Also, I wonder if he'll go into announcing. He might be good at it, but he does have a big family.
Heres the thing though, Rivers isn't Dave Krieg, his numbers vs the league are much more Elway/Kelly. He's not Marino or Montana, but he's absolutely Elway level.There are all time great QBs in every single decade, and yeah, those are the guys that belong in the Hall of Fame, generally. When Dave Krieg retired he was 6th in TD passes and 8th in yards, was anyone making a HoF case for him because it'd be unfair to compare him to Montana/Elway/Marino/Kelly? What about Boomer Esiason? Retired 9th in yards and TDs, made it to a Super Bowl, won an MVP. Should he go in because well, not being among the best QBs of his era was understandable?
In 10 years Rivers will be about 11th in all time passing yards and TDs and people will look back and say "huh, why is he in the HoF again?". Once again, he's played his whole career in a disproportionately passing friendly era, so unless he puts up completely stupid numbers I'm not going to put him up for consideration just based on that. Playing with the same kind of competition Matt Ryan won an MVP and went to a Super Bowl, Eli Manning won 2 Super Bowls, Ben also won 2... these are his peers in the "below Mount Rushmore" group and he falls short in achievements even in comparison to them.
And yes, it is a "tough crowd", it's the Hall of Fame.
Yeah, I think you'll have a hard time convincing anyone Phillip Rivers is a John Elway level quarterback.Heres the thing though, Rivers isn't Dave Krieg, his numbers vs the league are much more Elway/Kelly. He's not Marino or Montana, but he's absolutely Elway level.
Is the argument then that QB becoming a more valuable position should lead to more QBs being induced into the HoF?Something to think about: People always talk about passing statistics as a way to discredit the current stats being put up by modern players, since it is such a pass happy league and teams throw way more than they used too. That is true; but when it comes to evaluating current players vs older QBs, I think we should keep in mind that because teams are throwing more often today, it means that being a QB is more valuable than at any other point in football history. Rivers has better counting numbers than Elway; sure we can write that off as circumstances of Rivers playing in a pass-happy era; BUT we have to also acknowledge the fact that Rivers was more valuable than Elway to his team because of the era he played in, where you pretty much had to have a QB who throws for 4,000 yards to be competitive.
I don't think Rivers is better than Elway, but it's not a zero-sum situation where all modern QBs should have their counting stats discounted, without taking into consideration that QB is a more utilized position in the modern game and thus the better ones have greater influence over the outcome of games and are more valuable.
Yes. In the future we will see less RBs get into the hall of fame, because the style of play has made RBs less valuable. I think the opposite trend may happen for QBs (and WRs). I don't think we should dismiss the modern QB numbers for coming in such as a big passing era without at least taking into consideration that the reason they have those numbers is because they are being relied on more to win games than their predecessors.Is the argument then that QB becoming a more valuable position should lead to more QBs being induced into the HoF?
It could also be argued that you're overcomplicating things.Something to think about: People always talk about passing statistics as a way to discredit the current stats being put up by modern players, since it is such a pass happy league and teams throw way more than they used too. That is true; but when it comes to evaluating current players vs older QBs, I think we should keep in mind that because teams are throwing more often today, it means that being a QB is more valuable than at any other point in football history. Rivers has better counting numbers than Elway; sure we can write that off as circumstances of Rivers playing in a pass-happy era; BUT we have to also acknowledge the fact that Rivers was more valuable than Elway to his team because of the era he played in, where you pretty much had to have a QB who throws for 4,000 yards to be competitive.
I don't think Rivers is better than Elway, but it's not a zero-sum situation where all modern QBs should have their counting stats discounted, without taking into consideration that QB is a more utilized position in the modern game and thus the better ones have greater influence over the outcome of games and are more valuable.
I'm not saying at all that Rivers was better than Elway or Marino; just that we can't inherently dismiss the larger numbers that QBs are putting up today as a symptom of the pass-happy league without also considering that QBs are more integral to team success today because passing such a larger part of the game. Elway, FWIW, seems really overrated to me. Rivers has a lot more black ink on his Pro Football Reference page than Elway. I never saw Elway play and everybody did swears that he was a god among men, so I'll differ to them.I subscribe to the Bill Simmons theory on the HOF - when this guy
It could also be argued that you're overcomplicating things.
