Game Thread: Super Bowl LVI: Cincinnati Bengals vs LA Rams (630 EST Kickoff)

[DzynKingRTR]

If Atlanta wins that game, Matt Ryan probably makes the Hall of Fame.

Now bear in mind that Ryan didn't play a single snap on defense, but this is how it is unfortunately.

He's a solid, serviceable quarterback. He's not Drew Brees, but he's not Kaepernick, either.

That is the best description I have heard or Ryan. "Serviceable". Some fans tends to go to far and say "he sucks" which is not true. He is just decent. He has benefited from some pretty awesome receivers. Will Ryan be a Hall of Famer? Yep, because sports writers are dumb and don't understand the concept and only vote for who they like. Does he deserve it? Nope.

Admittedly when Ryan was in college he was who I wanted the Failcons to draft.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

No, I can't agree with that. Aikman was legit good. Go back and watch some old games on Youtube. He was making elite level throws all the time. He did not ring up 60k yards because the game was different back then. They would line up in the I-form 80% of the time and run Emmitt again and again and again and somehow his legs didn't fall off.

I can see how you would caveat Aikman because of Smith, Irving, Harper, and those great OLs. But I don't think it is fair at all to compare him to McElroy.

Stafford has made just as many elite-level throws and did it with fewer interceptions than Aikman, and fewer interceptions in an era when they threw the ball A LOT more. Aikman's INT % is higher than Staffords. Again, Aikman doesn't bring anything individually to the table that you can couple with the Superbowl wins to make his case for the HOF. The 3 super bowl wins IS HIS CASE, HIS ENTIRE HOF PORTFOLIO, period. Which is my original point as to why Stafford on some level "deserves" to be in the HOF (maybe not a 1st ballot) because look what super bowl wins did to other players who otherwise didn't have much to bring to the table on an individual level.

 

[81usaf92]

Stafford has made just as many elite-level throws and did it with fewer interceptions than Aikman, and fewer interceptions in an era when they threw the ball A LOT more. Aikman's INT % is higher than Staffords. Again, Aikman doesn't bring anything individually to the table that you can couple with the Superbowl wins to make his case for the HOF. The 3 super bowl wins IS HIS CASE, HIS ENTIRE HOF PORTFOLIO, period. Which is my original point as to why Stafford on some level "deserves" to be in the HOF (maybe not a 1st ballot) because look what super bowl wins did to other players who otherwise didn't have much to bring to the table on an individual level.

Again Flacco. Basically the same career As Stafford but absolutely no one makes the argument for him.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Aikman doesn't bring anything individually to the table that you can couple with the Superbowl wins to make his case for the HOF. The 3 super bowl wins IS HIS CASE, HIS ENTIRE HOF PORTFOLIO, period. Which is my original point as to why Stafford on some level "deserves" to be in the HOF (maybe not a 1st ballot) because look what super bowl wins did to other players who otherwise didn't have much to bring to the table on an individual level.

Yeah, but I don't buy the argument.

We don't elect somebody to the HOF because "he's better than the worst player in the Hall." Now I'm obviously NOT saying Aikman is the worst because he isn't. He was a GOOD QB - not a GREAT QB, who happened to play for a great team that was the last of the pre-free agency dynasties.

Saying "Stafford deserves to be in the Hall because some guy who shouldn't be there is there and he's better than THAT guy" is an argument I reject at every level. We shouldn't be further lowering the quality of the Hall of Fame regardless. Harold Baines got elected in baseball - does anyone actually think we should elect guys just because they're better than Harold Baines now?????

Same with Aikman.
Stafford doesn't get into the Hall because "well, Troy Aikman."
Or he SHOULDN'T - let me put it that way.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

Again Flacco. Basically the same career As Stafford but absolutely no one makes the argument for him.

I disagree, and here's why. I'm an MLB guy at heart so I'll use that to make my case. There are certain benchmarks that once achieved begin to put a player into the HOF conversation.

