Ken Anderson, Phillip Rivers - if you can only pick ONE of them?

[74_75_78_79_]

Sure-enough Ken, and then Phillip, will end up getting in if only due to it being a bigger, and bigger, Hall anymore.

Just the same, if you can only pick ONE to get into Canton, who would it be?

Can Rivers score some 'points' with this recent comeback-at-44 if it's a success?

[Brian wolf]

Anderson ... who at least won a conference championship. Rivers should have appeared in more of them with the talent SD had.
Even his last playoff game should have been a win for Indy. Both were very good throwers but the Chargers didnt chase a great team in their division, while the Bengals did with Pitts.

[SeahawkFever]

I would say Anderson.

In particular the Chargers in 2006 were probably more talented than any team Anderson had (though the one cornerback fumbling the ball isn’t on Rivers).

The question I have now about Rivers and the Hall of Fame is did he just take himself out of contention for a four more years than he could’ve been?

Obviously different rules and league, but if that’s the case then this could be the NFL’s equivalent of Dave Stieb coming out of retirement to have one last hurrah in 1998 and in effect take himself out of baseball Hall of Fame contention until 2004; 13 or 14 years after his last season of rather prime form.

[rewing84]

My pick 100% would be Ken Anderson

[pgconboy]

I am always annoyed by folks that can't answer a simple question posed in a thread. So I'll be annoyed at my own existence for a bit.

I would pick neither. I think together they make excellent gatekeepers for setting the HOF bar. Sort of like the clubs on the old wack-a-mole arcade game.

[JWL]

If I can only pick one, I'd still look to pick neither. If Rivers amazingly were to lead the Colts to the playoffs and win at least one game, I might change my mind. I have been amazed at people in the media, even some former players talking on TV and the radio that Rivers merely coming back enchances his HOF profile. To me, merely coming back is not enough.

[Brian wolf]

I am always annoyed by folks that can't answer a simple question posed in a thread. So I'll be annoyed at my own existence for a bit.

I would pick neither. I think together they make excellent gatekeepers for setting the HOF bar. Sort of like the clubs on the old wack-a-mole arcade game.

Good take, but the HOF bar for QBs is already very subjective. Jurgensen couldnt elevate his teams. Namath played on very bad teams. Moon couldnt win games on the road. Griese didnt like to throw on third down, trusting his defense, maybe too much. He like Aikman, werent consistent throwers. Warner was replaced by three different QBs.
Kelly, like Fouts, was a turnover machine in some of the biggest games. All great QBs with justifiable faults as well.

[SeahawkFever]

I am always annoyed by folks that can't answer a simple question posed in a thread. So I'll be annoyed at my own existence for a bit.

I would pick neither. I think together they make excellent gatekeepers for setting the HOF bar. Sort of like the clubs on the old wack-a-mole arcade game.

In other words neither belong in Canton in your opinion, but both are about as good as one another.

And given that I’d take it you’d say Philip Rivers for Hall of Very Good a couple decades from now?