IMO, it's apparent that guys who would have put up decent numbers in the 80s or 90s (like towards the bottom of the top 10 QBs in the league), are now the Phil Rivers and Matt Ryans of the league, putting up huge numbers but still in that 8-12 or so range among contemporary QBs.
The more interesting argument, and the one that is harder to speculate on, is what would the tippy top of the NFL guys from that era have done in today's league, and vice versa. Would Dan Marino be better than Peyton Manning if he had been drafted in 2000? Would Manning or Brady have dominated the league even more in the previous era, or struggled with the less favorable rules, less sophisticated offenses, and less talented receivers.
That stuff is interesting. The idea that Phil Rivers is comparable to John Elway or Dan Marino? That doesn't pass the smell test at all.
Elway took the Broncos to 5 superbowls and won 2. Rivers still has his cherry.Something to think about: People always talk about passing statistics as a way to discredit the current stats being put up by modern players, since it is such a pass happy league and teams throw way more than they used too. That is true; but when it comes to evaluating current players vs older QBs, I think we should keep in mind that because teams are throwing more often today, it means that being a QB is more valuable than at any other point in football history. Rivers has better counting numbers than Elway; sure we can write that off as circumstances of Rivers playing in a pass-happy era; BUT we have to also acknowledge the fact that Rivers was more valuable than Elway to his team because of the era he played in, where you pretty much had to have a QB who throws for 4,000 yards to be competitive.
I don't think Rivers is better than Elway, but it's not a zero-sum situation where all modern QBs should have their counting stats discounted, without taking into consideration that QB is a more utilized position in the modern game and thus the better ones have greater influence over the outcome of games and are more valuable.
Elway is massively overrated, he belongs far more in the Rivers grouping than either belong with Marino. If you look at his performance relative to the league, it's similar (maybe a tiny bit worse) to Rivers, he was never the best QB in the league, and he never really challenged for it. He was a pro-bowler not a All-Pro, and honestly did it in a less QB heavy era.That stuff is interesting. The idea that Phil Rivers is comparable to John Elway or Dan Marino? That doesn't pass the smell test at all.
He wasn't washed when they won Super Bowls, though. He was the 7th ranked QB by DVOA in 98 and 3rd in 99.Elway is massively overrated, he belongs far more in the Rivers grouping than either belong with Marino. If you look at his performance relative to the league, it's similar (maybe a tiny bit worse) to Rivers, he was never the best QB in the league, and he never really challenged for it. He was a pro-bowler not a All-Pro, and honestly did it in a less QB heavy era.
They are very similar, in that they were guys who for a long time were "one of the best QBs" without ever really being in the conversation for best QB in any given year.
I can get the idea that Elway's team success (though he was pretty washed by the time they actually won SuperBowls), makes him a more clear-cut HOFer, but their on-field performance relative to their peers is very similar.
The first three super bowls that Elway went to, his postseason numbers were as follows (all stats come from three games played):Elway took the Broncos to 5 superbowls and won 2. Rivers still has his cherry.
Elway was a great QB and a lot better than Rivers and more valuable however you want to slice it..
You are so wrong re their relative value to one another it is not worth debating.
The difference between 1960-2000 QB play and the how the game is played versus the post-Polian "let Peyton play" rules is night and day.
Theres a reason why the Post-Polian QBs dominate the top 10 in passing stats, and its not because they're all great HoF QBs.
in the past I used about a 20% discount on post-Polian QBs to adjust for the change in play and rules. It might be closer to 25% as rules get looser and looser to protect and enhance franchise assets .
More is put on QBs, but the flip side is it is so much easier to play QB.The first three super bowls that Elway went to, his postseason numbers were as follows (all stats come from three games played):
1986: 53% completion percentage, 805 yards, 3 TDs, 4 INTs
1987: 47% completion percentage, 797 yards, 6 TDs, 5 INTs
1989: 51% completion percentage, 732 yards, 4 TDs, 3 INTs
Do you think that a team in this era could consistently reach the playoffs with that kind of statistical performance from their QB? I don't think so. QB play simply plays a bigger role in today's game than it did in Elway's prime, and teams would need to have pretty much really stellar QB play to make it to the Super Bowl, especially with the kind of consistency that Elway did. The role simply demands more, more passing attempts and more production from the QB position for teams to win.
