Matthew Stafford HOF?

[lionsfan20]

Simple. Yes

[Seahawks fan]

Originally Posted by 49ersSF

Randall Cunningham 3x Player of the Year. Revolutionary player as the first true dual-threat QB.

Easy Hall of Famer.

Cunningham was awesome but he had 9 seasons where he started 6 games or less. He also retired and came back. If he had more consistency, he would be an easy shoe in.

[2010GBPackers]

The people who want to have a multi-page HOF discussion but refuse to acknowledge a) how actual HOF voters weigh different categories and how the discussion process in those meetings/deliberations transpires; and b) not understanding voters don't compare (example) Joe Namath to Matthew Stafford (aka, no cross generational comparisons) is astounding.

[Tea10]

Originally Posted by 2010GBPackers

The people who want to have a multi-page HOF discussion but refuse to acknowledge a) how actual HOF voters weigh different categories and how the discussion process in those meetings/deliberations transpires; and b) not understanding voters don't compare (example) Joe Namath to Matthew Stafford (aka, no cross generational comparisons) is astounding.

I think the subtweeting is astounding actually. Pretty much everyone was saying there are multiple variables.

One guy was simply choosing one singular variable selectively to "win" every argument for or against a singular QB.

Originally Posted by 2010GBPackers

#1 All-Pros matter a lot. More than SB rings, in fact.

#2 It's the Pro Football HOF. Warren Moon was a monster early in his career in the CFL. He won 5 straight championships and put up huge numbers. He played there in his prime and combined with his NFL stats, threw for over 70,000 yards. He's easily deserves to be in the HOF.

Personally I think this take is horrible. All-pros do not matter more than SB rings. And CFL play or XFL or College doesn't matter, or should barely matter.

SB rings are the most important variable. All-pros are not. Hence why you just named Joe Namath. And why Montana/Young/Bradshaw/Aikman were all no-brainers.

Troy Aikman was a 1st ballot HoFer with zero all-pros or MVPs.

Tom Brady only has 3x All-Pro 1st team and 3x 2nd teams. He could have easily had 20. He has 3 MVPs. He could have easily had 10+. Voters are human, and are often/probably morons. Probably not more qualified than anyone here really. Voter fatigue + not the brightest bulbs = zero consistency in all-pro teams, MVPs, or HoF inductions even. Hence why I think that take is horrible, and hence why this discussion always gets annoying and super subjective.

There is absolutely no logical reason or standard why X QB is in the HoF. Some obviously should be in and virtually everyone agrees. But a very large portion are questionable. Stafford is questionable. But he probably should get in based on top ~5 passing yards and TDs, being a top 5-10 QB forever, and 1 great SB win. It's that simple.

[Dallas Cowboys]

Originally Posted by Tea10

I think the subtweeting is astounding actually. Pretty much everyone was saying there are multiple variables.

One guy was simply choosing one singular variable selectively to "win" every argument for or against a singular QB.



Personally I think this take is horrible. All-pros do not matter more than SB rings. And CFL play or XFL or College doesn't matter, or should barely matter.

SB rings are the most important variable. All-pros are not. Hence why you just named Joe Namath. And why Montana/Young/Bradshaw/Aikman were all no-brainers.

Troy Aikman was a 1st ballot HoFer with zero all-pros or MVPs.

Tom Brady only has 3x All-Pro 1st team and 3x 2nd teams. He could have easily had 20. He has 3 MVPs. He could have easily had 10+. Voters are human, and are often/probably morons. Probably not more qualified than anyone here really. Voter fatigue + not the brightest bulbs = zero consistency in all-pro teams, MVPs, or HoF inductions even. Hence why I think that take is horrible, and hence why this discussion always gets annoying and super subjective.

There is absolutely no logical reason or standard why X QB is in the HoF. Some obviously should be in and virtually everyone agrees. But a very large portion are questionable. Stafford is questionable. But he probably should get in based on top ~5 passing yards and TDs, being a top 5-10 QB forever, and 1 great SB win. It's that simple.

