I can wait on him, but I am right about vanilla defenses compared to nowadays. >>
true, but let's not forget about the MASSIVE changes in Pass Interference and Illegal Contact calls since then. >>
no doubt. There are much easier things about being qbs nowadays and I readily admit that, but all I am saying is the schemes are much more advanced now. >>
No one said that defenses aren't more advanced now..Of course they are! As are the offenses, players themselves, the fans, the world...What you said was, and i quote, "no exotic defenses. No zone blitzes. They played against base 4-3 defenses on every down except 3rd except for maybe 2 minute drill time."
That quote is 100000% incorrect...There were plenty of exotic defenses, and lots of teams using the 3-4 and variances of it much different than a standard 4-3 on every down but 3rd...You couldn't be more wrong...And if this is your stance, you simply don't know what you are talking about...PERIOD...Where do you live, I'll fly out and we can do some film review...lol
Jason >>
I spoke in a mass generalization forgive me. Sorry if I did not take the time to parce everything out in a message board post I thought about in under a minute. I am not trying to argue with you at all. I respect your opinions as they are typically very well thought out. It is futile to argue on a message board about a point so trivial. You do not know me and I do not know you personally so anyone can behave in any way they want on a message board in order to champion their opinion. I live in Shreveport, Louisiana it is an okay town where we get to cheer on the LSU Tigers and the New Orleans Saints. I was referncing the different sub packages used nowadays and zone blitzes which were first introduced by Dick LeBeau when he was with the Bengals at the time in my orginal post. 3-4 has been around for awhile and is not all that exotic by the way, I just referenced the 4-3 as a base package like the 3-4. Sorry for my lack of clarity and like I said do not want to argue one bit. I also would like to refrain from any unwanted hostility.
That quote is 100000% incorrect...There were plenty of exotic defenses, and lots of teams using the 3-4 and variances of it much different than a standard 4-3 on every down but 3rd...You couldn't be more wrong...And if this is your stance, you simply don't know what you are talking about...PERIOD...Where do you live, I'll fly out and we can do some film review...lol >>
You know, if you weren't such a blowhard, people might actually give credence to some of the things you say. Anyways, moving along . . .
That quote is 100000% incorrect...There were plenty of exotic defenses, and lots of teams using the 3-4 and variances of it much different than a standard 4-3 on every down but 3rd...You couldn't be more wrong...And if this is your stance, you simply don't know what you are talking about...PERIOD...Where do you live, I'll fly out and we can do some film review...lol >>
You know, if you weren't such a blowhard, people might actually give credence to some of the things you say. Anyways, moving along . . . >>
Not here to stroke anyone's ego. I speak what I know, I get to the point. Never much into the political correctness of the current day and age we live in. If that hurts your feelings, so be it. Doesn't make what I said any less truthful.
Save travels.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
I spoke in a mass generalization forgive me. Sorry if I did not take the time to parce everything out in a message board post I thought about in under a minute. I am not trying to argue with you at all. I respect your opinions as they are typically very well thought out. It is futile to argue on a message board about a point so trivial. You do not know me and I do not know you personally so anyone can behave in any way they want on a message board in order to champion their opinion. I live in Shreveport, Louisiana it is an okay town where we get to cheer on the LSU Tigers and the New Orleans Saints. I was referncing the different sub packages used nowadays and zone blitzes which were first introduced by Dick LeBeau when he was with the Bengals at the time in my orginal post. 3-4 has been around for awhile and is not all that exotic by the way, I just referenced the 4-3 as a base package like the 3-4. Sorry for my lack of clarity and like I said do not want to argue one bit. I also would like to refrain from any unwanted hostility. >>
There is no hostility on my part. None in the least. You made a statement, I counter with correct information. I'm not telling you to take my word for it...I'm saying if you are going to paint your picture with broad strokes, you should probably understand the color first. Make sense?
There is no argument here. I'm glad you are a Saints fan and think Brees is the 2nd coming. He's a great QB right now for sure. I met the guy last year at the Pro Bowl, and he's as nice a guy as you will find in the NFL...But none of this has anything to do with the misconception that tough defenses began in 1995. Heck, half the football fans out there think the NFL began in 1995 and are clueless to its history. If you care enough to make a statement about how much more complicated defenses are now and how there were no "exotic" defenses in existence in the 50-60-70-80s, then I assume you care enough to learn the truth...So take an hour next time you are bored and do some research on some of the players and teams I mentioned earlier in the post. I'm confident once you learn a little more about the evolution of NFL defense, you won't be so fast to dismiss past players/teams/defensive schemes as meaningless/worthless or otherwise inferior to what is on the field today.
Enjoy! Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
I find Rexvos to be a friendly and very informed poster. Not just on the Saints, but on various other issues as well. Always a pleasure to deal with him as he is always a gentleman and never a know-it-all or rude.
<< <i>I find Rexvos to be a friendly and very informed poster. Not just on the Saints, but on various other issues as well. Always a pleasure to deal with him as he is always a gentleman and never a know-it-all or rude. >>
Agreed. Unfortunately a tad ill-informed on an issue he chose to speak about. Which brings to mind the quote:
"It is better to say nothing and be thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt."
Hey, you live and learn right? Hopefully he will take my advice and use this as a learning experience rather than make it message board fight or a reason to pout. No hard feelings on my end.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>I find Rexvos to be a friendly and very informed poster. Not just on the Saints, but on various other issues as well. Always a pleasure to deal with him as he is always a gentleman and never a know-it-all or rude. >>
+1
Collecting PSA graded Steve Young, Marcus Allen, Bret Saberhagen and 1980s Topps Cards. Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
Mean joe green was the worst Fb player on the worst FB team ever. and....Butkus was a big woooosie
Jason I know you are on the other side of the world but the plane flight will be just fine. You don't need a room you can stay at my house. I woul love to see all those old films. I enjoy them more than current FB.
Collecting PSA... FB,BK,HK,and BB HOF RC sets 1948-76 Topps FB Sets FB & BB HOF Player sets 1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
so whats up with billy the exterminator? I heard he lost his lisense. I really enjoyed his show now it mysteriously dissapeared.
and btw.....don't be offended by jason. He is reg US army and is passionate about his country and FB. Sometimes it may seem like when he is on his computer and still on a search and destroy mission.
But listen to the content and not how it is said. I am not defending him as he needs no defense.
He and a few others have tremendous FB knowledge...esp the older game and esp the 1930's game. I know quite a bit but don't have a fraction of FB knowlegde as some of these guys.
for me the little controversies make it a more fun read. On some other threads it is down right hilarious...when a member makes such a silly comment and all the others gang bang him.
Nobody means anything cruel...just what people do i guess.
Collecting PSA... FB,BK,HK,and BB HOF RC sets 1948-76 Topps FB Sets FB & BB HOF Player sets 1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
so whats up with billy the exterminator? I heard he lost his lisense. I really enjoyed his show now it mysteriously dissapeared.
and btw.....don't be offended by jason. He is reg US army and is passionate about his country and FB. Sometimes it may seem like when he is on his computer and still on a search and destroy mission.
But listen to the content and not how it is said. I am not defending him as he needs no defense.
He and a few others have tremendous FB knowledge...esp the older game and esp the 1930's game. I know quite a bit but don't have a fraction of FB knowlegde as some of these guys.
for me the little controversies make it a more fun read. On some other threads it is down right hilarious...when a member makes such a silly comment and all the others gang bang him.
Nobody means anything cruel...just what people do i guess. >>
thanks. I ran into Billy last year. I do not know him but I swear he was trying to come off of heroine. He looked like death warmed over.
That quote is 100000% incorrect...There were plenty of exotic defenses, and lots of teams using the 3-4 and variances of it much different than a standard 4-3 on every down but 3rd...You couldn't be more wrong...And if this is your stance, you simply don't know what you are talking about...PERIOD...Where do you live, I'll fly out and we can do some film review...lol >>
You know, if you weren't such a blowhard, people might actually give credence to some of the things you say. Anyways, moving along . . . >>
Not here to stroke anyone's ego. I speak what I know, I get to the point. Never much into the political correctness of the current day and age we live in. If that hurts your feelings, so be it. Doesn't make what I said any less truthful.
Save travels.
Jason >>
BS. All you do here is stroke your own damn ego. Get over yourself.
<< <i> I say all of this, because I am a fan of Brees and I can't remotely figure how he could be left out of any All-time quarterback club. But, then again, this panel of 'experts' selected Blanda, Namath, and Stabler to the group, and none of them could even carry Brees' clipboard. >>
Unfortunately, this quote alone essentially disqualifies you from this thread. So I will ignore your personal attacks, and instead continue shaking my head at the ignorance you portray. Stick to your very short and very ugly Saints history, it appears you are unaware of any other players or teams that have existed.
Hail Drew Brees! Certainly better than Bobby Hebert and Archie Manning...lol
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
so whats up with billy the exterminator? I heard he lost his lisense. I really enjoyed his show now it mysteriously dissapeared.
and btw.....don't be offended by jason. He is reg US army and is passionate about his country and FB. Sometimes it may seem like when he is on his computer and still on a search and destroy mission.
But listen to the content and not how it is said. I am not defending him as he needs no defense.
He and a few others have tremendous FB knowledge...esp the older game and esp the 1930's game. I know quite a bit but don't have a fraction of FB knowlegde as some of these guys.
for me the little controversies make it a more fun read. On some other threads it is down right hilarious...when a member makes such a silly comment and all the others gang bang him.
Nobody means anything cruel...just what people do i guess. >>
Although I'm not even 40, I feel like that 70 year guy who has to deal with this new generation and how they need to be coddled and hand held. Kids these days...But what can you do? lol
Try to give them info to understand that just because something is new and fresh doesn't mean everything that came before it was crap and garbage. People just don't respect their elders or their history anymore, and it's a shame.
