NFL: If Eli Manning retired today, would you give him a Hall of Fame vote?

[Terry Yake]

no he shouldn't

philip rivers should though

 

[Hasbro]

Troy Aikman was a “mistake”.

 

[Michael Farkas]

He's certainly on the weaker side of HOF QBs, he was surrounded by a lot of talent and was probably more of a Hall of Very Good player than a HOFer. I'm sure you grew up watching him too, but that wasn't a superstar caliber player in my eyes...was he in yours? He was efficient, he was accurate...but I didn't think he moved the needle like some of these other HOF QBs can/did/do...

No matter how you slice it, on a scale of 25, 30, 40, 50, whatever the number best QBs of all-time, he's not terribly noteworthy among the best of the best...if that makes sense. Good enough to be in the show, but probably doesn't get a speaking role...

 

[What the Faulk]

he's not average or slightly better than that
he's way above that

his first full year as a starter, these guys started more than 10 games:
kyle orton, aaron brooks, gus frerotte, joey harrington, brooks bollinger, trent dilfer, david carr, chris simms, kelley holcomb, brad johnson, byron leftwich, jake plumber, trent green

midway through his career:
blaine gabbert, christian ponder, sam bradford, rex grossman, tim tebow, colt mccoy, josh freeman, mark sanchez, tavaris jackson, kevin kolb, matt moore, matt schaub, matt hasselbeck

K. That's not what league average means.

 

[Hasbro]

Four big things:
1) Emmitt Smith ate into his passing stats. Take note of the disparity between his place in career passing yards and passing TDS

2) The concussion issues and early retirement barred him from padding his career numbers.

3) He was the only one keeping a lid on that lunatic asylum when Switzer took over

4) Hard to find an HOF QB who didn’t have talent around them.

 

[Hasbro]

K. That's not what league average means.

You’ve got to be pretty damn good to be a long term starter in the NFL being average means being a back up if you are lucky.

 

[What the Faulk]

You’ve got to be pretty damn good to be a long term starter in the NFL being average means being a back up if you are lucky.

What? No it doesn't. I already rattled off a list of names that have been doing this for awhile and aren't anywhere near the Hall of Fame conversation.

Whatever, I don't even really care about the Hall and I like Eli, but they are two things that just don't go together. Like ketchup and hot dogs.

 

[mouser]

Troy Aikman was a “mistake”.

Aikman is in the HoF because he won super three Super Bowls. Nothing else about his career numbers says hall of famer.

The argument for or against Eli revolves around whether winning two Super Bowls is enough to get him in, like Aikman nothing else about Eli’s career numbers say hall of fame.

Seems like a reasonable parallel to me.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Four big things:
1) Emmitt Smith ate into his passing stats. Take note of the disparity between his place in career passing yards and passing TDS

2) The concussion issues and early retirement barred him from padding his career numbers.

3) He was the only one keeping a lid on that lunatic asylum when Switzer took over

4) Hard to find an HOF QB who didn’t have talent around them.

1. I get that. But even so, it's still a really, really weak spot in an otherwise fairly weak claim for the HOF. One time he was top-5 in passing yards (4th in 1992). Smith missed three starts in 1993 and Aikman still wasn't in the top quarter of the league in passing yards (finished 10th). How much of an exception (and I'm not arguing with you, I'm just making conversation because I enjoy this type of thing) has to be made and what does it do to other QBs who also had HOF caliber running backs? In other words, my big thing is "ok, fine, you're making an 'exception' here...but at what cost?" - not unlike the Super Bowl wins argument..."ok this guy is really good as a result of winning these games, but what does it do for this guy who had also won a bunch..." We can't have our cake and eat it too.

2. I would never really consider factoring in career numbers into any historical/HOF debate, they are largely irrelevant and its a pedestrian argument. It's season to season impact that rules, compiling passing yards smacks of DOB/era bias. Unless of course someone wants to make the claim that Alex Smith is better than Len Dawson...in which case, I have the number to a great therapist...

3. Sure. But anecdotal stories don't add a lot to a HOF case that really needs a good boost...if it was needed to tiebreak of sorts, fine...but he's definitely outer crust and this doesn't move the needle for me...

