iknowcool

I really feel like he could have been an MJD-level back if given the chance, he was that good in his first 4 years when on the field. His balance, especially for someone with his power, was unbelievable. Unfortunately he had to split-time (albeit with DeAngelo, another great underutilized back for a period of time) and by the time he was given the chance to be the man, injuries had robbed him of a lot of his explosiveness. Very good career regardless though, and he was always a great dude while he was here. Probably my favorite ever regular season game from the Panthers is partially because of him I don't think I've ever seen 2 RBs have a better game together. DeAngelo had 19 carries, 186 yards (9.7 YPC!!), and 2 TDs. Stewart had 15 carries, 115 yards, and 2 TDs. And it wasn't like it was they just had 2 super long runs inflating it, the longest between them was 41. They just shredded every drive, it was crazy.

Eh, I just don't see his argument over Brees in 2009. Brees had a better CMP%, more TDs, fewer interceptions, better Y/A, better QB rating, etc. He led one of the best offenses of the decade (they were on a tear until they played the Cowboys in December). Stats aren't the be all, end all, but I don't know what Manning did better than Brees that season. Even if you say its because the Colts were 14-0 before they benched their starters, it isn't like the Saints weren't just as good. They started 13-0 and I'd argue looked better doing it. They absolutely dominated the Patriots that season. And I know the postseason doesn't matter for this, but the Saints averaged well over 30 PPG in the playoffs too. I can kind of understand why Manning won in 2008. There wasn't any other really strong contender. But Brees should have had it in 2009.

Correlation /=/ causation and there are way too many factors to look at before we can automatically assume teams paying 13% of their cap to a QB can't win a Super Bowl. 1. Brady and Manning were .6 and .8 away from 13% respectively in 2 of the seasons. If Brady saw a .6% increase in pay in 2018, then would logic dictate the Patriots don't win the Super Bowl? That .6 would have been equivalent to DE John Simon. Is getting rid of Simon and giving Brady that additional .6 the difference? Do the '15 Broncos have their odds diminished if they release WR Caldwell and give Manning an additional .8%? 2. The % of Super Bowl winning teams among teams who compete for it every year is small. So how often have QBs been paid 13% of the cap since 2001 is something that is a big deal. In 2015, only 3 QBs had higher than 13% of their teams cap (Brees, Ryan, Rivers). And Ryan barely. Is it fair to say because 3 teams failed to win a Super Bowl in a league of 32 teams, that it means 13% is too much for a QB? In 2011, only 2 QBs accounted for higher than 13% of the cap - Mark Sanchez (hahahaha) and Peyton Manning (who didn't even play). So is it fair to use seasons like that? You could jump a year and look at 2012. Peyton Manning was the highest with 14.93% and they went 12-4. The next one was Sam Bradford at 12.93%. So you already have only 1 team a year winning the Super Bowl and there is only 1 team in the NFL that season who has a cap % higher than 13%. And said team went 12-4. In 2013, you had Eli Manning (16.72), Stafford (14.54), and Brees (13.84). Saints went 11-5 while the Giants and Lions went 7-9, which is similar to the records in 2012 even when their QBs weren't making up 13% of the cap. In 2018, you had Jimmy G (15.86%), Stafford (14.61%), Carr (13.53%), Flacco (13.71%), Brees (13.52%), and Wilson (13.38%). Wilson and Brees, the only two great QBs from that list, made it to the playoffs and one of the probably should have made it to the Super Bowl if not for a bad call. The only trend I'm seeing is that teams who pay bad to average/mediocre QBs a lot of money are the ones who can't win a Super Bowl, but that isn't a mystery. However, I'm not seeing the proof that a team paying a QB 13% of the cap can't win considering we've seen teams still manage to make the playoffs and contend. Just because they aren't the final winner shouldn't mean anything; winning the Super Bowl is difficult and there is not a large enough sample of teams in an individual season to draw concrete evidence from. It would be different if, for the last 5-10 years, 50% of the league had been paying QBs 13% of their cap and yet never won the Super Bowl. But as it stands now, you might have 9% of the league doing that (even in 2018, it's only 18%).

I was so wrong about this guy. I was sure he’d be a great player.

None of those guys except Owens, and MAYBE Harrison (considering he was playing against Moss, Owens, Smitty, etc.), were considered the best wide receiver in the NFL at any point. Much less have a dominant three year stretch where they are unanimously considered the best WR in football without anyone coming close. I mean do you honestly rank Monk and Reed over Johnson in an all-time scale? If so, you are putting far too much into longevity and ignoring the fact that Johnson, at his peak, was considered the man when he was playing. And we can't act like that doesn't make a difference. I guarantee you if Brees was playing 10 years from now and his competition wasn't Manning (arguably the GOAT), Brady (arguably the GOAT), and Rodgers (who many say is the best pure QB they have ever seen), Brees would be seen in an even better light than he is now if he could have went as being unquestionably the best at his position for a long period of time. But ultimately, why does it matter if Carter had to wait? Just because they had to wait doesn't mean Johnson should. And it implies them waiting was the right decision in the first place. Owens and Harrison absolutely were good enough to go 1st ballot.