Thanks Jay, it's all good here. If it isn't on some DVD or on a 30 minute special on NFL Network, it doesn't get consideration. Ken Anderson had it so easy, but Brees has got it so tough...Just hilarious..I want to see Brees play back when their wasn't a 15 yard penalty everytime the QB got touched. I want to see how long his shoulder would hold up against Greene and Butkus piledriving him into the ground AFTER every one of the 60 passes per game he throws...All-Time record for passing attempts...You know why???Because he plays in 2011...Ask Unitas or Bradshaw, or even Namath or Stabler how they would have felt about throwing that many passes in their day and time...They would have called it suicide! lol
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Actually Jason, I am almost 50 and have no need to respect you as an elder. I am an Honorably Discharged Veteran, with multiple college degrees, and I am certainly not a child. If you would like to argue sports, I am more than happy to do so. I will argue with the same level of passion as yourself. However, you implied that Rexvos was a fool. Or at least made it sound as such. He most certainly did not. He made a case. It was not the case that you agreed with, but it was a case nonetheless. And he has no need of any sort of lesson or education from you. Nor do I. Because I put 'experts' in such question makes me guilty of a personal attack? Wow. What thin skin you have. Perhaps you should see someone.
Oh, and as far as my knowledge of only the Saints... well, I will happily admit that my family had Saints season tickets from 1967-1984. I also later had Miami Dolphins season tickets for nearly ten years and also attended almost every San Francisco 49ers home game during the 1988-92 seasons while stationed in California. I've attended well over 300 NFL games in person, a great deal of which did not involve my beloved Saints. I am not biased towards Brees. I would not put his career at the same level of Peyton Manning or Tom Brady. He has several more years and many more wins to achieve that level. But Ken Anderson? Ken Anderson didn't win anything. I saw him play dozens of times. He was a very good quarterback, but not a Drew Brees. I will stand by my statement that Drew Brees has had six years that Ken Anderson couldn't touch. The comparisons between Brees and Anderson were not based upon numbers. Of course Brees plays in a more pass friendly offense and era. If we went by passing statistics alone, Kerry Collins would outrank Johnny Unitas. The eras can't be measured as such. But, we can look at Anderson against his contemporaries. I was around in the 70's. I collected cards in the 70's. Kids were excited to get a Staubach, Stabler, Bradshaw, or Tarkenton. Anderson was just another of those other guys. Yes, he was good, but nobody ever talked about him in the same way as those other guys. Truthfully, he probably could have done as well as Bradshaw had they switched places. But they didn't. If Ken Anderson made the Hall of Fame, it wouldn't break my heart. And if he never did, I wouldn't care either. He's ok. He could have won the Super Bowl MVP. But he didn't. He didn't fall prey to any sort of Joe Montana magic comeback. He threw for 300 yards in that game because the 49ers buried the Bengals early due to turnovers (including a red zone pick against Anderson). They were down 20-0 at the half and spent the entire game trying to catch up. Anderson really wasn't that impressive in the biggest game of his life. When analysts discuss the top quarterbacks now, Brees always comes up in that upper echelon. These are comparisons against the top quarterbacks of this era. When Brees was in the Super Bowl he played well and although his team got down, he led them back. Were there some bad calls in the Vikings game that benefited the Saints helping them get to the Super Bowl? Sure. But, this sort of thing has been going on since the NFL began. Almost nobody remembers Cliff Branch having to avoid a little kid who had wandered into the end zone in the 1975 AFC Championship Game. The Raiders were down 16-10 and Branch was wide open, but didn't get to the winning touchdown pass because of trying to avoid the kid. We just recognize the Steelers as the champs from that year and move on. Your Packers won a division championship on a field goal in the 60's that by most accounts was no good but called good by the refs. But, we still recognize the Packers as the champs (1965 vs the Colts).
Now, at this point I have said my piece. I have nothing further to add. If you wish to continue a discussion we can continue to do so. We can do it in a passionate way if you so desire. But, please keep in mind that you are not reading the words of a teenager. You are reading the words of a longtime NFL fan with a considerable amount of knowledge and many opinions. If you can respect that, then we will be able to do so in a respectable manner and we will conduct ourselves as adults. I don't try to be condescending to you or anyone else. I would hope that you will treat me (and Rexvos, for that matter) the same. No hard feelings here.
but really heroin? He seems to me off the wall..but I figured it was his personnality...which btw made him fun to watch.
I know in New york state you can lose your lisense if you get a felony conviction.
But then again I saw some things that if it were to be done in New York he would have been fined like no tomorrow.
Thanks for info >>
yep. never confirmed but if you saw him when I saw him you would know. He looked like death. Wore sunglasses inside all day and was shaking with cold sweats.
For the record I never said Ken Anderson had it easy and Brees has it hard. I only made the original statement I made because even though it is a more pass friendly league there are more complex derfenses and blitzes and sub packages now. That was the only point I was making. In the Ken Anderson vs Drew Brees argument I believe there is no comparison. I think Ken Anderson and Boomer Esiason are more comparable. Brees is clearly superior to both. I know stats are jaded now but look at what Brees has done this year against the league average, better than what Marino did in 84. Also Brees not only is the record holder after 15 games. He is also 3rd on the list as well as he just missed Marino's record a year before the Saints Super Bowl season. What Brees and Payton have done in New Orleans is incredible. I do not have hurt feelings about your lack of social skills. I am just amazed that you would choose to behave in that way as someone that is clearly a very intelligent and informed individual.
I don't post on these boards to give you a warm and fuzzy and help confirm what are incorrect statements/beliefs. It's not that I THINK they are incorrect, they are.
I responded to a statement asking if" Brees has had four years out of six in which he was deemed to be one of the top two quarterbacks in the NFL. In 2009, he was selected as second team all-pro, but won the NFL Player of the Year and Super Bowl MVP. Is there another quarterback that has had a six year stretch of this level of success against the competition in his league that is not in the Hall of Fame?
The answer to this SPECIFIC question is yes. And that QB is Ken Anderson...Not sure how he was never talked about when he was the NFL MVP in 1981, something Drew Brees has never been, but ok if you say so.I didn't say Anderson was BETTER than Brees. I responded to the question that yes he had similar success and accolades against the competition of his time. The comparisons are there.
Then I responded SPECIFICALLY to this statement "One thing that the guys from 70s and 80s and even early 90s did have going for them is no exotic defenses. No zone blitzes. They played against base 4-3 defenses on every down except 3rd except for maybe 2 minute drill time.
It is not my OPINION that this is incorrect. It is FACTUALLY incorrect. He did not ask the question "if", he stated specifically and not generally. Read it in black and white. I gave a small sample of players and teams, that if rexvos knew more about, he would never have made this statement. If you want to say tat defenses are more complicated, sure. Coaches have had 20-30 more years to perfect what the guys back in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s invented. But as are offenses. Therefore this is a moot point if we are trying to discern or debate the difference of QBs now vs. many years ago. There is nowhere in the scientific process that you get to pick certain variables to prove a fact, while overlooking 100 others that directly relate to your point. There were PLENTY of exotic defenses used prior to the mid 90's...I assume you are not aware of their existence or you wouldn't have made the statement. I don't think you would bold face lie, my reason for posting was to point rexvos in the right direction so he doesn't look foolish to those of us who ARE aware. I wasn;t faulting the guy for not knowing, in fact I said ALOT of people don't know the evolution of NFL defense. They think the zone blitz and the Tampa 2 just materialized from thin air, when in fact, they were just improvements on defenses that had been invented years before. If it hurts your feelings to be corrected or have someone with more knowledge on a particular issue, then it is you who needs to have thicker skin...
Lastly, I do not and have not ever professed to "know it all"...If you asked me similar questions about baseball or hockey I couldn't and wouldn't even attempt to answer. I don't post on every thread on these boards. i ONLY post when I think I can add something to a discussion, and it just so happens that NFL History is my area of expertise. No need to feel inferior because someone knows more about a particular subject. I certainly don't when you want to talk Saints history (which I'm sure you know more about than I do)..Hey, that's your niche, I defer to the experts and keep my mouth shut when I don't know something. Maybe that is the best policy for all of us.
I also hope we can keep this debate football related, and not turn it into a referendum on my social skills or a whine fest because I hurt someones feelings by telling them they are wrong, or giving an alternate view point. It is typically those who can only respond with hate and anger in their voice who are the most ill-informed of all.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>I don't post on these boards to give you a warm and fuzzy and help confirm what are incorrect statements/beliefs. It's not that I THINK they are incorrect, they are.
I responded to a statement asking if" Brees has had four years out of six in which he was deemed to be one of the top two quarterbacks in the NFL. In 2009, he was selected as second team all-pro, but won the NFL Player of the Year and Super Bowl MVP. Is there another quarterback that has had a six year stretch of this level of success against the competition in his league that is not in the Hall of Fame?
The answer to this SPECIFIC question is yes. And that QB is Ken Anderson...Not sure how he was never talked about when he was the NFL MVP in 1981, something Drew Brees has never been, but ok if you say so.I didn't say Anderson was BETTER than Brees. I responded to the question that yes he had similar success and accolades against the competition of his time. The comparisons are there.
Then I responded SPECIFICALLY to this statement "One thing that the guys from 70s and 80s and even early 90s did have going for them is no exotic defenses. No zone blitzes. They played against base 4-3 defenses on every down except 3rd except for maybe 2 minute drill time.
It is not my OPINION that this is incorrect. It is FACTUALLY incorrect. He did not ask the question "if", he stated specifically and not generally. Read it in black and white. I gave a small sample of players and teams, that if rexvos knew more about, he would never have made this statement. If you want to say tat defenses are more complicated, sure. Coaches have had 20-30 more years to perfect what the guys back in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s invented. But as are offenses. Therefore this is a moot point if we are trying to discern or debate the difference of QBs now vs. many years ago. There is nowhere in the scientific process that you get to pick certain variables to prove a fact, while overlooking 100 others that directly relate to your point. There were PLENTY of exotic defenses used prior to the mid 90's...I assume you are not aware of their existence or you wouldn't have made the statement. I don't think you would bold face lie, my reason for posting was to point rexvos in the right direction so he doesn't look foolish to those of us who ARE aware. I wasn;t faulting the guy for not knowing, in fact I said ALOT of people don't know the evolution of NFL defense. They think the zone blitz and the Tampa 2 just materialized from thin air, when in fact, they were just improvements on defenses that had been invented years before. If it hurts your feelings to be corrected or have someone with more knowledge on a particular issue, then it is you who needs to have thicker skin...
Lastly, I do not and have not ever professed to "know it all"...If you asked me similar questions about baseball or hockey I couldn't and wouldn't even attempt to answer. I don't post on every thread on these boards. i ONLY post when I think I can add something to a discussion, and it just so happens that NFL History is my area of expertise. No need to feel inferior because someone knows more about a particular subject. I certainly don't when you want to talk Saints history (which I'm sure you know more about than I do)..Hey, that's your niche, I defer to the experts and keep my mouth shut when I don't know something. Maybe that is the best policy for all of us.
