NFL HOF QBs

[Underachiever]

You also can't forget that Rivers has played in a LOT of Pro Bowls. You know, because he never has any other games lined up in January or February.

[nodakfan17]

You also can't forget that Rivers has played in a LOT of Pro Bowls. You know, because he never has any other games lined up in January or February.

As others have pointed out, Rivers had effectively been blocked from the Super Bowl by Manning, Brady, and Roethlisberger who represented the AFC in the Super Bowl in every year from 2003-2018 except 2012 (Flacco). I think judging a player by their contemporaries is a good way to evaluate HOF candidacy (especially when counting stats become meaningless after a few decades), but Rivers’ contemporaries where really, really good. I don’t know if he’ll get in, but he deserves to be in the conversation.

[nate82]

Rivers is like Boomer Esiason a good QB but not a great QB. Rivers is kind of stuck like Boomer was where he isn't as good as his peers (Marino, Elway and Kelly) but was still a good QB stuck on a half way decent team. Not comparing Esiason and Rivers statistically just comparing them to their peers when playing.

[Baldkin]

To be fair, there is zero statistical justification for Namath being in the Hall of Fame. Even for his era, he wasn’t in the same zip code as the top guys. Namath is in because of his influence on NFL history more than his play.

 

Like Jack Morris, he's in the Hall of Fame for one game.

[MrTPlush]

I look at Phillips Rivers and he has stats, but is he a difference maker? Does he make you go “WOW”? Can he take over a game himself? Not really.

 

He will always be remembered for crippling poor decisions, game ending INTs, and just not getting it done. He has the most one score losses in the Super Bowl era. He has zero Super Bowl appearances and really almost no postseason success.

[pacopete4]

The Hall of Very Good

[HiAndTight]

You want to know how much the QB position has changed? Check out HOF QB and Suzy Kolber admirer Joe Namath's stats.

 

 

Or how about Troy Aikman? He was a no-brainer. 1st ballot HOF'er. 165 TD's, threw for 20 just one season.

[HiAndTight]

I know there has been ‘inflation’ to QB numbers, but I also think that the early 2000s produced an unusual high number of great QBs (Brady, Brees, Rodgers, Roethlisberger, Rivers, and Eli Manning). From 2006 to 2016, there will likely only be one HOF QB drafted in that span (Wilson).

 

I think it's entirely likely there are 4-5 QB's from what was a terrible 10 year period who get in. I've always thought Luck would come back after taking a couple of years off. I think Matt Ryan and Stafford have arguments. And there are quite a few guys who are just getting going from that time frame.

 

New England has draft picks and more salary cap room than just about any other team.

Dak is certainly off to a very strong start.

Goff is 25 years old and when you take away his Jeff Fischer season, he's put up pretty big numbers.

Carson Wentz looks awful, but he was easily on a HOF trajectory coming into this season and I'm not writing him off at age 28.

Hell, even David Carr is now in a situation where he could thrive. They've given him a ton of weapons, he has a nice body of work before Gruden got there and he's still got potentially 10 years left.

 

I think there's a good chance you get at least 4 QB's from this group that makes it to the Hall, not just one. And given many others are still on the right side of 20 and have put up big numbers, it's way too early to write off many of them.

[HiAndTight]

The Hall of Very Good

 

At QB. The Hall of All time Greats at DL, OL, MLB'er, and some other positions.

[GAME05]

For baseball I get upset when it gets watered down. For basketball and football I accept that they're just trying to get people to visit because they'll just never compare to Cooperstown. So let them all in. Doesn't matter.

[jerichoholicninja]

I know there has been ‘inflation’ to QB numbers, but I also think that the early 2000s produced an unusual high number of great QBs (Brady, Brees, Rodgers, Roethlisberger, Rivers, and Eli Manning). From 2006 to 2016, there will likely only be one HOF QB drafted in that span (Wilson).

 

I think it's entirely likely there are 4-5 QB's from what was a terrible 10 year period who get in. I've always thought Luck would come back after taking a couple of years off. I think Matt Ryan and Stafford have arguments. And there are quite a few guys who are just getting going from that time frame.

 

New England has draft picks and more salary cap room than just about any other team.

Dak is certainly off to a very strong start.

Goff is 25 years old and when you take away his Jeff Fischer season, he's put up pretty big numbers.

Carson Wentz looks awful, but he was easily on a HOF trajectory coming into this season and I'm not writing him off at age 28.

Hell, even David Carr is now in a situation where he could thrive. They've given him a ton of weapons, he has a nice body of work before Gruden got there and he's still got potentially 10 years left.

