What should qualify a player for the Hall of Fame?

[sammymvpknight]

34 minutes ago, SmittyBacall said:

I've never watched Philip Rivers and thought, "Wow, that dude is a future Hall of Famer".

Rivers was a better QB than Eli...that’s the problem. Lots of average players making it based on the team they play for and a few game stretches. It’s a joke. At this point, I don’t care who gets in because it’s a joke and I don’t take it seriously. 

[SmittyBacall]

Just now, sammymvpknight said:

Rivers was a better QB than Eli...that’s the problem. Lots of average players making it based on the team they play for and a few game stretches. It’s a joke. At this point, I don’t care who gets in because it’s a joke and I don’t take it seriously. 

Right. Thinking about it, I've never watched Eli and thought that either. But there are extenuating circumstances, I guess. One thing I do know, Eli is the perfect example to gauge whether or not a player is deserving of the Hall or not. He's at the crux of championship resume and overall ability. It's very clear - at least to me - without the rings, Eli wouldn't even sniff HOF discussion. With them however, he has the argument.

[Bearerofnews]

On 1/28/2020 at 7:39 PM, wwhickok said:

Rivers was a really good QB. But it's not Hall of Really Good.

Its the Hall of Fame aka greatness.

He wasnt a great QB and for as much as he ran his mouth, you'd think he had won something of substance. But he actually didnt. If anything he was overrated. For a really long time he played in a pretty terrible division and yet still wasn't good enough to win a Super Bowl

So winning makes a player HOF worthy or not? 

I mean your qb is the best testament to that. When Ben wasnt very prolific and wasnt the driving force of that team and they had a top 3 defense every year, they were winning games, making the SB, winning the division, winning sbs. Then when the defense fell apart, the offense was potent, filled with elite talent, Ben was the driving force and prolific, the winning went away. Sure, they won a weak division 3 times since 2011. But when Ben was a better player, in 7 years they had 3 playoff wins. Vs when he had an elite defense and wasn't playing at the level since 2011 and beyond, they won 10 playoff games in 6 years, including 2 sbs and a 3rd sb berth.

[Bearerofnews]

On 1/28/2020 at 7:44 PM, Malik said:

If Philip Rivers gets in what's the argument against someone like Carson Palmer honestly? Rivers was better but it's not like the gap was massive. 

It's pretty big. 

[RedGold]

2 hours ago, SmittyBacall said:

I've never watched Philip Rivers and thought, "Wow, that dude is a future Hall of Famer".

I normally don’t care for wins get you into the hall..   but Rivers choked a ton in crunch time.   I was never worried he would have that end of the game drive to seal a game.

[VigilantZombie]

15 minutes ago, Bearerofnews said:

So winning makes a player HOF worthy or not? 

I mean your qb is the best testament to that. When Ben wasnt very prolific and wasnt the driving force of that team and they had a top 3 defense every year, they were winning games, making the SB, winning the division, winning sbs. Then when the defense fell apart, the offense was potent, filled with elite talent, Ben was the driving force and prolific, the winning went away. Sure, they won a weak division 3 times since 2011. But when Ben was a better player, in 7 years they had 3 playoff wins. Vs when he had an elite defense and wasn't playing at the level since 2011 and beyond, they won 10 playoff games in 6 years, including 2 sbs and a 3rd sb berth.

SB wins play a part but the reality is, it's mostly based on how good that player was during his career. Ben, imo, is a 1st ballot HOF QB. As is Tom Brady (obviously). Eli Manning will get in, idk if itll be 1st ballot or not. I'm really on the fence about Rivers, my gut says no but if he does I'm not going to wreak havoc over it.

[lolsurebro]

The whole point of even bringing Rivers up was that he is better than Eli Manning. Someone else brought up that Matt Ryan was better than Rivers (not sure why that was relevant, I'd have to re-read...)

The whole point of both of those arguments was that Rivers was better than those two and he isn't in the HoF. Not necessarily that Rivers SHOULD be in the HoF, but by measure of Eli getting in, he absolutely should be. 

Rivers was consistent in his time, he just kinda rode under the surface of sheer greatness. Whether you want to say it was his team that carried him or not is your perspective, but it's fair to at least admit the guy was a really good QB.

