Recent Drought of HOF QB's...Glut Coming (1 Viewer)

[cstu]

From 2000-2006 there were 7 QB's inducted into the HOF: Montana, Kelly, Elway, Young, Marino, Moon, and Aikman.

Since 2006...zero.

Kurt Warner was eligible this year but didn't make it. Favre will be eligible next year and will be the first QB inducted in 10 years.

Here's who will be eligible in the early 2020's:

From To Draft Tm Lg G GS Cmp Att Cmp% Yds TD Int Rate Sk Y/A Yds AY/A ANY/A Y/G W L T Att Yds Y/A TD Y/GPeyton Manning 1998 2014 1-1 TOT NFL 256 256 5927 9049 65.50 69691 530 234 97.5 287 7.70 1858 7.71 7.27 272.2 179 77 0 425 673 1.58 18 2.6Drew Brees 2001 2014 2-32 TOT NFL 203 201 4937 7458 66.20 56033 396 194 95.4 300 7.51 2128 7.40 6.84 276.0 117 84 0 360 690 1.92 13 3.4Tom Brady 2000 2014 6-199 NWE NFL 209 207 4551 7168 63.49 53258 392 143 95.9 364 7.43 2284 7.63 6.95 254.8 160 47 0 470 823 1.75 14 3.9Eli Manning 2004 2014 1-1 NYG NFL 169 167 3308 5609 58.98 39755 259 185 82.4 280 7.09 1980 6.53 5.88 235.2 91 76 0 243 462 1.90 5 2.7Roethlisberger 2004 2014 1-11 PIT NFL 159 158 3157 4954 63.73 39057 251 131 93.9 419 7.88 2726 7.71 6.60 245.6 106 52 0 378 1162 3.07 15 7.3Philip Rivers 2004 2014 1-4 SDG NFL 149 144 3025 4678 64.66 36655 252 122 95.7 285 7.84 1716 7.74 6.95 246.0 88 56 0 286 512 1.79 3 3.4Carson Palmer 2004 2014 1-1 TOT NFL 144 143 3071 4906 62.60 35365 224 155 86.3 253 7.21 1782 6.70 6.03 245.6 70 73 0 248 400 1.61 7 2.8Tony Romo 2004 2014 DAL NFL 151 123 2743 4210 65.15 33270 242 110 97.6 242 7.90 1637 7.88 7.08 220.3 75 48 0 234 607 2.59 5 4.0Why is Palmer on the list you ask? Because when I cut the list off at a career QB rating of 90 he didn't show up.*Criteria - 30,000+ passing yards, 80+ QB rating, 7.0 Y/A.

 

[cstu]

Here are the only QB's who met the '30k, 7 Y/A, 75 QB rating' criteria and aren't in the HOF:

 	                        From  	To 	Draft 	Tm 	Lg 	G 	GS 	Cmp 	Att 	Cmp% 	Yds 	TD 	Int 	Rate 	Sk 	Y/A 	Yds 	AY/A 	ANY/A 	Y/G 	W 	L 	T 	Att 	Yds 	Y/A 	TD 	Y/GKen Anderson 	1971 	1986 	3-67 	CIN 	NFL 	192 	172 	2654 	4475 	59.31 	32838 	197 	160 	81.9 	398 	7.34 	2875 	6.61 	5.48 	171.0 	91 	81 	0 	397 	2220 	5.59 	20 	11.6Phil Simms 	1979 	1993 	1-7 	NYG 	NFL 	164 	159 	2576 	4647 	55.43 	33462 	199 	157 	78.5 	477 	7.20 	3418 	6.54 	5.26 	204.0 	95 	64 	0 	349 	1252 	3.59 	6 	7.6Dave Krieg 	1980 	1998 		TOT 	NFL 	213 	175 	3105 	5311 	58.46 	38147 	261 	199 	81.5 	494 	7.18 	3794 	6.48 	5.27 	179.1 	98 	77 	0 	417 	1261 	3.02 	13 	5.9Boomer Esiason 	1984 	1997 	2-38 	TOT 	NFL 	187 	173 	2969 	5205 	57.04 	37920 	247 	184 	81.1 	318 	7.29 	2438 	6.64 	5.82 	202.8 	80 	93 	0 	447 	1598 	3.57 	7 	8.5

Really a shame that Anderson isn't in yet.

 

[moleculo]

From 2000-2006 there were 7 QB's inducted into the HOF: Montana, Kelly, Elway, Young, Marino, Moon, and Aikman.

Since 2006...zero.

Kurt Warner was eligible this year but didn't make it. Favre will be eligible next year and will be the first QB inducted in 10 years.

Here's who will be eligible in the early 2020's:

From To Draft Tm Lg G GS Cmp Att Cmp% Yds TD Int Rate Sk Y/A Yds AY/A ANY/A Y/G W L T Att Yds Y/A TD Y/GPeyton Manning 1998 2014 1-1 TOT NFL 256 256 5927 9049 65.50 69691 530 234 97.5 287 7.70 1858 7.71 7.27 272.2 179 77 0 425 673 1.58 18 2.6Drew Brees 2001 2014 2-32 TOT NFL 203 201 4937 7458 66.20 56033 396 194 95.4 300 7.51 2128 7.40 6.84 276.0 117 84 0 360 690 1.92 13 3.4Tom Brady 2000 2014 6-199 NWE NFL 209 207 4551 7168 63.49 53258 392 143 95.9 364 7.43 2284 7.63 6.95 254.8 160 47 0 470 823 1.75 14 3.9Eli Manning 2004 2014 1-1 NYG NFL 169 167 3308 5609 58.98 39755 259 185 82.4 280 7.09 1980 6.53 5.88 235.2 91 76 0 243 462 1.90 5 2.7Roethlisberger 2004 2014 1-11 PIT NFL 159 158 3157 4954 63.73 39057 251 131 93.9 419 7.88 2726 7.71 6.60 245.6 106 52 0 378 1162 3.07 15 7.3Philip Rivers 2004 2014 1-4 SDG NFL 149 144 3025 4678 64.66 36655 252 122 95.7 285 7.84 1716 7.74 6.95 246.0 88 56 0 286 512 1.79 3 3.4Carson Palmer 2004 2014 1-1 TOT NFL 144 143 3071 4906 62.60 35365 224 155 86.3 253 7.21 1782 6.70 6.03 245.6 70 73 0 248 400 1.61 7 2.8Tony Romo 2004 2014 DAL NFL 151 123 2743 4210 65.15 33270 242 110 97.6 242 7.90 1637 7.88 7.08 220.3 75 48 0 234 607 2.59 5 4.0Why is Palmer on the list you ask? Because when I cut the list off at a career QB rating of 90 he didn't show up.*Criteria - 30,000+ passing yards, 80+ QB rating, 7.0 Y/A.

Peyton, Brady, Brees are the only ones above question here. I wouldn't argue against Roetheisburger, and I could entertain an arguement for Eli. Everyone else falls short, IMO.

Carson Palmer is waay short - shouldn't even be considered.

also, Warner. I think he makes it eventually.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Peyton, Brees, Brady, Ben, Warner, and Favre are locks IMO. Aaron Rodgers and Luck are all but 100%, barring something catastrophic. I think Rodgers is already in.

Palmer has ZERO defining moments, yet has at times has looked as good as anyone playing. Eli's almost the exact opposite - he doesn't even look like the best QB on the field in most of his games, yet has several legendary moments under his belt. I wouldn't put either in, but think Eli's got a better shot even though I think Palmer is the better player.

