Kurt Warner says Eli isn’t a Hall of Famer

[WoodysGirl]

Posted by Mike Florio on February 7, 2012, 5:28 PM EST

In an appearance with Burns and Gambo on Arizona Sports 620 in Phoenix, Warner made the case against Eli’s potential induction into the Hall of Fame.

“I fully disagree with that,” Warner said of talk that Eli will get in. “You know because I know we put a lot of weight on championships, and rightfully so. But championships are won as a team, and I’m fully convinced of that. You never see one guy — a great player, great quarterback — carry a team through the playoffs and into a Super Bowl and win a Super Bowl that way. I’ve never seen it. You know even in that game [Super Bowl XLVI], it’s 21-17. That’s the game. There wasn’t a quarterback just up and down the field carrying the team.

“Yeah, he made the plays down the stretch, no question about it,” added Warner, who spent the 2004 season with Eli in New York. “He’s had two great playoff runs, or his team has had two great playoff runs. But I also look at the rest of his career. I mean, he has an 82 . . . quarterback rating throughout his career. You know, he’s had five of his eight seasons where he has thrown 16 interceptions or more. His completion percentage on his career is 58 percent. To me, those aren’t Hall of Fame numbers and by that I mean every time you step on the field you’re a game changer, you’re a difference maker. And I don’t believe Eli Manning has been that guy until this year. I think this year is the first time in his career when he’s become that guy.”

Warner said that, if Eli performs like he did this year for five more seasons, then he’ll be worthy of inclusion among the league’s all-time greats. Without that, Warner thinks Eli should be kept out due to the fact that he has been “extremely inconsistent throughout his career.”

Read the rest: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/02/07/kurt-warner-says-eli-isnt-a-hall-of-famer/

[Cowboys&LakersFan]

I agree with him.

[Hoofbite]

He'd be the guy to talk to about inconsistency.

Few great years in St. Louis, followed by about 5 years where he fell off the map and then 3 good years to finish his career off.

[kristie]

I agree with him.

me too.

[burmafrd]

Kurt better put on his body armor. Eli homo's will be after him.

But Kurt is exactly right. Eli has had a stretch of games where he was very good. Frankly in 2007 he wasnot as good as he was this time.

But I absolutely agree that great post season success should not cover up season mediocrity.

[BraveHeartFan]

I respectfully disagree.

Being the QB on the team that has beaten Brady and Bill twice for Superbowl championships, and being the MVP of both of those games, has cemented his Hall of Fame spot.

[Shadowy329]

I completely agree with him I don't see Eli even in the conversation of HOF let alone already being called one. He's made a few good plays but the rest has been the remainder of the team doing the heavy lifting. Take Cruz out of the picture and Eli leads the giants into the basement where they belong. Take away their defense coming alive in the back half of the season and they're in a race with the Skins for last place in the NFCE.

To me a HOF player is one that is a complete difference maker you know when they are on the field or not the easiest comparison you have to look no further than Peyton with him in the lineup the Colts are a playoff ready team take him away and they're cruising in for 1st overall in the draft.

[Future]

I respectfully disagree.

Being the QB on the team that has beaten Brady and Bill twice for Superbowl championships, and being the MVP of both of those games, has cemented his Hall of Fame spot.
Whether he goes, and whether he deserves it are two different things imo.

I think he'll get in, but he certainly doesn't deserve it. Warner is spot on.

[Doomsday101]

"But championships are won as a team, and I’m fully convinced of that. You never see one guy — a great player, great quarterback — carry a team through the playoffs and into a Super Bowl and win a Super Bowl that way. I’ve never seen it."

Same here Kurt, I have heard this claim before. Oh yeah I say it a lot.

Ultimate team game and to win a championship it takes a team. Not one player.

As for Eli being a HOF I would say 50/50 lets see how the rest of his career goes.

[BraveHeartFan]

Whether he goes, and whether he deserves it are two different things imo.

I think he'll get in, but he certainly doesn't deserve it. Warner is spot on.


And I again respectfully disagree.


He's going to get in and he's going to deserve to be in.

[burmafrd]

And I again respectfully disagree.


He's going to get in and he's going to deserve to be in.

being great for a handful of games should not get you into the hall of fame.

[DBOY3141]

The HOF is littered with players that have marginal stats and they are in because of rings.

When all is said and done, Eli will be in the HOF. He has two rings, plays in New York and will put up numbers that are greater than Troy's. So if Troy can get in with 3 rings, why can't Eli with at least two with both being MVP's?

I hate Eli to all get out, but the HOF is a popularity contest.

[Doomsday101]

Two words: Joe Namath. He consistently threw more interceptions than touchdowns during his career, and he didn't even throw a touchdown in the Super Bowl.

I agree I think Namath was more hype than total HOF greatness. The one thing that got him there was the fact Jets won the SB vs the Colts but what made it bigger was an AFL team beat an NFL team in the biggest game. The 2 leagues had not merged at that time and no one expected that what was looked at as the lesser league could beat a top NFL team.

[BraveHeartFan]

being great for a handful of games should not get you into the hall of fame.

Maybe but he's going to get in and he's going to deserve to when he does.

See the problem with this whole thing is that people are acting as if he's never playing another down. Even if he doesn't play in another Superbowl, if he continues to put up numbers like he did this season, along with 2 Superbowl titles and 2 Superbowl MVPs, he'll have more than shown he deserves it.


And, yes, he's going to continue to put up good numbers in that offense and he's going to earn his way in.

[BraveHeartFan]

I agree I think Namath was more hype than total HOF greatness. The one thing that got him there was the fact Jets won the SB vs the Colts but what made it bigger was an AFL team beat an NFL team in the biggest game. The 2 leagues had not merged at that time and no one expected that what was looked at as the lesser league could beat a top NFL team.

And given how the Packers had beaten down the two previous AFL teams in the Superbowl there was simply little reason to believe otherwise.

[DFWJC]

Regardless of if he wins another Super Bowl, I think Eli will have to play at this season's level for 4-5 more years before he could be considered for the HOF.

This is a guy who had an NFL worst 25 ints just one season ago.

He was a much better player this season. Having Cruz, Nicks and Manningham didn't hurt.....but he was very good this year year in any case.

