Rivers - HoF?

I think he is., by both counting & quality stats

I felt he was the most talented and the most successful of that draft class, unless success is measured by SBs

I think in five years when he is eligible, voters will be “Meh” to him.

He didn’t have any big game moments (like Eli and Big Ben), and his stats may be good, but this is an era where QB stats are crazy good.

He probably will be voted in (not first ballot), but I don’t think he belongs.

Of the active (and recently retired), my order. I do not value the SB as much as many. It is a talented group.


Ryan & Eli would be the most debatable of this group, though Eli’s SBs will most likely get him in. Nobody else worthy of discussion have enough seasons yet to discuss.

Ken Anderson, imo, is the best QB, eligible and not enshrined

1 Like

Eli will have comparisons to Jim Plunkett. Won 2 SBs, not a fantastic QB otherwise. He might get in off those postseason performances, though.

Rivers probably gets in, but it probably takes a clearing of obviously-qualified people first so we’re talking a number of years.

Ryan is a real toss-up IMO. I don’t see him getting in.

As much as I dislike Ben Rothlisberger I’m not sure how you put Rivers ahead of him. Other than the missed year for injury Ben’s passing line is the same as Rivers with more winning in both the regular and post season.

I didn’t

Yeah your ranking has Ben above Rivers but your original post seems to indicate Rivers above Ben and Eli since they were the 3 QBs in the first round that year. Pretty awesome overall draft class with Ben sure fire HOF based on stats and SBs and 2 borderline candidates in Rivers and Eli for other reasons.

It’s kind of crazy that Eli and Rivers were traded for each other on draft day (along with the pick that would become Shawn Merriman I believe) and both might one day be in the HoF.

The clearing depends on who else steps down this year and next.

Rodgers, Wilson & Ryan are the only ones I am sure will continue
Peyton, obvious 1st Ballot and will be cleared.

If Brady, Brees & Roeth continue, then there might be an opening.

Plunkett, in terms of quality & quantity, even for the era difference is far below Eli.
Plunkett never even made a Pro-Bowl. Maybe best compared to Flacco

I think Rivers was the best of the three, but since so close the SBs put Roeth ahead of him for HoF consideration.

I agree with that. Plunkett’s HOF qualification really comes down to was the starting QB for 2 Super Bowl champions. He was a .500 QB, had more INTs than TDs, had 20 TDs passing in a season once, never even passed for 3000 yards. The only possible plus is that you look solely at his career with the Raiders, where he was 38-19 but still … 80 TDs, 81 INTs.

Manning has a 2nd SB MVP, and if you think Pro Bowls are a thing he has 4 of those. Better passing yards in a pass-friendly era, better TD/INT ratio because the passing game has evolved, but 117-117 overall record. Led the league in INTs 3 times. Never won a playoff game outside of the 2 SB trips. But … 2 SB MVPs, against the league’s premier dynasty, once that thwarted a perfect season, both times with late 4th quarter drives. Do those postseason heroics carry the day?

Rivers? Better regular season record, 12 times passing for 4000+ yards, 2-to-1 TD/INT ratio. Really it hangs on 8 Pro Bowls + stat accumulation + an argument that he never had the complete team other guys did + saying he ran into the Patriots 3 times in the postseason. I think 60000+ passing yards and the didn’t have high quality teams for his career argument drags him in, but it will take a while.

Someone mentioned Kenny Anderson. That’s an interesting one. First, he was on mostly lousy teams. Second, he was in the same division as the Steelers which made getting out difficult for a while. But, he was a fairly efficient passer for his time in terms of completion%. The only guys whose careers started in the 70s that are ahead of him are Kenny Stabler, Danny White (started '76 but really didn’t play QB until '80) and Joe Montana (started '79). He had the MVP season in '81 and was All-Pro that year (something none of the above have on their resume) and would have won a SB if not for Montana. Is that enough? I think you’d have to make the “in the context of guys in his era” argument + the “he really had not much else on offense” argument, and I think that’s too much for most voters to excuse.

Shows how old I am, I immediately thought this was some sort of Mickey Rivers thread. Color me disappointed.

All in all I think lack of Pro-bowls means more than having some.

The TD / Int ratio for when Plunkett played means so little. Passing was down the field, running was ball control. Namath, Stabler. Bradshaw Unitas Starr Griese - none had good ratios. It was a different game

Unitas and Tarekenton were outliers in that era. 40K and 47K yard passing for careers that ended in 73 and 78. No one else is in the neighborhood.

Good post. Ken Anderson should be in IMO.

I think it’s pretty likely that all these players will eventually get in. Rivers, Ryan, Eli, and Wilson would be the question marks now for me. Eli will get in based on SB’s, but I would not vote for him given his high % of mediocre seasons. Despite his SB’s, his playoff stats aren’t great either. He had one magical season, but that’s not enough for me. Wilson might not be in if his career ended today, but I think he’s a lock if he keeps playing like expected. Rivers and Ryan have similar arguments now and are on the bubble, but Ryan has a little more time to make his case.

The QB HOF monitor that profootballreference does is pretty good: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/hof/hofm_QB.htm

My take: Eli is a borderline case. Rivers is better than Eli.
As far as the team wins goes. Lets be honest here. How many more games would the Chargers have won in his last 4 years there with a League Average Special Teams group? 10? 14? The Chargers found LOTS of new and interesting ways to loose close games that were not Rivers’ fault.

I agree that “Wins” is a stupid measure of a quarterback. QB has a job. Doing it well, compared to others of his era, should be the measure.
So, what is “doing it well”? Oh, here are some ideas: TD:INT ratio; Offensive points scored; YPA; fumbles;…

I was using that, not sure of the metrics, but the results I found reasonable

Hate the TD/Int ratio. There has to be a way to measure Team offensive scores and not worry how they scored.

So much of passing TDs and passing INT are benefited by other circumstances: tips, great plays by receivers who are where they are supposed to be per the play or know their scramble route, etc. I prefer INT/Attempt, but that is not comparable to historical QB’s. Need a “InT/Att+” stat, maybe.

Pretty sure Offensive Scores are tabulated. GB had 31.8 offensive points per game this year. LV was the highest-ranked non-playoff team with 27.1.

The QB leads the offense, has to change the play at the line based on what the defense is showing, has to fake them with effective play/action, etc. Doing these well leads to offensive scores. But, if his offensive line stinks, the QB will be rated as “stinks” as well.

Yes there is a lot of luck in TD/INT for a given season. Over a career that tends to even out. What effects is more overall in my opinion is how often a QB is playing from behind late in close games. If you’re trying to force throws late in 1-score games you get more interceptions. Not because you were a bad player but because you were fighting the clock and the defense knew it.