 

[moleculo]

Palmer has never won a playoff game. He has two pro-bowl games under his belt. He is a guy who had a lot of potential, got hurt, and was never the same guy again - that sucks for him. But, he never did anything noteworthy. He had a couple of good seasons leading a team that didn't go anywhere or accomplish anything.

IMO, for a QB to be in the HoF w/o winning a superbowl, you damn well better be Dan Marino, Warren Moon, or Jim Kelly... and those guys stacked pro-bowls on pro-bowls. You better be the kind of QB that when you retire, people say, man what a shame that ________ didn't win a superbowl. When Palmer retires, no one will notice.

 

[Freelove]

All you really need is the sniff test plus a glance at the stats to know 30000 is now a completely useless barometer. 50k is the glaring and obvious new standard, and the lock names on that list are going to annihilate that number, with possibly one exception, if Ben can't stay healthy.

If you're shy of that, you'd better have some pretty gaudy hardware to make up for it. 30k is already a joke total in an era when numbers approaching 5k are annual occurrences.

Romo, Rivers, and Palmer aren't even serious considerations.

 

[Sweet Love]

All you really need is the sniff test plus a glance at the stats to know 30000 is now a completely useless barometer. 50k is the glaring and obvious new standard, and the lock names on that list are going to annihilate that number, with possibly one exception, if Ben can't stay healthy.

If you're shy of that, you'd better have some pretty gaudy hardware to make up for it. 30k is already a joke total in an era when numbers approaching 5k are annual occurrences.

Romo, Rivers, and Palmer aren't even serious considerations.

As others have echoed, there seems to be a clear (at least in our collective minds) line of "without fail" (Manning, Brady, Brees), strong consideration (Ben and Eli), and Hall of Very Good (Romo and Rivers)...and in fact, each in the group is like one another: top line each have a SB and tons of All-Pros, next tier has the SBs, just not gaudy numbers and some glitches from time-to-time, and the third group has gaudy numbers, but little play off success.

I will say, if either Romo or Rivers walks away with a SB, I would listen to an arguement as to how they would leap frog Eli (not Ben).

 

[Warhogs]

Generally, too many people try to establish some numbers criteria for hall of fame consideration and that is just too tough to do because of the evolution of the game. No way is Palmer a HOF candidate is correct. I too would have a tough time giving Eli too much thought due to his poor play over the last handful of seasons. Of course he had a nice rebound season throwing to OBJ and a strong few more seasons probably keeps him in consideration.

 

[frigid5]

All you really need is the sniff test plus a glance at the stats to know 30000 is now a completely useless barometer. 50k is the glaring and obvious new standard, and the lock names on that list are going to annihilate that number, with possibly one exception, if Ben can't stay healthy.

If you're shy of that, you'd better have some pretty gaudy hardware to make up for it. 30k is already a joke total in an era when numbers approaching 5k are annual occurrences.

Romo, Rivers, and Palmer aren't even serious considerations.

Exactly. Matt Stafford is 2 years away from most likely getting to 30,000. I don't think too many people think HOF when watching him play.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Romo, Rivers, and Palmer aren't even serious considerations.

x2

 

[Tau837]

A couple of possibly relevant posts from a Rivers thread:

You are stretching to make your case IMO, and you don't really have to do it. I'm pretty sure no one has posted in this thread for years who stated that Rivers is likely to make it. As to your post here:

1. In the 1981-1990 HOF classes, 8 QBs were inducted. Then there was a lull in the 1990s, with just 2 QBs inducted from 1991-1999, one of them Jim Finks, who played in the 1950s. Then in the 2000-2006 HOF classes, 7 QBs were inducted. There have been none inducted since, partly because with the rule changes, improved training/medicine, etc., elite QBs are playing longer careers. But this shows that QBs have been inducted in bursts. And now we are in what amounts to the golden age of QB play. So it is possible that a high number of peers will be inducted.

2. Favre is a lock and will be in on the first ballot in the class of 2016. Rivers probably won't be eligible for another 8+ years after that class, so that has no bearing on his case.

3. In part due to the lull referenced above, I expect Warner to make it NLT the class of 2018. Still well before Rivers becomes eligible, so not really much of a factor.

4. If Peyton retires after this season, he will be a first ballot lock in the class of 2021. Still likely 2+ years before Rivers becomes eligible, so not really much of a factor.

5. It seems that Brady and Brees both intend to play at least a few more seasons, barring major injury. So their timing could be similar to Rivers or he could trail them by a few years, depending on how long he plays. Regardless, both are obviously first ballot HOF locks.

6. Rivers will likely be eligible for at least 5 years before Rodgers is eligible, so he may not affect Rivers' case. And all of the other younger guys you mentioned are irrelevant to his case because they will come much later.

7. So when Rivers becomes eligible, it will probably be true that in the preceding 18-20 years, 5 QBs have been inducted (Favre, Warner, Peyton, Brady, Brees). With another lock on the medium term horizon (Rodgers, 5+ years away from eligibility) and perhaps by then another lock or two (Luck? Wilson?) on the longer term horizon. I don't really see the big problem you are saying exists with the number of competitors who we know now will very clearly be ahead of Rivers.

8. This will leave Rivers competing with Roethlisberger, Eli, and perhaps Romo. All of them still have years to play, so what they accomplish from here forward will determine how they compare in the end.

9. Romo is by far the least accomplished of the group of peers mentioned, and he turns 35 in less than a month, so he is also the oldest and thus likely has the least amount of time remaining. I think he has no shot, unless he finishes very strong, including at least one Super Bowl win.

10. Roethlisberger and Eli would have a better chance than Rivers today, thanks to their championship rings and because both of them play for historically popular east coast franchises. But IMO Rivers has clearly been a better passer than both of them, which counts for something. As I posted earlier, if Rivers finishes strong and leads the Chargers to a Super Bowl win, I think he will be in, regardless of what happens with the other two. If he doesn't, he probably won't make it.

11. As for comparing Rivers to Bledsoe, you are making yourself look foolish. Rivers is much better than Bledsoe was, and it's not close.

Rivers' current all time rankings:

20 completions

20 passing yards

20 total offense

16 passing TDs

7 completion percentage

10 YPA

4 AY/A

5 NY/A

4 ANY/A

10 passing yards per game

18 interception percentage

6 passer rating

28 wins

21 comebacks

35 game winning drives

As already noted, his rate statistics are already elite, and there is no reason to expect those to drop off.

If he plays two more seasons, he will be in the top 10 in completions, passing yards, total offense, and passing TDs, and will be just outside the top 10 in wins. If he plays four more seasons, he should be around 6th or so in all of those metrics.

That is very compelling, as is his iron man streak of never missing a start (already the 4th longest streak of consecutive starts in NFL history for a QB), especially if that continues.

The biggest knock against him right now is the competition, as I mentioned before. He has played in a golden era of quarterback play, and that has kept him from winning significant honors despite the fact that he has played great. However, I think if leads the Chargers to a Super Bowl victory, that would be enough to put him over the top.

 

[Tau837]

Romo, Rivers, and Palmer aren't even serious considerations.

x2

So by bolding Rivers, you seem to imply that Romo and Palmer are more worthy of consideration than Rivers. Based on what, exactly?

