Nope, which is the point being debated. They are close, if one gets in they both should get in.

 

I'm not of the opinion Eli should get in. I don't think Ben should get in either. I think they will both get in and I think Eli is more deserving than Ben. That is my official opinion on the matter.

No problem, I think they're a wash so I don't understand how someone can be so definite that one is better than the other when their stats and results are so close.

No problem, I think they're a wash so I don't understand how someone can be so definite that one is better than the other when their stats and results are so close.

 

 

I think Eli's DNA gives him the final push to get in. If someone like Cris Carter struggles to get in then I can see someone like Ben struggling to get in also.

No problem, I think they're a wash so I don't understand how someone can be so definite that one is better than the other when their stats and results are so close.

I don't know, I don't think the statys are all that close. Ben has a much better compl% 5 points higher in fact and Ben's Rating is more than 10 points higher. Ben career rating is 92.3, Eli's is 81. Ben's complt % is 63.3, Eli's is 58. Ben also has a better TD to INT ratio.

The one thing Eli has is the name factor.

I don't know' date=' I don't think the statys are all that close. Ben has a much better compl% 5 points higher in fact and Ben's Rating is more than 10 points higher. Ben career rating is 92.3, Eli's is 81. Ben's complt % is 63.3, Eli's is 58. Ben also has a better TD to INT ratio. The one thing Eli has is the name factor.[/quote']

 

You pick and choose the stats you like based on whether or not they help your case.

I didn't say Ben was obviously better than Eli (at least I don't remember saying that). I'm saying VOTERS may be less inclined to vote for Eli than Big Ben. You can argue stats and wins all day. I'm just saying the perception of Eli is "inconsistency."

You pick and choose the stats you like based on whether or not they help your case.

 

How so? Long before I looked up the stats for both players, for years now, anyone who knows me knows I think the #1 thing I look at is compl % and then the rest falls into place. So show me what I picked and chose to make Ben look better than Eli with? Does Ben have better compl %? Does Ben have higher QB rating? Does Ben have better yd/int ratio? What exactly do you see that makes them equal

Besides your Eli bias?

Roethlisberger just became the 6th QB to throw for 200 touchdowns and to have 2 Super Bowl rings. He is 13 touchdowns from passing Terry Bradshaw as the Steelers All Time leader in touchdown passes. Ben now has 200 touchdown passes.

 

For reference, Eli Manning is on that list with 221 touchdowns.

 

Tom Brady-354 TDS-(3 rings)

John Elway-300-(2)

Joe Montana-273-(4)

Eli Manning-221(2)

Terry Bradshaw-212(4)

Ben Roethlisberger-200-(2)

Joe Namath. Yes he tossed for 4K but his stats suck.. 65 QB rating, 173 TDs with 220 picks. He was a character though.

 

Exactly!!! Joe Namath and Terry Bradshaw 2 of the worst QB's in the HOF.

 

You can't compare those guys statistics to today's quarterbacks. Weren't defenses allowed to play bump and run coverage back then where they could hit a receiver as long as the ball wasn't in the air yet? If the current rules that handcuff defenses were in place back then I think you'd see a much different TD/INT rate and completion percentage.

You can't compare those guys statistics to today's quarterbacks. Weren't defenses allowed to play bump and run coverage back then where they could hit a receiver as long as the ball wasn't in the air yet? If the current rules that handcuff defenses were in place back then I think you'd see a much different TD/INT rate and completion percentage.

 

Yes they were which makes it even more of a joke that a QB from the same era isn't in the hall of fame but those 2 are. Kenny Anderson had stats that would fit right in with today's QB's stats but he played in the day where QB's like Namath and Bradshaw get yellow jackets with horrible stats compared to Anderson's.

Yes they were which makes it even more of a joke that a QB from the same era isn't in the hall of fame but those 2 are. Kenny Anderson had stats that would fit right in with today's QB's stats but he played in the day where QB's like Namath and Bradshaw get yellow jackets with horrible stats compared to Anderson's.

 

Joe Namath was retired before the NFL limited contact between defensive backs and receivers to within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage. He played his entire career under the old pass defense rules. Ken Anderson played 7 seasons under the new rules. Terry Bradshaw only 4 seasons.

 

Before the rules change Anderson had 99 touchdowns and 91 interceptions. Afterwards, he had 98 and 69.

Joe Namath was retired before the NFL limited contact between defensive backs and receivers to within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage. He played his entire career under the old pass defense rules. Ken Anderson played 7 seasons under the new rules. Terry Bradshaw only 4 seasons.

 

Before the rules change Anderson had 99 touchdowns and 91 interceptions. Afterwards, he had 98 and 69.

Yet Anderson still had better stats than Bradshaw even if you take those 3 years out. Both Anderson and Bradshaw came into the league only 1 year apart so it wasn't as if Anderson came in at the endd of Bradshaws career, actually Anderson lasted longer which also should say something.

 

I just looked at 7 years both played at the same time, 71-78 and here are Anderson's and Bradshaws stats compared to eachother.

