[asujbl]

Originally Posted by bojesphob

The main reason I am on the fence with Eli is that when players are looked at for the HOF, they are compared to their contemporaries (and ONLY their contemporaries) when being judged for the Hall. Eli has played most of his career with the likes of Brady, Rodgers, and Brees. If he were to have played during the 80's/90's with the stats and accomplishments that he has, depending on the exact time frame, he'd be a lock, but other than the two SB MVPs, what else does he have? He's not the most efficient during this era (that would be Rodgers then Brady), he doesn't have the best TD to INT ratio (again, Rodgers then Brady), he doesn't have the most TDs (for comparison, Rodgers has 4 less years of starting and is only 23 behind him, Brady since 2004 has 67 more, and had 38 more in the same number of years that Eli has played). And that's not even including Brees in the stats department.

He isn't even close to being considered one of the top tier QBs in the league *right now*, why would he be considered to be good enough for the HOF? If he doesn't make it in, it means that the HOF is still the best of the best when they played, not just "really really good" when they played.

So what are you doing with Ben Roethlisberger? That's the comparison. Not a guy that came into the league in 2000 like Brady if we're doing apples to apples. Rodgers would still work as well.