For a guy that told me in an earlier post that I just seem to want to argue you sure want to argue on here. Kind of the pot calling the kettle black. 😂😂

[2010GBPackers]

Originally Posted by Tea10

Personally I think this take is horrible. All-pros do not matter more than SB rings. And CFL play or XFL or College doesn't matter, or should barely matter.

SB rings are the most important variable. All-pros are not. Hence why you just named Joe Namath. And why Montana/Young/Bradshaw/Aikman were all no-brainers.

Troy Aikman was a 1st ballot HoFer with zero all-pros or MVPs.

Tom Brady only has 3x All-Pro 1st team and 3x 2nd teams. He could have easily had 20. He has 3 MVPs. He could have easily had 10+. Voters are human, and are often/probably morons. Probably not more qualified than anyone here really. Voter fatigue + not the brightest bulbs = zero consistency in all-pro teams, MVPs, or HoF inductions even. Hence why I think that take is horrible, and hence why this discussion always gets annoying and super subjective.

There is absolutely no logical reason or standard why X QB is in the HoF. Some obviously should be in and virtually everyone agrees. But a very large portion are questionable. Stafford is questionable. But he probably should get in based on top ~5 passing yards and TDs, being a top 5-10 QB forever, and 1 great SB win. It's that simple.

I understand your theory, however, it's changed over the past 20 years. Just like being a Pro-Bowler (which was the apex credential) is essentially meaningless now. Look, SB's are important, and they matter more for QBs than any other postion, that is true. However, being a dominant player at your position matters more now, rather than if you were carried to Super Bowls, the way Namath, Bradshaw, and Aikman were.

The critieria has been tweaked by the voting trends these past couple of decades, which is natural. The QBs you referenced just happen to be on all-time, multi-SB winning teams. I'm pretty sure Nick Foles, Trent Dilfer, and Flacco aren't getting in either. And Flacco has a pretty good resume. Hell, even Eli Manning might not make it. I mean, I think he will, but he didn't even make the cut from 15 to 10 (there's another cut after 10) - and he has 2 SB wins against the GOAT. I guarantee if LJack dropped dead tomorrow, his 3 All-Pros would get him in without a SB appearance. If we can't agree on that, it's pointless arguing.

[Dallas Cowboys]

Last night it hit me.
The best comparison for Matthew Stafford is Drew Brees.
Both played in the same era under the same rules. Both have enough career overlap and played a similar amount of seasons for it to be a fair comparison.
Both have only won one Super Bowl.
Both left the original franchise that drafted them and won their respective Super Bowls with a different franchise.
Both have put up big numbers in this new passing era.
But look at Drew Brees resume below. That is what I call a sure fire first ballot hall of fame quarterback resume in the 21st century.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tea10]

Originally Posted by 2010GBPackers

I understand your theory, however, it's changed over the past 20 years. Just like being a Pro-Bowler (which was the apex credential) is essentially meaningless now. Look, SB's are important, and they matter more for QBs than any other postion, that is true. However, being a dominant player at your position matters more now, rather than if you were carried to Super Bowls, the way Namath, Bradshaw, and Aikman were.

The critieria has been tweaked by the voting trends these past couple of decades, which is natural. The QBs you referenced just happen to be on all-time, multi-SB winning teams. I'm pretty sure Nick Foles, Trent Dilfer, and Flacco aren't getting in either. And Flacco has a pretty good resume. Hell, even Eli Manning might not make it. I mean, I think he will, but he didn't even make the cut from 15 to 10 (there's another cut after 10) - and he has 2 SB wins against the GOAT. I guarantee if LJack dropped dead tomorrow, his 3 All-Pros would get him in without a SB appearance. If we can't agree on that, it's pointless arguing.

