As a Raider fan, it irritates me that Ken Stabler has not been inducted into the Hall of Fame. As such, I have aggressively questioned the legitimacy of other quarterbacks currently in the Hall of Fame, or expected to be inducted some day.
Based on precedents set by the Hall, there is no reason that Stabler should continue to be excluded. Considering that the Hall has inducted Bob Griese, Roger Staubach, Dan Fouts, Steve Young, Jim Kelly, Joe Namath, and Dan Marino—there is ZERO reason to exclude Stabler.
It angers me, and for good reason. Stabler belongs in the Hall. The primary arguments against him have been the length of his career and that Jim Plunkett won twice with basically the same team.
Yet, the same people give Fouts the benefit of the doubt—that Fouts would have won the Super Bowl if not for this and if not for that.
Don’t get me wrong, because I don’t have a personal grievance with Fouts. But as long as Stabler continues to be excluded, I must rip Fouts' career with the facts.
We could use the same logic for Stabler as is used for the other quarterbacks. Stabler would have won three Super Bowls (or more) had he remained with the Raiders.
People also say that Stabler was a product of Al Davis. Yet, why weren’t Griese and Marino products of Don Shula? Why wasn’t Young a product of Bill Walsh? Why wasn’t Fouts a product of Don Coryell? Why wasn't Kelly a product of Marv Levy?
Until Fouts had Coryell, Fouts was mediocre at best. Before Walsh rescued Young from Tampa Bay, Young was a bust of JaMarcus Russell like-proportions (and that is not hyperbole).
The remaining argument against Stabler is that his career was too short. Yet, he played in and won m...
Article Source: Bleacher Report - Oakland Raiders