Which again, is why it's comical that Eli would even get a consideration to the HoF with his peak being somewhere between just competent enough and average.

 

[Bearerofnews]

49 minutes ago, wwhickok said:

SB wins play a part but the reality is, it's mostly based on how good that player was during his career. Ben, imo, is a 1st ballot HOF QB. As is Tom Brady (obviously). Eli Manning will get in, idk if itll be 1st ballot or not. I'm really on the fence about Rivers, my gut says no but if he does I'm not going to wreak havoc over it.

So you think if Eli, Ben and Rivers all 3, had 0 sbs, that Ben would be a HOFer? I wont even ask about eli, because that's a hell no.

I think if all three 2004 qbs had 0 sbs. I think the majority would believe Rivers was the most likely of the 3 to be the HOFer.

[Jotun_Fan]

Disclaimers: I'm a Giants fan, I didn't want them to trade for Eli and hated what they gave up for him, and I would not vote him into the Hall. I do think he'll get in but not the first few ballots.

The question here is, how to value championship runs? I agree with most posters that two good playoff runs probably doesn't warrant hof entry. Most people would consider Tom Brady #1 all time because of his rings. Terry Bradshaw is in because he won 4. Would people think Eli should get in if he won 3? 4?

But also think of an inverse situation, where someone has good stats but poor postseason performances. Several posters says that 1 or 2 games shouldn't decide hof entry, but what if brees choked away the SB against the super bowl? Or Rodgers? Or if Peyton had 0? Should those two games matter if said hofer didn't perform for two games.

 

Maybe the following things are required: top player at position for 3 years, or top 3 for 5, or top 5 for 10. At least one championship required. Championship requirement can be bypassed by extending duration of elite status (#1 for 5 years, top 3 for ten, top 5 for 15.) QBs with at least 2 championships considered depending on stats.

[VigilantZombie]

23 minutes ago, Bearerofnews said:

So you think if Eli, Ben and Rivers all 3, had 0 sbs, that Ben would be a HOFer? I wont even ask about eli, because that's a hell no.

I think if all three 2004 qbs had 0 sbs. I think the majority would believe Rivers was the most likely of the 3 to be the HOFer.

I think Ben would be on the fringe, Idk it's hard to give a non-bias answer because I'm a Steeler fan and he does have 2 rings. I'll answer it like this, in order for him to not have those rings I think itd be fair to say his stats/accomplishments would have to be "diminished" in some regard (not to the level they currently are) so if we agree that's the case, without them no he wouldnt be.

What I am saying is even without SB rings Marino was good enough. Guys of that level. Sometimes SBs are the difference, sometimes they arent.

[Bearerofnews]

3 hours ago, samsel23 said:

I normally don’t care for wins get you into the hall..   but Rivers choked a ton in crunch time.   I was never worried he would have that end of the game drive to seal a game.

That's just not true. He is tied for 13th in 4 qtr comebacks and is 6 away from being top 5 and is 16th in gwd's and 6 away from being 8th.

He also has the most 2nd half comebacks when trailing by 16 points or more.

The problem is perception. He and the team have choked or come up short on some standalone primetime games that get embedded in the memory, over games that happen on a full slate, with less eyes on them. 

Not to mention the primetime games this year are fresh in people's mind vs Pit, Oak and KC and hold more value of what people "remember".

Also you are a KC fan, Rivers has not played very well lately vs KC. Opposes to early in his career when he dominated the division year in and year out.

[Malik]

11 hours ago, lancerman said:

But this is why Eli is problematic. Because if/when he gets in, you have alot of guys who can credibly say "well I was better than him". 

Rule of thumb, you shouldn't be the worst at your position to be in the HOF. Second rule of thumb, you should be able to stand next to all your peers in the HOF and credibly feel like you belong. Third rule of thumb, you should be able to take the other top 2 guys at your position in your era and have a real argument for being better or at least on par with them. 

Absolutely agree. The problem with Eli is that his peak outside of those 8 post season games is mediocre. If he was like a Boomer Esiason who had a couple really outstanding seasons in the mix of his bad or mediocre ones it would be enough to put him over the top to me.