[Doomsday101]

And given how the Packers had beaten down the two previous AFL teams in the Superbowl there was simply little reason to believe otherwise.

True. And that Colts team was loaded with some great talent.

While it was just 1 game it was a game that started a change in Pro Football.

[tupperware]

To me the Hall of Fame should really be a best of the best. As many people who play this game, only the very best at their positions throughout history should get in. I don't think a team achievement should get an individual in to the HOF.

And yeah that goes for anyone.

[Tricericon]

Eli's present resume isn't Hall worthy, but it's likely to be so by the time he retires (which I believe Warner noted in the interview?).

[Doomsday101]

To me the Hall of Fame should really be a best of the best. As many people who play this game, only the very best at their positions throughout history should get in. I don't think a team achievement should get an individual in to the HOF.

And yeah that goes for anyone.

I agree. I do think the era you played in should and is a factor.

[juck]

Eli plays when it matters most,in playoffs.

[tyke1doe]

I respectfully disagree.

Being the QB on the team that has beaten Brady and Bill twice for Superbowl championships, and being the MVP of both of those games, has cemented his Hall of Fame spot.

I think we had this discussion in another thread (or maybe I'm thinking of another site?).

I think Eli is on his way, but I wouldn't put him there yet. I don't think he has as high a hill to climb as some others who may need more good years of strong quarterback play.

But Eli's going to get in because of his story - beating arguably the best quarterback of our era, beating the best coach of our era, belonging to the most famous quarterbacking name in the history of the NFL (the Mannings), etc.

Sometimes, a player's history itself makes him Hall of Fame worthy. See Lynn Swann and Joe Namath as examples.

I'm not merely a stats man. I think if a player's story becomes so intimately linked with the NFL story, and he has relative success, you have to consider that more than you would outstanding stats.

That would be Eli. Although, for humility's sake, we really shouldn't be anointing him a Hall of Famer just yet.

[BIGDen]

Warner is 100% correct and it's nice to see someone in the media acknowledge Eli's many flaws. He has not been accurate. He has been very turnover prone throughout his career, leading the entire NFL twice. His QB rating is very unimpressive in this day and age. In 3 of his 5 postseasons he has not been good. His D and some crazy plays really helped in his team's 2 fortunate championships. Eli had his first really good year this year. Even this year he laid quite a few eggs (seattle, jets, skins etc). He is not even close to HOF-worthy IMO but we know voters see rings and think a QB has super powers. The Namath example is a good one because that guy was not even close to great yet he is in.

[Joshmil53]

Spot on, Warner.

[Future]

If we're going to say that Eli deserves it because he played well in the playoffs...

Do guys like Kevin Faulk, Ty Law, Larry Izzo, and Teddy Bruschi deserve to go? They all played big roles on the 3 Super Bowl teams...should they get into the HOF?

[Hoofbite]

If we're going to say that Eli deserves it because he played well in the playoffs...

Do guys like Kevin Faulk, Ty Law, Larry Izzo, and Teddy Bruschi deserve to go? They all played big roles on the 3 Super Bowl teams...should they get into the HOF?

I thought Ty Law had a good enough and long enough career to go.

Played for over a decade.

5 time Pro Bowler, 2 time All Pro.

Has as many career INTs as Deion, ranking him 24th in that category.

3 Super Bowl Rings.

I think most people realize that Manning is going to play for a few more seasons. He has the rings, all he really has to do is pad his stats at this point and he's a lock.

If he performed pretty weakly for the next 5 seasons, he'd still likely end up Top 10 in both passing yards and TDs.

He could perform at 3200 yard, 23 TD seasons and get there in 5-6 years.

That's 1700 yards less than he threw for this year and about 6 TDs less than he threw for.

6 game winning drives and he'll be Top 10 in that area. He had 8 this year.

Four 4th quarter comebacks and he'll be Top 10 in that area. He had 7 this year.

Granted, that's an abnormal year. So lets say he gets 2 of each for the next 5 seasons.

That'd put him 4th place for 4th quarter comebacks, tied with Montana.

And that'd put him in 6th place for game winning drives.

All he has to do is play solid football until he retires and he's in for sure. The numbers alone may have gotten him there but the rings will definitely put him in.

[realtick]

Interesting (but not surprising) people rallying behind Kurt Warner's contention Eli isn't a HOF worthy QB and that his rather relatively mediocre stats are what hinder him.

I believe Troy Aikman is without a doubt a worthy HOF, but check his numbers if you're gonna discount Eli.

Aikman -
165 games
32,942 yards
165 TDs
141 INTs
61.5% comp.
81.6 QB rating

Manning -
121 games
27,579 yards
185 yards
129 INTs
58.4% comp.
82.1 QB rating

*Keep in mind, barring injury, Eli has a long time to build on those numbers.

I'm anticipating the standard kneejerk retorts, but I'll wait till they're presented.

[WoodysGirl]

Interesting (but not surprising) people rallying behind Kurt Warner's contention Eli isn't a HOF worthy QB and that his rather relatively mediocre stats are what hinder him.

I believe Troy Aikman is without a doubt a worthy HOF, but check his numbers if you're gonna discount Eli.

Aikman -
165 games
32,942 yards
165 TDs
141 INTs
61.5% comp.
81.6 QB rating

Manning -
121 games
27,579 yards
185 yards
129 INTs
58.4% comp.
82.1 QB rating

*Keep in mind, barring injury, Eli has a long time to build on those numbers.

I'm anticipating the standard kneejerk retorts, but I'll wait till they're presented.
Personally, I find it difficult compare Aikman's or any other QB's stats from his era to anyone in the current era.

It's a logical leap to make, but I think it's too big of one to make.

[realtick]

Personally, I find it difficult compare Aikman's or any other QB's stats from his era to anyone in the current era.

It's a logical leap to make, but I think it's too big of one to make.

Aikman's contemporaries (Steve Young & Brett Favre) were putting up prolific numbers that rivals today's best.

[WoodysGirl]

Aikman's contemporaries (Steve Young & Brett Favre) were putting up prolific numbers that rivals today's best.
In general, Aikman and those guys, didn't play in this current prolific passing era that we're in now. Putting up the type of numbers Brees and these current QBs are putting up was rare back then. Now it's the standard.

