Extra Points
News and commentary from around the Web

Julian Edelman Retires

Patriots slot receiver Julian Edelman retired today after a 12-year career that included a Super Bowl MVP award. No, he's not going down to play with Tom Brady in Tampa Bay; his knees are shot. So now we're going to have the Edelman Hall of Fame argument. It's already been raging on Twitter today. Edelman essentially has the same Hall of Fame argument as Eli Manning; it's all about titles and what he did in the postseason. Only Jerry Rice has more postseason receptions over his career. But Edelman never made the Pro Bowl in the regular season; by Football Outsiders numbers, he never finished in the top 20 of wide receiver DYAR or the top 30 of wide receiver DVOA. A steady presence with some great postseason moments, he'll always be a legend in New England. He's not a Hall of Famer.

View Full Article

Comments

52 comments, Last at 21 Apr 2021, 6:23pm

1 I’m with you, Aaron. Edelman…

I’m with you, Aaron. Edelman is a shoe-in for the Patriots Hall of Fame, for his grit, dependability, and versatility. But not an NFL HOFer. He’s the Troy Brown of his era.

 

2 No, he's not a HOFr

At least Eli made a few PBs. And he doesn't deserve it either. 

He's also never started more than 13 games in a season (14 & 19). His combine rec yards in the playoffs comes out to 8264. That's less than Carroll Dale had...in the regular season alone. 

3 Eli Manning's a complication…

Eli Manning's a complication because he had "old QB" levels of success in a "new QB" era. Even if you era-adjusted Manning's numbers and stuck him back in the 1970s-1980s, he'd probably make the Hall of Fame, simply because one, QBs typically didn't last that long, and as a corollary to that, they had less competition because their A+ competitors simply didn't stick around. A 14-season starter's a big deal in and of itself... or at least it was.

The problem's only going to get way worse, with 18+ seasons becoming the norm for a top QB. You're going to have players that you'd swear should be considered Hall of Fame, but you'd be hard to put them consistently in the top-5 for their entire career. Just too much competition. And since Pro Bowls/All-Pros are obviously limited in number, it's going to get real hard.

10 Eli benefits from his era

And by the time he's eligible, even more people will have passed him in cumulative stats like passing yards with Rodgers and Ryan next season. You don't get in because of playing forever. 

16 Manning didn't play that…

Manning didn't play that long. Not by modern standards, which is my point. People trying to say he should be in haven't adjusted to the new reality. Really the only reason people even talk about Eli Manning for the Hall at all is *because* his career was so short and he's retired already!

I mean, even if you want to say "championships are everything" he would *still* be the second best QB from his draft year, behind Roethlisberger. But he hasn't retired yet!

That's my point : Eli's only talked about because we haven't realized how insane QBs have gotten.

17 " A 14-season starter's a big deal in and of itself"

Thought that was in reference to him being healthy most of the time (and thus accumulating a lot of volume stats, like being 8th or whatever in total passing yards, which is also a function of his era). Otherwise yeah, the rules have drastically changed where Jameis has a higher career passer rating than Favre and Marino. No one should be putting him higher on an all time list. Nor should people continue to compare rookies to Peyton citing his total interceptions in 1998. Even since then it's changed so much.

23 You deleted the end of that…

You deleted the end of that quote - it ended with "at least it was."

14+ year starters are rare historically - but there are 5 whose careers started 2000+, and before last year, only 1 of those had retired (Eli). The reason Eli's career looks impressive isn't just because of statistics - it's also because before Eli the only non-Hall of Fame QB with 14+ starting seasons was Vinny Testaverde, and his career's weird. Eli looks like a "borderline" Hall of Fame case. And he's not. He's not even close. 

Yes, you have to era adjust passing yardage, interceptions, rating, etc. But even that's not enough. You can do all of that for Rivers, Roethlisberger, and Matt Ryan, and their careers still look impressive historically! But that would literally mean you have like eight Hall of Fame QBs playing - and starting - at the same time. Brady, P. Manning, Favre, Rodgers, Rivers, Roethlisberger, Ryan, Warner. And that means you've really lowered your bar for the Hall of Fame.

With quarterback careers getting so long you have to accept that the bar has to be set even higher. Guys that, historically, you really think should be slam dunks - like Rivers and Roethlisberger - are actually miles away from the actual slam dunks of Brady, Manning, Brees, and Rodgers. It's freaky to think about it, but Rivers and Roethlisberger are the "borderline" cases now (and Warner shouldn't've even been a question). 

26 "stuck him back in the 1970s-1980s, he'd probably make the Hall"

which came after this ^ Which I don't think is true when you era adjust them. 

