The case for the Snake

As those who follow my blog (and know me in real life) sometimes life gets crazy busy. But,  I wanted to take a moment off the beaten path and talk about the passing of man whose life was a legend in the NFL and sadly did not live to see his enshrinement in the NFL Hall of fame.

I'm talking about one man: The Snake, Kenneth Michael Stabler.

 The Snake played in one of if not the best eras of all of pro football. It was a time where the rules were no where near as restrictive as they are today. A time ruled by such team as the "Steel Curtain" Pittsburgh Steelers, the undefeated Miami Dolphins, the NFC has teams such as the Dallas Cowboys, the Purple "People Eater Defense" of the Minnesota Vikings and the "Over the Hill Gang" of the Washington Redskins. Then there were the next tier teams like the Browns, Patriots, Bills and Denver who were above average talent wise. In short this was time when there were teams that would DESTROY some of today's teams. A time where you could actually touch a QB or hit a receiver. 

Unto this stage came the winningest team in not only football, but from 1966 to 1985 the winnigest team in all of professional sports: The Raiders. And from 1972 to 1979 the man leading the Silver and Black offense was Ken Stabler. 

The Snake was the first left-handed QB who rose to real prominence in the NFL. The Snake was also known to call his own plays, to have a great command presence, and to know where to put the ball. He was also the QB with the fastest time to 50 wins, a QB other teams feared and fearless in the 4th Quarter.

But here is the rub: he is also the only QB of the All-Decades team- 1970s, NOT in the Hall of Fame, and one of only two players with that accolade, the other being Drew Pearson, WR of the Cowboys. Let that sink in. One of the best QBs of the decade when the NFL eclisped baseball as America's sport is not enshrined. What the Hell Hall of Fame?

The prevailing reason why he's not in is usually he only had a few good years in Oakland? What???? there are QBs I'll talk about in a minute who didn't have a single good season or even win a Super Bowl, yet they are in. To put it sustainably the sports hacks who vote on the Super Bowl are a bunch of idiots or worse.

Now people will talk of his mediocre to sub-par years in Houston and New Orleans. To me if Archie Manning is in playing for the hapless Saints of the 60s and 70s or the injury shortened career of Gayle Sayers allows him in the Ken should be in, let alone Joe Namath (see more below).

To get a sense of how good he was during his run with the Raiders, lets look at his time with the Raiders as a starter via his stats. While his stats look pedestrian today, keep in mind it wasn't until the late 1970s that the "Mel Blount Rule" was enacted.

Year	Age	Tm	Pos	No.	G	GS	QBrec	Cmp	Att	Cmp%	Yds	TD	TD%	Int	Int%	Lng	Y/A	AY/A	Y/C	Y/G	Rate	Sk
1973	28	OAK	QB	12	14	11	8-2-1	163	260	62.7	1997	14	5.4	10	3.8	80	7.7	7	12.3	142.6	88.3	34
1974	29	OAK	QB	12	14	13	11-2	178	310	57.4	2469	26	8.4	12	3.9	67	8	7.9	13.9	176.4	94.9	18
1975	30	OAK	QB	12	14	13	10-3	171	293	58.4	2296	16	5.5	24	8.2	53	7.8	5.2	13.4	164	67.4	19
1976	31	OAK	QB	12	12	12	11-1	194	291	66.7	2737	27	9.3	17	5.8	88	9.4	8.6	14.1	228.1	103.4	19
1977	32	OAK	QB	12	13	13	10-3	169	294	57.5	2176	20	6.8	20	6.8	44	7.4	5.7	12.9	167.4	75.2	16
1978	33	OAK	QB	12	16	16	9-7	237	406	58.4	2944	16	3.9	30	7.4	49	7.3	4.7	12.4	184	63.3	37
1979	34	OAK	QB	12	16	16	9-7	304	498	61	3615	26	5.2	22	4.4	66	7.3	6.3	11.9	225.9	82.2	34

In his time in Oakland he went 68-25-1 as a starter. To put his playing time in career consider those of his contemporaries during a 10 year span of their careers: Ron Jaworski, Terry Bradshaw*, Steve McNair, Joe Namath*, Steve Grogan, Brian Sipe, Drew Bledsoe, Tony Romo, Ken Anderson, Randall Cunningham . 