4. It is. But the point of that statement was, he really wasn't the show. Was he ever the best player on his own team...? Was he ever second best? Now, I can't fault him for having talent around him...he won with it, he performed admirably with it...no question. This was a very good player. If Neil O'Donnell or Jim Kelly beat him in one of those games...then where are we at...? That's why I hate the Super Bowl wins argument when you have a whole career to go off of...and that doesn't mean to discard wins or championships...not in the least, those are big parts of a resume...but is Aikman in the HOF is Kelly gets him one time? I'm not so sure...that's where the "milestone" argument loses a ton of steam...I see people on the main board all the time go "well, if he gets to 400 goals, he's in the HHOF" - who cares? What's 400? Just some round number...it means nothing...what if he scored 399 is he not in? What if it takes a 27 year career just to get to 400 goals, is he in now? These numbers have no value other than gloss and easy digestibility...that's why I find it so unique that a single game elimination in the shortest playoffs in sport is weighted so disproportionately to everything. Hell, people give out an MVP...an MVP award...for a single game. The equivalent of being the first star in the three stars at the end of any hockey game...could you imagine if the Conn Smythe was based on that? Mike Rupp, Ruslan Fedotenko and Maxime Talbot dragging these things around with them as they work themselves right out of the league...

Anyway...what were we talking about...?

 

[Hasbro]

Aikman is in the HoF because he won super three Super Bowls. Nothing else about his career numbers says hall of famer.

God knows passing numbers are all that’s to the game.

 

[mouser]

God knows passing numbers are all that’s to the game.

If you’re a QB then aren’t we supposed to evaluate you by your passing numbers? If not then how should we evaluate you in comparison to your other QB peers?

 

[Hasbro]

If you’re a QB then aren’t we supposed to evaluate you by your passing numbers? If not then how should we evaluate you in comparison to your other QB peers?

I always thought a QBs job was to win game and get the offense to score points not just chuck the ball.

 

[mouser]

I always thought a QBs job was to win game and get the offense to score points not just chuck the ball.

Isn’t that what Eli did, two Super Bowl wins?

 

[Michael Farkas]

Disappointed by the turn this took, to be honest...numbers aren't be all, end all...you're preaching to the choir there...but I was hoping for more substance...

 

[Evincar]

He's certainly on the weaker side of HOF QBs, he was surrounded by a lot of talent and was probably more of a Hall of Very Good player than a HOFer. I'm sure you grew up watching him too, but that wasn't a superstar caliber player in my eyes...was he in yours? He was efficient, he was accurate...but I didn't think he moved the needle like some of these other HOF QBs can/did/do...

No matter how you slice it, on a scale of 25, 30, 40, 50, whatever the number best QBs of all-time, he's not terribly noteworthy among the best of the best...if that makes sense. Good enough to be in the show, but probably doesn't get a speaking role...

Eli accurate? Efficient? He has a career completion rate of under 60% and a career passer rating of 83.8.

 

[Michael Farkas]

That post was about Troy Aikman...

 

[Troy McClure]

Troy Aikman was a “mistake”.

It’s crazy. People want flashy numbers, but they often miss the numbers in front of them.

The best way for numbers people to look at Aikman is to look at his playoff numbers. He played 15 playoff games. That’s a season. His stats in that playoff season would have been the best season of his career. In other words, he played his best football against the best competition. That’s clutch. That’s stepping up when it matters. It’s why he’s in the Hall of Fame.

Eli had some miracle drives in two playoff games, but it’s not like he was great overall in his playoff games or even in those two runs.

 

[Voight]

no he shouldn't

philip rivers should though

Curious why Rivers should be in and Manning shouldn't?

2) The concussion issues and early retirement barred him from padding his career numbers.

Aikman said in his Football Life. He added: “All these people thought I got out of the game because of head injuries. Concussions had absolutely nothing to do with my retirement. Ultimately the reason I retired after 12 years was because I felt like I had worked hard to develop some level of credibility and respect within this game, and I felt like that was being jeopardized by decisions that were being made beyond my control within the organization. And I didn’t want to be a part of it anymore.”

Aikman is in the HoF because he won super three Super Bowls. Nothing else about his career numbers says hall of famer.

The argument for or against Eli revolves around whether winning two Super Bowls is enough to get him in, like Aikman nothing else about Eli’s career numbers say hall of fame..

To be fair Eli has the statistical prominence.

 

[Voight]

There is no real convincing case to put Eli in the HOF other than the odd fetish NFL fans have with winning one game in the shortest playoffs in sports. It's bizarre that that carries so much weight (enough to make a top-10ish QB of all-time like Tom Brady get talked about like he's a #1, for instance...same with Joe Montana, who is probably a rung up on Brady, but probably not top 3).