Also, we know that Aikman didn't put up super passing numbers because of Emmitt, but it wasn't for lack of ability.

[Hoofbite]

Interesting (but not surprising) people rallying behind Kurt Warner's contention Eli isn't a HOF worthy QB and that his rather relatively mediocre stats are what hinder him.

I believe Troy Aikman is without a doubt a worthy HOF, but check his numbers if you're gonna discount Eli.

Aikman -
165 games
32,942 yards
165 TDs
141 INTs
61.5% comp.
81.6 QB rating

Manning -
121 games
27,579 yards
185 yards
129 INTs
58.4% comp.
82.1 QB rating

I'm anticipating the standard kneejerk retorts, but I'll wait till they're presented.

You can't really compare them fairly based on straight stats.

Aikman played in a time when passing for 4000 yards was rare. Maybe a few guys were doing it in any given year. Some years, like 1997 didn't have a single 4K passer.

1992 had 1 guy do it and 2nd place was under 3500 yards.

This year we just saw 3 guys go over 5K.

Romo's 31 TDs this year would have been tops in the league a couple of times in the 1990s and he was 5th this year and 15 behind the leader.

The game has changed a great deal since Troy's days.

It kind of sucks because as I was typing that post earlier about Eli likely being in the Top 10 in Yards and TDs, there's no way I felt he deserved to be up there with some of those names. It is what it is though. As the game moves on, numbers inflate.

Joe Montana has fewer passing yards than Intercepteverde, Bledsoe and Kerry Collins.

I think Eli gets in. I think his numbers will be good enough and the Super Bowls will just add to it. I think he got in at a time when the offensive explosion was just starting to take off and I think people won't look at him having more yards than better ex-players in the same light that we might look at Kerry Collins having more yards than Montana.

It's a tough case. Statistically I think he'll total enough. If he plays 5 years, he'll be above 300 TDs and over 40K in yards. If he has 5 years like this year, he'll be above 50K.

Undoubtedly there are other QBs people would take over him in heartbeat.

As a pure QB Brady, Brees, Rodgers and Peyton are without question all guys who would go be picked ahead of him. We can argue until we're blue in the face about Romo, Pig Pen, Stafford maybe and probably a couple others but those top 4 are without question the ELITE.

And does the 5th best (at absolute best) QB from his era get into the HoF? Based solely on the being the 5th best QB from an era, will that do it? I'm not sure.

I think the collection of work will get him in. At least two championships and impressive totals at the end of his career. I think that's enough.

[Future]

Interesting (but not surprising) people rallying behind Kurt Warner's contention Eli isn't a HOF worthy QB and that his rather relatively mediocre stats are what hinder him.

I believe Troy Aikman is without a doubt a worthy HOF, but check his numbers if you're gonna discount Eli.

Aikman -
165 games
32,942 yards
165 TDs
141 INTs
61.5% comp.
81.6 QB rating

Manning -
121 games
27,579 yards
185 yards
129 INTs
58.4% comp.
82.1 QB rating

*Keep in mind, barring injury, Eli has a long time to build on those numbers.

I'm anticipating the standard kneejerk retorts, but I'll wait till they're presented.
Other than that 5 year run or so, Aikman played on a lot of really bad teams. Like WG an others mentioned, it's hard to compare eras, and combining the two skews it even further.

[realtick]

Aikman is a HOFer, so are his contemporaries Steve Young and Brett Favre.

The different eras, different statistical standards argument isn't a strong one.

Let's look at Favre's numbers from 1991 to 2000 for instance.

During time range Favre had years throwing for 33, 38, 39, 35 and 31 touchdowns in a season. Those numbers would still be prolific in this era.

During that same time span, Favre had seven seasons of throwing for 3,800+ yards (including two season of 4,200+ yards). That would fit right into what we would expect the league's best QBs to throw for.

Steve Young put up equally impressive type numbers.

Also, the "Aikman didn't play in that type of offense/he could have thrown for more yards and TDs if he needed to" argument is a sword that swings both ways.

Many fans point to the fact Aikman had a running game led by HOF RB in Emmitt Smith, so he didn't need to throw for all those yards/TDs. Well, it can equally be argued legitimately that as a QB, Aikman benifitted from the run game and not vice versa, as in the run game carried the offense. It's interesting to note that this team struggled mightily when Emmitt was not in the lineup, but found success with guys like Jason Garrett, Steve Buerlien and Bernie Kosar filling in.

Further, it's really a conversation killer when the go-to claim is "he coulda if he wanted/needed to." It's wishful thinking that's not based in reality that can be trotted out to trump actual data/facts/statistics/.

Some folks outside of Cowboy fan circles have said that Troy Aikman was the prototype game-manager QB, that didn't put together the most eye-popping regular season numbers, but played his best ball in the postseason (11-3 record). Similiar things could be said about Eli Manning.

[Hoofbite]

Aikman is a HOFer, so are his contemporaries Steve Young and Brett Favre.

The different eras, different statistical standards argument isn't a strong one.

Let's look at Favre's numbers from 1991 to 2000 for instance.

During time range Favre had years throwing for 33, 38, 39, 35 and 31 touchdowns in a season. Those numbers would still be prolific in this era.

During that same time span, Favre had seven seasons of throwing for 3,800+ yards (including two season of 4,200+ yards). That would fit right into what we would expect the league's best QBs to throw for.

Steve Young put up equally impressive type numbers.

Also, the "Aikman didn't play in that type of offense/he could have thrown for more yards and TDs if he needed to" argument is a sword that swings both ways.

Many fans point to the fact Aikman had a running game led by HOF RB in Emmitt Smith, so he didn't need to throw for all those yards/TDs. Well, it can equally be argued legitimately that as a QB, Aikman benifitted from the run game and not vice versa, as in the run game carried the offense. It's interesting to note that this team struggled mightily when Emmitt was not in the lineup, but found success with guys like Jason Garrett, Steve Buerlien and Bernie Kosar filling in.

