JoeyB and the Magic Bean

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(09-11-2022, 11:47 AM)jfkbengals Wrote: I'm talking about our constant argument that team stats should not be a part of his consideration, and it shouldn't.  Similarly, team stats should not be used to determine Namath's worthiness.

Our? Who is saying that they shouldn't consider if a QB has a winning record or not? Why would we argue that winning games is not important? Anderson won games. 

[*rfaulk34*]

(09-11-2022, 12:07 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: I think Eli Manning is going to prove this out as well, though he only won two and not three. Aside from his playoff accomplishments, he was a very underwhelming QB. However, he slayed the dragon twice, and played well in both Super Bowls. 

I don't know that i'd say underwhelming. He's #9 on the passing yards list and #10 on the tds list. He threw a shit-ton of picks but he threw for 4,000+ yds 7 times and just missed it 2 other times. 

He does have a higher rating in the playoffs, compared to regular season and he's 2/1 in td/ints in the playoffs. 

Name, stats, 2 rings and team played for, i think, makes him a pretty easy choice (which i think, short of "easy choice", is what you're saying). 

[jfkbengals]

(09-11-2022, 12:08 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Our? Who is saying that they shouldn't consider if a QB has a winning record or not? Why would we argue that winning games is not important? Anderson won games. 

Because winning games is a function of the team, not the QB alone.  Archie Manning did not win games.  It had nothing to do with him being a great QB.  It was because the Saints were a bad franchise.  Same with Stafford during the Detroit years.

And don't get me wrong, I LOVED Anderson as a QB.  I've got an autographed photo and jersey on the wall.  And I 100% think he should be in the Hall.  But if win percentage is an important stat for getting in, then Anderson is screwed if he doesn't get in before Nick Foles, Jared Goff, and Ryan Tannehill retire.  They all have better win percentages than Anderson's 52%.  And for the record, none of those guys are worthy of HOF consideration.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(09-11-2022, 12:27 PM)jfkbengals Wrote: Because winning games is a function of the team, not the QB alone.  Archie Manning did not win games.  It had nothing to do with him being a great QB.  It was because the Saints were a bad franchise.  Same with Stafford during the Detroit years.

And don't get me wrong, I LOVED Anderson as a QB.  I've got an autographed photo and jersey on the wall.  And I 100% think he should be in the Hall.  But if win percentage is an important stat for getting in, then Anderson is screwed if he doesn't get in before Nick Foles, Jared Goff, and Ryan Tannehill retire.  They all have better win percentages than Anderson's 52%.  And for the record, none of those guys are worthy of HOF consideration.

Except you're wrong for acting like it's a single pass/fail toggle rather than a part of the larger list. Look at Anderson...

Did he win? Yes.
Did he have good personal stats? Yes.
Did he have an MVP? Yes.
Did he win a Super Bow? No.

Now do that for Namath.

Did he win? No.
Did he have good personal stats? No.
Did he have an MVP? No.
Did he win a Super Bowl? Yes.

I never said that win PERCENTAGE is important. You added that in on your own. I just said having a losing record as a starting QB is a pretty big red flag. Doubly so when it's combined with no personal statistical excellence. 

Also, Archie Manning was 0-10 as a starter with the 2 teams he played for that weren't the Saints. The Saints went 8-8 the year after they moved on from him, he went 0-3 with 2 TD/8 INT.

Matthew Stafford isn't a Hall of Famer right now either. Maybe if he continues his good run with the Rams, but by that point he would have turned around his career record and have become a winner as well to go with his stats. 

- - - - -

Either way, your original point of not using if a QB is a career winner or loser because of Anderson is wrong. Anderson is a winner, and if you're a loser, there's some problems. Namath was a career loser and had unimpressive career stats. He doesn't belong in the Hall.

[jfkbengals]

(09-11-2022, 01:07 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Except you're wrong for acting like it's a single pass/fail toggle rather than a part of the larger list. Look at Anderson...

Did he win? Yes.
Did he have good personal stats? Yes.
Did he have an MVP? Yes.
Did he win a Super Bow? No.

Now do that for Namath.

Did he win? No.
Did he have good personal stats? No.
Did he have an MVP? No.
Did he win a Super Bowl? Yes.

I never said that win PERCENTAGE is important. You added that in on your own. I just said having a losing record as a starting QB is a pretty big red flag. Doubly so when it's combined with no personal statistical excellence. 

Also, Archie Manning was 0-10 as a starter with the 2 teams he played for that weren't the Saints. The Saints went 8-8 the year after they moved on from him, he went 0-3 with 2 TD/8 INT.

Matthew Stafford isn't a Hall of Famer right now either. Maybe if he continues his good run with the Rams, but by that point he would have turned around his career record and have become a winner as well to go with his stats. 

- - - - -

Either way, your original point of not using if a QB is a career winner or loser because of Anderson is wrong. Anderson is a winner, and if you're a loser, there's some problems. Namath was a career loser and had unimpressive career stats. He doesn't belong in the Hall.

Isn't that exactly what the percentage illustrates, whether someone has a winning or losing record?  Namath's play changed the game, regardless of his team's record.  That is why he is in the HOF, and deserves to be there.

[jfkbengals]

(09-11-2022, 01:07 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Except you're wrong for acting like it's a single pass/fail toggle rather than a part of the larger list. Look at Anderson...

Did he win? Yes.
Did he have good personal stats? Yes.
Did he have an MVP? Yes.
Did he win a Super Bow? No.

Now do that for Namath.

Did he win? No.
Did he have good personal stats? No.
Did he have an MVP? No.
Did he win a Super Bowl? Yes.

I never said that win PERCENTAGE is important. You added that in on your own. I just said having a losing record as a starting QB is a pretty big red flag. Doubly so when it's combined with no personal statistical excellence. 

Also, Archie Manning was 0-10 as a starter with the 2 teams he played for that weren't the Saints. The Saints went 8-8 the year after they moved on from him, he went 0-3 with 2 TD/8 INT.

Matthew Stafford isn't a Hall of Famer right now either. Maybe if he continues his good run with the Rams, but by that point he would have turned around his career record and have become a winner as well to go with his stats. 

- - - - -

Either way, your original point of not using if a QB is a career winner or loser because of Anderson is wrong. Anderson is a winner, and if you're a loser, there's some problems. Namath was a career loser and had unimpressive career stats. He doesn't belong in the Hall.

???

He was a 3 time passing leader who had a league and Super Bowl MVP

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(09-11-2022, 01:26 PM)jfkbengals Wrote: ???

He was a 3 time passing leader who had a league and Super Bowl MVP

No he doesn't.
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/N/NamaJo00.htm

2 of his 3 passing titles came when he led the league in INTs, with 27 and 28. The third one he threw "merely" 21.

[jfkbengals]

(09-11-2022, 01:33 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: No he doesn't.
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/N/NamaJo00.htm

2 of his 3 passing titles came when he led the league in INTs, with 27 and 28. The third one he threw "merely" 21.

That site proved me wrong.  He had 2 league MVPs, not 1 like I thought.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/1968_AFL/allpro.htm
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/1969_AFL/allpro.htm