JoeyB and the Magic Bean

[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.