Is Phillip Rivers a Hall of Famer?

[saturdaysarebetter]

Is Phillip Rivers a Hall of Famer? Do you think he'll make the Hall of Fame and should he make the Hall of Fame?

[86WARD]

Yes. Not first ballot, but yes.

[steel striker]

Yes I think Rivers will get in the HOF.

[st33lersguy]

Not a hall of fame caliber player. Must really be loosening standards to think otherwise

[FrancoLambert]

No way IMO.
But nowadays, anybody with gaudy stats at the QB position gets in.

[steelreserve]

Call me old-fashioned, but I thought the Hall of Fame was for all-time greats, not everybody who was pretty good.

Rivers is a pretty good QB who hasn't won shit. Not an all-time great career, nor any singular accomplishment that's a defining moment in the history of the game either - the other way that guys on the borderline sometimes can get in.

I just don't see why he should be in there. But he probably will actually get in, since they have been turning it into an all-inclusive showcase for pretty-goods lately.

[DesertSteel]

He's 6th in TDs and 8th in yards and possibly will play 2-4 more years. He will be first ballot HOF. He's not great, but being really good for a really long time is also a Hall worthy accomplishment. By the same token Frank Gore gets in because the productive longevity he's shown at RB is unworldly at that position.

[Fire Goodell]

Yes. Not first ballot, but yes.

Yep I agree with this statement

[Born2Steel]

Not this week. This week he’s going to be a 1st round bust.

[ALLD]

FF MVP, but no HoF.

[steelreserve]

He's 6th in TDs and 8th in yards and possibly will play 2-4 more years. He will be first ballot HOF. He's not great, but being really good for a really long time is also a Hall worthy accomplishment. By the same token Frank Gore gets in because the productive longevity he's shown at RB is unworldly at that position.

Would Eli Manning be a Hall of Fame if he had never even made it to a Super Bowl, let alone won any? Most people would say no, HELL no - yet there he is, one place above Rivers in the career stats.

I don't disagree with you that Rivers will get in, one way or another. But stat inflation in the last 15 years is a JOKE. Anyone who has a decently long career will find himself among the all-time "greats" of the game. I mean, Alex Smith has more passing yards than Troy Aikman or Steve Young. Andy Dalton will probably pass them this season. They have been completely cheapened as any sort of meaningful accomplishment, and I don't think they have almost any bearing on HOF worthiness at all anymore, unless somehow they can figure out a way of making reasonable comparisons.

Rivers does have some other "old school" things going for him, like being the face of a franchise for a long time, and I think being known as a good guy in general, which is why he'd at least be a borderline case by any standard. But wouldn't be a lock.

In a way, this is a great test case for just how "special" it is to be in the HOF anymore ... whether it truly means you're an all-time great player, or they've watered it down to the point of losing impact.

[86WARD]

Not this week. This week he’s going to be a 1st round bust.

This is the only correct answer...

[Fire Goodell]

He's 6th in TDs and 8th in yards and possibly will play 2-4 more years. He will be first ballot HOF. He's not great, but being really good for a really long time is also a Hall worthy accomplishment. By the same token Frank Gore gets in because the productive longevity he's shown at RB is unworldly at that position.

Agreed, he might not have lit the world on fire, but there's a lot to be said about players like Rivers and Gore. Being consistently good for 15+ years is well, GREAT. Considering that most NFL careers don't even last 2 years. What's the difference between Emmitt Smith and Bo Jackson? You could argue that Bo Jackson was way more talented than Emmitt was, but was he an all-time great? NO. Bo was a phenomenal athlete like the game has never seen, but will never be in the HoF because of the lack of body of work. He didn't have a 'great' career, because it was too short. Frank Gore also belongs there, availability and durability on the level of these guys really is impressive. Especially with Gore who's a physical runner that doesn't shy away from contact, and the guy is still doing it.

[Butch]

I don't see it, he may have a lot of stats but he's not clutch. If you don't win SBs then you better be a stand out head and shoulders above your peers. He's very good just not Great.

[ALLD]

The guy he replaced is a HoF for the Saints. Ironic that Rivers is more like Archie Manning than Peyton or Eli.