I also hope we can keep this debate football related, and not turn it into a referendum on my social skills or a whine fest because I hurt someones feelings by telling them they are wrong, or giving an alternate view point. It is typically those who can only respond with hate and anger in their voice who are the most ill-informed of all.
Jason >>
so who specifically was using zone blitzes in Anderson's era besides LeBeau?
Here's a good article from Coldhardfooballfacts.com why Kenny Anderson should be in the hall. I think Brees when said and done will be in the hall, I also think Anderson will get his due.
so who specifically was using zone blitzes in Anderson's era besides LeBeau? >>
Wait, I thought the guys from the 70s, 80s, early 90s didnt face the zone blitz at all?
And why to do assume LeBeau invented it?
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
so who specifically was using zone blitzes in Anderson's era besides LeBeau? >>
Wait, I thought the guys from the 70s, 80s, early 90s didnt face the zone blitz at all?
And why to do assume LeBeau invented it? >>
I figured you would answer my question, and put me in my place while doing so. Instead you chose to just do the latter. Way to go sir. way to go. >>
Your question was off, because it flew in the face of your previous statement. But since that doesn't matter to you, watch film of the 72 Dolphins and the Bill Arnsparger defense, and you will see the invention of the "zone blitz"..Of course, it didn't have such a cool name back then, but was admittedly (by LeBeau himself) where the concept of rushing the LBs and dropping lineman into coverage originated.
If you'd like some confirmation of this rather than take my word for it, go find this book at your local library or buy it from Amazon.
Or like I said, go find some game film (it's out there) of the 70's Dolphins, obviously 72 will be the easiest to find, and you can watch for yourself.
Your welcome. Hope you have a great new year! 4:30 PM here getting ready to head to the beach for a cookout and Corona's! Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Actually, forgot I had this bookmarked, but glad I still do. It's a very educational read and will save you the hassle of buying the book...
Enjoy, and make sure you come back and give us your thoughts when you are finish. Hopefully we can see more eye-to-eye and you will understand why I was in such disagreement about your incorrect statement.
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
The Cardinals HOF safety Larry Wilson was one of the first, at least he's credited with being one the first players in the 1960s, who used blitzing to disrupt offenses. I think he freelanced a lot too, in other words it might not have been coached or designed.
Sam, nice post above. You have a wealth of football knowledge. Glad you're on the CU boards.
Thanks for the useful post. I spoke too quickly about the complexity of some of the packages in the 70s and 80s. Forgive me. Back to the debate on Brees in the set. This is what Peter King wrote in closing in his debate on either Brees or Rodgers as the MVP this year. In the end King decided to vote for Rodgers after much thought and considering splitting the vote, but this closing note puts what Brees has done in the last 6 years in perspective. I do not think the same could be said about Ken Anderson or Ken Stabler for that matter.
One of the things that bothers me about not voting for Brees is that I think, overall, he's been the best quarterback in football over the last six years, with a phenomenal record of achievement. And he hasn't won an MVP. I sincerely hope he does before he retires, and if he wins it this year, I won't be bothered at all, because Brees has been a great difference-maker this year. I just think Rodgers has been a little better for the full season.
When marveling at Anderson's Hall of Fame-worthy stats, it pays to remember that he spent much of his career playing in the depths of the Dead Ball Era (1970-77), when scoring hit its post-war low and quarterbacking was harder than ever.
Anderson, for example, led the NFL with an incredible 95.7 passer rating in 1974. Modern football fans might scoff at that number by today's gaudy standards. But consider that the league-wide passer rating in 1974 was a miniscule 64.2, one of the lowest league-wide ratings of the last 50 years.
In other words, Anderson's 95.7 passer rating bested the league average in 1974 by nearly 50 percent.
You might look at Anderson's 1977 season (69.7 rating) and say, "wow, that guy wasn't so good." But consider that 1977 was the absolute bottom of the Dead Ball Era. The average team in 1977 scored just 17.2 PPG, the lowest scoring average the NFL has seen since 1942.
Naturally, scoring moves in lock-step with passing success. So it's no surprise to realize that it was extraordinarily difficult to pass the ball in 1977. In fact, the league-wide passer rating in 1977 was just 60.7, the most difficult year to pass the ball since 1956. So even with his humble 69.7 passer rating in his down year of 1977, Anderson was well ahead of the league average.
For a little perspective, the league-wide passer rating in 2010 was 82.2. But Anderson was putting up modern-looking numbers (four passer ratings above 90) at a time when the average passer was posting a passer rating in the mid-60s.
Anderson in other words was, statisticaly speaking, 10 or 20 years ahead of his time.
Anderson twice led the NFL in passing yards – more often than Aikman, Bradshaw, Dawson, Elway, Griese, Kelly, Montana, Starr, Staubach, Tarkenton, Tittle, Van Brocklin, Waterfield and Young.
Anderson twice led the NFL in passing yards per attempt, our preferred indicator – more often than Aikman, Blanda, Elway, Griese, Jurgensen, Kelly, Layne, Marino, Montana, Moon or Tarkenton.
The deadly accurate Anderson led the NFL in completion percentage three times – more often than Aikman, Blanda, Bradshaw, Elway, Fouts, Griese, Jurgensen, Kelly, Layne, Marino, Moon, Namath, Staubach, Tarkenton, Tittle, Unitas, Van Brocklin or Waterfield.
The coldly efficient Anderson led the NFL in passer rating an incredible four times – in the entire history of pro football, only Steve Young led the NFL in passer rating more often than Anderson (Dawson never led the AFL in passer rating six times, but as we've reported in the past, the passing numbers in the AFL were terrible compared to those in the NFL of the 1960s). In other words, Anderson was one of the most efficient passers in the history of football, especially given the context of his time. More on that below.
Meanwhile, pay special attention to our two preferred measures of passing success: yards per attempt and passer rating. We like these indicators because they are functions of effectiveness and efficiency, respectively, and not functions of meaningless volume. Throwing the ball often does not make you a great quarterback. Throwing it well makes you a great quarterback.
Anderson was the most effective passer (highest YPA) in the NFL twice; consider that all-time greats Marino and Montana combined to lead the NFL in YPA just twice between the two of them.
Anderson was the most efficient passer (highest rating) in the NFL four times; consider that all-time greats Marino and Montana combined to lead the NFL in passer rating just three times between the two of them.
No, we're not arguing Anderson is better than Marino and Montana. All we're saying is that Anderson clearly put up Hall of Fame-caliber numbers over the course of his career.
The Case for Ken Anderson that he clearly put up Hall of Fame-caliber numbers by any statistical measure.
So clearly, the argument against Anderson hinges on the hardware. He simply did not win a Super Bowl ring, let alone several. But he did win MVP honors once – in his AFC championship season of 1981.
And it might have been more than one MVP if voters had given him a second look on three other occasions. Let's compare Anderson to a few guys who earned MVP honors ahead of him (Geoff Hobson did a similar study at Bengals.com).
Ken Stabler, for example, earned MVP honors in 1974. Here's how the two QBs stacked up that season:
We're not arguing Anderson necessarily deserved MVP honors ahead of either Stabler or Tarkenton. But just remember that, in both seasons, Anderson boasted more yards, a better average per attempt, fewer INTs and a higher passer rating than the league MVP. He also topped Stabler and Tarkenton in rushing yards each year.
The ultimate MVP indignity came in the strike-shortened season of 1982. Anderson topped the NFL in completions (218) and passer rating (95.3), while setting an NFL record by completing 70.55 percent of his passes. He led the Bengals to a 7-2 record, the second best mark in the NFL that year (Redskins, Raiders both 8-1).
What did Anderson earn for all these accomplishments? He was bypassed in the MVP voting by Washington's straight-ahead kicker Mark Moseley – the first and only time a kicking specialist earned MVP honors.
Moseley, to his credit, connected on 20 of 21 field goals while setting what was then a record for consecutive field goals (23). Both numbers were incredible for the time and by the standards of old-school straight-ahead kickers.
Regardless – Anderson was the top passer in football in 1982 while setting an accuracy record for one of the league's best teams. And yet the NFL's defending league MVP was passed over for consecutive honors in favor of a field goal kicker.
Ouch. Are you sh*ttin' us? Anderson lost out to a friggin' kicker?
Even 30 years ago, Anderson got short shrift from voters. With or without Super Bowls, Anderson's legacy clearly would have been different had he won multiple MVP awards. And there were three seasons in his career when Anderson out-performed the league's MVP. We're not sure you can say that about any other player in the history of pro football.
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>When marveling at Anderson's Hall of Fame-worthy stats, it pays to remember that he spent much of his career playing in the depths of the Dead Ball Era (1970-77), when scoring hit its post-war low and quarterbacking was harder than ever.
Anderson, for example, led the NFL with an incredible 95.7 passer rating in 1974. Modern football fans might scoff at that number by today's gaudy standards. But consider that the league-wide passer rating in 1974 was a miniscule 64.2, one of the lowest league-wide ratings of the last 50 years.
In other words, Anderson's 95.7 passer rating bested the league average in 1974 by nearly 50 percent.
You might look at Anderson's 1977 season (69.7 rating) and say, "wow, that guy wasn't so good." But consider that 1977 was the absolute bottom of the Dead Ball Era. The average team in 1977 scored just 17.2 PPG, the lowest scoring average the NFL has seen since 1942.
Naturally, scoring moves in lock-step with passing success. So it's no surprise to realize that it was extraordinarily difficult to pass the ball in 1977. In fact, the league-wide passer rating in 1977 was just 60.7, the most difficult year to pass the ball since 1956. So even with his humble 69.7 passer rating in his down year of 1977, Anderson was well ahead of the league average.
For a little perspective, the league-wide passer rating in 2010 was 82.2. But Anderson was putting up modern-looking numbers (four passer ratings above 90) at a time when the average passer was posting a passer rating in the mid-60s.
Anderson in other words was, statisticaly speaking, 10 or 20 years ahead of his time.
Anderson twice led the NFL in passing yards – more often than Aikman, Bradshaw, Dawson, Elway, Griese, Kelly, Montana, Starr, Staubach, Tarkenton, Tittle, Van Brocklin, Waterfield and Young.
