Roethlisberger for the HOF?

[Bryan]

I'm looking at the Pro Football Reference HOF Monitor for QBs. This list starts basically at Johnny Unitas, so the 1950s and prior QBs are not included.

100 is an average HOF QB.

Peyton Manning 258.50
Tom Brady 246.88
Brett Favre 178.84
Johnny Unitas 160.34
Joe Montana 153.45
Aaron Rodgers 143.89
Drew Brees 139.83
John Elway 137.78
Fran Tarkenton 117.28
Dan Marino 116.85
Steve Young 112.98
Average HOF QB 101
Bart Starr 97.53
Philip Rivers 95.66
Terry Bradshaw 94.82
Matt Ryan 94.54
Ben Roethlisberger 94.28
Roger Staubach 93.35
Dan Fouts 91.85
Kurt Warner 88.78
Ken Anderson 83.49
Eli Manning 83.41
Ken Stabler 82.62
Joe Namath 82.50
Sonny Jurgensen 78.92
Bob Griese 73.45
Warren Moon 72.70
Len Dawson 69.74

Next is Russell Wilson. Then you've got some other non HOFers, with Aikman and Jim Kelly being the two outliers with inferior credentials compared to the rest.

Peyton Manning, Brady, Brees, and Rodgers are all going to go in easily. Then you've got the next tier, Rivers, Ryan, Rothlisberger, Eli Manning. All "below average" for a HOFer, but (except for Eli) all with HOF QBs below them. Everyone else except for Ken Anderson has made it.

I think Rothlisberger suffers from comparison to his peers. But I think that's a statistical anomaly. There were just a lot of long running QBs that came out at the same time. If you look at the "next generation", Russell Wilson is getting close. Who else? Cam Newton's not going to make it. Matthew Stafford needs to get off the Lions. I don't think there will be as many HOFers from the younger QBs currently active.

Roethlisberger won't fare well in the HOF Monitor because he spent his career in the same conference with Tom Brady and Peyton Manning automatically eating up the All-Pro and Pro Bowl spots. This might be a cop-out, but Roethlisberger's style of play doesn't mesh with percentages and ratings...he makes a lot of big plays downfield and the Steelers tend to run in the redzone. Rivers might have the better stats, but Rivers doesn't have Roethlisberger's playmaking ability.

I agree that Roethlisberger is not a slam-dunk choice, but I think he is better than many QBs already in the HOF. He is the easily the best current 'next tier' guy...Rivers might get in, Eli Manning shouldn't, Matt Ryan is laughable.

Roethlisberger won titles with different head coaches...not many other QBs can make that claim. Roethlisberger has been consistently productive despite having a rotating cast at WR seemingly every year. He's been durable and productive, won in the postseason, and won two Super Bowls. I think that is a pretty strong HOF resume.

[74_75_78_79_]

I'm looking at the Pro Football Reference HOF Monitor for QBs. This list starts basically at Johnny Unitas, so the 1950s and prior QBs are not included.

100 is an average HOF QB.

Peyton Manning 258.50
Tom Brady 246.88
Brett Favre 178.84
Johnny Unitas 160.34
Joe Montana 153.45
Aaron Rodgers 143.89
Drew Brees 139.83
John Elway 137.78
Fran Tarkenton 117.28
Dan Marino 116.85
Steve Young 112.98
Average HOF QB 101
Bart Starr 97.53
Philip Rivers 95.66
Terry Bradshaw 94.82
Matt Ryan 94.54
Ben Roethlisberger 94.28
Roger Staubach 93.35
Dan Fouts 91.85
Kurt Warner 88.78
Ken Anderson 83.49
Eli Manning 83.41
Ken Stabler 82.62
Joe Namath 82.50
Sonny Jurgensen 78.92
Bob Griese 73.45
Warren Moon 72.70
Len Dawson 69.74

Next is Russell Wilson. Then you've got some other non HOFers, with Aikman and Jim Kelly being the two outliers with inferior credentials compared to the rest.

