What should qualify a player for the Hall of Fame?

[SkippyX]

Lamonica, Dawson, and Namath career comparisons.

http://pfref.com/tiny/fQdvL

[Heinz D.]

2 hours ago, SkippyX said:

This is mostly false.

First, Reich won 2 of 3 playoff games in 1992.

Second, A loaded Hall of Fame Bills team

• Levy
• Reed
• Lofton
• Thomas
• Smith

with a deep roster of pro bowl players got to 4 Super Bowls.

 

Kelly was great in the 1990 playoffs but came up just short in the Super Bowl (relying on a 47 yarder on grass is not exactly ensuring a win) 126.6 AFCCG passer rating

• Full 100% QB credit for 1990 and his 5 TDs to 2 picks

In 1991 he had 5 TDs to 9 picks in the playoffs  (3 to 5 leading to that Super Bowl)

The Bills team won 10-7 in the AFCCG. Kelly went 13-25 for 115 with no TDs and 2 picks for a 31.6 rating

• He gets about 20% QB credit for this playoff season

In 1992 Frank Reich had 6 TDs to 1 pick in the first 2 playoff games including a legendary 35-3 comeback.

Kelly played in the AFCCG and went 12-22 for 195 yards with a TD and 2 picks for a 71 rating

He lasted 7 passes into the Super Bowl with 3 turnovers.

Kelly dropped back 34 times in the playoffs and turned the ball over 5 times.

• He gets ZERO QB Credit for 1992

Kelly had a very good game against the Raiders in 1993 with 2 TDs no picks 287 yards and a 113 rating.

He went 17 for 27 for 160 yards no TDs and no picks in the AFCCG. (tourist) 79.2 rating

He only had 1 turnover this time but he led his team to 13 points in another blowout loss,

• He gets somewhere around 40% credit for this playoff run.

AFCCG totals  in 5 games  (they also faced Cincy in 1988)

• 78 of 129 for 917 yards 4 TDs and 8 picks for a 66.6 rting

Super Bowl totals in 4 games

• 81 of 125 for 829 yards 2 TDs 7 picks and 3 fumbles lost for a 56.9 rating

Ummm...yeah. 

Not quite sure what this post is trying to prove. Is it trying to prove that Eli Manning was a better post-season quarterback than Kelly? As it seems to me that Eli's Super Bowl victories were the result of some of the luckiest plays in NFL history. I'd also posit that those Giants teams has a lot of other good players too (the apparent criticism you level at Kelly).

The only quarterback in NFL history to carry sub-par teams to the Super Bowl is John Elway. 

Are you suggesting Jim Kelley is a bad player, and unworthy of the Hall of Fame? And Eli for sure belongs there? If so, I find that a weird pair of assertions. 

[JAF-N72EX]

13 minutes ago, Heinz D. said:

Ummm...yeah. 

Not quite sure what this post is trying to prove. Is it trying to prove that Eli Manning was a better post-season quarterback than Kelly? As it seems to me that Eli's Super Bowl victories were the result of some of the luckiest plays in NFL history. I'd also posit that those Giants teams has a lot of other good players too (the apparent criticism you level at Kelly).

The only quarterback in NFL history to carry sub-par teams to the Super Bowl is John Elway. 

Are you suggesting Jim Kelley is a bad player, and unworthy of the Hall of Fame? And Eli for sure belongs there? If so, I find that a weird pair of assertions. 

I think he often gets lost in his own thoughts to the point that he's not even sure anymore, to be honest.

He's also the epitome of a box score scout. And.....

Quote

QBs who have beaten 2 SB winning QBs in the playoffs on their own Super Bowl run:

Apparently also believes that Qb's play one-on-one.

[Bearerofnews]

I hate the argument of so and so wasnt top 3 or 4 of his era.  So for example, completely random. Lets take Rivers for example 🤗

If we look at a stretch of time, from 08 to 10, he was the best qb if you look at production. He had a 103 passer rating. Only other qb in that period to have 100 passer rating, was Brady who didnt play 1 of those 3 seasons. Rivers had a 4.0 higher passer rating than any other qb in that period.

But if you look at a stretch of like 8 years, he was 5th. People will say "HOFer has to be top 3 or 4 of their era". But what if their era has 3 or 4 of the top 6 players of all time at that position?

Most people have Brady and Peyton top 3. Most have Brees prolly top 5 or 6. Rodgers alot of people have in the top 6 or at worst top 8. So is being below that in your era really not HOF worthy?

[3rivers]

On 2020-01-23 at 4:01 PM, Bolts223 said:

Being among the top players of your position for a sustained period of time.

Things like breakout seasons, rings, big moments, etc can all put a borderline player over the top.