I think it's very plausible there can be 8 HOF QBs playing at a time. I don't think you can cap that. If they've been impressive and rank highly in their time, and not just by volume stats, that's fine. Maybe unlikely but still possible and fine. If they're better, longer, cool. 

I think most people know/agree that Rivers and Ben aren't close to those other 4. But still have a better case than Eli. Hence the debate when they retire. Eli though is the worst case of em all. Based solely in the postseason, like Edelman. A fraction that comes out to <25% of ones career, that holds, apparently >50% of the weight and, for those really banging the drum for them in the HOF, closer to 99% as the regular season gets swept up under the "meaningless" category. I'm not down with that, no matter how much I respect their playoff runs individually. 

28 There's a difference between…

There's a difference between era-adjusting the stats and era adjusting the situation.

I can try to adjust Manning's statistics. I can't easily deal with the fact that I'm comparing him to much better competition because competitors last longer

I don't know how you don't cap what you consider Hall of Fame worthy without recognizing that you're being trapped by era differences. If you don't, you'll need to throw out Pro Bowls (capped number/year), All-Pros (capped number/year), even championships (capped number/year).

"I think it's very plausible there can be 8 HOF QBs playing at a time."

I don't see how that could possibly imply anything other than a lowering of the bar. Realistically, Rivers and Roethlisberger should be an incredibly short debate. Eli shouldn't even get one. Warner shouldn't've been in. Post-2000-ish, the only HOF QBs on the back-half of their career or retired that make sense are Brady, Peyton, Brees, and Rodgers.

29 Yes

If Eli grew up in the 70's with their nutrition, rules etc., are also many factors. All I know is in this era Eli isn't special. Dropping him elsewhere is a mind bending task that's not worth it when discussing the HOF because it's not needed and unverifiable. 

Those are capped but that doesn't mean they can't split more evenly. Is Peyton part of this "era"? He's in before Rodgers has even retired. Era/generation are such vague words with no real boundaries. All I know is there are maaaaaaany individual years Peyton dominated and it did come through with those capped awards.

If you want to go back and take away Warners enshrinement make sure to go back and take a bunch others, not just QBs because I don't why 8 could be a breaking point but 5 isnt? Even though they all come in and end at different times (thus some awards are available for Brady, but weren't for young Rodgers or old Peyton)

32 The entire point of me…

In reply to by ImNewAroundThe…

The entire point of me talking about Eli in an older era isn't talking about rules, or sports medicine, or what happens in games. I'm just talking about statistics, and not the "NFL" kind. Longer careers change how you have to think about the Hall of Fame, and that really messes people up. 

I mean, from the 1980s-2000s, you basically had Montana, Marino, Young, Elway, Aikman, Moon, and Kelly, (plus OK Fouts).  But if you imagine many of those careers extending, many of those guys might've never stood out.

But I'm not putting some magic cap on it. I'm saying if you look at a group of QBs playing roughly the same time, and you can clearly separate them, the ones who are "below the line" aren't Hall of Fame QBs. No one's going to claim Rivers, Roethlisberger, or Warner are or were in similar situations as Peyton, Brady, Rodgers, or Brees. That literally should be enough to end the conversation as to whether or not they're Hall worthy.

The entire problem we're having is that even after era-adjusting the stats of someone like Eli he still doesn't look that different than, say, Jim Kelly. So either Kelly was a mistake, he's literally being put in for 2 years of USFL dominance, or the problem is that we need to raise the bar. I don't actually think putting Kelly in was that big a mistake, and the second argument seems silly, so to me it's clear the third one's the answer.

The other, similar point is again to look at players who didn't make it in. And an important point here is that, for QBs, if you ever make the finalists for the Hall of Fame, you're getting in. Which means we need to look at nominees who didn't make finalists as the "borderline cases." And if you're saying Manning isn't even close to a borderline case, that means he's below, say, Phil Simms. And that's seriously nuts. 

34 Does it?

I mean maybe? Ok?

I mean Marino was a starter 16/17 years. Started the same exact amount of games as Rivers. Elway and Ben have started the same exact amount of games too. Yeah Brady is mind boggling but did Favre get in based on playing for a long time? Or was it because he won 3 straight MVPs in spite of not starting his rookie year and ended on a bad note as well? His legacy was already locked by the end of 1997. And Bradys was locked by the end of...what 2010? 

I guess if you want to bump people out (how many?) who would you replace them with? Because Peyton wasn't eligible at the time of Warners induction.

