I want to tell you all the story about The Freshman

[Ignatius 4027]

On 2/17/2022 at 1:05 AM, Carl Spackler said:

Tony Boselli was an absolutely elite OT during almost his entire career.  The only knock against him was the lack of longevity.  From an on-field performance standpoint he was definitely a HOFer.  Boselli was better at his position than Stafford is at his, and that's coming from someone who respects Stafford a lot.   

Totally agree. If you enshrine Terrell Davis, you have to enshrine Boselli. During the peak of his career, he was the best OT of the last 30 years with the possible exception of Orlando Pace….

[shadow_operative 15932]

On 2/14/2022 at 12:06 PM, Jive Turkey said:

i appreciate Stafford's collection of massive stats, but good lord, his HOF candidacy can't be based solely on racking up meaningless yards in a pass happy era.  his Lions teams sucked and were behind a lot, so he was throwing a ton.  lots of yards.  big whoop.

at no time did anybody ever think, man, Matthew Stafford is a top 5 QB of this generation.  the best way to look at him getting into the HOF is by looking at WRs who racked up massive yards in pass happy offenses but were always a tier below the best.  it took them a while.  guys like James Lofton, Cris Carter, and Andre Reed.  took each of them over 10+ years to get in.

Stafford will probably get in, but it's not a slam dunk if this is his only ring.  and unless he runs off a couple more, zero chance he's a first ballot guy.

 

this. Matthew Stafford had a 0% chance of being in the HOF before winning the Super Bowl (where he threw two picks, not to mention the duck he threw the previous round which should have been picked off by Tartt, leaving LA out of the Super Bowl). now after being the winning QB of one game, he goes from 0% to 100% and being a first-ballot guy? whaaaa???? so basically the difference in never sniffing the Hall and being a first ballot guy is one Jaquiski Tartt drop. yeah, i don't think so. 

Edited February 19, 2022 by shadow_operative

[shadow_operative 15932]

id vote in Jamaal Charles before i'd vote in Matthew Stafford. modern day Gayle Sayers >>>>> guy who racked up hollow stats throwing the ball 40 times per game in the most pass happy era of football/era where defense has been legislated out of the game. 

[Fastbreak 3992]

this. Matthew Stafford had a 0% chance of being in the HOF before winning the Super Bowl (where he threw two picks, not to mention the duck he threw the previous round which should have been picked off by Tartt, leaving LA out of the Super Bowl). now after being the winning QB of one game, he goes from 0% to 100% and being a first-ballot guy? whaaaa???? so basically the difference in never sniffing the Hall and being a first ballot guy is one Jaquiski Tartt drop. yeah, i don't think so. 

Stafford will end his career with probably the most 4th quarter comebacks in NFL history. And he played most of his career with the fucking Lions.

[shadow_operative 15932]

10 minutes ago, Fastbreak said:

Stafford will end his career with probably the most 4th quarter comebacks in NFL history. And he played most of his career with the fucking Lions.

that's neat. he's been in the league 13 years and has made the Pro Bowl once. how in the hell does that equate to making the HOF, or what's more, calling him a slam dunk, no doubt, first ballot HOFer? Vince Young made twice as many Pro Bowls in his career as Stafford has. come on guys. 

[shadow_operative 15932]

Matt Stafford led the league in INTs this year. he's like the 12th-15th QB taken in every fantasy draft of the last decade. he's made one pro bowl. his career record is below .500. nobody has ever thought of his as a top 5 QB in the league. maybe not even top 10. definitely not consistently. but his new, super loaded team with a genius HC and the NFL Offensive POTY at WR beat the Cincinnati Bengals, and now he's a first ballot HoFer. 

Edited February 19, 2022 by shadow_operative

[Pato del Muerto 52597]

So you hold it against him for being on a bad team, and then you hold it against him for being on a good team?

do you also measure pitchers by wins and losses?