*HR's 400+ career home runs and the player starts to be in the conversation. Break the 500 mark and you're preparing your acceptance speech. (Fred McGriff says "Hi" sitting at 493 career HR's and not in HOF)

*2500 Career Hits and a player begins to be in the conversation. Break the 3,000 hits mark and you're preparing your acceptance speech.

There are statistical benchmarks just like this in the NFL and it appears to be total passing yards and TD's. Currently, Stafford needs a 5-yard pass to break the 50,000 passing yards benchmark, which is still a big deal, even though the game is more passer friendly. Throwing over 300 career touchdowns, though it is a more passer-friendly game, is still somewhat of a big deal seeing that currently only 13 players in the history of the game have done it to date, and Stafford is one of them. Now add a superbowl title to Staffords resume and he's checked the Big 3 benchmark statistical boxes that has been solid criteria for getting a HOF jacket.

Joe Flacco hasn't checked but one of those boxes and that's the super bowl ring. He's approximately 8,700 yards short of 50,000 yards and 73 touchdowns short of 300 td's. While Stafford, unless he retires, has/will have all three of those boxes checked. So no, they haven't had the same career.

Matt Ryan, if he wins a super bowl, will get into the HOF no doubt. If not, but he continues to rack up the statistics, will probably be in the discussion.

 

[TideEngineer08]

You guys are just too cynical.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

Unfortunately, It's a reality you simply cannot ignore and the lack of consistency by the voters has created this. Aikman got in by being a part of three super bowl winning teams, period. Not to pile on Aikman, I could go pick out other players who are in the hall that equally do not deserve to be there.

Whatever you think about Stafford, he has accomplished statistical benchmarks that other players (and some without SB rings) have been put into the HOF for accomplishing. Now he has a super bowl ring to put with them. He may not be a 1st ballot HOF, but keeping him out when he's checked off some pretty significant statistical boxes is just perpetuating the inconsistency. Hell, I thought Jim Kelly's career stats were a lot better than what they were! Plus he lost four super bowls. If Aikman got in BECAUSE he has three SB rings, what should have happened to Kelly for losing 4 super bowl games?

Yeah, but I don't buy the argument.

We don't elect somebody to the HOF because "he's better than the worst player in the Hall." Now I'm obviously NOT saying Aikman is the worst because he isn't. He was a GOOD QB - not a GREAT QB, who happened to play for a great team that was the last of the pre-free agency dynasties.

Saying "Stafford deserves to be in the Hall because some guy who shouldn't be there is there and he's better than THAT guy" is an argument I reject at every level. We shouldn't be further lowering the quality of the Hall of Fame regardless. Harold Baines got elected in baseball - does anyone actually think we should elect guys just because they're better than Harold Baines now?????

Same with Aikman.
Stafford doesn't get into the Hall because "well, Troy Aikman."
Or he SHOULDN'T - let me put it that way.

 

[81usaf92]

I disagree, and here's why. I'm an MLB guy at heart so I'll use that to make my case. There are certain benchmarks that once achieved begin to put a player into the HOF conversation.

*HR's 400+ career home runs and the player starts to be in the conversation. Break the 500 mark and you're preparing your acceptance speech.

*2500 Career Hits and a player begins to be in the conversation. Break the 3,000 hits mark and you're preparing your acceptance speech.

There are statistical benchmarks just like this in the NFL and it appears to be total passing yards and TD's. Currently, Stafford needs a 5-yard pass to break the 50,000 passing yards benchmark, which is still a big deal, even though the game is more passer friendly. Throwing over 300 career touchdowns, though it is a more passer-friendly game, is still somewhat of a big deal seeing that currently only 13 players in the history of the game have done it to date, and Stafford is one of them. Now add a superbowl title to Staffords resume and he's checked the Big 3 benchmark statistical boxes that has been solid criteria for getting a HOF jacket.

Joe Flacco hasn't checked but one of those boxes and that's the super bowl ring. He's approximately 8,700 yards short of 50,000 yards and 73 touchdowns short of 300 td's. While Stafford, unless he retires, has/will have all three of those boxes checked. So no, they haven't had the same career.