[silver & black]

No.

[AtlantaDan]

No Super Bowl appearances, never been first team All Pro, led league in passing yardage one time, and led league in passing TDS one time.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/R/RivePh00.htm

Only Super Bowl era HOF QB without a Super Bowl appearance and no first team All Pro seasons appears to be Warren Moon - Moon led league in passing yardage twice and passing TDS once

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MoonWa00.htm

Given his accomplishments other than those attributed to longevity in a passing era, best argument against keeping Rivers out is if Eli gets in

[DesertSteel]

Ben’s QB class are all getting in. How many times has Ben been all-pro?

[AtlantaDan]

Ben’s QB class are all getting in. How many times has Ben been all-pro?

I was noting HOF QBs who never played in a Super Bowl - whether it is fair or not multiple rings put a QB in a different category from QBs trying to get inducted solely on individual accomplishments. Same goes for other players - Lynn Swann did not have a HOF career statistically but he played well in multiple Super Bowls on a team that won 4.

The only reason Eli is even being considered for Canton are two games he won in February

Only QB I can recall who started for two Super Bowl winners who is not in is Jim Plunkett

Like Eli Plunkett had a .500 record as a starter.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/P/PlunJi00.htm

Unlike Eli and Joe Namath (a QB who got in primarily for how he did in a Super Bowl), Plunkett did not play for a New York team

[DesertSteel]

Winning Super Bowls is not a written requirement, but the unwritten code says you get in if you win them and you're also "very good" (e.g., Ben). But being top 5 in all key stats is also an unwritten code. As for Eli, I'd argue that he gets in even without the Super Bowls -- after a few years. His stats will be top echelon. Rivers is definitely getting in without the Super Bowl. I also think it helps playing for one team, unlike guys like Testeverde and Kerry Collins who piled up stats as journeymen.

[Mojouw]

Rivers, Eli, and Ben will be excellent test cases for whether or not the HOF voters want to re-calibrate their precedents and unwritten policies for the pass-wacky era of the NFL that we are in now.

You basically have three guys that played in the same era representing 3 benchmarks. The guy who won championships but has mediocre stats. The guy who didn't win anything but put up huge numbers. The guy who won a few things and put up really good numbers. How many of those guys do you take?

A strict HOF takes only Ben. A more liberal HOF takes all three.

[AtlantaDan]

Winning Super Bowls is not a written requirement, but the unwritten code says you get in if you win them and you're also "very good" (e.g., Ben). But being top 5 in all key stats is also an unwritten code. As for Eli, I'd argue that he gets in even without the Super Bowls -- after a few years. His stats will be top echelon. Rivers is definitely getting in without the Super Bowl. I also think it helps playing for one team, unlike guys like Testeverde and Kerry Collins who piled up stats as journeymen.

I would argue passing stats over the past 10-15 years are like home runs in the steroid era of the mid to late 90s or the past few years with the juiced baseball - inflated and something that should be discounted when assessing where a player ranks in terms of comparable career stats

But I guess that is what Matthew Stafford will rely on for his Canton induction although IMO he has never been regarded as one of the best QBs in football

If you project Stafford's stats in an era that has emphasized the pass through what is now his 11th season to what Rivers has accumulated through his 16th season there are a lot of similarities

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/S/StafMa00.htm
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/R/RivePh00.htm

To me Rivers is like Ken Anderson - a very good QB with some excellent stats who had the misfortune to play in the AFC when other teams with talented QBs ruled the AFC - Anderson is not in Canton while Griese, Bradshaw and Stabler are

But FWIW I would agree Rivers is inducted within two or three years of eligibility because of his stats

[Butch]

Agreed, he might not have lit the world on fire, but there's a lot to be said about players like Rivers and Gore. Being consistently good for 15+ years is well, GREAT. Considering that most NFL careers don't even last 2 years. What's the difference between Emmitt Smith and Bo Jackson? You could argue that Bo Jackson was way more talented than Emmitt was, but was he an all-time great? NO. Bo was a phenomenal athlete like the game has never seen, but will never be in the HoF because of the lack of body of work. He didn't have a 'great' career, because it was too short. Frank Gore also belongs there, availability and durability on the level of these guys really is impressive. Especially with Gore who's a physical runner that doesn't shy away from contact, and the guy is still doing it.

