Kurt Warner: No HOF For Eli Manning

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

I almost always think no.

Vinny Testaverde
Curtis Martin
Darrell Green
Kerry Collins
Art Monk

All longevity players. Only one is a HOFer in my eyes because he was genuinely a great player in his prime.

Vinny and Collins were never even "good".
Art Monk was consistently "good"
Curtis Martin was consistently "very good"
Darrell Green was consistently "very good" and had small periods of greatness in his prime.

So really, we're talking about Martin here.

I don't know if being consistently "very good" over a long period is great...its something that can be argued both ways.

The same argument for Isaac Bruce is going to come up.

 

[shag773]

1. Because of history , the impact of that game , and comparison to his peers on the NFL side. When you are the first , unique , or do something that is storied through the ages of your sport you get put on a pedestal. Eli and Brees are just blips on the radar right now.

I don't think the HOF is filled with players that meet this criteria. Plus, I think you are underrating Brees by a lot. If the hall is still standing after inducting Floyd Little, I think they can hold their nose long enough to let Drew Brees squeeze in.

Just out of curiosity, if todays qbs are so overrated relative to their counterparts of the 60's and 70's, what does that say about the defensive players of that time? Guys like Deacon Jones, Lem Barney, Paul Kraus, Alan Page, etc, all benefited from the rules of that time. Have we "overrated" them?

 

[KINGOFOOTBALL]

I don't think the HOF is filled with players that meet this criteria. Plus, I think you are underrating Brees by a lot. If the hall is still standing after inducting Floyd Little, I think they can hold their nose long enough to let Drew Brees squeeze in.

Just out of curiosity, if todays qbs are so overrated relative to their counterparts of the 60's and 70's, what does that say about the defensive players of that time? Guys like Deacon Jones, Lem Barney, Paul Kraus, Alan Page, etc, all benefited from the rules of that time. Have we "overrated" them?

I hated the Floyd Little induction. meh.

The stats are overrated. There accomplishments diminished as there peers are all doing the same. But physically/mentally you always know who the great ones are. Manning and Rodgers to me are almost flawless in pre snap decisions and delivery. If Lamonica couldnt adapt to the zone then itd be hopeless now.
Many defensive players certainly had it easy; pre-70s lineman sure did. CBs had it easy as they could murder at the LOS. I doubt Bednarik is making a name for himself in 1995.....But guys like Deacon , Night Train Lane , and Krause standout because they werent getting by on rules they were playing well above there peers and were either mentally or physically more gifted then the rest.
As a rule however illogical it may seem it elevates todays defensive standouts more so than hinders the older guys. If you were a dominant OL in the 50s 60s you get extra kudos. Someone like Darrelle Revis I marvel at.

FWIW Michael Irvin made a great point on Ray Lewis. Where as 15-20 years ago Lewis would have been the end of his care with significant drop off , the fact he doesnt have to collide with FBs and guards 25 times a game lessens the physical toll , and emphasis today on scheme instead of physicality allows Ray to still be an elite player. So it can go either way.

 

[Senser81]

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

Lamonica was nearly everything you didn't want in a QB. He was bad at reading defenses, he couldn't remember the plays, he was easily rattled by a pass rush, and his teammates hated him. That said, he was a good athlete and a great thrower of the ball. His stats are great (albeit surrounded by great talent). He was kind of like Kerry Collins...give him time, and he'll kill you.

 

[Aso]

It bothers me that a guy like Ken Anderson can't get in but Curtis Martin can. Then people talk about Eli Manning being a shoe in? Oh man.

7/11 seasons he averaged 4.0 ypc or less. I'm not sure I'd categorize that as consistently "very good". He was good no doubt but it's awful he is in the hall.

 

[Senser81]

Just out of curiosity, if todays qbs are so overrated relative to their counterparts of the 60's and 70's, what does that say about the defensive players of that time? Guys like Deacon Jones, Lem Barney, Paul Kraus, Alan Page, etc, all benefited from the rules of that time. Have we "overrated" them?