That is what I mean when I say that we can't just dismiss the enhanced statistics guys are putting up today without also acknowledging that teams demand more from the position. But if you want to bang your fist on the table and shout "John Elway was great dammit!" go right ahead. I don't even disagree! I just think that we should be open to thinking about the true value of QB play in the modern game.
The Broncos with Peyton Manning did. And they (he) won a ring and also lost one.The first three super bowls that Elway went to, his postseason numbers were as follows (all stats come from three games played):
1986: 53% completion percentage, 805 yards, 3 TDs, 4 INTs
1987: 47% completion percentage, 797 yards, 6 TDs, 5 INTs
1989: 51% completion percentage, 732 yards, 4 TDs, 3 INTs
Do you think that a team in this era could consistently reach the playoffs with that kind of statistical performance from their QB?
I don't think so. QB play simply plays a bigger role in today's game than it did in Elway's prime, and teams would need to have pretty much really stellar QB play to make it to the Super Bowl, especially with the kind of consistency that Elway did. The role simply demands more, more passing attempts and more production from the QB position for teams to win.
That is what I mean when I say that we can't just dismiss the enhanced statistics guys are putting up today without also acknowledging that teams demand more from the position. But if you want to bang your fist on the table and shout "John Elway was great dammit!" go right ahead. I don't even disagree! I just think that we should be open to thinking about the true value of QB play in the modern game.
wow, you're right, a case of me not double checking as I just remembered the defense and running game carrying those teams.He wasn't washed when they won Super Bowls, though. He was the 7th ranked QB by DVOA in 98 and 3rd in 99.
The first three super bowls that Elway went to, his postseason numbers were as follows (all stats come from three games played):
1986: 53% completion percentage, 805 yards, 3 TDs, 4 INTs
1987: 47% completion percentage, 797 yards, 6 TDs, 5 INTs
1989: 51% completion percentage, 732 yards, 4 TDs, 3 INTs
Do you think that a team in this era could consistently reach the playoffs with that kind of statistical performance from their QB?
That was my recollection too, but the Broncos were actually quite pass-heavy in Elway’s early years — the Dolphins were the only good team that consistently threw the ball more than the Broncos. (Guys like Neil Lomax and early-career Jim Kelly threw the ball a ton too, but crappy teams always end up throwing a lot.)The Elway Broncos (Winder, Davis) ran the ball a lot more than the Rivers Chargers. L.T. was pretty much done when Rivers took over.
And there is something to be said about retiring the Super Bowl Champ / MVP that may influence "sportswriters"
Mauf, I'm not cherry picking games. Those are the playoff games Elway played in during his first three trips to the Super Bowl. His stats are mediocre; but that is the point. Mediocre play from your QB could get you to the Super Bowl year-after-year; because QB was not as important of a position as it would be in subsequent generations. It would be very rare for a QB with that kind of stat line to consistently find their way into the Super Bowl in today's NFL; on the rare occasion it does happen, such as Manning's two SB wins, it is because they were absolutely carried by their defenses.Elway was probably the only QB in his generation that had the combination of athleticism and preternatural throwing skills that pretty much every great QB who has entered the league in the past 15 years possesses. Maybe he wouldn’t have been good, but cherry-picking nine games that were played in the month of January against elite competition doesn’t really show anything.
Given his size and athleticism, I bet Elway in today’s game would be a lot like Josh Allen. Huge arm, could run, tough as nails.Elway was probably the only QB in his generation that had the combination of athleticism and preternatural throwing skills that pretty much every great QB who has entered the league in the past 15 years possesses. Maybe he wouldn’t have been good, but cherry-picking nine games that were played in the month of January against elite competition doesn’t really show anything.
Elway was big and athletic for the 80s, for 2020? 6'3" isn't that big for a modern QB, and the league wide athleticism has skyrocketed, there are dozens of quicker QBs in the league now than him.Given his size and athleticism, I bet Elway in today’s game would be a lot like Josh Allen. Huge arm, could run, tough as nails.
Agreed but he’s as big as Mahomes. And plenty athletic enough to run in today’s game. He’s not Marino or Brady.Elway was big and athletic for the 80s, for 2020? 6'3" isn't that big for a modern QB, and the league wide athleticism has skyrocketed, there are dozens of quicker QBs in the league now than him.
