Mitch the silent assassin

Leon Sandcastle

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Feb 5, 2013
Posts:
4,193
Liked Posts:
3,506
Eli accomplished 13 years of complete fail too, often noted as the Giants key weakness. If you want to elevate him for his teams' success in 2 years then you should elevate all those other QBs as well. Pro Bowls are meaningless. All you need is a recognizable surname to get voted in.
Everyone agrees with that. It doesn't change the fact that he has accomplished more than any QB on your list. I think Eli sucks but he will be in the HOF.
 

Warrior Spirit

The Truth
Donator
Joined:
Sep 12, 2010
Posts:
41,611
Liked Posts:
13,639
Strictly speaking Manning doesn't deserve the HoF but he sure as shit is going to get in. And I am going to laugh my ass off at all the people that will be shocked and distraught about it.
I won't be surprised at all having already seen the fallacy in past voting and how QBs are elevated by SB wins. Certainly get a boost from the last name as well.

I am just of the opinion a HOF player should represent greatness throughout the majority of his career. In 87% of the seasons he played, the Giants didn't even win a playoff game and he was never among the top 10 or even 15 QBs in the league, struggling to even be within the top 20 most of the time. In comparison to his brother, he looks like Rex Grossman.
 

Novak

Mod in Training/Fire Forum
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '21
Joined:
Sep 7, 2014
Posts:
16,087
Liked Posts:
12,652
I think Eli sucks but he will be in the HOF.
I disagree. He has 2 SB's and another important factor as well; longevity, so it's not like it's out the realm of possibility or anything, but I think his mediocre at absolute best yearly averages hold him out. Eli has never had a season where he finished as a top 5 QB statistically, ever. Go look at other HoF QBs, that's just simply not the case. HoF is really a judgement of your performance vs your peers.

He definitely isn't a 1st ballot guy, that's 100% certain.
 

WestCoastBearsFan

Well-known member
Joined:
Dec 25, 2017
Posts:
16,893
Liked Posts:
12,115
My favorite teams
  1. Los Angeles Lakers
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Los Angeles Kings
  1. Clemson Tigers
Eli accomplished 13 years of complete fail too, often noted as the Giants key weakness. If you want to elevate him for his teams' success in 2 years then you should elevate all those other QBs as well. Pro Bowls are meaningless. All you need is a recognizable surname to get voted in.
Literally the only QB you listed with a comparable resumé to Eli is Bob Griese... who is in the HOF.
 

Leon Sandcastle

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Feb 5, 2013
Posts:
4,193
Liked Posts:
3,506
I disagree. He has 2 SB's and another important factor as well; longevity, so it's not like it's out the realm of possibility or anything, but I think his mediocre at absolute best yearly averages hold him out. Eli has never had a season where he finished as a top 5 QB statistically, ever. Go look at other HoF QBs, that's just simply not the case. HoF is really a judgement of your performance vs your peers.

He definitely isn't a 1st ballot guy, that's 100% certain.
I want to agree but depending on the class when he retires he does have a chance to be first ballot. This in no way means i think he deserves it. I think he gets in strictly for beating Brady twice.
This means i think Trubs is better than a future HOF QB,,,,
Come at me Bro's!
giphy.gif
 

Warrior Spirit

The Truth
Donator
Joined:
Sep 12, 2010
Posts:
41,611
Liked Posts:
13,639
Literally the only QB you listed with a comparable resumé to Eli is Bob Griese... who is in the HOF.
Those Dolphins were never about him. They were about the relentless run game with Csonka, Kiick, Morris and Warfield at WR and a stifling defense throughout. His son could have had just as much success with them.
 

WestCoastBearsFan

Well-known member
Joined:
Dec 25, 2017
Posts:
16,893
Liked Posts:
12,115
My favorite teams
  1. Los Angeles Lakers
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Los Angeles Kings
  1. Clemson Tigers
Those Dolphins were never about him. They were about the relentless run game with Csonka, Kiick, Morris and Warfield at WR and a stifling defense throughout. His son could have had just as much success with them.
And yet he’s still in the hall of fame. You’re just proving my point.
 

Gustavus Adolphus

?‍♂️?
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '20
Joined:
Jun 15, 2010
Posts:
44,594
Liked Posts:
39,191
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago White Sox
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Nebraska Cornhuskers
  2. Villanova Wildcats
'Assassin' doesn't really seem appropriate these days, "Silent Virtue Signaler"?
 

WestCoastBearsFan

Well-known member
Joined:
Dec 25, 2017
Posts:
16,893
Liked Posts:
12,115
My favorite teams
  1. Los Angeles Lakers
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Los Angeles Kings
  1. Clemson Tigers
By the way I asked the posters here if they think, or know anybody who does, that DVOA is “subjective” and not a single one said they do. Maybe you’re just the dope @Spartan ?
 

Novak

Mod in Training/Fire Forum
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '21
Joined:
Sep 7, 2014
Posts:
16,087
Liked Posts:
12,652
By the way I asked the posters here if they think, or know anybody who does, that DVOA is “subjective” and not a single one said they do. Maybe you’re just the dope @Spartan ?
Here, I'll help:

DVOA is an objective compiling of set statistics. It's standardized and measured with the same objective stats every time. It's objective.

