Do you consider Big Ben a hall of famer?

[Superman]

I think you are missing the point. I am not saying that rings are the sole factor but they are a factor and a big one in the HoF. There are countless guys that are there without rings but there are also many there that would not be there without the rings. It is a PART of the criteria. I am not sure how you can deny that.

 

It is absolutely part of the criteria, no denying that. Let's just be sure that we don't reduce the entire discussion to "he has this many rings, that means he should be a HOFer." 

[amfootball]

It is absolutely part of the criteria, no denying that. Let's just be sure that we don't reduce the entire discussion to "he has this many rings, that means he should be a HOFer." 

Not reducing it to rings at all but let me ask you. If he gets a third ring, does he get in? There is only one QB to my knowledge with multiple rings that is not in the HoF and that is Plunkett with 2. Let me also ask you. If Ben did not have any rings, would this be a discussion at all? What about Eli with no rings? Also, what about Philip Rivers? He has better numbers than both Eli and Ben and we are not talking about him. How come?

[OffensivelyPC]

Let me ask you. If he gets a third ring, does he get in? There is only one QB to my knowledge with multiple rings that is not in the HoF and that is Plunkett with 2. Let me also ask you. If Ben did not have any rings, would this be a discussion at all? What about Eli with no rings? Also, what about Philip Rivers? He has better numbers than both Eli and Ben and we are not talking about him. How come?

Big Ben with no rings?  No HOF, IMO.  Same with Eli.  If they both continue the same production and taper off at the end of their career as they age as any player typically does, then no.  But since they have rings, it gives them a boost that I think they should be considered.  I think counting their rings, if Ben got in and Eli didn't, I think I'd agree with that.  Eli's lacked an element of consistency (i.e. last year was pretty bad, but he's had several years where his TD/INT ratio was anything but impressive).  The full body of Ben's career has been better to this point. 

 

Phillip Rivers is a tough one to gauge.  Statistically, he's been better than Ben and Eli.  If he got in, I don't think it would be an atrocity, but for now, his status is up in the air.

[ruksak]

Absolutely not. His 2 rings were most assuredly team accomplishments, more so than many SB winning QB's. More so than Eli's. 

[Valpo2004]

Let me ask you. If he gets a third ring, does he get in? There is only one QB to my knowledge with multiple rings that is not in the HoF and that is Plunkett with 2. Let me also ask you. If Ben did not have any rings, would this be a discussion at all? What about Eli with no rings? Also, what about Philip Rivers? He has better numbers than both Eli and Ben and we are not talking about him. How come?

 

I just looked this up and you are correct no retired QB that has started and won 2 or more superbowl rings is not in the pro football hall of fame besides Jim Plunkett.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_quarterbacks_with_multiple_Super_Bowl_starts

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Plunkett - " He is the only eligible quarterback to start (and win) two Super Bowls without being inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame"

 

Actually I'm kind of amazed at how short the list is just for QB's with multiple SB starts.  The list for QB's with multiple SB wins is even shorter.

 

The only thing I have with both Eli and Ben is during their best years neither one has ever struck me as an "elite" quarterback.  Just above average who often had some good teams around them.  That's not to say they didn't come up big in the moment but I have a hard time thinking we're deciding who's getting in the HOF or not based on 2 moments.  

[amfootball]

I just looked this up and you are correct no retired QB that has started and won 2 or more superbowl rings is not in the pro football hall of fame besides Jim Plunkett.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_quarterbacks_with_multiple_Super_Bowl_starts

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Plunkett - " He is the only eligible quarterback to start (and win) two Super Bowls without being inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame"

 

Actually I'm kind of amazed at how short the list is just for QB's with multiple SB starts.  The list for QB's with multiple SB wins is even shorter.

 

The only thing I have with both Eli and Ben is during their best years neither one has ever struck me as an "elite" quarterback.  Just above average who often had some good teams around them.  That's not to say they didn't come up big in the moment but I have a hard time thinking we're deciding who's getting in the HOF or not based on 2 moments.  