[RedGold]

1 hour ago, Bearerofnews said:

That's just not true. He is tied for 13th in 4 qtr comebacks and is 6 away from being top 5 and is 16th in gwd's and 6 away from being 8th.

He also has the most 2nd half comebacks when trailing by 16 points or more.

The problem is perception. He and the team have choked or come up short on some standalone primetime games that get embedded in the memory, over games that happen on a full slate, with less eyes on them. 

Not to mention the primetime games this year are fresh in people's mind vs Pit, Oak and KC and hold more value of what people "remember".

Also you are a KC fan, Rivers has not played very well lately vs KC. Opposes to early in his career when he dominated the division year in and year out.

I was never once scared of Rivers in crunch time,  that’s not perception.   That’s just truth,  he has all the stats, cool.  He was a really good starting QB his whole career, those guys will pick up stats.   Never once did I fear Rivers having the ball late in the game.   I don’t care if he gets in,   Too many players get in as in.. 

[frenchie]

13 hours ago, lancerman said:

But this is why Eli is problematic. Because if/when he gets in, you have alot of guys who can credibly say "well I was better than him". 

Rule of thumb, you shouldn't be the worst at your position to be in the HOF. Second rule of thumb, you should be able to stand next to all your peers in the HOF and credibly feel like you belong. Third rule of thumb, you should be able to take the other top 2 guys at your position in your era and have a real argument for being better or at least on par with them. 

If we really want to be honest about it, Warren Moon was the guy who lowered the bar for HOF QBs -  No Superbowls, No MVP, No All-pro, notable playoff chokes, turnover machine, Never a top QB during his era, 102-101 W-L record; His best seasons as a pro 1990 & 1995, didn't make the playoff either season.  No one will ever point that out, but that's when the bar was lowered....

On ‎1‎/‎28‎/‎2020 at 9:44 PM, Malik said:

If Philip Rivers gets in what's the argument against someone like Carson Palmer honestly? Rivers was better but it's not like the gap was massive. 

Palmer had a few great seasons as a Bengal, but was never the same after the leg injury.  Had a bit of a revival late in his career as a Cardinal, but aside from those few season, he was never even close to Rivers....   Not to help you make your point but Romo would have been a better example...

On ‎1‎/‎28‎/‎2020 at 9:39 PM, wwhickok said:

Rivers was a really good QB. But it's not Hall of Really Good.

Its the Hall of Fame aka greatness.

He wasnt a great QB and for as much as he ran his mouth, you'd think he had won something of substance. But he actually didnt. If anything he was overrated. For a really long time he played in a pretty terrible division and yet still wasn't good enough to win a Super Bowl

While he was never the best, until 2019, Rivers was a top 5 QB nearly every year of his career, in nearly every statistical category.

On ‎1‎/‎28‎/‎2020 at 10:28 AM, AFlaccoSeagulls said:

Players don't just get in based on longevity + a 3 year stretch where they were top 3 at their position, though. Rivers, while a good player in his own right, shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame. From this era, it's really only Brees, Brady, Manning, Rodgers, and Russell Wilson upcoming. Guys like Rivers or Matt Ryan were just good players in an era where it was easier than ever to accumulate great stats at QB. The guys I just mentioned were all dudes who broke records or transcended greatness.

 

Yeah, they put up gaudy stats, but at the same time were also extremely efficient and consistent in doing so; That should count for something too...

5 hours ago, samsel23 said:

I normally don’t care for wins get you into the hall..   but Rivers choked a ton in crunch time.   I was never worried he would have that end of the game drive to seal a game.

...except for when this happened:

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2810759-philip-rivers-chargers-stun-patrick-mahomes-chiefs-in-afc-west-comeback-win

4 hours ago, Bearerofnews said:

So you think if Eli, Ben and Rivers all 3, had 0 sbs, that Ben would be a HOFer? I wont even ask about eli, because that's a hell no.

I think if all three 2004 qbs had 0 sbs. I think the majority would believe Rivers was the most likely of the 3 to be the HOFer.

yep, and when you factor in consistency, it's not even close.

[Soko]

@Bearerofnews Where do you generally place Rivers on the all-time spectrum?