Peyton Manning, Brady, Brees, and Rodgers are all going to go in easily. Then you've got the next tier, Rivers, Ryan, Rothlisberger, Eli Manning. All "below average" for a HOFer, but (except for Eli) all with HOF QBs below them. Everyone else except for Ken Anderson has made it.

I think Rothlisberger suffers from comparison to his peers. But I think that's a statistical anomaly. There were just a lot of long running QBs that came out at the same time. If you look at the "next generation", Russell Wilson is getting close. Who else? Cam Newton's not going to make it. Matthew Stafford needs to get off the Lions. I don't think there will be as many HOFers from the younger QBs currently active.

Roethlisberger won't fare well in the HOF Monitor because he spent his career in the same conference with Tom Brady and Peyton Manning automatically eating up the All-Pro and Pro Bowl spots. This might be a cop-out, but Roethlisberger's style of play doesn't mesh with percentages and ratings...he makes a lot of big plays downfield and the Steelers tend to run in the redzone. Rivers might have the better stats, but Rivers doesn't have Roethlisberger's playmaking ability.

I agree that Roethlisberger is not a slam-dunk choice, but I think he is better than many QBs already in the HOF. He is the easily the best current 'next tier' guy...Rivers might get in, Eli Manning shouldn't, Matt Ryan is laughable.

Roethlisberger won titles with different head coaches...not many other QBs can make that claim. Roethlisberger has been consistently productive despite having a rotating cast at WR seemingly every year. He's been durable and productive, won in the postseason, and won two Super Bowls. I think that is a pretty strong HOF resume.

SO agreed! Yes, overall he wasn't Tom or Peyton (or Drew, or Aaron) but he shouldn't have to wait any more than three years after eligibility. And if he is First Ballot, no biggie. His induction won't, nor shouldn't, at all be seen as debatable as Cowher or Bettis getting in. To me, he's been the best QB that the Steelers could possibly have these past 17 years! Yes, he had a real bad game in his first Super Bowl (XL), but the Steelers did win it and they wouldn't have made it there at all if not for him (a great feat in a sophomore effort after, the year prior, not losing his first game at all until the AFCCG)! And then that final drive three years later vs the Cards...I opine that even Brady or Manning likely don't drive the Steelers downfield to victory if you place either one in that particular scenario. Like you said, "style of play", he shrugging-off tacklers/extending plays - something he did time and time again before and after that very drive. That very style of play and the Steelers' system quite the match! I don't envision Rivers nor Eli guiding Steelers to three SB berths and two Lombardis had either one been their QB instead.

[sluggermatt15]

I think people forget that for at least a third of his career (5-6 years)... the Steelers were a RUN-FIRST team. So, obviously Ben's numbers in such an offense aren't going to be astronomical. When Cowher had the lead, he'd run, run, and run. You can argue Peyton's Colts were pass first, same for Brady's Pats.

Also, Ben has to be the most elusive QB in NFL history who is at least 6'5", 250+ pounds. Watch his highlights getting away from tackles, running sideline-to-sideline to make the throw, and it taking 3-4 defenders to tackle him.

[Brian wolf]

Absolutely ... Could have had three rings already but the Steeler defense was awful against GB. The Steelers should have challenged the Patriots between 2014 and 2017 but the young players couldnt step up.

[Crazy Packers Fan]

There are 2 ways to answer this question.

1. Will he get in the HOF? No question, first ballot. But you have to understand the process that decides who gets in. The vast majority of the HOF voters are simply the top newspaper's beat writer for each of the 32 teams or someone similar, with a few others on the panel. They're almost all media people. You have one person at a time stand up and make their case for their guy. How can I put it nicely... you can see why there may be a bit of a conflict of interest. And what better story to write for your newspaper than "look where he was in 2010 and now look at him"?