It's a fascinating discussion so kudos to the OP for asking. I think there are good arguments both for and against them making it in but for sure the two rings is what has them in the discussion.

[GoPats]

It is absolutely part of the criteria, no denying that. Let's just be sure that we don't reduce the entire discussion to "he has this many rings, that means he should be a HOFer." 

 

It depends on a player's position and role with the team. There are Patriot players with three rings who have kind of faded into memory. (I only know this because they're planning on a halftime ceremony on Sunday to recognize 17 of the 22 guys who were on all three championship teams, and with some of the names, it was like, "Oh yeah! That guy!") Obviously role-players and in a lot of cases even with starters, the fact that they have three rings doesn't mean anything, really. Je'Rod Cherry could have 10 rings and still wouldn't get into Canton.

 

Really the "rings" case is made only for quarterbacks, or at least mostly for them. If you took away Ben's or Eli's, their careers would be good but fairly unremarkable. 

[Valpo2004]

It's a fascinating discussion so kudos to the OP for asking. I think there are good arguments both for and against them making it in but for sure the two rings is what has them in the discussion.

 

I'm also curious about Kurt Warner, only 1 ring but there where times when he was considered one of the best QB's in the league.  Although he never seemed to stay consistent with that.

 

The rings thing bothers me a bit.  Terry Bradshaw was never that good, but in because he played with the Steel Curtain.

 

Then you have Joe Namath who got in because he guaranteed victory and his team won.  Although some of that has to do with the whole proving the AFL could compete with the NFL.  But he wasn't that good either.  

 

Although I suppose they call it the Hall of Fame and not the Hall of the greatest players.

[Valpo2004]

It depends on a player's position and role with the team. There are Patriot players with three rings who have kind of faded into memory. (I only know this because they're planning on a halftime ceremony on Sunday to recognize 17 of the 22 guys who were on all three championship teams, and with some of the names, it was like, "Oh yeah! That guy!") Obviously role-players and in a lot of cases even with starters, the fact that they have three rings doesn't mean anything, really. Je'Rod Cherry could have 10 rings and still wouldn't get into Canton.

 

Really the "rings" case is made only for quarterbacks, or at least mostly for them. If you took away Ben's or Eli's, their careers would be good but fairly unremarkable. 

 

Very true. . . well that and coaches.  But no one asks about a HOF RB or lineman or defensive player how many rings they have.  

[Superman]

Not reducing it to rings at all but let me ask you. If he gets a third ring, does he get in? There is only one QB to my knowledge with multiple rings that is not in the HoF and that is Plunkett with 2. Let me also ask you. If Ben did not have any rings, would this be a discussion at all? What about Eli with no rings? Also, what about Philip Rivers? He has better numbers than both Eli and Ben and we are not talking about him. How come?

 

I think Ben gets in without a third ring, eventually. Assuming he continues to play the way he has over the last five years or so, I think he already has a good case. Depending on what the whole class looks like, he could be a first ballot guy, though I tend to think he might have to wait a couple years. 

 

And rings help his case. Eli's, also. 

 

Again, rings are a part of the consideration. I just don't think the discussion should be centered on rings. That shouldn't be new information to you.

[amfootball]

I think Ben gets in without a third ring, eventually. Assuming he continues to play the way he has over the last five years or so, I think he already has a good case. Depending on what the whole class looks like, he could be a first ballot guy, though I tend to think he might have to wait a couple years. 

 

And rings help his case. Eli's, also. 

 

Again, rings are a part of the consideration. I just don't think the discussion should be centered on rings. That shouldn't be new information to you.

I agree with you but this discussion is on hall of fame worthiness and rings play a significant role in player consideration.

[amfootball]

I'm also curious about Kurt Warner, only 1 ring but there where times when he was considered one of the best QB's in the league.  Although he never seemed to stay consistent with that.

 

The rings thing bothers me a bit.  Terry Bradshaw was never that good, but in because he played with the Steel Curtain.