It isn't the same. When was Sterling Sharpe considered the best player at his position for three years in a row? Sharpe never had the reputation of being the most dangerous WR in the league (something that stayed with Johnson even in 2015) because he was always playing with someone else who was better. Right or wrong, that makes the difference. That's why I said it isn't about just numbers. Its about a lot more than that. Or else why not put someone like Brandon Marshall in the HOF (not suggesting he's on Sharpe's level, but he's got HOF numbers and yet I seriously doubt he makes it)? Now maybe you disagree with that logic, fair enough. But its why Calvin Johnson is going to have a much easier time getting into the Hall of Fame than Sharpe. Personally, I disagree with the "better players had to wait, so he should too" logic. I don't see why it matters. The players voted in should be the players who are the most worthy in whatever selection class they are in. There shouldn't be some rule that some players have to wait and others don't. If Calvin Johnson isn't the most worthy in the selection process, fair enough. But I don't think he should wait just because someone else did. At the end of the day, he's a clear-cut Hall of Famer and that is all that should matter.

I think what probably hurts Sharpe, right or wrong, is that he was playing at the same time as prime Jerry Rice. I wasn't alive at the time so this could be my ignorance on it showing, but was it anymore than maybe a small minority arguing Sharpe was better than Rice at any point? By the time Sharpe had his 2nd First-Team All Pro (92), Rice had already accomplished that 6 times. Even in Sharpe's final season when he had 18 touchdowns, Rice led the league in receiving yards (again) and 13 TDs. So I'm not sure it's really comparable. Johnson had a three year run where he was unequivocally the best WR in the game and even though injuries slowed him down in his final two years, a lot of people still thought he was top three at worst. And even when 2015 rolled around and he wasn't technically better than Antonio Brown for those who paid attention, he still had that reputation - it wasn't like his numbers had gotten bad and he was still capable of having outrageous games and highlight catches. Did Sharpe ever have that 2 or 3 year stretch where people thought he was the best WR? Unfair to hold it against him for playing with Rice, but that's how it goes. Voters aren't really going to think about it from a statistical POV as much as they will remember Johnson's reputation as the league's best and most dominant WR for a period of time. I don't think Sharpe had that reputation when he retired, otherwise I really think he would have gotten close to the HOF than he has. I don't think Johnson is gonna have that problem

It isn’t always about stats. Calvin Johnson was one of the most dominant offensive players the league has seen and did it over a long enough period of time. There is no reason he shouldn’t be voted in as soon as hes eligible.

Willie Parker. He was one of my favorite players when I first starting getting into football. He was fast as hell (4.28 40), played at North Carolina, and it was cool he was able to start for such a great team despite going undrafted. His career flamed out fast though. He had 3 consecutive seasons with 1400+ yards, then missed some games in 2008 and by 2010 was out of the league completely. But can't complain too much about a 6 year career that saw 2 Super Bowl rings and one of the best plays in Super Bowl history:

You are using an extremely small sample size. Especially when your argument is dependent on excluding teams that account for 4 of the 7 Super Bowl victories since 2012. Broncos made it twice since 2012 despite paying Manning a lot of money. Panthers went 15-1 and made it after giving Newton a new contract. Saints probably would have made it last year if the call went the other way, and they have rebuilt nicely despite paying Brees a lot of money for years. Ryan wasn't on a rookie deal when the Falcons went to the Super Bowl.

Yea, this is where I’m at. I’m still a fan of his but objectively speaking, he comes across like a clown. JuJu is a great dude. This feels so sudden though, like AB always had an ego but it never felt detrimental like it is now. I get the feeling he’s just surrounded himself with bad influences over the last couple of years. Either that or the Steelers did an amazing job managing him for as long as they could.

How much of a difference would it make if they were on rookie contracts? Even if the Chiefs decided tomorrow to trade Mahomes, you are still only looking at maybe 2 years of him of him playing for rookie money. The 5th year option is ~16m, which is really cheap for a legit franchise QB, but there is almost no way Mahomes isn't extended after Year 3 or 4. If you told the Chiefs you would trade them 4 or 5 first-round picks, and they accepted, your team better already be good enough to win the championship with him in those 2 years or else you are just going to end up paying big money to a QB anyway except without quality first round picks to bring in more good to great players on rookie deals (unless you completely knock it out of the park in the mid to late rounds, which is difficult for even the best of GMs to do consistently).

