Clay Matthews HOF
-
No doubt it means something. i don't want to diminish what the guy was.
I just think he is a bit shy as compared to guys like Butkus, Bell,Lambert,Taylor.
I hope he gets in....I just don't think he will unless it is by some old timer committee.
If it was a grading scale where 98 makes you a no brainer and 90 makes you are pretty darn good bet, Clay is one of those 88 guys who's going to get consideration but probably fall a few votes shot and fall though the cracks.
I agree with you on the 4 LBs you mentioned/compared him to (those guys are clearly exceptional). I hate the Steelers with a passion, but I still say Lambert was the best I ever saw. I also think you're right on with the call on the old-timer committee.
That's why I opted for the Kevin Greene comparison for Clay. Yes, somebody pointed out Greene's stats compared to Clay, and Clay falls short on Greene's numbers....but Clay was IMHO clearly a more complete football player...Greene was an edge-rush specialist (and bounced around to several teams).
I agree with you on the 4 LBs you mentioned/compared him to (those guys are clearly exceptional). I hate the Steelers with a passion, but I still say Lambert was the best I ever saw. I also think you're right on with the call on the old-timer committee.
That's why I opted for the Kevin Greene comparison for Clay. Yes, somebody pointed out Greene's stats compared to Clay, and Clay falls short on Greene's numbers....but Clay was IMHO clearly a more complete football player...Greene was an edge-rush specialist (and bounced around to several teams).
OK, so, I am a big supporter of Lambert's, being somewhat of a home boy and despite his occasional cheap shot on Brian Sipe, and he is a no Brainer Hall of Famer....but....he is NOT the best I have ever seen play.
I have to put him behind Butkus, Nitschke, Sam Huff, and probably Ray Lewis. But I would rate him above fellow HOFers Willie Lanier, Joe Schmidt, and Nick Buonticonti....as far as middle linebackers go that I have seen. Didn't see Bill George play.
A MLB that was outstanding that is not in the HOF is Tommy Nobis.
I note parenthetically that I don't know that the Browns have ever really truly had that HOF caliber middle linebacker play for them. Who would you consider the best MLB in Browns history?
-
gee who woulda guessed Browns57 had Clay Matthews as his favorite Brown ever. He will have a hard time making the HOF because he never was a standout in in playoffs and the Browns fizzled when he was best. He surely deserves the HOF because he was indeed one of the greatest Browns player ever and deserves th HOF.......for mutliple reasons
Some guys that make the HOF do so simply because they were on a winning team, while it is certainly possible that players that were on losing or mediocre teams do not make it even though, perhaps they had superior careers. Do you not think for a moment say, that if the Browns had won a couple of Super Bowls during the 80s that Clay Mathews would not be in the HOF? Or Dixon? Almost surely they would, yet, in reality I doubt that their careers would have been one bit better.
Some guys that make the HOF do so simply because they were on a winning team, while it is certainly possible that players that were on losing or mediocre teams do not make it even though, perhaps they had superior careers. Do you not think for a moment say, that if the Browns had won a couple of Super Bowls during the 80s that Clay Mathews would not be in the HOF? Or Dixon? Almost surely they would, yet, in reality I doubt that their careers would have been one bit better.
No doubt that plays a part in in.
Clay is top of mind to fans like us, and writers/voters in the area, but once you start leaving the area, Clay Matthews becomes further removed from top of mind.
Most people would remember him and think of him as a good player, but not as many would really remember him as better than just good.
-
gee who woulda guessed Browns57 had Clay Matthews as his favorite Brown ever. He will have a hard time making the HOF because he never was a standout in in playoffs and the Browns fizzled when he was best. He surely deserves the HOF because he was indeed one of the greatest Browns player ever and deserves th HOF.......for mutliple reasons
Some guys that make the HOF do so simply because they were on a winning team, while it is certainly possible that players that were on losing or mediocre teams do not make it even though, perhaps they had superior careers. Do you not think for a moment say, that if the Browns had won a couple of Super Bowls during the 80s that Clay Mathews would not be in the HOF? Or Dixon? Almost surely they would, yet, in reality I doubt that their careers would have been one bit better.