You posted a number of times bashing Rivers' HOF chances in the other thread. Is he just a player you don't like for some reason? Because you don't seem to be particularly objective about him.

 

[cstu]

Generally, too many people try to establish some numbers criteria for hall of fame consideration and that is just too tough to do because of the evolution of the game. No way is Palmer a HOF candidate is correct. I too would have a tough time giving Eli too much thought due to his poor play over the last handful of seasons. Of course he had a nice rebound season throwing to OBJ and a strong few more seasons probably keeps him in consideration.

As I noted, Palmer is only on the list because I had to lower the parameters to include Eli.

 

[cstu]

All you really need is the sniff test plus a glance at the stats to know 30000 is now a completely useless barometer. 50k is the glaring and obvious new standard, and the lock names on that list are going to annihilate that number, with possibly one exception, if Ben can't stay healthy.

If you're shy of that, you'd better have some pretty gaudy hardware to make up for it. 30k is already a joke total in an era when numbers approaching 5k are annual occurrences.

Romo, Rivers, and Palmer aren't even serious considerations.

You know how many QB's have averaged over 4000 yards the past two seasons? 9.

6 of them are on the list in the OP and the other 3 are Luck, Stafford, and Ryan.

 

[cstu]

All you really need is the sniff test plus a glance at the stats to know 30000 is now a completely useless barometer. 50k is the glaring and obvious new standard, and the lock names on that list are going to annihilate that number, with possibly one exception, if Ben can't stay healthy.

If you're shy of that, you'd better have some pretty gaudy hardware to make up for it. 30k is already a joke total in an era when numbers approaching 5k are annual occurrences.

Romo, Rivers, and Palmer aren't even serious considerations.

Exactly. Matt Stafford is 2 years away from most likely getting to 30,000. I don't think too many people think HOF when watching him play.

Stafford didn't even meet my original criteria of a 90 QB rating (his is 83.6).

 

[ShamrockPride]

I think it mainly has to do with the rule changes favoring qbs and offense. Since those rules were put into effect, there's a big gap because older guys are still able to play. If it weren't for the changes where you can't even breathe on the qb, guys like Brady, Peyton, and Romo would have been retired 2 or 3 years ago.

 

[amicsta]

These debates will never end because everything is so subjective. Its not like they have a rules page they hand voters along with their ballot. Everyone makes up their own HOF criteria and votes based on it. Kinda makes the HOF more special that guys can be voted in despite all the ambiguity

 

[IHEARTFF]

Every guy on the original list is getting there except swap Rodgers for Palmer. Eli is not a 1st balloter, but all others are. Luck well on his way.

 

[IHEARTFF]

Kurt Warner should get in there asap also.

 

[Khy]

I have a question for you guys because I know everyone seems to have an issue with Eli being in the Hall. I can understand a lot of the arguments but there a few things I have issue with...

1. There's only 1 2 time SB champion QB who isn't in the HoF: Jim Plunkett that said Plunkett played 15 years in this league and in 11 years Eli has surpassed him in every single stastical category by a mile.

Plunkett's career numbers are a 52% Completion, 25882 yards, 164 TDs, 198 INTs, 7 YPA and a 67 QB rating for his career.

Eli's career numbers are 59% Completion, 39755 yards, 259 TDS 185 INTs and a 82.4 QB rating.

I just have a hard time believing that Eli wouldn't make it into the Hall with his stats and it's safe to assume he'll play for at least another 3-5 years seasons, meaning he'll likely crack the 50,000 yard mark and the 300 TD mark. Also take into account his career durability... which as crazy as it soudns is likely something that will be factored into his HoF ballot voting. Assuming he retires in 5 years and continues his streak, while it won't be quite enough to beat Favre he'll have played 247 career games. Good for 3rd all time.

2. What kind of seasons would you guys feel he needs to be a shoe in? Is what he did last year for the next 3-5 seasons good enough? Or do you feel he'll need to put up 2-3 5000 yard 40 TD seasons to be unquestionable?

3. If he wins another Super Bowl, he's a 1st ballot HoF regardless of his stats for the rest of his career right? This is probably a no brainer one?

 

[Anarchy99]

You can't compare players that played 30-40 years apart. So take the Eli has better career numbers concept and hit hard delete in your mind.

 

[cstu]

You can't compare players that played 30-40 years apart. So take the Eli has better career numbers concept and hit hard delete in your mind.

Agreed, his stats are mediocre for this era - Palmer's stats prove that.

 

[cstu]

Every guy on the original list is getting there except swap Rodgers for Palmer. Eli is not a 1st balloter, but all others are. Luck well on his way.

Rodgers is a given - he's not on the list because I cut it off at 33 (everyone is age 33-37 except Peyton who is 39) and Rodgers is 31.

 

[Khy]

You can't compare players that played 30-40 years apart. So take the Eli has better career numbers concept and hit hard delete in your mind.

Agreed, his stats are mediocre for this era - Palmer's stats prove that.

I disagree... all that matters is what the voters think. When the voters look at Eli they'll see one of the best post-season quarterbacks of his era. You can claim defense like everyone else all you want but it's kind of irrelevant. The Giants 2 super bowl runs, Eli put up two of the best post season runs of a QB period. Not just his era but in history. And whether you like it or not, that weighs extremely heavily on the voting for the Hall.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I'm interested in why people think so much more of Big Ben than Eli. The main thing that Roethlisberger has going for him is the Super Bowls and Eli has those to match, only he did it without the league's #1 defense and beat one of the greatest teams in NFL history to get one of them.

Roethlisberger has never won a playoff game and barely has a .500 regular season record in seasons playing without a top 5 defense even though his defenses were still typically in the top 15 during those seasons. Take that into perspective. When HOFs like Peyton and Brady are still rolling out 13-3 seasons with the league's #27 defense Big Ben can barely get to .500 not if his defense isn't in the top 20, but if his defense isn't in the top FIVE.

I believe that I also saw a stat a while ago (don't remember where) that Eli is first among active players and among the tops in the NFL all-time in conversion percentage on game winning drives (IE how often a QB is successful when getting the ball at the end with a chance to win or tie).

Of course, my argument would probably be more that neither deserves a spot in the hall than both, but they shouldn't be as separated as they are especially when you consider the amazing defenses that Roethlisberger has played with for most of his career and the utter lack of "winning" he's done when he's had to play without them for a guy who's best trait is supposedly how he "just wins".

 

[Freelove]

All you really need is the sniff test plus a glance at the stats to know 30000 is now a completely useless barometer. 50k is the glaring and obvious new standard, and the lock names on that list are going to annihilate that number, with possibly one exception, if Ben can't stay healthy.

If you're shy of that, you'd better have some pretty gaudy hardware to make up for it. 30k is already a joke total in an era when numbers approaching 5k are annual occurrences.

Romo, Rivers, and Palmer aren't even serious considerations.

You know how many QB's have averaged over 4000 yards the past two seasons? 9.

6 of them are on the list in the OP and the other 3 are Luck, Stafford, and Ryan.

Ok?

No idea what that has to do with anything. 4000 is the new "pretty good." Romo, Rivers, and Palmer have (when healthy) ranged from "pretty good," to "very good." Not a one of them has ever had a season, much less a career, that you could legitimately call "great" when you're comparing it to the numerical freakshows some of their peers are putting up. You can make up for that, a little bit, if you can flash a couple SB rings at the voters, but these guys haven't got one among them.

Not a serious HOF candidate among the three.