For those looking to vet it off-hand, the top-5 currently sits as: Sammy Baugh, Peyton Manning, Fran Tarkenton, Otto Graham, Johnny Unitas. Not bad.

Brady and Montana not being top 3 on a QB list...... especially when Manning is listed in said list. Colts fans never disappoint.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Again, that's not an actual list...it's just a data dump. Don't be so quick to jump to a safe narrative though...

 

[Hasbro]

It’s crazy. People want flashy numbers, but they often miss the numbers in front of them.

The best way for numbers people to look at Aikman is to look at his playoff numbers. He played 15 playoff games. That’s a season. His stats in that playoff season would have been the best season of his career. In other words, he played his best football against the best competition. That’s clutch. That’s stepping up when it matters. It’s why he’s in the Hall of Fame.

I’m absolutely amazed at how playoff numbers get ignored in discussions. Considering the competition level is higher than padding stats versus the Browns in September that would have to be by definition “the clutch”. Not to mention the weather on average has to be worse.

During Aikman’s career I never remember the word “average” tossed at him. Stat whacking is such a post facto debunking formula.

 

[Voight]

Again, that's not an actual list...it's just a data dump. Don't be so quick to jump to a safe narrative though...

Footbal fans (aside from Colts fans) can pretty much collectively agree that Brady is the best ever, and most agree that Montana is top 3.

Typically the top 5 go something like this (not in order) Brady, Favre, Montana, Unitas, Manning/Marino/Elway sometimes people throw in the Y.A Tittile's and Tarkenton's of the league as well.

I’m absolutely amazed at how playoff numbers get ignored in discussions. Considering the competition level is higher than padding stats versus the Browns in September that would have to be by definition “the clutch”. Not to mention the weather on average has to be worse.

During Aikman’s career I never remember the word “average” tossed at him. Stat whacking is such a post facto debunking formula.

Theres also the indoor/outdoor discussion, which would favour Eli.

 

[Michael Farkas]

My favorite player growing up was John Elway. It was the first jersey I owned, had a huge poster of him and the whole bit...the fact that the "collective" has Elway anywhere in the top 20 or 25 QBs of all-time shows you how unreliable the collective is. Instead of just trying to repeat safe, widely believed myths, it's worthwhile - if anyone wants to talk about it - to breakdown and actually compare these players instead of buoying nonsense...I mean, that's really what it amounts to...nonsense...

There is no logically consistent way to ever stream John Elway into the top 10 QBs of all time unless you give major points for tooth size...

Brady, fine. If championships carry the big weight (which is fine, as long as everyone gets that treatment). However, that automatically puts Otto Graham in the top-5. He's a 3x MVP, he won 7 championships in a 10-year career, and relative to his peers, he outperformed them even more than Brady did. In terms of performance vs. peers, Graham is outdone by very few...maybe Baugh, P.Manning, Tarkenton and Unitas are comparable from the perspective.

Favre, ok fine. But that puts Brees right there with him, and in my opinion, ahead of him. Favre puts a value on yards and TDs and doesn't really care as much about interceptions. Not a problem...Brees is going to add another impact season to his resume it looks like and it's getting to the point where he's above Favre...no?

As for Elway, sell me on what Elway has over, geez, where to even start...let's go with a tougher one, what does Elway do that's so many tiers better (not better in general, but soooo many tiers better) than Ben Roethlisberger for instance...? That's ignoring Warren Moon, Steve Young, etc. who were all very clearly better than Elway...let's just go right for the throat and start smothering some of these clearly-unresearched memes about what QBs belong where...

 

[Voight]

There is no logically consistent way to ever stream John Elway into the top 10 QBs of all time unless you give major points for tooth size...

Brady, fine. If championships carry the big weight (which is fine, as long as everyone gets that treatment). However, that automatically puts Otto Graham in the top-5. He's a 3x MVP, he won 7 championships in a 10-year career, and relative to his peers, he outperformed them even more than Brady did. In terms of performance vs. peers, Graham is outdone by very few...maybe Baugh, P.Manning, Tarkenton and Unitas are comparable from the perspective.

Favre, ok fine. But that puts Brees right there with him, and in my opinion, ahead of him. Favre puts a value on yards and TDs and doesn't really care as much about interceptions. Not a problem...Brees is going to add another impact season to his resume it looks like and it's getting to the point where he's above Favre...no?

