Guest Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 15 hours ago, JDBrocks said: I don't think it's fair to say that any player, much less a QB, MUST be transformative to get HOF consideration. Brees and Rodgers without a doubt are HOF players. They are doing things that no other players, even those in the modern gaudy stat era, are doing. Russell Wilson is an interesting case because he really is changing the way the position is played. He's small and efficient through the air as well as on the ground. I'd say he's more revolutionary for the QB position than Brady. Similarly, saying Gonzalez is only in because of stats is disrespectful to Gonzalez. He's the epitome of a move tight end, and set the stage for a ton of guys that came after him. I also don't buy the era argument. There have been a ton of guys that played in this era, and the best ones deserve to get in. It's the same as the steroid era in baseball. They still played the games, the titles stand, and the records count. That era is a part of the game, just like the offensive rule changes are in the NFL, and both leagues should embrace it. The best players are still the best players in the era that they had to play in and should be judged accordingly. Not everything has to be judged by some arbitrary "good old days" standard. At any rate, my main argument was not that Ryan deserved to be in the hall of fame, just that he is not in the Stafford/Flacco tier of QBs. His team has won because of his play. Outside of that miracle playoff run for Flacco, his teams won with defense. Stafford's teams just haven't won. The Lions have never won the NFC North. So...what will you do with a glut of quarterbacks with gaudy statistics over the next five to ten years...if you're a hall of fame voter? I remember the controversy of the inclusion of Art Monk in the Hall of Fame because, even though when he retired he was the all time statistical leader in receptions...but hall voters couldn't distinguish him from an Andre Reed, James Lofton, or Wes Chandler. I think hall voters will have the same issue with this generation of quarterbacks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemperFeist Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 1 hour ago, Virginia Viking said: So...what will you do with a glut of quarterbacks with gaudy statistics over the next five to ten years...if you're a hall of fame voter Base their merits against those of the other quarterbacks of their generation. You can’t put players of today, or any generation, up against the generations of players that came before them as a basis for Hall of Fame worthiness. The game is ever changing. Rules are different, players are different, strategy is different. The only way to properly assess a player’s candidacy for the Hall of Fame is to put them up against their peers. Was player X one of the best during his time on the field? If the answer is yes, then it’s simple to talk about them as a Hall of Famer. If the answer is no, then a case for the Hall of Fame isn’t going to be discussed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDBrocks Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 (edited) For discussion's sake, here's my list of active HOF QBs from this era: Locks Brady Rodgers Brees Roethlisberger Strong chance Rivers Wilson Long Shots Newton Ryan Manning Edited August 8, 2019 by JDBrocks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede700 Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 2 hours ago, Virginia Viking said: So...what will you do with a glut of quarterbacks with gaudy statistics over the next five to ten years...if you're a hall of fame voter? I remember the controversy of the inclusion of Art Monk in the Hall of Fame because, even though when he retired he was the all time statistical leader in receptions...but hall voters couldn't distinguish him from an Andre Reed, James Lofton, or Wes Chandler. I think hall voters will have the same issue with this generation of quarterbacks. It's why I've continued to say that Isaac Bruce is not and should not be a HOFer. I sort of go by something similar to @SemperFeist...if I can say that, for a lot of his career, I'd put him in the top 5 at his position amongst his peers, he's a strong candidate for the HOF. I can't say that about Isaac Bruce, and I can't say that about Matt Ryan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 32 minutes ago, swede700 said: It's why I've continued to say that Isaac Bruce is not and should not be a HOFer. I sort of go by something similar to @SemperFeist...if I can say that, for a lot of his career, I'd put him in the top 5 at his position amongst his peers, he's a strong candidate for the HOF. I can't say that about Isaac Bruce, and I can't say that about Matt Ryan. I think I am souring on the whole Hall of Fame thing in sports. Why is it important? To me, it should recognize careers in professional football that somehow moved the game forward. I can't say that most of the HOF members qualify if that were to be the standard. And, I think, that's okay with me. Right now, I think a name change is order for the Pro Football Hall of Fame. I think it should be the Pro Football Hall of Very Good Careers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDBrocks Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 That's not at all what the name implies, nor has it ever been what enshrinement was about. The very best players are recognized for their achievements compared to those of their peers. Your argument in general skews preference to players from the early days of the NFL when the game was still growing, changing, and had fewer rules. Innovations and "moves foward" become less frequent as the game develops and is tweaked. Why should the accomplishments of players in this era as well as future eras be diminished because of circumstances under which the game is played? If players outperform all of their peers they should be recognized for it. That's what fame is in the context of sports. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 1 hour ago, JDBrocks said: That's not at all what the name implies, nor has it ever been what enshrinement was about. The very best players are recognized for their achievements compared to those of their peers. Your argument in general skews preference to players from the early days of the NFL when the game was still growing, changing, and had fewer rules. Innovations and "moves foward" become less frequent as the game develops and is tweaked. Why should the accomplishments of players in this era as well as future eras be diminished because of circumstances under which the game is played? If players outperform all of their peers they should be recognized for it. That's what fame is in the context of sports. Again, my personal opinion...nah!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SemperFeist Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 12 minutes ago, Virginia Viking said: Again, my personal opinion...nah!!! So, in your opinion, the Hall of Fame would have stopped adding members in about 1975? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 22 minutes ago, SemperFeist said: So, in your opinion, the Hall of Fame would have stopped adding members in about 1975? Well...now that you've brought it up...I don't think the game has improved all that much...if at all...but, this is my opinion, and I don't expect anyone to agree. But, I loved the game as it was played in the late '60's and early '70's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede700 Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 I loved the game more when offensive lines were actually competent across the league...and defenses were actually allowed to defend. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDBrocks Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 I enjoyed offensive line play a lot more in the past too, but I don't blame the NFL for that. The college game outside of a few consistent programs has basically taken athletes and put them in space, even along the offensive line. They don't learn technique, and by the time they get to the NFL, defensive lines can manhandle most young lineman. Outside of picky DPI calls, I don't think that the defensive changes have been egregious. I'm all for changes that try to protect players from scrambling their brains more than is necessary. Anything that prevents unnecessary injury really... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 30 minutes ago, swede700 said: I loved the game more when offensive lines were actually competent across the league...and defenses were actually allowed to defend. At one time, CB's would line up directly across the line, within inches, of the receivers and jam them at the line. Receivers also used to have to get down in a three point stance. I think it would be great to bring those two aspects to the game. I think the rules have given to much advantage to the offense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 34 minutes ago, JDBrocks said: I enjoyed offensive line play a lot more in the past too, but I don't blame the NFL for that. The college game outside of a few consistent programs has basically taken athletes and put them in space, even along the offensive line. They don't learn technique, and by the time they get to the NFL, defensive lines can manhandle most young lineman. Outside of picky DPI calls, I don't think that the defensive changes have been egregious. I'm all for changes that try to protect players from scrambling their brains more than is necessary. Anything that prevents unnecessary injury really... I think the lack of effective offensive line play is compounded by the pro games pass happy offenses. It's really difficult to have to pass protect on 70 percent of a teams offensive plays. Besides, I would much rather watch a tailback cruise through a hole in the line for a long gain, than the quarterback to throw 30 or more passes of 10 yards or less during a game. I find that boring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede700 Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 37 minutes ago, JDBrocks said: I enjoyed offensive line play a lot more in the past too, but I don't blame the NFL for that. The college game outside of a few consistent programs has basically taken athletes and put them in space, even along the offensive line. They don't learn technique, and by the time they get to the NFL, defensive lines can manhandle most young lineman. Outside of picky DPI calls, I don't think that the defensive changes have been egregious. I'm all for changes that try to protect players from scrambling their brains more than is necessary. Anything that prevents unnecessary injury really... Allowing CBs to jam at the line or to touch the WR after 5 yds doesn't cause anyone to scramble their brains. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede700 Posted August 8, 2019 Share Posted August 8, 2019 2 minutes ago, Virginia Viking said: I think the lack of effective offensive line play is compounded by the pro games pass happy offenses. It's really difficult to have to pass protect on 70 percent of a teams offensive plays. Besides, I would much rather watch a tailback cruise through a hole in the line for a long gain, than the quarterback to throw 30 or more passes of 10 yards or less during a game. I find that boring. Agree, compound on that that the offensive line can't even work with any form of contact until training camp, that makes it much worse. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.