Jump to content

Is Philip Rivers a HoF QB?


Danger

Rivers HoF?  

75 members have voted

  1. 1. Does Philip Rivers belong in the NFL Hall of Fame?

    • Yes, First Ballot
    • Yes, after a few years
    • Yes, after many years
    • No, never.


Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, lancerman said:

There 3 options for yes and 1 option for no. It’s been statistically proven many times just if you give the same option in multiple forms it yields a theater result. The winning option is still no. That speaks volumes. Poll should have been Yes; No, Not Sure. 

You’re arguments aren’t facts. It’s just opinions based on a distortion of facts which you’ve been caught being misleading or having low standards with. This is a fact: No QB has gotten in the Hall of Fame without a Super Bowl, MVP or All Pro. That’s a fact. Not a single one 

Also as a huge boxing fan, I can think of a single fighter that spent more than a decade of their career outside the top 12 ranked fighters (which is effectively what the playoffs are) that never had a single title fight, that was described as a “perrenial contender”. 

Again, wrong no surprise. 3 options equate to the same end conclusion, yes. So votes are going to be scattered amongst the 3 yes options. Where as there is only 1 no option, so any no votes are solely listed there. The majority voters said yes. You swore i was the only person to think so, you were wrong. This doesnt account for the litany of media outlets and personalities who agree with me.

My arguments are facts because they are pretty defined universal definitions. Being a playoff contender, doesn't mean you are making the playoffs all the time or even a majority. But if you are right on the cusp or make it in 6 of the 9 years, that is a perennial playoff contender. By cusp i mean 1 game. Not 2 or 3 games out of a playoff berth or division title.

This is a fact, no qb in NFL history with 8 or more probowls who is eligible to make the HOF, isnt in.

A fighter who has cracked the top 12 a couple times and missed the top 12 by 1 spot, is definitely a contender. Not a title contender, but definitely a contender. Ala playoff contender.

So you tell me what is a team that in 9 years made the playoffs 2 times, lost the division 3 times by 1 game and missed out as a WC by 1 game is? If that isn't a playoff contender, im not sure what is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bearerofnews said:

Again, wrong no surprise. 3 options equate to the same end conclusion, yes. So votes are going to be scattered amongst the 3 yes options. Where as there is only 1 no option, so any no votes are solely listed there. The majority voters said yes. You swore i was the only person to think so, you were wrong. This doesnt account for the litany of media outlets and personalities who agree with me.

My arguments are facts because they are prettu defined universal definitions. Being a playoff contender, doesn't mean you are making the playoffs all the time or even a majority. But if you are right on the cusp or make it in 6 of the 9 years, that is a perennial playoff contender. By cusp i mean 1 game. Not 2 or 3 games out of a playoff berth or division title.

This is a fact, no qb in NFL history with 8 or more probowls who is eligible to make the HOF, isnt in.

A fighter who has cracked the top 12 a couple times and missed the top 12 by 1 spot, is definitely a contender. Not a title contender, but definitely a contender. Ala playoff contender.

So you tell me what is a team that in 9 years made the playoffs 2 times, lost the division 3 times by 1 game and missed out as a WC by 1 game is? If that isn't a playoff contender, im not sure what is.

You said perrenial contender. You didn’t say “contenders to maybe make the playoffs”. 

You didn’t said Rivers’ case is partially that he made the Chargers perrenial contenders. You didn’t say “guyz he almost made the playoffs like a lot”. 

“A fighter who cracked the top 12 a couple of times and missed the top 12 by 1 spot, is definitely a contender”.

Boxing is another thing you are ignorant of. 

You have no standards. Or you’re just dropping them to prop up the guy on your team. I really don’t care which. You’ve been exposed multiple times making misleading statements 

I’m going to ignore you now. Because you no longer deserve my attention. I come here to have intelligent football discussions. You just throw crap at the wall. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, lancerman said:

You said perrenial contender. You didn’t say “contenders to maybe make the playoffs”. 

You didn’t said Rivers’ case is partially that he made the Chargers perrenial contenders. You didn’t say “guyz he almost made the playoffs like a lot”. 

“A fighter who cracked the top 12 a couple of times and missed the top 12 by 1 spot, is definitely a contender”.

Boxing is another thing you are ignorant of. 