Not really. The defensive backs of the 1950's - 1970's are vastly overlooked, especially when it comes to the HOF. Jack Butler was the best safety of the 1950's, and he just got in this year. Johnny Robinson is still waiting to get in. Jimmy Johnson was arguably the best cover CB in NFL history, and it took him years to get into Canton.

 

[bucky]

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.

To me, Aikman sacrificed his game for the good of the team. I think he could have put up better numbers on more of a passing team. He saw the big picture. He saw the talented O-Line with the "move the chains" RB. Aikman = Team player.

As far as Namath goes. I think he's pretty over-rated. Guys like Starr and Unitas were much better. If you look at Starr's playoff numbers, he's one of the best. Starr had very good completion percentages in his career. I think he even was over 60% for one season back in the 60's. And he had a good TD/Int ratio back when ints were fairly common, especially in the playoffs.

 

[Warner2BruceTD]

I don't think anyone would say Namath was a better player than Starr or Unitas. I'm with you on that for sure.

Namath was probably more physically talented, but was more of a risk taker, and of course the injuries. But the injuries are what they are.

 

[Liquidrob]

Is Darrell Green in the HOF? If he isnt he should be, if you were watching football back than you know he was a HOFer

 

[bucky]

I don't think anyone would say Namath was a better player than Starr or Unitas. I'm with you on that for sure.

Namath was probably more physically talented, but was more of a risk taker, and of course the injuries. But the injuries are what they are.

Namath's injuries did hurt him. It was sad watching him play the last half of his career. It's too bad they didn't have the same medical techniques back then.

Starr was a very good athlete, anyone that makes it to the Pro's is, but he didn't compare athletically to his pears. So I'm with you there. Though Starr was way ahead of his time. He took care of the ball, had a high completion percentage. Was constantly studying film back when QB's were not. One of the best play callers of the time. I'm a bit of a homer being a Packer fan, but I think Starr is greatly underrated because of being under the Lombardi mystic.

 

[Champ]

Why should I care what Warner says? He taught Sandusky in the ways of raping little boys.

 

[BigBucs]

Any surprise that these comments came from Warner though? I wouldv'e expected someone else

You are right though, I said this before Eli's never had sexy stats....this is by far his best year....Warner used to have better years statistically in his sleep

But, Warner also forgets, he had a incredible offense around him....he didn't do it alone either....this is my only beef with his statements...no QB does it alone, he didn't either

Brady has done it alone :kobe:

 

[Senser81]

Starr was a very good athlete, anyone that makes it to the Pro's is, but he didn't compare athletically to his pears.

Starr played safety at Alabama, and he was a much better athlete than most of the NFL QBs. A good runner when he ran, adept at shaking off pass rushers. You don't think Starr was a better athlete than Van Brocklin, Unitas, Tittle, Frank Ryan, Jurgensen, etc??

And LOL at the people comparing Eli Manning to Brees and Roethlisberger. Whats next...comparing BlyGilmore to Rush?

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Starr played safety at Alabama, and he was a much better athlete than most of the NFL QBs. A good runner when he ran, adept at shaking off pass rushers. You don't think Starr was a better athlete than Van Brocklin, Unitas, Tittle, Frank Ryan, Jurgensen, etc??

And LOL at the people comparing Eli Manning to Brees and Roethlisberger. Whats next...comparing BlyGilmore to Rush?

They both suck.

 

[bucky]

Starr played safety at Alabama, and he was a much better athlete than most of the NFL QBs. A good runner when he ran, adept at shaking off pass rushers. You don't think Starr was a better athlete than Van Brocklin, Unitas, Tittle, Frank Ryan, Jurgensen, etc??

He only played safety one year at Alabama, and that was because College football got retarded and forced players to play both offense and defense. If it wasn't for that, Starr would have never seen the defensive side of the LOS. He played safety that ONE year so that he could play QB. If college rules FORCED you to play your QB on D, where else but safety would you play him?

Starr wasn't a bad athlete, but he wasn't the most athletic. Yeah he could move in the pocket, but he wasn't a scrambler. He was more tough than mobile. The guy could really take a beating.

What really set him apart from many of his peers, and why he was close to the level of Unitas, was smarts and accuracy. He was very dedicated to the academic's of FB.

