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

[selmaborntidefan]

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.

Here - to me - is the problem with that line of reasoning: everyone wants to say "but so and so had so and so for a receiver." That's fine - but he still had to get the ball at least reasonably close to the guy, too. It's not that it's a bad argument so much as it's a who cares argument. Generally speaking, receivers are looked at as a dime a dozen.

I mean, do we say Steve Young wasn't REALLY that good because Jerry Rice and T.O.?

 

[TideEngineer08]

Here - to me - is the problem with that line of reasoning: everyone wants to say "but so and so had so and so for a receiver." That's fine - but he still had to get the ball at least reasonably close to the guy, too. It's not that it's a bad argument so much as it's a who cares argument. Generally speaking, receivers are looked at as a dime a dozen.

I mean, do we say Steve Young wasn't REALLY that good because Jerry Rice and T.O.?

EVERY great QB was made by great WRs. Period.

There is the possible exception of Tom Brady. Other than one season with Randy Moss, I do not recall him having and WRs that I would term "great." However, much of the later portion of his career he did have Gronk at TE.

 

[81usaf92]

Here - to me - is the problem with that line of reasoning: everyone wants to say "but so and so had so and so for a receiver." That's fine - but he still had to get the ball at least reasonably close to the guy, too. It's not that it's a bad argument so much as it's a who cares argument. Generally speaking, receivers are looked at as a dime a dozen.

I mean, do we say Steve Young wasn't REALLY that good because Jerry Rice and T.O.?

But it’s as dumb as saying “Stafford only sucked because he was with the Lions”. My point is that everyone is starting to act like he had nothing on that team which isn’t true.

This year he led the league with picks with an all star team. He hasn’t changed what he is. Put Rodgers and Brady on that team and you probably a 6,000 yard passer and close to 60 touchdowns and 10 interceptions. People are trying to act like he had an awesome season and it totally changed the narrative of his career. What are we saying had he lost Sunday? Are we still saying all this nonsense?

 

[selmaborntidefan]

EVERY great QB was made by great WRs. Period.

There is the possible exception of Tom Brady. Other than one season with Randy Moss, I do not recall him having and WRs that I would term "great." However, much of the later portion of his career he did have Gronk at TE.

I disagree.

Who were the great receivers for Bart Starr, Joe Namath, or Joe Montana prior to Rice?
What great receivers played with Elway? They were GOOD, but they weren't great.
Warren Moon?

I'll grant it's MORE TRUE NOW than it used to be. But as you state with Brady, the only time he had an elite level superstar, he didn't win the Super Bowl.

The receiver DOES have a part to play, and the receiver CAN - if he can break away - turn a GOOD QB into a GREAT one. I'll grant that. It just seems to me like what we've got here is "Stafford/Ryan, Ryan had these great receivers." But Ryan was compiling good stats before Julio, too.


(Everyone - I'm honestly enjoying the give and take at the bar on this, I really am).

 

[81usaf92]

I disagree.

Who were the great receivers for Bart Starr, Joe Namath, or Joe Montana prior to Rice?
What great receivers played with Elway? They were GOOD, but they weren't great.
Warren Moon?

I'll grant it's MORE TRUE NOW than it used to be. But as you state with Brady, the only time he had an elite level superstar, he didn't win the Super Bowl.

The receiver DOES have a part to play, and the receiver CAN - if he can break away - turn a GOOD QB into a GREAT one. I'll grant that. It just seems to me like what we've got here is "Stafford/Ryan, Ryan had these great receivers." But Ryan was compiling good stats before Julio, too.


(Everyone - I'm honestly enjoying the give and take at the bar on this, I really am).

Brady had a couple of superstars last year at receiver. Mike Evans is one of the best in the game and AB when his head is in the game is a top 2 receiver. Godwin has a case.

But most of Brady’s career has been with the island of misfit toys at receiver and running back.