You have no standards. Or you’re just dropping them to prop up the guy on your team. I really don’t care which. You’ve been exposed multiple times making misleading statements 

I’m going to ignore you now. Because you no longer deserve my attention. I come here to have intelligent football discussions. You just throw crap at the wall. 

Wrong, again. This is the only thing consistent from you; being wrong. Go look at my post. I said perennial contender (made the playoffs or missed by 1 game). Sorry i didn't draw it out more clearly as a perrennial playoff contender. Which Chargers absolutely have been past 9 years.  Not based on my definition, based on traditional definition. Which you have shown you struggle to grasp. 

Seems you struggle with boxing basics like you do football.  Context is important. If i said superbowl contender or championship contender, youd have an arguement (first one yet in this entire debacle)

You are the one who has been exposed of horrible contrarian arguments, continuously changing criteria for multiple different players to downplay Rivers and adjusting the goal post.

I should of ignored you long ago. It was quite apparent you were never interested in a logical and intellectual debate.  Just random variables into a pot and hoping you brewed up something clever.  Low standards is someone who values singularity over totality.

Either way, i doubt you will ignore me. So you can have the last word. This is going no where.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bearerofnews said:

He has taken 1 of the worst run franchises in all of sports and made them a perennial contender most of his career (made the playoffs or missed by 1 game). Something his predessor failed to do (1st ballot HOFer Drew Brees) that's eliminating the fact he has the 9th most wins in NFL history of any qb, multiple records in terms of comebacks and streaks, has produced with 4 different head coaches (playoffs and probowl in the same year with 4 diff head coaches) is 3rd on consecutive start list for qbs all time. One of the greatest abilities is availability. 1 of only 13 qbs ever with atleast 8 probowls.

If not for a Dynasty in the same conference Rivers very likely could of been in 2 to 3 SBs. 

 

Imo a QB who is truely HoF talent should be able to win the division on a regular base even with mediocre teams, especially in an division that basically lacked a star QB the whole period that Rivers played. The Chargers havn't won the division since 2009.

As a Raiders fan i always feared playing Rivers, more then i did fear playing Eli Manning or Ben. But i don't think Rivers should get in the HoF due to lack of doing something results wise since 2009, and while he obviously also could get in the HoF based on resume or fame i would say that Eli and Ben deserve that much more due to them winning SB's (and for the fame part it doesnt help that Rivers played in a small market).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bearerofnews said:

Perennial playoff contender. Contended to make the playoffs. Without Rivers they likely would of been perennial top 5 pick contender. 

“Perennial playoff contender” is the bare minimum for any good QB much less HOF. I don’t think that’s something you can stick a feather in your cap on

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bearerofnews said:

That's my point. If you can remove or place someone in the HOF based off a single season, they aren't a HOF.  This is a totality achievement not a singular achievement.  

If it’s a totality achievement, then those single seasons count. You don’t get to emit them just because they’re singular. They’re a part of the total. 

Quote

HOF is consistently great. Rivers career numbers vs his era contemparies show he has been consistently great.

Even if his career numbers were right there with Brady/Brees/Peyton (which they aren’t), the HOF isn’t just about stats. It has to do with dominance vs peers. It’s about accolades. It’s about success. 

Should the HOF vote in a guy who has been consistently outclassed by 3-4 other players for his entire career? Should they vote in a player that never reached the goal that every player shoots for? Should they vote in a player that literally never had a single season where he could be named MVP? Should they vote in a player that has never even had a single season where he could be recognized as the best amongst his peers? If you’re saying yes to all of these questions, then we can agree to disagree and respectfully end the discussion on just how low a bar the HOF’s standards ought to be.

Bulk stats (which is the crux of your argument) are nice, but they’re not some sort of end-all.

Quote

Using outlier singular achievements like 1 sb or 2 mvps or 1 or 2 all pros isnt how a HOF career is made. 

Never being a top 4 QB, never being named MVP, never being voted an All-Pro, and having little postseason success/appearances isn’t how a HOF career is made either.

Quote

If the difference between Rivers career and other HOFers is... he has better stats, more probowls and more wins, but they had this 1 magical season where they got an mvp or a ring or an all pro and that creates higher value than the other accumulation achievements, it makes no logical sense to me.