Not sure where you are coming from with longevity being a criteria to get into the HOF, but IMHO Rivers hasn't done much to separate himself from the pack. He's better than most but nothing spectacular. Has he even won a single post season game? I don't think he has, but I could be wrong. If he somehow manages to win a couple super bowls then we can talk but as things stand right now he isn't anything special. I like the point that Dan made about him being like Kenny Anderson very good but not great. While winning a super bowl is not the end all be all it generally shows that the QB has a way of being clutch in big games, especially when that QB has been in more than 1.

All this being said it is a handful of media types who vote on this stuff so I suppose anything is possible. I just don't think it will happen for him.

[DesertSteel]

I would argue passing stats over the past 10-15 years are like home runs in the steroid era of the mid to late 90s or the past few years with the juiced baseball - inflated and something that should be discounted when assessing where a player ranks in terms of comparable career stats

But I guess that is what Matthew Stafford will rely on for his Canton induction although IMO he has never been regarded as one of the best QBs in football

If you project Stafford's stats in an era that has emphasized the pass through what is now his 11th season to what Rivers has accumulated through his 16th season there are a lot of similarities

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/S/StafMa00.htm
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/R/RivePh00.htm

To me Rivers is like Ken Anderson - a very good QB with some excellent stats who had the misfortune to play in the AFC when other teams with talented QBs ruled the AFC - Anderson is not in Canton while Griese, Bradshaw and Stabler are

But FWIW I would agree Rivers is inducted within two or three years of eligibility because of his stats
I guess it's still TBD how much gaudy passing stats will have lessened weight. Stafford will be a good case study if he plays another 6-7 years. Dan Fouts numbers aren't all that impressive and he won a total of 3 playoff games.

- - - Updated - - -


Rivers, Eli, and Ben will be excellent test cases for whether or not the HOF voters want to re-calibrate their precedents and unwritten policies for the pass-wacky era of the NFL that we are in now.

You basically have three guys that played in the same era representing 3 benchmarks. The guy who won championships but has mediocre stats. The guy who didn't win anything but put up huge numbers. The guy who won a few things and put up really good numbers. How many of those guys do you take?

A strict HOF takes only Ben. A more liberal HOF takes all three.
Is Ben "the guy who won a few things"? He has the same number of championships as the other guy.

[steelreserve]

I would argue passing stats over the past 10-15 years are like home runs in the steroid era of the mid to late 90s or the past few years with the juiced baseball - inflated and something that should be discounted when assessing where a player ranks in terms of comparable career stats

But I guess that is what Matthew Stafford will rely on for his Canton induction although IMO he has never been regarded as one of the best QBs in football

If you project Stafford's stats in an era that has emphasized the pass through what is now his 11th season to what Rivers has accumulated through his 16th season there are a lot of similarities

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/S/StafMa00.htm
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/R/RivePh00.htm

To me Rivers is like Ken Anderson - a very good QB with some excellent stats who had the misfortune to play in the AFC when other teams with talented QBs ruled the AFC - Anderson is not in Canton while Griese, Bradshaw and Stabler are

But FWIW I would agree Rivers is inducted within two or three years of eligibility because of his stats

If they start letting guys into the HOF purely based on stats, it will quickly turn into a joke.

Barring injury, Matt Ryan is going to become one of the top 10 in career passing yards in the history of the game this year. Matt Ryan! Guys like him, and Stafford, getting in will be the turning point from a tribute to the all-time greats of the game, to a tribute to the new rules of the game.

Like, if stats are the primary qualifier, then from the 2010s on you probably have 8-10 Hall of Fame quarterbacks active at any given time. Like a third of the guys in the league. That's not what the Hall of Fame is for if you ask me.

The baseball comparison is a good one. In the steroid era at least, they mostly figured out who was doing what, and guess what, people didn't look too kindly on the pretty-good players who were suddenly smashing 50-year old records in huge numbers. In football it's ok - it's like they voted to permanently move in the fences by 50 feet and carry on as if nothing happened, so the Sammy Sosas of the NFL just happen to be part of this amazing coincidence where there's a perpetual bumper crop of all-time great players.