Some guys that make the HOF do so simply because they were on a winning team, while it is certainly possible that players that were on losing or mediocre teams do not make it even though, perhaps they had superior careers. Do you not think for a moment say, that if the Browns had won a couple of Super Bowls during the 80s that Clay Mathews would not be in the HOF? Or Dixon? Almost surely they would, yet, in reality I doubt that their careers would have been one bit better.
Good point, and IMHO that's why about 1\2 the Super Bowl Steelers are in the HOF. Greene, Bradshaw, and Lambert I'll grant you. You look at stats Swann and Stallworth are mighty marginal. Personally if Jack Ham is in, Clay should be also. Let's put the shoe on the other foot- put Matthews on those Steeler teams, and he's in no doubt. Ham on the Browns? He'd still be waiting.
-
I agree with you on the 4 LBs you mentioned/compared him to (those guys are clearly exceptional). I hate the Steelers with a passion, but I still say Lambert was the best I ever saw. I also think you're right on with the call on the old-timer committee.
That's why I opted for the Kevin Greene comparison for Clay. Yes, somebody pointed out Greene's stats compared to Clay, and Clay falls short on Greene's numbers....but Clay was IMHO clearly a more complete football player...Greene was an edge-rush specialist (and bounced around to several teams).
OK, so, I am a big supporter of Lambert's, being somewhat of a home boy and despite his occasional cheap shot on Brian Sipe, and he is a no Brainer Hall of Famer....but....he is NOT the best I have ever seen play.
I have to put him behind Butkus, Nitschke, Sam Huff, and probably Ray Lewis. But I would rate him above fellow HOFers Willie Lanier, Joe Schmidt, and Nick Buonticonti....as far as middle linebackers go that I have seen. Didn't see Bill George play.
A MLB that was outstanding that is not in the HOF is Tommy Nobis.
I note parenthetically that I don't know that the Browns have ever really truly had that HOF caliber middle linebacker play for them. Who would you consider the best MLB in Browns history?
A MLB that was outstanding that is not in the HOF is Tommy Nobis.
I note parenthetically that I don't know that the Browns have ever really truly had that HOF caliber middle linebacker play for them. Who would you consider the best MLB in Browns history?[/color]
Charlie Hall was one of my favorites, but I don't recall if he was a MLB.
Mike Johnson comes to mind as the most recent top notch MLB...man I'm stuck in the past.
PS- good call on Tommy Nobis
Zombo- I thought he was in...he has been nominated twice (2007, 2010)...my bad
-
Some guys that make the HOF do so simply because they were on a winning team, while it is certainly possible that players that were on losing or mediocre teams do not make it even though, perhaps they had superior careers. Do you not think for a moment say, that if the Browns had won a couple of Super Bowls during the 80s that Clay Mathews would not be in the HOF? Or Dixon? Almost surely they would, yet, in reality I doubt that their careers would have been one bit better.
Good point, and IMHO that's why about 1\2 the Super Bowl Steelers are in the HOF. Greene, Bradshaw, and Lambert I'll grant you. You look at stats Swann and Stallworth are mighty marginal. Personally if Jack Ham is in, Clay should be also. Let's put the shoe on the other foot- put Matthews on those Steeler teams, and he's in no doubt. Ham on the Browns? He'd still be waiting.
Good point, and IMHO that's why about 1\2 the Super Bowl Steelers are in the HOF. Greene, Bradshaw, and Lambert I'll grant you. You look at stats Swann and Stallworth are mighty marginal. Personally if Jack Ham is in, Clay should be also. Let's put the shoe on the other foot- put Matthews on those Steeler teams, and he's in no doubt. Ham on the Browns? He'd still be waiting.
Precisely. And the same is certainly true of all the Browns from the 40s and 50s and the Packers of the 60s. They were dominant so a lot of guys get in the HOF. Had they been with another team, they probably don't make it.