It's the pro football HOF, so USFL does count and he did make 1 more pro bowl than Eli and more all pro teams (in 5 less years, so Eli had more time, yet couldn't match the accomplishments) in the NFL alone. Is Kelly the best HOF QB? Obviously not. Actually he's probably the worst one in. Lowest of PFRs HOFm. Aikman is 2nd lowest, another infamous vote in. But you could play the same game for any era of QB.

All I know is when it comes around I'm voting for Kuechly before Eli and if he's still around, Leroy Butler (but he should already be in, maybe he could've replace Warner in 2017) among others. And if Rivers, Ben, Ryan, etc while Eli is still there, how would you rank them? Eli certainly last, right?

I think you want baseballs HOF voting system though, where a place needs to reach of certain number of votes iirc. 

35 Marino was abnormally long…

In reply to by ImNewAroundThe…

Marino's time as a top QB ended at 36. Rivers, Brees, and even Brady aren't mind-boggling anymore. I mean, yeah, Brady's going to end up like 2-3 years past Brees. Meh. QBs ripping it up well past 35 is practically expected at this point.

I'm literally not talking about even thinking about how long people play as to if they get in. I'm just talking about who's playing at any given time. Was Rivers ever even in realistical consideration for "best QB in the game"? Unless you pointlessly got rid of Brady/Manning/Rodgers, no. So why are we talking about him for the Hall at all?

For the NFL, you put the best players in the game into the Hall, which is pretty much the exact opposite of baseball. If you end up looking at, say, Rivers, or Roethlisberger, and being "he put up these great statistics and looked like a great QB should, even though Brady and Manning and Rodgers looked better" that's what baseball does.

"It's the pro football HOF, so USFL does count and he did make 1 more pro bowl than Eli and more all pro team"

You make fewer pro bowls and all pro teams when there are better people playing longer. You think if Montana had stayed in top form he wouldn't've bumped out Kelly?

"I guess if you want to bump people out (how many?) who would you replace them with? Because Peyton wasn't eligible at the time of Warners induction."

Non-QBs! 

36 I suppose

If there are a lot playing at one time they can go back and forth each year with the awards. With the beginning of careers not starting as hot and tapering off in the later years. Unless they lineup exactly with each other. 

I'm not even trying to make an argument for Rivers but PFF had him 1st team all pro in 2009 and 2nd team in 2013. And then there were 8 years he was a PBer (double Eli) aka top 3 in his conference. Not quite as elusive but again, Kelly is in with 5 PBer. Aikman 6. They got the SBs but we know that's less than a quarter of a teams season. But apparently weighs a lot. Or at least did when they're in. Maybe the voters in 5 years wont feel the same and will get Rivers in.

Note on Rivers, he led the league in passing TDs, TD%, Y/A, AY/A, ANY/A and passer rating in 2008 but couldn't even get a pro bowl nod (guess we chose Cutler for his only pro bowl of his career lol).

But that's with playing alongside greats like Peyton and Brady in his conference. Same for Ben and although he snatched more pro bowls than Kelly he also snatched a couple rings unlike Rivers. Eli though was not just outplayed by them but he didn't even have them in his conference. Could get a couple random all pro teams like Rivers and couldn't even match Kellys pro bowls because of yes, Brees (joined two years after joining the league), Rodgers (didn't his first nod til 5 years after Eli had joined the league) and 8 years after Eli getting drafted, Russell Wilson (who was good right away, PBer his first year, not exactly carried by the LOB and Marshawn as people misremember).

But there's a reason Eli didn't last as long as Brees or Brady. The same reason Phil Simms didn't outlive Montana. They weren't as good. So yeah Montana might've bumped Kelly, but he didn't (Montana though wasn't really what he was when he joined the AFC, even if still decent). So no point in hypotheticals. That was Kellys chance to take over and...I guess people thought he did? Unlike Eli when whatever QBs retired in his career (Warner I guess is one). Dude wasn't even good enough to hold off a young 3rd round Russ when he was plenty experienced in the league at that point (Rodgers as well). Wasn't even good enough to hold off a young overdrafted Daniel freakin Jones (and I can't blame them for wanting someone younger because Eli had been consistently maddening!)

You want more QBs? So you want Eli? And Rivers and Ben? And which non-QBs? Because I'm voting Antonio Gates, Luke Kuechly, Eric Weddle (among those that will be eligible at same time as Eli, but I'm sure there will be other more deserving candidates held off for whatever reason like Leroy Butler) before Eli. Then Eli has to contend with Rivers and whatever other guys that are better! 