Funny thing, there was a guy in baseball who was the all-time best power hitter in the game by a wide margin, almost a statistically impossible margin, and his career kept going for an impossibly long time, and somehow he even kept up this incredible level of performance very late in his career, when it was nearly unheard of for players to avoid a sharp decline, let alone be improving - and he chalked it all up to hard work and dietary supplements and modern sports-medicine based workouts. Even went to his own special sports training center that he touted as his fountain of youth, and he and his followers scoffed at the notion that he got there by anything other than legitimate means; it was just crazy conspiracy theories. But he was always looked at with suspicion because of the way he achieved his milestones, and rumors of cheating followed him for most of his career, and ultimately he was kept out of the Hall of Fame and his records were widely discredited. There was a guy like that in professional cycling too, same exact story. I wonder if there's a guy like that in football?

[Squeegee Thompson]

A couple more games like that turd that Rivers put up on Sunday night and the only way Rivers sees the HOF is if he buys a ticket.

[DesertSteel]

If they start letting guys into the HOF purely based on stats, it will quickly turn into a joke.

Stats are the number one criterion for ever major sport HOF. Other things are factored in, but stats are the heaviest weighted category.

[steelreserve]

Stats are the number one criterion for ever major sport HOF. Other things are factored in, but stats are the heaviest weighted category.

I should clarify that ... they need to come up with some way of accounting for the fact that today's passing stats are a complete joke. It is like they gave a free extra 30-40% to everyone.

I have got a very hard time believing that something like 8 of the top 10 QBs of all time played in the 2010s and 7 of them are active right now (what a coincidence!) but that is exactly what the stats are going to say by the time Rivers is eligible for the HOF.

Maybe Matt Stafford will surprise us all and win a couple championships ... sorry, made myself laugh. But more likely, you will end up with a bunch of guys with the ability of, like - Mark Brunell or Matt Hasselbeck - cosplaying as Hall of Fame candidates.

[Butch]

Stats are the number one criterion for ever major sport HOF. Other things are factored in, but stats are the heaviest weighted category.

The number 1 stat for QBs in the HOF is Super Bowl appearances. Without those chances go down severely (not impossible), and you better have stood out at some point in your career. I do not consider him to have ever been clutch. He may have the stats but nothing about him makes me think he is anything special. Some QBs have made it on stats but that was back when passing was not as prolific as it has been during River's era.

[86WARD]

The number 1 stat for QBs in the HOF is Super Bowl appearances. Without those chances go down severely (not impossible), and you better have stood out at some point in your career. I do not consider him to have ever been clutch. He may have the stats but nothing about him makes me think he is anything special. Some QBs have made it on stats but that was back when passing was not as prolific as it has been during River's era.

That’s not really true though. There’s plenty of QBs in the Hall of Fame with no Super Bowl appearances and no Chamionship Game appearances. Of course it helps but it’s not the be all end all.

Just go on the Hall of Fame website and they are all there.

[DesertSteel]

The number 1 stat for QBs in the HOF is Super Bowl appearances. Without those chances go down severely (not impossible), and you better have stood out at some point in your career. I do not consider him to have ever been clutch. He may have the stats but nothing about him makes me think he is anything special. Some QBs have made it on stats but that was back when passing was not as prolific as it has been during River's era.
I'd say close to equal weight for QBs, but I'd still put it 60/40 stats first.

[Butch]

That’s not really true though. There’s plenty of QBs in the Hall of Fame with no Super Bowl appearances and no Chamionship Game appearances. Of course it helps but it’s not the be all end all.

Just go on the Hall of Fame website and they are all there.

Never said it was the end all be all but if you don't have them you need to stand out. I am looking solely at the modern era QBs.

