Rivers career peak was 2008-2010, which is not a part of that analysis. There's an argument he was the best QB in the league over that three year span. He led the league in ANY/A+ twice and and NY/A+ all three years. By DVOA the passing offense was 1,1,2 for those three years. Luck hasnt had a season as good as any of those Rivers seasons, or Rivers '13 season for that matter. Rivers is ninth all time in ANY/A. Hard to compare eras, but most of the attempts at era adjusted QB rankings Ive seen have Rivers, at worst, comfortably within the top 20 of all time. Its more accurate to say that Luck is just as good as Rivers, if Luck plays 8 more years and is the very best quarterback in the league for three of them. SD has never had a below average passing offense by DVOA with Rivers at QB and has been in the top ten by DVOA in 8 or 9 of his seasons without what I would call a bevy of WR talent around him (obviously had LDT and Gates at the peak). Plays 16 games every year and played the AFCCG against the Patriots on a wrecked knee, he's a tough dude.OK i can see the argument and i probably could have found a better example of a "toolsy QB" to contrast against.
But just to compare nits
Since 2010 Rivers is
51-61 over that 7 year span
We can quibble that "Win loss is a bad indicator" but is it really for a QB? (since 2010) Brady (ok unfair) Brees (63-48), Rodgers (73-30) Eli (58-54), Big Ben (63-34) Palmer (47-45), Stafford (49-50), A Smith (63-32).
Yes he puts up great numbers. For instance he is 8th all time in TDs with 314. However 4.5 of those ahead of him all played in the same era (Manning, Favre (the .5), Brees, Brady, Manning with Big Ben in 9th).
Or Yards. Rivers is 12th all time. with 5.5 contemporaries in front of him.
Passer Rating? Rivers is 8th with 6 contemporaries in front and Big Ben nipping at his heels.
He has ONE award (2013 Comeback Player of the year) but 6 Pro Bowls and 2 all pros (which is a little better then Big Ben) so that might be a plus.
His has NEVER thrown for more then 299 yards in the playoffs (high of 298 and averages 240) 11 TDs 9 Ints in 9 games in which he is 4-5
Seeing as you brought up Luck.
Luck since 2012 has 19078 yards in 70 games (272.5 per)
Rivers since 2012 has 21548 in 80 games (269.4 per)
Lucks Int % is 2.6
Rivers Int % is 2.7
Lucks TD % is 5
Rivers TD% is 5.2
Luck is 43-27
Rivers is 34-46
So Luck is as good as Rivers, just minus 8 additional years of counting stats and some seriously good durability.
I think Rivers (and many of Todays QBs) are a result of the era. (I know, quite a ledge i am on.)
He definitely belongs in the Hall of Very Good next to Bledsoe (and IMHO Romo).
All that said. You are totally right, he will make the hall cause the FBHOF is kinda a joke. But I am not sure he is "Criminally under appreciated"
How much you want to bet? On talent, he could have been, but with his team and lack of accomplishments, he'll at least be made to wait his turn, if not fail to get in altogether. Just one first-team all-pro, and the one year he led the league in passer rating (2008), he finished 6th in MVP. He got 3rd (2 votes) in 2009, and other than that never received a single MVP vote.In what alternate reality is Philip Rivers not a first ballot Hall of Fame selection?
Love this topic & breaking it out.NIT ALERT: With Tony Romo retired, Phil Rivers takes over the mantle as "borderline HOF QB who has gone criminally underappreciated by the public". I consider myself a pretty big Andrew Luck fan, but he's not as good as Philip Rivers as of yet.