Well we don't agree. So maybe you're right and this is pointless on top of pointless to debate or argue about. But here is what I can explain in two points:

1. There's a cross-section here. Obviously there are QBs who win SB rings who don't deserve to get in, or it's debatable. But there are also QBs who have flash peaks of excellence, or long periods of good, that also should not be in. This is pretty simple and everyone should agree to this.

But let's break this down by SB winners just to depict this. These are all of the QBs who have won a SB ring this century from 2000-2024:

Trent Dilfer, Tom Brady x7, Brad Johnson, Big Ben x2, P. Manning x2, Eli Manning x2, Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, Joe Flacco, Nick Foles, Patrick Mahomes, Matt Stafford, Jalen Hurts.

13 QBs total. 25 Super Bowls total.

Now out of those QBs, I think we can generally all agree that - Dilfer, Johnson, Foles are definitely not getting in. So only 3/13 are obvious no's.

And - Brady, Brees, Rodgers, P.Manning (in), and Mahomes already, are obvious HoFers.

Big Ben, Wilson, Eli, Flacco, Stafford is your tier of likely to maybe. Hurts too early to even say anything.

I think we can all agree to this at least yes? I've been bored enough to argue why Stafford should get in. You're talking Lamar now, but let me continue down history and slightly cherry pick all the way to 1992:

Warner, Elway, Favre, Aikman, Young. --- they are all in already.

Let's go to 1988 - Rypien, Holistier, Montana. Obviously Montana is in, the other two are not.

So back to 1992 that's 18 QBs who uniquely won SBs. And back to 1988 that would be 21 unique QBs for 38 SBs and 42 SBs total respectively. So the moral of the story of this longer than expected post is:

I. QBs are more important over time with rule changes and impact up until present day. And were far more important this century, SBs mattering more than they did in the 40s-80s era.

II. 10/21 QBs listed are already in the HoF or are guaranteed absolute locks above. And at least 2-4 of that maybe tier will likely get in. Proving that SBs definitely matter.

III. The only QBs without a SB ring inducted this century have been: Dan Marino, Warren Moon, and Jim Kelly. We have to go back to 1993 Fouts and 1986 Tarkenton to find the next two.

Further we can qualify this with Marino being arguably being the best QB of his generation and top 3-5 ever. Kelly going to 4 SBs, Fouts putting up unreal stats for the era, etc. So all this said - SB rings are clearly the most important variable. But obviously it is only one variable, and the QB has to be good-great+ for an extended period of time.

[Tea10]

Originally Posted by 2010GBPackers

I understand your theory, however, it's changed over the past 20 years. Just like being a Pro-Bowler (which was the apex credential) is essentially meaningless now. Look, SB's are important, and they matter more for QBs than any other postion, that is true. However, being a dominant player at your position matters more now, rather than if you were carried to Super Bowls, the way Namath, Bradshaw, and Aikman were.

The critieria has been tweaked by the voting trends these past couple of decades, which is natural. The QBs you referenced just happen to be on all-time, multi-SB winning teams. I'm pretty sure Nick Foles, Trent Dilfer, and Flacco aren't getting in either. And Flacco has a pretty good resume. Hell, even Eli Manning might not make it. I mean, I think he will, but he didn't even make the cut from 15 to 10 (there's another cut after 10) - and he has 2 SB wins against the GOAT. I guarantee if LJack dropped dead tomorrow, his 3 All-Pros would get him in without a SB appearance. If we can't agree on that, it's pointless arguing.

2. Much more succinctly, no I don't think Lamar is a lock for the HoF already. I believe Patrick Mahomes is. Not Lamar.

Why? Because he's 3-5 in the playoffs, zero AFCCGs, zero SB rings.

He's obviously become a top 3-5 QB in the league for multiple years. He won two MVPs and has 3 all-pro teams. But as I've seen multiple times, those are popularity contests and story driven awards.