Further, it's really a conversation killer when the go-to claim is "he coulda if he wanted/needed to." It's wishful thinking that's not based in reality that can be trotted out to trump actual data/facts/statistics/.

Some folks outside of Cowboy fan circles have said that Troy Aikman was the prototype game-manager QB, that didn't put together the most eye-popping regular season numbers, but played his best ball in the postseason (11-3 record). Similiar things could be said about Eli Manning.

You're saying that the argument isn't strong because two of the best QB to ever play were able to be significantly more prolific than their peers?

Favre's 3800 yards wouldn't even be Top 5 at this point. Since 2006, at least 5 players have thrown for over 4,000. His two 4,200 years would be like 7th in 2011 and 9th in 2009.

I just don't see how you can say the eras are not different. Brett Favre in his most glorious prime was producing yardages that differ very little from a handful current players.

[realtick]

You're saying that the argument isn't strong because two of the best QB to ever play were able to be significantly more prolific than their peers?

Favre's 3800 yards wouldn't even be Top 5 at this point. Since 2006, at least 5 players have thrown for over 4,000. His two 4,200 years would be like 7th in 2011 and 9th in 2009.

I'm not saying the eras aren't different. I'm saying the differences between the eras are not as great as you suppose.

As you know, Steve Young and Brett Favre were Aikman's peers. All three of them are HOFers (we all assume Favre will make it in). If Aikman is one of the best, he should be compared against the best of his days.

I have no problems with the different eras argument because there is indeed some validity to it. The problem is some of those who want to invoke it typically just want to lazily apply it like "no, no, no....different eras....end of discussion" fashion. I'm not saying you are, but just sayin'.

Yes, the numbers Favre and Young put up then are more common place in today's game. However, we aren't comparing the 1950's to the 2000's, it's just one decade apart really.

For instance, I literally picked out of random 1995. There were four quarterbacks that threw for 4,000+ yards that season:

Bret Favre
Scott Mitchell
Warren Moon
Jeff George

*(Elway and Jim Everett were both shy by 30 yards).

In 2000 (3):

P. Manning
J. Garcia
E. Grbac

A decade later in 2005 (2):

Tom Brady
Trent Green

In 2010 (5):

Rivers
P. Manning
Brees
Schaub
E. Manning

We can look at other years if you want too (I just went in five year incriments). Do you see clear cut trend there?

There is no doubt that the average NFL QB nowadays is throwing for more yards on average a season. ***The point is, there is not some huge chasm or stark differences between the two eras as it's made to seem: 4,000+ yards, 30+ TDs was a big deal back then, and it still is today.***

Guys like Scott Mitchell, Warren Moon, Jeff George, Vinny Testerverde, Drew Bledsoe, Mark Brunell, and more were putting up prolific numbers back in the 90s even by today's standard. Yet Aikman's numbers were consistently in the middle of the pack.

I just don't see how you can say the eras are not different. Brett Favre in his most glorious prime was producing yardages that differ very little from a handful current players.

I'm not sure what point you're making here because it's exactly the point I am making, lol.

[burmafrd]

I agree about Aikman not playing on a top team for that long. 92-96 really. After that it was seriously on the decline.

The difference of couse between Aikman and Eli is that Aikman got it done when it mattered a lot better then Eli did. He did not need Helmet catches; or people dropping INTs right before it.

However their numbers are very close otherwise. So one could say that if Aikman had not had the rings, it is not all that clear he would have ever gotten to the SB.

[Blackspider214]

As of right now, I agree. Eli has made 2 good playoff runs years apart but before the first one and in between the 2nd one, he hasn't done anything.

But he still has a long way to go in his career to do more. Would not be surprised at all if he got another ring, and then he's a shoe in.

[Joe Realist]

Eli will be a hall of famer and Kurt, he might be one before you.

[BraveHeartFan]

Aikman is a HOFer, so are his contemporaries Steve Young and Brett Favre.

The different eras, different statistical standards argument isn't a strong one.

Let's look at Favre's numbers from 1991 to 2000 for instance.

During time range Favre had years throwing for 33, 38, 39, 35 and 31 touchdowns in a season. Those numbers would still be prolific in this era.

During that same time span, Favre had seven seasons of throwing for 3,800+ yards (including two season of 4,200+ yards). That would fit right into what we would expect the league's best QBs to throw for.

Steve Young put up equally impressive type numbers.

Also, the "Aikman didn't play in that type of offense/he could have thrown for more yards and TDs if he needed to" argument is a sword that swings both ways.

Many fans point to the fact Aikman had a running game led by HOF RB in Emmitt Smith, so he didn't need to throw for all those yards/TDs. Well, it can equally be argued legitimately that as a QB, Aikman benifitted from the run game and not vice versa, as in the run game carried the offense. It's interesting to note that this team struggled mightily when Emmitt was not in the lineup, but found success with guys like Jason Garrett, Steve Buerlien and Bernie Kosar filling in.

Further, it's really a conversation killer when the go-to claim is "he coulda if he wanted/needed to." It's wishful thinking that's not based in reality that can be trotted out to trump actual data/facts/statistics/.

Some folks outside of Cowboy fan circles have said that Troy Aikman was the prototype game-manager QB, that didn't put together the most eye-popping regular season numbers, but played his best ball in the postseason (11-3 record). Similiar things could be said about Eli Manning.

Excellent post. I enjoyed this read.

[BraveHeartFan]

Eli will be a hall of famer and Kurt, he might be one before you.

I think Kurt should be in, personally. THe guy took 3 teams to Superbowls and got himself a ring with a Superbowl record yardage day.

I definately think Kurt should be in.

[Ring Leader]

It all depends on what version of Eli we will see going forward. If this year's quantum leap Eli returns, he's a sure fire HOFer. If the turnover machine 82 QBR Eli, you know.... the inconsistent goofy guy we all knew and loved for eons returns, he still has a better than average shot, but not necessarily a mortal lock for Canton.

[realtick]

It all depends on what version of Eli we will see going forward. If this year's quantum leap Eli returns, he's a sure fire HOFer. If the turnover machine 82 QBR Eli, you know.... the inconsistent goofy guy we all knew and loved for eons returns, he still has a better than average shot, but not necessarily a mortal lock for Canton.