37 Rivers not making it in 2008…

In reply to by ImNewAroundThe…

Rivers not making it in 2008 is *literally* my point. Montana, like basically all QBs then, declined much faster than modern QBs. If he had kept playing *at his old level*, he would've pushed more mediocre QBs out.

Pro Bowls and All Pros aren't going to bounce between guys when there's a clear separation. Years ago, there weren't like, 4 "OMG all time" QBs who flat sucked up a majority of Pro Bowl slots before the season began. For basically a decade, the AFC Pro Bowl really only had one open slot. And if you're going to put in a guy because of stats - not because he's clearly one of the best - that's *baseball's* Hall!

The NFL's Hall is for dominant players who defined the game. Also, to be *super* clear - I said you'd replace them with *non-QBs*. Or no one! You don't have to peg the roster every year.

Eli shouldn't even be talked about. Rivers and Roethlisberger should be short arguments. Warner should've never gotten in. Those guys had great years, and were great QBs. Peyton, Brady, Brees, Rodgers. Those guys were/are a notch above. They're practically synonymous with football. *That's* the NFL Hall.

If Mahomes keeps flattening the field for the next 10 years and everyone else is tightly grouped clearly away, why bother putting anyone in? If one guy's far and away the best, and 10 others are interchangeably good, skip it, the one guy goes in and the others don't. That's a *real* era adjustment.

(edit: I should also clarify, I'm only including Rodgers there because he's not retired, and I'm assuming he'll be at a dominant level again for a number of more years. If he, for instance, just retired now, he'd be a 'borderline' case for me.)

41 Among the best players in…

Among the best players in the game over their careers. That's basically the standard that the NFL's Hall has set.

Brees/Brady/Peyton are a flat out shelf above everyone else over their career. Personally I think Rodgers is up there too (as evidenced by his resurgence last year) and he'll be basically "perennial top-3 in DYAR" again.

If you've got 3 QBs that you just say "yeah, OK, those are the best, everyone agrees, you can quibble about the order but whatever" - why bother putting in the guys below? If it seems like I'm excluding a ton of guys - yeah, I am! That's what it means when QB careers grow longer and you want the best players.

43 Just depends on what you…

Just depends on what you think he'll do in the future. Something like Rodgers, but I'm less confident there. Wilson's never really been a dominant type - he always seemed to show promise, then fizzle (where "fizzle" is still '$35M/yr QB' of course).

If Wilson retired right now, definitely not, in my opinion, but it's way too soon to tell in my mind. By the same metric I've used for the other QBs he's basically at Rivers' level - extremely good, but not OMG dominant.

edit: I should point out part of the reason that I'm saying this is because really, if you start digging down into that "lower" level there are a lot of QBs there. Rivers, Roethlisberger, Romo, Wilson, Ryan - you end up with a lot of QBs at that level. That's kindof how I cut off the Hall in an "era independent" way - look at the QBs, when you drop the threshold, when does it explode in number? That's too far. And Rodgers is basically the borderline on that.

45 I understand your line of…

I understand your line of thinking and it's absolutely not meretricious, but I do think it's a bit too restrictive. 

To me there is a separation still between players like Wilson and Rivers then say Matt Ryan and Tony Romo. I bring up the ladder too as examples because they were at various points either in the conversation for MVP or actually the MVP.

Wilson and rivers brought a consistency that these other two players didn't and I think that's why I feel comfortable slotting them in a tier just below the gods of quarterbacking.

47 Really the only separation…

Really the only separation between, say, Rivers and Romo is career length and durability. And... that seems weird as a reason to put someone in or out of the Hall. Imagine talking about Rivers: "great QB, absolutely able to kick butt, and had a more durable body than Tony Romo." Just seems weird to me. I mean, obviously a career has to be long enough for a player to distinguish themselves as not a flash in the pan, but Romo definitely played that long.

Seriously have no idea how you can look at Ryan and Rivers and distinguish the two. They're like, practically identical. Maybe because of the performance of the rest of the team? Rivers's teams were more just... constantly mediocre whereas the Falcons have been a bit more boom & bust? No idea.

But if you're gonna include guys like Rivers, it's hard to keep out Roethlisberger, or Ryan, or even Romo, and heck, Stafford's probably there too with a few good years with McVay, and even Derek Carr's within spitting distance! It's just way too many.

With Wilson, like I said, it's just too soon. He's 32. He could play for the entire 2020s, for instance! Certainly at this point Wilson hasn't distinguished himself any more than Romo, for instance, unless you put crazy stock in the postseason (which seems silly given how they won).

