Is Rivers better than any current HoF QBs?

[Danger]

4 hours ago, NJerseypaint said:

I don't see why. Here's a great breakdown of why even his stats are HoF worthy: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/index3ab6.html?p=6003

His stats aren't as pretty as the QBs of today, but that's because the game was totally different. When compared to the QBs of his time, Namath was an elite QB.

I don't have the exact stats, though I've done it before. Namath's passer rating was never good amongst his peers. His passer rating was usually just slightly above average when considering both the AFL and NFL performances. Middle of the road. 

[lancerman]

13 hours ago, pwny said:

Ehh. It's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Really Good Stats.

Sure, statistically speaking, he wouldn't sniff the Hall. But he's not in the Hall just because of his stats. He's in there because of his legacy as a player. Very few things in the history of the league have had a larger impact than Namath's guarantee and the win that followed. He legitimized the AFL's talent as as a true competitor to the perceived better NFL, just a little over a year prior to the official merger date. Prior to that game, the general belief across the country was that the AFL was an inferior product, and that the NFL was only merging with the AFL because Al Davis had tried to steal players from the NFL. Without that win, the league probably would have continued to have problems making people believe that the two products were on equal footing. The hype around Namath's guarantee, and the subsequent delivering on that guarantee, was vital in changing the entire narrative around the merger.

His legacy is that of a Hall of Famer.

People often ignore the bulk of Namath’s career and focus on the latter part when he was injured. Dude was literally the best or 2nd best AFL QB ever. Largely was viewed as top 5 during his era. Was the first superstar QB ever. Was at times the best QB in football. First to break 4000 yards. 

It’s easy to look at him completely out of context 

[CP3MVP]

Namath was a bad QB and him being in the hall is a joke 

[NJerseypaint]

4 hours ago, Danger said:

I don't have the exact stats, though I've done it before. Namath's passer rating was never good amongst his peers. His passer rating was usually just slightly above average when considering both the AFL and NFL performances. Middle of the road. 

The article goes into why you shouldn't be looking at passer rating - because it overrates INTs and Comp% and totally ignores sacks and throwaways. The guy was on of the most talented athletes in football. He had a rocket arm, insane wheels, and a super quick release. He was the best at avoiding sacks and get the ball away; most times at the determent to the oh-so-beloved comp%.  He fell off a cliff after 1974 but multiple season ending knee injuries are going to eventually catch up to you. He lost a key part of his game and frankly was playing for some lousy Jet teams by then (the 1974 defense was bad, the 1975 defense was a joke).

 

6 minutes ago, CP3MVP said:

Namath was a bad QB and him being in the hall is a joke 

A joke is expecting QBs in the 60s and 70s to have the passing stats of today because it's the only game they know. By all accounts, Joe Namath was one of the best QBs of his time - leading the AFL in passing twice, NFL once (almost a second time in '74), lead in 4th quarter comebacks 3x, game-winning drives 2x, AFL MVP 2x, and a national icon that played a pivotal role in the NFL's media success. For god's sake, he called the plays in his SB win (SB MVP too by the way). Imagine that - the biggest game of your career, a pivotal games for the league you represent, you just guaranteed a win against the NFL's most dominant team (21 point favorites with a record breaking defense), and you're out there calling the offense at the line. That type of pressure doesn't even exist today.

[Danger]

10 minutes ago, NJerseypaint said:

The article goes into why you shouldn't be looking at passer rating - because it overrates INTs and Comp%

No. It really doesn't.

[NJerseypaint]

17 minutes ago, Danger said:

No. It really doesn't.

Quote

1. When we cite things like quarterback rating, completion percentage, and interception ratio, we are going to find that they do not favor Namath. Of course, quarterback rating is over-reliant on completion percentage, and interception percentage also plays a big factor, so mentioning those things and also citing qb rating is redundant.

2. As we know, qb rating does not include sack percentage, though I argued a few months ago that it should. This also disfavors Namath when we cite qb rating, because he had a quick release, which is statistically confirmed by his extremely low sack percentage relative to his era.

3. I talked about quarterback personality types this summer and one of the traits I used was the Gambler trait. If you threw more interceptions and more incompletions because you were avoiding sacks, you were a Gambler in my book, and Namath was an extreme Gambler. Of course, this isn't necessarily bad for your point production and value, even though it is bad for your blessed qb rating. I actually wrote a modest proposal for a Kansas City area sports blog entitled Matt Cassel needs to throw MORE interceptions, where I discuss some of these things. Holding the ball and taking sacks can be as costly or more costly than throwing some interceptions by throwing the ball before you are ready. In Namath's case, we are underselling how good he was when we don't also cite his sack data. His effective completion percentage (completions divided by total passes plus sacks) ranks him much better, and in my opinion, more accurately provides a full picture of a quarterback's contribution.