As for Elway, sell me on what Elway has over, geez, where to even start...let's go with a tougher one, what does Elway do that's so many tiers better (not better in general, but soooo many tiers better) than Ben Roethlisberger for instance...? That's ignoring Warren Moon, Steve Young, etc. who were all very clearly better than Elway...let's just go right for the throat and start smothering some of these clearly-unresearched memes about what QBs belong where...

Graham played in a much different era than Brady did. Not to discount him, but theres context that needs to be applied. Brady has won 5 SuperBowls and made another two in the 32 team era, which is damn impressive if you ask me. This without him having the luxury of multiple pro bowl calibre offensive weapons (unlike Manning). Brady isn't the best solely because of his championships, i.e. even before the last two he was arguably top 5. But the comebacks he led in those two, along with the regular season performances he's had (arguably should have been MVP last year) vaulted him to the top.

All due respect for Brees (and I have a ton for the guy), but he is not on par with Favre. When did he win one MVP, let alone three in a row, or lead his team to 8 division titles/5 NFC title games/2 Super Bowls. Hell, in 2009 at age 40, he was as good if not better than he was at 25. Brees is no doubt top 10, but just because he is approaching Favre statistically does not mean he is on par with him.

As for Elway, I never said definitively that he is the 5th best ever.... but he has a good case. I'm not sure why or how you think Roethilisberger, Moon or Young are better. All three are great QBs, the latter two are in the top 10 discussion but they have their faults as well. Young for example only had 10 seasons as a starter, Moon has the stats but I just don't see how he would be ranked higher than Elway.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Yes, Graham did. And that needs to be factored in. Graham probably pre-dates the modernization of the forward pass based on the film I've watched (and there's plenty available for those who want to make their own determination). Right around the time when the AFL comes into its own seems to coincide with the forward passing really starting to get where we see it today. Obviously not the same exact thing, the game is always evolving...but they weren't shotputting a watermelon like it looked like they were doing in 1940.

You make a good point about the 32-team era and how that acts as padding to regular season numbers as the dilution of talent is likely greater. Graham's performance in 1947 means that he was going against, likely, 7 best corners and safeties and rushers on a weekly basis. Meanwhile, there are times when Brady and Manning and Brees get to feast on guys like Trenton Robinson and Greg Toler. Though, we have to take into consideration how much those positions had evolved in Graham's day vs. other eras. I don't have that knowledge, I just know how QB and forward passing have evolved over time. Definitely worthy of further investigation, good point.

MVPs are tough because of the ballot. There's only first place votes, unlike in hockey. So it creates a really tightly-enclosed, binary scenario that doesn't lend itself to a lot of good. But let's evaluate a little further...

You call Brady the best ever and though you deride Peyton Manning in a borderline comical way, I think deep down you know he's way up there. So that's who Brees was going against for his MVP awards. Favre is going against who exactly? Young and...? Aikman? I mean, who else has a prime that lines up with Favre who is really that relevant...again, context matters. Brees didn't win any MVPs (he has a 2nd place finish for whatever that is worth) but that's like saying "well, Yzerman wasn't a First-Team All-Star in his career" ...well, yeah, there were a couple of guys if I remember, always getting in his way...

Moreover, and here's where you get tied in a knot. If MVPs buoy Favre above Brees (fine, acceptable) then MVPs carry weight...well, guess who has five of these things, three 2nd place finishes and a 3rd place finish? Peyton Manning. So he's got (disregarding single votes):
1st: 5x
2nd: 3x
3rd: 1x

Compared to Brady...
1st: 2x
2nd: 1x
3rd: 2x

This why the pick-and-choose where this logic applies vs. this logic doesn't apply doesn't hold weight when you look at the larger scope. "I want to count championships for Brady...but not Graham; I want to count MVPs for Favre...but not Manning..." it just falls to pieces. And I get that there's more to your (and any) argument than that. But it's about laying the logical, consistent foundation before you start building these list. They are built on ancient Indian burial ground quicksand the way they are worded...

Why do I think they're better? They played better, they are better against their peers (by a lot, in the case of Moon and Young), I'd imagine that Young as a better trophy case and award voting record...I doubt that Moon does, for various reasons. I'd just like to hear these things...there's an awful lot of guys that are in the "top 10 discussion" apparently, but it is a scatterbrained group. So I'm legitimately curious as to what we're using in these instances that propel Elway over Young...let's skip Roethlisberger, let's just go for the - what appears to be indefensible position - of Elway over Young. What is the case for that...there's a good chance we all learn something from this dialogue, if done right, myself included...