FWIW, if compare Eli's first four years to his last four and you'll get the following:

2004 to '07 - 70.55 QB rating...53.7% comp.

2008 to '11 - 89.42 QB rating...61.6% comp.

I think what you're seeing from him the past four seasons is probably what you can expect from him moving forward in his career.

[Ring Leader]

FWIW, if compare Eli's first four years to his last four and you'll get the following:

2004 to '07 - 70.55 QB rating...53.7% comp.

2008 to '11 - 89.42 QB rating...61.6% comp.

I think what you're seeing from him the past four seasons is probably what you can expect from him moving forward in his career.

Yet without his 2007 season (73.9 QB rating), there would be mere whispers of Eli-HOF consideration. 2011 was a quantum leap for Eli - his only season to crack the top 10 in QB rating and his only season to combine a top 10 QB rating with "any" playoff win. Maybe this is why Warner is temporarily shelving the anointing oil.

[realtick]

Yet without his 2007 season (73.9 QB rating), there would be mere whispers of Eli-HOF consideration. 2011 was a quantum leap for Eli - his only season to crack the top 10 in QB rating and his only season to combine a top 10 QB rating with "any" playoff win. Maybe this is why Warner is temporarily shelving the anointing oil.

Well, I think Warner is offbase. I believe HOF consideration is not and should not be about the mere accumulation of statistics.

Eli's regular season QB rating in 2007 is overshadowed by the fact he played tremendously in the postseason sporting a QBrating of 95.7 and just 1 INT in four postseason games, all on the road.

That's the thing, try as they may, Eli detractors have to ignore the fact that Eli played pivotal roles in both Super Bowl runs.

- All eight of his postseason victories came on the road.
- A QB rating of 104.8 in his 8 playoff wins
- 15 TDs and just 2 INTs in those games
- 64.4% comp. percentage

It's plainly evident Eli raised his play during both Super Bowl runs as evidenced by the contrast between his regular season averages. Troy Aikman did the very same thing during his Super Bowl runs.

[Hoofbite]

I'm not saying the eras aren't different. I'm saying the differences between the eras are not as great as you suppose.

As you know, Steve Young and Brett Favre were Aikman's peers. All three of them are HOFers (we all assume Favre will make it in). If Aikman is one of the best, he should be compared against the best of his days.

I have no problems with the different eras argument because there is indeed some validity to it. The problem is some of those who want to invoke it typically just want to lazily apply it like "no, no, no....different eras....end of discussion" fashion. I'm not saying you are, but just sayin'.

Yes, the numbers Favre and Young put up then are more common place in today's game. However, we aren't comparing the 1950's to the 2000's, it's just one decade apart really.

For instance, I literally picked out of random 1995. There were four quarterbacks that threw for 4,000+ yards that season:

Bret Favre
Scott Mitchell
Warren Moon
Jeff George

*(Elway and Jim Everett were both shy by 30 yards).

In 2000 (3):

P. Manning
J. Garcia
E. Grbac

A decade later in 2005 (2):

Tom Brady
Trent Green

In 2010 (5):

Rivers
P. Manning
Brees
Schaub
E. Manning

We can look at other years if you want too (I just went in five year incriments). Do you see clear cut trend there?

You're choosing years at random. What if 1995 was a pretty damn good year in terms of 4K passers for 90s (which it was) but 2005 was tied for lowest of the decade with a couple of other seasons (which it is).

There is no doubt that the average NFL QB nowadays is throwing for more yards on average a season. ***The point is, there is not some huge chasm or stark differences between the two eras as it's made to seem: 4,000+ yards, 30+ TDs was a big deal back then, and it still is today.***

Guys like Scott Mitchell, Warren Moon, Jeff George, Vinny Testerverde, Drew Bledsoe, Mark Brunell, and more were putting up prolific numbers back in the 90s even by today's standard. Yet Aikman's numbers were consistently in the middle of the pack.

I'm not sure what point you're making here because it's exactly the point I am making, lol.

The point goes back to you comparing Manning and Aikman's numbers and the comparison has to keep it in the context of the explosion of the passing game.

And Warren Moon? I thought he was a pretty good QB. He is in the HoF after all. Didn't realize he was on Mark Brunell's level.

There is no denying it. While the Bledsoe's and Intervecpteverde's may have had a couple of good seasons it's not like there were a handful of guys topping 4K every year.

There were 10 this year, one being a rookie.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y188/thehoofbite/4K.png

TD's have seen a similar trend.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y188/thehoofbite/30.png

Here's how passing yards have evolved.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y188/thehoofbite/ScreenShot2012-02-09at35948PM.jpg

The redline is probably the most important because it shows how a greater percentage of the league is doing compared to the others. It's the average of the top 10 passers by year.

You look at the absolute most productive passing year from the 1990s and it's 1995. The year you selected at random. 1995 is no better than ANY of the last 5 years.

In 1990, the average for the Top 10 QBs was just over 3500 yards. This year it was just over 4,500 yards.

There have been 28 occurrences of a player passing for more than 4,5000 yards.

15 of 28 have come since 2007. That's over half that have come in the last 5 years.

Passing stats are booming. If this type of increase isn't considered pretty damn large, then what is? 7,000 yard seasons? 50 TDs from half the league?

[realtick]

You're choosing years at random. What if 1995 was a pretty damn good year in terms of 4K passers for 90s (which it was) but 2005 was tied for lowest of the decade with a couple of other seasons (which it is).



The point goes back to you comparing Manning and Aikman's numbers and the comparison has to keep it in the context of the explosion of the passing game.

And Warren Moon? I thought he was a pretty good QB. He is in the HoF after all. Didn't realize he was on Mark Brunell's level.

There is no denying it. While the Bledsoe's and Intervecpteverde's may have had a couple of good seasons it's not like there were a handful of guys topping 4K every year.

There were 10 this year, one being a rookie.

[/URL]

TD's have seen a similar trend.

(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y188/thehoofbite/4K.png)

Here's how passing yards have evolved.

[URL="http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y188/thehoofbite/ScreenShot2012-02-09at35948PM.jpg"]

The redline is probably the most important because it shows how a greater percentage of the league is doing compared to the others. It's the average of the top 10 passers by year.