[UpperWestside 6189]

I do not believe Stafford is a Hall of Fame level player. I do not care a great deal whether he winds up being one or not. To me he has always just been a guy who put up a whole bunch of yardage in meaningless games before this past season. The argument that it is because he played for the Lions does not matter either. We just witnessed Joe Burrow get Cincinnati to their first Super Bowl since the 80’s in his 2nd season. They are historically just as much of a mediocre organization as the Lions, but there they were in the Super Bowl. Josh Allen has Buffalo back among the NFL elite for the first time in almost three decades. Stafford wins a 2nd Super Bowl and can string together a few winning seasons in LA then yes he’s in at some point. Right now he’s not.

[hpslugga 4062]

4 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

So you hold it against him for being on a bad team, and then you hold it against him for being on a good team?

Well yeah because…things

[hpslugga 4062]

7 hours ago, Fastbreak said:

Stafford will end his career with probably the most 4th quarter comebacks in NFL history. And he played most of his career with the fucking Lions.

He also did this:

“Matthew Stafford might not go down as the best quarterback in NFL history, but after winning the Super Bowl this year, he'll be able to say that he's pulled off a feat that no other quarterback has ever accomplished, including Peyton Manning and Tom Brady. 

Stafford threw for 283 yards and three touchdowns in the Rams' 23-20 Super Bowl win over the Bengals, which means he finished the regular season and playoffs COMBINED with 6,074 passing yards, 50 touchdown passes and a Super Bowl win, which makes him the FIRST quarterback in NFL history to hit all of those benchmarks.”

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/matthew-stafford-just-pulled-off-a-qb-feat-that-not-even-tom-brady-or-peyton-manning-ever-accomplished/amp/

[Underdog 28773]

Shoeless Jamal Charles HOFer, a nice ring to it. 

[Sbbruin 21886]

This is pretty awesome. A QB I'd want to play for
https://fb.watch/bgLVOoTHZ9/

[shadow_operative 15932]

btw, i like Stafford. his NFL Films clips are amazing. maybe my favorite mic'd up moment ever was when he fucked of his shoulder but refused to leave the game and ended up winning it for the Lions. but come on man. if you'd asked anyone prior to this season, or hell, even three weeks ago if Matt Stafford was a HOF QB they'd have laughed in your face. 

[shadow_operative 15932]

7 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

So you hold it against him for being on a bad team, and then you hold it against him for being on a good team?

do you also measure pitchers by wins and losses?

terrible analogy. also an inaccurate description of my take. Matt Stafford's stats are inflated from playing on a shitty team in a pass happy era. a pitcher's stats don't get inflated because his team is bad, if anything a pitcher being in a shitty team hurts him. 

and i don't hold anything against Stafford, i use code text to properly judge his accomplishments. Stafford threw the ball a whopping 727 in one season in Detroit. his bad team inflated his stats. this year, he joined an absolutely loaded super bowl contender with a recent history of success and one of the best HCs in the game. he didnt lift a rag tag bunch of underdogs above their heads and lead them to a title, he came along for the ride. again, he tried to blow the game vs SF and he threw two picks in the SB. joining an amazing team doesn't change him from a guy who would never even sniff the Hall to suddenly becoming a no doubt HOFer.

[shadow_operative 15932]

Tommy Nobis, Jamaal Charles, Matthew Stafford

 

only 2/3 get in to the Hall. who are you taking?

[Pato del Muerto 52597]

For those that keep bringing up interceptions:

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/pass_int_perc_career.htm
 

Stafford stands at 2.4%. Ahead of guys like Montana, young, roethlesberger, rivers, all 3 mannings, aikman, Marino, elway. 

[Pato del Muerto 52597]

10 hours ago, shadow_operative said:

his career record is below .500

It’s not an analogy when you actually use win/loss to denigrate a player in a team game. 

[Underdog 28773]

30 minutes ago, shadow_operative said:

Tommy Nobis, Jamaal Charles, Matthew Stafford

 

only 2/3 get in to the Hall. who are you taking?

Chuck Howley. 

[shadow_operative 15932]

25 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

It’s not an analogy when you actually use win/loss to denigrate a player in a team game. 

??? you made a terrible analogy using MLB pitchers and QBs, so yes, your analogy was an analogy, and it was terrible.

now,  name every QB in the HOF with one pro bowl appearance and a record below .500. 

