Should Phil Simms be in the Hall of Fame?

[kingm56]

I'm the opposite. Eli everyday and twice on Sunday!

Top

Relative to his peers, Eli finished in the top 10 of virtually every meaningful statistical category, Simms did not.  I feel some are viewing this question in a vacuum; when it comes to the HoF, you have to ask how did the player compare with their contemporaries from the same era   You're not going to put 10 QBs in from the same era, as that would dilute the value of the HoF. Simms was never one of the top 5 at the QB position, never received AP consideration, and finished with above average, but not glowing stats, relative to his peers.  He's good, he's not a HoF'er. He's never received serious consideration, and for good reason. 

[AZGiantFan]

Relative to his peers, Eli finished in the top 10 of virtually every meaningful statistical category, Simms did not.  I feel some are viewing this question in a vacuum; when it comes to the HoF, you have to ask how did the player compare with their contemporaries from the same era   You're not going to put 10 QBs in from the same era, as that would dilute the value of the HoF. Simms was never one of the top 5 at the QB position, never received AP consideration, and finished with above average, but not glowing stats, relative to his peers.  He's good, he's not a HoF'er. He's never received serious consideration, and for good reason. 

5 minutes combined of immortality at the end of the 2 Superbowl wins is good enough for me.

[LennG]

 You have to understand that Phil played on teams where he didn't have to win the game by himself. He was NEVERR the 'big guy' the team needed to carry it, the way several of those other QBs named were. Phil was more a game manager as the Giants were built to be a power running team and to the best of my memory, Phil was never blessed with game-stopping WRs. He made do with what he had and did well with them. A TE named Bavaro was his big-time guy.
Again not stopping to look things up but many said his stats are similar to Bob Greise and he is a HOF. I always liken Phil to Bart Starr, who was the supreme game manager and when he had to win a game, he did it but mostly relied on a power running game.

If guys like that are in, so should Phil.

[Painter]

My opinions have been stated and some see it as an attack but here it goes.

There is no way that Phil should not be in the HOF but Eli waltz in on his first ballot. Phil had a better back 9 of his career post age 30 while Eli suffered a rapid decline as a turnover machine. Phil cut down in his mistakes and played some of his best ball in his final season. I personally don't think Eli should get in for several years and Giants fans have loyalty bias. I am more interested in the views of all NFL fans on this matter.

That makes a lot of sense, Donny. It would be hard to suggest that a 1 Lombardi Phil wasn't a better regular season QB than Eli if that, now some 40 years later, is the basis for comparison. But that no longer may be the case. We now seem to be in a minimum 2 Lombardis HOF QB era. We have gotten some indication of that with Drew Brees. Will that change once it's a 1 Lombo Aaron Rodgers turn? Quite possibly, but quien sabe?

Cheers!

[andrew_nyGiants]

I'll keep it simple: Namath is in.

Simms > Namath

Simms helped to transform an offense whose ineptitude once reached historic lows into a dynamic scoring one which complemented their great defense.

He still holds the completion percentage SB record and lead our heroes to its first championship in over 30 years and its FIRST SUPER BOWL!

He deserves to be in!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[TDToomer]

Phil's OL was not good in the early part of his career.  Phil played better with a bad OL than Eli did.

That's true and Phil was more willing to accept his fate and take a sack rather than try to scramble and risk a fumble which happened too many times to count with Eli. Phil did throw a lot of picks even during his 85 PB season and 86 SB season. But 20+ picks were consistent with the league average at the time. Eli had a 25 picks season once and led the league.

Someone mentioned Namath. I think many would say that it was mistake to elect him and it had to do with showing the world that the AFL was legit and less with his stats or wins/losses.

If 2 SB wins get you in then why isn't Jim Plunket in the HOF?

[Giant Jim]

Namath, Simms and Eli-Can't go by stats.

Namath threw very deep balls, or low percentage passes. Stats don't show his value. The threat of the long passes forced defenses to play safeties deep opening up the run game. This is why Matt Snell was able to run all over the Colts in his Super Bowl.

Simms played on a run first offense. He had very good TE's, but his WR's weren't in the same class as Eli or Namath's. When needed Simms got the job done, especially during the 2nd 2/3's of his career.

Eli had only about 4 or 5 good seasons, the seasons between his Super Bowls. The Giants brought in Ben McAdoo to raise his completion percentage and cut down his interceptions due to poor offensive lines. They basically turned him into Norm Snead, dink and dunk. Manning also raised his stats by throwing to areas on the field the defenses were giving him at the ends of games, completions in the middle when losing, completions at the sidelines when ahead. 

Simms had Lionel Manuel, similar to Amani Toomer and that's about it. Manning had Toomer, Cruz, Hicks & Burress.

