Jump to content

How is it Warren Moon can be in the HOF, but not Kenny Anderson?


Recommended Posts

[quote name='Lucid' post='310274' date='Aug 6 2006, 08:02 AM'][b]My kids will probably have no idea who the hell Michael Jackson is........[/b][/quote]
And that is definetely a good thing! Michael Jackson had a couple good years as a wideout, but after that he flamed out and he would NEVER be eligible for the HOF and furthermore....ahh, neverland, I mean, NEVERMIND!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Coy Bacon' post='310151' date='Aug 6 2006, 12:49 AM']Rayfield Wright was practically a household name in his era - and that was for years. He had the benefit of playing on "America's Team" rather than an up and down team from a sleepy little Okiana town with funny uniforms. He had the praises of the immortal Tom Landry behind him and the testimony of people that payed against him like the legendary Deacon Jones. Plus he was All-Pro several years running. Rayfield Wright is a name like Tommy Nobis, Bobby Bell, Art Shell, Gene Upshaw, etc.[/quote]

I don't doubt that Rayfield Wright was a good player, or even a great player. Contrary to Lucid's argument, I was just noting that there are a lot of guys enshrined in Canton that most football fans have never heard of, and thus "fame" isn't necessarily the key criteria for getting in. I'm sure Rayfield Wright was well known in his day, but I never heard of him until this year, in spite of his being a member of "America's Team." And I've seen quite a few NFL Films features on "America's Team" that never mentioned him. Does that I don't think he should be in? No. I actually think its great when the HoF selects someone who was great in their day but has long since been forgotten or never heard of by today's fans. Part of the reason I enjoy going to the Hall of Fame is because I learn about great players from past eras I never would have known about had they not been in the Hall. I do think that the Hall needs to look at the accomplishments of players from teams that didn't live on the coasts or win Super Bowls.

Personally, I think the Hall of Fame voting process is flawed. I think there should be more members on the Board of Selectors and they should include current members of the hall of fame, football historians and other people who might be able to put the feats of candidates into perspective. 39 selectors, dominated by print media, is an out-moded way to put people in the Hall of Fame in light of of the fact that most people get their NFL news from TV and the Internet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lucid' post='310274' date='Aug 6 2006, 10:02 AM']Thanks Coy...

Obviously there is more than your personal era involved here. Just because you never heard of someone, doesn't mean he wasn't famous..

My kids will probably have no idea who the hell Michael Jackson is........

And if your weren't a Bengals fan, you'd probably have very little idea who Anderson and Riley were. Not many besides us and avid football history guys would know of them. Maybe you would have heard the names because you watched the game during thier era, but you wouldn't know them from Adam.[/quote]

I don't know about that. I suspect that, since Anderson was one of the AFC's top passers during the '70s, plenty of people heard of him. Likewise, I suspect there were 65 times in Ken Riley's career where non-Bengals fans were very much aware of who he was. 65 picks over a career are a lot. I suspect that if we took a poll, more people would be able to identify the name Ken Anderson than Rayfield Wright.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='RayDoggBengal' post='309718' date='Aug 5 2006, 04:30 PM']Ok, let's not play the race card and look at the numbers. Granted the run and shoot helped out Moon numbers but you also have to wonder what his numbers would have been if he had been in the NFL from the start.

NFL Yrs played
Moon - 17
Anderson - 16

Passes
Moon completed 3,988 of 6,823 for 49,325
Anderson completed 2,694 of 4,475 for 32,838

TD's to Int's
Moon 291 to 233
Anderson 197 to 160

3,000 yrd seasons
Moon - 9
Anderson - 2

4,000 yrd seasons
Moon - 4
Anderson - 0

Probowls
Moon - 9
Anderson - ?[/quote]


Its pretty cut and dry, why is there even an argument on this?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Coy Bacon
[quote name='ueberj' post='310285' date='Aug 6 2006, 10:30 AM']I don't doubt that Rayfield Wright was a good player, or even a great player. Contrary to Lucid's argument, I was just noting that there are a lot of guys enshrined in Canton that most football fans have never heard of, and thus "fame" isn't necessarily the key criteria for getting in. I'm sure Rayfield Wright was well known in his day, but I never heard of him until this year, in spite of his being a member of "America's Team." And I've seen quite a few NFL Films features on "America's Team" that never mentioned him. Does that I don't think he should be in? No. I actually think its great when the HoF selects someone who was great in their day but has long since been forgotten or never heard of by today's fans. Part of the reason I enjoy going to the Hall of Fame is because I learn about great players from past eras I never would have known about had they not been in the Hall. I do think that the Hall needs to look at the accomplishments of players from teams that didn't live on the coasts or win Super Bowls.

