No matter how hard I look, I just don't see Gabriel as HOF

[Bryan]

Wow. I guess you have all the information you'll ever need on the subject. No need to talk to someone who may have a tad more knowledge. Got it.

Sorry, just trying to be funny. If you actually read what I posted, I said "Gabriel's low YPA/low INT% totals seem to be out of the design of the offense of Marchibroda. Again, if the design of Anderson's offense was to have him lead the NFL in yardage while averaging 8+YPA, then more power to him."

I don't know for sure. I don't have game films of the late 60's Rams. I am not speaking with any certainty. I see Tom Moore setting the record for RB receptions, I see Lydell Mitchell consistently getting 70+ receptions in Marchibroda's offense with the Colts, I see Mitchell traded to SD and the two leading receivers for Marchibroda in 78 are Joe Washington and Don McCauley. I see in 79 Washington with 82 receptions and McCauley with 55 and finishing first-second again in team receptions. I am drawing a conclusion that Marchibroda's offense featured a lot of safe passes to RBs, which resulted in low YPA/low INT%/high rating for Gabriel. Just my $0.02 (but not my doctoral thesis).

You are correct in that Anderson and Gabriel have similar MVP/AP/PB credentials, so I am using 'nothing but stats to promote Anderson' over Gabriel. I think that is a legitimate argument. You feel differently. I don't see Anderson as a HOF QB, either.

[Hail Casares]

You clearly don't.

Again, you're wrong. You just don't like that I understand it well enough to know it's crap. Have had many discussions on this board with others long before you showed up.

No. You don't understand it. The fact you are posting that Landry had two of the best QB seasons league wide based on the number shows you don't get AV and how it's figured.

[JohnTurney]

No. You don't understand it. The fact you are posting that Landry had two of the best QB seasons league wide based on the number shows you don't get AV and how it's figured.

I do get it. And how it's figured is the problem. It's stupid.

[Brian wolf]

Had to join in on this discussion though it's an older thread.

Many people may disagree on Stabler getting into the HOF but one thing is for sure ... he was a winner and involved in some of the greatest games ever played. He took the starting job from one of the best arms and winning percentages ever, in Daryle Lamonica. Once Madden left, he was traded for a better arm in Pastorini, yet Phillips thought he could beat Pittsburgh.

John makes great points about Gabriel. It's close because many great QBs fumble a lot but Gabriel didnt throw many interceptions and won enough for consideration. We all know the Rams would have kept winning if George Allen had stayed and the situation with the AFL, may have soured Gabriel in Allen's eyes when he could have tried to bring him to Washington.
I feel he is worthy but its a close call, like Anderson, Conerly, Thompson, E Manning, Plunkett and Simms. These guys were all tough who blended with great teammates. I feel if great throwers who couldnt win, like Jurgensen, Moon(though Canada counts), Fouts(though close) and perhaps Rivers or Stafford(Dont agree on those two) can make it, then more winning QBs, who could elevate their teams level of play, should as well ...

Other than Gifford and Bavaro, what weapons did Conerly and Simms have ? Before Lombardi came along, the offensive line couldnt protect Charlie, while Rote had moves and hands but no speed and Shofner came late. Simms had versatility from Meggett but like Morris, he wasnt built to take a lot of pounding. Ottis Anderson was past his prime and Hampton underachieved.

Brodie is like Hadl, Ryan or Stafford. Could throw, but inconsistant and didnt win enough. The HOF might put in Cecil Isbell before any of these guys ...
Both QBs, like Gabriel, played for conservative offenses that relied on defense, yet they won.

[Sonny9]

i can pull any advanced metric with subjective weight and take issue with the results. It doesn't negate the overall feel of the number or the point. Yeah sure, you can disagree with AV in 1969. But someone else might agree with the results from 1972-1986, then disagree with some years. Agree with more and so on. The point of AV, and PFR specifically points this out, is to not say "this guy is better than this player overall/in this specific year" it's to give an overall feel of the value of that player relative to his team. You can draw SOME lines across the league but AV never sets the number as an end all be all and the number is simply a way to give "value" to the shape and type of career the player had. It's a number to start a conversation or be a part of the conversation..the number isn't the conversation itself.

Sorry, fails to do anything you say it purports to accomplish. And I am not sure anyone with a "functioning brain" would agree with the results from 1972-86. Or any other years. And if you think Greg Landry had 2 of the top 6 QB seasons from 1967-82 and want to hang your hat on that fine. I simply cannot accept that as measuring anything.

You're not even responding to the "functioning brain" comment in context of the post I made it in.

Secondly, it's clear you don't even understand AV so this is pointless to discuss further with you. Landry's AV's are off the charts those years because he was accounting for over 50% of the Lions offensive yardage output and something like 67% of their total TD's. There wasn't much "value" on the Lions offense to go around so Landry basically accumulated it all. Again, as I reference AV is a TEAM SPECIFIC value. That's why you see some things wonky like Landry out there. You're trying to view this as a value of players vs player league wide. The players aren't pulling the value from the "pot" of available numbers league wide, they are doing it from their team.

I'm done with this though. You're being obtuse at this point.

I don't think the numbers take into account yards lost on sacks. I believe Landry has the worst sacked percentages of all time for the QBs with attempts..