This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Marino was 10 years before Bledsoe, let's see how he doesRivers / MarinoChase Stuart said:
Cunningham may have been one of the most mis-used/abused QB's of all time. Buddy Ryan built a superb defense. On offense, it was like he threw a bunch of trash out there and told Randall..."go win it for me". The team offensive structure and philosophy was terrible.Randall Cunningham is probably my favorite player of all time, but I don't think he was used well enough or long enough to warrant serious HOF consideration
Loved watching Cunningham play. Not HOF-worthy, but made watching Eagles games a delight for many years.
dgreen said:
QB is already ridiculously over-represented in the HoF. Really.Favre, Manning are in.Brady may just need to resume his career at an acceptable level, and he may not even need that, honestly, since he got hurt and has had some very nice seasons, and is the face of the Patriots.Warner is interesting, strange career. He started late, was awesome, then bounced around a bit, and is back to being really good again. If the Cards win the Super Bowl - I think he's a lock. Not sure I agree with it, but he was the best QB in the game for a 3 year stretch.Brees/McNabb have a real chance, but need to do more. Right now, neither is on track to get in without improving performance in my mind.Other QB's are too young.If there are just 1-2 QB's who excel over the last bit of the decade, I'd be fine with just adding Manning/Favre/Brady, and those 2 guys.I personally thing Simms should be in. He did not put up great stats in those Giant offenses, but he did make plays when they needed them and he won games. He also never had a top flight wr to throw to.
Simms led a team best known for their defense. He never really put up huge numbers and won 1 or 2 SBs depending upon how you look at it (technically Hostettler won the second one).Simms ranked Top 5 in completions once, yardage twice, TD once, passer rating three times, and YPA three times in 14 years (not counting 1982 when he didn't play with a knee injury).While he may have been efficient and did not turn the ball over, I never once thought of him as having a WOW factor or anything much more than a game manager.He played lights out against DEN in his one SB appearance, but overall his passer rating in the post season was a so-so 77 in 10 games played.
He was also a bit...statuesque in the pocket. Terrible comparison for McNabb.Art Monk? And you want to classify McNabb as a compiler?
Once again . . . I have not made any indication at all that McNabb has been a compiler. I haven't said that and I don't think that. I think his year end stats make him look like a compiler because he's missed time in so many seasons.I quite often indicated for years that Monk was a compiler and I wouldn't have voted for him. I can see a case that Monk played on mulitple SB winning teams (which IMO was his best attribute), but I still feel there was only a brief period where he was the most vital WR on his own team. Hats off to him for making it in, but I don't think he was a slam dunk candidate by any stretch. I wouldn't lose sleep over his inclusion or not either way.
That part of my post wasn't meant for you DY
I agree with you about Monk. Never thought he was anything but borderline, at best, for HOF. Most Redskins fans will disagree with us though.I just remember watching so many of the Giant/Redskin games in the 80s. They were always close games that came down to the end of the 4th quarter. And in so many of them, Simms would make the clutch throw to keep a drive alive and eventually to win the game.David Yudkin said:
Thank you.Vince Young has no business being on this list. C'mon David, You're better than that.
I agree. Bledsoe will be given a very good measure of consideration at some point.
Sure, it's "Hall of Fame"...not "Hall of Stats". However, the guy topped 20 TD's in a season one measly time in his career. ONE. This is with the NFL's career rushing leader (Smith), a HOF WR (Irvin) and very good TE (Novacek) for much of his career. Heck, the guy never even topped 3500 yards in a season. In the NFL last year alone, 10 QB's topped 3500 yards passing and guys like Romo and Schaub would have eclipsed 3500 yards w/o injuries. Aikman had a QB rating of 90+ in only two seasons. Nine QB's topped a 90+ QB rating last year.The ring is king. There's no doubt about it. However, there are 20+ full time starters on NFL teams and Aikman was merely a game manager...not a HOF'er.
Actually, it's how low the Hall sets its QB standard. Vastly over-represented, but I'm hoping we have VERY few QB's going in over the next decade - just Favre would be fine.
I disagree with the last part. If guys from the last 5 years haven't shown much by now they pretty much won't be around long enough to build a body of work impressive enough to merit consideration. I agree that the guys in the first group are not the best candidates, but at least it gets us some dialogue about players that are not discussed very often on the boards. I can't even remember the last time Cunningham's name came up.I'm curious why you don't like the decades approach. Are you suggesting that the voting patterns up until now will suddenly change?
He's been a below-average NFL QB for his whole career until December of 2007. Since when is below-average good enough to get in the Hall of Fame?
Terrific post. Sums up Drew's career quite accurately. He posessed an incredibly strong arm, yet had virtually ZERO pocket presence at all, took FAR too many sacks many years due to his mindnumbing tendency to hold the ball, waiting for receivers to get open, getting strip sacked on the blind side, etc... Watching Bledsoe for many years was incredibly frustrating. The guy could make every throw on the field, but often stupidly forced the ball into double coverage, almost trying to throw the ball THROUGH a defender.
Manning's doing just fine. He already has a ring (as a huge underdog) and his numbers are the result of being in one of teh league's toughest defensive divisions. If Eli keeps improving at the rate that he's been improving over teh last two years, he's going to be a very good QB for a very long time. (and I'm a Eagles fan, so I'd actually like to be wrong about this)
In their short careers, Big Ben has been a considerably better QB than Eli.
