Okay, so he’s tough. Put him on the All-Madden team or something.
what i was getting at is that there are certain players that just kind of will their team to winning. bradshaw seemed to be that sort. so i have to give him credit for that talent.
Michael Vick is electrifying when he runs the ball, scrambles, or gets in the open field, not when he’s an actual passer. And passing is actually a kinda big part of being a quarterback. Sayers was a running back/return man, and was one of, if not the, best of his time at his prime.
ETA: My vote goes for Joe Namath. He’s the epitome of hype over production, of glitz over skill. At his best, he was an average QB, and often was a bad one. If I get another vote, it’d be for Lynn Swann. Even though Swann was one of my heroes as a kid (I had his poster on my wall and 14 of his football cards), I realized later that his production was never worthy of HoF status.
As I said in the post upthread that you apparently ignored, Bradshaw was almost pure dogmeat for his first four seasons, but during his Super Bowl winning years was pretty good. Nobody questions Staubach’s HoF cred, but after 1973 Bradshaw compares very favorably to Staubach-Int rate is a bit higher still, but so is TD rate, and yards/attempt are virtually the same.
Namath is there for his historical importance, much like Candy Cummings in the baseball HOF. The statistics don’t tell the story, nor do they indicate how good he was*, but his real importance was in the way he changed the game.
*One of his greatest moments was one particular drive in a game against Kansas City in 1968 where he destroyed the Chiefs without actually scoring a point.
I’m merely responding to the idea that a superbowl makes a good qb. Your post didn’t matter.
Football eras are compressed more than baseballs. The dead ball era of baseball was a long time ago. People know that you can not compare baseball before the 30s to modern era.
Football eras were not so long ago. The football of 1950s and 60s was quite different than today’s modern ball. Earlier football can not even be compared to modern ball.
There have been important rule changes, games added and computer analysis of plays and defensive strategies.
Sayers was one hell of a great runner.
His greatest moment, of course, is Super Bowl III, where he was named MVP despite throwing zero touchdown passes.
Ozzie Smith, for sure. 
Why not put the Phillie Fanatic or the Big Green Monster in the BHoF too, they’re as “historically important” as an overrated media darling with only rare times of brillance surrounded by crushing mediocrity for most of his career. He’s famous for Super Bowl III (one of the most undeserved MVP awards ever, I still feel bad for Randy Beverly, Max Snell, George Sauer, Jim Turner and pretty much the rest of the team who deserved it more than Namath) and wearing pantyhose, not for being a great quarterback.
There are hundreds of NFL players who can change a game, and not all of them deserve to be in the Hall of Fame. Namath has a career completion percentage of barely over 50%, with a high topping out at 53% for one season. He has a 170 to 215 td to int. ratio, and a career passer rating of 65.8. He’s absolutely the most overrated quarterback in the history of football. If you want to put him in as a “media icon” or “self promoter” wing of the Hall of Fame, have at it. But he doesn’t deserve to be in the NFL Hall of Fame as a quarterback.
Dub Jones scored 6 touchdowns in a single game. Vince Ferragamo had 4 games with 4 touchdowns in each game in a single season. Stephone Paige has 309 yards receiving in a single game. Namath had some good games, a few very good games, and a rare amazing game. That should never have got him into the Hall of Fame.
He’s was probably a better player than another member of the HoF, Pete Rozelle; although it may be close.