4. Completion percentage is vastly over-rated. Again, I will probably have a separate post sometime this off-season. I also looked at quarterbacks with similar passer ratings, but different sub-ratings in the four categories, and you will probably be interested in the results as they relate to how frequently, say, a qb with a 90 rating that is dropped down by a bad completion percentage wins and scores, compared to one that is propped up by a good one.

5. Most people agree that yards per attempt is a better indicator of passing value, and Namath exceeded 8.0 yards per attempt in 1967 and 1968, and was at 7.0 or higher every year between ages 23 and 32. Using our advanced passing table which adjusts to league average, he was above average in that category in every one of those seasons. He was insanely above average in 1972 (over two standard deviations above the league average).

6. When we look at adjusted net yards per attempt, which does include his sack rate and his interception rate (but does not include completion percentage), we see a well above average quarterback for most of his career. We don't have reliable sack data for individual quarterbacks before 1969, but extrapolating his career sack rate after 1969 (combined with his completion percentage and interception rate) we can make a pretty good guess that he was also good at avoiding sacks before 1969. From 1969 forward, which would be after he won the Super Bowl and most think he stopped being a good quarterback, he was over a standard deviation better than the league in 1969, 1971 and 1972. He was above average in 1973 and 1974 as well. The only year he was average was in 1970, when he played in only 5 games. So, using adjusted net yards per attempt, rather than quarterback rating, we see that he was a well above average quarterback from ages 24 to 31.

7. His numbers need to be put in context of his era, which we can do with things like our Advanced Passing Table, as interception rates and sack rates and completion percentage were all much lower than they are today.

 

[Soko]

1 hour ago, NJerseypaint said:

The article goes into why you shouldn't be looking at passer rating - because it overrates INTs and Comp% and totally ignores sacks and throwaways. 

That’s like saying we shouldn’t be looking at passing yards because it takes into account YAC. Or we shouldn’t be looking at interceptions because they don’t take into account batted passes. Passer rating isn’t a perfect formula, but it’s used fairly across the board (unlike metrics like QBR). It doesn’t take into account his peers’ sacks or throwaways either - it’s being used in an unbiased fashion here.

Didn’t watch Namath play, so no comment on him or his HOF stature. But throwing out passer rating (or any stat/arguing point) because it doesn’t take his strengths into account (or contrarily, highlights his potential weaknesses) is cherry picking 101. 

[lancerman]

2 hours ago, CP3MVP said:

Namath was a bad QB and him being in the hall is a joke 

No this just shows why football fans shouldn’t talk about players they didn’t watch in era’s they don’t understand 

Namath

-Super Bowl Champion 

-Super Bowl MVP

-All Pro 1974

-First Team All AFL

-3x Second Team AFL

-2x AFL MVP

-AFL Rookie of the Year

-NFL Comeback Player of the Year

-first QB in history to have a 4000 yard passing season 

-national champion 

Namath was a very accomplished QB during his era. Him and Dawson are far and away the top AFL QB’s ever, and he was routinely regarded as a top 5. People need to stop looking at stats out of context. There’s a reason why every fan and sports writer at the time viewed Namath as a huge QB talent. He was more than deserving of being a HOF’er. 

[NJerseypaint]

45 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

That’s like saying we shouldn’t be looking at passing yards because it takes into account YAC. Or we shouldn’t be looking at interceptions because they don’t take into account batted passes. Passer rating isn’t a perfect formula, but it’s used fairly across the board (unlike metrics like QBR). It doesn’t take into account his peers’ sacks or throwaways either - it’s being used in an unbiased fashion here.

Didn’t watch Namath play, so no comment on him or his HOF stature. But throwing out passer rating (or any stat/arguing point) because it doesn’t take his strengths into account (or contrarily, highlights his potential weaknesses) is cherry picking 101. 

How about this:

"why you shouldn't ONLY be looking at passer rating" when evaluating Joe Namath's inclusion in the HoF. There's a lot more to Namath's story than comp% and int%.

[minutemancl]

19 hours ago, pwny said:

Ehh. It's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Really Good Stats.