44 Wait

So the point is that Cutler went 9-7 and therefore...he should have 0 and Rivers 9? Even though Rivers was clearly one of the best in that specific year? Not just leading the AFC but the entire NFL in those categories, team just went 8-8 (perception). Is that 1 "interchangable" year change who he was that much? Or is 8 that far from 9? AND if older QBs stayed around longer, Montana, might have pushed others out...at his end. Then the other guys he pushed out will have a chance to push others out at the end of their careers like Montana did to them, since everyone last longer. It's a push with that hypothetical, since it goes both ways.  

If Mahomes is the clear best, no one else can be clearly great at the same time? Like Peyton, Brees, Rodgers and Brady all playing at the same time (05-15)? So put in who? If everyone else, at every other position, is interchangable, who gets in? 5 get in each year, no more, no less. Someone has to be put in. That's the way the HOF works each time they vote. 

Rodgers is borderline right now? Wait what? What is your criteria? Dude already has 3 MVPs. You seem to be leaning volume of...not passing yards, but also not MVPs? Everyone that has multiple (like Warner) is in or will be in (Rodgers/Brady). You want non-QBs like Marshawn Lynch in over him? Or...? I would like some legit names.

46 Let me be clear about what …

In reply to by ImNewAroundThe…

Let me be clear about what "borderline" means. It means "he's on the border" - meaning a player like him should get in half the time. Not him exactly. A player that plays like him. Rodgers personally you can make other arguments for, and that's exactly what happens in Hall voting (and Pro Bowl voting, and MVP voting). Yes, Rodgers has 3 MVPs. But were those MVPs all total slam dunks? No. 2011 was missing a *cough* significant competitor (and should've been closer with Brees anyway), and 2014 was a relatively tight race (as MVP voting goes) between Rodgers and Watt. So when I say a player like him, a player like him wouldn't always win 3 MVPs.

You may have noticed I said "I think Rodgers will return to form," right? If 2020 was a blip and he craters after this, I could see some arguments against him. Not many, and I think he'd still get in (literally because of 2020). But, I mean, that's what borderline should mean. You get screwed out of Pro Bowls and MVPs occasionally, and you luck into them occasionally. It happens. Like I said, they're fixed quantities. MVPs used to not be "QB awards" and occasionally writers still try to make them that. What I think will happen with Rodgers is that he'll return to form and then it'll be clear that a player like him is on another level and clearly in.

"If Mahomes is the clear best, no one else can be clearly great at the same time?"

If Mahomes sets a standard that's far and away better than everyone else, how could you not conclude that the others aren't Hall worthy?

If players are playing longer, and you want it to be the best players in the game, if you don't reduce the number that get put in eventually, you're lowering the bar. That's basic math. Yes, I know the rules now. But what I've been saying this entire time is that if you keep things the same as careers extend, you're eventually just going to be putting lesser players in.

Who would I rather put in over Rivers from the same rough period? How many non-skill guys would you like? Peters, Mack, Pouncey, Peppers, Joe Thomas, Seymour, Kuechly, Zach Thomas, Revis, Kevin Williams, Ware, Suggs, and I could probably be convinced of a bunch more. Guys that were literally the peak of their position to watch.

48 You're basing this off a lot of hypotheticals it seems

Which just renders a lot of things pointless then. Peyton might have taken it, even though literally anyone might. In 2011 he was the unanimous 1st team all pro. Same for 2014 and 2020. And since it's MVP, he was the most valuable, more than any Watt. It's the most valuable position. So, by nature, yeah, it's a QB award, especially lately, in todays league. The Bert Bell award is for player of the year, no value attached, even though they sometimes overlap...like with Rodgers in 2011!

A player "like him" is literally 4th all time on PFRs HOFm (behind Peyton, Brady, and Favre, guys he had to face during his career!), meaning there aren't really many players like him

There is no argument! He's solidified himself! Just like the others did after their 3rd MVPs (before that actually too)! He and Brady could retire RIGHT NOW and they're in. It really doesn't matter what they do these last however many years, they're already in!

People can be great at the same time and all be HOF worthy...just like Rodgers, Peyton, Brady, and Favre! Or Rodgers, Peyton, Brady, and Brees! Like Fouts, Montana, Young, Marino, and Elway.  However you want to slice it. 

The HOF isn't putting lesser players in because of extended careers but because they have to vote 5 in each year (and then some ancillary others). 

So...all guys that made all HOF decade teams and Suggs? Well, that's an indicator already (except for Leroy Butler for dumb reasons, even though they all retired at various different times) that they, likely, will get in. I guess I mean I don't consider many of those borderline cases which is what I though we were talking about, not Rodgers "like." 