Personally, I think the Hall of Fame voting process is flawed. I think there should be more members on the Board of Selectors and they should include current members of the hall of fame, football historians and other people who might be able to put the feats of candidates into perspective. 39 selectors, dominated by print media, is an out-moded way to put people in the Hall of Fame in light of of the fact that most people get their NFL news from TV and the Internet.[/quote]

I agree that the selection process may be flawed, but as far as the specific notion of fame is concerned, if you limited the Hall of Fame to players whose reputation completely transcended their era, it would be very sparse indeed.

"Most football fans" is relative. Most people that call themselves football fans only pay so much attention to the game itself, and they especially aren't aware of linemen. To me, the idea that Rayfield Wright is or was not famous is plain laughable, but I was around and paying attention to football when he was playing - and really NFL fame is a LOT more fleeting than most people think. Guys you think will always be in the limelight completely disappear after their playing days are over. That's part of the reason for the Hall of Fame - to preserve some of that history, because the public memory is short.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Claptonrocks
I think Anderson came within one play of being in the HOF..
When the Bengals were stopped by Frisco on the goal lline in the super bowl by Hacksaw Reynolds...
Pete Johnson ran behind RG instead of Munoz....sigh...
With a Super Bowl victory Anderson would have gotten recognition.
Joe Namath's victory propelled him in.. Granted it was the first time an
AFL team had beaten the NFL but it was still one championship and if you look at Namath's lifetime stats its a given that he shouldnt be in the HOF aside from that one victory...
Will Anderson make it? I think he will in time..
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='USNBENGAL the Original' post='309720' date='Aug 5 2006, 12:31 PM']In that case, Moon WASN'T better than Anderson. It should also be stated that his numbers came from the run & shoot... a QB numbers geek dream. The West Coast offense usually desn't get a QB monster numbers.[/quote]

This is a completely "homer" thread. Warren Moon put up numbers that were just ridiculous. It doesn't matter that he ran the run 'n' shoot. He wasn't a product of the system...you couldn't have plugged any average QB and had the same results. Also, he didn't run that offense in Minnesota or Seatle.

Ken Anderson is like a Jimmy Smith, Art Monk, Andre Reed, Rod Woodson...excellent players that may make it or miss it by a slim margin.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bengal_Smoov
Kenny Anderson was a very good qb, arguably the best qb the Bengals have every had and I think he deserves to be in the hall.

However, Warren Moon was a great qb and deserves to go to the hall of fame based on what he did in his professional career. I have always been a supporter of Warren Moon not only because of his play but what he represented. He broke through, open doors, and changed perceptions with his style of play and ability.

If Anderson was truly short and obnoxius with the media then he better not hold his breath regardless of what we think. Not winning a SuperBowl, or playing for a historic franchise, or having eye popping stats are hinderances that Anderson will have to overcome as well.

Anderson was one of the if not the first great West Coast Offense qb's and he was one of the most accurate players to play his position. Only time will tell if Anderson makes it in.

But to hate on Warren is just ridiculous, he proved that he was one of the best qb's ever and you take anything away from what he accomplished. If anyone thinks the HOF is a joke then they are either jealous or bitter or both......
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bengal_Smoov
[quote name='Rumble in the Jungle' post='310408' date='Aug 6 2006, 02:43 PM']not sure if anyone of you heard warren moons speach, but that was touching big time, i liked it a lot.[/quote]

Heard it, Loved it..


Warren Moon definitely represented like he said...

Although John Madden stole the damn show, what a speech!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Claptonrocks
Moon belongs ..no doubt about that... Even missing his first 6 seasons in the NFL his stats are right up there..
I remember him playing and he was one of the best in his era...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest oldschooler
Both deserve to be there in my opinion.

[quote]Among the league's all-time top 50, Ken Anderson ranks:
Pass attempts: 24th
Completions: 20th
Passing yards: 23rd
Passing TDs: 28th


Seasons among the league's top 10
Pass attempts: 1973-4, 1974-7, 1975-2, 1976-7t, 1977-6, 1981-9, 1982-3
Completions: 1972-7, 1973-4t, 1974-1, 1975-2, 1976-9, 1977-8t, 1981-5, 1982-1
Passing yards: 1973-4t, 1974-1, 1975-1, 1976-9, 1977-10, 1981-5, 1982-3
Passing TDs: 1973-5, 1974-5, 1975-4, 1976-3, 1981-3, 1982-9t
Adjusted yards per pass: 1972-7, 1973-7, 1974-1, 1975-1, 1976-9, 1977-7, 1979-8, 1981-1, 1982-2[/quote]

[url="http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/AndeKe00.htm"]http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/AndeKe00.htm[/url]

Moon has put up great numbers, but that doesn`t diminish Kenny`s stats at all.
He belongs there !
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='scharm' post='309777' date='Aug 5 2006, 12:24 PM']Warren Moon had huge years in the run and shoot that QBs like Favre and Manning can't pass today. The run and shoot isn't used in the NFL anymore.