1. Aikman SB
2. Blanda (most of his career before SBs but did make 3 or so Title games)
3. Bradshaw SB
4. Len Dawson SB
5. Elway SB
6. Favre SB
7. Fouts (Gutsy player who had stats when passing was not what it is today)
8. Graham (10 division or league crowns in 10 years)
9. Griese SB
10. Jergensen
11. Kelly SB
12. Lane (3 NFL titles)
13. Marino SB
14. Montana SB
15. Moon
16. Namath SB
17. Stabler SB
18. Starr SB
19. staubach SB
20. Tarkenton SB
21. Tittle
22. Unitas SB
23. Van Brocklin
24. Warner SB
25. Waterfield
26. Young SB

These are considered Modern era QBs and of these 26 only 6 have no championships or SBs appearances. I think this proves getting to the big game is very important for a QB. Just getting there (more times than not) shows you can be clutch.

[pczach]

I'd say close to equal weight for QBs, but I'd still put it 60/40 stats first.



The problem with going with stats first for me is that the stats don't always tell an accurate tale. If a quarterback wins a ton of games and has a high winning percentage, that means his team is playing with the lead a lot. A lead that the quarterback is hugely responsible for, and they put up those stats with the game's outcome still very much at stake.

Many other quarterbacks put up tons of stats, but they played on teams that didn't win a large majority of their games, so they many times contributed greatly to those deficits, then pile up stats when the other team has the game in hand and loosens the defense up in an attempt to take away the big play. Those are false stats to me. Playing from behind creates stats and artificially inflates the numbers of quarterbacks that aren't consistent winners.

The other thing is the offensive systems these guys play in. Some quarterbacks play in offensive systems that revolve around the passing game. They play a wide-open style that by its very nature produces stats. Other quarterbacks play for teams who have a mission statement of playing defense, running the ball more, play complimentary football, and big stats don't always occur in those situations.

There is no perfect formula to decide who is better than who, but to me, great quarterbacks win a shitload of games. It has always been that way, and it is proven over time that great quarterbacks decide more games in their team's favor. Also, quarterbacks who make huge plays in big moments of games, big games, and lead last second comebacks in big games tend to rise to the top for me. Their actions in the important moments tells you more than raw stats ever could.

[86WARD]

Never said it was the end all be all but if you don't have them you need to stand out. I am looking solely at the modern era QBs.

1. Aikman SB
2. Blanda (most of his career before SBs but did make 3 or so Title games)
3. Bradshaw SB
4. Len Dawson SB
5. Elway SB
6. Favre SB
7. Fouts (Gutsy player who had stats when passing was not what it is today)
8. Graham (10 division or league crowns in 10 years)
9. Griese SB
10. Jergensen
11. Kelly SB
12. Lane (3 NFL titles)
13. Marino SB
14. Montana SB
15. Moon
16. Namath SB
17. Stabler SB
18. Starr SB
19. staubach SB
20. Tarkenton SB
21. Tittle
22. Unitas SB
23. Van Brocklin
24. Warner SB
25. Waterfield
26. Young SB

These are considered Modern era QBs and of these 26 only 6 have no championships or SBs appearances. I think this proves getting to the big game is very important for a QB. Just getting there (more times than not) shows you can be clutch.

Of course it helps and a lot of times these are QBs on good teams...it’s not just them. When you go to the Hall of Fame site, there is no mention of Super Bowls and Championships on the initial screens. It’s all about stats and Pro Bowls and that stuff. It’s definitely not the number one credential.

There’s also plenty of QBs who have been to or won a Super Bowl that aren’t in the Hall of Fame.

Regardless of era, his numbers and his passer rating being better than Montana and Favre is going to speak volumes when it comes to the voters. He won’t get in first ballot and it may take a bit of time, but the voters will look at his numbers and put him in. The only thing he really lacks is post season performances. If he can get a couple more playoff wins, he will be a lock.

Is it right? Probably not, but the numbers don’t lie in the eyes of the media voters...

[Butch]

Of course it helps and a lot of times these are QBs on good teams...it’s not just them. When you go to the Hall of Fame site, there is no mention of Super Bowls and Championships on the initial screens. It’s all about stats and Pro Bowls and that stuff. It’s definitely not the number one credential.

There’s also plenty of QBs who have been to or won a Super Bowl that aren’t in the Hall of Fame.

Regardless of era, his numbers and his passer rating being better than Montana and Favre is going to speak volumes when it comes to the voters. He won’t get in first ballot and it may take a bit of time, but the voters will look at his numbers and put him in. The only thing he really lacks is post season performances. If he can get a couple more playoff wins, he will be a lock.

