(OT) A Sad Day in Football -- The Snake Passed

[jshawaii22]

He was the best QB not to get into the H.O.F... I blame the hatred the league had for the owner, and that is a tragedy. The Snake. My Dad lived in Walnut Creek for a few years in the 70's and we saw a few games together. Oakland was a bad-ass team in that era. So were the Fans. Different era, that's for sure. Sad to hear he passed. They say he died while the family played "Sweet Home Alabama" for him.

js

[RiverDog]

I saw that. Personally, I did not think that Stabler's career was HOF worthy, but he was a solid QB and interesting personality, sort of fit the Raiders image. He was one of the victims of the "Immaculate Reception" play as just prior to it, he had engineered what appeared to be a game winning drive in a very exciting game.

R.I.P. Ken Stabler.

[c_hawkbob]

You can't tell the story of the NFL without Kenny Stabler. He was the 70's Raiders.

Him not being in the NFL Hall of Fame is almost as egregious as Deep Purple not being the the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame.

RIP Snake.

[politicalfootball]

Yes I can't belive it myself this news just blew me away I said sh** out loud in a public place. Does anybody know how old he was ? God bless him he is in Heaven now with the angels dancing with Jesus.

[c_hawkbob]

He was 69, colon cancer got him.

[jshawaii22]

RD,

If Joe Namath gets in, The Snake should be in. Joe was a New York Jet, had nice legs, owned a bar where the NFL brass hung out (until they found out his partner was a gangster) and got lucky in a Super Bowl. Other then that, he didn't do much, especially on the football field.

Stabler's career stats are all better then Joe's. He should be in. His boss was Al Davis...

js

[RiverDog]

RD,

If Joe Namath gets in, The Snake should be in. Joe was a New York Jet, had nice legs, owned a bar where the NFL brass hung out (until they found out his partner was a gangster) and got lucky in a Super Bowl. Other then that, he didn't do much, especially on the football field.

Stabler's career stats are all better then Joe's. He should be in. His boss was Al Davis...

js

Neither Stabler or Namath's stats are HOF worthy. The reason Namath got in was that he literally made the AFL and was the key player in the game that put the Super Bowl 'on the map' in what remains as one of the greatest upsets of all time. Stabler's career was all post merger, so his career did not have near the impact on the game as did Namath's.

Joe Namath signed a rookie contract for what then was an outrageous amount of money, $427,000 for 3 years. The AFL got a huge amount of publicity for putting up that much money, put the NFL on notice that they were in for a fight, and was the most significant salvo in the war between the two leagues. In addition, Namath had a cult following, mostly female, that attracted a new generation of fans to the game, and was the MVP in the one game that unquestionably established the Super Bowl as the premiere sporting event and remains as one of the greatest upsets in all sports. Joe Namath was as much a part of the counter culture in the late 60's as Woodstock and the hippie movement. The story about the AFL, the story about the merger between the two leagues, the history of the Super Bowl, and indeed the story of the 60's itself cannot be told without including Joe Namath at some point in the discussion. None of that is present in Stabler's career, at least no where close to the same degree that it is in Namath's.

[c_hawkbob]

It's called the NFL Hall of Fame, not the NFL Hall of Fantasy stats.

[RiverDog]

It's called the NFL Hall of Fame, not the NFL Hall of Fantasy stats.

If stats were the sole criteria for HOF induction, Jackie Robinson would not be a member of baseball's HOF.

There are some players that had such a great influence on the game and/or society that they set aside statistical standards. IMO Namath's influence deserved such an exemption, Stabler's did not.

[NorthHawk]

I'm on the fence with Stabler in the HoF.
I have fond memories of hating the Raiders when he and Casper cheated their way to victories - at least that's the way I saw it then and remember it now.
But they did change the rules because of them and he is an important part of NFL history.
On the other hand, excepting the team success, I'm not sure he's any more worthy than a lot of players that were pretty successful in their era.

[savvyman]

Maybe the most memorable Nickname (The Snake) in all of sports.

[RiverDog]

I'm on the fence with Stabler in the HoF.
I have fond memories of hating the Raiders when he and Casper cheated their way to victories - at least that's the way I saw it then and remember it now.
But they did change the rules because of them and he is an important part of NFL history.
On the other hand, excepting the team success, I'm not sure he's any more worthy than a lot of players that were pretty successful in their era.

Yep. The Holy Roller. I also remember Stabler connecting on deep passes to Cliff Branch, Ray Guy hitting the scoreboard in the Super Dome, John Madden, Willie Brown, Gene Upshaw, Art Shell, Jim Otto, Fred Beletnicopf (sp) The Mad Stork, Ben Davidson... I hated them as I was a Chiefs fan, but for sure some great memories.