Matt Ryan, if he wins a super bowl, will get into the HOF no doubt. If not, but he continues to rack up the statistics, will probably be in the discussion.

At the end of the day we are still talking about two quarterbacks that would neverhave been considered hall of famers under strict selection processes. They are both average quarterbacks of their generation

 

[Bamabuzzard]

At the end of the day we are still talking about two quarterbacks that would neverhave been considered hall of famers under strict selection processes. They are both average quarterbacks of their generation

I would agree if there actually was a strict selection process, but there never has been...

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Stafford has made just as many elite-level throws and did it with fewer interceptions than Aikman, and fewer interceptions in an era when they threw the ball A LOT more. Aikman's INT % is higher than Staffords. Again, Aikman doesn't bring anything individually to the table that you can couple with the Superbowl wins to make his case for the HOF. The 3 super bowl wins IS HIS CASE, HIS ENTIRE HOF PORTFOLIO, period. Which is my original point as to why Stafford on some level "deserves" to be in the HOF (maybe not a 1st ballot) because look what super bowl wins did to other players who otherwise didn't have much to bring to the table on an individual level.

Two words: Jim Plunkett

There are idiots who think he belongs because "he won two Super Bowls." Plunkett, once he got past whatever his youthful issues were, was a solid player, but his first Super Bowl was circumstance (like Morrall replacing Griese), and his second one, well, Plunkett wasn't even as good as Stafford in his time. The 1983 Raiders won that Super Bowl largely due to defense and Marcus Allen - who was 15th in the league in rushing.

Where you and I disagree is this: you keep citing these alleged standards of demarcation which, I'll admit, has been used to justify selections and as barometers - largely because people are idiots. But where I part from that is that we can't have those fixed standards no matter what we do because the games are always changing. It's like when we used to always (pretty much) give the Cy Young Award to "guy who won the most games," completely oblivious to the fact that a guy with a 4.00 ERA can win 20 games just as long as he gets huge run support.

I reiterate - MY problem with Stafford as a HOFer is that he isn't even one of the five best QBs of his time in the league. Look, I'll grant Brady and Peyton are about like saying Richie Ashburn isn't a HOFer because he's not as good as Willie Mays or Mickey Mantle. But the problem is that Stafford indisputably ranks below Brady, Peyton, Aaron Rodgers, and Drew Brees, and I think he also rates below Phillip Rivers and Big Ben, too. So we're saying a guy who was the SEVENTH BEST QB during his time in the league (and that might be generous - some folks will argue Eli ahead of Stafford, which makes him 8th) is somehow a HOFer in a league with no more than 32 QBs (and no more than about 13 decent ones) at a time.

Is Matt Ryan a HOFer? Not to me he isn't, and I'm a Falcons fan. Nobody can argue that the Falcons were good when they drafted Ryan, he was the third overall pick on a team that went 4-12. His first year, the Falcons nearly tripled their win total and made the playoffs. Now look at the stats:

Ryan beats Stafford:
Completion pct: 65.5 to 63
Yards: 10,000 more yards
TDs: 44 more

Stafford beats Ryan:
fewer INT
a Super Bowl ring

Times Led League in meaningful category
Ryan - once in completion pct, twice in completions, once in attempts (4)
Stafford - twice in attempts, once in completions - and interceptions the year he won the SB

Ryan was an MVP and offensive RoY.
Stafford was neither one.

Ryan has a winning record as a QB....in ATLANTA for Pete's sake.

I fail to see how anyone can actually argue:
a) Stafford has had a better career than Ryan
b) Stafford is a better QB than Ryan

He has him in TWO areas, he won a Super Bowl and he has fewer INTs.

And it's the fact he's not better than Ryan that persuades me he's not HOF material.

 

[81usaf92]

For the record…. Stafford has just 1 Pro bowl. Ryan has 4 and a NFL MVP. Rivers has 8 pro bowl appearances AS AN AFC QUARTERBACK!!!!