Edited February 19, 2022 by shadow_operative

[Pato del Muerto 52597]

Just now, shadow_operative said:

name every QB in the HOF with one pro bowl appearance and a record below .500. this ain't Archie Manning we're talking about here. 

He can’t do anything about pro bowl selections- that’s a popularity contest and is affected by the same kinds of things that you are using to state your case in this thread. 
 

And it’s not like cupp was OPOY before Stafford joined his team, or mcvay and Donald had won titles before Stafford joined the team. 

[Guest]

On 2/18/2022 at 10:45 PM, shadow_operative said:

this. Matthew Stafford had a 0% chance of being in the HOF before winning the Super Bowl (where he threw two picks, not to mention the duck he threw the previous round which should have been picked off by Tartt, leaving LA out of the Super Bowl). now after being the winning QB of one game, he goes from 0% to 100% and being a first-ballot guy? whaaaa???? so basically the difference in never sniffing the Hall and being a first ballot guy is one Jaquiski Tartt drop. yeah, i don't think so. 

Someone should start with the basic Stafford arguments for this guy. Or not. I’m not gonna engage him further. 

[Mach 1 1677]

I don't have a dog in this hunt re: Hall vs No Hall, but I like Stafford and I'm happy for him.  But each time i see this thread is bumped I have the same thought:

If the Niners DB catches that wide open, breadbasket interception, the narrative is flipped on its head and this debate never happens.

I just find it interesting after all those games, all those passes, all those TDs, one play would have swung the pendulum about Stafford in the opposite direction. 

Lucky for him the dumbass dropped it.

[shadow_operative 15932]

8 hours ago, Porterhouse said:

Someone should start with the basic Stafford arguments for this guy. Or not. I’m not gonna engage him further. 

"i'm just quoting/replying to you to let you know that i won't be quoting or replying to you."

 

[Guest]

55 minutes ago, shadow_operative said:

"i'm just quoting/replying to you to let you know that i won't be quoting or replying to you."

 

I just don’t have the energy to engage further. Everything you wrote has been discussed in prior pages before you waddled in here and graced us with your presence. Literally everything, including my comment about it being mystifying that Dak, Cousins and yes, VY, have more Pro Bowls and reasons why. 

I don’t want to argue. I am glad you like him. I do too. He made a significant step this year toward HOF and has probably 5 more seasons, maybe more. I suspect he will be a first ballot guy and easily “just” a HOFer, and some of that is projecting the remainder of his career. 

[shadow_operative 15932]

you're doing an awesome job of not engaging me. 

[Had Enough 2088]

PFF had an interesting article regarding Staffords HOF prospects. It says he’s not ready.

They don’t reference pro bowls but Super Bowls, won and lost, and top 5 and top 10 efficiency rankings. Stafford doesn’t have but 1 top 5 ranking.

[GhostOfTomJoad 9351]

Peter King also addresses Stafford's resume in the mailbag section of today's column after his inbox was blown up by fans asking if he's guaranteed a bust in Canton.

King's opinion (as a voter) is that if Stafford never threw a ball again he wouldn't get in. If he has 5 or 6 more great years including a return to the SB he'd be in the discussion for enshrinement, but his candidacy is hurt by playing in the golden (or platinum) age of QBs.

Fanbois won't like his take, but he does a great job explaining the obstacles ahead of Stafford. But his future is ahead of him & if he can play at an elite level into his late 30s he probably gets in years after he's retired.

[closetohumping 17466]

29 minutes ago, GhostOfTomJoad said:

Peter King also addresses Stafford's resume in the mailbag section of today's column after his inbox was blown up by fans asking if he's guaranteed a bust in Canton.

King's opinion (as a voter) is that if Stafford never threw a ball again he wouldn't get in. If he has 5 or 6 more great years including a return to the SB he'd be in the discussion for enshrinement, but his candidacy is hurt by playing in the golden (or platinum) age of QBs.