But I think the idea that someone who wouldn't even be considered for the HOF if not for the fact that they happen to have 2 rings getting in is a bit ridiculous.

 

the rings  help but it's the ultimate team sport, so why do so many people put so much emphasis on rings anyways? 

I would say if you have an award like  DPOY, MVP, and around 6 pro bowls and 4 all pro's that should help. Some players don't have that and probably deserve to get in though, it's not easy to set a rule and forget.  Maybe the HOF will eventually be like the pro bowl anyways

[Bolts223]

30 minutes ago, 3rivers said:

the rings  help but it's the ultimate team sport, so why do so many people put so much emphasis on rings anyways? 

I would say if you have an award like  DPOY, MVP, and around 6 pro bowls and 4 all pro's that should help. Some players don't have that and probably deserve to get in though, it's not easy to set a rule and forget.  Maybe the HOF will eventually be like the pro bowl anyways

The reason is because it's harder to market football if you try to advertise intricate matchups and coaching chess matches which is what usually decides the outcome of games.

So instead they try to make it like a 1 v 1 boxing match between QB's.

"Brady and Mahomes face off in an epic showdown" sounds a lot better than, "Belichick must figure out how to adjust defense to play perfect man coverage against the insane speed offense that Reid has developed and designed."

That's why people say idiotic things like, "Eli beat Brady twice, Brady is the GOAT and therefore Eli deserves to be the HOF." Despite the fact that Eli and Brady literally were never on the field at the same at any point in the game.

Hence because Eli happens to have been the QB of two SB winning teams, they will say that Eli has two SB's and therefore is deserving of the HOF.

It's absolutely stupid and the hardcore fans and sports writers should know better, but many of them don't unfortunately. 

Edited January 27, 2020 by Bolts223

[3rivers]

1 hour ago, Bolts223 said:

The reason is because it's harder to market football if you try to advertise intricate matchups and coaching chess matches which is what usually decides the outcome of games.

So instead they try to make it like a 1 v 1 boxing match between QB's.

"Brady and Mahomes face off in an epic showdown" sounds a lot better than, "Belichick must figure out how to adjust defense to play perfect man coverage against the insane speed offense that Reid has developed and designed."

That's why people say idiotic things like, "Eli beat Brady twice, Brady is the GOAT and therefore Eli deserves to be the HOF." Despite the fact that Eli and Brady literally were never on the field at the same at any point in the game.

Hence because Eli happens to have been the QB of two SB winning teams, they will say that Eli has two SB's and therefore is deserving of the HOF.

It's absolutely stupid and the hardcore fans and sports writers should know better, but many of them don't unfortunately. 

the marketing is out of control, between fantasy and all the hype of skilled players it's just not good .  As for the bold, maybe they know better, but they are doing their job in todays nfl. Sad reality of all this is that it keeps deteriorating to the point where the older fans will eventually stop watching.  

[lolsurebro]

On 1/25/2020 at 4:42 AM, Bearerofnews said:

His defense held an all time offense to 14 points and then again to 17 points. Eli had to do the bare minimum to win the 2 sb games. SF and their ST choked away that NFCC.  He game managed vs Tampa and Dallas in 07, did much of nothing vs GB and relied on an all time defensive performance and the most flukiest play ever in 07.

Eli has gone 1 and done 4 times. He has won playoff games 2 of 6 times.

His 8 playoff wins, his defense never allowed more than 20 points and avged 15 ppg. Which would of ranked #1 in 2007 and #3 in 2011.

Eli was carried by a defense. Sure he made some plays here and there and he didnt play like eli usually plays in those 2 runs to mess things up. But he wasn't the driving factor.

Those 2 teams caught lighting in a bottle.

Take away the 2 rings and Eli is potentially an all time bust or close to it. When 2 games, can tilt the scale that drastically, you arent HOF. You are hall of fortunate or hall of anomaly.

I was talking with my girlfriend about how people are calling for Eli to be in the HoF, this weekend. Her immediate response was "Eli didn't do anything! It was his DE-FENSE that got him those wins. Eli is and has always been awful" 

lmao

I sent her a screenshot of your comment above because I know she will appreciate it, and it will fire her up again. Her hate for Eli is comical.

[Hukos]

My take is that Eli had a nice, long career that involved two humongous upsets. That's absolutely nothing for him or Giants fans to be ashamed of. I don't personally believe it to be sufficient for the Hall of Fame, though. What I struggle with Eli is that he's never been considered an elite QB. No one really ever feared him. He was "good enough" up until the late stages of his career where he didn't need to be playing anymore, but he wasn't a guy you feared going off on you.