You look at the absolute most productive passing year from the 1990s and it's 1995. The year you selected at random. 1995 is no better than ANY of the last 5 years.

In 1990, the average for the Top 10 QBs was just over 3500 yards. This year it was just over 4,500 yards.

There have been 28 occurrences of a player passing for more than 4,5000 yards.

15 of 28 have come since 2007. That's over half that have come in the last 5 years.

Passing stats are booming. If this type of increase isn't considered pretty damn large, then what is? 7,000 yard seasons? 50 TDs from half the league?

Thanks for providing the charts. I think you're missing the point however.

Aikman's passing numbers did not approach anything close to his contemporaries in his era. Had guys like Favre, Young, even Testerverde, Brunnel, Jeff George, Warren Moon, Scott Mitchell, et cetera, had seasons in our around what Aikman was typically producing, then this discussion wouldn't be happening because it could be inferred that was the nor. It wasn't.

My point in stating that the eras are not drastically different is legitimate. I've already stated that there is a clear trend moving upwards in terms of passing production. That's not in dispute. What I'm making clear is that there were plenty of 4,000+ yard passers in the 90s. So it's not like today's 4,000 yard passer is the equivalent of yesterday's (or the 90s) 3,000 yard passer.

There were tons of guys putting up prolific passing numbers in the 90s that could stand up to today's best QBs. Aikman was never in that realm outside of perhaps completion percentage. So this is why I say the blanket different eras, different standards has an element of truth but can be entirely overstated.

And yes, I chose 1995 at random because I could easily go '95, '00, '05, et cetera. I said I'm completely open to looking at the other years if you want. I'm not trying to cherry pick the data.

BTW, you seem to like 2009 and 2011 because it represents spikes in the data. You don't mention 2010 which shows the numbers dropping back to a level equivalent to 1999. I wouldn't be quick to assume there will be now 12-14 QBs with 4000+ yards now. I would expect moving forward for those numbers to continue a steady trend upward, but not the huge spikes shown in 2009 and 2011. They could very well drop down to 7 or 8.

You also made a point about the average yardage of a QB in 1990 versus 2010. That's more than a 20 year difference. We are talking about eras, not specific year marks.

[CowboysFanSince88]

It's real simple why Eli is not a HOFer yet. He has yet to do what his brother did since he has been in the league


"Lead his team to the playoffs for 3 straight seasons or more"


So far since he took over the Giants in 2004, they have never made the playoffs more than 2 seasons in a row

[realtick]

It's real simple why Eli is not a HOFer yet. He has yet to do what his brother did since he has been in the league


"Lead his team to the playoffs for 3 straight seasons or more"


So far since he took over the Giants in 2004, they have never made the playoffs more than 2 seasons in a row

Hmmmm, that's an interesting take.

So the criteria to be HOF worthy is having to best your brother's playoff appearance streak?

I guess actually having led your team to more Super Bowl victories is less important.

[EthanThorn]

It's real simple why Eli is not a HOFer yet. He has yet to do what his brother did since he has been in the league


"Lead his team to the playoffs for 3 straight seasons or more"


So far since he took over the Giants in 2004, they have never made the playoffs more than 2 seasons in a row

They made the playoffs in '05; '06; and '07

[Big Blue Joe]

They made the playoffs in '05; '06; and '07And in 2008.

[EthanThorn]

Yes, '08 as well. 4 years in a row.

In fact the only time Eli hasn't led the Giants to the playoffs is in his rookie year, and '09, when the defense was simply atrocious. In '10, the Giants just missed out.

All in all (discounting his rookie season where he didn't start all of the games), Eli has led the Giants to the playoffs 5 out of 7 years.

[CowboysFanSince88]

They made the playoffs in '05; '06; and '07

FALSE!!!!!!! Do your homework

2006 they were 8-8 so I forgot about that season. The point remains is Peyton Manning has never been the QB of a team who missed the playoffs 2 seasons in a row.

So since he is so ELITE, he should make the postseason every year until he retires

[CowboysFanSince88]

Yes, '08 as well. 4 years in a row.

In fact the only time Eli hasn't led the Giants to the playoffs is in his rookie year, and '09, when the defense was simply atrocious. In '10, the Giants just missed out.

All in all (discounting his rookie season where he didn't start all of the games), Eli has led the Giants to the playoffs 5 out of 7 years.

And 3 of those playoffs games the Giants were ONE and DONE. So like Kurt Warner said, we have to see how the rest of his career plays out

[realtick]

FALSE!!!!!!! Do your homework

2006 they were 8-8 so I forgot about that season. The point remains is Peyton Manning has never been the QB of a team who missed the playoffs 2 seasons in a row.

So since he is so ELITE, he should make the postseason every year until he retires

FALSE.

They made the playoffs with Eli as the starter 2005, '06, '07 and '08.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MannEl00.htm

But please, continue on humiliating yourself.

[realtick]

And 3 of those playoffs games the Giants were ONE and DONE. So like Kurt Warner said, we have to see how the rest of his career plays out

Ah, moving the goalposts now?

What happened to him never making the playoffs more than two years in-a-row?

Pathetic.

He's 8-3 in postseason play with two Super Bowl wins.

Peyton Manning is 10-11 with 1 Super Bowl win.

[CowboysFanSince88]

FALSE.

They made the playoffs with Eli as the starter 2005, '06, '07 and '08.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MannEl00.htm

But please, continue on humiliating yourself.


I forgot to delete FALSE because I saw that they made the playoffs in 2006. But no one hardly remembers that season because of the 8-8 record and first round exit

[CowboysFanSince88]

Ah, moving the goalposts now?

What happened to him never making the playoffs more than two years in-a-row?

Pathetic.

He's 8-3 in postseason play with two Super Bowl wins.

Peyton Manning is 10-11 with 1 Super Bowl win.

My point is we need to see MORE. Are you saying the Giants can miss the playoffs the next 3 years and Eli will still be considered a HOF QB? We need to see some consistency from Eli

[realtick]

I forgot to delete FALSE because I saw that they made the playoffs in 2006. But no one hardly remembers that season because of the 8-8 record and first round exit

Correct.

