Jump to content

Adults arguing about Ken Anderson


Sport
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, dont care said:

How are his stats better? He played only 6 years. He might have a better percentage but his totals are so far less than the others he doesn’t have an argument to make the HOF 

I went off percentages, which were better. And it's the pro football HOF not the NFL Hall of Fame. He played from 1982 to 1991, with six years in Buffalo and time in Atlanta before going to the USFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

He's got better numbers than 3 of the 4 people in the Hall of Fame. Not at all. People like to use one play to kick him in the nuts when he was literally at least better than 3/4 of the PK's in the hall of Fame. Is he better than some of the kickers now? Nope not at all. But he's better than players that we decided were great enough to make the Hall of Fame. 

Even worse than comparing QB numbers over time is comparing kicker numbers over time. Totally not comparable.

 

Go back and look at percentage of kicks made by decade, or year, and you'll see why that is the case.

 

Both of those Kens were pretty damn good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sport said:

 

I'm 33


so then you never saw Ken Anderson, or their Super Bowls, and are arguing based solely on things you’ve heard from others, and seem to be personally offended that not everyone agrees with your praise for a person or description of an era that you have zero first-hand knowledge of.  Maybe it’s possible that you’ve grown up hearing stories told from a pro-Cincinnati perspective, just like all of us have grown up hearing things from the local perspective. 
 

if you want to argue that he should be in the HOF that’s one thing. Stats wise he wouldn’t be the worst, though there’s probably several better that aren’t in. It’s unarguable that he didn’t win anything significant.  Whether that’s his fault or not is irrelevant, but wouldn’t be an embarrassment to the hall if he got in.  If you play in a tiny market, it’s going to be harder to make a case without rings.  
 

The part that got me was “you can’t tell the story of the NFL without Ken Anderson”. That’s legit loony-bin talk, and not based on any first-hand experience. 
 

jesus can they just unveil the uniforms?
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They call it the hall of fame for a reason. Ken what's his name is never mentioned amongst the great qb's of his peer group. Based on that simple test, he is not a famous nfl qb therefore no hof for him. Being the best franchise qb for a bottom tier franchise is not enough justification for wearing the mustard blazer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, MJWalker45 said:

He's got better numbers than 3 of the 4 people in the Hall of Fame. Not at all. People like to use one play to kick him in the nuts when he was literally at least better than 3/4 of the PK's in the hall of Fame. Is he better than some of the kickers now? Nope not at all. But he's better than players that we decided were great enough to make the Hall of Fame. 

 

Having a higher fg% over six seasons than guys who played a minimum 19 years doesn't make him a better kicker lol. If he was better he wouldn't have been out of the NFL before he was 32. Also Groza and Blanda were not pure kickers, Groza played on the line and Blanda was a QB and they both won multiple championships and an MVP each. Stenerud was an innovator of soccer style kicking, a 6-time All Pro, and made the NFL's 75th and 100th Anniversary teams. Anderson & Vinatieri are the all time scoring leaders among several other major records and achievements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ManillaToad said:

 

Having a higher fg% over six seasons than guys who played a minimum 19 years doesn't make him a better kicker lol. If he was better he wouldn't have been out of the NFL before he was 32. Also Groza and Blanda were not pure kickers, Groza played on the line and Blanda was a QB and they both won multiple championships and an MVP each. Stenerud was an innovator of soccer style kicking, a 6-time All Pro, and made the NFL's 75th and 100th Anniversary teams. Anderson & Vinatieri are the all time scoring leaders among several other major records and achievements.

He played 10 years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, BBTV said:


so then you never saw Ken Anderson, or their Super Bowls, and are arguing based solely on things you’ve heard from others, and seem to be personally offended that not everyone agrees with your praise for a person or description of an era that you have zero first-hand knowledge of.  Maybe it’s possible that you’ve grown up hearing stories told from a pro-Cincinnati perspective, just like all of us have grown up hearing things from the local perspective. 
 

 

Being from Cincinnati just allowed me to hear about him. Actually looking into his stats is where I think he should be in the hall of fame. 

 

7 minutes ago, BBTV said:

if you want to argue that he should be in the HOF that’s one thing. Stats wise he wouldn’t be the worst, though there’s probably several better that aren’t in. It’s unarguable that he didn’t win anything significant.  Whether that’s his fault or not is irrelevant, but wouldn’t be an embarrassment to the hall if he got in.  If you play in a tiny market, it’s going to be harder to make a case without rings.  
 

 

Any "several better" who aren't in are modern QBs who played in a heavy passing era and/or just recently retired and will eventually get in themselves. He's the best QB currently not in and he's better stats wise than guys who already are. I didn't see him play so all I'm going off of are his stats and his comps who are in the Hall of Fame, which more than make his case, but...

 

Quote

The part that got me was “you can’t tell the story of the NFL without Ken Anderson”. That’s legit loony-bin talk, and not based on any first-hand experience. 
 

 

you didn't have any interest in those valid points so you kept bringing up this one thing out of context stripped of the rest of the argument. Let me put it in other words - if you're going to put a guy in the hall of fame, which is ostensibly a museum about the history of football, he needs a story. He can't just be a guy who was kinda good, especially if he doesn't have a ring. Ken Anderson has that story. I don't need any first hand experience with that because I've read about Bill Walsh, we've all watched NFL Films, and the invention of the modern offense points back to Ken Anderson who ran it first.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sport said:

Let me put it in other words - if you're going to put a guy in the hall of fame, which is ostensibly a museum about the history of football, he needs a story. He can't just be a guy who was kinda good, especially if he doesn't have a ring. Ken Anderson has that story. I don't need any first hand experience with that because I've read about Bill Walsh, we've all watched NFL Films, and the invention of the modern offense points back to Ken Anderson who ran it first.