Anderson twice led the NFL in passing yards per attempt, our preferred indicator – more often than Aikman, Blanda, Elway, Griese, Jurgensen, Kelly, Layne, Marino, Montana, Moon or Tarkenton.
The deadly accurate Anderson led the NFL in completion percentage three times – more often than Aikman, Blanda, Bradshaw, Elway, Fouts, Griese, Jurgensen, Kelly, Layne, Marino, Moon, Namath, Staubach, Tarkenton, Tittle, Unitas, Van Brocklin or Waterfield.
The coldly efficient Anderson led the NFL in passer rating an incredible four times – in the entire history of pro football, only Steve Young led the NFL in passer rating more often than Anderson (Dawson never led the AFL in passer rating six times, but as we've reported in the past, the passing numbers in the AFL were terrible compared to those in the NFL of the 1960s). In other words, Anderson was one of the most efficient passers in the history of football, especially given the context of his time. More on that below.
Meanwhile, pay special attention to our two preferred measures of passing success: yards per attempt and passer rating. We like these indicators because they are functions of effectiveness and efficiency, respectively, and not functions of meaningless volume. Throwing the ball often does not make you a great quarterback. Throwing it well makes you a great quarterback.
Anderson was the most effective passer (highest YPA) in the NFL twice; consider that all-time greats Marino and Montana combined to lead the NFL in YPA just twice between the two of them.
Anderson was the most efficient passer (highest rating) in the NFL four times; consider that all-time greats Marino and Montana combined to lead the NFL in passer rating just three times between the two of them.
No, we're not arguing Anderson is better than Marino and Montana. All we're saying is that Anderson clearly put up Hall of Fame-caliber numbers over the course of his career.
The Case for Ken Anderson that he clearly put up Hall of Fame-caliber numbers by any statistical measure.
So clearly, the argument against Anderson hinges on the hardware. He simply did not win a Super Bowl ring, let alone several. But he did win MVP honors once – in his AFC championship season of 1981.
And it might have been more than one MVP if voters had given him a second look on three other occasions. Let's compare Anderson to a few guys who earned MVP honors ahead of him (Geoff Hobson did a similar study at Bengals.com).
Ken Stabler, for example, earned MVP honors in 1974. Here's how the two QBs stacked up that season:
We're not arguing Anderson necessarily deserved MVP honors ahead of either Stabler or Tarkenton. But just remember that, in both seasons, Anderson boasted more yards, a better average per attempt, fewer INTs and a higher passer rating than the league MVP. He also topped Stabler and Tarkenton in rushing yards each year.
The ultimate MVP indignity came in the strike-shortened season of 1982. Anderson topped the NFL in completions (218) and passer rating (95.3), while setting an NFL record by completing 70.55 percent of his passes. He led the Bengals to a 7-2 record, the second best mark in the NFL that year (Redskins, Raiders both 8-1).
What did Anderson earn for all these accomplishments? He was bypassed in the MVP voting by Washington's straight-ahead kicker Mark Moseley – the first and only time a kicking specialist earned MVP honors.
Moseley, to his credit, connected on 20 of 21 field goals while setting what was then a record for consecutive field goals (23). Both numbers were incredible for the time and by the standards of old-school straight-ahead kickers.
Regardless – Anderson was the top passer in football in 1982 while setting an accuracy record for one of the league's best teams. And yet the NFL's defending league MVP was passed over for consecutive honors in favor of a field goal kicker.
Ouch. Are you sh*ttin' us? Anderson lost out to a friggin' kicker?
Even 30 years ago, Anderson got short shrift from voters. With or without Super Bowls, Anderson's legacy clearly would have been different had he won multiple MVP awards. And there were three seasons in his career when Anderson out-performed the league's MVP. We're not sure you can say that about any other player in the history of pro football. >>
Disappointing that Anderson didn't get one of the two senior nods this year. He seemed to be the player getting the most chatter leading up the announcement.
"My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
<< <i> I think Anderson should be in the HOF by the way. >>
As do I. My reason for mentioning Anderson was not to overshadow Drew Brees or lessen Brees' accomplishments. Nor was it to champion the cause of Ken Anderson to the HOF. There are HOF voters already involved with that process.
I only mentioned Anderson in response to a question by another poster. "Brees has had four years out of six in which he was deemed to be one of the top two quarterbacks in the NFL. In 2009, he was selected as second team all-pro, but won the NFL Player of the Year and Super Bowl MVP. Is there another quarterback that has had a six year stretch of this level of success against the competition in his league that is not in the Hall of Fame?
In which the answer is YES, Ken Anderson. The level of success he had vs. his competition at the time. Yes, Brees broke Marino's record, but so did Tom Brady, and Stafford was only 50 or so yards away...Sorry, Brees is great, but he's only played 10 years. And contrary to what some here may believe, there are other QB's with similar resumes NOT in the HOF. If Brees never played another game after today, IMO, he doesn't make the HOF. The numbers these QBs are going to put up the next 10 years are going to DWARF anything Brees has done. Just like Brees' numbers dwarf Ken Anderson's...
He needs another Super Bowl and/or about 3-4 more really good years. Doesn't have need to be Pro Bowl level years, just good solid seasons before he becomes a LOCK HOFer. Just my opinion.
I will leave the rest of this discussion to those who collect the QB set. I enjoyed the good parts of this debate, although it is apparent some here are not cut out to have anyone disagree with them or be told they were wrong. Thanks to rexvos for understand his error and admitting it. I'm sure it was an honest mistake and I hope you gained some knowledge on it that you can use in the future.
Jason
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
After the last game I think Brees did take away....yes take away the mvp from rodgers. Great years and also Brady. There has never been a triple winner. We could argue split this year quite easily. I do think the Saints rolled over the Panthers so easily that they are the team to beat.
As a long time Raider fan...yes Blanda was the regular QB when the silver & Black hooked me....I can say Stabler is not one of the best. very good and a great several years but not alongside starr and Unitas.
Back then I thought the world of Bert Jones...still want his rc in 9-10 bad......recently looked him up and he didn't win anything. Not even 1 pro bowl I think. Even thought Dan Pastorini was a great athlete. There was quite a few qbs that played in the anderson era that would be recognized by history much better had they played in todays game.
Collecting PSA... FB,BK,HK,and BB HOF RC sets 1948-76 Topps FB Sets FB & BB HOF Player sets 1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
After the last game I think Brees did take away....yes take away the mvp from rodgers. Great years and also Brady. There has never been a triple winner. We could argue split this year quite easily. I do think the Saints rolled over the Panthers so easily that they are the team to beat.
As a long time Raider fan...yes Blanda was the regular QB when the silver & Black hooked me....I can say Stabler is not one of the best. very good and a great several years but not alongside starr and Unitas.
Back then I thought the world of Bert Jones...still want his rc in 9-10 bad......recently looked him up and he didn't win anything. Not even 1 pro bowl I think. Even thought Dan Pastorini was a great athlete. There was quite a few qbs that played in the anderson era that would be recognized by history much better had they played in todays game. >>
I may be the biggest Bert Jones fan on earth. From my hometowm. All American at LSU. His sister is close friends with my mom, and he threw the football with me and my brothers growing up. I think injuries derailed him, but he does not even enter into an elite conversation.
You can count on me as another Bert Jones fan. Not everyone on my fav list is a hofer or even a major star.
He was far more talented that what his carear results show. >>
yeah I started his player registry a few years ago. Only 1 other guy is working on it. I see Bert every once in a while. He signed his 1976 SI Cover for me a while back. Great guy!
Bert Jones was the qb at LSU when I first started watching football. I got to see his last LSU-Tulane game in person. He really was an amazing quarterback. I really wish he could have stayed healthy. His dad was quite a player as well.
<< <i>Bert Jones was the qb at LSU when I first started watching football. I got to see his last LSU-Tulane game in person. He really was an amazing quarterback. I really wish he could have stayed healthy. His dad was quite a player as well. >>
you must remember Andy Hamilton as well. He was Bert's cousin and favorite target. I know Andy well as his son is one of my closest friends. Andy was the all time receiving leader at LSU until Eric Martin broke his records.
Isn't time we at least add 2004 Topps Chrome Ben Roethlisberger to the set? I would also consider a couple of others, but is he not a slam dunk at this point?
Been awhile since we saw any posts on this thread. I kind of agree with Rexvos though. I think Ben is going to be a lock for the hall. My issue is with collectors requesting borderline players for the various "all time great sets" for the sole reason they may have a low pop RC card of the player. The request gets sent out for vote with no discussion on the boards among the set participants. All it takes is one extra casual vote and the card is included.
Myself and a few other "all-time great" set collectors years ago came to a gentlemen's agreement that all card addition would be discussed first on the boards and unless the player was a "slam dunk", we would wait till the player had retired.
Anyway, although I believe Big ben is worthy, I would withhold my vote until he retires.
I'd put Ben on the set over Aaron Rodgers, but IMO, neither is/was quite ready to be on the set yet...Maybe a 3rd ring or 50k yards first to make either of them a "slam dunk".
No idea how Rodgers got on the set before Ben, but if he's on it then absolutely Big Ben should be as well...Too bad voters couldn't wait for that slam dunk first...
I mean if neither Aaron or Ben plays another down are they even HOFers?
Ben probbbbbbably gets in after a couple/few tries...Not sure Aaron Rodgers makes the HOF if he's up for vote 5 years from now. IMO
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Not sure how Rodgers got in either. It goes along with your thoughts on the future HOF set, and I would tend to agree that someone jumped the gun on Rodgers, but Big Ben is the next logical addition for when the time comes. I will not request him, but my vote is yes if the vote comes up.
"My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
I think Rodgers has already cemented his place in the HOF. The man has 257 TDs against just 65 picks. That's ridunkulous.
"My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. Our childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When we were insolent we were placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds - pretty standard really."
I agree both are on the PATH, but so was Patrick Willis and Calvin Johnson..Once both considered "headed"to being locks, now more like 50/50...