Tom Brady has 3 MVPs and 3 1st team all-pros. Lamar already has 2 MVPs and 3 1st team all-pros and he's put together maybe 3 or 4 actual good seasons total. He has no longevity, he has no rings, he won a few awards after the old guard of HoF and all-time great QBs aged out and retired.

With that said, obviously if he does this for another 5-10 years then he will likely be a HoFer even without a ring. I'd say the same for Josh Allen almost exactly. If either win a ring and do this for ~5 more years they're easily in.

But Matt Ryan won an MVP and was never the best QB in the league. Multiple were better at the time. Cam Newton, same thing. It's a popularity media award that isn't always given to the actual best QB. Voter fatigue and storylines. Allen won it last year and Lamar arguably should have won his 3rd, but hey imo he wasn't the best or most valuable QB during his other two. So I guess we have nothing to discuss because I don't think a guy with zero rings, 3-5 playoff record, and about 3-4 great seasons total should be a "lock" for the hall.

[2010GBPackers]

Just to point out, once again, your argument(s) are all from over 30 years ago. You're living in the '90's, man. The times have changed.

But again, if Lamar's career was over tomorrow and he was (hypothetically) eligible for the HOF at the same time as Eli, LJack would get in before Eli. And this is due to the fact that All-Pros matter more than SB wins.

[mjekase]

Originally Posted by Tea10

So all this said - SB rings are clearly the most important variable.

I would disagree, and say that if you separated the two parts - Super Bowls vs. individual accolades and numbers - the bulk of HoF resumes for QBs are built on the latter. P. Manning, Favre, Brees would have been in even without Super Bowl victories, similar to Marino, Moon and Fouts.

Guys like Aikman - and eventually Eli - may not be in the Hall if their teams won a single SB. But they didn't, and they have three SB MVPs between them (individual accolade).

Stafford will most likely get in, but I can't see him being first-ballot because his team won a Super Bowl. If there's a recent comp, it's probably Roethlisberger, for whom I'm sure there's already a thread about.

[Tea10]

Originally Posted by mjekase

I would disagree, and say that if you separated the two parts - Super Bowls vs. individual accolades and numbers - the bulk of HoF resumes for QBs are built on the latter. P. Manning, Favre, Brees would have been in even without Super Bowl victories, similar to Marino, Moon and Fouts.

Guys like Aikman - and eventually Eli - may not be in the Hall if their teams won a single SB. But they didn't, and they have three SB MVPs between them (individual accolade).

Stafford will most likely get in, but I can't see him being first-ballot because his team won a Super Bowl. If there's a recent comp, it's probably Roethlisberger, for whom I'm sure there's already a thread about.

I understand what you're saying and I agree with some of it. Of course the totality of the resume' matters. But let me ask you this first before I write another long response:

How many QBs from this century without a ring are going to make the HoF?

[mjekase]

Originally Posted by Tea10

How many QBs from this century without a ring are going to make the HoF?

Do you mean if current guys stayed on their current trajectories for another 5-7 years and didn't win one?

[Tea10]

Originally Posted by 2010GBPackers

Just to point out, once again, your argument(s) are all from over 30 years ago. You're living in the '90's, man. The times have changed.

But again, if Lamar's career was over tomorrow and he was (hypothetically) eligible for the HOF at the same time as Eli, LJack would get in before Eli. And this is due to the fact that All-Pros matter more than SB wins.

No he wouldn't. He is 3-5 in the playoffs with 1 AFCCG appearance and 0 SB rings, zero SB appearances. He doesn't have any longevity to speak of.

I know what his case is and I acknowledge it - 2 MVPs, 3 all-pros, all-time rushing yards for QBs already. But he's also only been a top 5 QB in maybe 2-3 seasons max. Also with a dearth of QB talent after last gen retired or is washed.

Originally Posted by mjekase

I would disagree, and say that if you separated the two parts - Super Bowls vs. individual accolades and numbers - the bulk of HoF resumes for QBs are built on the latter. P. Manning, Favre, Brees would have been in even without Super Bowl victories, similar to Marino, Moon and Fouts.