 

[selmaborntidefan]

For the record…. Stafford has just 1 Pro bowl. Ryan has 4 and a NFL MVP. Rivers has 8 pro bowl appearances AS AN AFC QUARTERBACK!!!!

Btw....as far as "but Detroit is managed terribly," that's true.

But for all the "he had Julio Jones" comments - Ryan went 20-10 in ATLANTA before Jones ever got drafted. An Atlanta team in chaos thanks to:
a) losing their QB to prison
b) losing their coach, who quit after 13 games

The Atlanta Falcons were in more free fall than the Lions when they drafted Ryan - and he immediately took them to the playoffs. WITHOUT Julio Jones.

 

[DzynKingRTR]

Btw....as far as "but Detroit is managed terribly," that's true.

But for all the "he had Julio Jones" comments - Ryan went 20-10 in ATLANTA before Jones ever got drafted. An Atlanta team in chaos thanks to:
a) losing their QB to prison
b) losing their coach, who quit after 13 games

The Atlanta Falcons were in more free fall than the Lions when they drafted Ryan - and he immediately took them to the playoffs. WITHOUT Julio Jones.

Roddy White and Michael Jenkins weren't exactly scrubs. Plus he had a pretty good runningback. He didn't do it all himself. Flaco would have done just as good.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Roddy White and Michael Jenkins weren't exactly scrubs. Plus he had a pretty good runningback. He didn't do it all himself. Flaco would have done just as good.

Yes, but those guys were on the team the year before when it was 4-12, too.

As you know, I'm not a Ryan apologist. I just don't see how anyone can argue Stafford is actually a HOFer and Ryan isn't.

And Ryan isn't.

 

[DzynKingRTR]

Yes, but those guys were on the team the year before when it was 4-12, too.

As you know, I'm not a Ryan apologist. I just don't see how anyone can argue Stafford is actually a HOFer and Ryan isn't.

And Ryan isn't.

Agreed.

Both should not be, however; both will be because the voters are idiots.

 

[dtgreg]

That’s the joke………you listen Ga sports radio and you will hear them toss that term around a few times.

If they want to say they're not QUITE as bad as Auburn, I'll allow it.

 

[DzynKingRTR]

If they want to say they're not QUITE as bad as Auburn, I'll allow it.

And keep in mind these chuckleheads said they were awesome before this year. Just imagine how bad it is now.

 

[81usaf92]

Btw....as far as "but Detroit is managed terribly," that's true.

But for all the "he had Julio Jones" comments - Ryan went 20-10 in ATLANTA before Jones ever got drafted. An Atlanta team in chaos thanks to:
a) losing their QB to prison
b) losing their coach, who quit after 13 games

The Atlanta Falcons were in more free fall than the Lions when they drafted Ryan - and he immediately took them to the playoffs. WITHOUT Julio Jones.

That’s more to the point. Everyone wants to suddenly cry for Stafford but they fail to understand that in many ways he had a hall of famer at receiver for most of those years and a pretty good defense most of them as well. But Ryan pretty much had a crappy defense and a hall of famer at receiver. But he was nowhere near as careless with the ball and had far better stats than Stafford in a far tougher division.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

I think we're talking past each other. I agree with the criteria/process that SHOULD BE used in both MLB and the NFL HOF selection. I think we mostly agree on how it SHOULD BE done and SHOULD HAVE been done many decades ago. But I'm working within how it is and seemingly has been for years, and since the odds are "they" will continue with the same process, I say Stafford will get into the HOF and Ryan as well, ESPECIALLY if Ryan wins a SB.

I've said it earlier in this thread but obviously, I need to restate it. If it were up to me, more emphasis and discussion would be put into the era in which the player played, how he ranked among his peers during his playing time, and several other talking points. Which would make Stafford and Matt Ryan not even on my list, and many players already in the HOF for both MLB and NFL would never be in.

