Jump to content

Colin Cowherd: Carson Palmer Is A Hall of Famer


Recommended Posts

59 minutes ago, Jamie_B said:

I don't have the problems some do with Carson, but no he is not a HOF'er.

 

Chad has more of an argument for it.

Nobody in that era is close. Takeo Spikes has a better argument.  Dillon is closest by far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This hypothetical bullshit is ridiculous, all of this "what if" crap is crazy talk.

 

Carson was good but committed too many turnovers, Pick Six Palmer isn't a HOF'er and his argument is lacking any real substance. 

 

Just because he looks like Troy Aikmen and threw for a bunch of yards doesn't  outweigh the fact that he went to the playoffs only 4 times in 14 seasons and won only 1 playoff game in his career... besides quitters don't get gold jackets and statues, especially not in Ohio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an article from last year at this time:  http://www.espn.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/125504/how-carson-palmer-stacks-up-against-hall-of-fame-quarterbacks

 

His career ranks after the 2017 season.  He has jumped up a couple notches on the accumulating stats lists since then.

 

CATEGORY STAT PLACE
Passes Completed 3,777 13th
Pass Attempts 6,040 13th
Passing Yards 44,269 14th
Passing Touchdowns 285 14th
Passer Rating 88.0 18th
Passing Yards/Game 253.0 12th
Completion Percentage 62.5 20th
Game-Winning Drives 34 10th
Interceptions 180

38th

 

Thing is, the QB numbers of the past are dwarfed by today's quarterbacks overall, so he ranks above several who were better than he has been.

 

He currently ranks 19th on the all-time QB Ratings list.  (Andy Dalton is 17th, by the way.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Four "potential" HOF QBs were selected in 2003 and 2004...Palmer, Manning, Rivers and Roethlisberger. Palmer is likely ranked 4th just out of these guys. Statistically he's in the conversation against Manning but, Eli has two rings. Rivers is superior statistically (and is still playing) and Roethilsiberger (despite how much I despise him) beats Palmer in almost every way. A good to great player at times during his career? Yes. Hall of Fame worthy? No. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Bleeds Orange said:

Here's an article from last year at this time:  http://www.espn.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/125504/how-carson-palmer-stacks-up-against-hall-of-fame-quarterbacks

 

His career ranks after the 2017 season.  He has jumped up a couple notches on the accumulating stats lists since then.

 

CATEGORY STAT PLACE
Passes Completed 3,777 13th
Pass Attempts 6,040 13th
Passing Yards 44,269 14th
Passing Touchdowns 285 14th
Passer Rating 88.0 18th
Passing Yards/Game 253.0 12th
Completion Percentage 62.5 20th
Game-Winning Drives 34 10th
Interceptions 180

38th

 

Thing is, the QB numbers of the past are dwarfed by today's quarterbacks overall, so he ranks above several who were better than he has been.

 

He currently ranks 19th on the all-time QB Ratings list.  (Andy Dalton is 17th, by the way.)

At the end of the day you either have to win Championships or play at a very high level and put up amazing stats.  The high level part means your team is in the playoffs consistently.   

 

The reason Anderson hasn't made it was that although he had very good stats, his teams typically were not very good.  Certainly not his fault but it's just the way it is.  Anderson led teams made it to the playoffs 4 times in his 14 year career and he only won 2 games.  That said his stats during that era were significantly more impressive than Palmers.

 

Marino, never won a ring but made the playoffs 10 times and won 8 games while shattering every passing record at the time. 

 

Palmer has nothing close to a Hall of Fame resume. A few good years doesnt equal HOF unless those years result in a ring.  Eli Manning was never as good as Palmer but he won when it counted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, SF2 said:

At the end of the day you either have to win Championships or play at a very high level and put up amazing stats.  The high level part means your team is in the playoffs consistently.   

 

The reason Anderson hasn't made it was that although he had very good stats, his teams typically were not very good.  Certainly not his fault but it's just the way it is.  Anderson led teams made it to the playoffs 4 times in his 14 year career and he only won 2 games.  That said his stats during that era were significantly more impressive than Palmers.

 

Marino, never won a ring but made the playoffs 10 times and won 8 games while shattering every passing record at the time. 

 

Palmer has nothing close to a Hall of Fame resume. A few good years doesnt equal HOF unless those years result in a ring.  Eli Manning was never as good as Palmer but he won when it counted.

Oh, I agree, and that's what's bothered me about Dan Fouts getting in.  He played in seven playoff games and won only three of them.  The Chargers were a good (not great) team for five years (1978-82).  The rest of his career they sucked.  Those five years also happen to be best of his career, with the rest of his seasons being average.  Not to mention, his TD-Int was 254-242.  

 

Fouts deserves the HOF no more than Anderson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, SF2 said:

At the end of the day you either have to win Championships or play at a very high level and put up amazing stats.  The high level part means your team is in the playoffs consistently.   

 

The reason Anderson hasn't made it was that although he had very good stats, his teams typically were not very good.  Certainly not his fault but it's just the way it is.  Anderson led teams made it to the playoffs 4 times in his 14 year career and he only won 2 games.  That said his stats during that era were significantly more impressive than Palmers.

 

Marino, never won a ring but made the playoffs 10 times and won 8 games while shattering every passing record at the time. 

 

Palmer has nothing close to a Hall of Fame resume. A few good years doesnt equal HOF unless those years result in a ring.  Eli Manning was never as good as Palmer but he won when it counted.

We had some good teams with Anderson.  He just had the misfortune of being in the same era as the Raiders and the Steroid Curtain when they were "great".  Especially in the mid 70s when we owned everyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/28/2018 at 6:38 AM, Jason said:

We had some good teams with Anderson.  He just had the misfortune of being in the same era as the Raiders and the Steroid Curtain when they were "great".  Especially in the mid 70s when we owned everyone else.

There is a lot of truth to this.

On 3/27/2018 at 11:34 PM, Bleeds Orange said:

Oh, I agree, and that's what's bothered me about Dan Fouts getting in.  He played in seven playoff games and won only three of them.  The Chargers were a good (not great) team for five years (1978-82).  The rest of his career they sucked.  Those five years also happen to be best of his career, with the rest of his seasons being average.  Not to mention, his TD-Int was 254-242.  

 

Fouts deserves the HOF no more than Anderson.

The  Chargers had the # 1 offense 4 years in a row and top 5 offense 8 years in a row with Fouts and Corryell.  One can only imagine  what Anderson would have done on those San Diego teams considering he was a more accurate passer in his prime. Imagine Ken at Pittsburgh with that defense and offense. That is the way it goes, at least he didn't get Archie Manninged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...