Eli Manning: Hall of Famer?

Ryan has had a better career than Romo, yes.

Is there a zero sum game I am unaware of in which only Eli Manning or Kurt Warner is permitted to be elected into the HOF?

 

Matt Ryan is Carson Palmer in a Falcons uniform.

 

It isn't, though. Before this season, he barely shows up in the season top fives in any category. TDs, fifth once (2012). Yards, fourth once and fifth a few other times. Passer rating, only two top-10 seasons.

Lots of guys can beat that. Rivers for sure. Even someone like Rich Gannon.

 

But a big reason is that there have been 4-5 guys who have had a stranglehold on those categories for years now. Brees is always going to pass for 5,000 yards, even if they go 0-16. Rivers, too.

 

Ryan has his share of those empty yards too -- almost 14,000 in the last three years as they went 18-30.

In 2013 when he was ninth in passing TDs, he trailed such luminaries as Andy Dalton and Nick Foles.

Not sure why you're so down on Rivers. Chargers never really had a lost season until 2015. Before then they only had one losing season with him, and it was 7-9. I'm not trying to build a HOF case for him, but he would be ahead of Ryan.

 

I'm not down on him. I just think it's too late in his career, and they're too far away from doing anything notable, that he's going to run out of time.

 

Manning will get in. I agree with Dick on Rivers. I also don't think Ryan has much of a shot unless he puts together something like four more seasons similar this one (which isn't out of the question with Julio Jones running routes).

 

There are some other interesting guys, too. Andrew Luck would probably be well on his way if he wasn't surrounded by shit. Russell Wilson's star has faded a little bit.

 

I think you have to dial back any evaluation of QBs in this era. 4,000 yards in a season is just okay nowadays. QBs are more important and they are always going to be the MVP, but that doesn't mean that all of the good ones today are HOF worthy. I would hope that voters would recognize this change and not give every guy who put up stats post 2004 a HOF consideration.

 

Luck got mentioned in a Simmons column a week or so ago as "too soon to rank" regarding the all-time great QBs, and I don't understand why he even came up. (Dick, the only other QB he put in that category was Wilson, whom I agree belongs there.) What has Luck done to show that he merits any potential discussion as an all-time great compared to some of the other "good, not great" QBs who have been around for 5-10 years?

Out of that group, only Rodgers and Wilson are on HOF trajectories right now. Luck could certainly get there. But his resume is certainly thinner than Newton's, to say nothing of the likes of Ryan and Stafford. Others could make it and Luck could certainly end up as the best of the group, but mentioning him in Hall of Fame discussions is projecting a great deal. He has been surrounded by a crappy team - and he's willed crap teams to the playoffs and won there, which isn't a small thing - but I think it's premature to even put him in the "potential" conversation.

 

I get the feeling that people who know people who know football - i.e. people who talk to scouts and coaches - are told pretty consistently that Luck is a top five talent in the league.

 

I suspect that's a lot of it.