While the WCO could be the single most important creation in the game today, and Kenny was the first QB to have success in it.

That's the difference I see.[/quote]


I think Kenny Anderson is a marginal candidate for the HOF, and I doubt he'll ever make the cut. And ironically, one of the things that I think will always hold him back is one of the very things that you're claiming ranks as one of his greatest accomplishments. When Anderson first had success in the WCO it was entirely unproven and mockingly labeled the dink and dunk, and IMO Anderson never really shed the label of a cerebral leader of a small ball attack that never produced a championship.

Last, fair on unfair, most QB's who make the HOF carry with them the reputation as a gunslinger, and Kenny simply doesn't fit the profile.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='RayDoggBengal' post='310332' date='Aug 6 2006, 12:01 PM']Thanks Storm, I thought this thread would have died out by now with those numbers.[/quote]

The numbers don't really mean much.

When a QB in the 70's leads the leauge in passing with 3,100 yards he's performing up to the same standard that Warren Moon did when led the league with 4,600 yards.

What's overlooked, Anderson often downgraded by Hall of Fame voters because he played in the WCO, which was before it's time and yada, yada, yada.

Just pointing out, Warren Moon produce season totals while playing in the run and shoot that aren't even passed by today's QBs.

The run and shoot died a quick NFL death, while the WCO influences every offense in the league.


There's the point. Leaving the arguement solely to numbers is Baseball, not Football.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='HairOnFire' post='310668' date='Aug 7 2006, 05:02 AM']I think Kenny Anderson is a marginal candidate for the HOF, and I doubt he'll ever make the cut. And ironically, one of the things that I think will always hold him back is one of the very things that you're claiming ranks as one of his greatest accomplishments. When Anderson first had success in the WCO it was entirely unproven and mockingly labeled the dink and dunk, and IMO Anderson never really shed the label of a cerebral leader of a small ball attack that never produced a championship.

Last, fair on unfair, most QB's who make the HOF carry with them the reputation as a gunslinger, and Kenny simply doesn't fit the profile.[/quote]

Good points and I think it addresses the heart of my arguement.

Posted above are Kenny's rankings when he played. Like you said, he is often disregarded because of his affiliation with the WCO.

I say unfair. It's embarassing for the HOF that Kenny is not in it. You can't go 1 offseason without hearing 1 million references to the WCO today.

The WCO has stood the test of time in the NFL. It changed the way the game is played and coached and it has also changed they way QBs are evaluated.

The first QB to consistently have success in that offense is not in the HOF and is often downgraded because of that.

Couldn't you argue that Kenny Anderson was the blue print for the typical QB for the WCO and that would go on to dominate the NFL for the next 30+ years?

Are we going to start downgrading Jerry Rice, because he redefined the offseason workout, which clearly gave him an advantage and began to influence other players in the way they prepared for a season?

If HOF voters are still calling the WCO and dink and dunk offense, then what type of people are voting for the Hall of Fame?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='scharm' post='310723' date='Aug 7 2006, 09:03 AM']I say unfair. It's embarassing for the HOF that Kenny is not in it. You can't go 1 offseason without hearing 1 million references to the WCO today.

The WCO has stood the test of time in the NFL. It changed the way the game is played and coached and it has also changed they way QBs are evaluated.[/quote]


I'd say the WCO is well represented in the HOF even without Kenny. The fact that he was the first to have success in that scheme doesn't change the fact that his numbers aren't good enough to make people reconsider their first impressions about his career.

Anderson was a very good low profile athlete who never offered a memorable quote to the media, and whose demeanor never made anyone question their appraisal of him as a cool dispassionate technician. In short, good, but not great.

And in regards to that last point, Anderson came up short far too often during his most watched moments on the national stage. Montana beats him in his only Super Bowl appearance. Fouts wins a shootout against Anderson in a game that was the highest rated televised football game for years and years.

Where's his moment of greatness?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Coy Bacon
[quote name='HairOnFire' post='310829' date='Aug 7 2006, 01:33 PM']I'd say the WCO is well represented in the HOF even without Kenny. The fact that he was the first to have success in that scheme doesn't change the fact that his numbers aren't good enough to make people reconsider their first impressions about his career.