He doesn’t have better stats, though. His era contemporaries totally outclass him. If you want to look at bulk stats (which you have been doing consistently), he never comes close to Brady/Brees/Manning. Yards? Totally outclassed. Touchdowns? Totally outclassed. Accolades? Totally outclassed. Postseason success? Totally outclassed. 

If you want to start looking at efficiency/per game stats, it’s a little closer, but he still doesn’t make up the ground enough. Of the five (Brady, Brees, Rodgers, Manning, Rivers) he is: last in career passer rating, tied for last in TD%, last in TDs per game, last in YPG, 4th in INT%, 3rd in YPA. 

Rivers isn’t in their conversation. And, back to my point, he and Ryan’s careers compare very favorably - Rivers just played longer. If you’re okay with voting a Rivers in, you’re going to have to be okay with voting a Ryan in (no to both).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CP3MVP said:

“Perennial playoff contender” is the bare minimum for any good QB much less HOF. I don’t think that’s something you can stick a feather in your cap on

Since 2006 Rivers has made the playoffs 6 times, Brees 7 times. Is Brees not a HOFer? Lets not ignore the fact Rivers has had to overcome Norv Turner and Mike Mccoy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

If it’s a totality achievement, then those single seasons count. You don’t get to emit them just because they’re singular. They’re a part of the total. 

Even if his career numbers were right there with Brady/Brees/Peyton (which they aren’t), the HOF isn’t just about stats. It has to do with dominance vs peers. It’s about accolades. It’s about success. 

Should the HOF vote in a guy who has been consistently outclassed by 3-4 other players for his entire career? Should they vote in a player that never reached the goal that every player shoots for? Should they vote in a player that literally never had a single season where he could be named MVP? Should they vote in a player that has never even had a single season where he could be recognized as the best amongst his peers? If you’re saying yes to all of these questions, then we can agree to disagree and respectfully end the discussion on just how low a bar the HOF’s standards ought to be.

Bulk stats (which is the crux of your argument) are nice, but they’re not some sort of end-all.

Never being a top 4 QB, never being named MVP, never being voted an All-Pro, and having little postseason success/appearances isn’t how a HOF career is made either.

He doesn’t have better stats, though. His era contemporaries totally outclass him. If you want to look at bulk stats (which you have been doing consistently), he never comes close to Brady/Brees/Manning. Yards? Totally outclassed. Touchdowns? Totally outclassed. Accolades? Totally outclassed. Postseason success? Totally outclassed. 

If you want to start looking at efficiency/per game stats, it’s a little closer, but he still doesn’t make up the ground enough. Of the five (Brady, Brees, Rodgers, Manning, Rivers) he is: last in career passer rating, tied for last in TD%, last in TDs per game, last in YPG, 4th in INT%, 3rd in YPA. 

Rivers isn’t in their conversation. And, back to my point, he and Ryan’s careers compare very favorably - Rivers just played longer. If you’re okay with voting a Rivers in, you’re going to have to be okay with voting a Ryan in (no to both).

If the majority of your argument for someone is on the basis of 1 singularity, that is not equal to the totality. 

 

Rivers got multiple MVP votes in 2008 and 2009. If his team had more wins, he would of been MVP in 2008.

 

You think the HOF votes in only 4 players from a position in an era? There was 7 qbs from the previous era.  His era contemporaries have at minimum played 50 more games than him.

I did a break down of the stats and it wasnt volume. He was right there with them and if you look at efficiency and bulk.  Couple pages back. Never being top 4 based off what? Play or perception. Because perception is hard to guage. Off play, he absolutely was. 

 

If Ryan continues to play at a high level for another 3 or 4 years, i have no problem him getting in. I think you are short changing Rivers numbers, seasonal play and consistency. As well as impact to his team. Tell me how you gauge "dominance over peers" so we can actually measure it with data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, lancerman said:

Eli Manning is currently one spot ahead of him in yards and two spots behind him in TD’s

Queation should be if you would put Eli in the Hall if he lost the AFCCG in both 2007 and 2011

The answer to the Eli question is no. But SB's do matter, especially two SB MVP's. What really hurts Rivers IMO is the fact that he's been on some great teams and despite that, he's only been to one conference championship and he's 0-1 there. It isn't like Dan Marino who's carrying these trash teams. Rivers has been put in some great situations throughout the years but keeps falling short.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...