FanDuel - WFBC

February 08, 2012

Kurt Warner: Eli Manning's No Hall of Famer (Yet): Despite Eli Manning's two game-winning Super Bowl drives, he has a long way to go before reaching the Hall of Fame, Kurt Warner told a Phoenix radio station. "I know we put a lot of weight on championships, and rightfully so. But championships are won as a team," said Warner, who pointed out that Manning has a lifetime 82 QB rating and threw 16 or more INTs in five of his eight seasons. "To me, those aren't Hall of Fame numbers and by that I mean every time you step on the field you're a game changer, you're a difference maker. And I don't believe Eli Manning has been that guy until this year."

posted by rcade to football at 11:38 AM - 67 comments

As much as I dislike Manning, he's a Hall of Famer now. Maybe not first-ballot, but he belongs in Canton, barring three straight sub-.500 seasons. Two rings, each at the expense of inevitable first-ballot Haller Tom Brady is just too good to ignore if it's backdropped by a couple more playoff appearances.

posted by Etrigan at 12:21 PM on February 08

As much as I like Manning, he's not a Hall of Famer now.

Unless, of course, people use this guy as some base-level indication for "HOF" career.

In which case, open up the doors and let everyone in!

posted by grum@work at 01:04 PM on February 08

Every multiple Super Bowl MVP has made the Hall of Fame once eligible. Tom Brady and Eli Manning both seem like locks to me.

posted by rcade at 01:12 PM on February 08

Eli is on track to becoming a Hall of Famer but he's not there as of yet. Give him some time though.

posted by BornIcon at 01:15 PM on February 08

Every multiple Super Bowl MVP has made the Hall of Fame once eligible.

With a set size of three (Bradshaw, Montana, Starr), I think there may be more to it than that.

Bradshaw has a regular season MVP award.
Montana has two regular season MVP awards.
Starr has a regular season MVP award.

I think Eli needs to put together one or two regular seasons where he's a legitimate contender for an MVP award.

posted by grum@work at 01:24 PM on February 08

Eli is the Rodney Dangerfield of Football.

posted by Joey Michaels at 02:16 PM on February 08

Eli's HOF in my book. With two rings and two SB MVPs he's proven himself as a clutch leader with the big game on the line.

Heck, he has more rings now than his brother and there's no doubt Peyton's in in his first year of eligibility.

posted by NerfballPro at 04:15 PM on February 08

I think Eli needs to put together one or two regular seasons where he's a legitimate contender for an MVP award

And 2011 wasn't one of them? Who was more valuable to his team this year than Eli Manning?

posted by cixelsyd at 04:27 PM on February 08

Aaron Rodgers. Drew Brees. Tom Brady.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 05:39 PM on February 08

Heck, he has more rings now than his brother and there's no doubt Peyton's in in his first year of eligibility.

Do you think the fact that Eli has more rings makes him a better quarterback than his brother?

posted by Mookieproof at 05:56 PM on February 08

Aaron Rodgers. Drew Brees. Tom Brady.

Fat lot of good they did in the finality and end of the season. All are great QB's but that doesn't mean Eli isn't a HOF'er.

Sometimes sports fans get too caught up in stats when the only stat they should look at is championships. Eli has two in five years. And he was named the MVP both times. The regular season is a means to an end. Success in the post season is the thing that matters the most.

Now of course there is a good argument for players who lead their team to success during the regular season and maybe not so much in the post season being a HOF'er. Peyton for one. And one of this year's inductees, Cortez Kennedy for another. But my personal criteria would be a player that makes his team great and transcends the typical player at his position. Eli fits the mold.

posted by THX-1138 at 06:01 PM on February 08

People have really short memories when it comes to both Eli Manning and Tom Coughlan. Seems like each year both are torn up when things get tough, but after things improve, people are gushing all over about them.