I would say in Starr's era, it was Unitas, then Starr and a gap to the next tier. Some would even say Starr was pretty close to Unitas, but I'm a Packer fan and a bit of a homer.

 

[red33]

Why should I care what Warner says? He taught Sandusky in the ways of raping little boys.

troll? way to blunt. subtle trolling is much more effective.

 

[Deviant]

I dont think you know the difference between accumulate and improve.

4th quarter comebacks in this age ?
Why not tell me how many 100 reception seasons Carl Pickens had.

Yes, I do. His stats will improve in time. Barring injury, he's never going to have a regular season where he's under 60% completion again (last time: 2007), he's going to throw for around 4,500+ every year, and he might have just one 20 INT season for the rest of his career. With the receiving core he has around him, there's just no way he's not capable of this.

What do you mean by 4th quarter comebacks in this age? Only 19 out of 104 quarterbacks with 10+ 4th quarter comebacks are active players. Five of those guys are near retirement: Jeff Garcia (41 y.o.), Donovan McNabb (35), Jon Kitna (39), Jake Delhomme (36), Kerry Collins (39) Matt Hasselbeck (36 and the only guy in this list who can still legitimately start in the NFL). The only guy who's really pulling comebacks out of his ass today is Tim Tebow.

Am I saying it's the most important characteristic? No. Aaron Rodgers just blows teams the fuck out so he's rarely put a position where he can complete a 4QC (he only has 3 in his career). But, it is something Eli is known for doing and it's the quarter that the guy shines brightest in (as highlighted by his performance the entire year).

By the way, Carl Pickens is a horrible comparison for your point because he only has one 100 reception season. And yes, I am nitpicking that 99-rec season. :lesmug:

You were looking for either Herman Moore (3) or Wes Welker (4 and a FAR better comparison).

 

[FirstTimer]

Yes, I do. His stats will improve in time. Barring injury, he's never going to have a regular season where he's under 60% completion again (last time: 2007), he's going to throw for around 4,500+ every year, and he might have just one 20 INT season for the rest of his career. With the receiving core he has around him, there's just no way he's not capable of this.

LOL at this. Yeah let's take this one season and just assume Eli will do it forever rather than taking into account whathe's done his entire career until this point including leading the league in picks in 2010.

Homer post here.

Awesome.

 

[KINGOFOOTBALL]

Yes, I do. His stats will improve in time. Barring injury, he's never going to have a regular season where he's under 60% completion again (last time: 2007), he's going to throw for around 4,500+ every year, and he might have just one 20 INT season for the rest of his career. With the receiving core he has around him, there's just no way he's not capable of this.

What do you mean by 4th quarter comebacks in this age? Only 19 out of 104 quarterbacks with 10+ 4th quarter comebacks are active players. Five of those guys are near retirement: Jeff Garcia (41 y.o.), Donovan McNabb (35), Jon Kitna (39), Jake Delhomme (36), Kerry Collins (39) Matt Hasselbeck (36 and the only guy in this list who can still legitimately start in the NFL). The only guy who's really pulling comebacks out of his ass today is Tim Tebow.

Am I saying it's the most important characteristic? No. Aaron Rodgers just blows teams the fuck out so he's rarely put a position where he can complete a 4QC (he only has 3 in his career). But, it is something Eli is known for doing and it's the quarter that the guy shines brightest in (as highlighted by his performance the entire year).

By the way, Carl Pickens is a horrible comparison for your point because he only has one 100 reception season. And yes, I am nitpicking that 99-rec season. :lesmug:

You were looking for either Herman Moore (3) or Wes Welker (4 and a FAR better comparison).

In case you missed the NFL season nary a week passed without 2-3 ridiculous last minute scores 4th comebacks. Its routine. Check any week to week posting here.

 

[shag773]

In case you missed the NFL season nary a week passed without 2-3 ridiculous last minute scores 4th comebacks. Its routine. Check any week to week posting here.

We had 70 4th quarter comebacks this year, the highest in NFL history. However it was only surpassed by 2..the NFL had 68 in 2008, 2002, and in 1999, but there was only 31 teams that year.