The most notable is Kenny Anderson who was the FIRST West Coast Offense QB under Bill Walsh when Bill was the OC of the Bengals, but that's for another time. Two other names jump out: Bradshaw and Namath...The  others? He was as good, if not better.

Now its as simple as this, if Joe Namath is in the Hall of Fame there is no reason to keep the Snake out. Joe is in for guaranteeing a win in Super Bowl III, that's about it. "Joe Willie" was a big as they come, but outside of Super Bowl III he didn't do much including some dreadful seasons with the LA Rams, like Stabler's dreadful seasons with Houston and New Orleans. NOTE: I'm actually a fan of Broadway Joe, I am glad he conquered his demons, but Hall of Fame?

Consider Jim Kelly, QB of the Buffalo Bills from 1986-1996 who is in the Hall of Fame. And I ask for what? Losing four straight Super Bowls? For holding no passing records at his retirement, for having one of the most dismal playoff records of any QB in modern history? Simply put, Jim Kelly being in the Hall of Fame is a huge injustice to Stabler. Basically the Hall of Fame Voters are saying its a greater achievement to lose four straight Super Bowls then win one in what might considered the mostly highly competitive era the NFL has ever seen.

Every argument to keep him out has a precedence for someone who is in that I can think of in more detail:

Too short of a time where he was good: The knock is he "only" had 5 good years. Fortunately there is a precedence for this: see Gale Sayers, he's in the Hall of Fame. Gale was a phenomenal player who had basically two good seasons. As electrifying as they were he's marginal career wise. If you put him in whats the case for keeping out Terrell Davis? Ugh and I'm a Raiders fan saying that!

Didn't win enough Super Bowls: Dan Fouts, Dan Marino, Jim Kelly and Fran Tarkenton who are a combined 0-9 in Super Bowls (and Fouts never made it to a Super Bowl). All are in the Hall of Fame. Fouts is particularly puzzling because like Kelly he was a dismal playoff QB. At least the argument can be made that Fouts had no defense worth anything, unlike Kelly who actually had a very good D.

Tarkenton was 0-3 in the big game. He scrambled like crazy, and like Kelly he had a very good D so its largely moot from the excuse department. Tark held most of the QB passing records on his retirement so perhaps you can apply the "Dan Marino rule" as to why he is in.

The Snake on the other hand had the "misfortune" of playing at a time when the AFC had two other powerhouses in Miami and Steelers. Oh and look at that: Twice when the Steelers won the Super Bowl they had to beat the Raiders in the AFCCG to do it. Oh look in 1979 when the Steelers won the Super Bowl, who was the QB they faced in the AFC Championship Game? Ken Stabler.

Oh and one more point on this they made it to 5 straight AFC championship games against the likes of the Dolphins and Steelers with the winners going on to win the Super Bowl. "Jim Kelly lost 4  straight Super Bowls" that's at least better then the AFFCG loses I hear some wags say, Kelly didn't play teams anywhere near as good as the teams of the 1970s in the AFC championship games.

He was bad in New Orleans and Houston: Even Archie Manning was bad in New Orleans; they wouldn't become good for another 30 years after the Snake stopped playing for them. To lay that at Stabler's feet with no weapons around him? Oh and by the way? Manning is in the Hall of Fame despite never having a regular season better then 8-8 and having a dreadful TD to INT ratio as well?. Now his teams in New Orleans were terrible... but he sure didn't help. None of that has to do with the Snake. But to take another tack, Manning's career win/loss record is 35-101-3 and you get into the NFL Hall of Fame? Yeah... See Joe Namath above.

As far as Houston who did they have outside of Stabler, Earl Campbell and Dave Casper? Crickets... They peaked in 1980 and went downhill from there. Houston was a never quite made it team in the late 1970s.

His career stats particularly his TD to INT ratio is bad: Joe Namath is in for stats that are about even and Joe only had two winning seasons over his entire career.

Jim Kelly threw a rate of 1 INT once every 19.5 passes attempted in the post season which is downright horrific. Stabler has 194 TDs vs 222 INTs at a time when receivers and QBs could actually be hit.Stabler was a big time QB, Kelly was a big time dud.

Stabler was money in the playoffs Kelly threw a pick in 14 of his 17 playoffs starts...