Manning is a very good quarterback at this point, but playoff runs are a team thing. Manning coming on this season coincided with the Giants defense getting it together. He has never dominated during the regular season, and I agree he needs a NFL MVP eventually to solidify his HOF credentials. The two Super Bowls are huge, but I'm not going to read everything into that. These days Manning would have to implode during the Super Bowl not to be voted MVP. I thought a guy like Pierre-Paul on defense had just as big a game, but he'd never, ever get the recognition over a guy named Manning.

Eli is well on his way, at his current rate, but he's not a dominant force worthy of automatic enshrinement yet. And, yes, if people insist on putting so much stock in the two Super Bowls, then those same people should say Eli is better than his brother.

posted by dyams at 06:02 PM on February 08

Just to throw this out there:

The discussion doesn't necessarily center around which QB is better but if Eli is HOF worthy. I am not thinking of how QB's (or players) compare. From what I saw in the post season, Eli was the better player.

Peyton and Eli should both be HOF'ers.

posted by THX-1138 at 06:10 PM on February 08

From what I saw in the post season, Eli was the better player.

Yeah, but by that logic, Trent Dilfer is a HoF'er. I'm with dyams on this with the caveat that Eli really did have a terrific season. I just don't think he's carried the offense up until now.

posted by yerfatma at 06:17 PM on February 08

But my personal criteria would be a player that makes his team great and transcends the typical player at his position. Eli fits the mold.

Eli isn't even in the Top 3 at his position right now. And if the Packers, Saints, or Patriots had the defensive line that the Giants have I doubt we would even be having this conversation.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 06:19 PM on February 08

Do you think the fact that Eli has more rings makes him a better quarterback than his brother?

Yes. And Trent Dilfer Mark Rypien blows doors on Dan Marino.

Because fatty beat me to it

posted by tahoemoj at 06:27 PM on February 08

The way Eli won his rings has to be considered. He also engineered a ridiculous number of game-winning drives this season. I forget whether the NFL considers the playoffs in its MVP award, but if it does he has to be a contender.

posted by rcade at 06:37 PM on February 08

Aaron Rodgers. Drew Brees. Tom Brady.

Fat lot of good they did in the finality and end of the season. All are great QB's but that doesn't mean Eli isn't a HOF'er.

NFL MVP is decided before the playoffs begin.
How a player does there has no impact on the award.

Eli's team finished 9-7 and squeaked into the playoffs on the last day.
He didn't finish in the top 3 in any QB category for the year, except yards-per-completed-pass.

As for the media-driven "game winning drives" and "comebacks" that they like to focus on, I'm not sure how punishing Brady/Brees/Rodgers for winning games without having to come from behind is fair. That's like saying they were TOO good by not letting the other team take the lead.

For the record, Eli Manning has led the league in only one category, and he's done it twice: interceptions (2007, 2010).

Peyton Manning has led the league in multiple categories in multiple years (24 times, in total).

Oh, and about the media-driven "game winning drives" and "comebacks"?

Eli: led the league twice in GWD (2007, 2011) and comebacks (2007, 2011).
Peyton: led the league four times in GWD (1999, 2002, 2008, 2009) and three times in comebacks (1999, 2006, 2009).

Eli has a VERY long way to go before he's going to be in the same discussion as his older brother.

posted by grum@work at 06:41 PM on February 08

As for winning Super Bowl MVP, it seems the default choice is the quarterback for the winning team. Of the 46 awards, 25 have gone to that specific person, including 5 of the last 6 times it's been awarded.

posted by grum@work at 06:46 PM on February 08

That's true, but Eli Manning's 30 of 40 passing for 296 yards and 1 touchdown, 9-for-9 start and his game-winning drive were an MVP caliber performance.

Manning's overall playoff stats: QB rating 103.3, 304 passing yards per game, 9 toucnhdowns and 1 interception.

posted by rcade at 06:54 PM on February 08

Eli needs at least 5 seasons as good as this year or he shouldn't be in. He's done less than Philip Rivers except for those two SBs and nobody is pumping him up for the HOF yet.