IDK how we got here. Wasn't even trying to make a case for Rivers or Ben. Just was saying Eli shouldn't. I guess by default I implied I'd vote Rivers or Ben in before Eli. But that's not due to 2020 or beyond. They were just better throughout their careers and at the time of Elis retirement. These last year(s) aren't really gonna change anything. Just like they wont for Brady and Rodgers. Their legacies are already solidified, good or bad, or even in between. I'm just confused on your criteria for QBs. Like, what more does Rodgers have to do to get the borderline tag off? Whatever your answer is, I bet you'll take it off in the end and I can say that with 100% confidence, not knowing or even caring what these last few years are.  

50 You're really missing the…

You're really missing the point. Rodgers's performance hasn't been that heads-and-shoulders above everyone else - he had a pretty "only very good" string at the end of McCarthy's reign. His best seasons ended up well-timed, and so he netted 3 MVPs. This isn't a knock on Rodgers, just like it isn't a knock on Brady to say that winning so many Super Bowls took a bunch of circumstances. It's a game! If we knew what was going to happen, it'd be boring! 

The Hall of Fame monitor includes stuff like MVPs and Pro Bowls and championships. That's why Rodgers is so far ahead. Of course Rodgers is a gimme to get in, but that's because he's had a bit of a better career than his performance as of now would indicate.

"that they, likely, will get in. I guess I mean I don't consider many of those borderline cases"

Those are all people off the top of my head I would put in before even considering Rivers, and I completely excluded skill position players! It would take years to get all of those guys in, and by then more players would be eligible. I'm not even including guys from older periods that should still get in.

I just don't think you realize how easy it is for QBs to get in. QBs who make the list of finalists always get in. Warner, for instance, retired one year after Thomas, and was elected two years before Thomas was even nominated. And Thomas was a ~50% Pro Bowl, ~30% 1st Team All Pro guy! 

"Like, what more does Rodgers have to do to get the borderline tag off?"

I seriously don't know how else to explain this, so let me try a different tack. There is a difference between someone's ability/average performance and someone's results. Rodgers's average performance is borderline. His results make him a lock.

For instance: It's like when people talked about Manning earlier in his career. The fact that he hadn't won a championship was pointless - his average performance was so far off the books that it's guaranteed, and hell, even if it didn't, it's a Dan Marino freak situation at that point. 

If I look at Rodgers's average performance right now (average QBR ~68-72, average DYAR ~1250, average ANY/A ~7-7.5) and completely ignore all other results (MVPs, championships, Pro Bowls, etc.) I would look at that in comparison to peers and say "borderline Hall of Fame." Now if I actually look at the results (75% Pro Bowl, 25% All Pro, 25% MVP, 1 championship, 6 CCGs) yeah, of course he's in. But I had to actually look at the results, which means there's a discussion.

But this is why Rivers should be a short conversation. Average performance puts him as "below-borderline Hall of Fame." Now look at additional accomplishments: ~50% Pro Bowl. 0% 1st Team All Pro. 0% MVP. 0 championships. 1 CCG. Absolutely nothing stands out, and so yeah, no way. (Roethlisberger would actually be closer for me!)

The entire reason I said Rodgers's performance is borderline is because Rodgers and Rivers aren't that far off in terms of actual passing performance, so if Rodgers is a lock due to just performance, Rivers has to be close, too. Rodgers isn't a lock due to his performance. He's a lock due to the MVPs and CCGs.

52 I understood that point

But what? You're alone it. Only very good? Gee

You think it's projecting forward? You don't think he gets in 1st ballot, if he retire RIGHT now? Well you said it's borderline so no. 

Those guys can be greats at their respective position. Warner, again, is a multiple time MVP. All those guys are in. You must REALLY thing his "performance" is waaaay below average, if you think Rodgers is average. You're looking at those numbers without era adjusting aka context. Is Peyton and Marino your own bonafide locks? Really are restrictive man. Peyton didn't even lead in any category (besides attempts his rookie year) until 03 (Cmp+) then the next year (04) for more all in metrics. That was only 2/3 years before his first SB appearance. Peyton still great those years before but maaan you might be really nitpicky with QBs. Especially if you're pinning team winz on them almost entirely (hence why we don't really care about Elis two ringz!).

If you think Rodgers is closer to Rivers than Peyton then you're just changing the subject into something no one else is gonna agree with my man. We went way off track. 

31 It's a stretch to say these…

It's a stretch to say these 8 were playing at the same time, except in the literal meaning that parts of their careers overlapped. But the game was changing so fast at the same time.

