Kurt Warner: No HOF For Eli Manning

[Warner2BruceTD]

I've always viewed Namath as overrated int he context of people talking about him as one of the 5 or 10 best ever. But dude belongs in the hall.

Namath is not one of the best QB's of all time, but he was one of the best QB's of his era, despite the crippling injuries that began at age 27 on the cusp of his prime.

All things considered, he's a pretty easy HOF pick in my opinion. His INT's are a product of the era and his fearless play style (think Favre).

 

[ralaw]

W2B, FT, KOF or other guys who have a good grasp on the history of the league.....what are your thoughts on Aikman as he compares to Eli? Not that they're the same player, but that Aikman is a HOFer and how that has an influence on Eli.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

It's really hard to fit Eli's numbers into a HOF context. The numbers are just not there.

He's a below 60% passer in the easiest era ever to complete passes. His 82 QB rating is below average for his era. He's an INT machine. Never among the elite in any statistical categories.

Yeah, he never gets hurt and will probably play for 15+ years. So of course his counting totals will end up pretty high! This is why I kept bringing up Vinny Testaverde in the other thread. Not to say Eli is Testaverde (he's better than that), but to point out that gaudy totals, especially in this era, aren't all that impressive in a HOF argument for QB's.

Eli's HOF resume comes down to the "R" word, plain and simple. If you are a ring guy, he's in. If you respect the rings as part of the picture but need more context in your argument, he comes up pretty short.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

Aikman was a much better player than Eli at his peak by my eye test, and the adjusted numbers bear that out. One of the more accurate passers of all time (he led the league in comp% only once, at nearly 70%, but also finished second four times). Aikman always had low INT totals. He never had flashy yardage totals, but you also have to consider that he had seasons where he threw less than 400 passes. Aikman blows Eli away in rate stats.

 

[Aso]

Namath is not one of the best QB's of all time, but he was one of the best QB's of his era, despite the crippling injuries that began at age 27 on the cusp of his prime.

All things considered, he's a pretty easy HOF pick in my opinion. His INT's are a product of the era and his fearless play style (think Favre).

But Favre never led the league in interceptions and had it considered being a "good" season.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

But Favre never led the league in interceptions and had it considered being a "good" season.

Clarify this.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Namath is not one of the best QB's of all time, but he was one of the best QB's of his era, despite the crippling injuries that began at age 27 on the cusp of his prime.

All things considered, he's a pretty easy HOF pick in my opinion. His INT's are a product of the era and his fearless play style (think Favre).

When people speak of Namath being one of the best, they are talking in the context of talent.

The man was so ahead of his time, it was silly. He had a next level skill set. In today's NFL, he'd still be a first overall draft choice. He was what...6'3" 200lbs...

The injury fucked up his career a bit statistically...today, that injury is something he gets over with general ease and has a solid back end of his career.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Aikman was a much better player than Eli at his peak by my eye test, and the adjusted numbers bear that out. One of the more accurate passers of all time (he led the league in comp% only once, at nearly 70%, but also finished second four times). Aikman always had low INT totals. He never had flashy yardage totals, but you also have to consider that he had seasons where he threw less than 400 passes. Aikman blows Eli away in rate stats.

Completely different circumstances for Eli-Aikman comparisons.

Eli's the QB of a team that's not all that great, Aikman was the QB of one of the greatest teams of all-time. Aikman was never asked to do more than he did, never asked to throw the team on his back...his skill set was elite, he was a great QB, but comparing Eli to Aikman directly is silly.

 

[KINGOFOOTBALL]

Elway had the stats but they were ready to kick him out of Denver till he won two SB, don't remember people talking him going into the Hall (but I was young in late 80's). Afterwards, he couldn't be put fast enough into the HOF. How is this different...Eli has 2 SB, 2 SB MVP (he wasn't just on the bench for a Ring). Have standards changed? If he were to suffer a career ending injury next year, would he be out of getting into the Hall?

Whut ?

Two men that were anointed quicker than anyone ever were Elway and Marino. Those guys had HOF labels almost instantaneously.
Leading those mediocre Denver teams to the SB 3 times including on the tail end of arguably the most famous drive in NFL history puts him eons ahead of what anyone has ever thought of Manning.

Even physically theres a massive gap.

Meh, you're probably right.. given who they have put into the HOF(Aikman, Unitas, etc) if Eli retired today he probably should be in.

:stare:

W2B, FT, KOF or other guys who have a good grasp on the history of the league.....what are your thoughts on Aikman as he compares to Eli? Not that they're the same player, but that Aikman is a HOFer and how that has an influence on Eli.

Aikman was a much better player than Eli at his peak by my eye test, and the adjusted numbers bear that out. One of the more accurate passers of all time (he led the league in comp% only once, at nearly 70%, but also finished second four times). Aikman always had low INT totals. He never had flashy yardage totals, but you also have to consider that he had seasons where he threw less than 400 passes. Aikman blows Eli away in rate stats.

