I have been watching NY sports media often in the last few years. They and most of the national sports media are in lockstep with the idea that Eli Manning is a sure fire HOFer. I shake my head at that. How can a QB that has not been a top 5 QB in any year during his career. I know some may argue he was #3 or #4 one or maybe even 2 years. He has basically 4 things going for him, he's been reliable, he has 2 Super Bowl rings, his name is Manning and he appears to be a very likeable guy. I could sit here and mention numerous reasons as to why he isn't "elite". To me it's very frustrating how watered down the HOF is becoming. Part of the problem appears to be ESPN and the NFL network. Players who were very good, but not great seem to get a bump because they keep their face on those networks. ie. Kurt Warner. I don't believe he's a great QB. He made it to 2 Super Bowls and won 1. This got me to thinking... Most all Steeler fans and the national media agree, Ben Roethlisberger is a sure fire HOFer. Has he been a top 5 QB during his career? I would say yes, but not a top 3 QB. I think we can agree Brady, Brees, P. Manning and Rodgers have been better the entire time. I think Ben is a much better QB than Eli Manning for almost his entire career. Ben hasn't been as reliable as Eli, but I believe that is because he's not the pussy Eli is similar to his older bro. Ben has been a drama queen also. So my question is... How can "we" believe both of these QBs are sure fire HOFers when at no time during their careers were they the "best" at their position?
Leadership, Ben hasn't played on a losing team his whole career. There are intangibles that they have. Both were needed for their teams to win the SBs they won. HOF is just as much about helping your team win championships as it is about having great stats. The only QB that has won two championships and isn't in the HOF is Plunket, and he never had a good career at all. If he had played on the Raiders his whole career and was their starter the majority of the time he would be in the HOF. Why do you think more Steelers are in the HOF than 70's Cowboys? Because they beat the Cowboys twice in the 70's.
My answer to your question is... Because they were better players. The ones who were as good or better in some circumstances were placed in the HOF. There are 53 or more players who "helped" their teams win Super Bowls IMHO. There are a few QBs who played poorly "helping" their teams win Super Bowls and still made it in the HOF. I don't think Stats are the end all, but nobody can honestly say Ben or Eli have been in the top 10 percent of their position during their careers.
Not on Eli's best day. Joe's knees gave out on him, but he was a great QB and arguably the best QB when he played.
Eli's career numbers are better. Has more wins and SB wins. IN! You can't say Namath deserves to be in because he would've been better if his aunt had balls.
He has more losses too... I agree Eli has played longer than most QBs who have ever played. He also has curled up in the fetal position more than any other QB in history besides his brother. Now if you want to say Rodgers is better than Namath I wouldn't argue. I think they would have been very comparable had he not been injured. Staying injury free doesn't make you a "better" player. Maybe more reliable over time, but numbers accumulate over time. Namath was great! Anyone who says he wasn't is either lying or never saw him play. Eli will never be considered great IMHO.
Namath: Best Comp% 52.9 (1974)/Best Yds 4007 (1967)/Threw 21 or more INTs in 5 of 13 years/Threw 20+ TDs twice/Best Passer Rating 74.3 (1969)/1 predicted SB win (Instant fame!) Adjusted 2012 Stat Line: If Namath threw the average number of passes in 2012, his rates come out like this: 355/552; 24 TD; 13 INT; 4454 yards; 89.9 rating Now, Namath was AFL for a few years, including the first 4000 yd year. I mention this because he only hit it once. Nobody will ever confuse Peyton Manning with Nick Foles even though they share a record that Manning achieved first. To be honest, Joe Namath is closer to Archie Manning than Eli.
Unfortunately the numbers you wasted your time looking up have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not someone was great in "their" time. How many wide receivers from the 60s and early 70s have stats that can compare to any WRs now? It was a different game then. Defenses had all the advantages, Qbs weren't protected. Eli Manning wouldn't have lasted 3 years playing back then. All his accomplishments would be gone. He's not a leader. Amazing how you think there are so many HOF Qbs playing now. How is that possible? Maybe under your standards we should just name the HOF the Hall of Quarterbacks. You really believe you don't have to be in the top tier of your position during your playing time to be in the Hall? Eli isn't a very good Qb let alone great.