 

I think there's a good chance you get at least 4 QB's from this group that makes it to the Hall, not just one. And given many others are still on the right side of 20 and have put up big numbers, it's way too early to write off many of them.

 

If Goff, Wentz, or Carr even sniffs the Hall of Fame it is officially a joke. These guys are barely even top 10 QB's right now. They would have to have one hell of a finish to their career to become even reasonably justifiable members.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

^seems a bit overboard. If I told you when he was 28 that Brees would be considered one of the best ever, you'd laugh. All of his monster years came after that once he settled into NO.

 

I've actually thought Carr has always been underrated. Just playing for a team never has a plan, but statistically he's always been pretty good. Goff is 26. Wentz looked like the next superstar before some injuries.

[jerichoholicninja]

I'm not saying any of those guys are bad, they are all clearly starting QB's for just about any team but nothing about them is Hall of Fame worthy. I'll give you that Wentz looked like he might be on his way to being a superstar early on but for whatever reasons it just hasn't happened. But if we're talking Hall of Fame we should be talking elite. Maybe Wentz finds it again and becomes elite but neither Goff nor Carr is elite especially when compared to their peer QB's. I can't ever see those two being considered a top 5 QB at any point in their career.

[Fear The Chorizo]

With how NFL rules have dramatically changed over the years, along with style of play, they should really throw stats out the window when it comes to evaluating HOF eligibility....instead they should focus on whether players at specific positions were among the best 2-4 players across the league at those positions during their era, if they maintained that greatness long enough to warrant consideration as being an all-time great, etc. Players like Goff, Wentz, and Carr 1st have to become one of the best 2-4 QBs in the league right now to even start the conversation about their HOF candidacy IMO, and they all have a loooong way to go to eclipse Wilson, Rodgers, Mahomes, etc...

 

Just because QBs like Stafford put up video game passing stats over a long time in today's game that basically guarantees a competent quarterback 10+ years starting in the league compared to QB stats from 20-50 years ago shouldn't make him them locks for the HOF. Stafford is this generation's version of Phillip Rivers with a worse W/L record.

[HiAndTight]

I'm not saying any of those guys are bad, they are all clearly starting QB's for just about any team but nothing about them is Hall of Fame worthy. I'll give you that Wentz looked like he might be on his way to being a superstar early on but for whatever reasons it just hasn't happened. But if we're talking Hall of Fame we should be talking elite. Maybe Wentz finds it again and becomes elite but neither Goff nor Carr is elite especially when compared to their peer QB's. I can't ever see those two being considered a top 5 QB at any point in their career.

 

 

Never said they WERE HOF worthy, I said you're dismissing them when some of them are still very young. Dak's 25 and has gotten off to a VERY good start(and plays in Dallas) and he's already not going to be a HOF'er?

There are a couple in there who have won MVP's...that's doing SOMETHING HOF worthy.

 

When guys are playing into their mid 40's, I just think writing off guys who are still in their 20's is a pretty bad idea.

[HiAndTight]

With how NFL rules have dramatically changed over the years, along with style of play, they should really throw stats out the window when it comes to evaluating HOF eligibility....instead they should focus on whether players at specific positions were among the best 2-4 players across the league at those positions during their era, if they maintained that greatness long enough to warrant consideration as being an all-time great, etc. Players like Goff, Wentz, and Carr 1st have to become one of the best 2-4 QBs in the league right now to even start the conversation about their HOF candidacy IMO, and they all have a loooong way to go to eclipse Wilson, Rodgers, Mahomes, etc...

 

Just because QBs like Stafford put up video game passing stats over a long time in today's game that basically guarantees a competent quarterback 10+ years starting in the league compared to QB stats from 20-50 years ago shouldn't make him them locks for the HOF. Stafford is this generation's version of Phillip Rivers with a worse W/L record.

 

 

That's not fair at all. Stafford has NEVER had one of the most talented teams in the league. Rivers regularly did.

[HiAndTight]

^seems a bit overboard. If I told you when he was 28 that Brees would be considered one of the best ever, you'd laugh. All of his monster years came after that once he settled into NO.

 

I've actually thought Carr has always been underrated. Just playing for a team never has a plan, but statistically he's always been pretty good. Goff is 26. Wentz looked like the next superstar before some injuries.

 

 

Right. I'm not saying any of them are HOF'ers, I'm saying they've done enough and they've still got enough time left that they could certainly become HOF'ers. Even Stafford is just 32 years old. IF Detroit really did want to move on from him and he went to Indy hypothetically....he couldn't do enough to become a HOF'er? Even staying in Detroit I believe he will become a HOF'er.

 

Carr is playing with a team that's just stacking young weapons all around him. Even Matt Ryan who's top 10 in yards and 11th in TD's is just 35.