[ILoveTheVikings]

Eli Manning will get in despite him never being an elite quarterback which I think is beyond ridiculous. 

Classic case of accumulating impressive volume stats because he never got injured despite never having any truly elite seasons. Superbowls are nice but it shouldn't put someone as average as Manning over the top.

Just my 2cents. 

[Kiwibrown]

I think having a single criteria is  a bad idea, preferring a broad way into the HOF. 

Championships are non essential in my opinion, winning is. other great players are trying to win as well.  But it should certainly influence HOF voting. FOR instance, I love that TD is in he hall of fame, he was unreal for 3 years and got derailed by injury and overwork. He is more HOF worthy imo than Frank Gore. 

Randy MOSS would be a HOF Imo for his first 3 seasons alone, visually, just watching him was breath taking, the guys who do that deserve to be in the HOF. Devon HESTER is a HOFER in MY BOOK. Everyone who was watching football when he was playing was waiting to see what he did each week. HE BRoke the records of the position.

I think all time greats at all positions should make it, a part from maybe LS AND HE MODERN DAY fullback. HELL MACAFEE and the punter from OAK should get a look in, they were great and they entertained, though there are guys more deserving>

BEING VERY GOD FOR A LONG TIME does not generate much HOF INTEREST For my mind, there will be a bunch of WRs WITH Over 1k catches and 10k yards and they should not get a look into the HOF unless they were dominant. 

Edited January 27, 2020 by Kiwibrown
caps was y keyboards mal func.

[Elky]

On 1/26/2020 at 6:36 AM, Bearerofnews said:

I hate the argument of so and so wasnt top 3 or 4 of his era.  So for example, completely random. Lets take Rivers for example 🤗

If we look at a stretch of time, from 08 to 10, he was the best qb if you look at production. He had a 103 passer rating. Only other qb in that period to have 100 passer rating, was Brady who didnt play 1 of those 3 seasons. Rivers had a 4.0 higher passer rating than any other qb in that period.

But if you look at a stretch of like 8 years, he was 5th. People will say "HOFer has to be top 3 or 4 of their era". But what if their era has 3 or 4 of the top 6 players of all time at that position?

Most people have Brady and Peyton top 3. Most have Brees prolly top 5 or 6. Rodgers alot of people have in the top 6 or at worst top 8. So is being below that in your era really not HOF worthy?

Rivers has literally no business being in the Hall of Fame.

He never won MVP. He never made an appearance in the Super Bowl, let alone winning one. He was given plenty of solid teams throughout his career and did nothing with them. Ever since going 13-3 in 2009, he had a losing record as the starter.

In fact, one can easily argue he was never THAT good.

[Bearerofnews]

8 minutes ago, Elky said:

Rivers has literally no business being in the Hall of Fame.

He never won MVP. He never made an appearance in the Super Bowl, let alone winning one. He was given plenty of solid teams throughout his career and did nothing with them. Ever since going 13-3 in 2009, he had a losing record as the starter.

In fact, one can easily argue he was never THAT good.

No, one can't argue that. One can try, but they wont be successful. Rivers was given solid teams based on what? Talent? Ahhh yes, because everyone knows talent with bad coaching wins.

1 off arbitrary achievements dont trump CAREER production, dominance, efficiency, consistency and longevity. 

Rivers will walk right into the HOF, dont kid yourself.

[Bassomatic]

On 1/23/2020 at 4:49 PM, RamblinMan99 said:

Roman Gabriel won MVP in 1969 and he still isn't in the Hall of Fame.  

There are actually lots of QBs who have won the league MVP award but aren't in the Hall of Fame: Earl Morrall, Roman Gabriel, John Brodie, Bert Jones, Brian Sipe, Ken Anderson, Joe Theismann, Boomer Esiason, Rich Gannon and Steve McNair.

[Soko]

5 hours ago, Bearerofnews said:

1 off arbitrary achievements dont trump CAREER production, dominance, efficiency, consistency and longevity. 

Pretty bogus to put dominance and efficiency in with Rivers. You point to the 08-10 span, where even if he was the best QB in all of those seasons (he wasn’t), that’s a far stretch to call him dominant for a career. Likewise with efficiency, when was the last time Rivers threw for under double digit interceptions? His TDs were always at least decent if not very good, but they hardly reached great heights. His completion percentage and passer ratings are on his side, but I’d never call Rivers one of the more efficient guys, especially in the context of a HOF discussion. 

Rivers has been productive and very durable, though. Has had times of good efficiency and high end play (dominant though, meh). But to say he dominated the league for his whole career or was efficient his entire career is a flat-stretch. Those are things one would say about Peyton Manning.

Edited January 28, 2020 by Yin-Yang