Enough is enough. Peyton Manning is the greatest QB of all time.

[Liquidrob]

I am not going to say if Eli is or isn't because he career isn't over, but football isn't a straight stat sport, its about moments and greatness for sometimes a short period of time

I am not a "ringz" guy, but stuff like playoff runs and SB wins play bif parts in guys careers

Ita not like Timmy Smith is a HOFer because of an amazing SB, but playoff runs, big plays taken out a 18-0 team, huge throws in Super Bowls push guys like Eli above others who have similar stats

Was just talking with a guy from work about Kurt Warner, not comparing to Eli, but he is an easy HOF guy, but he would bring up his play with the Giants, I'm like "who cares, Warner was amazing with the rams and the cards and great in playoffs" etc...

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

I am not going to say if Eli is or isn't because he career isn't over, but football isn't a straight stat sport, its about moments and greatness for sometimes a short period of time

I am not a "ringz" guy, but stuff like playoff runs and SB wins play bif parts in guys careers

Ita not like Timmy Smith is a HOFer because of an amazing SB, but playoff runs, big plays taken out a 18-0 team, huge throws in Super Bowls push guys like Eli above others who have similar stats

Was just talking with a guy from work about Kurt Warner, not comparing to Eli, but he is an easy HOF guy, but he would bring up his play with the Giants, I'm like "who cares, Warner was amazing with the rams and the cards and great in playoffs" etc...

I agree that all of that counts and is part of the picture. For me, Eli is so ordinary and mediocre outside of those two playoff runs, that there is no way it can outweigh his "just a guy" play for the other 90% of his career.

It would be like saying if the Ravens win another Super Bowl next year, Joe Flacco belongs in the hall of fame, even if his career arch and performance does not change. Of course he wouldn't, because he's Joe Flacco, and he's not a great player.

Two problems with this discussion. One, some people love the rings and you aren't changing their minds. Two, Eli's statistics are being severely overrated. If you want to be a ring guy, fine, we'll disagree, but you can't tell me Eli's numbers are hall of fame worthy. That's comical, dude is as mediocre as mediocre can be by any statistical measure.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

And Eli over Ken Anderson is just...wow. I can't even wrap my head around that.

Anderson was one of the most accurate and efficient passers of his time, and put up numbers that would hold up today without adjustment for his era. Dude was completing 65, even 70% of his passes in the early 80's. He played 30 years before Eli andhas the same QB rating. He never threw picks, leading the league in INT% multiple times while Eli is the most proficient pick tosser in the league. Anderson's page is full of black ink in all of the big boy stats, yards, rating, completion percentage, meanwhile Eli struggles to finish top ten in anything but picks. Anderson also played a Super Bowl game as good or better than any Super Bowl Eli played, and had only one bad playoff game in six tries. I don't see how Eli is better than Anderson in any way, shape, or form. Anderson did everything better.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Should also add that Anderson was good with his feet, adding over 2000 yards & 20 TD's on the ground during a time when QB's never left the pocket to the point most of them would crumble into balls and just eat sacks because they were coached not to fumble.

 

[ram29jackson]

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

And Eli over Ken Anderson is just...wow. I can't even wrap my head around that.

Anderson was one of the most accurate and efficient passers of his time, and put up numbers that would hold up today without adjustment for his era. Dude was completing 65, even 70% of his passes in the early 80's. He played 30 years before Eli andhas the same QB rating. He never threw picks, leading the league in INT% multiple times while Eli is the most proficient pick tosser in the league. Anderson's page is full of black ink in all of the big boy stats, yards, rating, completion percentage, meanwhile Eli struggles to finish top ten in anything but picks. Anderson also played a Super Bowl game as good or better than any Super Bowl Eli played, and had only one bad playoff game in six tries. I don't see how Eli is better than Anderson in any way, shape, or form. Anderson did everything better.

I have no problem talking about Anderson as a regular season QB...he was good.