Obviously, neither Stafford nor Ryan will merit consideration either. Luck seems to be on track, but has a damn long way to go before it's time to bother worrying about him.

 

[Anarchy99]

Just throwing this out there, by if Flacco keeps leading the Ravens to the playoffs and lighting it up in the post season, then what? If he wins another SB he will merit HOF consideration based on winning %, post season success, and being a multiple time SB winner. Even if his regular season numbers are very meh.

 

[cstu]

All you really need is the sniff test plus a glance at the stats to know 30000 is now a completely useless barometer. 50k is the glaring and obvious new standard, and the lock names on that list are going to annihilate that number, with possibly one exception, if Ben can't stay healthy.

If you're shy of that, you'd better have some pretty gaudy hardware to make up for it. 30k is already a joke total in an era when numbers approaching 5k are annual occurrences.

Romo, Rivers, and Palmer aren't even serious considerations.

You know how many QB's have averaged over 4000 yards the past two seasons? 9.

6 of them are on the list in the OP and the other 3 are Luck, Stafford, and Ryan.

Ok?

No idea what that has to do with anything. 4000 is the new "pretty good." Romo, Rivers, and Palmer have (when healthy) ranged from "pretty good," to "very good." Not a one of them has ever had a season, much less a career, that you could legitimately call "great" when you're comparing it to the numerical freakshows some of their peers are putting up. You can make up for that, a little bit, if you can flash a couple SB rings at the voters, but these guys haven't got one among them.

Not a serious HOF candidate among the three.

Obviously, neither Stafford nor Ryan will merit consideration either. Luck seems to be on track, but has a damn long way to go before it's time to bother worrying about him.

These guys aren't done and if they finish with 50,000 with the efficiency numbers they currently have then they deserve to be in the HOF. Pretty simple to me.

 

[espnespn]

You can't compare players that played 30-40 years apart. So take the Eli has better career numbers concept and hit hard delete in your mind.

Agreed, his stats are mediocre for this era - Palmer's stats prove that.

I disagree... all that matters is what the voters think. When the voters look at Eli they'll see one of the best post-season quarterbacks of his era. You can claim defense like everyone else all you want but it's kind of irrelevant. The Giants 2 super bowl runs, Eli put up two of the best post season runs of a QB period. Not just his era but in history. And whether you like it or not, that weighs extremely heavily on the voting for the Hall.

Eli will probably get into the HOF because a lot of people (and HOF voters) tend to over-weigh playoff and SB wins, instead of evaluating the career individual stats. It's like the Cy Young award voting in baseball: they often vote for the pitcher with more wins, instead of the pitcher with the best individual stats.

Btw, Joe Flacco is quickly becoming a "rich man's Eli". Flacco's career individual stats are mediocre (similar to Eli's). Flacco had 1 great SB run (even better than either of Eli's SB runs). If Flacco wins another SB, HOF voters will ignore his career individual stats and vote Flacco into the HOF too.

 

[IHEARTFF]

All you really need is the sniff test plus a glance at the stats to know 30000 is now a completely useless barometer. 50k is the glaring and obvious new standard, and the lock names on that list are going to annihilate that number, with possibly one exception, if Ben can't stay healthy.

If you're shy of that, you'd better have some pretty gaudy hardware to make up for it. 30k is already a joke total in an era when numbers approaching 5k are annual occurrences.

Romo, Rivers, and Palmer aren't even serious considerations.

You know how many QB's have averaged over 4000 yards the past two seasons? 9.

6 of them are on the list in the OP and the other 3 are Luck, Stafford, and Ryan.

Ok?

No idea what that has to do with anything. 4000 is the new "pretty good." Romo, Rivers, and Palmer have (when healthy) ranged from "pretty good," to "very good." Not a one of them has ever had a season, much less a career, that you could legitimately call "great" when you're comparing it to the numerical freakshows some of their peers are putting up. You can make up for that, a little bit, if you can flash a couple SB rings at the voters, but these guys haven't got one among them.

Not a serious HOF candidate among the three.

Obviously, neither Stafford nor Ryan will merit consideration either. Luck seems to be on track, but has a damn long way to go before it's time to bother worrying about him.

How exactly would you describe Tony Romo's 2014 season?

 

[cstu]

In response to Rivers not being great, since 2008 here are the QB's with a ANY/A of over 7:

 	        From 	To 	Draft 	Tm 	Lg 	G 	GS 	Cmp 	Att 	Cmp% 	Yds 	TD 	Int 	Rate 	Sk 	Y/A 	Yds 	AY/A 	ANY/A ▾ 	Y/G 	W 	L 	T1 	Aaron Rodgers 	2008 	2014 	1-24 	GNB 	NFL 	103 	103 	2251 	3416 	65.90 	28249 	225 	56 	106.6 	251 	8.27 	1533 	8.85 	7.83 	274.3 	70 	33 	02 	Peyton Manning 	2008 	2014 	1-1 	TOT 	NFL 	96 	96 	2459 	3644 	67.48 	28065 	224 	81 	101.6 	96 	7.70 	626 	7.93 	7.56 	292.3 	74 	22 	03 	Tom Brady 	2008 	2014 	6-199 	NWE 	NFL 	97 	97 	2257 	3526 	64.01 	26888 	195 	57 	98.9 	161 	7.63 	1006 	8.00 	7.38 	277.2 	74 	23 	04 	Drew Brees 	2008 	2014 	2-32 	NOR 	NFL 	111 	111 	3016 	4443 	67.88 	34844 	262 	112 	100.5 	174 	7.84 	1190 	7.89 	7.33 	313.9 	70 	41 	05 	Philip Rivers 	2008 	2014 	1-4 	SDG 	NFL 	112 	112 	2447 	3728 	65.64 	29967 	208 	97 	98.0 	233 	8.04 	1393 	7.98 	7.16 	267.6 	63 	49 	06 	Tony Romo 	2008 	2014 		DAL 	NFL 	97 	97 	2188 	3353 	65.25 	26156 	187 	78 	97.9 	197 	7.80 	1337 	7.87 	7.06 	269.6 	56 	41 	0

 

[Tau837]

Romo, Rivers, and Palmer have (when healthy) ranged from "pretty good," to "very good." Not a one of them has ever had a season, much less a career, that you could legitimately call "great" when you're comparing it to the numerical freakshows some of their peers are putting up.

This isn't true, at least not about Rivers. Unless you are using the wrong metrics to judge a great season. Rivers' three year stretch from 2008-2010 is one of the best three year stretches of QB play in NFL history.

 

[IHEARTFF]

Yeah Rivers and Romo are among the most underrated players in this era. Palmer could have been there had his knee not been shredded. He's clearly not in their tier, though.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

I'm interested in why people think so much more of Big Ben than Eli. The main thing that Roethlisberger has going for him is the Super Bowls and Eli has those to match, only he did it without the league's #1 defense and beat one of the greatest teams in NFL history to get one of them.

Roethlisberger has never won a playoff game and barely has a .500 regular season record in seasons playing without a top 5 defense even though his defenses were still typically in the top 15 during those seasons. Take that into perspective. When HOFs like Peyton and Brady are still rolling out 13-3 seasons with the league's #27 defense Big Ben can barely get to .500 not if his defense isn't in the top 20, but if his defense isn't in the top FIVE.

I believe that I also saw a stat a while ago (don't remember where) that Eli is first among active players and among the tops in the NFL all-time in conversion percentage on game winning drives (IE how often a QB is successful when getting the ball at the end with a chance to win or tie).