[jshawaii22]

Stats ARE what the HOF bases most of their decisions on. Every year the discussions about who gets in seems to be centered on stats. Stats are how you compare A to B and the to the rest of the Hall. How else? If you discount stats as a basis, it doesn't leave you much. The fact that Joe signed the largest contract (at that time)... what does that have to do with anything? Stabler was a better QB. Won more games (percentage and overall) more yards, more TD's, Less INT's. Better long ball (yes, having Cliff Branch mattered, as did having Jerry Rice)... Joe was a popular player on the #1 market in the NFL. Maybe neither should get in. I disagree with that, but if Joe is in, so should Stabler.

js

[RiverDog]

Stats ARE what the HOF bases most of their decisions on. Every year the discussions about who gets in seems to be centered on stats. Stats are how you compare A to B and the to the rest of the Hall. How else? If you discount stats as a basis, it doesn't leave you much. The fact that Joe signed the largest contract (at that time)... what does that have to do with anything? Stabler was a better QB. Won more games (percentage and overall) more yards, more TD's, Less INT's. Better long ball (yes, having Cliff Branch mattered, as did having Jerry Rice)... Joe was a popular player on the #1 market in the NFL. Maybe neither should get in. I disagree with that, but if Joe is in, so should Stabler.

js

Sorry, JS, but I couldn't disagree more. Joe Namath was at the epicenter of the most pivotal point in modern professional football history, the 5 years just prior to the merger in the late 60's. His impact was huge, much larger than his career statistics and goes far beyond the football field. He was a trend setter, a counter culture hero, an icon of the turbulent 60's, a conquering hero to a league struggling for respect, a sex symbol to millions. No disrespect intended, but Kenny Stabler is no more significant than the answer to a trivia question when compared to Namath's impact. There's no way you can justify Stabler's candidacy for the HOF by linking him to the exception they made for Namath.

[jshawaii22]

I thought the HOF was about what you do on the field, not off the field. I won't argue about Joe's effect on the NFL-AFL Merger as the Jets win helped legitimize football we know it, and he was one of the first off-field 'stars' that football 'PR'r' him to superstardom, but using his 'media' darling and pin-up prowess as a basis for Hall induction seems off-base to me.

I have nothing against him as a human. Everyone wanted to "Be Like Joe", but, he was a good, not great QB. He didn't set any records, I don't think he ever led the league in passing, but he has a well-deserved SB ring and you can't argue about what it did for Football ... and that's about it.

Living only on the West Coast, I'm sure biased , but over his career, Stabler and Oakland played in far more memorable games that I remember Joe ever playing in. Multiple classics against Pittsburgh, Kansas City and the Dan Fouts led San Diego. He won a lot of those games. For whatever reason, the media made the team into a bunch of thugs (imagine that!). Maybe they didn't like him smoking pot in MASH. He should be in.

[RiverDog]

I thought the HOF was about what you do on the field, not off the field. I won't argue about Joe's effect on the NFL-AFL Merger as the Jets win helped legitimize football we know it, and he was one of the first off-field 'stars' that football 'PR'r' him to superstardom, but using his 'media' darling and pin-up prowess as a basis for Hall induction seems off-base to me.

I have nothing against him as a human. Everyone wanted to "Be Like Joe", but, he was a good, not great QB. He didn't set any records, I don't think he ever led the league in passing, but he has a well-deserved SB ring and you can't argue about what it did for Football ... and that's about it.

Living only on the West Coast, I'm sure biased , but over his career, Stabler and Oakland played in far more memorable games that I remember Joe ever playing in. Multiple classics against Pittsburgh, Kansas City and the Dan Fouts led San Diego. He won a lot of those games. For whatever reason, the media made the team into a bunch of thugs (imagine that!). Maybe they didn't like him smoking pot in MASH. He should be in.

Most of the time, you are correct. It's usually limited strictly to on field performance. But there are some very rare exceptions, the most notable of which is MLB's Jackie Robinson, whose numbers alone would have never gotten him in had he not been the first to have broken the color barrier and inspired a generation of black Americans and other minorities that manifested itself into the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's. Joe Namath is one of the very few exceptions in the professional football HOF.

Joe Namath was the best quarterback in the game, bar none, for about 2 or 3 years. He had a very quick release, a rocket arm, and was a fierce competitor. He was the first quarterback ever to pass for over 4,000 yards in a season, and that was back before they outlawed the bump and run and instituted dozens of rule changes that today's quarterbacks derive so much of their success from. I still maintain that he had the best mechanics and could make every throw of any quarterback I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot of them. He was on top of the world in 1969. But he didn't maintain it for very many seasons and would have never have even gotten nominated had it not been for the circumstances he played in and for what he represented in the late 1960's. Heck, he was even mentioned during the Watergate hearings as he made Nixon's enemies list.

Kenny Stabler was good, but he wasn't the one or two best of his era over a long enough period of time IMO. He was overshadowed by Terry Bradshaw and Roger Staubach and didn't go to multiple Super Bowls as they did. Ken Anderson, who played in the same era, had equal or better stats as Stabler and he's not in.