2. Should he be considered in the top echelon of quarterbacks? That's a really interesting one. I've tried ranking QBs through a stats-and-Super Bowls mathematical formula, and he always comes up near the top. But any such formula is going to be skewed toward the recent guys, especially if said player has been to 3 Super Bowls. I'll say this: as someone who lives in Pittsburgh and hates the Steelers, there's no one I'd like to retire more than Big Ben. He's that good. So, yes, I'd put him in the HOF for certain.

[Reaser]

Pretty sure the Steelers won 67% of the games Batch, Dixon and Vick started when Ben was out, which roughly equals the Steelers win % with Roethlisberger starting. Almost like the Steelers have a great organization and consistently are good, no matter what players they have. They even have a winning record when Rudolph has been the starting QB. Shoot, they even went .500 with Duck Hodges! at QB (and that doesn't count a game they won when he came off the bench.) Even have a winning record in games Landry Jones started, though if my memory is correct I'm pretty sure one of those Ben replaced him, then lit up the Browns. Regardless, not sure on implications like 'only Ben could have won these games.'

Sort of an odd amount of credit and lack of blame for underachieving in certain games/seasons. Gets credit for "two rings" ... meanwhile the 2005 Steelers were a running team that had an extremely good defense. The following season when they tried to showcase Ben and let him throw and the offense became more 50/50 split (almost exactly 50/50 if my memory holds) up from run the ball, then run the ball again, they couldn't even make the playoffs. They put more on his plate, and the team went from winning the SB to missing the playoffs. His play also put a good defense in horrible position over and over which made the defense look worse than it was that season.

FF to 2008, Steelers have one of the great defense's of the 21st century, that is why they went to and won a SB. Not their mediocre offense, that really was below average, that had its successes throughout the season generally come from field position and what the defense setup for them -- including multiple chances at taking the lead because the defense shut the other team down. Though yes, Ben 100% made one of the all-time great throws in Super Bowl history.

2009, similar to 2006 in trying to make Ben the star and throw more, go from SB champions to missing the playoffs, again.

2010, another season 'we' give Roethlisberger all the credit for the SB appearance and give the rest of the team, especially that horrible defense (arguably best defense in the league) all the blame for not winning it all. Oh, and the offense was back to balanced (near 50/50 run/pass) down from trying to throw more, and look at that, win games when Ben does less. 50/50 split and beat the Ravens in the playoffs, run the ball and take it out of Ben's hands and beat the Jets for the AFC Championship. Then get away from 50/50 (or more running than passing) in the SB and shocker, they lose. Though, the pick-six Ben threw was part of the early big hole they got in and had to throw to 'comeback'. But it was definitely the defense's fault, not the Steelers offense that had a TD scored against them, or that turned the ball over 3 times, but the defense's fault they got to the SB and lost. Wonder what the score of that game would have been without the pick-six?

2013-2017, other than when Bell missed half a season with a torn ACL, Ben was surrounded by the best RB and the best WR, arguably (and definitely, in my opinion) had the two best offensive players in the league to get the ball to. Missed the playoffs once, two years didn't win a playoff game. Not the same old Steelers defenses then, but also got to this era where defense is less important and couldn't win anything. With the best two offensive players in the league on the same team as your weapons as a QB, not to mention other good WR's during that period, plus solid TE's, even good backup RB's, how could you not light up the league for 50+ TD passes a year and at least get to one Super Bowl? Not sure that's Ben's fault, or Tomlin, or the defense, or maybe Bell/Brown were just that detrimental to the team (don't buy this as much, since they dominated on the field so team should win and have the best offense in the league every year.)

I also can only think of one really great playoff performance -outside of the one drive/throw against the Cardinals- and that was the Jaguars game, that they inexplicably lost. Wasted opportunity. Like a lot of Steelers seasons since, and including, Ben's rookie season.

But only Ben could have won the games they did win during that period or so this odd thread of giving Roethlisberger way too much credit (as if he's been the Browns QB all this time and part of some dysfunctional franchise that only he and he alone could save) would likely imply. Though, we also have the other way of not giving him enough credit, like he was just some guy. Definitely better than that, but it's a team sport and the Steelers generally are good.