Two words: Jim Plunkett

There are idiots who think he belongs because "he won two Super Bowls." Plunkett, once he got past whatever his youthful issues were, was a solid player, but his first Super Bowl was circumstance (like Morrall replacing Griese), and his second one, well, Plunkett wasn't even as good as Stafford in his time. The 1983 Raiders won that Super Bowl largely due to defense and Marcus Allen - who was 15th in the league in rushing.

Where you and I disagree is this: you keep citing these alleged standards of demarcation which, I'll admit, has been used to justify selections and as barometers - largely because people are idiots. But where I part from that is that we can't have those fixed standards no matter what we do because the games are always changing. It's like when we used to always (pretty much) give the Cy Young Award to "guy who won the most games," completely oblivious to the fact that a guy with a 4.00 ERA can win 20 games just as long as he gets huge run support.

I reiterate - MY problem with Stafford as a HOFer is that he isn't even one of the five best QBs of his time in the league. Look, I'll grant Brady and Peyton are about like saying Richie Ashburn isn't a HOFer because he's not as good as Willie Mays or Mickey Mantle. But the problem is that Stafford indisputably ranks below Brady, Peyton, Aaron Rodgers, and Drew Brees, and I think he also rates below Phillip Rivers and Big Ben, too. So we're saying a guy who was the SEVENTH BEST QB during his time in the league (and that might be generous - some folks will argue Eli ahead of Stafford, which makes him 8th) is somehow a HOFer in a league with no more than 32 QBs (and no more than about 13 decent ones) at a time.

Is Matt Ryan a HOFer? Not to me he isn't, and I'm a Falcons fan. Nobody can argue that the Falcons were good when they drafted Ryan, he was the third overall pick on a team that went 4-12. His first year, the Falcons nearly tripled their win total and made the playoffs. Now look at the stats:

Ryan beats Stafford:
Completion pct: 65.5 to 63
Yards: 10,000 more yards
TDs: 44 more

Stafford beats Ryan:
fewer INT
a Super Bowl ring

Times Led League in meaningful category
Ryan - once in completion pct, twice in completions, once in attempts (4)
Stafford - twice in attempts, once in completions - and interceptions the year he won the SB

Ryan was an MVP and offensive RoY.
Stafford was neither one.

Ryan has a winning record as a QB....in ATLANTA for Pete's sake.

I fail to see how anyone can actually argue:
a) Stafford has had a better career than Ryan
b) Stafford is a better QB than Ryan

He has him in TWO areas, he won a Super Bowl and he has fewer INTs.

And it's the fact he's not better than Ryan that persuades me he's not HOF material.

 

[81usaf92]

I think we're talking past each other. I agree with the criteria/process that SHOULD BE used in both MLB and the NFL HOF selection. I think we mostly agree on how it SHOULD BE done and SHOULD HAVE been done many decades ago. But I'm working within how it is and seemingly has been for years, and since the odds are "they" will continue with the same process, I say Stafford will get into the HOF and Ryan as well, ESPECIALLY if Ryan wins a SB.

I've said it earlier in this thread but obviously, I need to restate it. If it were up to me, more emphasis and discussion would be put into the era in which the player played, how he ranked among his peers during his playing time, and several other talking points. Which would make Stafford and Matt Ryan not even on my list, and many players already in the HOF for both MLB and NFL would never be in.

The HOF should be the top 5 or 6 of your era. Granted we are in an unprecedented time for quarterbacks, but even then Stafford probably doesn’t make the top 10 and if he does then he is #9 or #10 in his era.

Tier 1: These guys are undisputed
1) Brady
2) Manning
3) Rodgers
4) Brees

Tier 2: These guys Should get in

5) Rivers
6) Roethlisberger

Tier 3: These guys shouldn’t without a few good more data points

7)Ryan
8) Wilson
9) Flacco
10) Stafford
10b) Palmer

I would even argue that Andrew Luck is better than most of Tier 3. Notice that I didn’t even use Mahomes and the guys who have been in from 15-present.

The issue is that voters want big classes and they start to pick people with no business getting in like Stafford and it makes the HOF sorta a joke.