I'd put Favre, Warner in one 'generation'

I'd put Rivers, Brees, Roethlisburger, both Mannings, Brady, and Rodgers in another.

Essentially, you shouldn't compare QBs who played significant time in the 90s with those whose peak was 2005 or later.

33 Uh... looks at Warners…

Uh... looks at Warners career ... looks at Manning's career - Huh? Last time I checked, Warner's career is entirely contained within Manning's. Yes, obviously, there's an age difference there but Manning was already an elite-level QB by the time Warner started a game.

The entire point of what I'm saying is that QB careers are getting so long that splitting them up like that just doesn't work cleanly anymore. How are you cutting Warner and Favre off from your "second generation" when some of their best years came literally playing at the same time as them? 

Favre earned 3 Pro Bowls from 2007-2009. He made the conference championship twice in that span. Warner made the Pro Bowl once and the Super Bowl once in that span. Which means some of those other QBs you've listed did not

I agree the game's changing super-fast around that point, but it's not just in the statistics. QB age records are falling nearly as fast as passing records. Brady, Brees, and Peyton should be a separate grouping from Rodgers, Rivers, Roethlisberger. They're not. Rodgers was drafted 7 years after Peyton. That's more than half a typical HoF QB's career! 

To me this just feels like the issue with LeBron and MVPs in the NBA (which isn't far from Peyton/Brady and MVPs in the NFL). It's like people are saying "yah, OK, we know Brady, Manning, Brees, and Rodgers are a cut above, but it's boring if we only have those guys..." But that's life with 15+-year careers becoming common. Yeah, Matt Ryan was a great QB for the Falcons, but if I look in almost every year and say "but Brady and Manning were better" why am I talking about him for the Hall?

51 Eli had HOF discussion…

Eli had HOF discussion before he retired.

He is talked about for the HOF because he "won" two Super Bowls and did it for a New York team. 

Having the last name Manning and being a first overall draft pick probably help his reputation.

I would not vote him in the HOF, but I think he makes it eventually.  He'll have to wait a few years, at least.

6 so what?

He's played 16 games in three different seasons.  Whether he was called "the starter" or not isn't all that relevant at the WR position.  

Edelman has more playoff yards receiving than everybody but Jerry Rice.  That's the stat you're hiding.  

It's hard to make the Hall at WR and I know Edelman really has no shot.  But let's not indulge in silly arguments to justify that. 

 

9 It shows he didn't do enough

In reply to by RickD

Even when you "combine rec yards in the playoffs comes out to 8264. That's less than Carroll Dale had...in the regular season alone."

That's huge. They don't count for double because they're in the playoffs. It just says he caught a lot. Which means he played a lot. Maaaaaaaaaaaaybe because of the most recent SB MVP. But hat's not "hiding." That's literally the only point Edelman fans can bring up. Then they forget he's only t46th (with a buuuuuuuuuuuuunch of others) in playoff rec TDs with 5.

The fact that he's even mentioned is what's silly when Sterling Sharpe, Hines Ward, etc etc aren't even in.

20 But the fact that you…

But the fact that you intentionally obscured those playoff numbers would seem to indicate that you're arguing in bad faith. 'They don't count for double because they're in the playoffs' is certainly true, but they count a good deal more than a receiver running up numbers in a meaningless Week 16 game against a terrible team. Edelman produced very well, and consistently, in high pressure situations where it was win or go home. He also came up with the iconic catch in the greatest comeback in playoff history. The Hall of Fame is nice but I imagine he'd prefer the rings.

25 I didnt intentionally "obscure" anything

I literally gave you the numbers. The TOTAL combined numbers. Not just a ranking based essentially solely on receptions which is based itself on games played, in a very small sliver of the league history (less than 25% of the time). Week 16 games happen for every team, every year. Meaningless or not. Not week 18, even less 19, even less 20 and the least in week 21.

Literally everyone knows he's 2nd. That's LITERALLY the only talking point when people mention him with the HOF. And despite playing a lot in the playoffs...he still comes up short when you look at it ALL. For whatever reason you want to blame.

4 I think if people are going…

I think if people are going to put huge stock in playoff performances and rings, Edelman should get in.

In that way, Eli is absolutely a hall of famer. It's frustrating therefore to see the same people who bash Dan Marino and claim rings matter to then start to be on the fence with Eli. I find such inconsistency very annoying.

 

 

 

7 bashing Dan Marino

Bashing Dan Marino, in general, is silly.  He was the best QB in the AFC for over a decade (sorry, Jim and John) and arguably the best in the NFL.  Not his fault Shula's coaching genius couldn't adapt to how offenses changed in the 1980s.  

