Eli Manning - HOF?

[FaCe-LeE-uS]

People get too hung up on stats... Shit compare these career stats:

QB1
50.1% Completion Rating
27,663 Yds Passing
173 TDs
220 INTs
QBR 65.5
1 SB win & SB MVP

QB2
59.7% Completion Rating
48,214 Yds Passing
320 TDs
215 INTs
QBR 83.7
2 SB wins & 2x SB MVP

QB1 is Joe Namath, and QB2 is Eli Manning. Namath is one of the most overrated players in the history of the NFL. But people only remember him for his SB accolades. Eli has better stats than more than a few QBs in the NFL. Yes I know the league is A LOT different from that point in time, but if people are going to use stats as the sole reason that he shouldn't be in, then think again. Long after he's in Canton people will only remember his SB accolades.

 

[knowyourenemy]

Sorry to say but Eli is pretty much a lock to be selected for the Hall of Fame.

 

[DirtDirtDirt]

I don't wanna discuss this, this particular week

Thank you

 

[knowyourenemy]

Aikman had Emmitt Smith, Michael Irvin, and a great offensive line. Eli did not have an elite running back, receiver, or offensive line during any of the Giants' Super Bowl seasons.

 

[jarntt]

To all of the bloggers, of whom, typed that Eli Manning won't make the Hall of Fame, visit Eli's Wikipedia page and see if you'll regret your mini diatribe. It's lurid to believe that Eli won't make the HOF. Within the last 2 or 3 seasons, Eli--in my opinion--has performed like a top-5 quarterback. Moreover, Eli is an elite quarterback. Which writer(s) will subvert the fans, by excluding Eli Manning from becoming a member of the HOF? Eli will be a HOF'er when he retires.

Good thing you didn't say the last 4 seasons. Did you see his 2013???
Anyway, if Eli gets in it sure as Hell is not because of the last 2 or 3 seasons and he did NOT perform as a top 5 QB for that period. But, I guess he gave you some good fantasy stats in 2014 and 2015 so there you go...

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

People get too hung up on stats... Shit compare these career stats:

QB1
50.1% Completion Rating
27,663 Yds Passing
173 TDs
220 INTs
QBR 65.5
1 SB win & SB MVP

QB2
59.7% Completion Rating
48,214 Yds Passing
320 TDs
215 INTs
QBR 83.7
2 SB wins & 2x SB MVP

QB1 is Joe Namath, and QB2 is Eli Manning. Namath is one of the most overrated players in the history of the NFL. But people only remember him for his SB accolades. Eli has better stats than more than a few QBs in the NFL. Yes I know the league is A LOT different from that point in time, but if people are going to use stats as the sole reason that he shouldn't be in, then think again. Long after he's in Canton people will only remember his SB accolades.

I can't believe this thread is still going on and people are still trying to compare stats from different eras. Ken Stabler is a Hall of Famer and had 194 TD and 222 INT witha QBR of 75.3. This would land him in Brock Osweiler territory today. The only way to compare QBs is to compare them with others of his era and by every statistical measuring stick he is far down the list.

 

[FaCe-LeE-uS]

I can't believe this thread is still going on and people are still trying to compare stats from different eras. Ken Stabler is a Hall of Famer and had 194 TD and 222 INT witha QBR of 75.3. This would land him in
Brock Osweiler territory today.

Come on boys, you can do better than this post.

I was late to the party, but I think you can read better than that.

 

[knowyourenemy]

Projecting future Hall of Famers for all 32 NFL teams


HOF Thresholds
Basically, a quarterback has been considered HOF worthy if he:

1. Won multiple Super Bowls OR
2. Threw for over 40,000 yards

I think 40,000 yards is out the window at this point. Anyone who starts for more than 10 years will be close to that.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

I was late to the party, but I think you can read better than that.

I amended my post once I saw your reference to comparing eras. Non the less that is exactly what you did by posting the career stats. Stupid post bro.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

As long as we are discussing your post can you explain this line:

"Eli has better stats than more than a few QBs in the NFL".

Is that to mean if he's better than Fitzpatrick and Bordells he is a HOFer? Or did you mean better stats than other QBs in the HOF? If it's the 2nd please see my first post as it apparently still applies.

 

[soxfan1468927]

People get too hung up on stats... Shit compare these career stats:

QB1
50.1% Completion Rating
27,663 Yds Passing
173 TDs
220 INTs
QBR 65.5
1 SB win & SB MVP

QB2
59.7% Completion Rating
48,214 Yds Passing
320 TDs
215 INTs
QBR 83.7
2 SB wins & 2x SB MVP

QB1 is Joe Namath, and QB2 is Eli Manning. Namath is one of the most overrated players in the history of the NFL. But people only remember him for his SB accolades. Eli has better stats than more than a few QBs in the NFL. Yes I know the league is A LOT different from that point in time, but if people are going to use stats as the sole reason that he shouldn't be in, then think again. Long after he's in Canton people will only remember his SB accolades.

Do they only remember Namath's Super Bowl accolades? Because it gets brought up a LOT that his stats don't stack up and we're going on 50 years.

 

[FaCe-LeE-uS]

As long as we are discussing your post can you explain this line:

"Eli has better stats than more than a few QBs in the NFL".

Is that to mean if he's better than Fitzpatrick and Bordells he is a HOFer? Or did you mean better stats than other QBs in the HOF? If it's the 2nd please see my first post as it apparently still applies.

Oops, yes I mean HOF.

And yea I know its stupid to compare QBs from different eras. But if that's going to be the main selling point, then its not a good one.