Anderson was a very good low profile athlete who never offered a memorable quote to the media, and whose demeanor never made anyone question their appraisal of him as a cool dispassionate technician. In short, good, but not great.

And in regards to that last point, Anderson came up short far too often during his most watched moments on the national stage. Montana beats him in his only Super Bowl appearance. Fouts wins a shootout against Anderson in a game that was the highest rated televised football game for years and years.

Where's his moment of greatness?[/quote]


Anderson carried the image of a consumate technician that lacked the fire to pull out the big games in the spot light.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a very interesting article from FootballOutsiders.com about Ken Anderson's inclusion into the HoF. They use a variety of statistics all normalized to the 2004 season in order to measure each QB's relative worth. There is an explanation of the methods used in the article.

The gist of the piece is this:
[quote]In the case of Ken Anderson these numbers clearly show that not only does he numerically belong in the Hall, but also that he actually ranks above almost all of the quarterbacks already enshrined there.[/quote]
[url="http://www.footballoutsiders.com/2006/07/26/ramblings/stat-analysis/4042/"]Click here for the full article.[/url]

I certainly think that he belongs in the Hall...and I have no problem with Moon being there either, he is deserving.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='HairOnFire' post='310829' date='Aug 7 2006, 01:33 PM']I'd say the WCO is well represented in the HOF even without Kenny. The fact that he was the first to have success in that scheme doesn't change the fact that his numbers aren't good enough to make people reconsider their first impressions about his career.

Anderson was a very good low profile athlete who never offered a memorable quote to the media, and whose demeanor never made anyone question their appraisal of him as a cool dispassionate technician. In short, good, but not great.

And in regards to that last point, Anderson came up short far too often during his most watched moments on the national stage. Montana beats him in his only Super Bowl appearance. Fouts wins a shootout against Anderson in a game that was the highest rated televised football game for years and years.

Where's his moment of greatness?[/quote]

Isn't that the point? The WCO is well represented in the HOF today, but if I'm to believe some of the reasons as to why Kenny Anderson is not in the HOF, I have to cry FOUL!


He still ranks in the top 30 of all-time in all the major passing statisical areas. I'm not sure where he was when he retired.

If voters aren't willing to reconsider their first impressions of his career, I think that points out reasons why the HOF should be embarassed.

If you need a memorable quote to make the HOF, I guess that's just another reason why the HOF should be embarassed.

Isn't it odd, Anderson's moment of greatness is winning the AFC Championship over Fouts, I guess. Maybe it was throwing 400 yards to beat OJ's 200 yards rushing on MNF.

I don't know, it seems the reasons Kenny isn't in the HOF only apply to Kenny Anderson.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reasons Kenny isn't in the Hall:

1. He's not a fiery, do whatever-it-takes guy. He was a solid QB that had the accuracy of Steve Young before Young was even thought of.

2. The media types still see the Bengals as the AFC North Champion Cincinnati Bengals, and until that changes, it's gonna be hard as hell for any Bengal, past or future, to get into the Hall.

3. He played in Cincinnati. If you notice, most of the people in the Hall of Fame come from the big market teams, like New York, San Fran-Oakland, and Chicago. Cincinnati is small time compared to those places.

4. Like someone has already mentioned, Kenny really didn't endear himself to the media, unlike Boomer and Chad (who I think should be Hall of Famers, as well). Kenny had that fuck-off attitude when it came to reporters.

5. His shot to be a champion, and he got beat by Montana.....badly. The score didn't indicate how close the game was. Anderson is a lot like serveral other QB in the league that are solid enough to lead a team to a championship, but don't have that something extra that would allow them to win a championship.


To put it simply, we have to make everyone forget about the Dark Decade of Bengals football, and look forward to the dominance that we call Bengals football now. Only then will people like Kenny, Fulcher, Riley and Krumrie make it to the Hall of Fame. CArson and the crew has the immense task of bringing cedibility back to Cincinnati, and if last year was an indicator of anything, it showed us that the Bengals are well on their way to become a power team in the AFC and the NFL again, just like in the old days.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='scharm' post='311953' date='Aug 8 2006, 07:37 PM']Isn't it odd, Anderson's moment of greatness is winning the AFC Championship over Fouts, I guess.[/quote]

We both admire the guy, Scharm. But I still say that while Kenny had plenty of great games, he lacks a great individual moment on the national stage. Even in the game mentioned above it is the weather that comes to mind....not an overwhelming performance by Anderson.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...