Sure, statistically speaking, he wouldn't sniff the Hall. But he's not in the Hall just because of his stats. He's in there because of his legacy as a player. Very few things in the history of the league have had a larger impact than Namath's guarantee and the win that followed. He legitimized the AFL's talent as as a true competitor to the perceived better NFL, just a little over a year prior to the official merger date. Prior to that game, the general belief across the country was that the AFL was an inferior product, and that the NFL was only merging with the AFL because Al Davis had tried to steal players from the NFL. Without that win, the league probably would have continued to have problems making people believe that the two products were on equal footing. The hype around Namath's guarantee, and the subsequent delivering on that guarantee, was vital in changing the entire narrative around the merger.

His legacy is that of a Hall of Famer.

Well said. It has been brought up a couple times, but I like the criteria of "could you tell the history of the NFL without this player?" for the HoF.

[Soko]

12 hours ago, NJerseypaint said:

How about this:

"why you shouldn't ONLY be looking at passer rating" when evaluating Joe Namath's inclusion in the HoF. There's a lot more to Namath's story than comp% and int%.

All about that. Single stats never tell the whole story.

[Chargers]

On 2/14/2019 at 8:35 AM, King Joffrey said:

Rivers is really good but I feel like he never gets blamed for shortcomings.  There have been so many games over the course of his career, where the Chargers were loaded and he would choke at the end.  I just feel like over time, he is what he is.  A very efficient passer, with terrific longevity and heart but 13 seasons and only like 3 seasons where he won a playoff game (07, 08, 13) correct me if im wrong.  I keep waiting for him to just win one to cement himself, but it hasn't happened.  I really thought this would be the year.  I don't want to call him overrated, but he def isn't underrated anymore.

He has been blamed for his short comings( 2009 playoff loss to the putrid Mark Sanchez gets brought up a lot), the problem is that Chargers don't have a national following like the Steelers or Giants do. Which is why Eli and Big Ben get put more under the microscope more. I remember when he was getting blasted by ESPN for getting into a shouting match with Jay Cutler or yelling at Colts Fans in 2007 Playoffs. 

[frenchie]

On ‎2‎/‎13‎/‎2019 at 9:33 PM, patriotsheatyan said:

Do you believe Rivers is better than Namath, Kelly, Stabler, Moon, Fouts, Aikman, or any of the QBs perceived to be among the weakest HoFers?

Better either in terms of average play, or better in terms of overall career?

Rivers has had many more of what I would classify as great seasons when compared to most of these guys. 

Rivers has played during an era that featured Brett Favre, Kurt Warner, Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, Ben Roethlisberger, and Eli Manning, all of whom at some point, will get into the Hall.  Despite this, Rivers has not only kept pace statistically with these guys, but has consistently been a top 5 QB pretty much every year of his career.

- 65+% comp rate - 7 seasons

- 4000+ yards - 10 seasons

- 30+ TDs - 6 seasons

- TD:INT, 2:1 - 8 seasons

I have no problem with Namath (icon, 2x champ), Kelly (4 straight SB appearances), or Aikman (3 rings).  That said, as far as efficiency and consistency go, Rivers blows these guys out of the water....

----------

In regards to 'weak HOFers', looking at Stabler's career, I see 2 great seasons sprinkled in among nothing special.

Fouts had a great career, and was one of the best QBs in the league for a stretch, so he has a case.  Where it gets tricky for me, his heyday fell right in between great QB eras: the end of Tarkenton, Bradshaw, and Staubach, and the beginning of Montana, Marino, and Elway.  His best seasons were somewhere in that void, and because of that, I think he's overrated.

Moon's career was good, but not great.  He had 2 great seasons, 1990 and 1995; didn't make the playoffs neither season.  When he did make the playoffs, he was a classic choke artist, tossing 14 INT and fumbling 16 times in 10 games.  At no point in his career was he the best, or even one of the best QBs in the league.   He was a gun slinger, put up some nice numbers, and was fun to watch, but the fact is, he was way too careless with the ball.  His HOF bid is the NFL's way of saying 'we're sorry nobody drafted you'.....

I'm not upset that these guys are in, I just don't understand how anyone can argue in favor of these three, and at the same time, give Phillip Rivers a hard no.

 

[FalconFan13]

On 2/15/2019 at 8:50 AM, CP3MVP said:

Namath was a bad QB and him being in the hall is a joke 

I  agree with this to a extent the one thing i can't get over is no matter which era it is i can't believe a QB that has more career interceptions than TD's by a good bit and more losses than wins on his resume for his career should be in the hall of fame.

[x0x]

Namath, Stabler, Aikman, Bradshaw, Jurgensen, Bart Starr.

Kelly played in the tundra. Moon was extremely prolific with limited supporting cast losing 5 years in his prime in NFL.