Here is an example I have been told: Archie Manning. What is Archie Manning is drafted by the Steelers and Bradshaw by the Saints? Some say Archie was the best QB of his era, but just played on team that stunk. He is not in the HOF, but many think he should be.
-
Good point, and IMHO that's why about 1\2 the Super Bowl Steelers are in the HOF. Greene, Bradshaw, and Lambert I'll grant you. You look at stats Swann and Stallworth are mighty marginal. Personally if Jack Ham is in, Clay should be also. Let's put the shoe on the other foot- put Matthews on those Steeler teams, and he's in no doubt. Ham on the Browns? He'd still be waiting.
Precisely. And the same is certainly true of all the Browns from the 40s and 50s and the Packers of the 60s. They were dominant so a lot of guys get in the HOF. Had they been with another team, they probably don't make it.
Here is an example I have been told: Archie Manning. What is Archie Manning is drafted by the Steelers and Bradshaw by the Saints? Some say Archie was the best QB of his era, but just played on team that stunk. He is not in the HOF, but many think he should be.
Precisely. And the same is certainly true of all the Browns from the 40s and 50s and the Packers of the 60s. They were dominant so a lot of guys get in the HOF. Had they been with another team, they probably don't make it.
Here is an example I have been told: Archie Manning. What is Archie Manning is drafted by the Steelers and Bradshaw by the Saints? Some say Archie was the best QB of his era, but just played on team that stunk. He is not in the HOF, but many think he should be.
And now you are beginning to know why Matthews faces a uphill battle.
If you are on fairly nondescript teams, which Clay was most of his career, you really have to be a standout player. And even then as Manning and Nobis illustrate, you have a very tough go as the years pass and more top of mind players become eligible.
-
Precisely. And the same is certainly true of all the Browns from the 40s and 50s and the Packers of the 60s. They were dominant so a lot of guys get in the HOF. Had they been with another team, they probably don't make it.
Here is an example I have been told: Archie Manning. What is Archie Manning is drafted by the Steelers and Bradshaw by the Saints? Some say Archie was the best QB of his era, but just played on team that stunk. He is not in the HOF, but many think he should be.
And now you are beginning to know why Matthews faces a uphill battle.
If you are on fairly nondescript teams, which Clay was most of his career, you really have to be a standout player. And even then as Manning and Nobis illustrate, you have a very tough go as the years pass and more top of mind players become eligible.
And now you are beginning to know why Matthews faces a uphill battle.
If you are on fairly nondescript teams, which Clay was most of his career, you really have to be a standout player. And even then as Manning and Nobis illustrate, you have a very tough go as the years pass and more top of mind players become eligible.
OK, so, then, you then agree with us now: The key to HOF consideration is to be on a winning team. Fair to say? A person with perhaps better talent on a losing...or nondescript team, is going to get less consideration that a slightly lesser player on a winning team.
If Jerry Sherk had played for the Steelers in the 70s instead of the Browns, he may have been thought of in the same terms as Bob Lilly, Randy White, or Mean Joe Greene. But he played on a poor team.
-
In case some of you haven't taken the time to review Clay Matthews Jr. (The Matthews playing for the Packers is actually William Clay Matthews III) career stats here they are. I think some of you will be suprised when you see him in this light.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MattCl00.htm
-
I've always had a lot of love for Clay, but while I wouldn't complain if he made it into the HoF, I don't know if I would vote for him, either. To compare him with Kevin Greene--who was brought up earlier in the thread--Matthews had 69.5 sacks for his career vs. 160 for Greene. Matthews went to the Pro Bowl four times, Greene went five. Matthews was never an All-Pro, while Greene was one three times. Matthews had more interceptions (sixteen to five), but that's about it.