Is it right? Probably not, but the numbers don’t lie in the eyes of the media voters...

LOL no you are right there is no mention of having to make a SB or Championship on their site. There is no mention of that but again look at the list and 20 out of 26 have been there at least once. Please don't confuse what I am saying with simply going to the SB or that those who don't go will or will not make it into the HOF. Plenty of examples of those who have gone that don't belong and a few examples of those who have not who have gone into the HOF. I am simply pointing out that there is a bias towards the QBs who have at least gone once and I think the list shows that.

Regardless of the era??? So are you trying to say that Rivers doesn't have an advantage of playing in an era when the rules favor passing and protecting the QB? Montana and Favre had to play through the hits unlike Brady and Rivers and you can tell because the QBs of today are having much longer careers. Having a much longer career and the protection that is in place makes it a Helluva lot easier to compile stats. Let them take more hits and see if their stats and careers don't end a whole lot different.

[Butch]

[QUOTE=86WARD;710977]Of course it helps and a lot of times these are QBs on good teams...it’s not just them. /QUOTE]

Forgot to mention this in my earlier post. You are absolutely right it's not just them most of these guys played on some pretty good teams.

Could Kenny Anderson have done what Joe Montana did if Walsh had stayed in Cincinati? How good would the 70's Steelers be with Terry Hanratty or in the 2000's with Tommy Gun? How many more SBs would we have had we drafted Marino? A great QB elevates the teams they play on to greatness but yes it is a team sport. How many times have you seen a great team that was missing a QB? Imagine if the Ravens had drafted Ben instead of us? Ok I just thew up on that thought. The Jags with Bortles is another one that comes to mind recently.

[86WARD]

Regardless of the era??? So are you trying to say that Rivers doesn't have an advantage of playing in an era when the rules favor passing and protecting the QB? Montana and Favre had to play through the hits unlike Brady and Rivers and you can tell because the QBs of today are having much longer careers. Having a much longer career and the protection that is in place makes it a Helluva lot easier to compile stats. Let them take more hits and see if their stats and careers don't end a whole lot different.

That’s not how the media looks at it though. Of course QBs today have an advantage. They have many advantages with the way the game is currently played and the changes in the rules. All players on offense from top to bottom have an advantage. However, when the media votes, they don’t look at that stuff. They look at the numbers compared to those previously inducted and that’s what they base their vote off of. Very few of them are smart enough to analyze the game. I mean “I’m not voting Donnie She’ll in because there’s already enough Steelers in the Hall of Fame” is an excuse that comes out of the voters mouths? We aren’t dealing with the smartest of voters here. I think Rivers gets in based solely on his numbers.

[Butch]

That’s not how the media looks at it though. Of course QBs today have an advantage. They have many advantages with the way the game is currently played and the changes in the rules. All players on offense from top to bottom have an advantage. However, when the media votes, they don’t look at that stuff. They look at the numbers compared to those previously inducted and that’s what they base their vote off of. Very few of them are smart enough to analyze the game. I mean “I’m not voting Donnie She’ll in because there’s already enough Steelers in the Hall of Fame” is an excuse that comes out of the voters mouths? We aren’t dealing with the smartest of voters here. I think Rivers gets in based solely on his numbers.

Yes they have their bias's and Peter King seems to have some strange obsession with keeping both Donnie Shell and LC Greenwood out despite that rule not applying to teams such as the Bears and Packers back in the day. Would putting in either or both of them really change the way people look at the HOF? No Do both deserve to be there...yes. It's simply his bias and it's a shame that he has such influence. Unless things change or Rivers wins a SB or 2 I don't see him getting in. Correct me if I am wrong but he's only been to one Championship game.

I get where you are coming from can he make it...yes but do I believe he will at this point in his career...no. Maybe the better question for this should be should he be in the HOF.

[86WARD]

Should he be in the Hall is a different question and one we’d probably agree on. I’m in the camp that Terrell Davis has no business being in the Hall of Fame and I feel that Rivers falls more into that category for me than a lock for the Hall of Fame.