By the time Rodgers is eligible, I'd be willing to bet more than a few QBs will not only have equaled his numbers, but surpassed them. Look at the numbers Blake Bortles put up in his 2nd year in the league on a weak team. If Rodgers retires tomorrow, he's not making the HOF easily, that I can say with 100% confidence. His odds of getting in AT ALL with his current career profile I would put somewhere around 10-20%...Ben is closer to 50-60% if he retired tomorrow. By no means a slam dunk HOFer much less a slam dunk "All-Time Greatest" QB...I dont think he would rate in my personal top 30 all-time QB...Look at the QB set, 31 QBs, Rodgers the only one Ben is better than...Ben would weaken the set list at this point, although not as harshly as Aaron Rodgers did.
I guess I just dont understand putting those guys on the set now, rather than wait for confirmation of their career...So many guys calling it a career early these days, like the aforementioned Willis and Calvin, much better off playing it safe with these set rather than adding cards/guys who later would seem to require removal bc they retired early.
I'm here to question, not to inspire or build up. To live how I want, as I see fit, according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
I can wait on him, but I am right about vanilla defenses compared to nowadays. >>
true, but let's not forget about the MASSIVE changes in Pass Interference and Illegal Contact calls since then. >>
no doubt. There are much easier things about being qbs nowadays and I readily admit that, but all I am saying is the schemes are much more advanced now. >>
No one said that defenses aren't more advanced now..Of course they are! As are the offenses, players themselves, the fans, the world...What you said was, and i quote, "no exotic defenses. No zone blitzes. They played against base 4-3 defenses on every down except 3rd except for maybe 2 minute drill time."
That quote is 100000% incorrect...There were plenty of exotic defenses, and lots of teams using the 3-4 and variances of it much different than a standard 4-3 on every down but 3rd...You couldn't be more wrong...And if this is your stance, you simply don't know what you are talking about...PERIOD...Where do you live, I'll fly out and we can do some film review...lol
Jason >>
I spoke in a mass generalization forgive me. Sorry if I did not take the time to parce everything out in a message board post I thought about in under a minute. I am not trying to argue with you at all. I respect your opinions as they are typically very well thought out. It is futile to argue on a message board about a point so trivial. You do not know me and I do not know you personally so anyone can behave in any way they want on a message board in order to champion their opinion. I live in Shreveport, Louisiana it is an okay town where we get to cheer on the LSU Tigers and the New Orleans Saints. I was referncing the different sub packages used nowadays and zone blitzes which were first introduced by Dick LeBeau when he was with the Bengals at the time in my orginal post. 3-4 has been around for awhile and is not all that exotic by the way, I just referenced the 4-3 as a base package like the 3-4. Sorry for my lack of clarity and like I said do not want to argue one bit. I also would like to refrain from any unwanted hostility.
<< <i>
That quote is 100000% incorrect...There were plenty of exotic defenses, and lots of teams using the 3-4 and variances of it much different than a standard 4-3 on every down but 3rd...You couldn't be more wrong...And if this is your stance, you simply don't know what you are talking about...PERIOD...Where do you live, I'll fly out and we can do some film review...lol
>>
You know, if you weren't such a blowhard, people might actually give credence to some of the things you say. Anyways, moving along . . .
<< <i>
<< <i>
That quote is 100000% incorrect...There were plenty of exotic defenses, and lots of teams using the 3-4 and variances of it much different than a standard 4-3 on every down but 3rd...You couldn't be more wrong...And if this is your stance, you simply don't know what you are talking about...PERIOD...Where do you live, I'll fly out and we can do some film review...lol
>>
You know, if you weren't such a blowhard, people might actually give credence to some of the things you say. Anyways, moving along . . . >>
Not here to stroke anyone's ego. I speak what I know, I get to the point. Never much into the political correctness of the current day and age we live in. If that hurts your feelings, so be it. Doesn't make what I said any less truthful.
Save travels.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
I spoke in a mass generalization forgive me. Sorry if I did not take the time to parce everything out in a message board post I thought about in under a minute. I am not trying to argue with you at all. I respect your opinions as they are typically very well thought out. It is futile to argue on a message board about a point so trivial. You do not know me and I do not know you personally so anyone can behave in any way they want on a message board in order to champion their opinion. I live in Shreveport, Louisiana it is an okay town where we get to cheer on the LSU Tigers and the New Orleans Saints. I was referncing the different sub packages used nowadays and zone blitzes which were first introduced by Dick LeBeau when he was with the Bengals at the time in my orginal post. 3-4 has been around for awhile and is not all that exotic by the way, I just referenced the 4-3 as a base package like the 3-4. Sorry for my lack of clarity and like I said do not want to argue one bit. I also would like to refrain from any unwanted hostility. >>
There is no hostility on my part. None in the least. You made a statement, I counter with correct information. I'm not telling you to take my word for it...I'm saying if you are going to paint your picture with broad strokes, you should probably understand the color first. Make sense?
There is no argument here. I'm glad you are a Saints fan and think Brees is the 2nd coming. He's a great QB right now for sure. I met the guy last year at the Pro Bowl, and he's as nice a guy as you will find in the NFL...But none of this has anything to do with the misconception that tough defenses began in 1995. Heck, half the football fans out there think the NFL began in 1995 and are clueless to its history. If you care enough to make a statement about how much more complicated defenses are now and how there were no "exotic" defenses in existence in the 50-60-70-80s, then I assume you care enough to learn the truth...So take an hour next time you are bored and do some research on some of the players and teams I mentioned earlier in the post. I'm confident once you learn a little more about the evolution of NFL defense, you won't be so fast to dismiss past players/teams/defensive schemes as meaningless/worthless or otherwise inferior to what is on the field today.
Enjoy!
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>I find Rexvos to be a friendly and very informed poster. Not just on the Saints, but on various other issues as well. Always a pleasure to deal with him as he is always a gentleman and never a know-it-all or rude. >>
Agreed. Unfortunately a tad ill-informed on an issue he chose to speak about. Which brings to mind the quote:
"It is better to say nothing and be thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt."
Hey, you live and learn right? Hopefully he will take my advice and use this as a learning experience rather than make it message board fight or a reason to pout. No hard feelings on my end.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>I find Rexvos to be a friendly and very informed poster. Not just on the Saints, but on various other issues as well. Always a pleasure to deal with him as he is always a gentleman and never a know-it-all or rude. >>
+1
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
Oh, you are so gracious...
We are all so lucky.
Mean joe green was the worst Fb player on the worst FB team ever. and....Butkus was a big woooosie
Jason I know you are on the other side of the world but the plane flight will be just fine.
You don't need a room you can stay at my house. I woul love to see all those old films.
I enjoy them more than current FB.
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
you live in shreport
so whats up with billy the exterminator? I heard he lost his lisense.
I really enjoyed his show now it mysteriously dissapeared.
and btw.....don't be offended by jason.
He is reg US army and is passionate about his country and FB.
Sometimes it may seem like when he is on his computer and still on a search and destroy mission.
But listen to the content and not how it is said.
I am not defending him as he needs no defense.
He and a few others have tremendous FB knowledge...esp the older game and esp the 1930's game.
I know quite a bit but don't have a fraction of FB knowlegde as some of these guys.
for me the little controversies make it a more fun read. On some other threads it is down right hilarious...when a member makes such a silly comment and all the others gang bang him.
Nobody means anything cruel...just what people do i guess.
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
<< <i>mr rexxvos
you live in shreport
so whats up with billy the exterminator? I heard he lost his lisense.
I really enjoyed his show now it mysteriously dissapeared.
and btw.....don't be offended by jason.
He is reg US army and is passionate about his country and FB.
Sometimes it may seem like when he is on his computer and still on a search and destroy mission.
But listen to the content and not how it is said.
I am not defending him as he needs no defense.
He and a few others have tremendous FB knowledge...esp the older game and esp the 1930's game.
I know quite a bit but don't have a fraction of FB knowlegde as some of these guys.
for me the little controversies make it a more fun read. On some other threads it is down right hilarious...when a member makes such a silly comment and all the others gang bang him.
Nobody means anything cruel...just what people do i guess. >>
thanks. I ran into Billy last year. I do not know him but I swear he was trying to come off of heroine. He looked like death warmed over.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
That quote is 100000% incorrect...There were plenty of exotic defenses, and lots of teams using the 3-4 and variances of it much different than a standard 4-3 on every down but 3rd...You couldn't be more wrong...And if this is your stance, you simply don't know what you are talking about...PERIOD...Where do you live, I'll fly out and we can do some film review...lol
>>
You know, if you weren't such a blowhard, people might actually give credence to some of the things you say. Anyways, moving along . . . >>
Not here to stroke anyone's ego. I speak what I know, I get to the point. Never much into the political correctness of the current day and age we live in. If that hurts your feelings, so be it. Doesn't make what I said any less truthful.
Save travels.
Jason >>
BS. All you do here is stroke your own damn ego. Get over yourself.
but really heroin? He seems to me off the wall..but I figured it was his personnality...which btw made him fun to watch.
I know in New york state you can lose your lisense if you get a felony conviction.
But then again I saw some things that if it were to be done in New York he would have been fined like no tomorrow.
Thanks for info
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
<< <i>
I say all of this, because I am a fan of Brees and I can't remotely figure how he could be left out of any All-time quarterback club. But, then again, this panel of 'experts' selected Blanda, Namath, and Stabler to the group, and none of them could even carry Brees' clipboard. >>
Unfortunately, this quote alone essentially disqualifies you from this thread. So I will ignore your personal attacks, and instead continue shaking my head at the ignorance you portray. Stick to your very short and very ugly Saints history, it appears you are unaware of any other players or teams that have existed.
Hail Drew Brees! Certainly better than Bobby Hebert and Archie Manning...lol
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>mr rexxvos
you live in shreport
so whats up with billy the exterminator? I heard he lost his lisense.
I really enjoyed his show now it mysteriously dissapeared.
and btw.....don't be offended by jason.
He is reg US army and is passionate about his country and FB.
Sometimes it may seem like when he is on his computer and still on a search and destroy mission.
But listen to the content and not how it is said.
I am not defending him as he needs no defense.
He and a few others have tremendous FB knowledge...esp the older game and esp the 1930's game.
I know quite a bit but don't have a fraction of FB knowlegde as some of these guys.
for me the little controversies make it a more fun read. On some other threads it is down right hilarious...when a member makes such a silly comment and all the others gang bang him.
Nobody means anything cruel...just what people do i guess. >>
Although I'm not even 40, I feel like that 70 year guy who has to deal with this new generation and how they need to be coddled and hand held. Kids these days...But what can you do? lol
Try to give them info to understand that just because something is new and fresh doesn't mean everything that came before it was crap and garbage. People just don't respect their elders or their history anymore, and it's a shame.