Where does Aikman's individual post-season success factor into this?Aikman's average statistics are also a bit better than you give him credit for, but it's worth noting that he also was competing with Marino, Elway, Montana and Young during the prime years of his career. That's one of the reasons his ranks don't always look terrific.That said, he was top 5 in adjusted net yards per pass from '92 to '95 and then again in '98. Without his playoff performances he's not a HOFer, but he was fantastic in the post-season and that's certainly valuable.
Where does Aikman's individual post-season success factor into this?Aikman's average statistics are also a bit better than you give him credit for, but it's worth noting that he also was competing with Marino, Elway, Montana and Young during the prime years of his career. That's one of the reasons his ranks don't always look terrific.Sure, it's "Hall of Fame"...not "Hall of Stats". However, the guy topped 20 TD's in a season one measly time in his career. ONE. This is with the NFL's career rushing leader (Smith), a HOF WR (Irvin) and very good TE (Novacek) for much of his career. Heck, the guy never even topped 3500 yards in a season. In the NFL last year alone, 10 QB's topped 3500 yards passing and guys like Romo and Schaub would have eclipsed 3500 yards w/o injuries. Aikman had a QB rating of 90+ in only two seasons. Nine QB's topped a 90+ QB rating last year.
The ring is king. There's no doubt about it. However, there are 20+ full time starters on NFL teams and Aikman was merely a game manager...not a HOF'er.
That said, he was top 5 in adjusted net yards per pass from '92 to '95 and then again in '98. Without his playoff performances he's not a HOFer, but he was fantastic in the post-season and that's certainly valuable.
Aikman was a great quarterback who did a very good job during the Cowboys' dominant stretch.
I don't think anyone ranks Aikman higher on the all time QB list than they rank Emmit on the all time RB list.Where does Aikman's individual post-season success factor into this?Aikman's average statistics are also a bit better than you give him credit for, but it's worth noting that he also was competing with Marino, Elway, Montana and Young during the prime years of his career. That's one of the reasons his ranks don't always look terrific.
The ring is king. There's no doubt about it. However, there are 20+ full time starters on NFL teams and Aikman was merely a game manager...not a HOF'er.
That said, he was top 5 in adjusted net yards per pass from '92 to '95 and then again in '98. Without his playoff performances he's not a HOFer, but he was fantastic in the post-season and that's certainly valuable.
A lot of folks like to point out how awesome the talent around him was, but there are many, many quarterbacks who could have screwed up with that cast. There vwere a lot of low-character players in that clubhouse (Newton, Irvin, to name a few) and Aikman held tehm together and won with them. Also, peopel like to point out how Emmitt is the top RB of all-time, but I think anyone who knows football knows where Smith ranks among the Peytons, Browns, Campbells, Dickersons, and Simpsons of the NFL. Aikman hugely added to the value of both him and Irvin.
I don't think so either, but he's definitely a deserving Hall of Famer.I don't think anyone ranks Aikman higher on the all time QB list than they rank Emmit on the all time RB list.Where does Aikman's individual post-season success factor into this?Aikman's average statistics are also a bit better than you give him credit for, but it's worth noting that he also was competing with Marino, Elway, Montana and Young during the prime years of his career. That's one of the reasons his ranks don't always look terrific.
The ring is king. There's no doubt about it. However, there are 20+ full time starters on NFL teams and Aikman was merely a game manager...not a HOF'er.
That said, he was top 5 in adjusted net yards per pass from '92 to '95 and then again in '98. Without his playoff performances he's not a HOFer, but he was fantastic in the post-season and that's certainly valuable.
A lot of folks like to point out how awesome the talent around him was, but there are many, many quarterbacks who could have screwed up with that cast. There vwere a lot of low-character players in that clubhouse (Newton, Irvin, to name a few) and Aikman held tehm together and won with them. Also, peopel like to point out how Emmitt is the top RB of all-time, but I think anyone who knows football knows where Smith ranks among the Peytons, Browns, Campbells, Dickersons, and Simpsons of the NFL. Aikman hugely added to the value of both him and Irvin.
What I'm saying is that if 10-12 QBs make it who played at least one season between 2000 and 2009, we likely cannot accurately identify at least a few of them, because they have likely been starting for only a few seasons or less. Thus, because the point of the thread is to come up with 10-12 names, people start bringing up a lot of players who are not worthy.Also, I do think it's very possible voting patterns will change. For one thing, decades obviously have nothing to do with the process, so dividing up the inductees this way is arbitrary. And, while there were 5 such periods in a row with 10-12 QBs, that's still only a sample size of 5. Finally, it is certainly possible that the number of HOF worthy QBs will fluctuate at times... it wouldn't be surprising (to me) to see a down decade for HOF QBs, especially since there are two factors in play for that - the quality of the QBs and the subjective assessments of the voters.David Yudkin said:
I think you are being a bit too literally. It's an open forum discussion. Could there be fewer than the typically 10-12? Sure. But it's a theoretical discussion. IF THE HOF TREND CONTINUES . . . then who MIGHT make it.Given that we know two guys already (Aikman and Moon) and Favre, Manning, and Brady seem like they are going to make it, to ask for 5-7 other maybes gives us somehting to talk about.As already outlined, yes, there are some guys that played in the last year or two (or may enter the league this year), but it seems to me that there are a handful of guys in the running (Warner, McNabb, Brees, Rivers, etc.) that don't make this a totally pointless exercise.Tell you what. To make it more concrete, I'll make a thread just for the 90s since we know who the options are . . .