However, all stats can be applied to reach subjective conclusions and never really tell the whole "story", as context is always pretty important. DVOA is no different.

You guys are just arguing 2 sides of the same damn coin.
 

WestCoastBearsFan

Well-known member
Joined:
Dec 25, 2017
Posts:
16,893
Liked Posts:
12,115
My favorite teams
  1. Los Angeles Lakers
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Los Angeles Kings
  1. Clemson Tigers
Here, I'll help:

DVOA is an objective compiling of set statistics. It's standardized and measured with the same objective stats every time. It's objective.

However, all stats can be applied to reach subjective conclusions and never really tell the whole "story", as context is always pretty important. DVOA is no different.

You guys are just arguing 2 sides of the same damn coin.
No see he said the stat itself was subjective though. I agree the importance of the stat is subjective as opposed to the actual stat itself.
 

MDB111™

O Doyle Rules
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '22
Joined:
Oct 7, 2011
Posts:
20,740
Liked Posts:
19,792
Location:
Dongbears is thee worst!
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Maryland Terrapins
How do you measure TTFD?
 

TheWinman

2020 CCS Survivor Fantasy Football Champion
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
7,042
Liked Posts:
2,687
Location:
Ann Arbor, MI
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago White Sox
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. Notre Dame Fighting Irish
Brady being bad under pressure is a well known fact in the NFL. It’s the only reason Eli Manning is a Hall of Fame QB that will retire with 2 SBs. Of course I wouldn’t expect a confirmed idiot like spartan to know that.
Dude, I was with you in the shitfest with Spartan, but you lost with the ELi crap. Eli is never going into the HOF
 

Warrior Spirit

The Truth
Donator
Joined:
Sep 12, 2010
Posts:
41,611
Liked Posts:
13,639
These guys do not compare.....At all. Not even close
Sure about that? Plunkett and Theisman both had far superior post season numbers even though they were in an earlier era. Flacco's SB run was epic. If you want to put that much emphasis on SB wins, surely he's more deserving. Simms also played lights outduring his post season SB run with the Giants. Even Hostetler had superior post season rating to Eli.
And yet he’s still in the hall of fame. You’re just proving my point.
No, cause I already noted the fallacy of past HOF voting.
By the way I asked the posters here if they think, or know anybody who does, that DVOA is “subjective” and not a single one said they do. Maybe you’re just the dope @Spartan ?
Nobody likes you and doesn't want to respond to you. The only way anyone could possibly think it's not subjective is if they either don't know the meaning of the word subjective or don't know how DVOA is calculated.
 

WestCoastBearsFan

Well-known member
Joined:
Dec 25, 2017
Posts:
16,893
Liked Posts:
12,115
My favorite teams
  1. Los Angeles Lakers
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Los Angeles Kings
  1. Clemson Tigers
Sure about that? Plunkett and Theisman both had far superior post season numbers even though they were in an earlier era. Flacco's SB run was epic. If you want to put that much emphasis on SB wins, surely he's more deserving. Simms also played lights outduring his post season SB run with the Giants. Even Hostetler had superior post season rating to Eli.
No, cause I already noted the fallacy of past HOF voting.
Nobody likes you and doesn't want to respond to you. The only way anyone could possibly think it's not subjective is if they either don't know the meaning of the word subjective or don't know how DVOA is calculated.
Not sure how you can call past HOF voting a fallacy when it’s clearly a precedent. If they have done it once, and likely more than that, it is more than reasonable to think they would do it again. @Novak has also debunked that DVOA is in fact not a subjective stat.
 

WestCoastBearsFan

Well-known member
Joined:
Dec 25, 2017
Posts:
16,893
Liked Posts:
12,115
My favorite teams
  1. Los Angeles Lakers
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Los Angeles Kings
  1. Clemson Tigers
Also not sure how you can say Flacco has is more deserving than Manning when Flacco had arguably one of the best defenses of all time, not to mention that Flacco only has 1 SB where Eli has 2 and 2 SB MVPs
 

Novak

Mod in Training/Fire Forum
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '21
Joined:
Sep 7, 2014
Posts:
16,087
Liked Posts:
12,652

You can disagree with the efficiency or relevance as a 'rating system', but it is not subjective. It's no different than something like passer rating or rate+, it applies the same objective statistics to the same formula every time. It's just a bit more complicated.

For the record, I don't like the formula used for DVOA, or the formula used for passer rating. I think they both suck really, both for different reasons.

For DVOA, my main gripe is with where they draw the line on considering a play a "success", which is the very fundamental part of the formula. "On first down, a play is considered a success if it gains 45 percent of needed yards; on second down, a play needs to gain 60 percent of needed yards; on third or fourth down, only gaining a new first down is considered success." Just seems arbitrary, I don't know.

I don't like passer rating mainly because its naturally an inflationary statistic.

Both are indeed objective though.
 

Top