He threw two picks in the Super Bowl against San Francisco that were backbreakers. First one led to SF's first score (and SF never looked back) and then another in the fourth quarter leading to the put-away score by San Francisco.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Should also add that Anderson was good with his feet, adding over 2000 yards & 20 TD's on the ground during a time when QB's never left the pocket to the point most of them would crumble into balls and just eat sacks because they were coached not to fumble.

What?

Roger Staubach, Jim Zorn, Fran Tarkenton, Greg Landry, Joe Theisman, Steve Grogan, Bobby Douglass...I'm sure I'm missing more, especially later in Anderson's career or guys that had shorter runs (example, Bert Jones). Tons of QBs could and did run during the 70's and early/mid 80's.

FWIW, I put Anderson in the same pot as guys like John Brodie...or lesser guys like Jim Hart. Not enough post-season appearances or success to be in a legitimate discussion. Good regular season QBs though.

 

[FirstTimer]

how exactly do those retard numbers you posted put anything into context? are you really saying he has 101 yards per pass attempt? that would be like 3000 yards per game. and a 97% completion %....for someone who is arguing that manning isnt a HOF why would you say he has a 97% completion %?

Lol what?

 

[FirstTimer]

By all means, show me...I dunno...five voters (?) that use these advanced numbers to validate their vote. I'll wait.

Meanwhile, the tried and true numbers that are used by Hall of Fame voters for generations hold up as Hall of Fame worthy. Career totals, Super Bowls, playoff performance...Pro Bowl numbers, All-Pro along with All-Decade don't hold up due to volume of QBs in his era...but I'll also assume he'll get a few more Pro Bowls before his career runs out.

Why do you keep asking about the current voters. Warner isn't saying Eli won't get in. He's saying he shouldn't. Saying the voters will put him in isn't the point. It's that the voters would be wrong and dumb to do so.

 

[ram29jackson]

 

[bucky]

Peyton Manning 9-11 career playoff record, Brett Favre 13-11.

Bart Starr 9-1

 

[jms493]

I concede...Peyton is the best QB ever.

 

[Maynard]

And Eli over Ken Anderson is just...wow. I can't even wrap my head around that.

Anderson was one of the most accurate and efficient passers of his time, and put up numbers that would hold up today without adjustment for his era. Dude was completing 65, even 70% of his passes in the early 80's. He played 30 years before Eli andhas the same QB rating. He never threw picks, leading the league in INT% multiple times while Eli is the most proficient pick tosser in the league. Anderson's page is full of black ink in all of the big boy stats, yards, rating, completion percentage, meanwhile Eli struggles to finish top ten in anything but picks. Anderson also played a Super Bowl game as good or better than any Super Bowl Eli played, and had only one bad playoff game in six tries. I don't see how Eli is better than Anderson in any way, shape, or form. Anderson did everything better.

except for the not winning part....why do you keep comparing eli to everyone else? why not look at eli for what he has accomplished. HOF voting isnt all about the numbers, and in Eli case its about the intangibles.

 

[bucky]

Nothing counts except for Super Bowls to some people, you will never convince the ring crowd otherwise.

Two things make seemingly intelligent men lose all common sense & critical thinking ability. Hot women, and the relationship between Super Bowl rings & QB's. Smart men get real simple when it comes to both of these things.

It's not rings, it's success in high pressure playoff games. I can't put Manning as GOAT because of this. Just like I could never put Favre as GOAT because of this.

 

[jms493]

If only Football was a one on one sport....

 

[bucky]

If he doesn't make it in, he would be, by far, not even close, the most accomplished QB NOT in the Hall of Fame. I'd say the best player, period...but Jerry Kramer not being in the Hall of Fame is a crime.

Thanked for the Jerry Kramer comment.

 

[bucky]

Warner, I think you put to much emphasis on regular season stats and not enough on playoff performance. Starr's regular season stats aren't anything special, but look at his playoff performances. Not the Championship rings, but the playoff performances. That's what really sets Starr as one of the all time greats.