Ehh, it's more that the HOF should be a lot smaller than it is; when you expand it to include Romo/Rivers-types, it becomes a lot less meaningful.Once again affirming the SOSH consensus all time QB rating list
1) Tom Brady
2) Who cares everyone else sucks
Andrew Luck, of course, is not "underappreciated by the public." Before last season I saw some lists of top quarterbacks and Luck was generally at #2 (behind Rodgers). So far I would take Manning's post-Colt career over Luck's Colt career but I'm sure that will change, eventually. But I will say that even though I compare Luck to Bledsoe ( he, too, was once once #2 in the eyes of many) a lot, I know there is a possibility Luck ends up in a different stratoshphere than Drew.NIT ALERT: With Tony Romo retired, Phil Rivers takes over the mantle as "borderline HOF QB who has gone criminally underappreciated by the public". I consider myself a pretty big Andrew Luck fan, but he's not as good as Philip Rivers as of yet.
Its tongue in cheek, but yeah, Id say our view of QBs is pretty jaded we say things like "well he's only been in the top 6 or 7 QBs in the league except for that three year stretch where he led the league's best offense"Really stitch? That's your takeaway?
Baka is putting a lot of time, thought, and effort into his posts, and I agree with much of what he has written. While Rivers has mostly been in the top 6-7 QBs in the league during his career, he has rarely been in the top 3. Being in the top 20% doesn't make you a hall of famer. As baka stated, when he had Gates and Tomlinson, his offenses put up great numbers. Rivers doesn't have super elite counting or rate stats, he doesn't have team success, he doesn't have individual awards... he may make the hall, but it is going to take a while given all of the other QBs who are likely to go in from this era - Peyton, Brees, Ben, Brady, and likely Eli.
Edit: I should add that I like Rivers. I didn't like him for the first half of his career - thought he talked too much, etc. - but I have really come to respect his toughness and leadership. Dude is a gamer.
Double edit: since this is a Jimmy G thread, I'll tie it back by saying this - we'd all be THRILLED if Jimmy is as good as Rivers. Or even close to it.
Id have him above Kelly, Aikman, and Moon (based on NFL play). Elway is one Id have to think about, they're strengths and weaknesses are so different. Warner probably based on longevity when the full career is in the books.Yea I dont think thats fair Stitch. I conceeded that imho (and its just that) Rivers is very good. Very good is , well very good. He just hasnt been "As elite" as about 4 or 5 guys who played during his career window. Thats weird to me. Instead we say he didnt have ownership, or the right coaching or enough weapons.
Dude is tough and if JG becomes something close to Rivers I would be thrilled and happy to have the Patriots in his hands for the next 10 years.
So do we think that this has been a golden age of QBs and Rivers is top 10-15 all time but only top 6 during his era?
I am probably forgetting some "modern" QBs.
Where would Rivers rank in this list in your opinion?
There is a term called "Hall of Very Good" for a reason.Its tongue in cheek, but yeah, Id say our view of QBs is pretty jaded we say things like "well he's only been in the top 6 or 7 QBs in the league except for that three year stretch where he led the league's best offense"
I can guarantee you that will be a major factor in the HOF voters' minds, at least when you're talking about QBs. With great hero-worship comes great responsibility to actually take the team somewhere.The awards argument strikes me as especially dumb. You are going to punish him for playing in the same era as the two greatest QB's / players of all time?
Rivers for me is about the fulcrum pick. Id add Brady, Manning, Rodgers, Romo, Brees, Roethlisberger. Eli will make it but shouldnt. This looks only slightly heavier QB wise than HOF's from previous ERA's which, given this was the age of the QB and the passing game (might not all be the rules, the next generation of QBs isnt off to as strong of a start), doesnt strike me as crazy.Ehh, it's more that the HOF should be a lot smaller than it is; when you expand it to include Romo/Rivers-types, it becomes a lot less meaningful.
If you have Brady, P. Manning, Rodgers, Favre, E. Manning, Brees, Roethlisberger, Romo, Rivers, Warner in, then you're, what, a good argument for McNabb, Pennington, or Garcia away from saying that basically 1/3 of starting QBs in the league in 2008 were HOFers? At what point do you realize it's become a joke?