People will remember how he led the Giants on two Super Bowls by going 8-0, all on the road in both runs.

[realtick]

My point is we need to see MORE. Are you saying the Giants can miss the playoffs the next 3 years and Eli will still be considered a HOF QB? We need to see some consistency from Eli

More "consistency?" You mean like taking your team to the playoffs in five of his first seven seasons?

Do you know how many times Peyton Manning/Colts have gone one-and-done in the playoffs?

SEVEN.

Seven out of the 11 times they've been in the playoffs they got knocked-out in their first game.

This just keeps getting funnier.

[CowboysFanSince88]

More "consistency?" You mean like taking your team to the playoffs in five of his first seven seasons?

Do you know how many times Peyton Manning/Colts have gone one-and-done in the playoffs?

SEVEN.

Seven out of the 11 times they've been in the playoffs they got knocked-out in their first game.

This just keeps getting funnier.

If Eli's team is not in the playoffs next season then this HOF discussion is over.

[EthanThorn]

If Eli's team is not in the playoffs next season then this HOF discussion is over.

Even if the year after that they win the Super Bowl again?

[realtick]

If Eli's team is not in the playoffs next season then this HOF discussion is over.

Yes, because he will only have led his team to the playoffs 5 out of 8 years and won two Super Bowls during that time.

You're embarrassing yourself.

Just say you flatout don't like Eli and be done with it. Stop masquerading around like you actually have a point.

[CowboysFanSince88]

Even if the year after that they win the Super Bowl again?

Well if that happens then the debate is on again

[CowboysFanSince88]

Yes, because he will only have led his team to the playoffs 5 out of 8 years and won two Super Bowls during that time.

You're embarrassing yourself.

Just say you flatout don't like Eli and be done with it. Stop masquerading around like you actually have a point.

My only problem with Eli was his inconsistency so this year he stepped up. It also doesn't take much for his confidence to go down which is something else he needs to change. There is no reason for him to have low self-esteem because he throws 1 int in the 1st qtr.

[EthanThorn]

Well if that happens then the debate is on again

Eli still has what, 5-6 more years of good football left in him? And he's already got two Super Bowl wins and Super Bowl MVPs under his belt. And he did this against some the best teams in the league both times. He's got the NFL record for most 4th quarter touchdowns. Led his team to the playoffs 5 out of the 7 seasons he was fully starting. Most playoff road victories in the NFL by any Quarterback. Numerous comebacks and game winning drives (including two in each of his Super Bowls). He was one-half of the greatest Super Bowl play ever. He's never missed a game since becoming a starter, even following the injury to his shoulder against the Cowboys in '07. He will shatter all Giants QB records by the time his career is done. Most importantly of all, if his career ended today, what people will remember most is that if it wasn't for Eli and the Giants, Brady, Belichick, and the Pats would have 5 Super Bowl wins, and go down as the undisputed best team EVER. That's gonna be on every HOF voter's mind when they consider Eli's HOF entry.

At this point, all Eli has to do is keep an even keel and pad his stats for the next few years and he's in Canton.

My only problem with Eli was his inconsistency so this year he stepped up. It also doesn't take much for his confidence to go down which is something else he needs to change. There is no reason for him to have low self-esteem because he throws 1 int in the 1st qtr.

From all accounts by his teammates, coaches, and those who know him, Eli never varies from his default boring emotionless state, whether they're up by 20 or down by 20.

Ironically enough, it's this same attitude that led his critics to saying he lacks any "leadership qualities" at the beginning of his career, that many now point to as being his biggest asset, saying he's unflappable.

[CowboysFanSince88]

Eli still has what, 5-6 more years of good football left in him? And he's already got two Super Bowl wins and Super Bowl MVPs under his belt. And he did this against some the best teams in the league both times. He's got the NFL record for most 4th quarter touchdowns. Led his team to the playoffs 5 out of the 7 seasons he was fully starting. Most playoff road victories in the NFL by any Quarterback. Numerous comebacks and game winning drives (including two in each of his Super Bowls). He was one-half of the greatest Super Bowl play ever. He's never missed a game since becoming a starter, even following the injury to his shoulder against the Cowboys in '07. He will shatter all Giants QB records by the time his career is done. Most importantly of all, if his career ended today, what people will remember most is that if it wasn't for Eli and the Giants, Brady, Belichick, and the Pats would have 5 Super Bowl wins, and go down as the undisputed best team EVER. That's gonna be on every HOF voter's mind when they consider Eli's HOF entry.

At this point, all Eli has to do is keep an even keel and pad his stats for the next few years and he's in Canton.



From all accounts by his teammates, coaches, and those who know him, Eli never varies from his default boring emotionless state, whether they're up by 20 or down by 20.

Ironically enough, it's this same attitude that led his critics to saying he lacks any "leadership qualities" at the beginning of his career, that many now point to as being his biggest asset, saying he's unflappable.


He still tends to MOPE around and look sad when he throws a INT instead of showing the look of FRUSTRATION and how he can't wait to get back on the field. Once he can do that then he will be fine.

[realtick]

He still tends to MOPE around and look sad when he throws a INT instead of showing the look of FRUSTRATION and how he can't wait to get back on the field. Once he can do that then he will be fine.


Lol, what does any of that have to do with Eli's HOF worthiness?

Is the HOF committee/voters going to keep him out because of the expressions on his face?

I'll take a mopey looking QB that can lead me to the Super Bowl any day of the week.

[CowboysFanSince88]

Lol, what does any of that have to do with Eli's HOF worthiness?

Is the HOF committee/voters going to keep him out because of the expressions on his face?

I'll take a mopey looking QB that can lead me to the Super Bowl any day of the week.

I bet Eli can't play GOLF as good as Romo-lo


I'm joking

[DFWJC]

Interesting (but not surprising) people rallying behind Kurt Warner's contention Eli isn't a HOF worthy QB and that his rather relatively mediocre stats are what hinder him.

I believe Troy Aikman is without a doubt a worthy HOF, but check his numbers if you're gonna discount Eli.