 

[crimsonaudio]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1493345170133336070

 

[Bamabuzzard]

What or "WHO is the HOF for? Is it for only the "greats" or is it for the "very good"? Or is it for the top 5% of players during their era? Part of the problem is people have very different definitions of WHO and WHAT the HOF is for. The subtle differences have gotten us where we are today.

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.

 

[AlexanderFan]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1493345170133336070

He makes his own throwing lanes.

 

[AlexanderFan]

What or "WHO is the HOF for? Is it for only the "greats" or is it for the "very good"? Or is it for the top 5% of players during their era? Part of the problem is people have very different definitions of WHO and WHAT the HOF is for. The subtle differences have gotten us where we are today.

So give me the few more data points that gets the bottom tier guys over the hump and into the HoF.

 

[DzynKingRTR]

Some idiot on espn says Stafford is the #3 QB in the NFL right now. Mahomes is not in his top 5.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

So give me the few more data points that gets the bottom tier guys over the hump and into the HoF.

By my standards or what's been loosely used for decades by the actual voters?

 

[TideEngineer08]

I disagree.

Who were the great receivers for Bart Starr, Joe Namath, or Joe Montana prior to Rice?
What great receivers played with Elway? They were GOOD, but they weren't great.
Warren Moon?

I'll grant it's MORE TRUE NOW than it used to be. But as you state with Brady, the only time he had an elite level superstar, he didn't win the Super Bowl.

The receiver DOES have a part to play, and the receiver CAN - if he can break away - turn a GOOD QB into a GREAT one. I'll grant that. It just seems to me like what we've got here is "Stafford/Ryan, Ryan had these great receivers." But Ryan was compiling good stats before Julio, too.


(Everyone - I'm honestly enjoying the give and take at the bar on this, I really am).

I hate to say this, but Joe Namath is to the Hall of Fame like so many you all are debating here. He does not belong. EXCEPT for the fact that he guaranteed a win in Super Bowl III, played for the upstart AFL on the Jets and it was thought impossible for them to beat the NFL's Colts, and he was a cultural icon. His actual numbers are not befitting of a Hall of Famer.

It was a different game in Starr's day so, like you said, it is more true now, I admit that. I also think Starr is another QB who is there because of the Wins. The first 2 Super Bowls. The NFL titles before that. It wasn't like he was tearing it up numbers-wise but the game was totally different then. The QB didn't need greatness at the WR position.

Does Montana get in without Rice, though? Well he did win a Super Bowl without him so maybe. But Rice's career was a massive chunk of Montana's. I don't think you can separate out Montana from my claim.

I guess I would amend my point and take out EVERY... but certainly it is difficult to name a great QB without looking on his rosters and seeing great WRs. Or, great OLs. No one goes it alone.

One final thought that did just occur to me, however. Who were Dan Marino's great WRs? And since I can't answer that, is that a big reason with Marino never got that Super Bowl?

 

[TideEngineer08]

Brady had a couple of superstars last year at receiver. Mike Evans is one of the best in the game and AB when his head is in the game is a top 2 receiver. Godwin has a case.

But most of Brady’s career has been with the island of misfit toys at receiver and running back.

Yeah, Brady was a HOF'er long before his Tampa years. I wasn't counting those at all when I made that statement.

 

[AlexanderFan]

By my standards or what's been loosely used for decades by the actual voters?

Quoted wrong post. I was intending to ask 81 what data points his third tier needed to get over the hump to the Hall.

 

[81usaf92]

Some idiot on espn says Stafford is the #3 QB in the NFL right now. Mahomes is not in his top 5.

Well there are a bunch of idiots who believe Stafford is one of the best quarterbacks in his generation as well.

 

[81usaf92]

Quoted wrong post. I was intending to ask 81 what data points his third tier needed to get over the hump to the Hall.

For Ryan… I would say another strong playoff push or MVP like season. He has been far more consistently good stat wise than just about everyone else in his tier. I don’t think he can ever surpass Ben or Rivers, but he can get into their category of quarterback.

Wilson still has time.

Stafford really has never had a great season. The dude is an interception machine. He probably really needs the 2nd ring. Because his career is really average to mediocre more than great to elite. I mean he really has alot in common as a player as Jamies Winston. He can put up really good stats while also putting up really horrible ones at the same time. Maybe an actual good season or two as a quarterback can change the true narrative but as is the hall of fame talk is a massive overreaction to a game in which he played just okay at.

 

[crimsonaudio]

Who were Dan Marino's great WRs? And since I can't answer that, is that a big reason with Marino never got that Super Bowl?

The 'Marks Brothers' - Clayton and Duper!

 

[AlexanderFan]

Moon had Givins and Jeffries, and the run and shoot before folks had a solid defense for it. FOUR WIDE RECEIVERS?!?! ARE YOU INSANE?

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Does Montana get in without Rice, though? Well he did win a Super Bowl without him so maybe. But Rice's career was a massive chunk of Montana's. I don't think you can separate out Montana from my claim.

Montana stats before Rice played his first game (3 full seasons plus a strike-shortened one and an additional 1/2 season's worth of games)

1324 completions
2077 attempts
15,609 yards (243 yards per game average
63.7% passer (he retired at 63.2% nine seasons later; 23 of the 24 guys ahead of him all played in 1998 or later except one, Steve Young)
106 TDs
54 INTs
7-1 playoff record, sole loss was aided by the officials

LED LEAGUE
completion % twice (did it 3 more times with Rice)
TDs (once)
Two top 5 MVP vote finishes
Two Super Bowl rings, winning the MVP both times
3 Pro Bowls

YARDS PER GAME
1981 - 9th (222) but was only substantially behind Dan Fouts and Tommy Kramer
1982 - 2nd - behind Fouts
1983 - 5th - behind Fouts, Lynn Dickey, Bill Kenney, Danny White
1984 - 6th - behind Marino, Neil Lomax, Phil Simms, Fouts, Dave Krieg

Rice simply took Montana from an "on his way to the Hall already" go to a "no question first ballot guy."

I guess I would amend my point and take out EVERY... but certainly it is difficult to name a great QB without looking on his rosters and seeing great WRs. Or, great OLs. No one goes it alone.

One final thought that did just occur to me, however. Who were Dan Marino's great WRs? And since I can't answer that, is that a big reason with Marino never got that Super Bowl?

Marino's big guns his rookie year were "the Marks Brothers," Mark Clayton and Mark Duper - and a third guy who was good but not great named Nat Moore. Jimmy Cefalo was solid if unspectacular - and you have to remember they tossed a lot of balls short out to former Bama RB Tony Nathan as well.

Those guys were GOOD receivers - obviously not Rice because nobody is.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

What or "WHO is the HOF for? Is it for only the "greats" or is it for the "very good"? Or is it for the top 5% of players during their era? Part of the problem is people have very different definitions of WHO and WHAT the HOF is for. The subtle differences have gotten us where we are today.

I don't think there's any argument here, but I think that question turns on this one:
"How big SHOULD the Hall be?"

Is it the top 5%? That's probably too exclusive, but I don't think top ten percent is.

When I say this, I don't mean "is often in the top 10% in one or two categories." Sometimes - like with Roger Craig - STATS don't tell the REAL story. Because he was a threat both running and receiving, he didn't put up the kinds of numbers he would have if he had been either Emmitt Smith or Michael Irvin. He was a sorta mixture of both, so the numbers don't do justice to Craig.

But you can't REALLY tell the story of the 1980s San Fran dynasty WITHOUT Craig, either. It's just not possible.
It's almost like he gets punished because he had the greatest receiver of all-time and the guy who is probably the #2 QB of all-time on the same team.

This one TO THIS DAY puzzles me. Everson Walls, too, but not 1/100th as much as Craig.