Guys like Aikman - and eventually Eli - may not be in the Hall if their teams won a single SB. But they didn't, and they have three SB MVPs between them (individual accolade).

Stafford will most likely get in, but I can't see him being first-ballot because his team won a Super Bowl. If there's a recent comp, it's probably Roethlisberger, for whom I'm sure there's already a thread about.

Well I agree that the entire resume' matters, and both matter. Of course. But if you read my long post above, I don't fault you for not reading it all...

There have been 12 QBs this century that have won a SB ring if we cut out Hurts. His career is too early to analyze. Out of those 12 QBs, 5 are locks or in already. 3 obviously are not HoF material (Dilfer, Foles, Johnson). And the remaining four are: Wilson, Eli, Stafford, Flacco.

I believe Flacco will be left out. But the other 3 will get in. So 8/12 of the SB QBs from this century will probably get in. Could be 7, I would be shocked if it was 6 or less. And as I responded above, I can't think of any non-SB winners getting in from this century at all.

QB is more important and by far the most valuable position on a team. The overlap between elite QBs, top 3-5 guys of their generations and SB rings is very high from this era and upcoming. Sure maybe if Allen/Jackson continue their top 3-5 play and never win a ring, either could easily get in. But I think it's likely one, or both, will get a ring if that occurs.

And yes I totally agree, Eli and Aikman don't make it in without rings. Of course. Eli is 11th all-time in passing yards though and was a top 10 QB for some years, top 5 arguably for one or two as was Flacco for maybe one. But Stafford is 10th all-time already in yards and is likely to be 6th after this season, with Rodgers getting to 5th.

Brees was elite and top 3-5 for years. 2nd all-time in passing. So at what point can we discredit Stafford being only behind Brady-Brees-Manining-Favre-Rodgers --- on the all-time passing list?

If Stafford plays one healthy season he's there. Since this topic is focused on him. But also, since we're talking about accolades. And again, I'll say, I don't think Moon necessarily deserves to be in based on accolades/stats alone. Marino obviously, Fouts, yes. But Moon with no rings is a bit flimsy to me. Stabler is also flimsy with 1 ring on the opposite side.

So what is the criteria? There really isnt' one. But Stafford was a bonafide top 10 QB who was perhaps underrated due to playing in DET, he has stretches of being a top 5 QB on and off, SB ring first year with a competent team, he'll end up top 6-10 in yards and top 10 in TDs, I know we agree here on Stafford specifically it seems. But I don't see why or how anyone could argue Moon or Stabler (or Namath/many older gen) deserve to be in over him.

We shouldn't penalize Stafford/Eli/Wilson for playing at the same time as Brady/Manning/Brees/Rodgers/Mahomes necessarily. Just like how Aikman got in, or Moon. These guys should probably get in. That's it.

[Tea10]

Originally Posted by mjekase

Do you mean if current guys stayed on their current trajectories for another 5-7 years and didn't win one?

I'm saying out of all the QBs who were in their playing years or prime from 2000-2025,

There is not a single HoFer that doesn't have a SB ring I can think of.

Peyton (in), Brady, Brees, Rodgers, Mahomes, Wilson, Big Ben to Wilson, Eli, Stafford, ~Flacco.

Is there another QB who even has a chance as of now? Obviously, once again we need Hurts, Allen, Jackson, Burrow, Herbert, McDaniels, etc. To play out.

But out of the QBs who were drafted in ~95-2000 or later, who have played out their careers to present day, there isn't a single HoF candidate who doesn't have a ring on their hand.

[mjekase]

If you think Stafford is a Hall of Famer, then you should include Matt Ryan.

[Tea10]

Originally Posted by mjekase

If you think Stafford is a Hall of Famer, then you should include Matt Ryan.

