Options
Should Phil Simms be in the Hall Of Fame?
coolstanley
Posts: 2,463 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
2 Super Bowl rings, 1986 Super Bowl MVP, 33,400 career yds, 95-64 QB record, top 50 career td's, 78.5% passer rating.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
0
Comments
He was hurt a couple of games before the end of the season the year they won the second one and subsequently didn't play anymore that year. In my opinion, he would be in if he had not been injured and they had gone on to win that second one with him.
JMHO, but the HOF is over-crowded with players who had above average careers or won 1-2 Championships. I think the idea of a Hall-Of-Fame is for really special players, the absolute best of the best. for that reason I say "No" to Phil Simms.
How many QB's have 2 rings?
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
as I said in my post, I don't think that should be a qualifier. just in yardage, Simms is ranked 38th all-time, by QB rating he is tied at a horrendous 92nd. I don't believe that winning a Championship should(see the post above by thisistheshow) automatically qualify someone if they are only average/above average otherwise. Simms was good for the time and Team when he played.
these sports HOF's are too crowded already and these repeated threads at this forum that amount to little more than lobbying for a favorite player are sort of silly. JMHO, of course.
The correct answer is no.
hey uncoolstanley, maybe you should lobby for Drew Bledsoe.
I vote no but I’m sure some old school Giants fans will have a different opinion
Simms was a good QB. His numbers would have, of course, been better had he played in modern times. I remember him most for taking an unbelievable verbal beating for his whole career by Parcells. I think he did have the completion percentage record for a super bowl game. but HOF, not for me.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Simms was well above average but No way HOF
Jim Plunkett won two Super Bowls and a SB MVP same as Simms. While Simms was better then Plunkett it just illustrates the rabbit hole one can go down.
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
if you think about it, Championships shouldn't be a pre-requisite for a player, any player, to be HOF worthy. they should probably be talked about concerning a player who has had a really fine career --- and --- oh, BTW, he won a SB. with Phil Simms, I don't think he had the overall career to put him in the Hall.
am I repeating myself??
Yes and you are making sense for a change
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Phil Simms?
I know this is kooky talk, but bear with me. It's almost like football is a team game, and the Giants were the best team that year. Maybe even so good that it didn't really matter who the QB was. I know, I know, Phil Simms had elevated the play of the otherwise incompetent Lawrence Taylor and the other scrubs on that team so high that the spirit of Phil Simms was really what carried them to victory and will later lift them all to heaven. World without end, Amen.
Phil Simms "won" one SB, and Jeff Hostettler "won" one SB. If you need more evidence that how many SB a QB "won" isn't evidence of anything worthwhile then I can't help you. Nobody can help you.
I honestly should have phrased what I wrote a bit better. I meant to say that, in my opinion, had he not gotten hurt that year, and his resume had been the same they would have put him in the HOF. I'm not saying he is deserving of it. I just think they would have looked at him differently and the two rings would be enough to get him over the hump.
Just to reiterate... No, but if he had been the starter on the second Giants team that won it, they would have put him in.
And honestly, I wouldn't be shocked to see him get in someday. Why? According to some who have a say in these things, a lot of it comes down to Could the story of the NFL be told without him?
One Super bowl is more than what Ken Anderson won. And some people think he should be in the hall. Maybe its just me, but being the best player in the biggest game against the best competition...impresses me. As long as you have decent regular season stats to back it up.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
I think you're right. As it was, we got to see that any random backup could win that game, but I don't think anyone in the cult of the QB even noticed. {Any random backup could have won the other Giants SB, too, although not by as much.}
Oh, BURRRRRRN! Substitute "people who understand football" for "some people" and you're on the right track.
I agree, and on those rare occasions when the QB on the winning team actually is the best player in the game I have no objection to giving him credit for that one good game. For someone right on the HOF borderline with his hundreds of other games, that one game might even make a difference. Phil Simms is nowhere near that borderline, and one game doesn't begin to get him there.
And if people confined their QB worship to those rare occasions when the winning QB actually was the best player in a Super Bowl I'd get off this soapbox. But the winning QB is usually not the best player in a Super Bowl, and sometimes (Peyton Manning on Denver comes to mind) he's just about the worst player in the game. But people will still talk about Manning "winning" that Super Bowl, and Greise "winning" two Super Bowls, and so on and so on. It's a position akin to believing the world is flat, and deserving of exactly as much respect.