Boomer?

[74_75_78_79_]

Esiason. Always respected his game. A true-blue QB I thought he was. And not just his first stint (especially '88) in Cincy. He had his moments in the '90s with the Jets and as a Card (not sure what year it was, either '96 or '97) he had that sick 4-game stretch. Of course another Bengal QB, Ken Anderson, needs to get into the Hall - first things first! But once that's out the way, is there a chance that Boomer can make HOVG?

[ChrisBabcock]

He did win a league mvp if I'm not mistaken? That alone should make him at least worthy of a nomination.

[JuggernautJ]

I'd give him serious consideration.
4 pro bowls, 1 All-Pro, 1 MVP, 1 Walter Payton Man-of-the Year

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/ ... iaBo00.htm

[bachslunch]

Esiason wouldn’t be the worst option. He ranks quite well in Chase Stuart’s system (29th), though just fair in Rasaretnam’s 4/7/10 at 61st/54th/36th.

EDIT: for HOVG, not HoF.

[sluggermatt15]

I too think Boomer is worthy of a look. His numbers with the Bengals are decent enough for nomination, IMO.

[JohnTurney]

HOVG yes. HOF? I don't see it. Brodie and Gabriel both have MVPs...and to me, more of HOVG guys, too

[Bryan]

Esiason's postseason run in his 1988 MVP season was abysmal. 7-19-108, 11-20-94-1-2...if the Bengals had gotten anything in the Super Bowl from Esiason (11-25-144-0-1) then they probably win that game.

In terms of MVP QBs, I would put Boomer above guys like Sipe and Jaworksi, below guys like Gabriel and Brodie.

[bachslunch]

Esiason's postseason run in his 1988 MVP season was abysmal. 7-19-108, 11-20-94-1-2...if the Bengals had gotten anything in the Super Bowl from Esiason (11-25-144-0-1) then they probably win that game.

Likely true, though losing Tim Krumie would have made that an uphill battle no matter what.

[Jeremy Crowhurst]

If you look at his yearly rank in a stat like ANY/A, he had a five year stretch (85-89) that was 2nd-2nd-14th-1st-4th, which is really good. John Elway never had a five-year stretch anywhere close to that good. Moon had a string of 2-5-3-10-6, Jim Kelly was 11-6-2-3-7-11 over a six year span.

But the real knock against Boomer isn't so much the Super Bowl as that whole playoff run. 7-19-108-0-0 against Seattle, 11-20-94-1-2 against Buffalo, and then the Super Bowl. That team went as far as Ickey could carry them. Boomer was just a passenger.

It's really tough to make an argument for the Hall of Fame just based on rate stats when the player doesn't have rings (which I think are overrated) or end of season honours, which are flawed as well. But zero rings, no good post-season performances, 1/4/0, and 22nd all-time in yards (23 in TDs).... Any conversation about Esiason is going to bring up Bledsoe and Testaverde and Krieg and Kerry Collins, and nobody wants to go there.

[conace21]

He is not a HOF player, but should be in the discussion for the HOVG. He had a fine stretch of play, but he was probably below average from 1991-96, except for half of 1993 and a three game stretch in 1996. That's what made his 1997 revival so shocking. It's like he picked up from where he left off in 1990. The Bengals were projected to make a leap to a playoff team, and Jeff Blake looked to take the next step. Instead, Blake and the team took a tumble. Boomer took over and it was a 360 degree turnaround.
I recall that Cincinnati wanted to keep Boomer in 1998, but they lowballed him, and he accepted the MNF gig instead.