Of course, my argument would probably be more that neither deserves a spot in the hall than both, but they shouldn't be as separated as they are especially when you consider the amazing defenses that Roethlisberger has played with for most of his career and the utter lack of "winning" he's done when he's had to play without them for a guy who's best trait is supposedly how he "just wins".

Ben is significantly better than Eli in just about every category statistically: rating, completion %, TD %, INT %, yards/attempt, career winning %, etc. It's not even close.

 

[Jake22]

I'm interested in why people think so much more of Big Ben than Eli. The main thing that Roethlisberger has going for him is the Super Bowls and Eli has those to match, only he did it without the league's #1 defense and beat one of the greatest teams in NFL history to get one of them.

Roethlisberger has never won a playoff game and barely has a .500 regular season record in seasons playing without a top 5 defense even though his defenses were still typically in the top 15 during those seasons. Take that into perspective. When HOFs like Peyton and Brady are still rolling out 13-3 seasons with the league's #27 defense Big Ben can barely get to .500 not if his defense isn't in the top 20, but if his defense isn't in the top FIVE.

I believe that I also saw a stat a while ago (don't remember where) that Eli is first among active players and among the tops in the NFL all-time in conversion percentage on game winning drives (IE how often a QB is successful when getting the ball at the end with a chance to win or tie).

Of course, my argument would probably be more that neither deserves a spot in the hall than both, but they shouldn't be as separated as they are especially when you consider the amazing defenses that Roethlisberger has played with for most of his career and the utter lack of "winning" he's done when he's had to play without them for a guy who's best trait is supposedly how he "just wins".

I've been waiting for this to come up, Ben won a Super Bowl with what was considered at the time one of the WORST offensive lines in the league. Eli would get killed with that line yet Ben fought through it every week and ended up a champion, put Rivers on that team with that offensive line and he gets killed also. That's the biggest difference between those players and it is a huge one at that.

 

[Freelove]

I'm interested in why people think so much more of Big Ben than Eli. The main thing that Roethlisberger has going for him is the Super Bowls and Eli has those to match, only he did it without the league's #1 defense and beat one of the greatest teams in NFL history to get one of them.

Roethlisberger has never won a playoff game and barely has a .500 regular season record in seasons playing without a top 5 defense even though his defenses were still typically in the top 15 during those seasons. Take that into perspective. When HOFs like Peyton and Brady are still rolling out 13-3 seasons with the league's #27 defense Big Ben can barely get to .500 not if his defense isn't in the top 20, but if his defense isn't in the top FIVE.

I believe that I also saw a stat a while ago (don't remember where) that Eli is first among active players and among the tops in the NFL all-time in conversion percentage on game winning drives (IE how often a QB is successful when getting the ball at the end with a chance to win or tie).

Of course, my argument would probably be more that neither deserves a spot in the hall than both, but they shouldn't be as separated as they are especially when you consider the amazing defenses that Roethlisberger has played with for most of his career and the utter lack of "winning" he's done when he's had to play without them for a guy who's best trait is supposedly how he "just wins".

I've been waiting for this to come up, Ben won a Super Bowl with what was considered at the time one of the WORST offensive lines in the league. Eli would get killed with that line yet Ben fought through it every week and ended up a champion, put Rivers on that team with that offensive line and he gets killed also. That's the biggest difference between those players and it is a huge one at that.

To me, the far bigger difference between the two is that later on in their careers, after both guys became established QB's, Ben has always played well enough that he wasn't a detriment to his team. Eli has had years where he sunk to among the worst QB's in the NFL.

I don't think it's enough to keep Eli out of the Hall -- nor do I think it should. But it does put him a tier below those guys who I consider slam dunks, Ben among them.

Brady and Manning go straight into the all time elite tier. Brees a notch below. Ben and Kurt Warner a notch below that. Elit bringing up the rear. Another title or a huge stat hog run with Beckham could well change his public perception, but I suspect he'll be enshrined anyway.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I'm interested in why people think so much more of Big Ben than Eli. The main thing that Roethlisberger has going for him is the Super Bowls and Eli has those to match, only he did it without the league's #1 defense and beat one of the greatest teams in NFL history to get one of them.

Roethlisberger has never won a playoff game and barely has a .500 regular season record in seasons playing without a top 5 defense even though his defenses were still typically in the top 15 during those seasons. Take that into perspective. When HOFs like Peyton and Brady are still rolling out 13-3 seasons with the league's #27 defense Big Ben can barely get to .500 not if his defense isn't in the top 20, but if his defense isn't in the top FIVE.

I believe that I also saw a stat a while ago (don't remember where) that Eli is first among active players and among the tops in the NFL all-time in conversion percentage on game winning drives (IE how often a QB is successful when getting the ball at the end with a chance to win or tie).

Of course, my argument would probably be more that neither deserves a spot in the hall than both, but they shouldn't be as separated as they are especially when you consider the amazing defenses that Roethlisberger has played with for most of his career and the utter lack of "winning" he's done when he's had to play without them for a guy who's best trait is supposedly how he "just wins".

I've been waiting for this to come up, Ben won a Super Bowl with what was considered at the time one of the WORST offensive lines in the league. Eli would get killed with that line yet Ben fought through it every week and ended up a champion, put Rivers on that team with that offensive line and he gets killed also. That's the biggest difference between those players and it is a huge one at that.

Different players deal with bad lines in different ways. More pocket oriented QBs get the ball out quicker or take shorter sacks. Ben ran around like a chicken with his head cut off. Sometimes it worked. More often than not it resulted in a huge drive-killing loss. Everyone could just ignore the 90% of the time that happened though because Pitt only had to put together 1 or 2 scoring drives a game to win. Taking a 10 yard loss that led to a punt was no big deal on those Pittsburgh teams like it would have been for most of the teams that Peyton/Brady/Brees played on where they had to keep scoring consistently.

It's not like Roethlisberger played well that year in spite of the line. He was horrible, arguably the worst of his career. 17 TD/15 INT with an 80 QB rating. It wasn't like he played great behind a bad line. He got killed just like you said the other guys would. He played poorly behind a bad line and the defense carried them most of the way. It wasn't Big Ben overcoming a bad line, it was the defense overcoming a bad offense.

Big Ben always gets credit for "winning". But his win pct with a top defense is no better than guys like Jay Cutler or Kyle Orton. His win pct with a non-top defense is no better than those guys either. The only difference is that he got to play a LOT more games in the former category while the other guys played more in the latter.

I'm not saying Roethlisberger is the same as those guys, he's clearly better. But his best asset has always been something that has nothing to do with him, the defense. He's a good quarterback that got to play the majority of his career with a great defense. He's not great and on any other team he's not even sniffing the hall. Quite frankly, he shouldn't on Pittsburgh either.

 

[Skoo]

IMO when looking at this stuff you have to compare these QBs to QBs from the same time period.

After the locks, BIg Ben and Eli are the only ones mentioned imo that deserve consideration.

Sure, you can post some nice stats for Rivers and Romo and compare them to guys who played 30 years ago, but neither of these guys has ever been considered an "elite" QB at any point in their career. And neither have even played in a Super Bowl. Romo has what, 2 playoff wins? 3?