He didn't win enough "Big Games": The Raider played against some of the greatest dynasties of all time during the Snake's time in the 70s at the helm of the Raiders: the a-fore mentioned Dolphins, Steelers, Skins, Cowboys, etc. Tom Brady would be crying in his Uggs or to the officials (more then he usually does) if Jack Lambert dared to hit him. But, Stabler was 1-0 in the Super Bowl. So which is it NFL Hall of Fame voters? Either a SB win matters or it doesn't. Oh that's right, you selectively apply criteria for one player then not for another. 

Until the injustice of his snub of the Hall of Fame is corrected the Hall will continue to be a joke, and even when I visit this upcoming August, I will be holding my nose. The vindictive sports writers who kept him out due to an incident "allegedly" involving Stabler and a reporter has no basis of proof, but the likes of Paul Zimmerman of Sports Illustrated used this to foil Ken from making it in. I was only around 8 when this happened, but it seems to me that certain NFL writers (Zimmerman) with the "Ken Stabler will never make it into the Hall of Fame as long as I'm alive") quote on record should have never been in the position to decide or wield that much power. Stabler will long be remembered after people forget the douch-baggery of Paul Zimmerman.

To add further to his legend consider the some of the plays he was a part or his participation led to: the Immaculate Reception (or As we Raider fans call it the Immaculate Deception), the Holy Roller, Ghost to the Post, and the Sea of Hands. And to add further, while I can't stand Alabama he did have the Run in the Mud.

And way you slice it Ken Stabler was a QB for the ages. RIP Kenny. you will be missed, and you rode astride the NFL like a Colossus, towering over all. You'll get your due one day, too bad you weren't around to see it when the injustice is corrected.

To close, a video:

Postscript: My only personal bias regarding players or QBs are Kelly and Fouts. Kelly was/is massively overrated, and Fouts played for a division rival and was/is an ass-hat in regards to his announcing of Raiders games, hey I'm human. Gale Sayers, awesome player but HOF?

Why Hasn’t Elfquest Been Made Into a Movie Yet?

Still no Elfquest movie? 

This one has puzzled me for a while. There’s been talk and rumors for years, yet nothing. There have been various fan trailers on YouTube, and the elves of Elfquest still enjoy solid popularity at comic conventions and cosplay events, but so far…zilch on the big screen.

If you’re like me (early 40s), you probably remember the excellent four-volume series that was Elfquest. Written by Richard and Wendy Pini, it was a seminal moment for me as a pre-teen. I read all four books multiple times. Wendy’s art was incredible throughout, and the story was well done. It also had the benefit of hitting right in the middle of AD&D’s popularity in the early 1980s. I don’t think there was anyone my age who hadn’t read it at least once.

Elfquest tells the story of the elves known as the Wolfriders and their fight for survival against humans on the World of Two Moons. Very quickly the tribe is forced to flee their woodland homeland, setting them on a path to find the legendary Palace of the High Ones — the progenitors of all elves.

What makes Elfquest great is the believability of the Wolfriders. Compared to the other, near-perfect tribes of elves, the Wolfriders are the only ones who truly adapt to the World of Two Moons and thrive. Their passions are believable, they’re mortal, and they’ve mingled with wolves to survive.

One would think that with the massive success of The Lord of the Rings and The Chronicles of Narnia movies, studios would be hungry for more fantasy material. I think it would be quite easy to turn Elfquest into a trilogy. Cutter’s quest for the Palace of the High Ones has a natural beginning, middle, and end. To me, Elfquest (or Dragonlance) makes the most sense as the “next” big fantasy trilogy. Elfquest could be done very easily, in my estimation.

As I almost always do, the question becomes: how does this apply to gaming?

• Back in the day there was the Elfquest RPG from Chaosium that went through at least two revisions I’m aware of. I never played the system, so I can’t comment on the mechanics, but the setting itself was compelling. 
• The Quest for the Palace of the High Ones functions much like the War of the Lance in Dragonlance — a clear dividing line in the story. To some this might not matter, but for me it makes the world feel like it has two distinct eras: games set before the quest, and games set after.
• In my 2nd Edition campaign world I borrowed the idea of the High Ones arriving via silver ships. This eliminates the standard “oldest and wisest firstborn race” trope. They may be old and wise, but they are fundamentally alien to the world. By doing this, I’ve positioned them as at best neutral toward humans — and at times they have warred with each other. Since they were the last race “on the scene,” there’s also no need for the traditional animosity toward dwarves. It gives the elves a very different flavor in my opinion.