 

Then you have Joe Namath who got in because he guaranteed victory and his team won.  Although some of that has to do with the whole proving the AFL could compete with the NFL.  But he wasn't that good either.  

 

Although I suppose they call it the Hall of Fame and not the Hall of the greatest players.

I don't think Kurt played long enough as a starter but I would vote him in. He was league MVP too and took two garbage franchises to the SB.

[Dustin]

Should he be? No.

 

Will he be? Probably.

 

I think Phillip Rivers would be a much more interesting discussion. 

[Shane Bond]

Yes

[BloodyChamp]

He and Eli are both in. Eli is in for the upset if nothing else.

Did anyone see Big Ben last week? O I know all about stat inflation and the change in eras but apparently most people don't. He'll have more stats than we can count if he keeps playing.

[akcolt]

I agree. He belongs in the Hall of the Pretty Good, at this point.

Also, the Steelers didn't win his first SB because of him, and the second I'm not certain they won at all, let along because of him.

I'm sure there are plenty of guys on those two SB teams that won't be in the Hall.

[akcolt]

Forgot the Hawks got jobbed in the 2nd one good point

[Moncrief]

No.

[Colts_Fan12]

Yeah I think the ring discussion is out the window now (Its a poor debate anyway)......Peyton has 1 ring.....Is he going to have to wait or not even get in because of 1 ring?....Roethlisberger has 2....Shall a QB who puts up great numbers through his whole career get punished because his GM and coaches could not put good enough players around him to win a couple rings?

So true I am sick of the ring nonsense Peyton is the GOAT and only has 1 a career shouldn't be based on a team accomplishment but to many stupid people put too much into the rings " Brady lovers"

[Colts_Fan12]

No he shouldn't

[ColtsBlueFL]

It's a fascinating discussion so kudos to the OP for asking. I think there are good arguments both for and against them making it in but for sure the two rings is what has them in the discussion.

 

 

Remember, E. Manning, Rivers, and Big Ben wer all 3 highly sought QB's in the 2004 Draft.  San Diego liked both Manning and Rivers.  But went with Manning.  Accorsi of the Giants loved E. Manning too.  But If he couldn't swing a deal with the Chargers to get him, it is reported he would have selected Ben Roethlisburger. But Accorsi/Mara was able to swing  deal with A.J. Smith to trade picks and give a 3 (Merriman) and a 5th (Nate Kaeding).  Giants Picked Rivers and traded.  Ben went #11 overall to the Steelers but had actually been moments away from being a NY Giant.  All have performed fairly well for their teams.  Eli and Ben have 4 of the rings given out of the 11 Rings given out since they were drafted.  Giants were crappy enough to get a #4, Steelers a #11.  How many think Blake Bortles (Jags) will get a ring, let alone 2, in the next 10 years?  How would Matt Scaub or Luke McCown (taken later in 2004) fared in NY or Pitt?  These are also things I look at.  The guys were drafted high to help the team get Super Bowl wins. Each has.  Can't deny they did what was asked of them when the teams placed high round 1 picks for them.

[Superman]

I agree with you but this discussion is on hall of fame worthiness and rings play a significant role in player consideration.

 

Maybe so. Maybe too much...

 

Anyways, when people start asking "does he get in if he wins another Super Bowl," that's when I think the ring angle is taking up too much space in the discussion. IMO

[SteelCityColt]

Maybe so. Maybe too much...

 

Anyways, when people start asking "does he get in if he wins another Super Bowl," that's when I think the ring angle is taking up too much space in the discussion. IMO

 

Factoring rings into the discussion isn't so bad for the Hall of Fame... as another poster pointed it's not just about being a really really good player (though it helps massively).

 

I balk at it being used a strongly weighted metric for comparing player talent. 

[BOTT]

Not reducing it to rings at all but let me ask you. If he gets a third ring, does he get in? There is only one QB to my knowledge with multiple rings that is not in the HoF and that is Plunkett with 2. Let me also ask you. If Ben did not have any rings, would this be a discussion at all? What about Eli with no rings? Also, what about Philip Rivers? He has better numbers than both Eli and Ben and we are not talking about him. How come?