My big issue with Eli is that I think his HoF chances would be much lower if he had played anywhere other than New York.  

11 Mostly agree with this, but…

Mostly agree with this, but I don't lay the blame on Shula's offenses.  The defense fell apart in 1986 and didn't recover for a couple of years.  They were also stuck in the same division as a more talented team after 1988.

19 No

They lost their defensive coordinator of the killer bs and the no name defense. I've generally thought it was due to aging of the Killer Bs, loss of his coordinators, and poor scouting leading to terrible drafts. I think Miami's owner during this era was not spending as much on scouting etc because he was building his own stadium with his own money. Robbie wasn't in the league of modern NFL owners in terms of wealth. It was a big drain on the franchise. The Dolphins fortunes seemed to improve in the draft after Joe Robbie Stadium opened. It's been thrown around by Miami press before that the stadium situation played a roll in Miami's poor player personnel handling in that era. 

14 I don't get it

From 1983 to 1989 Miami was a top 5 offense every year but 1. They were a top 10 offense every year. Blaming Shula's offense in this era is simply not correct. 

24 I'll go further and say that…

I'll go further and say that Eli's HoF chances would be precisely nil if his surname was something like Harris.  Or alternately, if his name was Manning, but #18 on the Colts and Broncos was named Harris.  He wouldn't even make the list of finalists.

27 I mean, "chances would be…

I mean, "chances would be precisely nil" and "make the list of finalists" are a bit different. If a guy gets nominated at all, I'd have to put his chances above zero.

Eli basically is a modern Phil Simms, and Simms has been nominated a bunch. That's unfair to Eli since Manning was realistically much better than Simms was, especially in the postseason. But as I said above, that's really a reflection of how high the bar's risen due to QB careers being longer.

But imagine if, say, Peyton and Brady's careers ended after their injuries. Drop Warner's Arizona comeback, cut out Favre's post-GB career, cut Brees's career short, etc. I still don't think Manning necessarily would deserve to be in at that point, but he starts to look more like a routinely top-10 QB. Definitely the Pro Bowl count would jump, for instance.

edit: also worth noting that for a QB, "Hall of Fame finalist" and "Hall of Fame member" are identical sets.

5 I'd compare him with Wes…

I'd compare him with Wes Welker - they seem like similar players but Welker had a longer career with more games a season and more Pro Bowls and other individual awards. And Welker didn't even make semifinalist last year in his first year of eligibility. Seems like absolutely no chance Edelman gets in.

8 welker vs. edelman

It's indisputable that Welker has better cumulative stats over the course of their regular season careers.  The argument for Edelman depends very heavily on his postseason performances.  And where Welker has zero rings, Edelman has three, and also a Super Bowl MVP.  Sadly (and I hate this), Welker is still largely known in Boston for a dropped pass in Super Bowl 46.  

But where Gronk is a no-brainer Hall of Famer, Edelman is not.  

13 "And where Welker has zero…

"And where Welker has zero rings, Edelman has three..."

It's nuts that Welker ended up with no rings with the run he had with the Patriots. He had terrible luck on the timing of his Patriots career. There may not be another player who was as important to their dynasty that ended up with no rings. The poor guy also left the Broncos the year before they won the SB. 

21 Tough Break

Welker was a game guy and while he really took off in combination with Moss, his production continued long after Moss had left. His success contributed to the reevaluating of the slot position and so he also matters in terms of historical importance.

22 Tough Break

Welker was a game guy and while he really took off in combination with Moss, his production continued long after Moss had left. His success contributed to the reevaluating of the slot position and so he also matters in terms of historical importance.

30 Hmm

I don't remember Eli being busted for performance enhancing drugs. I mean, that's not the hard no in the NFL that it appears to be in MLB. But it's sort of silly to lean on the Super Bowl MVP from the year we know he got busted training with a PED in the offseason. I'm sort of amazed no one has brought this up. His stats are not that impressive playing with the GOAT at QB and that was while he was taking PEDs (we have no idea how long he was really on them). That seems like an easy no. 

39 I don't think I've seen one…

I don't think I've seen one semi-serious pundit, nor any commenter on this board, suggest Edelman should be in the HOF. It feels like a straw man argument, and it's a shame because it obscures his underdog story and his many achievements.

40 I think he will get a look…

I think he will get a look. He may even get in as a senior candidate someday as commentars will continue to bring up that he is second only to Rice in post season receving yards.

I don't think he's even a borderline candidate because of how I feel about the postseason in general but I don't think his chances are quite nil the way some people do.