Thanks Jay, it's all good here. If it isn't on some DVD or on a 30 minute special on NFL Network, it doesn't get consideration. Ken Anderson had it so easy, but Brees has got it so tough...Just hilarious..I want to see Brees play back when their wasn't a 15 yard penalty everytime the QB got touched. I want to see how long his shoulder would hold up against Greene and Butkus piledriving him into the ground AFTER every one of the 60 passes per game he throws...All-Time record for passing attempts...You know why???Because he plays in 2011...Ask Unitas or Bradshaw, or even Namath or Stabler how they would have felt about throwing that many passes in their day and time...They would have called it suicide! lol
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Oh, and as far as my knowledge of only the Saints... well, I will happily admit that my family had Saints season tickets from 1967-1984. I also later had Miami Dolphins season tickets for nearly ten years and also attended almost every San Francisco 49ers home game during the 1988-92 seasons while stationed in California. I've attended well over 300 NFL games in person, a great deal of which did not involve my beloved Saints. I am not biased towards Brees. I would not put his career at the same level of Peyton Manning or Tom Brady. He has several more years and many more wins to achieve that level. But Ken Anderson? Ken Anderson didn't win anything. I saw him play dozens of times. He was a very good quarterback, but not a Drew Brees. I will stand by my statement that Drew Brees has had six years that Ken Anderson couldn't touch. The comparisons between Brees and Anderson were not based upon numbers. Of course Brees plays in a more pass friendly offense and era. If we went by passing statistics alone, Kerry Collins would outrank Johnny Unitas. The eras can't be measured as such. But, we can look at Anderson against his contemporaries. I was around in the 70's. I collected cards in the 70's. Kids were excited to get a Staubach, Stabler, Bradshaw, or Tarkenton. Anderson was just another of those other guys. Yes, he was good, but nobody ever talked about him in the same way as those other guys. Truthfully, he probably could have done as well as Bradshaw had they switched places. But they didn't. If Ken Anderson made the Hall of Fame, it wouldn't break my heart. And if he never did, I wouldn't care either. He's ok. He could have won the Super Bowl MVP. But he didn't. He didn't fall prey to any sort of Joe Montana magic comeback. He threw for 300 yards in that game because the 49ers buried the Bengals early due to turnovers (including a red zone pick against Anderson). They were down 20-0 at the half and spent the entire game trying to catch up. Anderson really wasn't that impressive in the biggest game of his life. When analysts discuss the top quarterbacks now, Brees always comes up in that upper echelon. These are comparisons against the top quarterbacks of this era. When Brees was in the Super Bowl he played well and although his team got down, he led them back. Were there some bad calls in the Vikings game that benefited the Saints helping them get to the Super Bowl? Sure. But, this sort of thing has been going on since the NFL began. Almost nobody remembers Cliff Branch having to avoid a little kid who had wandered into the end zone in the 1975 AFC Championship Game. The Raiders were down 16-10 and Branch was wide open, but didn't get to the winning touchdown pass because of trying to avoid the kid. We just recognize the Steelers as the champs from that year and move on. Your Packers won a division championship on a field goal in the 60's that by most accounts was no good but called good by the refs. But, we still recognize the Packers as the champs (1965 vs the Colts).
Now, at this point I have said my piece. I have nothing further to add. If you wish to continue a discussion we can continue to do so. We can do it in a passionate way if you so desire. But, please keep in mind that you are not reading the words of a teenager. You are reading the words of a longtime NFL fan with a considerable amount of knowledge and many opinions. If you can respect that, then we will be able to do so in a respectable manner and we will conduct ourselves as adults. I don't try to be condescending to you or anyone else. I would hope that you will treat me (and Rexvos, for that matter) the same. No hard feelings here.
<< <i>Not to take this thread away from FB
but really heroin? He seems to me off the wall..but I figured it was his personnality...which btw made him fun to watch.
I know in New york state you can lose your lisense if you get a felony conviction.
But then again I saw some things that if it were to be done in New York he would have been fined like no tomorrow.
Thanks for info >>
yep. never confirmed but if you saw him when I saw him you would know. He looked like death. Wore sunglasses inside all day and was shaking with cold sweats.
I responded to a statement asking if" Brees has had four years out of six in which he was deemed to be one of the top two quarterbacks in the NFL. In 2009, he was selected as second team all-pro, but won the NFL Player of the Year and Super Bowl MVP. Is there another quarterback that has had a six year stretch of this level of success against the competition in his league that is not in the Hall of Fame?
The answer to this SPECIFIC question is yes. And that QB is Ken Anderson...Not sure how he was never talked about when he was the NFL MVP in 1981, something Drew Brees has never been, but ok if you say so.I didn't say Anderson was BETTER than Brees. I responded to the question that yes he had similar success and accolades against the competition of his time. The comparisons are there.
Then I responded SPECIFICALLY to this statement "One thing that the guys from 70s and 80s and even early 90s did have going for them is no exotic defenses. No zone blitzes. They played against base 4-3 defenses on every down except 3rd except for maybe 2 minute drill time.
It is not my OPINION that this is incorrect. It is FACTUALLY incorrect. He did not ask the question "if", he stated specifically and not generally. Read it in black and white. I gave a small sample of players and teams, that if rexvos knew more about, he would never have made this statement. If you want to say tat defenses are more complicated, sure. Coaches have had 20-30 more years to perfect what the guys back in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s invented. But as are offenses. Therefore this is a moot point if we are trying to discern or debate the difference of QBs now vs. many years ago. There is nowhere in the scientific process that you get to pick certain variables to prove a fact, while overlooking 100 others that directly relate to your point. There were PLENTY of exotic defenses used prior to the mid 90's...I assume you are not aware of their existence or you wouldn't have made the statement. I don't think you would bold face lie, my reason for posting was to point rexvos in the right direction so he doesn't look foolish to those of us who ARE aware. I wasn;t faulting the guy for not knowing, in fact I said ALOT of people don't know the evolution of NFL defense. They think the zone blitz and the Tampa 2 just materialized from thin air, when in fact, they were just improvements on defenses that had been invented years before. If it hurts your feelings to be corrected or have someone with more knowledge on a particular issue, then it is you who needs to have thicker skin...
Lastly, I do not and have not ever professed to "know it all"...If you asked me similar questions about baseball or hockey I couldn't and wouldn't even attempt to answer. I don't post on every thread on these boards. i ONLY post when I think I can add something to a discussion, and it just so happens that NFL History is my area of expertise. No need to feel inferior because someone knows more about a particular subject. I certainly don't when you want to talk Saints history (which I'm sure you know more about than I do)..Hey, that's your niche, I defer to the experts and keep my mouth shut when I don't know something. Maybe that is the best policy for all of us.
I also hope we can keep this debate football related, and not turn it into a referendum on my social skills or a whine fest because I hurt someones feelings by telling them they are wrong, or giving an alternate view point. It is typically those who can only respond with hate and anger in their voice who are the most ill-informed of all.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>I don't post on these boards to give you a warm and fuzzy and help confirm what are incorrect statements/beliefs. It's not that I THINK they are incorrect, they are.
I responded to a statement asking if" Brees has had four years out of six in which he was deemed to be one of the top two quarterbacks in the NFL. In 2009, he was selected as second team all-pro, but won the NFL Player of the Year and Super Bowl MVP. Is there another quarterback that has had a six year stretch of this level of success against the competition in his league that is not in the Hall of Fame?
The answer to this SPECIFIC question is yes. And that QB is Ken Anderson...Not sure how he was never talked about when he was the NFL MVP in 1981, something Drew Brees has never been, but ok if you say so.I didn't say Anderson was BETTER than Brees. I responded to the question that yes he had similar success and accolades against the competition of his time. The comparisons are there.
Then I responded SPECIFICALLY to this statement "One thing that the guys from 70s and 80s and even early 90s did have going for them is no exotic defenses. No zone blitzes. They played against base 4-3 defenses on every down except 3rd except for maybe 2 minute drill time.
It is not my OPINION that this is incorrect. It is FACTUALLY incorrect. He did not ask the question "if", he stated specifically and not generally. Read it in black and white. I gave a small sample of players and teams, that if rexvos knew more about, he would never have made this statement. If you want to say tat defenses are more complicated, sure. Coaches have had 20-30 more years to perfect what the guys back in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s invented. But as are offenses. Therefore this is a moot point if we are trying to discern or debate the difference of QBs now vs. many years ago. There is nowhere in the scientific process that you get to pick certain variables to prove a fact, while overlooking 100 others that directly relate to your point. There were PLENTY of exotic defenses used prior to the mid 90's...I assume you are not aware of their existence or you wouldn't have made the statement. I don't think you would bold face lie, my reason for posting was to point rexvos in the right direction so he doesn't look foolish to those of us who ARE aware. I wasn;t faulting the guy for not knowing, in fact I said ALOT of people don't know the evolution of NFL defense. They think the zone blitz and the Tampa 2 just materialized from thin air, when in fact, they were just improvements on defenses that had been invented years before. If it hurts your feelings to be corrected or have someone with more knowledge on a particular issue, then it is you who needs to have thicker skin...
Lastly, I do not and have not ever professed to "know it all"...If you asked me similar questions about baseball or hockey I couldn't and wouldn't even attempt to answer. I don't post on every thread on these boards. i ONLY post when I think I can add something to a discussion, and it just so happens that NFL History is my area of expertise. No need to feel inferior because someone knows more about a particular subject. I certainly don't when you want to talk Saints history (which I'm sure you know more about than I do)..Hey, that's your niche, I defer to the experts and keep my mouth shut when I don't know something. Maybe that is the best policy for all of us.
I also hope we can keep this debate football related, and not turn it into a referendum on my social skills or a whine fest because I hurt someones feelings by telling them they are wrong, or giving an alternate view point. It is typically those who can only respond with hate and anger in their voice who are the most ill-informed of all.
Jason >>
so who specifically was using zone blitzes in Anderson's era besides LeBeau?
Text
Dave
FINISHED 12/8/2008!!!
<< <i>
so who specifically was using zone blitzes in Anderson's era besides LeBeau? >>
Wait, I thought the guys from the 70s, 80s, early 90s didnt face the zone blitz at all?
