NFL HOF QBs

[Ron Robinsons Beard]

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.

 

I assume you consider wins a QB stat then? That's been an argument for awhile now.

[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.

 

I assume you consider wins a QB stat then? That's been an argument for awhile now.

I think it’s a very telling stat with few limitations (Joe Flacco is probably not better than Matthew Stafford, but Flacco has won 56% of the games he’s started to Stafford’s 46%).

[FVBrewerFan]

It's not necessary to have that 60% rule, or any rule. No HOF has any specific criteria, that's why there's a vote. Every case is different, and lots of factors could come into play.

[nodakfan17]

It's not necessary to have that 60% rule, or any rule. No HOF has any specific criteria, that's why there's a vote. Every case is different, and lots of factors could come into play.

I’m with ya. It’s fun to debate.

 

The 0.600 win% over ~10 years is still very telling for today’s QBs, IMO.

[pacopete4]

I just sat in on my high school meeting to decide to determine factors for coaches and players to get into our HOF as well as criteria for something to be named after a past coach in our district. It was interesting to hear all the opinions on what the criteria should be for those types of things as I'm sure it is when these HOF discussions start to begin.

[BillScottCanRake]

In general, I dislike statistics which attribute team wins to single players in team sports. Wins are a reflection of the cumulative effort of the team, not a single players individual performance. It is the same reason I dislike pitcher W-L records when trying to determine how well a pitcher performed. Ben Sheets 2004 W/L record of 12-14 is not indicative of how he pitched; it was the best year of is career, unless you use W/L record; then it was his 5th best. And 2019 was not Aaron Rodgers second best year in Green Bay by performance; it was probably one of this least productive full seasons, but Green Bay only won more than 13 regular season games with Rodgers as a starter once.

 

Here is a list of games in which Aaron Rodgers had a passer rating over 115 and Green Bay lost;

 

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201610300atl.htm

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201811150sea.htm

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201611200was.htm

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201212300min.htm

 

Here is a list of games in which Aaron Rodgers had a passer rating of under 80 and Green Bay won;

 

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201610090gnb.htm

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201912290det.htm

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201010310nyj.htm

 

One could easily argue Rodgers played well enough in his good games to win and poorly enough in the others to lose, yet those outcomes didn't happen. Tom Brady is often considered the greatest quarterback of all time because the Patriots have won 6 Super Bowls. They didn't win the 6th because of Tom Brady.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201902030ram.htm

 

Dan Fouts is a no-doubt Hall of Fame whose teams were 86-84-1. Warren Moon's teams were 102-101. Sonny Jurgenson's were under .500. Between the three of them they have 1 championship. Yet, they were among the best QBs of their era and deserve their place in Canton.

 

Me not liking the QB W/L stat doesn't diminish the importance of the position; they get paid the way they do because they are important. Their play often strongly influence the outcome of a game through how well they play. But they don't play defense. They don't play special teams. They can't block for themselves or catch passes. They don't coach. The final outcome will always be a reflection of the team and not any one individual.

[CheeseheadInQC]

Jared Goff is almost halfway to a Hall of Fame career by the winning percentage measure. Like the previous poster said, Moon, Fouts and Jurgensen wouldn't hit that mark (While it is skewed a bit by there being fewer playoff teams, I don't believe Jurgensen ever made the playoffs in a season he was the team's primary starter).

 

Why not just era-adjust the stats instead? Era-adjusted efficiency stats combined with Super Bowl wins and MVP awards end up being a fairly accurate Hall of Fame predictor.

[nodakfan17]

Jared Goff is almost halfway to a Hall of Fame career by the winning percentage measure. Like the previous poster said, Moon, Fouts and Jurgensen wouldn't hit that mark (While it is skewed a bit by there being fewer playoff teams, I don't believe Jurgensen ever made the playoffs in a season he was the team's primary starter).

 

Why not just era-adjust the stats instead? Era-adjusted efficiency stats combined with Super Bowl wins and MVP awards end up being a fairly accurate Hall of Fame predictor.

Moon and Fouts both had pretty unique careers with Moon winning 5 Grey Cups before joining the NFL and Fouts being the first modern passing QB. Most people would put them in the HOF, despite their 0.500 win percentages. I certainly don’t object to their inclusion.

 

Goff has been the Rams primary starter for 4 years and is 42-19. That’s pretty good, but let’s wait and see how the next 6 years go. By no means am I suggesting he’s automatically in he continues this pace, but if he finishes his career 100-50, then I think he’s in the conversation. No one wins 100 games by accident.

 

* For the record, I think Goff is an above average QB (but not elite).

[ThisIsMyCrew]

Looking at some career stats. It’s pretty insane that Joe Flacco ranks #19 all time for yards. The game has shifted so much that he’s above guys like Moon and Montana. My opinion, only Rodgers, Big Ben, Brady, Wilson and Brees should be current QBs in HOF. This is the elite of the elite. Much like all Hall of Fames these days has turn to “Hall of Very Good”.

[MrTPlush]

The other day a guy on ESPN (can’t remember who exactly) was basically saying Phillip Rivers and Big Ben were pretty much the same level player. The only difference being Big Ben falling into a perfect situation with a great organization/coach. His main point was that if their paths would have been reversed Rivers would have had great success in Pittsburgh and Big Ben would have had the same success Rivers had in San Diego. He did acknowledge Rivers was the better athlete and Big Ben was the better leader type.