Either way, added some info and context to some of those things.

[Brian wolf]

I believe Big Ben, Brady, P Manning, Brees, Rodgers, Russell and possibly Mahomes, will be elected.

I dont believe Romo, Rivers, E Manning, Ryan, Newton or Stafford make it ...

[Bryan]

Pretty sure the Steelers won 67% of the games Batch, Dixon and Vick started when Ben was out, which roughly equals the Steelers win % with Roethlisberger starting. Almost like the Steelers have a great organization and consistently are good, no matter what players they have.

Who knew that the 3 games Dennis Dixon started for the Steelers would weigh so heavily in the Roethlisberger HOF discussion? I imagine if Dixon had gone 1-2 in those three games instead of 2-1, then the tables would turn and Roethlisberger would be first ballot material.

I didn't recall a time in which the Steelers had sustained success with a backup QB, because last year was the first time I could remember Roethlisberger missing significant playing time, so I went back and checked the numbers.

Charlie Batch went 6-3 during his 10 seasons as Roethlisberger's backup. Dixon was 2-1 over 3 seasons, while Vick went 2-1 in his only season. So 10 wins were generated by these backup QBs...the same amount Matt Cassell had in 1 season filling in for Tom Brady, and 3 less than Earl Morrall had in 1 season filling in for Johnny Unitas. I guess those QBs should be downgraded for being mere cogs in the machine as well.

I don't understand why great QB/great organization is an either/or thing. You can have both, IMO. Prior to Roethlisberger, the Steelers had QBs who would have a nice season every now and then, but no one who was consistently good. You seem hung up on Roethlisberger getting "credit" for the 2005 title...I thought it was pretty impressive for a 2nd year QB to take the #6 seed and have 3 straight road playoff wins with ratings of 148.7, 95.3 & 124.9 along with a game-saving tackle. Sure, the Super Bowl was a garbage Super Bowl in general, and Roethlisberger's best plays were his runs, but Roethlisberger got the job done against teams that went 11-5, 14-2, 13-3 & 13-3. Watching him in that postseason, I didn't get the impression that Roethlisberger was just along for the ride.

[Reaser]

Who knew that the 3 games Dennis Dixon started for the Steelers would weigh so heavily in the Roethlisberger HOF discussion? I imagine if Dixon had gone 1-2 in those three games instead of 2-1, then the tables would turn and Roethlisberger would be first ballot material.

I didn't recall a time in which the Steelers had sustained success with a backup QB, because last year was the first time I could remember Roethlisberger missing significant playing time, so I went back and checked the numbers.

Charlie Batch went 6-3 during his 10 seasons as Roethlisberger's backup. Dixon was 2-1 over 3 seasons, while Vick went 2-1 in his only season. So 10 wins were generated by these backup QBs...the same amount Matt Cassell had in 1 season filling in for Tom Brady, and 3 less than Earl Morrall had in 1 season filling in for Johnny Unitas. I guess those QBs should be downgraded for being mere cogs in the machine as well.

Ugh, yeah. Was a few sentences to preface the statement that the Steelers are a great & winning organization. Steelers still win games when he's been out here and there over 17 seasons. Not one backup in one season (your examples) but multiple backup QB's of varying skill levels over the course of 17 seasons. A larger sample size in the span of time. Steelers won roughly 66% of their games over the 17-years he's been on the team, 68% with him as starting QB, obviously he's better than the more-than-a-couple backup QB's that have started games over 17-years, but the Steelers still win over half the games he's missed.

e.g. 2010 AFC Championship season. Ben started 12 games, Steelers went 9-3 in those games (won 75%), Steelers went 3-1 in the games he didn't start (won 75%) ... In other words, won 75% of their regular season games, as a team.