I’m not necessarily looking at this as a gamer with 30+ years of experience expecting it to appeal directly to me. I’m looking at it as a gamer who has kids. I haven’t read the series in years, but it always felt like part of the broader scene. There were write-ups of the main characters in Dragon magazine before the dedicated RPG came out, then more support afterward. Minis were produced, and it made it to a second edition. It never reached D&D levels of popularity, but what did?

To close, without getting stereotypical, I could easily see my daughter enjoying the read — and my son as well. One would think that with some of the craptastic movies that get made these days, Elfquest would be a no-brainer.

 What do you think? Shouldn't Elfquest be on the big screen? 

The Thing

Since its sub zero Fahrenheit here in western NY, (it about -2 with wind chill its -22) I figured this would be a great time for this post given the location of the movie!

Continuing my musings on campaign worlds on the blog as of late, here's a thought: How about a game (and it could work in almost any game system) based on the Thing? Obviously, the horror genre games would work, but in a way it could be derivative of zombie genre as I covered here or perhaps using Twilight 2000? These are just a few thoughts that come to mind.

The Thing is based on the work Who goes There? (1) (which I'm still reading despite reading two other books). It was first made into the movie, The Thing from Another World in 1951; smack dab in the middle of the UFO craze of the 1940s and 50s. Later it would be remade by John Carpenter in 1982 as The Thing with a prequel in 2011. All three are different with the 1982 and 2011 versions obviously having the same storyline. While I like all three, the 1982 version is clearly superior.

That the 1982 Thing is a very good is an understatement its exceptional; and at time very underrated movie. Underrated in the sense that there are tons of clues scattered throughout and is very much a mystery movie wrapped in the horror genre. Reading the novella that is drawn from this is readily apparent. Add to the fact that Carpenter and his team a had a long period of time to work on the story (and it shows) there is lots of subtle clues throughout. On such place browse these clues is  the forum at Outpost 31 For the sake of brevity here, for those not in the know The Thing had an unusually long time before they actually started shooting (something like 17 months as far as I can recall) and Carpenter admitted they had plenty of time to plan out the plot, which camera shots they would use, etc to far greater detail then he might otherwise done.

So as an RPG? Imagine it starts out at a research station isolated in the Arctic or Antarctic (doesnt have to be the same Outpost 31 although it could be) and the players are confronted with the events as the unfold in the beginning of the movie. Where it goes from there is almost endless but at the same time a nice tidy sandbox. Perhaps a better ploy is to just get into the action as they will most likely already know the story. Add a different cast of characters (the players PCs) and keep the weaponry minimal. Then again even having high-powered military rifles, the PCs are screwed  as they aren't very good against Things (2).

Barring that, how about a Thing has made it to the mainland and Blair's prediction starts playing itself out. Its going to take lots of flamethrowers or nukes once its too far gone.

In such a post apocalyptic scenario(s), movies like 28 Days Later or World War Z are going to seem like a walk in the park!  If Things start reproducing in vast quantities in large human population centers, its largely game over. Such a game would quickly shift to extreme paranoia and one of ultra-extreme survival. Come to think of it with no recourse but to wipe out 7 billion or so Things it might be an exercise in futility.

If a GM uses Twilight 2000 it could add a good twist on the horrors of World War III;  dropping some Things into that already horrific scenario? That could really mess things up. Of course it could also muddy stuff too much. Perhaps a better solution is to simply use the rules for Twilight 2000 and place it in modern day with the scenario outlined above. The only issue is that there is no really rules for monsters per say in Twilight 2000, so the GM would need to do some work, not insurmountable, but doable. Another thought is use the Savage World system which would definitely keep things moving quickly, but I think with minimal fuss All Flesh Must Be Eaten would be best.

In closing, I think such a game is better for a one-off/short campaign, or rather a series of short episodes as opposed to a multi-year/session campaign. There probably isn't going to be much "winning" if the Thing(s) make it out of Antarctica. It could be a fun/blow um up/ go out in a blaze of glory type of deal, but if there was ever a "no win scenario" this is it. Think of the end of the 1982 movie, not much (read: none) hope at the end and lots of question marks instead...

And of course I would be remiss if I didn't point out one of the best lines in the history of cinema: 

No kidding indeed.

(1) Who goes there can be found on such online places at the iTunes book store for free.

(2) The Norwegian with the sweet gun was using a Heckler & Koch HK33. Details to the weapon at IMDB is here or the full details on a wiki for weaponry used in movies.