1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Matt Ryan: Hall of Famer?

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!, Aug 7, 2019.

  1. Tweener

    Tweener Well-Known Member

    Absolutely. But I do think it’s a fallacy to assume, as someone did earlier in this thread, that just because X number of quarterbacks were inducted over the last 30 years, there’s no way X are getting in from this generation. More quarterbacks will get in from this era than any before it, and I don’t think too many will argue against that notion.
  2. Della9250

    Della9250 Well-Known Member

    It should also be pointed out that since Sharper was initially nominated and made the initial list in 2016, he has not been nominated again. So while the rules state you can't take the off-the-field into account, it is obvious they/the nominators have taken a stand in some way. Because from an on-the-field standpoint, Sharper would make a top 100 players not in the Hall list.

    Of course, technically you could say they have always leaned towards off-the-field stuff counting, because otherwise Jim Tyrer A. would be in the Hall and B. at least would have been at senior nominee
  3. exmediahack

    exmediahack Well-Known Member

    I tend to put too much emphasis with QBs on their playoff performance.


    It's why I tend to rate Kurt Warner very high (never lost at home, three SB appearances and had his team in position in all of them) and why I don't rate Warren Moon as high.

    Matt Ryan had two home playoff losses, including a loss to the Kaepernick-led 49ers. He made it up a bit with the playoff win at the Rams two years ago. Overall, he's 4-6 in the post-season. Not... great. I see him as this generation's Dan Fouts.

    Great compiler, got to a Super Bowl (unlike Fouts & the Chargers) but really struggles to win outdoors late in the season. He'll get into the HOF but, at this moment, I don't see him with that one moment we all remember.
  4. exmediahack

    exmediahack Well-Known Member

    I'm not a big Matt Ryan backer and I'm definitely a Stafford cynic. I will note that Ryan gets 11 games a year in Atlanta (dome), Carolina, New Orleans and Tampa. Stafford gets his 11 games in Detroit (dome) but also goes Green Bay, Chicago and Minneapolis. Even for those three road games a year in division, I would expect Ryan to perform better over 11 years.

    That being said... Ryan will get into HOF, Stafford will not.
  5. CD Boogie

    CD Boogie Well-Known Member

    I know what his argument is and it’s idiotic. If you know the guy has zero chance of being elected bc he’s a convicted rapist, why waste anyone’s time discussing his candidacy? I know it’s the rule and all to only discuss his on the field accomplishments, but let’s not be naive. It is a waste of time.
  6. justgladtobehere

    justgladtobehere Well-Known Member

    The importance of the position is different from the value of the individual players at the position. The former is a change in how the game is played, but a player's value is determined by his production relative to other people at the position. The modern NFL isn't Lake Wobegon. As the average production goes up, the scarcity at a position doesn't necessarily change. Slightly above average is still just that and shouldn't be on the resume for a hall of famer (Not that I would characterize Ryan that way).

    As an example, I heard a reporter on Clay Travis's show today speculate that the Cowboys could choose to pay Elliott and Cooper, and find a replacement for Prescott. Part of his point was that Prescott's production isn't special relative to talent that would be available to replace him. There were other issues specific to the Cowboys and you can argue Prescott's talent, but I think the suggestion shows how people view the QB position.
  7. Scout

    Scout Well-Known Member

    So, should the bar be lowered for running backs?
  8. justgladtobehere

    justgladtobehere Well-Known Member

    I was thinking about how it would work in the opposite direction. I'm not sold on my argument, even. I think there might be some statistical argument against mine.
  9. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    As evaluation of running backs changes in the present, where a so-called third down back like Darren Sproles is now seen as more valuable than the traditional one-back workhorse in many ways, so in time will their Hall evaluations change. But the evaluations of current talent have to change before Hall standards do. So the traditional total yards rushing standard will be seen as less important, and total yardage and yardage gained per touch will be seen as more important.
  10. CD Boogie

    CD Boogie Well-Known Member

    Canton has one punter, two placekickers and no special teams players. They'll get around to reevaluating RB values when Frank Gore's grandkids are about to retire.
  11. Della9250

    Della9250 Well-Known Member

    It was wasn't some big discussion/in-depth dive. People asked him why Sharper was on the initial list and he told them. It was all of five seconds on Twitter and got turned into a thing by others.
  12. CD Boogie

    CD Boogie Well-Known Member

    When then I apologize for furthering that bullshit.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page