What I didn't do, the implied absurdity, is point out 2019 and say only one of the 3 Steelers QB's who started had a losing record on their 8-8 team and it was Roethlisberger. That would leave out the context that they played NE and SEA (latter game he was injured in) and be something much closer to the ridiculous statement that you were looking/hoping for (though they did get blown out by NE and Ben didn't play well.)

I don't understand why great QB/great organization is an either/or thing. You can have both, IMO.

It's not either/or, and you can have both. Montana/49ers, Brady/Patriots, etc.

I more don't understand why great organization automatically means and equals great QB. You can have a good (or second/third tier 'great' for the spectrum types) QB and still be/have a great organization.

You seem hung up on Roethlisberger getting "credit" for the 2005 title...

Definitely hung up, which is why all three SB appearance seasons got one-paragraph each.

But sure, people can give him ALL the credit for getting to 3 SB's and say no one else could have done it and his passing (and his running) is the reason they got to those SB's and supply no context and no comment and say nothing about their great defenses, or their running game (on running teams), or that in period of time they were going to SB's they were getting there because they either ran more than passed, or were roughly balanced on offense, and had great defenses. To go along with the obvious of great coaching and being a great organization.

Overly-simplistic, and ignoring their defense (like everyone else seems to for whatever reason), but since I was going off memory in my previous post and some people need 'stats', here's the TEAM Pass-Rush Attempts during the regular season:

2005-2010 (covers the 3 SB appearances during Ben's career)

2005: 379-549 pass/run (Won SB)
2008: 506-460 pass/run (Won SB)
2010: 479-471 pass/run (Lost SB)

2007: 442-511 pass/run (10-6 div champs)

2006: 523-469 pass/run (missed playoffs)
2009: 536-428 pass/run (missed playoffs)

Rookie season, & 2011 since that's the last time the pass/run difference was near 100 att difference.

2004: 358-618 pass/run (Lost AFCCG)
2011: 539-434 pass/run (12-4 lost WC)

Since that 2011 season, it's been much more pass than run, the years they were throwing the ball.

2012-2018 (excluding 2019 since Ben only played the 2 games, and 2020 since TBD)

SB Wins: 0
SB Apps: 0
Missed Playoffs: 3

15 seasons overall
-Years they ran more than pass (running team v. passing team)-
3 seasons: 1 championship, 1 SB app, 2 AFCCG apps, 3 playoff apps

-Years they had less than 50 more pass att (balanced and/or running team)-
5 seasons: 2 championships, 3 SB apps, 4 AFCCG apps, 5 playoff apps

-Years they had more than 50 more pass att (put the ball in Ben's hands)-
10 seasons: 0 championships, 0 SB apps, 1 AFCCG app, 5 playoff apps, 5 missed playoffs

As said, overly-simplistic use of 'stats' but -without the stats- is what majority of my previous post was saying. But okay, Matt Cassel?

[Bryan]

Ugh, yeah. Was a few sentences to preface the statement that the Steelers are a great & winning organization. Steelers still win games when he's been out here and there over 17 seasons. Not one backup in one season (your examples) but multiple backup QB's of varying skill levels over the course of 17 seasons. A larger sample size in the span of time. Steelers won roughly 66% of their games over the 17-years he's been on the team, 68% with him as starting QB, obviously he's better than the more-than-a-couple backup QB's that have started games over 17-years, but the Steelers still win over half the games he's missed.

e.g. 2010 AFC Championship season. Ben started 12 games, Steelers went 9-3 in those games (won 75%), Steelers went 3-1 in the games he didn't start (won 75%) ... In other words, won 75% of their regular season games, as a team.?

Wow, you actually said verbatim "a larger sample size". So you are allowing that Dennis Dixon going 2-1 shouldn't derail Roethlisberger's HOF chances? Is there any context to what you are saying?

e.g 2005 NFL Title Season...Ben started 12 games, Steelers went 9-3 in those games (won 75%), Steelers went 2-2 in the games he didn't start (won 50%)....cool.