Fair or not, I think that the "eye test" is worth a lot when it comes to HOF voting. I'm certainly no expert, but to me it seems like you need to be dominant at your position for many years in order to get in. Stats can of course support or hurt that argument, but to me that's what it seems like most people base their vote on.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

I'm interested in why people think so much more of Big Ben than Eli. The main thing that Roethlisberger has going for him is the Super Bowls and Eli has those to match, only he did it without the league's #1 defense and beat one of the greatest teams in NFL history to get one of them.

Roethlisberger has never won a playoff game and barely has a .500 regular season record in seasons playing without a top 5 defense even though his defenses were still typically in the top 15 during those seasons. Take that into perspective. When HOFs like Peyton and Brady are still rolling out 13-3 seasons with the league's #27 defense Big Ben can barely get to .500 not if his defense isn't in the top 20, but if his defense isn't in the top FIVE.

I believe that I also saw a stat a while ago (don't remember where) that Eli is first among active players and among the tops in the NFL all-time in conversion percentage on game winning drives (IE how often a QB is successful when getting the ball at the end with a chance to win or tie).

Of course, my argument would probably be more that neither deserves a spot in the hall than both, but they shouldn't be as separated as they are especially when you consider the amazing defenses that Roethlisberger has played with for most of his career and the utter lack of "winning" he's done when he's had to play without them for a guy who's best trait is supposedly how he "just wins".

I've been waiting for this to come up, Ben won a Super Bowl with what was considered at the time one of the WORST offensive lines in the league. Eli would get killed with that line yet Ben fought through it every week and ended up a champion, put Rivers on that team with that offensive line and he gets killed also. That's the biggest difference between those players and it is a huge one at that.

Different players deal with bad lines in different ways. More pocket oriented QBs get the ball out quicker or take shorter sacks. Ben ran around like a chicken with his head cut off. Sometimes it worked. More often than not it resulted in a huge drive-killing loss. Everyone could just ignore the 90% of the time that happened though because Pitt only had to put together 1 or 2 scoring drives a game to win. Taking a 10 yard loss that led to a punt was no big deal on those Pittsburgh teams like it would have been for most of the teams that Peyton/Brady/Brees played on where they had to keep scoring consistently.

It's not like Roethlisberger played well that year in spite of the line. He was horrible, arguably the worst of his career. 17 TD/15 INT with an 80 QB rating. It wasn't like he played great behind a bad line. He got killed just like you said the other guys would. He played poorly behind a bad line and the defense carried them most of the way. It wasn't Big Ben overcoming a bad line, it was the defense overcoming a bad offense.

Big Ben always gets credit for "winning". But his win pct with a top defense is no better than guys like Jay Cutler or Kyle Orton. His win pct with a non-top defense is no better than those guys either. The only difference is that he got to play a LOT more games in the former category while the other guys played more in the latter.

I'm not saying Roethlisberger is the same as those guys, he's clearly better. But his best asset has always been something that has nothing to do with him, the defense. He's a good quarterback that got to play the majority of his career with a great defense. He's not great and on any other team he's not even sniffing the hall. Quite frankly, he shouldn't on Pittsburgh either.

This is just an absurd argument to make. It's really not even relevant to the discussion. Sure, the rings and wins are a big part of his resume. But he's got the stats too. Volume-wise, he's 16th all time in yards and 17th in TDs all time having just turned 33 (and looks to be poised to put up his career best stretch statistically for the next few years given the team makeup). He'll likely retire 6th all time in yardage and 6th or 7th in TDs (assuming he can outpace Eli and Rivers from here on, which seems likely given the teams in question). Efficiency-wise, he's 8th in passer rating, 11th in passing yards / game, 6th in yards / attempt, and 11th in completion percentage on the all time leader board. He's 8th all time in game winning drives and 12th all time in come from behind wins, and again, likely has a big chunk of career left to move up. What exactly about that resume equates to not even sniffing the HOF?

 

[Khy]

I'm interested in why people think so much more of Big Ben than Eli. The main thing that Roethlisberger has going for him is the Super Bowls and Eli has those to match, only he did it without the league's #1 defense and beat one of the greatest teams in NFL history to get one of them.

Roethlisberger has never won a playoff game and barely has a .500 regular season record in seasons playing without a top 5 defense even though his defenses were still typically in the top 15 during those seasons. Take that into perspective. When HOFs like Peyton and Brady are still rolling out 13-3 seasons with the league's #27 defense Big Ben can barely get to .500 not if his defense isn't in the top 20, but if his defense isn't in the top FIVE.

I believe that I also saw a stat a while ago (don't remember where) that Eli is first among active players and among the tops in the NFL all-time in conversion percentage on game winning drives (IE how often a QB is successful when getting the ball at the end with a chance to win or tie).

Of course, my argument would probably be more that neither deserves a spot in the hall than both, but they shouldn't be as separated as they are especially when you consider the amazing defenses that Roethlisberger has played with for most of his career and the utter lack of "winning" he's done when he's had to play without them for a guy who's best trait is supposedly how he "just wins".

I've been waiting for this to come up, Ben won a Super Bowl with what was considered at the time one of the WORST offensive lines in the league. Eli would get killed with that line yet Ben fought through it every week and ended up a champion, put Rivers on that team with that offensive line and he gets killed also. That's the biggest difference between those players and it is a huge one at that.

Different players deal with bad lines in different ways. More pocket oriented QBs get the ball out quicker or take shorter sacks. Ben ran around like a chicken with his head cut off. Sometimes it worked. More often than not it resulted in a huge drive-killing loss. Everyone could just ignore the 90% of the time that happened though because Pitt only had to put together 1 or 2 scoring drives a game to win. Taking a 10 yard loss that led to a punt was no big deal on those Pittsburgh teams like it would have been for most of the teams that Peyton/Brady/Brees played on where they had to keep scoring consistently.

It's not like Roethlisberger played well that year in spite of the line. He was horrible, arguably the worst of his career. 17 TD/15 INT with an 80 QB rating. It wasn't like he played great behind a bad line. He got killed just like you said the other guys would. He played poorly behind a bad line and the defense carried them most of the way. It wasn't Big Ben overcoming a bad line, it was the defense overcoming a bad offense.

Big Ben always gets credit for "winning". But his win pct with a top defense is no better than guys like Jay Cutler or Kyle Orton. His win pct with a non-top defense is no better than those guys either. The only difference is that he got to play a LOT more games in the former category while the other guys played more in the latter.

I'm not saying Roethlisberger is the same as those guys, he's clearly better. But his best asset has always been something that has nothing to do with him, the defense. He's a good quarterback that got to play the majority of his career with a great defense. He's not great and on any other team he's not even sniffing the hall. Quite frankly, he shouldn't on Pittsburgh either.

This is just an absurd argument to make. It's really not even relevant to the discussion. Sure, the rings and wins are a big part of his resume. But he's got the stats too. Volume-wise, he's 16th all time in yards and 17th in TDs all time having just turned 33 (and looks to be poised to put up his career best stretch statistically for the next few years given the team makeup). He'll likely retire 6th all time in yardage and 6th or 7th in TDs (assuming he can outpace Eli and Rivers from here on, which seems likely given the teams in question). Efficiency-wise, he's 8th in passer rating, 11th in passing yards / game, 6th in yards / attempt, and 11th in completion percentage on the all time leader board. He's 8th all time in game winning drives and 12th all time in come from behind wins, and again, likely has a big chunk of career left to move up. What exactly about that resume equates to not even sniffing the HOF?

