Steelers winning games with Bradshaw as their QB was that path, then that same path leads to Kruczek being historically great, too, and we both agree that's the wrong path. Is there another path? Is it his 52% completion rate? Is it his TD/interception ratio of 1.0? Is it that he's 148th in career passer rating? Show me something, anything, that indicates Bradshaw was a great QB that doesn't simply follow automatically from the fact that the team he played for was the greatest in NFL history.
Perfect example of the value of Bradshaw's team mates. In 1976 both Franco Harris and Rocky Bleier were hurt in the Divisional victory against the Colts and Bradshaw did nothing the next game against the Raiders. 14 of 35 in passing.
Anyone that truly believes Bradshaw is the main reason behind the Steelers success is clearly someone who doesn’t know a whole lot about Football, same could be said about Griese
As for Aikman, I can appreciate the argument against his HOF inclusion- but I feel comfortable saying that he was a HOFer.
but do you agree he resembles a creepy tomato cheeked puppet?
Bradshaw's longest pass in 1976 was 76 yds.
Bradshaw is in the hall mostly for what he did in the post-season. He won his share of individual MVP awards.. He is the main reason the Steelers won super bowl in 78 and 79.
In 76, he had that bad performance against the raiders in the playoffs. However in the playoff game against the Colts, he went 14 of 18 for 264 yds and three TD's.
Bradshaw's career passer rating is higher than George Blanda, Joe Namath, Bobby Layne, and Bob Waterfield. All Hall of Famers. Sammy Baugh is considered the greatest QB in his era and he ranks 141th in career passer rating.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
During his career Mike Kruczek never threw a touchdown pass in a regular season game and currently holds the league record for career pass attempts, 154, without a touchdown.
Yep he was as good as Bradshaw LOL.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
I'm not the one bashing HOF players, but I'm the troll?
OOOOOOOK then.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Bradshaw is in the hall mostly for what he did in the post-season.
Bradshaw is in the HOF because he played on really great Teams. he had a Defense helping him that earned the nickname "Steel Curtain" along with Stallworth and Swan catching passes and Harris running behind a fabulous line. TB was above average but in truth an average QB could have had success with that Team.
I remember the early days of Bradshaw's career before they drafted all the talent. he would share duties with Terry Hanratty and they sucked equally well, you never knew who would start and who would be on the field for the second half. the Steelers were a mess back then. the 1974 Draft helped with Swan, Stallworth and Mike Webster joining the Team and the rest is history.
Well, see, I didn't know you had the correct stats and the NFL had the wrong ones; because they say Bradshaw's longest pass that year was 50 yards. You should let them know about that mistake and any others you know about. But now that I know I can't rely on the NFL's "official" stats, I'll just stop arguing with you.
I never said that, but since you're just being a troll now I assume you knew that. What I did say was that, in 1976, it made no difference to the Steelers whether Bradshaw was at QB or Kruczek was at QB. As someone else pointed out, for several years it made no difference to the Steelers whether Bradshaw or Hanratty played QB. You have yet to try, but if the spirit moves you someday, try to separate Bradshaw from the deserving HOFers who surrounded him and just focus on what he brought to the team. I don't see any evidence that he brought anything that most other QBs wouldn't have also brought. If you see something that I'm not seeing, let me know.
Terry Bradshaw had two strengths --- throwing the ball at the ground where only the diving Lynn Swan could, and very often did, catch it --- and --- throwing the ball out of bounds to the guy seated in the second row when his only other option was getting sacked.
past that I will defer to dallas.
THIS is why Terry Bradshaw is in the Hall. Top 50 NFL player of all time.
Super bowl Highlights.
Bradshaw currently holds two Super Bowl records.... Game Yds/Pass Att - 14.7 and Career Yds/Pass Att - 11.1
He is 3rd in all time career SB touchdown passes - 9
He is 3rd all time in SB game passing touchdowns - 4
He is fourth all-time in Super Bowl passer rating - 112.8
And sixth all time in SB passing yds - 932
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
I don't see how coolstanley is being a troll. It seems to me that he is just debating on the subject of greatness, when it comes to NFL quarterbacks. He's just defending his points. He's not a troll. Every good debate gets a little heated, to call him a troll is ludicrous.