Fanbois won't like his take, but he does a great job explaining the obstacles ahead of Stafford. But his future is ahead of him & if he can play at an elite level into his late 30s he probably gets in years after he's retired.

One more super bowl and he's a lock imo.  But I got no vote.  Yeah, he probably ends with better numbers than Marino, Elway and Montana, but Matt Ryan may as well?  

 

In case anyone thinks King doesn't like Stafford, I think he said in the preseason that Stafford could win the mvp.

Edited February 21, 2022 by closetohumping

[Had Enough 2088]

Largely PFF doesn’t care about counting stats. At least in this particular discussion. I would think quite a few voters would reference their info. Now how much credence do they put into them when voting I don’t know.

Stafford according to their measurements is not top tier with regards to efficiency. He’s only been top 10 4 times in 12 years. Their calculated probability has him right there with Doug Williams and Phil Simms.

With Cupp and Donald around, he’s destined for more success and stats. One more super bowl win would elevate him quite a bit.

[Pato del Muerto 52597]

That’s interesting, because 5-6 more great years would put him at over 70k yards and 500 td passes. And that would get him to possibly in for king?  
 

im surprised the voters are evaluating contemporary qbs through such a different lens.  That feels like it would be a fairly radical shift, seeing as how they put Warner in 7 years ago with all of 32,000 yards, one super bowl trophy, and a passer rating of 93.7. 
 

he did win a couple of mvps but as we see in many years that is a subjective and debated award. 

[GhostOfTomJoad 9351]

Snippet of King's answer.

[NTVTXN 1432]

On 2/13/2022 at 11:01 PM, hpslugga said:

I mean I suppose they gotta plan how they’re gonna tell him and what day….

With all due respect; don’t you mean how “HE’S GOING TO TELL THEM” ? 

TB12- “I’m officially done. Have my Hall ready on Tuesday,(it’s always on a Tuesday), April 12th. M’kay? thanx”

[Revolution512 1495]

King and PFF are correct. This did not elevate him to a HOF QB. It did get him into the conversation and he can make it if he backs it up 

[Dbeasy 15091]

The Ticket did a review of Stafford’s HOF credentials and he just doesn’t pass the test right now. More success and he’s in. Because he’s a nice guy beloved in Detroit, he might sneak in anyway if he doesn’t have any more success. But anyone saying he’s a shoe-in is full of shit. 

[shadow_operative 15932]

8 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

That’s interesting, because 5-6 more great years would put him at over 70k yards and 500 td passes. And that would get him to possibly in for king?  
 

im surprised the voters are evaluating contemporary qbs through such a different lens.  That feels like it would be a fairly radical shift, seeing as how they put Warner in 7 years ago with all of 32,000 yards, one super bowl trophy, and a passer rating of 93.7. 
 

he did win a couple of mvps but as we see in many years that is a subjective and debated award. 

Warner played in a different era than today, and, like the aforementioned Gayle Sayers and Jamaal Charles, he didn't get 12-15 years to build his resume, he had a small window to shine, and he played at an MVP level for much of that window. Stafford conversely has merely been above average for the last decade or so, and now has a Super Bowl ring to go with his numbers which, while good, don't negate the fact that he's never once at any point during his long career been considered a great QB. 

[Your Mom 4852]

I clicked on this thread expecting some great story about Matthew Stafford and instead got some rambling about high school glory days that culminated with "Stafford ran past me a few times and handed the ball off in one of our games."  WTF is up with the melodramatic thread title?

[GhostOfTomJoad 9351]

Simplify it and use the standard that Dr. Z, King and other voters have used when it comes time to vote on a candidate & the numbers are just numbers. Was he a DOMINANT player of his era? Did he change the way the game was played? Was he head and shoulders the best of the best when he was on the field. 

 

[Covri 6253]

29 minutes ago, Your Mom said:

I clicked on this thread expecting some great story about Matthew Stafford and instead got some rambling about high school glory days that culminated with "Stafford ran past me a few times and handed the ball off in one of our games."  WTF is up with the melodramatic thread title?

Highland Parks peeps want respect for how hard they’ve had it and one of them finally making it!

