Matthew Stafford: HOVG, or HOF?

[readjack]

I think Roethlisberger is right in the middle, and I note that I have trouble pushing him because I think his rape allegations are real. Setting that aside, as voters are asked to do, I would be fine electing him and holding back the others, because I think he was a winner. Rookie year, took over a good team and made it a great team. 13-0 as a rookie, Super Bowl champ in his second year, and led one of the greatest drives in Super Bowl history, making the throw-end of what I think is the greatest throw-catch combo in NFL history.

But I do see a clear line from those first five to Roethlisberger.

[sluggermatt15]

You seem to value wins over mere passing stats like I do sluggermatt. Brees definitely was a more superior passer to Stafford and his stats are more similar-like to Marino, who many consider the best pure passer of any QB, who also had alot more wins than losses.

Jack is right though ... the first tier of QBs is definitely better than the second, though some people might even put Big Ben in that first tier ... I dont, but we cant discount his mobility, which could have helped the team have more success if the Steelers defense had done more in postseason.

Wilson, Jackson and now Josh Allen, who will threaten 100 rushing TDs in the next two seasons will get discussed more down the line due to their great running/scrambling ability.

Hi Brian, yes I agree that Jack has the tiers correct. I would not personally put Roethlisberger in the same tier as Brady/P Manning/Brees/Rodgers. In fact I think he had either a non-winning or losing head-t0-head record against each of those QBs. He was 1-1 against P Manning in the postseason, a far losing record against Brady and lost to Rodgers in the Super Bowl. Even as a lifelong, homegrown Steelers fan, I am not sold that Roethlisberger will be in the Hall. I can see the argument for and against his candidacy.

What I value most is how a player stacked up to the best players of his era at his position. I don't think Stafford, Ryan, Roethlisberger, Rivers, Newton, et al were close to or as good as Brady/P Manning/Brees/Rodgers... and now Mahomes/Jackson/Allen, et al. They are surely a cut below.

[JohnTurney]

Don't know if it will prevail, in addition to the stuff already said about Matthew Stafford, one of the strongest talking points someone might use is the eye test.

They will argue that "this guy did things no one else did' referring to the no-look passes and some arm angles (tho Aaron Rodgers did it too) but Stafford is doing it in most games now.

I think that is the direction the presenter will go, and his supporters.

Obviusly another ring would help and an mVP, but supposing those don't happen, it will be compiled numbers and rare arm talent that will make the case. Will it work? It might, but no way to know, of course.

edit:
Also, the London Fletcher thing of a lot of Pro Bowl alternates will likely be introduced ... "Stafford played for Lions so he didn't get the Pro Bowls he deserved, heck he was an alternate 8 times in addition to his 2 Pro Bowls"

something like that

[sluggermatt15]

Don't know if it will prevail, in addition to the stuff already said about Matthew Stafford, one of the strongest talking points someone might use is the eye test.

They will argue that "this guy did things no one else did' referring to the no-look passes and some arm angles (tho Aaron Rodgers did it too) but Stafford is doing it in most games now.

I think that is the direction the presenter will go, and his supporters.

Obviusly another ring would help and an mVP, but supposing those don't happen, it will be compiled numbers and rare arm talent that will make the case. Will it work? It might, but no way to know, of course.

edit:
Also, the London Fletcher thing of a lot of Pro Bowl alternates will likely be introduced ... "Stafford played for Lions so he didn't get the Pro Bowls he deserved, heck he was an alternate 8 times in addition to his 2 Pro Bowls"

something like that

Interesting points, John. Do you feel Stafford is a HOFer or more of HOVG?

The eye test is an interesting debate. QBs in that second tier, especially. Roethlisberger comes to mind. Look at his highlight reel videos. It takes 3-4 defenders to tackle him. He made plays where he ran from one side of the field to the other, threw across his body, and completed the pass.

And John, do you feel the quality of the Pro Bowl accolade has changed over the past 20-25 years?

[SeahawkFever]

Don't know if it will prevail, in addition to the stuff already said about Matthew Stafford, one of the strongest talking points someone might use is the eye test.

They will argue that "this guy did things no one else did' referring to the no-look passes and some arm angles (tho Aaron Rodgers did it too) but Stafford is doing it in most games now.

I think that is the direction the presenter will go, and his supporters.

Obviusly another ring would help and an mVP, but supposing those don't happen, it will be compiled numbers and rare arm talent that will make the case. Will it work? It might, but no way to know, of course.

edit:
Also, the London Fletcher thing of a lot of Pro Bowl alternates will likely be introduced ... "Stafford played for Lions so he didn't get the Pro Bowls he deserved, heck he was an alternate 8 times in addition to his 2 Pro Bowls"

something like that

Interesting points, John. Do you feel Stafford is a HOFer or more of HOVG?

The eye test is an interesting debate. QBs in that second tier, especially. Roethlisberger comes to mind. Look at his highlight reel videos. It takes 3-4 defenders to tackle him. He made plays where he ran from one side of the field to the other, threw across his body, and completed the pass.

And John, do you feel the quality of the Pro Bowl accolade has changed over the past 20-25 years?

I am not a Hall of Fame voter, but if I was, I would look at the composition of the pro bowl vote when comparing the resumes of Hall of Fame candidates if that is available in some capacity.

It's been said that in more recent years (especially since the Pro Bowl moved from Hawaii) that some of the best players have turned down playing in the game and as such some quarterbacks who wouldn't have the accolade next to their names get the accolade.

Pro Bowls are worth acknowledging, but in my opinion all-pro and all-conference designations by the writers are even more worth acknowledging and I'd be inclined to weigh those accolades more heavily because the players can't turn those awards down, and the players that initially came out on top of the vote always get the accolades next to their names (correct me if I'm wrong).

I will also note that all all-pro selections should be seen as on par with all-conference selections post merger in my mind in the 1960's because most publications seem to have separated the NFL and AFL players in the decade before the merger, and thus it's easier for a player to have more accolades in that era.

What do you all think?

[JohnTurney]

And John, do you feel the quality of the Pro Bowl accolade has changed over the past 20-25 years?

Yeah, I think people know it's not as hard as it used to be. The dynamics changed when fans were the 'tie-breaking vote'

I think it also depends on the person making the case, fan, or voter

if a guy is a perennial Pro Bowl, it gets mentioned, it's, "Joe Thomas was a time Pro Bowl, only a hand few of others went to more."

If a guy has few honors, supporters will say, "Carl Banks was overshadowed by LT and therefore didn't get the honors he should hav,e" or with Stafford, "played in Detroit and didn't get the honors he should have." I do it myself when talking about Lavonte David.

But Pro Bowls mean less in the minds of people, it the sense of it I get from social media, etc.

It's tricky because critics will say Pro Bowls are popularity contest, sure, true. But often the best players are the most popular.

As per Stafford, whoever presents will take the line of "He onlt went to 2,3 pro bowls, but missed out because team was so bad, or he didn't have good runners or a good defense ... like that. They will probablty want to say something to mitigate it a little, even if Pro Bowls mean lass then befor,e they are not 'nothing' either.

[JohnTurney]

Pro Bowls are worth acknowledging,

Agree. One data point among many. Or 'one of the boxes' of many boxes.