Looking at the numbers made me realize two things: first, Kevin Greene was a lot better than I remember, and second, like Ballpeen said, longevity doesn't equal greatness (just ask the BBWAA guys who are praying that Jamie Moyer retires before getting to 300 wins so that they can not vote for him and not look like tools). Matthews was a good player, at times a very good one. But a Hall of Famer? He just doesn't pass the sniff test to me. He played forever, but his numbers were good but not great, and while I'd have to think about it, I don't know how many seasons I would put him in the top four or five players at his position.
Dennis
I've always had a lot of love for Clay, but while I wouldn't complain if he made it into the HoF, I don't know if I would vote for him, either. To compare him with Kevin Greene--who was brought up earlier in the thread--Matthews had 69.5 sacks for his career vs. 160 for Greene. Matthews went to the Pro Bowl four times, Greene went five. Matthews was never an All-Pro, while Greene was one three times. Matthews had more interceptions (sixteen to five), but that's about it.
Looking at the numbers made me realize two things: first, Kevin Greene was a lot better than I remember, and second, like Ballpeen said, longevity doesn't equal greatness (just ask the BBWAA guys who are praying that Jamie Moyer retires before getting to 300 wins so that they can not vote for him and not look like tools). Matthews was a good player, at times a very good one. But a Hall of Famer? He just doesn't pass the sniff test to me. He played forever, but his numbers were good but not great, and while I'd have to think about it, I don't know how many seasons I would put him in the top four or five players at his position.
Dennis
OK OK I get your point and the later point I think from Gipper that says that they were two different types of lb's. However you really just said "but that's about it?" That's not it. Let's see the rest.
G GS Tackles FF FR TD (Tot) INT SFTY
Matthews 278 248 1561 27 14 2 16 0
Greene 228 176 669 23 26 3 5 5
You can see by the difference in the sack safety Int and FR numbers that Greene was definately the rush the pasher type. And I would be willing to bet that many of those FF and Fumble recoveries came off of QB's. His job was much sexier from a role standpoint. And I think that is a factor when getting into more probowls, and being named all-pro. Also the fact that the team prob. won more games helps. And all of those things together feed into Greene Being a semi-finalist 4 the HOF for the last four years.
-
And now you are beginning to know why Matthews faces a uphill battle.
If you are on fairly nondescript teams, which Clay was most of his career, you really have to be a standout player. And even then as Manning and Nobis illustrate, you have a very tough go as the years pass and more top of mind players become eligible.
OK, so, then, you then agree with us now: The key to HOF consideration is to be on a winning team. Fair to say? A person with perhaps better talent on a losing...or nondescript team, is going to get less consideration that a slightly lesser player on a winning team.
If Jerry Sherk had played for the Steelers in the 70s instead of the Browns, he may have been thought of in the same terms as Bob Lilly, Randy White, or Mean Joe Greene. But he played on a poor team.
OK, so, then, you then agree with us now: The key to HOF consideration is to be on a winning team. Fair to say? A person with perhaps better talent on a losing...or nondescript team, is going to get less consideration that a slightly lesser player on a winning team.
If Jerry Sherk had played for the Steelers in the 70s instead of the Browns, he may have been thought of in the same terms as Bob Lilly, Randy White, or Mean Joe Greene. But he played on a poor team.
I wouldn't go so far as to say it's the key...it's a key. Here's the way I look at it: if I were voting for the HoF, I would use something like a points system--raw numbers, number of times leading the league in key stats, Pro Bowls, All-Pros, etc. There's a hierarchy to these--for instance, leading the league in stats matters more to me than total sacks, because that means that the player is better in relation to his competition.
In addition to the numbers, winning matters. It doesn't make up for a lack of numbers, but it can put a marginal candidate over the top, especially if they do something special. Take Lynn Swann. Forget the rings--if he didn't make those catches in those Super Bowls, he's not in the HoF. If just being on the roster were enough, we'd see John Taylor, Alving Harper, or Roger Craig would be in (actually, I think Craig should be in). It's easy to say, "Well, that's having a good career and having a great team carry you," but it's just as easy to argue that the player in question was a key reason for the team being as successful as it was, even if you didn't always have eye-popping numbers.