I'd love to see Phil Rivers try and play against the 1986 Giants defense, under 1986 rules.The first three super bowls that Elway went to, his postseason numbers were as follows (all stats come from three games played):
1986: 53% completion percentage, 805 yards, 3 TDs, 4 INTs
1987: 47% completion percentage, 797 yards, 6 TDs, 5 INTs
1989: 51% completion percentage, 732 yards, 4 TDs, 3 INTs
Do you think that a team in this era could consistently reach the playoffs with that kind of statistical performance from their QB? I don't think so. QB play simply plays a bigger role in today's game than it did in Elway's prime, and teams would need to have pretty much really stellar QB play to make it to the Super Bowl, especially with the kind of consistency that Elway did. The role simply demands more, more passing attempts and more production from the QB position for teams to win.
That is what I mean when I say that we can't just dismiss the enhanced statistics guys are putting up today without also acknowledging that teams demand more from the position. But if you want to bang your fist on the table and shout "John Elway was great dammit!" go right ahead. I don't even disagree! I just think that we should be open to thinking about the true value of QB play in the modern game.
Elway was plenty quick enough to run a read option. And he was the best in his generation at extending the play by eluding pressure, though he took more than his share of sacks.Elway was big and athletic for the 80s, for 2020? 6'3" isn't that big for a modern QB, and the league wide athleticism has skyrocketed, there are dozens of quicker QBs in the league now than him.
Mediocre quarterback play could not get you to the Super Bowl year after year in the 1980s. The better way to understand it is that, back then, really good QB play would result in stats that, if compared to stats in today's game, appear "mediocre".Mauf, I'm not cherry picking games. Those are the playoff games Elway played in during his first three trips to the Super Bowl. His stats are mediocre; but that is the point. Mediocre play from your QB could get you to the Super Bowl year-after-year; because QB was not as important of a position as it would be in subsequent generations. It would be very rare for a QB with that kind of stat line to consistently find their way into the Super Bowl in today's NFL; on the rare occasion it does happen, such as Manning's two SB wins, it is because they were absolutely carried by their defenses.
Definitely on the Mount Rushmore of NFL breeding along with Antonio Cromartie.He's a HoF serial breeder. I'll give him that.
Agree on the Pittsburgh piece, agree on 2006. That team was a juggernaut that choked.Rivers is a good example of the way in which football is not baseball in terms of player assessment.
Had he played for, say, Pittsburgh he would have been a lock for the HOF. His teams -- even with good records, like 06 and 09, were not really sure thing, complete or great teams. He was great, great great for a window of years there. He just never got the lightening in the bottle.
The 2006 Chargers were a monster of a team. 1st in DVOA with top tier talent all over the field.Rivers is a good example of the way in which football is not baseball in terms of player assessment.
Had he played for, say, Pittsburgh he would have been a lock for the HOF. His teams -- even with good records, like 06 and 09, were not really sure thing, complete or great teams. He was great, great great for a window of years there. He just never got the lightening in the bottle.
It is crazy they lost to that Pats team, I never would’ve gotten over that fumble by McCree off the interception. That Chargers team - as they always did - would’ve beaten Indy and won the SB. Hell, Indy caught the massive breaks of a flu ridden Pats team, Reche Caldwell, and a recovered fumble in the EZ as it was.The 2006 Chargers were a monster of a team. 1st in DVOA with top tier talent all over the field.
You're right, and when I posted that I considered adding a long footnote about 06, that simply boiled down to observing that they also had the misfortune of banging into an AFC bracket that included the Pats and Colts, both of which were monster teams and neither of which had they played during the regular season. The Chargers only lost two games that year, one to Balt, the other AFC division winner, and one to KC, one of the two other AFC playoff teams. They didn't play the Jets. They also played only one NFC playoff team -- the 9-7 Seahawks.The 2006 Chargers were a monster of a team. 1st in DVOA with top tier talent all over the field.
Great point. Imagine if the Pats were never good again after 2010. We'd all be so, so bitter to have wasted that opportunity.The 2006 Chargers were basically the 2010 Patriots in terms of a great team meeting a premature, fluky, disappointing end. For the Patriots, that 2010 team was ultimately like, the 14th most successful Patriots team of the last 20 years. For the Chargers, that was arguably their best team ever, even if a few others advanced farther in the playoffs. A pretty bitter pill to swallow for sure.