Aikman -
165 games
32,942 yards
165 TDs
141 INTs
61.5% comp.
81.6 QB rating

Manning -
121 games
27,579 yards
185 yards
129 INTs
58.4% comp.
82.1 QB rating

*Keep in mind, barring injury, Eli has a long time to build on those numbers.

I'm anticipating the standard kneejerk retorts, but I'll wait till they're presented.
QB rating are FAR higher now than back then. The offesnes are different, the DBs can't grab as much, and the QBs are protected by the refs.
It's not a valid comparison.

Manning's 82.1 in this era is stunningly bad.

Your later points about Favre and Young are valid though.

But like I said earlier, he he strings together about 5 seasons like this past one--regardless of SB wins--he will be potentially worthy.

[Sarge]

If you're measured on championships, then Haley would be in. It ain''t that simple........apparently.

[Maikeru-sama]

And if Tony Romo was in the same exact position as Eli and Warner had made this comment about him, a lot of you guys would have went ape crap crazy and complained of Cowboys bias.

[punchnjudy]

First of all, Aikman's post-season numbers during his THREE super bowl runs are better than Eli's. Look at QB ratings ard ypa. The worst of Aikman's three runs still exceeds Eli's best Super Bowl run. Throw out the wildcard games, and it gets even worse for little Eli. Don't forget to look at how many points his teams scored compared to the Giants as well.

Troy played with better talent, but he played against better talent. The playoff teams back then were far more competitive than in today's salary cap mess. Thank you, parity.

Eli contributes to 21 points against a sorry sack New England defense and suddenly he's a HOFer? Really? Did anybody actually watch New England this year? If you think the 21 points was the impressive part of that scoreboard, then you really don't know what you're watching. Holding them below that mark was the real accomplishment. Same goes for the previous Super Bowl victory over NE.

Or was it the masterful way his offense punted the ball over and over five straight times to the 49ers in a tie game before the special teams bailed them out (after which Eli did squat)? Is that where this all-clutch bs is coming from? Because he punted the ball 5 times to another QB who was even more lackluster in that game than he was? (And, yes, I call 5 ypa and 20 points lackluster). The best people could say was he didn't turn the ball over during that final stretch of the game; well, sorry skippy, but you don't deserve the hall of fame for simply not fumbling or throwing a pick. Had SF simply scored a FG in any of those numerous opportunities, Eli probably would have been considered the goat in NY. There was certainly nothing in that game either to make you think "Hall of Fame." The way the media spins these things is unreal.

People say Nate Newton belongs in the Hall of Very Good. At best, Eli to date has proven himself to be the QB equivalent of Nate.

I recognize my Cowboy bias, but I've spoken with fans of other teams and they all agree that this Eli craze is ridiculous. He's good, but he's been as fortunate as he's been good.

[realtick]

QB rating are FAR higher now than back then. The offesnes are different, the DBs can't grab as much, and the QBs are protected by the refs.
It's not a valid comparison.

Manning's 82.1 in this era is stunningly bad.

Your later points about Favre and Young are valid though.

But like I said earlier, he he strings together about 5 seasons like this past one--regardless of SB wins--he will be potentially worthy.

While you're correct in alluding to the rule changes that have benifitted the receivers and helped the QBs stay in the pocket longer, the comparison is still valid IMO.

I also don't believe that QB rating is "FAR higher" now then it was in Aikman's days/era. We can look at those numbers if you want to.

We make a big deal out of Romo's terrific past season: 102.5, 4,000+, 31 TDs.

Steve Young had seven seasons of 100+ ratings.

And while there are more QBs present day that are finding themselves in the 100+ range, there is a difference between frequency and what's normative as far as the actual rating.

For instance, if a QB rating around 80 was what was considered great back in the 1990s, then your contention would have better legs to stand on. The problem is there were tons of QBs in Aikman's era that were performing at a high level in the high 90s-100 QB rating range. Aikman never did that consistently and has a rather mediocre career QB rating of 81.6.

So I do recognize you cannot accurately compare Aikman's QBR to Eli Manning's as in apples-to-apples, but the relative differences are incrimental and still do not account for how their (in this case, Aikman's) contemporaries were performing in the same eras.

Folks are going to have violent bodily reactions, but I see a lot of similiarities between Manning and Aikman. I see two guys that have had their share of rather mediocre regular seasons but dialed in their games when it counted the most in the postseason and ultimately Super Bowls.

If folks want to argue over who is more accurate, throws the prettier spiral, or has the stronger arm, I have no comment or interest, but as far as what they've done on the field, I see some parallels.

[realtick]

First of all, Aikman's post-season numbers during his THREE super bowl runs are better than Eli's. Look at QB ratings ard ypa. The worst of Aikman's three runs still exceeds Eli's best Super Bowl run. Throw out the wildcard games, and it gets even worse for little Eli. Don't forget to look at how many points his teams scored compared to the Giants as well.

Troy played with better talent, but he played against better talent. The playoff teams back then were far more competitive than in today's salary cap mess. Thank you, parity.

Eli contributes to 21 points against a sorry sack New England defense and suddenly he's a HOFer? Really? Did anybody actually watch New England this year? If you think the 21 points was the impressive part of that scoreboard, then you really don't know what you're watching. Holding them below that mark was the real accomplishment. Same goes for the previous Super Bowl victory over NE.

Or was it the masterful way his offense punted the ball over and over five straight times to the 49ers in a tie game before the special teams bailed them out (after which Eli did squat)? Is that where this all-clutch bs is coming from? Because he punted the ball 5 times to another QB who was even more lackluster in that game than he was? The best people could say was he didn't turn the ball over during that final stretch of the game; well, sorry skippy, but you don't deserve the hall of fame for simply not fumbling or throwing a pick. Had SF simply scored a FG in any of those numerous opportunities, Eli probably would have been considered the goat in NY. There was certainly nothing in that game either to make you think "Hall of Fame." The way the media spins these things is unreal.

People say Nate Newton belongs in the Hall of Very Good. At best, Eli to date has proven himself to be the QB equivalent of Nate.

I recognize my Cowboy bias, but I've spoken with fans of other teams and they all agree that this Eli craze is ridiculous. He's good, but he's been as fortunate as he's been good.

"I recognize my Cowboy bias..."

Yup.