Philip Rivers: Hall of Famer?

Does Philip Rivers deserve to be enshrined?

  • Yes, if he retired tomorrow

  • Yes, but only if he has a couple more good seasons

  • No, unless he wins a ring

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
20,792
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.
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.
 

CantKeepmedown

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,183
Portland, ME
I'll always remember him toughing it out in the 2007 AFCC game with what turned out to be a torn ACL while LDT sat on the bench with a sprained knee and a giant winter coat. I know it's different with a knee injury and being a RB but fuck LDT forever.

Rivers was a tough competitor with some hilarious on the field trash talk. Best of luck to him coaching on the high school circuit.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
27,091
Hingham, MA
Here's one of his biggest issues: INT rate. He has been more or less a league average QB when it comes to INT rate (career average INT%+ is ~101). And that tends to rear its ugly head in the playoffs. He threw at least one pick in his first 7 playoff games. His last 5 playoff games have been much better in that regard. But early career Rivers, on very good teams, was horrible in the playoffs.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
14,851
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.
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
7,609
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
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.
Is the argument then that QB becoming a more valuable position should lead to more QBs being induced into the HoF?
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
14,851
Is the argument then that QB becoming a more valuable position should lead to more QBs being induced into the HoF?
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.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
11,871
Santa Monica, CA
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.
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.
 
Last edited:

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
14,851
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.
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.

From a historical perspective, I think the best we can assume is that the best players from previous eras would probably be among the best players of today if they had been born at a later date, and vice versa. Marino probably puts up similar numbers to Manning if he is drafted in 2000, and Manning puts up similar numbers to Marino if he was drafted in 1980.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
20,286
where I was last at
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 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 .
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
20,792
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 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.
 

Hoya81

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 3, 2010
5,245
I also wouldn’t discount him getting some consideration for sticking with one of the more inept franchises for basically his whole career and how upset he was that the Chargers abandoned the SD fans.
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
7,609
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
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.
He wasn't washed when they won Super Bowls, though. He was the 7th ranked QB by DVOA in 98 and 3rd in 99.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
14,851
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 .
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.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
27,091
Hingham, MA
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.
More is put on QBs, but the flip side is it is so much easier to play QB.

Jared Goff, 2017-2020:

42-20, 64.3%, 4,270.5 yards / year, 25.5 TD / year, 12 INT / year, 94.1 passer rating.

Is he even a top 10 QB? Top 15?
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
20,286
where I was last at
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.

I was not a Bronco fan or Elway fan, but I do understand and recognize great QBs from prior eras.

I also understand and recognize factors which inflate current stats.

I'm not banging the table on anything other than the vastly inflated passing stats in the post-Polian rule change era and suggested you take a look at stats from a different perspective..
 

coremiller

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
4,923
Elway has an infamously bad statistical profile compared to his reputation. His ended up with big volume totals because he was durable and played for a long time but his rate stats were never very good until the end of his career. In the first 10 years of his career, he only twice finished in the ANY/A top-10 (10th in 1986 and 4th in 1987. There are various explanations for this -- he had weak teammates and played for bad offensive coaches for most of his career --- and they have some merit, but statistically Elway was not special. Rivers has a much stronger statistical profile than Elway -- Elway has nothing like Rivers' 2008-10 stretch.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
20,792
He wasn't washed when they won Super Bowls, though. He was the 7th ranked QB by DVOA in 98 and 3rd in 99.
wow, you're right, a case of me not double checking as I just remembered the defense and running game carrying those teams.
 

BusRaker

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 11, 2006
963
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

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
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?

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.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
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"
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.)
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
14,851
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.
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.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
12,341
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.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
20,792
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 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.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
12,341
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.
Agreed but he’s as big as Mahomes. And plenty athletic enough to run in today’s game. He’s not Marino or Brady.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
11,871
Santa Monica, CA
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.
I'd love to see Phil Rivers try and play against the 1986 Giants defense, under 1986 rules.

Trust us when we tell you, it was not the great Sammy Winder (3.3 ypc!) who carried that Broncos team to the Super Bowl.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
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.
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.

Assuming decent coaching, Elway would be used today in ways no coach would have considered 30 years ago. Not sure if it would lead to success, but I’m pretty sure his low completion percentages in playoff games playing under 1980s rules in a pass-happy offense that was sub-optimal given said rules offers no insight as to whether he’d be successful or not.

I actually do think Elway is a tick overrated — he’s a solid HOFer but doesn’t belong in the GOAT conversation just because he had the good fortune to have above-average teammates and coaching.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
11,871
Santa Monica, CA
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.
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".

There was nothing mediocre about John Elway. I agree with others that he's not in the Brady-Montana-Marino-Manning super elite tier, but he's in the next group for sure. He was the first guy I ever saw who had the ability to scramble like crazy and also an absolute laser arm that could make any imaginable throw.
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
6,761
Maine
Doesnt this simply come down to "Where would you put him all time? Even after the Era Adjustment"
Top 10? No.
Top 20? Maaaaaaaybe
Top 30? I think thats more then fair.
Top 40? Hard to argue he is not one of the best 40 ever to play QB in the NFL
Top 50? No doubt.

How many QBs are in? 26 Modern Era Qbs (and you know there are few like Eli waiting in the wings)
So While I am not arguing that he is a 1st Ballot. Nor that he is a Shoe in. I think there is a solid debate as the @23-27 greatest QB of all times he would not "Lesson" the HOF and would actually add to it.
 

wiffleballhero

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 28, 2009
3,134
In the simulacrum
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.
 

coremiller

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
4,923
And he had some bad luck. If Marlon McCree doesn't fumble in 2006, or if Nate Kaeding could make a field goal in 2009 (they lost 17-14 to the Jets in a game where Kaeding missed two FGs inside 40 yards), who knows how things might have turned out.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
27,091
Hingham, MA
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.
Agree on the Pittsburgh piece, agree on 2006. That team was a juggernaut that choked.
 

rodderick

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 24, 2009
7,609
Belo Horizonte - Brazil
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.
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
35,580
Hartford, CT
The 2006 Chargers were a monster of a team. 1st in DVOA with top tier talent all over the field.
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.
 

wiffleballhero

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 28, 2009
3,134
In the simulacrum
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.

So they had a schedule that was not really running the gauntlet, and yeah, it is incredible that the Pats won that game. LaDainian Tomlinson has spent 15 years sore about it.
 

Euclis20

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2004
3,938
Imaginationland
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.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
27,091
Hingham, MA
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.
Great point. Imagine if the Pats were never good again after 2010. We'd all be so, so bitter to have wasted that opportunity.

Then 2011-2013 all came and went, each with their own frustrations. When 2014 rolled around, it felt like it might be the last gasp.

And then they fell behind 14-0 immediately. I'll never forget that feeling. I hadn't even cracked a beer. It was so, ridiculously depressing. We had some (non-Patriot, neutral enough) friends over for that game. I was all kinds of fired up when the Pats tied it... but again they fell behind by 14. My buddy had no doubt the Pats would win, but it had been so long. That was was amazingly cathartic. Until something worse almost happened 3 weeks later against Seattle!

What a ride that was.