 

There can be an exhibit in the NFL Hall of Fame about evolution of the game and Ken Anderson and the Bengals offense without a Ken Anderson induction. Both can be true. 

 

Ken Anderson probably will never be inducted, as he was a pretty good QB (not upper echelon) and that's fine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, guest23 said:

They call it the hall of fame for a reason. Ken what's his name is never mentioned amongst the great qb's of his peer group. Based on that simple test, he is not a famous nfl qb therefore no hof for him.

 

There's dozens of guys in the Hall of Fame you wouldn't recognize by name or if you saw them on the street. That's hardly been a prerequisite for induction. I'll just post the reasons he might not be famous again. 

 

1. If he'd been rightly inducted you would've heard of him more. He's the only guy in his tier in his era not in the Hall of Fame so he's left off a lot of discussions.

2. He never won a Super Bowl, which again is not a prerequisite for the Hall of Fame, but you don't get famous when you lose a super bowl.

3. He was a quiet nerd who played in a small market for a team that doesn't get a lot of national love. If he played in, IDK, Philadelphia, just to pick a random city at random totally randomly. If he'd played in Philadelphia the only city in the world he'd probably more heralded. 

4. I'll say it one more time - the Bengals have historically done a terrible job of celebrating their past great players, which means their names come across HoF voters minds less often than other teams. Multiple great players from the franchise's good teams have said things like "they've never invited me back", or "yeah I'd love to have reunions with my old teammates, but the team isn't interested in us." Only recently did they do stuff for the 88 Super Bowl team and the 50th anniversary. And the stuff they did looked and felt like bare minimum no effort and kind of embarrassingly low-budg. That's why the announcement for this ring of honor is nice to hear and it's a sign that the team's under new management, which has to be an improvement from the guy who led things the last 30 years. 

 

If guys wanna be :censored:ing meatballs and play Hall of Fame cop that's their prerogative, but he has a better case than comparable QBs in his actual era who are actually in the HoF. That's all I'm saying. 

 

7 minutes ago, guest23 said:

Being the best franchise qb for a bottom tier franchise is not enough justification for wearing the mustard blazer.

 

That's not the justification for his hall of fame case. You realize the Bengals existed before 1991, right?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, WSU151 said:

 

There can be an exhibit in the NFL Hall of Fame about evolution of the game and Ken Anderson and the Bengals offense without a Ken Anderson induction. Both can be true. 

 

Ken Anderson probably will never be inducted, as he was a pretty good QB (not upper echelon) and that's fine. 

 

That doesn't change the fact that he was better than guys who actually are in the Hall of Fame so it's not unreasonable to say he should be too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is beyond cyclical so I'll finish by saying his numbers are there, his comps are there, he did more than guys before/during/after his era who are in the Hall of Fame. That's objective. The reasons against his case are superficial and/or external factors outside of his control. Fin. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Sport said:

 

That doesn't change the fact that he was better than guys who actually are in the Hall of Fame so it's not unreasonable to say he should be too.

 

The guys he was "better than" won Super Bowls, and the other guys that didn't win Super Bowls had better stats than Ken.

 

You compare him to Troy Aikmain...who had more yards in fewer years played and multiple Super Bowls.

Bradshaw won multiple Super Bowls.

Stabler won a Super Bowl 

Fouts was better stats-wise, pretty much all around, but no Super Bowl. Fouts threw 10,000 more yards in pretty much the exact same era, in 11 fewer games, and had a completion rate that was .5% less than Anderson, which is one incompletion in 200 attempts. Essentially same completion rate. 

 

Ken Anderson was a solid QB with solid stats for several years. If he had a Super Bowl win or 40,000 yards he'd be in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That this thread literally starts with "eat a fart" puts it on the fast track to the goldmine.

 

"Can't tell the story of the CCSLC without mentioning how some Bengals homer defended Ken Anderson's honor by telling a critic to eat a fart."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, WSU151 said:

 

The guys he was "better than" won Super Bowls, and the other guys that didn't win Super Bowls had better stats than Ken.

 

You compare him to Troy Aikmain...who had more yards in fewer years played and multiple Super Bowls.

Bradshaw won multiple Super Bowls.

Stabler won a Super Bowl 

Fouts was better stats-wise, pretty much all around, but no Super Bowl. Fouts threw 10,000 more yards in pretty much the exact same era, in 11 fewer games, and had a completion rate that was .5% less than Anderson, which is one incompletion in 200 attempts. Essentially same completion rate. 

 

Ken Anderson was a solid QB with solid stats for several years. If he had a Super Bowl win or 40,000 yards he'd be in. 

 

Yet their adjusted yards/attempt is the same, TD% is a very slight nod to Fouts, and Anderson's INT% is considerably better.  He was objectively a more efficient passer.  Anderson was an MVP, at least won his conference, and while he was no Michael Vick, he was maybe the best running QB of his era.  He had two of the best seasons for a QB of all-time relative to his era, and per Football Outsider's Value over Average and Points Above Replacement statistics, Ken Anderson was statistically the third best QB between 1950 and 1990.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, See Red said:

Anderson was an MVP

 

I'm not sure if this is supposed to be a leg-up on Fouts...Fouts was the 1982 MVP.  Fouts just torched the record books from 1978-85, which is why he's in the HOF. 

 

But the rest of your post is a good argument for Ken. 

 

Sorry to keep the discussion on old Bengals players, let's talk uniforms. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, dont care said:

4 of those weren’t in the NFL, that’s like saying someone should get in because they beat up on guys in the XFL.

Once again, it's the Pro Football Hall of Fame, not the NFL Hall of Fame. There's only so many slots for kickers and he did well enough to get back into the league. Cleveland players whose history started before the AAFC dissolved still have those stats counted by the Hall of Fame. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • CS85 locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.