Red Mosquito

Congrats, LeRoy “Lambeau Leap” Butler.

Richard Seymour was such a beast.

Stafford gets in. Yes he has played in a much easier time for QB's compared to say Warren Moon but he'll get in eventually.

I’m not sure yet on him. Need to research.

He's not a Hall of Famer. Mid-tier qb for the generation does not deserve to be inducted.

His career isn’t over so I’m factoring in his potential with much better weapons than he had in DET.

He's top-15 all time in a bunch of categories, but they are mostly counting stats. I don't have an opinion either way, but he does have a good narrative to back it up, too, which I think the NFL takes into consideration.

Simple Torture wrote:He's top-15 all time in a bunch of categories, but they are mostly counting stats. I don't have an opinion either way, but he does have a good narrative to back it up, too, which I think the NFL takes into consideration.

Has he ever been considered a top 5 or 8 qb in a given season during his career? QBs are an interesting case study for Hall of Fame consideration. Not sure we would ever consider the 15-20th best WR in the NFL right now a Hall of Famer.

Monkey_Driven wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:He's top-15 all time in a bunch of categories, but they are mostly counting stats. I don't have an opinion either way, but he does have a good narrative to back it up, too, which I think the NFL takes into consideration.

Has he ever been considered a top 5 or 8 qb in a given season during his career? QBs are an interesting case study for Hall of Fame consideration. Not sure we would ever consider the 15-20th best WR in the NFL right now a Hall of Famer.

Are you saying the 15-20th best WR presently or over the course of their career vs. other WR’s playing at the same time. Seems it’d be difficult to determine looking at it those ways.

If he wins a second Super Bowl, he’ll replace Eli as the on the fence QB.

These kind of QBs will get more attention from voters though than say someone who excelled in their position but wasn't on a flashy team or didn't get media attention. If Eli gets in, I suspect Stafford will too. They'll take votes away from guys like Torry Holt or Ronde Barber.

E.H. Ruddock wrote:These kind of QBs will get more attention from voters though than say someone who excelled in their position but wasn't on a flashy team or didn't get media attention. If Eli gets in, I suspect Stafford will too. They'll take votes away from guys like Torry Holt or Ronde Barber.

black guys

Stafford is absolutely not a HOFer and it isn't particularly close right now.

4/5 wrote:Stafford is absolutely not a HOFer and it isn't particularly close right now.

Yeah, he's the pinnacle of a guy who just hung around. A literal one-time Pro Bowler. Even Eli got the nod four times, plus two Super Bowl MVPs. I think there's no case for Stafford unless he goes on a Brady-esque run in his late 30s.

please don't ever use pro-bowl selections as a HOF criterion. the pro-bowl is a joke and at times is a bunch of 5th and 6th choices because the first ones either can't or won't participate.

Chris_H_2 wrote:please don't ever use pro-bowl selections as a HOF criterion. the pro-bowl is a joke and at times is a bunch of 5th and 6th choices because the first ones either can't or won't participate.

The videos I saw of the Pro Bowl this year were hilarious.

Chris_H_2 wrote:please don't ever use pro-bowl selections as a HOF criterion. the pro-bowl is a joke and at times is a bunch of 5th and 6th choices because the first ones either can't or won't participate.

Precisely why not being selected is a good argument against someone having a HOF-level pedigree.

Mickey wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:please don't ever use pro-bowl selections as a HOF criterion. the pro-bowl is a joke and at times is a bunch of 5th and 6th choices because the first ones either can't or won't participate.

Precisely why not being selected is a good argument against someone having a HOF-level pedigree.

except for the years that Stafford wasn't even among the pool of candidates because he was injured and couldn't compete (the poor guy got murdered every year in detroit with a porous offensive line and absolutely zero running game (remember the consecutive games streak for the lions of fewer than 100 yards rushing for their running backs?)).

Chris_H_2 wrote:

Mickey wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:please don't ever use pro-bowl selections as a HOF criterion. the pro-bowl is a joke and at times is a bunch of 5th and 6th choices because the first ones either can't or won't participate.

Precisely why not being selected is a good argument against someone having a HOF-level pedigree.

except for the years that Stafford wasn't even among the pool of candidates because he was injured and couldn't compete (the poor guy got murdered every year in detroit with a porous offensive line and absolutely zero running game (remember the consecutive games streak for the lions of fewer than 100 yards rushing for their running backs?)).

Without diving into Stafford's specific injury history, I just don't buy it--a guy who played all 16 games in 10 of his 13 seasons in the league just happened to be too beat up each year to even be named to the Pro Bowl, even if he would ultimately sit because of injury? By this same logic, you can explain away his all-time numbers--he's not an elite quarterback, he just had to throw the ball because the Lions had absolutely zero running game (remember the consecutive games streak for the lions of fewer than 100 yards rushing for their running backs?). Imperfect as it is, the Pro Bowl is a decent heuristic: he was never the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd choice, and the only time he was named, it was as a replacement. This fits with his other metrics--he never led the league in anything other than completions, attempts, interceptions, and fumbles. He's not all-pro, he's not postseason MVP, he's certainly not regular season MVP. It adds up: at no point in his career has Matthew Stafford been considered one of the best of his era.