Here's another view: Eli has done far, far less in his career than Terrell Davis. Davis had a much more impressive regular season career, has two rings, got a SB MVP by dominating rather than being the default choice. Davis probably isn't getting in the HOF as many consider his career too short. Eli is not a HOFer today.

posted by deflated at 07:30 PM on February 08

If you're going to call Eli the "default choice," you should identify the player more deserving of the award. Jason Pierre-Paul was suggested, but he had two tackles and no sacks.

posted by rcade at 08:19 PM on February 08

And it's not as if Eli's Super Bowl performance came against the '85 Bears defense. The Patriots defense, especially their defensive backs, have been horrible all year. Even Tom Brady would have to admit that under oath. Did what he had to do, the Giants won, and that's good.

I was impressed by the beating he withstood against the Niners, though.

posted by dyams at 08:23 PM on February 08

And it's not as if Eli's Super Bowl performance came against the '85 Bears defense. The Patriots defense, especially their defensive backs, have been horrible all year. Even Tom Brady would have to admit that under oath. Did what he had to do, the Giants won, and that's good.

I was impressed by the beating he withstood against the Niners, though.

posted by dyams at 08:23 PM on February 08

The Patriots defense was the fifth best in the playoffs in passing defense, fifth best in yards given up, third best in points per game and third best in sacks per game. They picked up their game in the playoffs.

posted by rcade at 08:38 PM on February 08

The Patriots defense was the fifth best in the playoffs in passing defense, fifth best in yards given up, third best in points per game and third best in sacks per game. They picked up their game in the playoffs.

Yeah, but just from "bad" to "slightly better than average". 5th out of twelve isn't anything wonderful. Much better than they were during the regular season, but in the playoffs you're removing teams like the Jets and keeping ones like the Packers.

posted by LionIndex at 08:51 PM on February 08

Still not impressed. Beating the Broncos and Ravens isn't like shutting down Green Bay and New Orleans.

posted by dyams at 08:51 PM on February 08

5th out of twelve isn't anything wonderful.

Fifth out of 12 playoff teams is pretty damn good.

Beating the Broncos and Ravens isn't like shutting down Green Bay and New Orleans.

People are trying too hard to delegitimize playoff achievements. It means something to beat playoff teams and reach the Super Bowl. The Patriots were a deserving AFC champion no matter their regular season weaknesses.

The Giants' playoffs started in week 16 when they played the Cowboys for the NFC East crown. Their five-game run over Dallas, Atlanta, Green Bay, San Francisco and New England was incredible.

posted by rcade at 09:18 PM on February 08

The Giants' playoffs started in week 16 when they played the Cowboys for the NFC East crown. Their five-game run over Dallas, Atlanta, Green Bay, San Francisco and New England was incredible.

Yes, but you don't get to just ignore the previous 15 games where they went 8-7. I agree that playoff success can only help a HOF resum, but it's only a small subset of a player's career.

Are 11 games really worth more than 119 games?

posted by grum@work at 10:57 PM on February 08

If you're going to call Eli the "default choice," you should identify the player more deserving of the award.

Eli had a solid game against a middling pass defence in a SB with no standout player. Lots of completions, had trouble converting them into scores. As the most visible player on the winning team he was the easy choice. If through some miracle Bradshaw fumbles at the 1 instead of scoring then Brady gets the MVP and we're having the same conversation - he didn't do much wrong but its not exactly Desmond Howard ripping the game open.

posted by deflated at 11:31 PM on February 08

Aaron Rodgers. Drew Brees. Tom Brady.

Brees achieved passing records this year so he deserves mention. Rodgers led Green Bay to a near perfect regular season. Brady was Brady but performed far below average against any decent opponent the Patriots faced - I guess he deserves mention because his team was top of the AFC, although Gronkowski was clearly the Patriots best player.

No quarterback performed better in big games than Eli.

posted by cixelsyd at 11:38 PM on February 08

While not taking too much away from Rodgers' MVP award, I would like to point out that lackluster Matt Flynn led the Packers over a pretty good Lion's team in week 17. Threw for over 500 yards and 6 TD's, so maybe it was all about GB's team not the QB. Maybe Rodgers' season should be considered less impressive if we're going to nitpick Manning's season due to his supporting cast

QB's always get too much blame and/or credit. And, playoff games do count considerably more than regular season games, with Super Bowls counting way more. People talk about Super Bowl wins, not regular season records. A 9-7 season followed by a playoff run that wins the Super Bowl is huge. A 13-3 season followed by a one and out in the playoffs is quickly forgotten.

posted by dviking at 11:50 PM on February 08

What grumwork says is very good. And also YingYang.

posted by kandylynn at 12:53 AM on February 09

People are trying too hard to delegitimize playoff achievements.

And you're trying too hard to cherry-pick a stat that makes Eli look like a conquering hero. I don't know how you could draw anything from 5/12 playoff defenses. The majority of teams in the playoffs only play one or two games and one of those is a loss. Often a bad one because they were the 6 seed playing the 3 seed. The Patriots were the 5th best defense in terms of what? As was said above, they played two inept offenses and still managed to give up 300+ yards to Joe Flacco.

posted by yerfatma at 08:34 AM on February 09

Eli has endured his share of knocks and bumps in the road, and withstood more than his share of scrutiny. But in general, pro sporting life has been charitable to him, as witnessed by the sincere but premature HOF postulating at this stage of his career.

I don't begrudge him that, but I think it would have great if even 1/10th of the charitability that has been afforded to Eli had been afforded to McNabb. I don't know how that guy got up and went to work in the morning.

posted by beaverboard at 08:51 AM on February 09

The Patriots were the 5th best defense in terms of what?

I've already spelled that out, and some of those stats have the Pats as the third-best playoff defense.

The premise I responded to is that Eli's Super Bowl performance is less worthy because the Patriots defense wasn't good. First, he's not a worthy MVP because he won by default, though no one can identify a more deserving winner aside from a guy who got two tackles and no sacks. Now the defense he played wasn't good enough, even though they held opponents to 10, 20 and 21 points in their three games.

Are 11 games really worth more than 119 games?

Absolutely. How much does the regular season matter when it's followed by a swift playoff exit? Last year's Patriots were 14-2 and entered the playoffs on an eight-game winning streak. They were a beast. First in points scored at 518. Eighth in points allowed at 313. Did any of this matter after the one-and-done loss to the Jets? Will anyone remember them outside of the team's fans? (I do because I'm still in shock over that defeat.)

Does Eli have the accomplishments in the regular season to warrant future Hall of Fame consideration? Of course not. Does he have them in the postseason, which is when the game matters most and NFL legacies are often defined? Yes. No one will forget that he engineered two game-winning Super Bowl drives to beat an unquestioned Hall of Famer.

My presumption is that Eli's two Super Bowl MVPs will make Hall voters predisposed to find a reason to admit him. It will take a lot of regular season suck to erase that.

posted by rcade at 09:53 AM on February 09

Absolutely. How much does the regular season matter when it's followed by a swift playoff exit?

How much does a playoff matter if you don't make it because you can't perform in 16 games before that?

My presumption is that Eli's two Super Bowl MVPs will make Hall voters predisposed to find a reason to admit him. It will take a lot of regular season suck to erase that.

Okay, that's slightly different than what I was arguing. I was saying he hasn't EARNED his spot in the HOF yet, while your presumption is that he'll get in regardless of that.

And with that, I have to agree.

One famous quote, one decent Super Bowl performance and a couple of good seasons in the AFL has been enough for voters to ignore that Namath was a terrible QB over his career (barely 50% completion, and 47 more INT than TD), so in comparison Eli Manning looks like Johnny Unitas.

posted by grum@work at 10:44 AM on February 09

How much does a playoff matter if you don't make it because you can't perform in 16 games before that?

As a Cowboys fan, I refuse to answer that question on the grounds it may incriminate me.

Joe Namath threw more interceptions than touchdowns in 10 of his 12 seasons, including his final 8 seasons. I wish we could travel back in time to discuss his 1985 Hall of Fame induction when it happened.

posted by rcade at 11:03 AM on February 09

From this Grantland piece:

Eli has gone from young to promising to a bust to way-too-laid-back to cool-as-a-cucumber to not-as-good-as-Philip Rivers to underrated to lucky to clutch to Super Bowl MVP to a doofus to no-Peyton-that's-for-sure, to a prankster to a secret leader to a Childlike Emperor to, perhaps, a Hall of Famer.

I think that's a pretty good timeline for the consensus opinion of Eli and I can't think of another QB that's had so many ups and downs.

posted by tron7 at 12:08 PM on February 09

Well it's called the Hall of Fame not the Hall of Best Performers. Induction is the result of an subjective voting process. Why is Joe Namath in the Hall of Fame? One big superbowl win preceded by an outrageous and confident prediction. He drew attention to the league and was famous on and off the field. For that he is in the Hall of FAME. Lots of HOF players never won a championship so in the big picture of the sport the HOF really is not as much about winning championships as it is about being remembered for being an impact player.

Forget Superbowl rings here are some players who never won a Superbowl

OJ Simpson, Dick Butkis, Fran Tarkenton, Bruce Smith, Jim Kelly, Decon Jones, Gayle Sayers, Merlon Olson, Earle Campbell, Barry Sanders, ,Dan Marino, Eric Dickerson, Anthony Munoz, YA Tittle, Dan Fouts, James Lofton........

This list is much longer but, clearly winning Superbowls is not the criteria for HOF induction. I mean Brad Johnson QB'd a team to a title but Dan Marino did not. It really is not a good way to judge a career. Eli joins an elite group of multiple super bowl winners which by itself makes him deserving of consideration but it will be the entirety of his career that will cements it. Peyton Manning would get it regardless of whether or not he had a ring based on his body of work. The rings are icing on the cake not the cake.

posted by Atheist at 02:20 PM on February 09

Atheist: Do you honestly, and without reservation, believe that Joe Namath deserves to be in the Hall of Fame?

posted by rcade at 03:08 PM on February 09

Why is Joe Namath in the Hall of Fame? One big superbowl win preceded by an outrageous and confident prediction. He drew attention to the league and was famous on and off the field. For that he is in the Hall of FAME.

By that same basis, I assume that Adrian Peterson, or Flipper Anderson should be considered locks for the HOF.

The Baseball Hall of Fame has a specific rule that says you can't vote in a player just because they had one good game/year, and that their entire career must be taken into account:

6. Automatic Elections: 
No automatic elections based on performances 
such as a batting average of .400 or more 
for one (1) year, pitching a perfect game 
or similar outstanding achievement shall be permitted. 

posted by grum@work at 03:15 PM on February 09

Do you honestly, and without reservation, believe that Joe Namath deserves to be in the Hall of Fame?

Do his statistics warrant it? No. Is he a household name, even among younger generations and people who aren't NFL fans? Yes. I think the point is valid that, regardless of achievement, he is one of the most famous players in the history of the league. Therefore, he should be in the hall of fame.

Unless, of course, the name is a misnomer. Then no.

posted by tahoemoj at 03:24 PM on February 09

Aaron Rodgers. Drew Brees. Tom Brady.

Fat lot of good they did in the finality and end of the season.

Brees put his team in the lead with very little time left in the game and his defense folded. Manning did the same thing, and his defense held (with some help from the Patriot receives). Not sure of your point.

Sometimes sports fans get too caught up in stats when the only stat they should look at is championships.

I'm really trying to understand this statement, because it boggles my mind. Stats are exactly what Hall of Fame voters should be looking at. Championships are won by teams. Your own stats are what you have most control of.

Don't get me wrong, championships can push a player over the top, but stats are what voters should be looking at. If they're not, something is very wrong.

posted by justgary at 03:28 PM on February 09

I wish we could travel back in time to discuss his 1985 Hall of Fame induction when it happened.

I'm slowly compiling a list of bad HOF selections for some other project I'm thinking about, and there are two that just leap out at me:

Joe Namath - one prediction, one game, lots of TV time, terrible career.
Clark Gillies - "Look at all my super-terrific teammates, and how many Stanley Cup rings they won for me!"

There are a lot of undeserving Veteran Committee choices for baseball (though the BBWAA's pity vote for Rabbit Maranville after his death is an obvious choice, too), and I don't know enough about basketball to honestly select one from there (though K.C. Jones seems to have a "Clark Gillies" vibe at first glance).

posted by grum@work at 03:30 PM on February 09

Sometimes sports fans get too caught up in stats when the only stat they should look at is championships.

"Welcome to the Baseball Hall of Fame, 5-time World Series champion, Luis Sojo!"

posted by grum@work at 03:33 PM on February 09

I would understand this debate more if Eli lit it up in the Super Bowl. But, he scored one passing touchdown and the Patriots gave them a gimme touchdown. What was so fantastic about his performance that it has elevated him to HOF worthy?

He was given the MVP award because no other player had a stand-out performance (though maybe Weatherford ought to have won it). That doesn't mean this his performance was amazing or memorable or anything. He is getting too much credit for this win.

posted by bperk at 04:05 PM on February 09

rcade - the answer to your question is I don't know. I never said I though he should or should not be. I just pointed out that he did a lot more for the league and the superbowl in terms of FAME than many other possibly better players. I think I once heard it that to be in the HOF you have to be associated with the game and have a name that lingers in the publics consciousness. That is why Art Rooney and Al Davis are in the HOF. It isn't just about stats or on the field play. That is also why there is an eligibility time frame to be out of the league. Regardless of whether you win a superbowl or not, if years after you are done playing your name is still lingering in the football worlds conscience you can be voted in.

Will Eli Manning be remembered for his accomplishments and what he did for football when eligibility comes around. Only time will tell. That is why it is really a silly discussion. Because at this time he is just a very good and elite current player. Only time will prove his worthiness and whether or not his impression is lasting. Make a lasting impression on the game of professional football and you get in. If you are quickly forgotten, then you don't . That is why there is a time frame for eligibility.

posted by Atheist at 04:46 PM on February 09

Here is the link I remembered that better explains it.

http://voices.yahoo.com/national-football-league-nfl-hall-fame-hof-member-4673045.html

Some interesting stuff. Of the members 8% are coaches. The link explains the makeup of the HOF members. There are players and contributors. People like Vince Lombardi, George Halas, Pete Rozelle and Ed Sabol are also in the HOF. This is really about a LASTING contribution to the game of football more than it is about stats, rings and on the field performance, although it all comes into play.

You can break records, win championships or whatever but the HOF is reserved for those who's names will live on long after they are gone. Nobody could at this point in time say if he deserves to be. An interesting parallel is Phil Simms who is not in the HOF. Below from Wikipedia

Phil Simms won a superbowl with the Giants Simms played his entire professional career with the Giants and was named Most Valuable Player (MVP) of Super Bowl XXI, after he led the Giants to a 3920 victory over the Denver Broncos and set the record for highest completion percentage in a super bowl, going 22 for 25.[1] He also was named to the Pro Bowl for his performances in the 1985 and 1993 seasons.

Should he be in the Hall of Fame? I don't think so as when I think of great QBs evidently he is easier to forget now that he is done playing.

HOFs in general are pretty ceremonial in my opinion especially considering Pete Rose is not a MLB Hall of Famer. I mean OK he gambled but how can he not be in based on what he did in baseball statistically. I am pretty certain when he dies baseball will reconsider, they just won't give him the satisfaction when he is alive. Petty, punitive and just arbitrarily unfair. That's Hall of Fames for you.

posted by Atheist at 04:58 PM on February 09

This is really about a LASTING contribution to the game of football more than it is about stats, rings and on the field performance, although it all comes into play.

What do players do that has a "lasting contribution" to the game of football, other than their performance on the field?

Unless they are inventing plays, or designing equipment modifications, or helping build new franchises, only their performance on the field (and therefore their stats) can be used to judge them.

posted by grum@work at 05:14 PM on February 09

The HOF is reserved for those who's names will live on long after they are gone.

You've got it backwards. The HOF is designed to preserve the names of the great players so future generations can learn about them.

Without the HOF, I guarantee that 90% of the kids today wouldn't know about Walter Johnson, Sammy Baugh, or George Mikan.

posted by grum@work at 05:21 PM on February 09

What do players do that has a "lasting contribution" to the game of football, other than their performance on the field?

Well Pete Rozelle for one was instrumental in turning the NFL into the biggest sports money maker in the United States. Al Davis, George Halas, Art Rooney built an industry out of a game. I can go on but these guys are in the HOF and not for their performance on the field but their lasting contribution to the game. Does that answer the question? Don't agree or disagree it is just the way it is. You can make the NFL HOF without playing professional football. Ed Sabol made it making films.

posted by Atheist at 06:18 PM on February 09

So Joe Namath is in the Hall of Fame for his lasting contribution to the game of football, which aside from one game does not involve how he actually played football? Yikes!

Do his statistics warrant it? No. Is he a household name, even among younger generations and people who aren't NFL fans? Yes.

That's such a horrible standard it makes me cry in my mind. When I was a kid, Billy "White Shoes" Johnson was a household name. I practiced that touchdown dance for hours.

posted by rcade at 06:36 PM on February 09

That's such a horrible standard it makes me cry in my mind.

And I'm sure as hell not advocating it as ideal. Just reality.

But as long as we're on the subject, I'd like to renew my quest to have Ickey Woods enshrined in Canton.

posted by tahoemoj at 07:10 PM on February 09

Bo Jackson is not in the Hall of Fame.

posted by bperk at 07:46 PM on February 09

What do players do that has a "lasting contribution" to the game of football, other than their performance on the field?


Well Pete Rozelle for one was instrumental in turning the NFL into the biggest sports money maker in the United States. Al Davis, George Halas, Art Rooney built an industry out of a game. I can go on but these guys are in the HOF and not for their performance on the field but their lasting contribution to the game.

Those aren't players.

Those are contributors. Check the website yourself.

Does that answer the question?

Nope.

posted by grum@work at 08:05 PM on February 09

HOFs in general are pretty ceremonial in my opinion especially considering Pete Rose is not a MLB Hall of Famer. I mean OK he gambled but how can he not be in based on what he did in baseball statistically. I am pretty certain when he dies baseball will reconsider, they just won't give him the satisfaction when he is alive. Petty, punitive and just arbitrarily unfair. That's Hall of Fames for you.

Pete Rose accepted the punishment given to him because he broke the most important rule that has been visible in the clubhouse for almost 100 years. I think it sends the best message possible to anyone who would ever consider breaking that rule. If Pete Rose gets the maximum penalty, then so will everyone else.

(Throw in the fact that he's done nothing but lie about it since he was caught, and I think the punishment has been more than acceptable. Anyone that sheds even one ounce of pity for Rose really doesn't understand what he did then and what he's done since then.)

posted by grum@work at 08:13 PM on February 09

(Throw in the fact that he's done nothing but lie about it since he was caught, and I e punishment has been more than acceptable. Anyone that sheds even one ounce of pity for Rose really doesn't understand what he did then and what he's done since then.)

Uh, he bet on the Reds to win, as manager. Then he lied about it. Then he came clean. I understand.

posted by tselson at 11:27 PM on February 09

Skip Bayless, the world's expert on football, doesn't think Eli rates any mention whatsoever.

But he does think Joe Namath was one of the best quarterbacks ever ....

Joe Namath? Worst player in the hall, bar none.

Pete Rose

Loved Pete Rose the player, he does not belong in any hall of fame. An ordinary guy off the street would end up in jail for similar actions. He was betting on games he had some level of control of the outcome as a manager and possibly as a player.

posted by cixelsyd at 11:45 PM on February 09

Uh, he bet on the Reds to win, as manager. Then he lied about it. Then he came clean. I understand.

That's the neat and tidy version.

"I didn't associate with gamblers!"
(proof shows that he did)

"I didn't lay bets down with illegal bookies! This time I mean it!"
(proof shows that he did)

"I didn't bet on baseball! This time I mean it!"
(proof shows that he did)

"I didn't bet on the games I was involved in! This time I mean it!"
(proof/admits that he did)

"I didn't bet against my own team! This time, I mean it!"
(Oh, so we believe him now?)

How can he be deserving of any respect from baseball and the hall of fame?

posted by grum@work at 12:05 AM on February 10

Without the HOF, I guarantee that 90% of the kids today wouldn't know about Walter Johnson, Sammy Baugh, or George Mikan.

90% of kids today don't know about Walter Johnson, Sammy Baugh, or George Mikan.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 08:42 AM on February 10

Pete Rose accepted the punishment given to him

Well, that's the neat and tidy version, as well. He accepted the punishment which included the following: c. Nothing in this agreement shall be deemed either an admission or a denial by Peter Edward Rose of the allegation that he bet on any Major League Baseball game. At the time, that was his out for reinstatement. Giamitti's death squashed any chance of that.

"I didn't bet against my own team! This time, I mean it!" (Oh, so we believe him now?)

If you believe in the accuracy of what was supposed to be the confidential Dowd report, yes. All of Rose's bets on Cincinnati were to win.

I have a few ounces of pity for Pete Rose. Maybe two little ounces. That doesn't mean I don't understand what he did.

How can he be deserving of any respect from baseball and the hall of fame?

I didn't say he should. I hope you ask the same question, when a particular name comes up for election , next year.

posted by tselson at 11:01 AM on February 10

For a couple hundred bucks, Pete Rose will apologize to you personally.

posted by rcade at 11:21 AM on February 10

90% of kids today don't know about Walter Johnson, Sammy Baugh, or George Mikan.

But the HOF gives them the chance to know about them.

I hope you ask the same question, when a particular name comes up for election , next year.

If you are implying Bonds, Clemens, or any other player accused/proven of using PED is in the same category as Pete Rose, then you really don't understand how VERY wrong Rose was in what he did.

I reserve the same feelings for Clemens and Bonds as I do for Willie Mays, Mickey Mantle, and Phil Niekro.

"Welcome to the Baseball Hall of Fame"

posted by grum@work at 12:46 PM on February 10

All of Rose's bets on Cincinnati were to win.

But Rose didn't bet on all of Cincinnati's games, so that explanation holds no water with me.

posted by grum@work at 01:08 PM on February 10

He bet on 52 games in 1987, which means he didn't bet on 110 games. He could've kept starters in longer and overworked relievers on games he had an extra reason to win. He could've juggled lineups based on the gambling line he was getting. That's pretty galling stuff.

posted by rcade at 01:22 PM on February 10

Eli Manning wouldn't be stupid enough to bet on the Reds. Wait, what were we talking about?

posted by dyams at 05:29 PM on February 10

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.