I can't speak on how he looked in Arizona or with the Chargers, but here he was always that guy who would make a couple of splash plays here or there (good scheme + he's a gambler), but was otherwise way too inconsistent to be relied on in coverage. Plus he's as bad as any tackler I've seen with the Panthers. Probably believes he's a starter, which I'm sure he could for some teams, but IMO he's best suited as a rotational/depth player. He's one of those stop-gap guys who will probably be signed right before training camp.

Agree to disagree on the rest (I agree being a billionaire doesn't automatically make one great at business, I just don't think it's fair to say Vince is bad at business either), but they did plan on pushing him based off those factors. What makes you think they didn't? Your original post wasn't "they weren't planning to push him as the biggest star in wrestling history", it was "they weren't planning on pushing him", and the truth is they absolutely were planning to push him. Maybe they weren't planning to do it through the King of the Ring (but the fact he was their first choice after Hunter should mean something), but there is no reason to think that they weren't going to push him. I'm not sure what you have read to suggest they weren't going to. He already had a WrestleMania win in less than a year in the company, which was a big deal then. Also, in his first Royal Rumble (before KOTR '96), Austin was scripted to be in the Final 4 but accidentally failed to hang on (Austin in the interview where he says this even says he was having a great push for someone in his first year). In the PPV before KOTR, Austin separated from DiBiase and began his Stone Cold persona. They were already making it clear they had plans for him. I believe Austin also challenged Michaels on Raw for the WWF Championship sometime before KOTR. Also it is revisionist history to say Austin just automatically became a superstar or even close to that after KOTR. As a matter of fact, 2 months later, Austin wasn't even booked on the SummerSlam card - he was in a dark match. KOTR was huge for him, but it was just planting the seeds. It was the amazing booking of his feud with Hart, along with both performers obviously being great at their job, that helped promote Austin's growth even further. The double turn at WM 13, for example, was fantastic story-telling and creative (some of the best they have ever done), but you are making it seem like it was solely Austin and nothing to do with creative, which flat-out isn't true. It was a mixture of a long of things. If Austin/Hart flamed out, or we don't get the amazing story heading into WM 13 and after, who knows how big Austin gets. But he definitely didn't become this big mega star after the 3:16 promo - that was simply planting the seeds for what was to come. It was after Austin/Hart that Austin became the most over guy on the roster. Besides, Austin was a veteran of the business by the time he signed with the company. And his Stone Cold gimmick actually started in ECW. So everyone knew how good Austin was from either his performances in ECW or in WCW, who stupidly released him and everyone knew it then. You make it seem like he came out of nowhere, but everyone knew he was talented as hell including Vince. Now maybe you can argue they shouldn't have given him the Ringmaster gimmick off bat, but they were definitely trying to push him. I don't think it's fair to hold it against Vince if the logic is "they weren't planning on him being the biggest wrestling star ever" - nobody plans that. Belichick didn't plan on starting Brady and for him to become the GOAT. If Bledsoe doesn't get hurt, Brady might have stayed a back-up or went to another team. And nobody is gonna argue Belichick is a lesser coach because of that. I don't think it's fair to say Vince is any better or worse because he didn't immediately push Austin to the World Championship. It takes time, but all the signs were there. Austin didn't just become a star overnight. It was a very gradual thing.

Just because they were going to choose another future legend of the business to win KOTR, one who A) is a backstage politician and B) was best friends with the ultimate master politician in 90s HBK, doesn’t mean they weren’t going to push Austin. Again, he was paired with Ted DiBiase. And he was still their #2 choice to win KOTR. At the time, while obviously he got even more over after that, he still wasn’t the most over guy on the roster. They continued to push him and he was Hart’s first program upon his return. Suggesting they had no plans to push him is an absurd suggestion. Besides, what billlionaire do you know that became that without other extremely talented people working for them? You can’t put all the “mistakes” on him and then not give him credit for any of the success. Also, you’re acting like their growth just stopped after expansion and after the Monday Wars (and acting like the WWF’s dramatic increase in product wasn’t a huge reason they won is discrediting too much). They have continued to grow since and have seen a huge growth in the last 5 years alone. If what you are saying is true and Vince’s success was only because of WCW’s failure and expanding in the 80s, then WWE would have either long started to falter or remain stagnant. That hasn’t been the case at all. If we are saying a billionaire can’t be a good businessman if he had resources to begin with, made mistakes, and at one point struggled against great competition backed with a crap ton of money, then nobody is a good businessman then.