Favre - great regular season, average playoff
Manning - GOAT regular season, so far, somewhat average playoff
Starr - above average regular season, clutch in playoffs

I wouldn't argue that Starr is greater than Manning, he's not. Just that playoff performance is what gets Starr in the HOF, not regular season performance. That's where I put most of my emphasis on HOF worthy. With the games that matter most, playoff games.

Manning is a first ballot HOF'er, elite QB, but to me, not the GOAT. I'd have to go with Montana, and maybe OLD SCHOOL with Unitas.

 

[Aso]

The point isn't regular season stats > Post season performance. It's overall - "Is Eli one of the greatest QBs in NFL history?" Thats what the HOF is for. The greatest to ever play the sport... and the answer to that question is no.

 

[bucky]

The point isn't regular season stats > Post season performance. It's overall - "Is Eli one of the greatest QBs in NFL history?" Thats what the HOF is for. The greatest to ever play the sport... and the answer to that question is no.

Not saying Eli is HOF worthy. Just saying that Peyton's regular season stats don't mean as much to me as somebody else's playoff performances when discussing GOAT. Regular season stats just don't mean as much to me or I'd be talking about B. Favre as GOAT.

 

[dell71]

Warner, I think you put to much emphasis on regular season stats and not enough on playoff performance. Starr's regular season stats aren't anything special, but look at his playoff performances. Not the Championship rings, but the playoff performances. That's what really sets Starr as one of the all time greats.

Favre - great regular season, average playoff
Manning - GOAT regular season, so far, somewhat average playoff
Starr - above average regular season, clutch in playoffs

I wouldn't argue that Starr is greater than Manning, he's not. Just that playoff performance is what gets Starr in the HOF, not regular season performance. That's where I put most of my emphasis on HOF worthy. With the games that matter most, playoff games.

Manning is a first ballot HOF'er, elite QB, but to me, not the GOAT. I'd have to go with Montana, and maybe OLD SCHOOL with Unitas.

Truth is, even during the regular season Bart Starr was better than "above average" and was statistically one of the best QBs in football year after year. He was the highest rated passer 3 times and finished with a career rating of 80.5 at a time when the league rating was usually in the mid 60s. He's another guy who threw more TDs than picks for his career when the league as a whole threw far more interceptions than TDs. His career totals in yards and TDs just aren't eye-popping because Vince Lombardi was his coach. Let's not pretend he was just some OK guy who suddenly turned into a beast during the post-season. He was great all the time. I'd argue that without the titles, he's still a HoF worthy player. Only a handfull Of players of his era or earlier have the raw stats to compare to his, without the adjustments of advanced passing: Otto Graham (criminally overlooked in this thread), Sonny Jurgensen, and Len Dawson. And this is regular season ONLY. However, we can't separate the man from the titles. The fact he was so great in winning 5 of them is what gets him into the conversation for being called the GOAT. He won them because he was great, not the other way around.

The opposite is true of Eli. Eli is not a great QB, he has just made a couple of great runs. To make the HoF, I think you should be truly great. Like Warner (I think), I put more emphasis on the regular season because that's the overwhelming majority of any player's career. What he does during the playoffs I do weigh more than the average game, because the situation is the most pressure-cooked atmosphere they'll ever be in. It's all on the line. That said, I can't say let's put an average guy into the Hall because he was great twice in the playoffs.

As all of this relates to Peyton and who is the GOAT. I'll definitely listen to the argument that Starr is that guy. I'd do the same for Montana, Graham, Unitas, Brady, Tarkenton and Peyton. For me, there is a clear line of demarcation between this group and whoever is in the next tier. Playoff performance does figure into this. Having no titles is a knock on a guy (as a QB, I don't do this for any other position in football). Hence, I would put Tarkenton at the bottom of that list and I don't include Marino at all, another regular season king. I've seen Montana, Brady, and Peyton with my own eyes and I'd take Manning over the three of them (and I grew up a Montana guy). Manning truly changed the position. Not many players in the history of any sport can say that. Still, I probably lean toward Graham and Unitas. They also changed the sport and were both just playing a different game than their contemporaries.