I don't agree. Why would you have to do that?

Matt Ryan has an MVP. But was he consistently as good as Stafford was among us peers? No, I don't think so.

Even when Ryan won his MVP, he was not the best QB in the league. He was at best, 4th or 5th. Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Wilson - were clearly better. And while that was a peak year from Ryan, was he more talented than Stafford? Or Rivers, Big Ben, Luck?

8th all-time passing yards. MVP, 1 all-pro same year obviously. He had one peak year on a really good team/offense and won a media award. He was legit top 5 that year. I'd argue Stafford has been top 5 more years, and definitely top 6-10 range far more than Ryan.

Again, the biggest difference maker is the 1 SB ring. Ryan is an all-time choke artist, where as Stafford won the SB ring despite 12 years with a terrible franchise to start his career.

Matt Ryan is in the hall of Very Good. Along with Rivers and Flacco who has a ring, and you can argue Eli, and you could definitely argue Stafford. But I think Stafford's talent and consistent top 5-10 range + the ring puts him into the hall.

[mjekase]

Ryan and Stafford had virtually identical careers, statistically. Ryan is still ahead in some categories.

Originally Posted by Tea10

Even when Ryan won his MVP, he was not the best QB in the league. He was at best, 4th or 5th. Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Wilson - were clearly better.

This is a ridiculous statement. Russell Wilson and Drew Brees were clearly better than Matt Ryan in 2016? You want to stand by that?

[Tea10]

Originally Posted by mjekase

Ryan and Stafford had virtually identical careers, statistically. Ryan is still ahead in some categories.



This is a ridiculous statement. Russell Wilson and Drew Brees were clearly better than Matt Ryan in 2016? You want to stand by that?

What's so ridiculous?

Matt Ryan was never at any point the best QB in the league including 2016. He won an MVP award, that doesn't mean he was the best QB talent wise.

He was at best the 4th or 5th QB in the league during his peak. He was top 10 comfortably for years, but he was never elite outside of a few. I think you can apply the same to Stafford essentially, minus the MVP award and maybe a slightly less hyped peak. And Stafford was consistently better over a longer period of time.

Cam Newton won the MVP the year prior. Was he ever top 5 at the position? I don't think so, not even close. The MVP award is a media award based on narratives. It's a bunch of sports writers, some of whom are dumb as bricks, and most of whom suffer from voters fatigue. I'm not arguing whether or not Ryan should have won the award. Rodgers could have won it easily btw, Brady on 12 games could have arguably won it, but I am saying Ryan winning that MVP doesn't magically make him an elite QB or the best in the league. He never was. Ever.

[Tea10]

Originally Posted by mjekase

Ryan and Stafford had virtually identical careers, statistically. Ryan is still ahead in some categories.



This is a ridiculous statement. Russell Wilson and Drew Brees were clearly better than Matt Ryan in 2016? You want to stand by that?

Virtually identical - Minus the part where Ryan is part of the historical all-time biggest choke job to lose a SB and Matt Stafford left a 12 year loyal career with the worst franchise this century to immediately win a SB ring in year one with LA.

I understand you said statistically, but you cannot just omit that part. That is my entire argument here about the SB rings. You're right, statistically Ryan will be 8th passing all-time and Stafford might be 5th-6th in yards.

But again, the SB ring is the most significant achievement because QB is the most valuable position on the field by far, more so in the 2000-2025 era where they both played in. Maybe you ignored or disagree with me but I laid it out above - There will ZERO QBs without rings to make the HoF whose era was 2000-2025. As in the bulk of their playing career landed in this 25 year gap, this generation, this quarter century.

Unless you're right and Ryan and Rivers get in. But I see it as far more likely Eli and Stafford get in. Because...they have the rings.

[twisty571]

By the numbers alone Stafford will be a 1st ballot lock. This discussion is hilarious over the years.