[Painter]

Jim Plunkett had the same .500 career regular season W/L pct. as Eli, a better PO W/L and, of course, 2 Super Bowl wins. And to quote from Wikipedia: Plunkett has the distinction of being the first minority to quarterback a team to a Super Bowl victory and the only Latino to be named Super Bowl MVP. Hmm??

Things are not always what they seem to be nor are they always fair nor do they necessarily reflect on the HOF worthiness of either or both Phil and Eli. C'est la effing vie.

Cheers!

[bamagiantfan]

I thought I would have some fun and type in, "Make a case for Phil Simms induction into the NFL Hall of Fame" to an AI prompt. This is what it spat out,

Phil Simms, a former quarterback for the New York Giants, has a compelling case for induction into the NFL Hall of Fame. Here are several key points that highlight his qualifications:

Career Achievements and Statistics
Super Bowl Success: Simms led the Giants to victory in Super Bowl XXI, where he was named the game's MVP. His performance in that game is legendary, completing 22 of 25 passes for a Super Bowl-record 88% completion rate.

Consistency and Longevity: Over his 14-year career, Simms threw for over 33,000 yards and 199 touchdowns. His ability to perform consistently over such a long period is a testament to his skill and durability.

Pro Bowl Selections: Simms was selected to the Pro Bowl twice, in 1985 and 1993, showcasing his recognition among peers and analysts as one of the top quarterbacks of his era.

Impact on the Game
Leadership: Simms was known for his leadership on and off the field. He was a key figure in the Giants' locker room and played a crucial role in the team's success during the 1980s.

Clutch Performances: Simms had a reputation for performing well in high-pressure situations. His ability to deliver in critical moments helped the Giants secure numerous victories.

Innovative Play: Simms was part of an era that saw significant changes in offensive strategies. His ability to adapt and excel in different offensive schemes highlights his versatility and football IQ.

Legacy and Influence
Mentorship: After retiring, Simms transitioned to a successful career in broadcasting, where he has continued to influence the game by providing insights and analysis. His deep understanding of football has helped educate and entertain fans for decades.

Role Model: Simms' work ethic, professionalism, and dedication to the game have made him a role model for aspiring quarterbacks and athletes.

While the Hall of Fame selection process is highly competitive, Phil Simms' achievements, impact on the game, and lasting legacy make a strong case for his induction.

[AZGiantFan]

Jim Plunkett had the same .500 career regular season W/L pct. as Eli, a better PO W/L and, of course, 2 Super Bowl wins. And to quote from Wikipedia: Plunkett has the distinction of being the first minority to quarterback a team to a Super Bowl victory and the only Latino to be named Super Bowl MVP. Hmm??

Things are not always what they seem to be nor are they always fair nor do they necessarily reflect on the HOF worthiness of either or both Phil and Eli. C'est la effing vie.

Cheers!

The difference between Eli & Plunkett is 2 final minutes game winning TD drives.  Against a dynasty.

[Painter]

The difference between Eli & Plunkett is 2 final minutes game winning TD drives.  Against a dynasty.

I trust you don't think I view Eli Manning as any less worthy of the HOF than I do Jim Plunkett in this otherwise Phil Simms thread. In what now seems to have become a 2 Super Bowl wins threshold for QBs, both should be/ should have been elected without any sort of further qualification, or rationalizing.

Cheers!

[spiderblue43]

Bob Griese is in the hall for basically handing off to Zonk..Mercury and Kiick.

Simms was better. Namath's stats are far worse; but his guarantee tipped the scale.

I would say he makes it..later as a senior selection.

[AZGiantFan]

I trust you don't think I view Eli Manning as any less worthy of the HOF than I do Jim Plunkett in this otherwise Phil Simms thread. In what now seems to have become a 2 Super Bowl wins threshold for QBs, both should be/ should have been elected without any sort of further qualification, or rationalizing.

Cheers!

But the fact that Plunkett has not been voted in means that there is no 2 SB wins threshhold.  While personally I think Plunkett should be in, I think Eli is even more deserving because his role in the way they won.  Plunkett won his 2 with much better teams than Eli had.  And I didn't even mention Eli's 2 MVPs vs. Plunkett's 1.

[Giant Jim]

Simms was better. Namath's stats are far worse; but his guarantee tipped the scale.

Namath's guarantee was hardly news at the time. The press made much more of it when Messier made his. He was more famous for his womanizing, pantyhose and other commercials. Saying Namath doesn't belong indicates one never saw him play. Simms was a star, Namath was a superstar.

[Painter]

What exactly are we trying to discuss or prove here? Is it the HOF worthiness of Plunkett, Simms, and Manning and such things beyond our control? Or is it, the resilience of a 2 Super Bowl wins criterion until it is interrupted by Dre Brees in 2026, resumed again with Roethlisberger in'27, and Brady in '28, and then set aside  most likely by Aaron Rodgers, sometime around 2030 +/-?

Or is really just about the worth of our opinions?

Cheers!