And why to do assume LeBeau invented it?
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
<< <i>
so who specifically was using zone blitzes in Anderson's era besides LeBeau? >>
Wait, I thought the guys from the 70s, 80s, early 90s didnt face the zone blitz at all?
And why to do assume LeBeau invented it? >>
I figured you would answer my question, and put me in my place while doing so. Instead you chose to just do the latter. Way to go sir. way to go.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
so who specifically was using zone blitzes in Anderson's era besides LeBeau? >>
Wait, I thought the guys from the 70s, 80s, early 90s didnt face the zone blitz at all?
And why to do assume LeBeau invented it? >>
I figured you would answer my question, and put me in my place while doing so. Instead you chose to just do the latter. Way to go sir. way to go. >>
Your question was off, because it flew in the face of your previous statement. But since that doesn't matter to you, watch film of the 72 Dolphins and the Bill Arnsparger defense, and you will see the invention of the "zone blitz"..Of course, it didn't have such a cool name back then, but was admittedly (by LeBeau himself) where the concept of rushing the LBs and dropping lineman into coverage originated.
If you'd like some confirmation of this rather than take my word for it, go find this book at your local library or buy it from Amazon.
Book
Or like I said, go find some game film (it's out there) of the 70's Dolphins, obviously 72 will be the easiest to find, and you can watch for yourself.
Your welcome. Hope you have a great new year! 4:30 PM here getting ready to head to the beach for a cookout and Corona's!
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Enjoy, and make sure you come back and give us your thoughts when you are finish. Hopefully we can see more eye-to-eye and you will understand why I was in such disagreement about your incorrect statement.
Origins of the Zone Blitz
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
As much as I love reading your posts about football Jason, this was the best post of the day. Happy New Years all!
The Cardinals HOF safety Larry Wilson was one of the first, at least he's credited with
being one the first players in the 1960s, who used blitzing to disrupt offenses. I think
he freelanced a lot too, in other words it might not have been coached or designed.
Sam, nice post above. You have a wealth of football knowledge. Glad you're on the CU boards.
Thanks for the useful post. I spoke too quickly about the complexity of some of the packages in the 70s and 80s. Forgive me. Back to the debate on Brees in the set. This is what Peter King wrote in closing in his debate on either Brees or Rodgers as the MVP this year. In the end King decided to vote for Rodgers after much thought and considering splitting the vote, but this closing note puts what Brees has done in the last 6 years in perspective. I do not think the same could be said about Ken Anderson or Ken Stabler for that matter.
One of the things that bothers me about not voting for Brees is that I think, overall, he's been the best quarterback in football over the last six years, with a phenomenal record of achievement. And he hasn't won an MVP. I sincerely hope he does before he retires, and if he wins it this year, I won't be bothered at all, because Brees has been a great difference-maker this year. I just think Rodgers has been a little better for the full season.
Anderson, for example, led the NFL with an incredible 95.7 passer rating in 1974. Modern football fans might scoff at that number by today's gaudy standards. But consider that the league-wide passer rating in 1974 was a miniscule 64.2, one of the lowest league-wide ratings of the last 50 years.
In other words, Anderson's 95.7 passer rating bested the league average in 1974 by nearly 50 percent.
You might look at Anderson's 1977 season (69.7 rating) and say, "wow, that guy wasn't so good." But consider that 1977 was the absolute bottom of the Dead Ball Era. The average team in 1977 scored just 17.2 PPG, the lowest scoring average the NFL has seen since 1942.
Naturally, scoring moves in lock-step with passing success. So it's no surprise to realize that it was extraordinarily difficult to pass the ball in 1977. In fact, the league-wide passer rating in 1977 was just 60.7, the most difficult year to pass the ball since 1956. So even with his humble 69.7 passer rating in his down year of 1977, Anderson was well ahead of the league average.
For a little perspective, the league-wide passer rating in 2010 was 82.2. But Anderson was putting up modern-looking numbers (four passer ratings above 90) at a time when the average passer was posting a passer rating in the mid-60s.
Anderson in other words was, statisticaly speaking, 10 or 20 years ahead of his time.
Anderson twice led the NFL in passing yards – more often than Aikman, Bradshaw, Dawson, Elway, Griese, Kelly, Montana, Starr, Staubach, Tarkenton, Tittle, Van Brocklin, Waterfield and Young.
Anderson twice led the NFL in passing yards per attempt, our preferred indicator – more often than Aikman, Blanda, Elway, Griese, Jurgensen, Kelly, Layne, Marino, Montana, Moon or Tarkenton.
The deadly accurate Anderson led the NFL in completion percentage three times – more often than Aikman, Blanda, Bradshaw, Elway, Fouts, Griese, Jurgensen, Kelly, Layne, Marino, Moon, Namath, Staubach, Tarkenton, Tittle, Unitas, Van Brocklin or Waterfield.
The coldly efficient Anderson led the NFL in passer rating an incredible four times – in the entire history of pro football, only Steve Young led the NFL in passer rating more often than Anderson (Dawson never led the AFL in passer rating six times, but as we've reported in the past, the passing numbers in the AFL were terrible compared to those in the NFL of the 1960s). In other words, Anderson was one of the most efficient passers in the history of football, especially given the context of his time. More on that below.
Meanwhile, pay special attention to our two preferred measures of passing success: yards per attempt and passer rating. We like these indicators because they are functions of effectiveness and efficiency, respectively, and not functions of meaningless volume. Throwing the ball often does not make you a great quarterback. Throwing it well makes you a great quarterback.
Anderson was the most effective passer (highest YPA) in the NFL twice; consider that all-time greats Marino and Montana combined to lead the NFL in YPA just twice between the two of them.
Anderson was the most efficient passer (highest rating) in the NFL four times; consider that all-time greats Marino and Montana combined to lead the NFL in passer rating just three times between the two of them.
No, we're not arguing Anderson is better than Marino and Montana. All we're saying is that Anderson clearly put up Hall of Fame-caliber numbers over the course of his career.
The Case for Ken Anderson that he clearly put up Hall of Fame-caliber numbers by any statistical measure.
So clearly, the argument against Anderson hinges on the hardware. He simply did not win a Super Bowl ring, let alone several. But he did win MVP honors once – in his AFC championship season of 1981.
And it might have been more than one MVP if voters had given him a second look on three other occasions. Let's compare Anderson to a few guys who earned MVP honors ahead of him (Geoff Hobson did a similar study at Bengals.com).
Ken Stabler, for example, earned MVP honors in 1974. Here's how the two QBs stacked up that season:
Stabler: 178 of 310 (57.4%), 2,469 yards, 8.0 YPA, 26 TD, 12 INT, 94.9 rating
Anderson: 213 of 328 (64.9%), 2,667 yards, 8.1 YPA, 18 TD, 10 INT, 95.7 rating
Fran Tarkenton, meanwhile, earned MVP honors in 1975. Here's how the two QBs stacked up that season:
Tarkenton: 273 of 425 (64.2%), 2,994 yards, 7.0 YPA, 25 TD, 13 INT, 91.8 rating
Anderson: 228 of 377 (60.5%), 3,169 yards, 8.4 YPA, 21 TD, 11 INT, 93.9 rating
We're not arguing Anderson necessarily deserved MVP honors ahead of either Stabler or Tarkenton. But just remember that, in both seasons, Anderson boasted more yards, a better average per attempt, fewer INTs and a higher passer rating than the league MVP. He also topped Stabler and Tarkenton in rushing yards each year.
The ultimate MVP indignity came in the strike-shortened season of 1982. Anderson topped the NFL in completions (218) and passer rating (95.3), while setting an NFL record by completing 70.55 percent of his passes. He led the Bengals to a 7-2 record, the second best mark in the NFL that year (Redskins, Raiders both 8-1).
What did Anderson earn for all these accomplishments? He was bypassed in the MVP voting by Washington's straight-ahead kicker Mark Moseley – the first and only time a kicking specialist earned MVP honors.
Moseley, to his credit, connected on 20 of 21 field goals while setting what was then a record for consecutive field goals (23). Both numbers were incredible for the time and by the standards of old-school straight-ahead kickers.
Regardless – Anderson was the top passer in football in 1982 while setting an accuracy record for one of the league's best teams. And yet the NFL's defending league MVP was passed over for consecutive honors in favor of a field goal kicker.
Ouch. Are you sh*ttin' us? Anderson lost out to a friggin' kicker?
Even 30 years ago, Anderson got short shrift from voters. With or without Super Bowls, Anderson's legacy clearly would have been different had he won multiple MVP awards. And there were three seasons in his career when Anderson out-performed the league's MVP. We're not sure you can say that about any other player in the history of pro football.
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>When marveling at Anderson's Hall of Fame-worthy stats, it pays to remember that he spent much of his career playing in the depths of the Dead Ball Era (1970-77), when scoring hit its post-war low and quarterbacking was harder than ever.
Anderson, for example, led the NFL with an incredible 95.7 passer rating in 1974. Modern football fans might scoff at that number by today's gaudy standards. But consider that the league-wide passer rating in 1974 was a miniscule 64.2, one of the lowest league-wide ratings of the last 50 years.
In other words, Anderson's 95.7 passer rating bested the league average in 1974 by nearly 50 percent.
You might look at Anderson's 1977 season (69.7 rating) and say, "wow, that guy wasn't so good." But consider that 1977 was the absolute bottom of the Dead Ball Era. The average team in 1977 scored just 17.2 PPG, the lowest scoring average the NFL has seen since 1942.
Naturally, scoring moves in lock-step with passing success. So it's no surprise to realize that it was extraordinarily difficult to pass the ball in 1977. In fact, the league-wide passer rating in 1977 was just 60.7, the most difficult year to pass the ball since 1956. So even with his humble 69.7 passer rating in his down year of 1977, Anderson was well ahead of the league average.
For a little perspective, the league-wide passer rating in 2010 was 82.2. But Anderson was putting up modern-looking numbers (four passer ratings above 90) at a time when the average passer was posting a passer rating in the mid-60s.
Anderson in other words was, statisticaly speaking, 10 or 20 years ahead of his time.
Anderson twice led the NFL in passing yards – more often than Aikman, Bradshaw, Dawson, Elway, Griese, Kelly, Montana, Starr, Staubach, Tarkenton, Tittle, Van Brocklin, Waterfield and Young.