I think we should let anyone in who can clear the bar... the lowest man on the totem pole. The HoF is a joke anyway these days. Take the stats or "career markers", compare it to someone else of that position, if the numbers add up, IN! Or you can tighten shit up and say you have to beat the best guy in the HoF to get in. Doesn't make the most sense since there are really good/great players in between, but that would slow things down a bit. Let 'em in if they can better the lowest one that's already in the HoF at that respective position.
If the game hadn't changed so drastically I would agree with you. I just think to compare someone today to someone 30-40 years ago isn't realistic. If you are one of the top at your position during the time you played you should be IN. The key thing is when you played. Eli isn't better than quite a few QBs right now. In 15 years if and when Eli gets in then there will be 15-20 QBs who played during his time who will have a legitimate gripe when they don't get in, just because he was on 2 Super Bowl teams. If you look back and group guys in their "generation" of football, there aren't many who can say... "Joe blow is in, why am I not in?" I think they are going to water it down drastically or really screw over people who were obviously better players.
It doesn't make sense to see someone with mediocre stats in there and then pass on another player that blew that shit away. The game has changed, yes, but Namath was competing with Len Dawson, George Blanda, Daryle Lamonica, and John Hadl. Namath had (1) great year (1967). Won (1) Super Bowl. He was top 5 passer rating in all of his AFL years except (1). In Namath's first year in the NFL (1970), he was 27th in passer rating and didn't crack the top-25 in Comp%. He was better in the AFL than he ever was and I think the league was watered down a bit due to it competing with the NFL. Even compared to his peers, he was just average Joe. John Hadl was a better QB than Joe Namath and Hadl isn't in the HoF. Namath got in over Hadl, why? Because he predicted a SB win? Big fucking deal. Eli has 2 SB wins. That's better than one. Eli's stats are better. Too much arbitrary bullshit in deciding this stuff, so fuck it, let 'em all in. If you can better the lowest on the totem pole that's already in, you're in too! Better build a bigger HoF. Who wouldn't want that? A bigger HoF with more shit to see and do? Fuck Yeah! That's a fan's wet dream. You're afraid of watering down the HoF? You've already got inferior player's busts in there and some other great players who aren't! So why worry about that? It's not Golgotha. It's already a lie. But it's supposed to be fun. Make it BIGGER! Make it FUNNER!
fire, you've had some great posts but this may be your finest. I could only like it once, unfortunately.
I have no problem with all of this. I just don't think that the HOF, it's possible members, the media and the fans believe what you are saying. I think they believe it's an honor and the greatest of the great are in there. With your opinion of the HOF it shouldn't matter who is and who isn't in. It should just be a museum.
Why is it so difficult for WRs to get in the Hall of Fame? In today's NFL WRs are paid more than RBs. Will we begin to see a shift in the voting that matches the shift we have seen in WR vs RB salaries? Eli's role in Super Bowl XLVI is enough for me! Stopped the EVIL EMPIRE from a perfect record and Super Bowl Title!
Yeah, sort of. You still have to earn it with stats or "career markers". Ty Detmer isn't getting into my HoF... Bubby Brister might though (Steeler bias and THAT name).
A lot of times championships are the deciding factor in borderline players getting in. Look at the Cowboys from the 70's, they beat us twice in the SB and Harris, Waters, and Too Tall are probably in the HOF and Swann & Stallworth & Bradshaw would be out.
That is where I'm at too. You either need to have out of this world stats or a bunch of championships and a high profile career. Lynn Swann doesn't have all world stats but was a big game difference maker. I couldn't imagine him not in the HOF because of his impact on 70s football. To me, both Ben and Eli are HOFers. They have cumulative career stats and playoff moments that cement them in the minds of sports history. While Philip Rivers has equal or better stats, his lack of playoff success most likely will keep him out. IMO.
While I agree about Stopping the "EVIL EMPIRE" aspect, but Eli had very little to do with beating them. That defense is the reason they won the game. The Giants D held them to 14pts. If the Steelers could hold NE to 14 pts in any game I would put all my money on the Steelers winning that game. No matter who was at QB. IMHO