 

Bradshaw

1971: 59 rating 13 td 22 int

Anderson

1971: 72 5 td 4 int

 

Bradshaw

1972: 64 rating 12 td 12 int

Anderson

1972: 74 rating 7 td 7 int

 

Bradshaw

1973: 54 rating 10 td 15 int

Anderson

1973: 81 rating 18 td 12 int

 

Bradshaw

1974: 55 rating 7 td 8 int

Anderson

1974: 95 rating 18 td 10 int

 

Bradshaw

1975: 88 rating 18 td 9 int

Anderson

1975: 93 rating 21 td 11 int

 

Bradshaw

1976: 65 rating 10 td 9 int

Anderson

1976: 76 rating 19 td 14 int

 

Bradshaw

1977: 71 rating 17 td 19 int

Anderson

1977: 69 rating 11 td 11 int

 

Out of the 7 years comapared at the begginging of their careers Anderson stats were better than Bradshaws in all but 1 season.. Anderson also had better stats than Bradshaw did in his best season of those 7..

Edited November 4, 201312 yr by Hellbird

Yet Anderson still had better stats than Bradshaw even if you take those 3 years out.

 

 

Don't forget to take out the additional year that Bradshaw played under the old rules in 1970 before Anderson was in the league. That year he threw 6 touchdowns and 24 interceptions. That would make his numbers 206 touchdowns and 176 interceptions total. Then if you subtract the additional years that Anderson got to play under the new rules that lowers his totals to 184 touchdowns and 146 interceptions. Not a whole lot of difference and certainly not better than Bradshaw...especially when you throw in 4 Super Bowl Championships and 2 Super Bowl MVPs.

Don't forget to take out the additional year that Bradshaw played under the old rules in 1970 before Anderson was in the league. That year he threw 6 touchdowns and 24 interceptions. That would make his numbers 206 touchdowns and 176 interceptions total. Then if you subtract the additional years that Anderson got to play under the new rules that lowers his totals to 184 touchdowns and 146 interceptions. Not a whole lot of difference and certainly not better than Bradshaw...especially when you throw in 4 Super Bowl Championships and 2 Super Bowl MVPs.

Look at my previous post, I compared common years 71-77 and Anderson crushed Bradshaw. Had better QB rating than Bradshaw in every season of those except for 1. Anderson even had a higher rating than Bradshaw in the season of Bradshaw's higest rating out of those 7.

 

Sorry you can't convince me even though you brought up the rules thing, that Bradshaw was better than Anderson, even in those same seasons. So how can you say that taken those years out from Andersson that 40 more TD';s than Int's isn't better than Bradshaw who had about the same TD's as Int's? Anderson crushed Bradshaw in rrating too as well as completion %. Sorry, Bradshaw rode on the shirt tails of his teamates for those 4 SB's, played on the best team of the era and benefitted from it big time. Andersson played on one of the worst teams in the league during that same time frame yet still crushed Bradshaw.

 

In those same seasons, 71-77

Bradshaw 87 TD's, Anderson 99 TD's

Bradshaw 94 Int's Anderson 69 Int's

 

So if my math is correct, Anderson threw more TD'sand less Int's than Bradshaw in that time frame. Yet you claim Bradshaw was clearly better....not sure about that my friend.

Edited November 4, 201312 yr by Hellbird

Look at my previous post, I compared common years 71-77 and Anderson crushed Bradshaw. Had better QB rating than Bradshaw in every season of those except for 1. Anderson even had a higher rating than Bradshaw in the season of Bradshaw's higest rating out of those 7.

 

Sorry you can't convince me even though you brought up the rules thing, that Bradshaw was better than Anderson, even in those same seasons. So how can you say that taken those years out from Andersson that 40 more TD';s than Int's isn't better than Bradshaw who had about the same TD's as Int's? Anderson crushed Bradshaw in rrating too as well as completion %. Sorry, Bradshaw rode on the shirt tails of his teamates for those 4 SB's, played on the best team of the era and benefitted from it big time. Andersson played on one of the worst teams in the league during that same time frame yet still crushed Bradshaw.

 

The rules thing was brought up mainly to dispute that Namath wasn't as good as Anderson. He never got to play under the more relaxed passing rules. To me that makes it impossible to compare his stats to Anderson.

 

As for Bradshaw vs Anderson I wouldn't say Anderson exactly "crushed" Bradshaw. He threw for 12 more touchdowns over those 7 seasons or less than 2 per season.

 

Where Bradshaw really cleans up (besides his 4 Super Bowls and 2 MVPs) is over the last 5 years of his career after the rules change. For those 5 years he threw 117 TDs and 92 INTs compared to Anderson's 73 TDs and 64 INTs. That's a difference of 44 touchdowns, or 9 a season. A much bigger difference than the 7 years that you used. Overall, Bradshaw threw 15 more touchdowns than Anderson in 24 less games. Anderson did have a better completion percentage and less interceptions but I think the 4 Super Bowl Championships and 2 Super Bowl MVPs more than balances that out.

 

And your statement that Anderson had stats that would fit right in with today's players is just flat out not true. Anderson had 2 seasons of more than 20 TD passes and 2 seasons of 3000+ yards. Bradshaw, even though his numbers don't compare to today's players either, had 4 seasons of 20+ TD passes and also had 2 seasons of 3000+ passing yards.