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Covri said:

Highland Parks peeps want respect for how hard they’ve had it and one of them finally making it!

Well I think Bob Layne, Clayton Kershaw and Chris Young, as well as countless others in business and other fields have made it, so not too worried about it. Besides I’m FROM Westlake. My classmates Drew Brees and Chris Mihm had to overcome real challenges to make it in this world. 

[futureman 22544]

[Pato del Muerto 52597]

1 hour ago, GhostOfTomJoad said:

Simplify it and use the standard that Dr. Z, King and other voters have used when it comes time to vote on a candidate & the numbers are just numbers. Was he a DOMINANT player of his era? Did he change the way the game was played? Was he head and shoulders the best of the best when he was on the field. 

 

So basically the eye test. Which is fine, if the voters actually watch all the games so as to have an informed opinion on the players up for debate. 
 

nobody was scared of Stafford because the lions were, and are, shit.  One of the questions is how much of the lions being shit was his fault?  We do know that when asked to qb a good team, he is 1/1 in winning the superb owl. 

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

So basically the eye test. Which is fine, if the voters actually watch all the games so as to have an informed opinion on the players up for debate. 
 

nobody was scared of Stafford because the lions were, and are, shit.  One of the questions is how much of the lions being shit was his fault?  We do know that when asked to qb a good team, he is 1/1 in winning the superb owl. 

[hpslugga 4062]

8 hours ago, futureman said:

[GhostOfTomJoad 9351]

So basically the eye test. Which is fine, if the voters actually watch all the games so as to have an informed opinion on the players up for debate. 
 
nobody was scared of Stafford because the lions were, and are, shit.  One of the questions is how much of the lions being shit was his fault?  We do know that when asked to qb a good team, he is 1/1 in winning the superb owl. 

How is being a dominant player who changed the game and was clearly among the best of his peers remotely equivalent to "the eye test?"

Nobody's saying Stafford's a scrub. He's a very, very good player who is closer to making the HOF than missing out. He's still got a strong chance of making it someday. If he stays healthy, plays well another 5 years & the Rams don't implode I'd give him about a 60-70% of making it around 2040.

[Revolution512 1495]

Seriously though, who brags about their fucking high school?

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Revolution512 said:

Seriously though, who brags about their fucking high school?

I do.  Back to back to back state champs, like true Tom Emanski disciples, as was my kids’ HS from ‘17-‘19.  We piss excellence over here. 

[Underdog 28773]

32 minutes ago, Revolution512 said:

Seriously though, who brags about their fucking high school?

Losers. 

[Don Johnson 4755]

Side note:  How the fuck did Troy Aikman make 6 straight pro bowls?

The guy threw for more than 20 TD once in his career.

In 1991, his first, he was 65% completion 2,754 yards 11 TD and 10 INT

in 1996, his last, he was 64% 3,126 12 TD 13 INT

His best season was probably 1993 when he completed 69%, 3100 yards 15 TD and 6 INT.

He was great in the 3 postseasons where the Cowboys won the SB's, and that's why he is HOF, but that has nothing to do with Pro Bowls.

[hpslugga 4062]

3 minutes ago, Don Johnson said:

Side note:  How the fuck did Troy Aikman make 6 straight pro bowls?

This is an oversimplification because it depends on which years shock you the most, but:

The great QB’s of that era were overwhelmingly AFC guys. Look through the NFC talent pool and tell me Aikman didn’t stand above almost all those losers. 

[Don Johnson 4755]

28 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

This is an oversimplification because it depends on which years shock you the most, but:

The great QB’s of that era were overwhelmingly AFC guys. Look through the NFC talent pool and tell me Aikman didn’t stand above almost all those losers. 

Agreed and it's also hard to know which guys turned it down/couldn't play.

But I find it hard to believe Steve Young wasn't chosen over him in 1991.

Same for Favre in 1994

1996 they had 5 QB's on the roster.  Brad Johnson and Ty Detmer deserved to be on there over Aikman (but also over Gus Ferrotte and Kerry Collins).  But by 1996, Aikman was a staple in the Pro Bowl.