Because Rivers plays in SD and some of those early teams underachieved....although that had more to do with the coaching imo.

[Valpo2004]

Factoring rings into the discussion isn't so bad for the Hall of Fame... as another poster pointed it's not just about being a really really good player (though it helps massively).

 

I balk at it being used a strongly weighted metric for comparing player talent. 

 

I think that's the problem.  I think most people *want* it to be the hall of great players.  But it's the hall of fame and so basically it's for well known and well remembered players.  Being a great player helps with that because the greats are usually remembered.  But there are ways to become famous without being a great player.  

 

For example there are a lot of arguments about many of the members of Lombardi's Packer's teams and Noll's Steelers teams being in the HOF pointing out that these players in and of themselves where not great but where just members of great teams that won a lot of championships.  

 

But being a member of a great team that won a lot of championships made them famous.  

 

Joe Namath is another example, the moment he predicted and then won Superbowl 3, he made himself a hall of famer.  

[dgambill]

Eventually. I don't think he's a first ballot shoe-in kind of guy. Once he retires, I think we'll look at his career and recognize that he was really good, not elite, never the best in the league, and his first championship came in a season (and a Super Bowl) when he was an accessory, not a major component. Assuming he retires after Manning and Brady and Brees -- he's three years younger than Brees, the youngest of those three -- he'll be looking up at a recent history of first ballot guys who were no-brainers, without off field distractions, better career numbers, had long stretches as the very best in the league, and all have championships.

 

I am in no way arguing against him being a HOFer. I just don't think his career will be regarded in the same light as the guys who will be up immediately before him, and that might mean that he has to wait a couple years.

I agree a lot with you. One thing to remember is was he the best or one of the best at his position during his time. That is VERY debatable. Just winning two SBs does not a HOF make you in my opinion. Plenty of good players (non-qb) have won SBs and are not HOFers. However....a few more weeks like last week and he is a shoe in lol. I think he makes it due to the qb bias of today's nfl...but not first ballot. IMO there are a ton of players ahead of him (at other positions) more worthy of consideration....but he has time...certainly another 5 yrs of high quality football left at least.

[OldManP]

I know some people think so because he has two rings, but Eli has two rings as well and I see him not having a shot in heck at getting in canton (although big ben is better than Eli) just wanna hear some opinions.

Big Ben is going in the HOF.

[LordHelpOurColts]

I don't know, but he throws a damn good ball

[thedude]

Eli has a better shot than Big Ben imo.

I couldn't disagree more.

[IndyTrav]

2x SB Champion (One of them where he may have thrown the greatest pass of all time)

 

NFL RoY

 

Currently in the 20's in nearly all of the QB Statistical Measurements (yards/tds/comp), 9th all time in Rating. 

 

Plays for arguably the premier NFL franchise.

 

And is known to have a skill set few, if any, QB has ever had. 

 

If he retired right now he is a borderline guy. Another 3-5 years and he's in without question. He's never going to be a 1st ballot guy. But he will be in. 

[chad72]

2x SB Champion (One of them where he may have thrown the greatest pass of all time)

 

NFL RoY

 

Currently in the 20's in nearly all of the QB Statistical Measurements (yards/tds/comp), 9th all time in Rating. 

 

Plays for arguably the premier NFL franchise.

 

And is known to have a skill set few, if any, QB has ever had. 

 

If he retired right now he is a borderline guy. Another 3-5 years and he's in without question. He's never going to be a 1st ballot guy. But he will be in. 

 

Yep, that is the key. Will Big Ben be a first ballot HOF? Probably not. Second ballot? Without question, yes but he needs to provide another 3-4 year streak of the Steelers making the playoffs and possibly once or twice as a division winner.

[Synthetic]

Do you consider Kenny Stabler a Hall of Famer?

What about Ricky Watters?

Donald Driver?

 

It's a loaded question.

[akcolt]

yes fringe and no

Stabler is the only member of the 70's all decade team not in the Hall.