Dennis
So, to sum up, 5,500 yards and 51 TDs on a team that went to the playoffs once or twice in your career=Meh.
5,500 yards and 51 TDs for a team with four rings=Wow, that's a pretty solid/borderline great career.
5,500 yards, 51 TDs, and several iconic plays on the game's biggest stage=Here's your yellow jacket.
-
I've always had a lot of love for Clay, but while I wouldn't complain if he made it into the HoF, I don't know if I would vote for him, either. To compare him with Kevin Greene--who was brought up earlier in the thread--Matthews had 69.5 sacks for his career vs. 160 for Greene. Matthews went to the Pro Bowl four times, Greene went five. Matthews was never an All-Pro, while Greene was one three times. Matthews had more interceptions (sixteen to five), but that's about it.
Looking at the numbers made me realize two things: first, Kevin Greene was a lot better than I remember, and second, like Ballpeen said, longevity doesn't equal greatness (just ask the BBWAA guys who are praying that Jamie Moyer retires before getting to 300 wins so that they can not vote for him and not look like tools). Matthews was a good player, at times a very good one. But a Hall of Famer? He just doesn't pass the sniff test to me. He played forever, but his numbers were good but not great, and while I'd have to think about it, I don't know how many seasons I would put him in the top four or five players at his position.
Dennis
OK OK I get your point and the later point I think from Gipper that says that they were two different types of lb's. However you really just said "but that's about it?" That's not it. Let's see the rest.
G GS Tackles FF FR TD (Tot) INT SFTY
Matthews 278 248 1561 27 14 2 16 0
Greene 228 176 669 23 26 3 5 5
You can see by the difference in the sack safety Int and FR numbers that Greene was definately the rush the pasher type. And I would be willing to bet that many of those FF and Fumble recoveries came off of QB's. His job was much sexier from a role standpoint. And I think that is a factor when getting into more probowls, and being named all-pro. Also the fact that the team prob. won more games helps. And all of those things together feed into Greene Being a semi-finalist 4 the HOF for the last four years.
You can see by the difference in the sack safety Int and FR numbers that Greene was definately the rush the pasher type. And I would be willing to bet that many of those FF and Fumble recoveries came off of QB's. His job was much sexier from a role standpoint. And I think that is a factor when getting into more probowls, and being named all-pro. Also the fact that the team prob. won more games helps. And all of those things together feed into Greene Being a semi-finalist 4 the HOF for the last four years.
Fair point on the stats, and I'll agree with you to a point. However, after a while it's kind of a chicken-egg thing...does the guy get attention because he has sexy numbers on a good team, or is the team good because they have guys like Greene who have a ton of sacks? Who is more likely to have a bigger impact on a game, the guy who gets more tackles in a game or the guy who gets more sacks? To take it outside of a Browns/non-Browns player scenario, you get one pick: Lawrence Taylor or Harry Carson? Both are HoF linebackers, but virtually no-one in their right mind is going to take Carson. Why, because Taylor had the sexier number of stats? No, because he was more of a game-changer than Carson, in the same way that Greene was more of a game-changer than Matthews.
Dennis
-
OK, so, then, you then agree with us now: The key to HOF consideration is to be on a winning team. Fair to say? A person with perhaps better talent on a losing...or nondescript team, is going to get less consideration that a slightly lesser player on a winning team.
If Jerry Sherk had played for the Steelers in the 70s instead of the Browns, he may have been thought of in the same terms as Bob Lilly, Randy White, or Mean Joe Greene. But he played on a poor team.
I wouldn't go so far as to say it's the key...it's a key. Here's the way I look at it: if I were voting for the HoF, I would use something like a points system--raw numbers, number of times leading the league in key stats, Pro Bowls, All-Pros, etc. There's a hierarchy to these--for instance, leading the league in stats matters more to me than total sacks, because that means that the player is better in relation to his competition.