Eli will be in the HOF... book it

 

[FaCe-LeE-uS]

Do they only remember Namath's Super Bowl accolades? Because it gets brought up a LOT that his stats don't stack up and we're going on 50 years.

And yet he's still wearing that gold jacket.

 

[DirtDirtDirt]

Oops, yes I mean HOF.

And yea I know its stupid to compare QBs from different eras. But if that's going to be the main selling point, then its not a good one.

Eli will be in the HOF... book it

Not entirely stupid..........Different era comparisons are tough, but you cant just chalk up humungous differences to different eras, unless you have a dog in the fight....Eli Manning and Jim Plunkett have 2 rings a piece, but to ignore the obscene edge in career stats, and JUST chalk it up to "Different Eras" is as stupid and irresponsible......Using that line of thinking, we can just assume ANY QB that played 30 years ago, is as good or better than ANY QB playing today

 

[dkmightyhammer]

stats again?
fantasy football's arrival killed many "informed" football opinions.

I started watching football when Warren Moon was a rookie playing in Canada. That was 1978. I think my opinion is informed enough.

And yes stats count. I'd say over 90% of the guys in the HOF are at the top 15 to 20 of their positions in stats. HOF voters definitely look at stats. Stats aren't everything but they are a lot of it when considering HOF. My point was Eli (who I'm not a fan of either) beats Aikman across the board in every category that matters for a QB. And in yards and TD's it isn't even close. If Aikman didn't have 3 rings with one of the best teams of all time he wouldn't have sniffed the HOF on his numbers alone. But, he's a Cowboy (which is a huge plus for HOF voters) and he has 3 SB rings, so he's in. Eli has two rings and destroys Aikman's statline, plus he's got that ironman streak going to boot. Eli has started 199 games in a row which is 34 more games than Aikman played total. And I like Aikman by the way so I'm not bashing the guy, but if he can get in with his marginal career (except for SB's) then Eli is a slam dunk. Fantasy football has nothing to do with it, although Eli would probably smoke Aikman there too.

 

[DirtDirtDirt]

I started watching football when Warren Moon was a rookie playing in Canada. That was 1978. I think my opinion in informed enough.

And yes stats count. I'd say over 90% of the guys in the HOF are at the top 15 to 20 of their positions in stats. HOF voters definitely look at stats. Stats aren't everything but they are a lot of it when considering HOF. My point was Eli (who I'm not a fan of either) beats Aikman across the board in every category that matters for a QB. And in yards and TD's it isn't even close. If Aikman didn't have 3 rings with one of the best teams of all time he wouldn't have sniffed the HOF on his numbers alone. But, he's a Cowboy (which is a huge plus for HOF voters) and he has 3 SB rings, so he's in. Eli has two rings and destroys Aikman's statline, plus he's got that ironman streak going to boot. Eli has started 199 games in a row which is 34 more games than Aikman played total. And I like Aikman by the way so I'm not bashing the guy, but if he can get in with his marginal career (except for SB's) than Eli is a slam dunk. Fantasy football has nothing to do with it, although Eli would probably smoke Aikman there too.

Well said

Even as a lifelong Giants fan, I don't see Eli as a HOF QB

But its hard to make a case that he wont be there, if you were to use all the measuring sticks typically used by voters, and how he compares to the QB's already in

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

Not entirely stupid..........Different era comparisons are tough, but you cant just chalk up humungous differences to different eras, unless you have a dog in the fight....Eli Manning and Jim Plunkett have 2 rings a piece, but to ignore the obscene edge in career stats, and JUST chalk it up to "Different Eras" is as stupid and irresponsible......Using that line of thinking, we can just assume ANY QB that played 30 years ago, is as good or better than ANY QB playing today

Plunkett is not in because, like Manning, despite the 2 rings he didn't measure up statistically with other QBs of his era. For you to compare Manning and Plunkett by stats is again comparing apples to oranges. Liked Punkett he should be judged against the QBs of today and again his stats don't put him in the first, or even the second group.

 

[DirtDirtDirt]

Plunkett is not in because, like Manning, despite the 2 rings he didn't measure up statistically with other QBs of his era. For you to compare Manning and Plunkett by stats is again comparing apples to oranges. Liked Punkett he should be judged against the QBs of today and again his stats don't put him in the first, or even the second group.

That would be incorrect, because statistically, Eli does measure up to current and past QB's in some very important categories...I think you could safely assume at the end of his career, he will land somewhere in the Top 5 or 6 all time in passing yards and I believe the Top 10 guys there are in, or will be in the HOF.......

 

[soxfan1468927]

And yet he's still wearing that gold jacket.

Yeah that's not really a rebuttal to what I said.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

That would be incorrect, because statistically, Eli does measure up to current and past QB's in some very important categories...I think you could safely assume at the end of his career, he will land somewhere in the Top 5 or 6 all time in passing yards and I believe the Top 10 guys there are in, or will be in the HOF.......

Passing yards is a function of longevity and of course the rules of today as much as anything. Again you are using Eli's standings on the all time list without considering that most on that list that he is now moving past threw it half as often as Eli and all the QBs of today do. Stop with statistical comparisons with QBs of the past already.

Unless you are prepared to argue that HOF kicker Jan Stenerud and his 66% FG success rate would stand up today you will agree that like Stenerud the way to judge Eli is to compare them with others of their era, not to compare his yardage totals to guys playing 14 games and throwing 18 times a game. As another poster pointed out Eli failed to finish in the top 10 in passer rating every year but once in his entire career. Even if that stat is not true (I didn't bother to confirm) there is no statistical measure that would put Eli Manning on the short list of the top QBs of his era. And no Troy Aikman is not in his era.