I find it funny how Ben has a season that is such a HUGE outlier on his career averages and he's poised to put up a career best stretch. But Eli does it and it's consider a fluke and Eli's was less of an outlier and only a little better than his career average. Do you really think Ben is going to post 5000 yards and 30+ TDs for the next few years? Prior to last season his best year was 4300 yards and 26 TDs, we're talking a difference of 700 yards and 6 TDs between those two seasons. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of Ben but I don't think I'd go so far as to say he's poised for a career best stretch. It's possible and I'm a huge Ben fan, but I think they both put up career best seasons last year. Difference was Ben's was VASTLY better than anything even close to what he's done in the past.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Efficiency-wise, he's 8th in passer rating, 11th in passing yards / game, 6th in yards / attempt, and 11th in completion percentage on the all time leader board. He's 8th all time in game winning drives and 12th all time in come from behind wins, and again, likely has a big chunk of career left to move up. What exactly about that resume equates to not even sniffing the HOF?

Maybe "not sniff" was excessive, but outside of that you tell me. Tony Romo is 2nd all-time in QB rating, 6th in YPA, 6th in completion percentage. He has a better TD/INT ratio and has just 9 fewer TDs than Roethlisberger despite playing in 40 fewer games. Yet he's considered mostly an afterthought while Big Ben is considered virtually a lock. Big Ben also has poor efficiency numbers in the playoffs.

Why? Because Roethlisberger is a "winner".

My point is that he gets way too much credit for that. His win percentage with a top defense is right on the league average for the team with the top defense. Meanwhile his performance without a top defense has been mostly poor (about .500 career win percentage, zero career playoff wins). The difference is that Pittsburgh put together an insane run of great defenses. Big Ben has played with the league's #1 defense 8 times. Every other guy we're talking about in this thread has played with the #1 defense once....combined.

When I think "winner" I think of guys like Brady and Peyton who are rolling out .700 win percentages with poor defenses.

Don't even get me started on the come from behind wins stat. When you combine a poor offense with a great defense you end up with tons of opportunities. He may be 8th/12th in volume of those metrics but he's almost certainly 1st in attempts. I wish I could find the article a few years back that actually looked at comeback opportunities (last 5 minutes with the ball down by 1 score) and sorted by success rate instead of just volume. Roethlisberger was very average on that list.

If Big Ben puts up a few more seasons like this past one then yea, I'll get on board. RIght now though If you want to talk efficiency numbers then that's fine, let's talk Roethlisberger and Romo to the hall. Let's get over the stuff about winning though. He's had a few years to show that he can put the team on his shoulders and win without a great defense now and it's resulted in a record just over .500 and no playoff wins with defenses that were better than the dreck Peyton/Brady were putting up 13 win seasons with and AFC Championship game appearances with.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

I'm interested in why people think so much more of Big Ben than Eli. The main thing that Roethlisberger has going for him is the Super Bowls and Eli has those to match, only he did it without the league's #1 defense and beat one of the greatest teams in NFL history to get one of them.

Roethlisberger has never won a playoff game and barely has a .500 regular season record in seasons playing without a top 5 defense even though his defenses were still typically in the top 15 during those seasons. Take that into perspective. When HOFs like Peyton and Brady are still rolling out 13-3 seasons with the league's #27 defense Big Ben can barely get to .500 not if his defense isn't in the top 20, but if his defense isn't in the top FIVE.

I believe that I also saw a stat a while ago (don't remember where) that Eli is first among active players and among the tops in the NFL all-time in conversion percentage on game winning drives (IE how often a QB is successful when getting the ball at the end with a chance to win or tie).

Of course, my argument would probably be more that neither deserves a spot in the hall than both, but they shouldn't be as separated as they are especially when you consider the amazing defenses that Roethlisberger has played with for most of his career and the utter lack of "winning" he's done when he's had to play without them for a guy who's best trait is supposedly how he "just wins".

I've been waiting for this to come up, Ben won a Super Bowl with what was considered at the time one of the WORST offensive lines in the league. Eli would get killed with that line yet Ben fought through it every week and ended up a champion, put Rivers on that team with that offensive line and he gets killed also. That's the biggest difference between those players and it is a huge one at that.

Different players deal with bad lines in different ways. More pocket oriented QBs get the ball out quicker or take shorter sacks. Ben ran around like a chicken with his head cut off. Sometimes it worked. More often than not it resulted in a huge drive-killing loss. Everyone could just ignore the 90% of the time that happened though because Pitt only had to put together 1 or 2 scoring drives a game to win. Taking a 10 yard loss that led to a punt was no big deal on those Pittsburgh teams like it would have been for most of the teams that Peyton/Brady/Brees played on where they had to keep scoring consistently.

It's not like Roethlisberger played well that year in spite of the line. He was horrible, arguably the worst of his career. 17 TD/15 INT with an 80 QB rating. It wasn't like he played great behind a bad line. He got killed just like you said the other guys would. He played poorly behind a bad line and the defense carried them most of the way. It wasn't Big Ben overcoming a bad line, it was the defense overcoming a bad offense.

Big Ben always gets credit for "winning". But his win pct with a top defense is no better than guys like Jay Cutler or Kyle Orton. His win pct with a non-top defense is no better than those guys either. The only difference is that he got to play a LOT more games in the former category while the other guys played more in the latter.

I'm not saying Roethlisberger is the same as those guys, he's clearly better. But his best asset has always been something that has nothing to do with him, the defense. He's a good quarterback that got to play the majority of his career with a great defense. He's not great and on any other team he's not even sniffing the hall. Quite frankly, he shouldn't on Pittsburgh either.

This is just an absurd argument to make. It's really not even relevant to the discussion. Sure, the rings and wins are a big part of his resume. But he's got the stats too. Volume-wise, he's 16th all time in yards and 17th in TDs all time having just turned 33 (and looks to be poised to put up his career best stretch statistically for the next few years given the team makeup). He'll likely retire 6th all time in yardage and 6th or 7th in TDs (assuming he can outpace Eli and Rivers from here on, which seems likely given the teams in question). Efficiency-wise, he's 8th in passer rating, 11th in passing yards / game, 6th in yards / attempt, and 11th in completion percentage on the all time leader board. He's 8th all time in game winning drives and 12th all time in come from behind wins, and again, likely has a big chunk of career left to move up. What exactly about that resume equates to not even sniffing the HOF?

I find it funny how Ben has a season that is such a HUGE outlier on his career averages and he's poised to put up a career best stretch. But Eli does it and it's consider a fluke and Eli's was less of an outlier and only a little better than his career average. Do you really think Ben is going to post 5000 yards and 30+ TDs for the next few years? Prior to last season his best year was 4300 yards and 26 TDs, we're talking a difference of 700 yards and 6 TDs between those two seasons. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of Ben but I don't think I'd go so far as to say he's poised for a career best stretch. It's possible and I'm a huge Ben fan, but I think they both put up career best seasons last year. Difference was Ben's was VASTLY better than anything even close to what he's done in the past.

Yes, I think that Ben is going to put together a multi-year run that represents his best statistical span over the next few years. He's the same guy, but the defense isn't good now, so the team needs to ride his arm more than they have in the past. He also has the best all around offensive supporting cast that he's ever had IMO. Barring injury, I'll be shocked if he's not around / above 4500ish and high 20s+ for the next few years. Ben's efficiency has almost always been top shelf -- he's just never needed to put up huge attempt numbers due to the team around him. That has changed a ton -- as a Steelers' homer, I wish we still had the great D, but we don't. Ben's stats wouldn't be as good, but we'd have a much better chance at another ring.