Most of the nay sayers from the beginning were saying he didn't even have a Pro-Bowl...the next year he is a Pro-Bowl MVP & then before he went to the Rams they said he wouldn't because he will never have a ring. He gets traded & wins said ring his 1st year with a competent coaching staff & team around him.

He has been one of the toughest QB's to lace up starting his rookie year when he threw a game winning TD with a dislocated shoulder & no time on the clock. The lack of a 1000 yard rusher for a decade to boot. He owns most of the Lions team records, he is climbing up the Ram's team records along with he is in the top 10 in about every category overall ...15th in games played & 13th in games started.

https://youtu.be/8rvIwyikbRU?si=2xG6GGqGKJcxpprl

[epatmythes]

He's a lock

[49erRCCollector]

Originally Posted by Tea10

What's so ridiculous?

Matt Ryan was never at any point the best QB in the league including 2016. He won an MVP award, that doesn't mean he was the best QB talent wise.

He was at best the 4th or 5th QB in the league during his peak. He was top 10 comfortably for years, but he was never elite outside of a few. I think you can apply the same to Stafford essentially, minus the MVP award and maybe a slightly less hyped peak. And Stafford was consistently better over a longer period of time.

Cam Newton won the MVP the year prior. Was he ever top 5 at the position? I don't think so, not even close. The MVP award is a media award based on narratives. It's a bunch of sports writers, some of whom are dumb as bricks, and most of whom suffer from voters fatigue. I'm not arguing whether or not Ryan should have won the award. Rodgers could have won it easily btw, Brady on 12 games could have arguably won it, but I am saying Ryan winning that MVP doesn't magically make him an elite QB or the best in the league. He never was. Ever.

?

Ryan was also 2008 AP OROY and 2016 AP OPOY, right?

I'm not anti-Stafford, but Ryan has an MVP, better stats, more PBs, more All Pros in addition to the ROTY and OPOY above.

Let's not falsely slander Ryan here. And I'm no Matt Ryan fan. But it weakens the Stafford argument to pretend Ryan wasn't pretty damn good at times.

[bojesphob]

Seems there is a QB that ends up in this discussion every few years.

It's the Hall of Fame, ie the best of the best, not the Hall of Very Good. Stafford is going to be compared to Rodgers, Brady and Mahomes (all first ballot) and he doesn't stack up. That's not a knock on him at all, he's *good*, but a QB has to be within the top 3-5 QBs for most of their career, not just a few years. This is why, while Eli was amazing for 2 years, the rest of his career is why he's borderline. They have to dominate, not just for a season or two, but for most of their career. If he was let in, what that is saying is that a couple of really good years with a Super Bowl win is equivalent to 7 Super Bowls, or 4 NFL MVPs and a Super Bowl MVP, or whatever Mahomes ends up with, and Stafford's years of a little above average with the Lions will keep him out. He may be better than some players in the Hall now, but that's irrelevant, as doing better than others decades in the Hall is meaningless, but how you compare to those who play at the same time as you is how they judge your play. This is how the Hall voters have always voted.

Now, he *might* get voted in as a legacy pick (like Sterling Sharpe), but that might not be for another 40 years.

[Scottish Punk]

If you go by the HOF monitor here is where Stafford Ranks.

3 QBs above him are Fouts, Warner, Eli manning
3 QBs below are Ken Anderson, Stabler, Lamar Jackson (who will pass them all by the time he is done)

Stafford is 23rd on the list. 9 QBs ahead who aren't in yet Brady (1), Rodgers (3), Brees (7), Ryan (12), Mahomes (13), Big Ben (14), Rivers (15), Wilson (18), Eli (22)
8 QBs below who already are in - Stabler, Jurgenson, Moon, Aikman, Griese, Namath, Dawson, Kelly

I still say Stafford is likely to get in, but it will take awhile. There are others who are ahead of him. I still say Eli, Ryan, Rivers are his barometers. The longer it takes them to get in, the less likely it is for Stafford.