This.
Aikman was a technically a caretaker but anyone whoever watched the guy knew he was fully capable of being a 40td gunslinger. Laser accurate , quickest release outside of Marino , and rarely made bad throws. Was outperforming Favre/Young in playoff games. 11-4 in the playoffs , topping 70% completion 7 times in P.O games, winningest QB of the 90s.

Physically , mechanically , and mentally just a much better QB than Eli.

Theres simply nothing about Eli over his career that makes him any different or any better than his peers. As Ive said before SBs count. But you have to get through the regular season ,memorable performances , and "the eye ball" test before we start dissecting the SB angle. Elis out of it before SBs even come up.

Unitas , Aikman , Namath , Elway , Warner....all far more significant and HOF worthy than Eli.

 

[Aso]

I would like to hear the thoughts on Daryle Lamonica vs Joe Namath.

 

[FirstTimer]

Warner and KOF and Larry already said it but relative to era and peers...Aikman and Eli is no comparison.

 

[FirstTimer]

Also, something else, and it's completely intangible, but the act of being great year in and year out when people expect you to be. All these other guys did it. Eli has not. Fair or not Eli's giants weren't Super Bowl favorites and seemingly got to the game out of nowhere...drop off for a few seasons then back. Most of these guys being brought up right now were/are great year after year and are expected to be. if Eli chucks a ton of picks next season will anyone be shocked? Not really. With these other guys those seasons never happened and when they did they were "flukes" or signs of the end. If Eli had one people see it as regression to the mean.

It's completely anecdotal but that perception has to count for something.

 

[KINGOFOOTBALL]

I would like to hear the thoughts on Daryle Lamonica vs Joe Namath.

Even though Joe wore stockings...Al Davis would have sex with Daryle if given the chance. I still think memories of Daryle kept him from ever being sane about his club management.

Namath could make all the throws , Daryle was very Jeff Blakish where he could complete a seemingly endless amount of deep balls but had trouble being anything but average with anything else.

 

[shag773]

I read the calculations WT2B put up and I want to stick toothpicks in my eyeballs...Sabremetric type calculations in NFL argumments? FML.... :smug:

IMO if Eli steps in front of a bus tomorrow and never plays again (crossing fingers), he makes it into the hall. The hall of fame voters are full of
ring guys who don't need more context to support their choice.

They see the two game winning SB drives, the pass to Burress, the Manningham pass, NFL films music in the background, and voila...his bust is in Canton.

Do I have a problem with the line of thinking? Meh, don't really care. I'm honestly not a big HOF guy, so who they put in is fairly inconsequential to me.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

I read the calculations WT2B put up and I want to stick toothpicks in my eyeballs...Sabremetric type calculations in NFL argumments? FML.... :smug:

All those numbers are is a normalization to the league average of the given era. Its not that complicated at all.

This is a quick look at how a quarterback did compared to league average in eight different passing stats: yards per attempt, adjusted yards per attempt, net yards per attempt, adjusted net yards per attempt, completion percentage, passing TD percentage, interception percentage, and sack percentage.
First, for each stat for each year for each league, we computed two things:

the league average for that stat in that league during the three-year period with the given year in the middle. For example, the "league average" for the 1963 AFL would be the aggregate average of the stats accumulated in the AFL from 1962 to 1964. (NOTE: the 1960 AFL and the 1969 AFL, as well as the current season, will be based on only two years worth of data rather than three.)
the standard deviation of the stat for all individuals who had 14 or more pass attempts per scheduled game during the three-year period.
Next, we computed how many standard deviations away from the league average each player was in each of his seasons. We multiply that number by 15 and add it to 100, and that is the number you see.

Bottom line:

On all stats, 100 is league average.
On all stats (including sack percentage and interception percentage), a higher number means better than average
The greatest passing seasons of all time are in the 140s. A typical league-leading season in most categories will be in the high 120s or the low-to-mid 130s.

It just helps put the numbers in perspective.

 

[Tailback U]

That's still silly. You can't compare eras by "adjusting stats." You say passing is easier because of the numbers and the penalties, which im
Not disagreeing with, but ome could argue that the defenses are faster and the schemes
More complex but there are more elite QBs playing at the same time than ever before because the position has gotten so specialized.

Was there ever an era that had 4-5 HOF QBs competing against each other at once before 1980?

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

That's still silly. You can't compare eras by "adjusting stats." You say passing is easier because of the numbers and the penalties, which im
Not disagreeing with, but ome could argue that the defenses are faster and the schemes
More complex but there are more elite QBs playing at the same time than ever before because the position has gotten so specialized.

Was there ever an era that had 4-5 HOF QBs competing against each other at once before 1980?

LOL, then how else are you supposed to do it?

The only way to really judge how good/bad a statistic is, is to compare those statistics to the rest of league.

But I guess it's just easier to say "well, Namath and Van Brocklin and YA Tittle threw more INT's than TD's, so fuck them".

 

[mcstl25]

So if Eli is a HOF'er, the Roethlisberger must be as well, right?

For the record, I don't think either are HOF'ers. Yet.

 

[Len B]

This is why you don't judge a player on HOF credentials 6 1/2 seasons into his career.

 

[shag773]

This is why you don't judge a player on HOF credentials 6 1/2 seasons into his career.

:troll: