Roethlisberger for the HOF?

[JeffreyMiller]

I agree with this. Because of the large pool, it’s possible to focus on post-war and still have excellent classes. I think Earl Morrall, Abner Haynes, Buddy Young I.e. players that I feel can’t be defended objectively are few and far between.

Back to the HOF, I think just choosing the top 10 posters on this board to be the centennial committee would have resulted in a more defendable class. If you’re that much of a Bears [insert team or even league like AFL] homer, you should have just recused yourself from the vote.

I think everyone here has an allegiance to some team or league or player, so picking the top ten posters seems awfully arbitrary and likely would not bring the desired result. To my ears, it sounds like as long as someone's favorite player or special interest group is denied election, there will be complaints about the process.

And I disagree with your argument that those players can't be defended objectively. I would say it's the older players for whom we have no film or reliable statistical data who are more difficult to defend or promote. Once you get past 1933 for example, most of what you have to go on is anecdotal testimony. Even reporters in those days weren't traveling with the team (in most cases), so their observations were limited. If someone is promoting the HOF worthiness of, say, Cecil Grigg, what is that person basing their argument on? Well, if you're a fan of the Canton Bulldogs or Rochester Jeffs, most likely it's your loyalty for that particular team. Maybe it's because you read some testimonials from his contemporaries. Otherwise, what?

I admit to having a soft spot for Tony Latone. The articles and accounts I've read make him out to be an outstanding player. But what else is there?

[TanksAndSpartans]

I think everyone here has an allegiance to some team or league or player, so picking the top ten posters seems awfully arbitrary and likely would not bring the desired result.

Sure everyone has their favorites, but it shouldn't blur their ability to use reason and objective thought. I also think you misread my post. My "top ten posters" comment was in response to the HOF centennial class, not the HOVG. Read the posts on here after the centennial class was chosen - they were excellent. To get specific, Covert and Sprinkle appear to be purely partisan choices - I didn't see anyone on our site who had them in their top 10.

And I disagree with your argument that those players can't be defended objectively.

I should clarify - for the HOVG players I mentioned with very limited post-season honors, I guess some argument (I don't know what it is - film?) can be used to defend them objectively, but if it were a debate I wouldn't want to be tasked with the position they belong in the HOVG. Since contemporary analysts didn't often view them among the best, you'd have to reach for other, likely subjective, points. To me it would be akin to being dealt a losing hand.

I would say it's the older players for whom we have no film or reliable statistical data who are more difficult to defend or promote. Once you get past 1933 for example, most of what you have to go on is anecdotal testimony. Even reporters in those days weren't traveling with the team (in most cases), so their observations were limited.

Objective criteria can be a challenge to find for early pro football, but its possible. My current research (for CC, I've written opinion pieces elsewhere) is actually focussed on finding objective criteria to identify the best early pro players. There's been some good work done by Neft, Gill, and others. I agree with Bob Carroll in his excellent article on this topic: http://www.profootballresearchers.org/a ... 05-233.pdf

If someone is promoting the HOF worthiness of, say, Cecil Grigg, what is that person basing their argument on? Well, if you're a fan of the Canton Bulldogs or Rochester Jeffs, most likely it's your loyalty for that particular team. Maybe it's because you read some testimonials from his contemporaries. Otherwise, what?

I admit to having a soft spot for Tony Latone. The articles and accounts I've read make him out to be an outstanding player. But what else is there?

I think Grigg is a tough case. I go to PFR and I see he only had postseason honors in a single season - 1923. Is that the whole story of his career? Of course not, but certainly seems like an uphill battle to make a case for him. Latone can be a tough case to make too - in a debate, I'd probably rather be dealt someone like Gus Sonnenberg, just as one example. Sonnenberg made what I call Bob Carroll's 1920s All-Decade team (see my link above) and the one from the book The Pro Football Chronicle. In addition to two All-Decade teams, he won an NFL title with Providence in '28, and received post-season honors from at least one organization 6 straight seasons if you count his 1924 first-team All-Anthracite selection. To me, that's a pretty strong resume for the era, even if reporters didn't travel with the team or whatever reason can be found not to elect players like him to the HOVG. Not to you directly, but I ask: Would you rather have him in the HOVG or the 10th or 12th best running back from the AAFC? And no, I'm not a fan of his, or Providence, or whatever - its just unbiased analysis. And not even deep analysis. One article, one book, his PFR card, and a little research into 1924 because on the surface it looks like he didn't play that season, but he actually did.

Back to Latone, I wrote an article about him for Gridiron Greats. He did require a deeper dive - his PFR card doesn't stand out. Its a subscription magazine, so I can't just post it here in its entirety. I've posted some excerpts in the past and if you're interested, I can share via pm.

[rhickok1109]

I really didn't expect such interesting discussions to arise from what I thought was a rather simple question. Such discussions make this forum worthwhile.

But I do want to get back to my original question and statement with a bit of embellishment.

Back to the Roethlisberger-Rivers comparison, with detailed stats:

Roethlisberger
Comp % 64.4
TD % 5.1
INT % 2.6
YPA 7.6
YPC 12.0
yds 60348
TDs 396
INTs 201
TD/INT ratio 1.97
Rating 94.0

Rivers
Comp % 64.9
TD %5.2
INT %2.6
YPA 7.8
YPC 12.0
yds 63440
TDs 421
INTs 209
TD/INT ratio 1.97
Rating 95.2

Statistically, Rivers is very slightly better...close enough that we can call it even.

Of course, the standard response is that Roethlisberger "won 2 Super Bowls."

But instead of just saying that he won 2 Super Bowls, how about looking at his actual performance in the Super Bowl.

When the Steelers won SB XL, Roethlisberger had the worst performance ever by a winning QB. He completed 9 of 21 passes for 123 yards, 0 TDs, and 2 INTs. In fact, his performance made the game closer than it should have been. His first interception, at the Seattle 17-yard line, ended what looked like was going to be a scoring drive and his second interception, from Seattle's 6-yard line, was returned 76 yards to set up the Seahawks' only TD. Without those INTs, Pittsburgh would porobably have won 27-3 or 31-3 instead of 21-10.

BTW, the Steelers did have a TD pass in that game, but it was thrown by Antwaan Randle-El.

Roethlisberger did play well in Super Bowl XLIII, completing 21 of 30 passes for 256 yards and 1 TD, with 1 INT. That TD, with 35 seconds left, won the game.

He was mediocre, at best, against the Packers in SB XLV, completing 25 of 40 passes for 263 yards, with 2 TDs and 2 INTs. His first INT was a pick-6 that gave the Packers a 14-0 lead from which the Steelers never recovered.

Summing up, in his 3 Super Bowls, Roethlisber completed 55 of 91 passes, 60.4%, for 642 yards and 3 TDs, with 5 INTs. That's a 69.94 passer rating.

That kind of sheds a different light on the knee-jerk "He won 2 Super Bowls," doesn' it?

And does it still mean he should get into the HOF ahead of Rivers?

For the record, I'm not campaigning for Rivers. I don't think he's HOF-worthy, and I don't think Roethlisberger is, either.

[RichardBak]

I've always subscribed to the "Just win, baby" criteria in any arguments for and against the relative greatness of teams/players/coaches. Big Ben's SB stats aren't astoundingly good or bad----hell, Bobby Layne had a 29.9 QB rating in the postseason (12 picks vs. 1 TD pass), but won 3 NFL titles. Ben got the Steelers into 3 SB, won 2 of them, and that's more than 97% of QBs past and present can claim.

[Brian wolf]

Postseason/championship success has to be one of, if not a deciding factor in player's case for the HOF and Rivers just didnt do enough in my view. He could get in as a passer but playing in this inflated era, it doesnt mean as much as when Fouts or Jurgensen were throwing the ball ...

[RichardBak]

I agree. Stats for QB and receivers are so jacked becuz of the many rule changes and expanded schedule that you almost have little choice but to fall back on championships won or SB appearances as the chief metric. The funny thing is, most pro athletes I've interviewed over the years have remarkably little interest in stats. The only thing that really counts is wins, which of course is the way it should be. It's only when they get much older and have a chance to reflect a bit (about their legacy and possible HOF enshrinement) that they take more interest in the numbers. Of course there are exceptions, especially when there are performance bonuses involved.

[rhickok1109]

I agree. Stats for QB and receivers are so jacked becuz of the many rule changes and expanded schedule that you almost have little choice but to fall back on championships won or SB appearances as the chief metric.

I can't agree with that. Why reward a QB who happened to play on good teams and penalize a QB who played on worse teams? Certainly stats are better than they used to be, but some QBs have stats that stand out over others', so I don't see any need to fall back on team performance rather than the player's individual performance.

[RichardBak]

I said chief metric, not the only metric. Of course longevity and other variables enter into it. Enshrinements (and awards of all kinds, for that matter) are entirely subjective, so the case can easily be made for and against Rivers making the Hall. Personally, I'm not gonna get worked up either way. But if I did have to cast a vote, I'd probably say he should get in, but not first ballot. But that and 4 bucks will get you what used to be a nickel cup of coffee.

[rhickok1109]

I said chief metric, not the only metric. Of course longevity and other variables enter into it. Enshrinements (and awards of all kinds, for that matter) are entirely subjective, so the case can easily be made for and against Rivers making the Hall. Personally, I'm not gonna get worked up either way. But if I did have to cast a vote, I'd probably say he should get in, but not first ballot. But that and 4 bucks will get you what used to be a nickel cup of coffee.

Just for the record, I don't think Rivers is HOF-worthy. But I don't think Roethlisberger is, either.

[Brian wolf]

Some people feel they're enough QBs already in the HOF.
With P Manning, Brady, Brees and Rodgers being locks, what about Rothlisberger, Eli Manning, Matt Ryan, not to mention possibly Wilson and Mahomes in the future ?

Does River get in after possibly all these players ?
Does he deserve to get in over Ken Anderson, Phil Simms or Donovan McNabb ?