IMO you should have to roughly be one of the best/most famous couple of players at your position over the course of a 10 year span or so (these spans can overlap, so it's more than an average of 2 simultaneous players). You can maybe stretch that a little if you think there are 3-4 players who are historically great simultaneously, or if someone has a ridiculous shorter peak (especially as a RB or something with less longevity).
Brady, P. Manning, Favre, yeah, probably Rodgers,but even by the time you get to Brees, Roethlisberger, Warner etc (let alone Romo or Rivers) I'd have them on the outside barring an argument I haven't heard yet.
He was compared to Drew Bledsoe ITT and I still think you are underrating "just outside the top 5 outside of the 3 year stretch where he was the most effective QB in the league", but JMHOI keep seeing comments that he is underrated / undervalued / underestimated / whatever. Maybe from a public perspective. But I think within the confines of this thread there seems to be general agreement that he has been in that range just outside the top 5 QBs aside from a few elite years. We all realize he has been a top 6-7 QB in the league. It's not like anyone here is saying he's middle of the pack.
Since the rest of us seem to agree that Rivers fits the "borderline-HOF" tag, the question of how under-appreciated he is is far more interesting. And certainly, his lack of glamourous popularity-contest qualifications adds to the evidence of Rivers being underappreciated.In what alternate reality is Philip Rivers not a first ballot Hall of Fame selection?
How on earth can you argue that Brady/Rodgers/Brees overcame bad coaching and/or ownership? I'd agree that Manning had to, to an extent.His coaching has probably sucked, as has his ownership. But No worse then Luck (who you mentioned) or about 20 other teams. A Great (IE HOF) QB should transcend that. Brees did. Rodgers did/does. Brady has. Peyton did (at least in the regular season).
Could have sworn I had said something about "being let down by one unit on his team." But obviously I didnt.How on earth can you argue that Brady/Rodgers/Brees overcame bad coaching and/or ownership? I'd agree that Manning had to, to an extent.
I wont argue that Eli WONT be in. But SHOULD he?Based on this it would be hard to put Eli in but exclude Rivers. Of course if it were up to me, I think only Ben would be in the HoF of the three, but if Eli is in, I think Rivers has to go too.
Era adjusted, Boomer's 85-89 run was really good, with ANY/A+ of 125, 128, 107, 136, and 120. He is surprisingly close to both Marino and Montana during that specific five year stretch and overall I'd say it compares pretty well with Rivers 2006-10. Rivers has been better when tailing off late career though. Boomer had a couple real stinkers in 1992 and 1995, which Rivers has never had.He was compared to Drew Bledsoe ITT and I still think you are underrating "just outside the top 5 outside of the 3 year stretch where he was the most effective QB in the league", but JMHO
The Boomer comp was a decent one in terms of career arch, but Boomer's best wasnt as good as Rivers.
Rivers: 6.84 careerYeah their peaks are probably closer than I thought, I have a hard time finding comprehensive ANY/A+ stats for some reason.
Ha. Out of curiosity I checked Brady. 7-0, 17-2 TD-INT, ridiculous completetion %, rating, etc.I've witnessed Rivers' last three games in Jacksonville. In 7 games against the Jags he's a HOF'er... too bad he didn't get to play them twice a year.
He'll get an eighth shot at the JAX defense this fall. I'd expect more of the same.
Great post.Ken Anderson deserves consideration as his generation's Rivers. From 1972-83, his ANY/A+'s were 110, 121, 124, 129 (led league), 112, 110, 90, 105, 85, 136 (led league), 121 and 108 playing in a cold-weather division with the Steel Curtain. There's a bad three-year period in there but he was a very good player for a 12-year stretch and he at least went to a Super Bowl. The fact that he's out and Warren Moon, who has inferior numbers playing his entire career in a dome and didn't win a thing is in is an absolute joke. He was also considerably better than Ken Stabler but didn't have the luxury of playing with a bunch of HOFers, as the only one he played with in their prime was Munoz.