Personally I dont think he is a Troll I just think he is way off with Bradshaw lol
I like to give credit where credit is due. Bradshaw really improved his game after 1977 when the league started to give QB's some protection.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Easy answer, Does not belong.
The NFL HOF includes those who accomplished what very few others, or sometimes no one else, did. Whether or not these accomplishments make them a "hall of famer" is certainly up for debate...thus this thread.
He intentionally misrepresents other posters posts and makes ridiculously asinine comments. It's not discussing/debating.
No one here "bashed" Bradshaw. The simple facts of the matter are; he was an average QB with a strong arm, who played on a team loaded with HOFers, even many of the non HOFers were very good players.
From 1970 to 1974 he was the worst QB in football.
From 1974-79 the Steelers had two RBs that were great, Harris had 6 years of over 1200 yards from scrimmage, Bleier had 5 seasons over 593.
As late as 1976, he was not established as the teams starter.
During the same time the Steelers had the #1 or the #2 ranked defense (points allowed) four times and the #5 ranked defense once. In 1977 their defense fell to #17 and they lost in the playoffs. 4 HOFers and 2 guys who were All Pro at least 6 times.
Bradshaw had two HOF Wide Receivers during the entire time in Lynn Swann and John Stallworth, plus Franco Harris.
Terry had 2 seasons where he was in the top 10 in both Passer rating and completion %, 1975 he was #5 in both categories and in 1978 he was the #2 rated QB and had the 7th best completion %.
He was in the top 10 in Completion % three times in 13 years and never above #5. It gets worse if you look closer, other than those 3 seasons he averaged at the #21 spot.
He was better in Quarterback Rating with 6 years in the top 10. #2 in 1978, #5 in 1975 and #6 in 1981, #7 in 1977 and 1982 and #8 in 1979.
His HOF monitor number is 94.82, the average QB's number is 103.46.
Looking at "his" victories in the Super Bowl;
1974 Defense and Franco Harris. Bradshaw had 84 net passing yards and 33 yards rushing.
1975 he did a little better with 190 net passing yards and a bomb to Swann, but completed less than 50% of his passes. The defense picked off Staubach 3 times and sacked him 7 times. Defense does it again.
1978 FINALLY Terry is the difference. Played well and was the SB MVP.
1979 Wins another MVP even though he throws 3 interceptions. Stallworth and Swann had big games and the defense shuts the door in the 4th quarter.
He had a good year in 1978, but dropped off 79-80. Was not in the top 15 in completion % in any of his last 4 years. I ignored 1983.
Disagree about 79. The Steelers had the #2 passing offense in the NFL.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
The question put to you is to identify something - anything - about Bradshaw that shows him to be a great QB separate from the deserving HOFers that surrounded him. Now, I understand that passing stats by their nature are not individual stats, and allocating credit among the QB, receivers and O-line is very subjective. You could try to do that, but you didn't. You went straight to Super Bowl stats, and nothing but Super Bowl stats. I can think of nothing more indicative that a QB is playing for a great team than career Super Bowl records. Nothing. You have selected the stats that are absolutely the MOST dependent on Bradshaw's teammates.
Either you get that, but answered this way anyway because it's all you've got, or you don't get that and discussing this further will lead to nothing but frustration. Either way, I've reached the end of this discussion.
And yet Pittsburgh went 6-1 in his starts. Kinda tells you that the QB didn't matter much for them, eh?
He was the 8th rated QB and 15th in completion %.
AVERAGE QB..............GREAT WR's
Edited to add; too many interceptions that year, he was about the 5th best QB that year. If this is one of his best years, he certainly does not merit HOF.
Actually he went undefeated for the Steelers, his loss was when he was with Washington.
Nah, not really. Sooner or later the opposing teams will figure out their opponents weaknesses.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21