Re: Eli, where did I say that last year was a fluke? He's clearly capable of having another few years like last year, but he's also capable of playing like utter garbage, as he did in 2013. Who knows how it plays out? He's still a damn good QB overall, and the two rings and his name will likely get him into Canton, but he's just not as good as Ben, as evidenced by the career #s.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Favre, Peyton, Brady and Brees are locks.

Warner has an argument.

Ben has some work left to do.

Rivers and Romo are underrated, but not so underrated that they get in.

Eli and Palmer don't belong anywhere near the Hall.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Efficiency-wise, he's 8th in passer rating, 11th in passing yards / game, 6th in yards / attempt, and 11th in completion percentage on the all time leader board. He's 8th all time in game winning drives and 12th all time in come from behind wins, and again, likely has a big chunk of career left to move up. What exactly about that resume equates to not even sniffing the HOF?

Maybe "not sniff" was excessive, but outside of that you tell me. Tony Romo is 2nd all-time in QB rating, 6th in YPA, 6th in completion percentage. He has a better TD/INT ratio and has just 9 fewer TDs than Roethlisberger despite playing in 40 fewer games. Yet he's considered mostly an afterthought while Big Ben is considered virtually a lock.

Why? Because Roethlisberger is a "winner".

My point is that he gets way too much credit for that. His win percentage with a top defense is right on the league average for the top defense. Meanwhile his performance without a top defense has been mostly poor (about .500 career win percentage, zero career playoff wins). The difference is that Pittsburgh put together an insane run of great defenses. Big Ben has played with the league's #1 defense 8 times. Every other guy we're talking about in this thread has played with the #1 defense once....combined.

When I think "winner" I think of guys like Brady and Peyton who are rolling out .700 win percentages with poor defenses.

Don't even get me started on the come from behind wins stat. When you combine a poor offense with a great defense you end up with tons of opportunities. He may be 8th/12th in volume of those metrics but he's almost certainly 1st in attempts. I wish I could find the article a few years back that actually looked at comeback opportunities (last 5 minutes with the ball down by 1 score) and sorted by success rate instead of just volume. Roethlisberger was very average on that list.

If Big Ben puts up a few more seasons like this past one then yea, I'll get on board. RIght now though If you want to talk efficiency numbers then that's fine, let's talk Roethlisberger and Romo to the hall. Let's get over the stuff about winning though. He's had a few years to show that he can put the team on his shoulders and win without a great defense now and it's resulted in a record just over .500 and no playoff wins with defenses that were better than the dreck Peyton/Brady were putting up 13 win seasons with and AFC Championship game appearances with.

Romo is under-rated, I agree, but he's much older than Ben / Eli / Rivers, as well as being behind them on the counting stats due to getting a late start in his career. He has a major uphill battle if he wants in Canton given the complete picture. The lack of cumulative stats is a likely death blow to his chances unless Dallas can win a SB before Romo is done IMO.

Also not sure why Brady and Manning are relevant to a discussion on Roethliberger's HOF chances, or anyone else's. If those guys are the standard, then we might never be putting another QB in the Hall ever. Sure, Ben isn't in the Manning / Brady / Montana / Unitas tier. But there's a pretty wide range in between "arguably the best ever" and "not sniffing the Hall." Ben is getting in. He'd probably be pretty close if he retired today -- considering he likely has multiple prime years left, he's a lock.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Favre, Peyton, Brady and Brees are locks.

Warner has an argument.

Ben has some work left to do.

Rivers is underrated, but not so underrated that he gets in.

Eli and Palmer don't belong anywhere near the Hall.

I think Warner eventually gets in, and IMO he belongs. He was the best player in football for a multi-year stretch in STL IMO. And coming off of the scrap heap to regain elite status and take the freaking Cardinals to the SB was an all time great story IMO. As was his whole "grocery store to SB" thing.

Like it or not, Eli is probably getting in too. He's going to be in the top 7/8 all time in the compiling stats, has two rings, played in NY, and is a Manning.

 

[moleculo]

Romo, Rivers, and Palmer have (when healthy) ranged from "pretty good," to "very good." Not a one of them has ever had a season, much less a career, that you could legitimately call "great" when you're comparing it to the numerical freakshows some of their peers are putting up.

This isn't true, at least not about Rivers. Unless you are using the wrong metrics to judge a great season. Rivers' three year stretch from 2008-2010 is one of the best three year stretches of QB play in NFL history.

a stretch that includes just one playoff win, in a game where Rivers had a QB rating of 61.9?

Rivers has just 4 playoff wins in his whole career. I think that matters.

 

[Tau837]

Romo, Rivers, and Palmer have (when healthy) ranged from "pretty good," to "very good." Not a one of them has ever had a season, much less a career, that you could legitimately call "great" when you're comparing it to the numerical freakshows some of their peers are putting up.

This isn't true, at least not about Rivers. Unless you are using the wrong metrics to judge a great season. Rivers' three year stretch from 2008-2010 is one of the best three year stretches of QB play in NFL history.

a stretch that includes just one playoff win, in a game where Rivers had a QB rating of 61.9?

Rivers has just 4 playoff wins in his whole career. I think that matters.

First of all, I interpret "numerical freakshow" to refer to regular season performances, and that is part of what I responded to. I stand by my statement. From 2008 to 2010, Rivers was #3 in passing yards and passing TDs despite being just #8 in pass attempts. The two guys above him were Peyton and Brees, who also played at a historic level during the period. But Rivers had a much better TD:int ratio than both of them (Rivers 2.78, Peyton 2.06, Brees 2.04) and was #1 in YPA by a huge margin (Rivers 8.62, #2 among regulars was Rodgers at 7.99). For Rivers, this window included the period when LT fell off a cliff (2009) and left the Chargers (2010) and when VJax held out (2010).

As for Rivers' postseason achievements, the Chargers had one of the best rosters in the NFL in 2006, but it steadily declined in talent from there. Still, they had a great shot at the Super Bowl in 2006 (14-2 regular season) and 2009 (13-3 regular season). Rivers didn't play great in the Chargers' playoff losses in those seasons, but those losses also weren't really his fault. In 2006, it wasn't his fault that McCree fumbled the game-winning interception that should have sealed a playoff win over the Patriots. It wasn't his fault that Kaeding missed 3 FGs in their 2009 playoff loss. Results are results, but it is still true that Rivers has played well enough for the Chargers to have had more playoff success.

 

[Ghost Rider]

JWB, I agree for the most part about Rivers, but some of you all have got to stop saying that that would have been a game-winning INT in '06. There was still plenty of time left in that game, that the Patriots still could have gotten the ball back and at least tied it before the end of regulation.

 

[voiceofunreason]

Qbs get too much credit for playoff success at times. Eli isn't in the conversation. Take away the super bowl years (where they barely made the playoffs and won with defense) and Eli wouldn't be a Giant.

 

[cstu]

JWB, I agree for the most part about Rivers, but some of you all have got to stop saying that that would have been a game-winning INT in '06. There was still plenty of time left in that game, that the Patriots still could have gotten the ball back and at least tied it before the end of regulation.

Anything could have happened but the Chargers would have had the ball with 6 minutes left and an 8 point lead. Very unlikely the Patriots would have scored twice to win in regulation.