Anderson twice led the NFL in passing yards per attempt, our preferred indicator – more often than Aikman, Blanda, Elway, Griese, Jurgensen, Kelly, Layne, Marino, Montana, Moon or Tarkenton.
The deadly accurate Anderson led the NFL in completion percentage three times – more often than Aikman, Blanda, Bradshaw, Elway, Fouts, Griese, Jurgensen, Kelly, Layne, Marino, Moon, Namath, Staubach, Tarkenton, Tittle, Unitas, Van Brocklin or Waterfield.
The coldly efficient Anderson led the NFL in passer rating an incredible four times – in the entire history of pro football, only Steve Young led the NFL in passer rating more often than Anderson (Dawson never led the AFL in passer rating six times, but as we've reported in the past, the passing numbers in the AFL were terrible compared to those in the NFL of the 1960s). In other words, Anderson was one of the most efficient passers in the history of football, especially given the context of his time. More on that below.
Meanwhile, pay special attention to our two preferred measures of passing success: yards per attempt and passer rating. We like these indicators because they are functions of effectiveness and efficiency, respectively, and not functions of meaningless volume. Throwing the ball often does not make you a great quarterback. Throwing it well makes you a great quarterback.
Anderson was the most effective passer (highest YPA) in the NFL twice; consider that all-time greats Marino and Montana combined to lead the NFL in YPA just twice between the two of them.
Anderson was the most efficient passer (highest rating) in the NFL four times; consider that all-time greats Marino and Montana combined to lead the NFL in passer rating just three times between the two of them.
No, we're not arguing Anderson is better than Marino and Montana. All we're saying is that Anderson clearly put up Hall of Fame-caliber numbers over the course of his career.
The Case for Ken Anderson that he clearly put up Hall of Fame-caliber numbers by any statistical measure.
So clearly, the argument against Anderson hinges on the hardware. He simply did not win a Super Bowl ring, let alone several. But he did win MVP honors once – in his AFC championship season of 1981.
And it might have been more than one MVP if voters had given him a second look on three other occasions. Let's compare Anderson to a few guys who earned MVP honors ahead of him (Geoff Hobson did a similar study at Bengals.com).
Ken Stabler, for example, earned MVP honors in 1974. Here's how the two QBs stacked up that season:
Stabler: 178 of 310 (57.4%), 2,469 yards, 8.0 YPA, 26 TD, 12 INT, 94.9 rating
Anderson: 213 of 328 (64.9%), 2,667 yards, 8.1 YPA, 18 TD, 10 INT, 95.7 rating
Fran Tarkenton, meanwhile, earned MVP honors in 1975. Here's how the two QBs stacked up that season:
Tarkenton: 273 of 425 (64.2%), 2,994 yards, 7.0 YPA, 25 TD, 13 INT, 91.8 rating
Anderson: 228 of 377 (60.5%), 3,169 yards, 8.4 YPA, 21 TD, 11 INT, 93.9 rating
We're not arguing Anderson necessarily deserved MVP honors ahead of either Stabler or Tarkenton. But just remember that, in both seasons, Anderson boasted more yards, a better average per attempt, fewer INTs and a higher passer rating than the league MVP. He also topped Stabler and Tarkenton in rushing yards each year.
The ultimate MVP indignity came in the strike-shortened season of 1982. Anderson topped the NFL in completions (218) and passer rating (95.3), while setting an NFL record by completing 70.55 percent of his passes. He led the Bengals to a 7-2 record, the second best mark in the NFL that year (Redskins, Raiders both 8-1).
What did Anderson earn for all these accomplishments? He was bypassed in the MVP voting by Washington's straight-ahead kicker Mark Moseley – the first and only time a kicking specialist earned MVP honors.
Moseley, to his credit, connected on 20 of 21 field goals while setting what was then a record for consecutive field goals (23). Both numbers were incredible for the time and by the standards of old-school straight-ahead kickers.
Regardless – Anderson was the top passer in football in 1982 while setting an accuracy record for one of the league's best teams. And yet the NFL's defending league MVP was passed over for consecutive honors in favor of a field goal kicker.
Ouch. Are you sh*ttin' us? Anderson lost out to a friggin' kicker?
Even 30 years ago, Anderson got short shrift from voters. With or without Super Bowls, Anderson's legacy clearly would have been different had he won multiple MVP awards. And there were three seasons in his career when Anderson out-performed the league's MVP. We're not sure you can say that about any other player in the history of pro football. >>
I think Anderson should be in the HOF by the way.
<< <i>
I think Anderson should be in the HOF by the way. >>
As do I. My reason for mentioning Anderson was not to overshadow Drew Brees or lessen Brees' accomplishments. Nor was it to champion the cause of Ken Anderson to the HOF. There are HOF voters already involved with that process.
I only mentioned Anderson in response to a question by another poster. "Brees has had four years out of six in which he was deemed to be one of the top two quarterbacks in the NFL. In 2009, he was selected as second team all-pro, but won the NFL Player of the Year and Super Bowl MVP. Is there another quarterback that has had a six year stretch of this level of success against the competition in his league that is not in the Hall of Fame?
In which the answer is YES, Ken Anderson. The level of success he had vs. his competition at the time. Yes, Brees broke Marino's record, but so did Tom Brady, and Stafford was only 50 or so yards away...Sorry, Brees is great, but he's only played 10 years. And contrary to what some here may believe, there are other QB's with similar resumes NOT in the HOF. If Brees never played another game after today, IMO, he doesn't make the HOF. The numbers these QBs are going to put up the next 10 years are going to DWARF anything Brees has done. Just like Brees' numbers dwarf Ken Anderson's...
He needs another Super Bowl and/or about 3-4 more really good years. Doesn't have need to be Pro Bowl level years, just good solid seasons before he becomes a LOCK HOFer. Just my opinion.
I will leave the rest of this discussion to those who collect the QB set. I enjoyed the good parts of this debate, although it is apparent some here are not cut out to have anyone disagree with them or be told they were wrong. Thanks to rexvos for understand his error and admitting it. I'm sure it was an honest mistake and I hope you gained some knowledge on it that you can use in the future.
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
After the last game I think Brees did take away....yes take away the mvp from rodgers. Great years and also Brady.
There has never been a triple winner. We could argue split this year quite easily. I do think the Saints rolled over the Panthers so easily that
they are the team to beat.
As a long time Raider fan...yes Blanda was the regular QB when the silver & Black hooked me....I can say Stabler is not one of the best.
very good and a great several years but not alongside starr and Unitas.
Back then I thought the world of Bert Jones...still want his rc in 9-10 bad......recently looked him up and he didn't win anything. Not even 1 pro bowl I think.
Even thought Dan Pastorini was a great athlete. There was quite a few qbs that played in the anderson era that would be recognized by history much better had they played in todays game.
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
<< <i>There is another thread started on mvp.
After the last game I think Brees did take away....yes take away the mvp from rodgers. Great years and also Brady.
There has never been a triple winner. We could argue split this year quite easily. I do think the Saints rolled over the Panthers so easily that
they are the team to beat.
As a long time Raider fan...yes Blanda was the regular QB when the silver & Black hooked me....I can say Stabler is not one of the best.
very good and a great several years but not alongside starr and Unitas.
Back then I thought the world of Bert Jones...still want his rc in 9-10 bad......recently looked him up and he didn't win anything. Not even 1 pro bowl I think.
Even thought Dan Pastorini was a great athlete. There was quite a few qbs that played in the anderson era that would be recognized by history much better had they played in todays game. >>
I may be the biggest Bert Jones fan on earth. From my hometowm. All American at LSU. His sister is close friends with my mom, and he threw the football with me and my brothers growing up. I think injuries derailed him, but he does not even enter into an elite conversation.
You just can't let it rest can you? I tried to be civil. Read the above statement. Then look in the mirror.
that is just too cool.
You can count on me as another Bert Jones fan. Not everyone on my fav list is a hofer or even a major star.
He was far more talented that what his carear results show.
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
<< <i>Mr Rexvos
that is just too cool.
You can count on me as another Bert Jones fan. Not everyone on my fav list is a hofer or even a major star.
He was far more talented that what his carear results show. >>
yeah I started his player registry a few years ago. Only 1 other guy is working on it. I see Bert every once in a while. He signed his 1976 SI Cover for me a while back. Great guy!
<< <i>Bert Jones was the qb at LSU when I first started watching football. I got to see his last LSU-Tulane game in person. He really was an amazing quarterback. I really wish he could have stayed healthy. His dad was quite a player as well. >>
you must remember Andy Hamilton as well. He was Bert's cousin and favorite target. I know Andy well as his son is one of my closest friends. Andy was the all time receiving leader at LSU until Eric Martin broke his records.
Myself and a few other "all-time great" set collectors years ago came to a gentlemen's agreement that all card addition would be discussed first on the boards and unless the player was a "slam dunk", we would wait till the player had retired.
Anyway, although I believe Big ben is worthy, I would withhold my vote until he retires.
No idea how Rodgers got on the set before Ben, but if he's on it then absolutely Big Ben should be as well...Too bad voters couldn't wait for that slam dunk first...
I mean if neither Aaron or Ben plays another down are they even HOFers?
Ben probbbbbbably gets in after a couple/few tries...Not sure Aaron Rodgers makes the HOF if he's up for vote 5 years from now. IMO
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Both need a few more good years IMO.
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
By the time Rodgers is eligible, I'd be willing to bet more than a few QBs will not only have equaled his numbers, but surpassed them. Look at the numbers Blake Bortles put up in his 2nd year in the league on a weak team. If Rodgers retires tomorrow, he's not making the HOF easily, that I can say with 100% confidence. His odds of getting in AT ALL with his current career profile I would put somewhere around 10-20%...Ben is closer to 50-60% if he retired tomorrow. By no means a slam dunk HOFer much less a slam dunk "All-Time Greatest" QB...I dont think he would rate in my personal top 30 all-time QB...Look at the QB set, 31 QBs, Rodgers the only one Ben is better than...Ben would weaken the set list at this point, although not as harshly as Aaron Rodgers did.
I guess I just dont understand putting those guys on the set now, rather than wait for confirmation of their career...So many guys calling it a career early these days, like the aforementioned Willis and Calvin, much better off playing it safe with these set rather than adding cards/guys who later would seem to require removal bc they retired early.
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.