Ricky was good and went to the Notre Dame so I am a little biased but he had like 40 fumbles to go with his 10,000 yards rushing and whatever receiving

Driver was a good WR.

[Superman]

2x SB Champion (One of them where he may have thrown the greatest pass of all time)

 

NFL RoY

 

Currently in the 20's in nearly all of the QB Statistical Measurements (yards/tds/comp), 9th all time in Rating. 

 

Plays for arguably the premier NFL franchise.

 

And is known to have a skill set few, if any, QB has ever had. 

 

If he retired right now he is a borderline guy. Another 3-5 years and he's in without question. He's never going to be a 1st ballot guy. But he will be in. 

 

To the bolded, this is kind of off topic, but I've always been more impressed by the catch than the throw. And even then, I'm not 100% certain that second foot hit the ground. I think it may have hit his other foot. Either way, really good play, and it was definitely a nice throw. Not close to being the greatest of all time, but whatever... Also, you can juxtapose that one really good throw against his absolutely dreadful performance in his first SB.

 

I don't think his ROY is relevant. Ten years from now, I don't think we'll be talking about Robert Griffin's ROY. And there are many HOFers who won ROY, but that's never really part of their HOF credentials. 

 

I also don't think the stature of the franchise is relevant. 

 

His overall stats, which will be noteworthy on the all time lists, and his skillset and the plays it allowed him to make, those are going to be impossible to argue against.

 

I agree with your conclusion, and these posts ind of highlight why he probably won't be a first ballot guy. There are a lot of arguments for him, and a lot of counters to those arguments. His overall stats will be really good, but they'll be much less impressive than the guys who are eligible before him. He has some off-field stuff that I don't personally think is relevant, but it will be held against him by some. 

[thedude]

2x SB Champion (One of them where he may have thrown the greatest pass of all time)

No, one of the most incredible fluke catches of all time.

[ColtsBlueFL]

2x SB Champion (One of them where he may have thrown the greatest pass of all time)

 

NFL RoY

 

Currently in the 20's in nearly all of the QB Statistical Measurements (yards/tds/comp), 9th all time in Rating. 

 

Plays for arguably the premier NFL franchise.

 

And is known to have a skill set few, if any, QB has ever had. 

 

If he retired right now he is a borderline guy. Another 3-5 years and he's in without question. He's never going to be a 1st ballot guy. But he will be in. 

 

That pass was great.  One of the few throws I call a laser beam with touch.  He spun it out fast and over  a D pass rusher just before the Apex of his jump and just inches over a DB at the Apex of his jump.  It landed in the hands of Holmes who ballet tapped his toes .  Awesome pitch and catch, and I'm not a fan of either guy.

 

 

But it will be the work he puts in over the next 5 years that will get him in, I agree.  His last 5 compared to his 1st 5 are no comparison.  And the guy will not lapse, he'll gather the stats he needs, and may rise in skills as well.   The other stuff is media fluff.

[braveheartcolt]

I've acquired two rings in my adult life, but not sure that will propel me into the Husband Hall of Fame. Well, it's definitely a 50-50 vote right now.

On topic, Ben will make it. He'll ride in on a motorbike with a drunk girl riding pillion.

Seriously, he is good enough to make it for sure.

[Defjamz26]

He's never really had a prolific, record breaking year like guys like Brady, Brees, and Manning and he's never had a season where you say he could be the best QB in the NFL. No notable records either. Skill wise, he's Tony Romo but more clutch. If anything his toughness is what sticks out. All the injuries he's had and played through. He's basically what you have when a QB isn't a once in a lifetime talent that will be one of the best to ever play. Not every franchise QB is Montana, Favre, Manning, Elway,etc...

 

It's a bit of a dilemma. You couldn't even say he's the best Steeler ever tbh. But then again, Aikman got in so....

[LordHelpOurColts]

He can sure sling it

[Superfly Jay]

Yeah he'll get in not the first go around but eventually. I saw a couple of people on here say Rivers. No way that dude is getting in.