 

The point initially was that there was only one HOF worthy QB drafted between 2006 and 2016. I don't see how you can make that statement yet. Even if you throw out the older guys...again, Dak is 27 I believe, and started every game until week 6 this year and has a QB rating of near 100(and will be returning to 3 #1 WR's). Geoff..26 with one of the best coaches.

 

There will be QB's voted in who I don't think should be, but now you're really taking guys out before they even get a chance to prove if they should or shouldn't be.

[SomewhereInTime]

Today's statistics are completely meaningless when comparing today to even 10 years ago. It will be laughable when you look back year's from now and see half of today's QB's in the HOF.

[HiAndTight]

Today's statistics are completely meaningless when comparing today to even 10 years ago. It will be laughable when you look back year's from now and see half of today's QB's in the HOF.

 

 

I agree on both points...but wouldn't you agree the QB play around the league is higher than it's ever been?

[pacopete4]

QB's don't get beat up anymore. They will generally last longer than they ever have and continue to put up video game numbers into their 40's. The rules have all shifted to their favor. I don't think QB's are any better than they used to be. It's just that the deck is completely stacked.

[CheeseheadInQC]

Raw yardage totals alone aren't going to get a guy like Stafford in. I believe Kerry Collins, Vinny Testaverde, Dave Krieg, Carson Palmer and Drew Bledsoe all at one point were in the top 10 all time for yardage and none is looked at as a Hall of Famer.

[FVBrewerFan]

Today's statistics are completely meaningless when comparing today to even 10 years ago. It will be laughable when you look back year's from now and see half of today's QB's in the HOF.

 

 

I agree on both points...but wouldn't you agree the QB play around the league is higher than it's ever been?

 

That's a point we're missing. Used to be a lot more stud RBs, now it's QBs. QBs are such a huge part of today's game, it makes sense more will and should be in the HOF. I don't buy the argument that only X number each decade or whatever should get in.

 

When I started this I expected some good debate, but this has been really interesting. Made me think, for sure. And after all these posts I still don't know what I would do with Ryan, Rivers, or Stafford. Probably wait a lot of years and see how they look then.

[HiAndTight]

QB's don't get beat up anymore. They will generally last longer than they ever have and continue to put up video game numbers into their 40's. The rules have all shifted to their favor. I don't think QB's are any better than they used to be. It's just that the deck is completely stacked.

 

Obviously, the rules are a huge advantage for QB's now, that's a given and everyone agrees, but NFL teams are also willing to break the mold and give other types of QB's a chance. It's not just that more black QB's have been given opportunities in the past 30 years, but short QBs and more mobile QB's. People questioned Drew Brees stock took a hit because he measured just 6 feet at the combine. 20 years later Kyler Murray went 1st overall at 5'10. Charlie Ward went undrafted, Lamar Jackson was an MVP at age 22.

 

Someone else pointed out that the difference between the type of schemes you run in College and the NFL has narrowed, allowing QB's to have success earlier.

 

But even if you just consider the length of careers due to the rule changes...wouldn't that lead to a higher level of play at the position across the league? In any other era Brady, Brees, Rodgers, Rivers, Roethlisberger, Fitzpatrick...they'd all likely be out of the league or close to it. The youngest of that group is Rodgers.

 

 

So there are a lot of causes, but I think someone would be hard-pressed to find an era or year when QB play was better than it is right now.

[HiAndTight]

Today's statistics are completely meaningless when comparing today to even 10 years ago. It will be laughable when you look back year's from now and see half of today's QB's in the HOF.

 

 

I agree on both points...but wouldn't you agree the QB play around the league is higher than it's ever been?

 

That's a point we're missing. Used to be a lot more stud RBs, now it's QBs. QBs are such a huge part of today's game, it makes sense more will and should be in the HOF. I don't buy the argument that only X number each decade or whatever should get in.

 

When I started this I expected some good debate, but this has been really interesting. Made me think, for sure. And after all these posts I still don't know what I would do with Ryan, Rivers, or Stafford. Probably wait a lot of years and see how they look then.

 

 

It'll definitely be interesting. The thing with Ryan and Stafford, they could both still add quite a bit to their resume. Stafford could play for another decade. And there's a rumor that the Lions are going to move on from Stafford after this season...which we all KNOW is going to improve his stock!

 

So they've got to finish their careers and then like you say, there's a good reason why you have to wait 5 years. Time provides some perspective.

[nodakfan17]

Since stats no longer allow for inter-generational comparison, here’s the one criteria I propose for evaluating HOF candidacy:

 

Did they win 60% of their games as one team’s primary starter over a period of at least 10 years?

 

Exceptions could obviously be made on a case-by-case basis.