 

He had me agreeing at first, but I think he was ignoring the fact San Diego really wasn’t ran that bad in Rivers time there and honestly had numerous really good teams that were super bowl capable. He had 7 teams that had a Top 11 defense. For comparison, Rodgers has had 4.

 

Phillips Rivers just isn’t a winner in the postseason. I don’t even think being in Big Ben’s shoes would have helped much. Maybe...maybe he appears in a Super Bowl and MAYBE wins one just because some of those defenses could have carried him. I doubt he is anywhere near Big Ben’s success though.

 

Now would Big Ben have been mostly irrelevant like Phillips Rivers if he was drafted by the Chargers? That I could get behind because I don’t think Big Ben is a huge difference maker. Big Ben had arguably the #1 defense each year he went to the Super Bowl and lost in the WC round twice with a top defense. If he had more human teams like Rivers had I am not sure he ever makes a Super Bowl.

[pacopete4]

I think Big Ben is hard to gauge because he played the position so differently than most QB's. That large frame has taken a beating over the years and he is a shell of his former self.

[HiAndTight]

The other day a guy on ESPN (can’t remember who exactly) was basically saying Phillip Rivers and Big Ben were pretty much the same level player. The only difference being Big Ben falling into a perfect situation with a great organization/coach. His main point was that if their paths would have been reversed Rivers would have had great success in Pittsburgh and Big Ben would have had the same success Rivers had in San Diego. He did acknowledge Rivers was the better athlete and Big Ben was the better leader type.

 

He had me agreeing at first, but I think he was ignoring the fact San Diego really wasn’t ran that bad in Rivers time there and honestly had numerous really good teams that were super bowl capable. He had 7 teams that had a Top 11 defense. For comparison, Rodgers has had 4.

 

Phillips Rivers just isn’t a winner in the postseason. I don’t even think being in Big Ben’s shoes would have helped much. Maybe...maybe he appears in a Super Bowl and MAYBE wins one just because some of those defenses could have carried him. I doubt he is anywhere near Big Ben’s success though.

 

Now would Big Ben have been mostly irrelevant like Phillips Rivers if he was drafted by the Chargers? That I could get behind because I don’t think Big Ben is a huge difference maker. Big Ben had arguably the #1 defense each year he went to the Super Bowl and lost in the WC round twice with a top defense. If he had more human teams like Rivers had I am not sure he ever makes a Super Bowl.

 

I don't really agree with that premise either.

 

First of all, Big Ben's not a burner, but he's a much better athlete than Rivers. His ability to keep a play alive is impressive, the way he's been able to shed guys during his career. It's caused a lot of hits, but I don't think Rivers is even close to the athlete he is.

 

And it's hard to say how the situation Rivers went into was. The Chargers were often one of, if not the most talented team in the AFC when Rivers was there, and it was common to see them go from 12-4 to a 6-10 type season. I don't know how to parse out the blame for them continually underperforming(I know Rivers did turn the ball over a lot at times).

 

 

Big Ben was just a really good fit in Pitt. Big, tough QB who can handle the cold weather and the elements and was given teams with good/great defenses and a lot of weapons.

[HiAndTight]

Looking at some career stats. It’s pretty insane that Joe Flacco ranks #19 all time for yards. The game has shifted so much that he’s above guys like Moon and Montana. My opinion, only Rodgers, Big Ben, Brady, Wilson and Brees should be current QBs in HOF. This is the elite of the elite. Much like all Hall of Fames these days has turn to “Hall of Very Good”.

 

 

Again, I think there's a lot of projection going on here as well. You look at a guy like Stafford and see that he's 32 and assume he'll be able to play at a high level for a number of years yet. Maybe he'll leave as the rumors have suggested. Same with Ryan.

 

And then of course all the young guys who obviously aren't HOF'ers yet, but certainly appear to be on that trajectory.

Then there is a whole host of other young QB's who are just showing that potential(Allen for example).

 

 

The NFL Hall of Fame is definitely NOT the Hall of very good. It's only the QB position that this might apply to.

[Oxy]

I read this thread awhile ago but will bump it in honor of Philip Rivers' retirement. I kinda think the hall should enshrine Roethlisberger, Eli Manning and Rivers all in the same year...and that year should be the year after Brees, Brady and/or Rodgers are enshrined (depending how long Rodgers plays).

[HiAndTight]

I read this thread awhile ago but will bump it in honor of Philip Rivers' retirement. I kinda think the hall should enshrine Roethlisberger, Eli Manning and Rivers all in the same year...and that year should be the year after Brees, Brady and/or Rodgers are enshrined (depending how long Rodgers plays).

 

 

Who plays more years from right now, Brady or Rodgers? Obviously, it would seem like an obvious question, but with Tampa, the way they're building that OL...as Oldschool said, he might still be playing at 48.

 

Whatever the answer, I hope the idea of the Packers trading Rodgers after next season hasn't just been destroyed but thrown into a wood chipper that spits it into a crematorium. Feels like Rodgers should have 3-4 really good years left if he's healthy...and then a few years left where he's still good enough.