Personally I think that the HOF is overloaded with quarterbacks relative to other positions, and to admit Stabler would lower the bar.

[c_hawkbob]

Namath was never the best QB in the NFL for more than a day or two in his entire career.

He may have been the best in the AFL before the merger, but he was never a Better QB than Johhny Unitas and Bart Starr early in his career (the 60's NFL "Team of the Decade" representatives) or Roger Staubach and The Snake who were the 70's "Team of the Decade" QB's.

He was brash and confident and had the tools that made him capable of catching lightning in a bottle on good days (so did Jeff George), but he was also horribly inconsistent even before his knee injuries, which rendered him a shell of his former self.

Namath is in the Hall strictly for his historical impact on the game, not for his body of work as a QB.

[jshawaii22]

RD,

Well, I agree to disagree about over who should be in. Of course there is a disproportionate number of QB's in the HOF. It's the 'glamour' position. But, Joe?... we're not really talking about comparing him to Jackie Robinson as a basis to get him into the Hall are we? Paleaaaazzzzeeee RD... that's a stretch!

js

[NorthHawk]

I don't know how you got to comparing Stabler to Jackie Robinson from RD's comment.
He was just using that example to show that other factors are at play in these HoF votes.

[RiverDog]

Namath was never the best QB in the NFL for more than a day or two in his entire career.

He may have been the best in the AFL before the merger, but he was never a Better QB than Johhny Unitas and Bart Starr early in his career (the 60's NFL "Team of the Decade" representatives) or Roger Staubach and The Snake who were the 70's "Team of the Decade" QB's.

He was brash and confident and had the tools that made him capable of catching lightning in a bottle on good days (so did Jeff George), but he was also horribly inconsistent even before his knee injuries, which rendered him a shell of his former self.

Namath is in the Hall strictly for his historical impact on the game, not for his body of work as a QB.

In 1967-69 he was. Unitas was washed up by then, didn't play hardly at all in '68 and only made a brief, 4th quarter appearance in SB III. Bart Starr was on the tail end of his career in the late 60's. The NFL MVP for 1968 was Earl Morrall, which tells you how devoid of good quarterbacking the NFL was at that time. Staubach wasn't even a full time starter until 1972 as Landry was platooning him with Craig Morton. Stabler wasn't the Raiders starting quarterback back then, it was Daryl Lamonica, ie the Mad Bomber. Name a quarterback that in 1967-69 had a better two year run. I haven't bothered to look it up, but you might be able to make a case for John Brodie or Len Dawson. Like I said, Namath was on top of the world, albeit for a very short time.

But I agree that Namath was not admitted due to his body of work and that he was downright awful after 1970, perhaps the worst starting qb in the league when he played for the Rams. I've never seen a quarterback hit the deck faster than Namath did when he played for the Rams.

[jshawaii22]

Namath had those two bad knees and that will do it to you. Hard to be much of anything if you can't bend, twist, bounce or run. Funny, that Peter King thinks you are in-line RD. Maybe you're right about the off-field being enough to get him in. It looks like that was the deciding factor in both cases.

They both had 4-5 years of true 'success' and then mediocre the bulk of the rest. I will admit that once Kenny left Oakland, he didn't do anything, even though his nothing was more then Joe's nothing years as a Ram.

js

[jshawaii22]

I don't know how you got to comparing Stabler to Jackie Robinson from RD's comment.
He was just using that example to show that other factors are at play in these HoF votes.

North, We were discussing Joe Namath's off-field career being a very positive HOF deciding factor like Jackie Robinson's was. While Joe was revered for his, Kenny's off-field antics were not the stuff to be proud of, but that is not supposed to matter in Football's HOF (as Peter King noted today) and it did, without an argument. --

[RiverDog]

As far as his HOF resume is concerned, Namath was at the right place at the right time. In the year or two prior to signing Namath, Sonny Werblin, the Jets owner, had indicated his willingness to make his QB at the time, Kyle Rote, the highest paid player since Babe Ruth. No one in their right mind would consider Rote's achievements as being Ruthian, but the point is that there was a check just waiting for a player like Namath to come along and claim it. The AFL was in a publicity war with the NFL. They wanted headlines, and the viewers that went along with it. The fact that Joe was a counter culture hero and a swinging bachelor added to the allure. The bare chested photos and the SB III "I guarantee it" pledge that he backed up cemented his legacy. It was a turning point.

If Kenny Stabler had come into the league 5 years earlier, it might well have been him rather than Namath that was wearing the gold jacket.

Namath wasn't reverted for his behavior, at least not by my parent's generation. To them, he was the epitome of what was wrong with America. Like I said, he was a counter culture hero. Long hair, white shoes, fur coats... it was all part of what made Joe Namath the most controversial and talked about athlete of the late 60's.