In addition to the numbers, winning matters. It doesn't make up for a lack of numbers, but it can put a marginal candidate over the top, especially if they do something special. Take Lynn Swann. Forget the rings--if he didn't make those catches in those Super Bowls, he's not in the HoF. If just being on the roster were enough, we'd see John Taylor, Alving Harper, or Roger Craig would be in (actually, I think Craig should be in). It's easy to say, "Well, that's having a good career and having a great team carry you," but it's just as easy to argue that the player in question was a key reason for the team being as successful as it was, even if you didn't always have eye-popping numbers.
Dennis
So, to sum up, 5,500 yards and 51 TDs on a team that went to the playoffs once or twice in your career=Meh.
5,500 yards and 51 TDs for a team with four rings=Wow, that's a pretty solid/borderline great career.
5,500 yards, 51 TDs, and several iconic plays on the game's biggest stage=Here's your yellow jacket.
I wouldn't go so far as to say it's the key...it's a key. Here's the way I look at it: if I were voting for the HoF, I would use something like a points system--raw numbers, number of times leading the league in key stats, Pro Bowls, All-Pros, etc. There's a hierarchy to these--for instance, leading the league in stats matters more to me than total sacks, because that means that the player is better in relation to his competition.
In addition to the numbers, winning matters. It doesn't make up for a lack of numbers, but it can put a marginal candidate over the top, especially if they do something special. Take Lynn Swann. Forget the rings--if he didn't make those catches in those Super Bowls, he's not in the HoF. If just being on the roster were enough, we'd see John Taylor, Alving Harper, or Roger Craig would be in (actually, I think Craig should be in). It's easy to say, "Well, that's having a good career and having a great team carry you," but it's just as easy to argue that the player in question was a key reason for the team being as successful as it was, even if you didn't always have eye-popping numbers.
Dennis
So, to sum up, 5,500 yards and 51 TDs on a team that went to the playoffs once or twice in your career=Meh.
5,500 yards and 51 TDs for a team with four rings=Wow, that's a pretty solid/borderline great career.
5,500 yards, 51 TDs, and several iconic plays on the game's biggest stage=Here's your yellow jacket.
Nope, totally disagree- what you do in the Super Bowl(s) should be about 5% of what gets you in. Though unfortunately in the minds of the folks with an actual vote, it's obviously way higher than that. I did just peruse the HOF website, and the list of odious Steelers that got in thanks to Myron "the Dope" Cope trying to get every Steeler that played in the 70's into the Hall fell well short- thankfully Frenchy Fuqua and Rocky Blier didn't make it.
Said it before- Jack Ham was not a first ballot HOFer- he had the luxury of playing on the same defense as Mean Joe Green, and having offenses have to deal with containing Jack Lambert. The whole is definitely more than the sum of its parts.
Lynn Swann is the other joke. Super Bowls aside, here's his stellar stats: Receptions- 336 not even in the top 250. Receiving TDs 91st. Yards- 184th- didya know Reggie Langhorn has only 20 less career yards than Swann?. Avg ypc- 130th. So If you're going to give out yellow jackets for those kind of numbers and a great SB, get ready to hand one out for another ex-Steeler- Plaxico Burress- he's got Swan beat in every category.
"5,500 yards and 51 TDs for a team with four rings=Wow, that's a pretty solid/borderline great career."
Weak. I can use the same argument that every marginal guy who played with Michael the Magnificent on those Bulls teams deserves to be in the BB HOF. Steve Kerr, Horace Grant, Bill Cartwright anyone?
-
And now you are beginning to know why Matthews faces a uphill battle.
If you are on fairly nondescript teams, which Clay was most of his career, you really have to be a standout player. And even then as Manning and Nobis illustrate, you have a very tough go as the years pass and more top of mind players become eligible.
OK, so, then, you then agree with us now: The key to HOF consideration is to be on a winning team. Fair to say? A person with perhaps better talent on a losing...or nondescript team, is going to get less consideration that a slightly lesser player on a winning team.
If Jerry Sherk had played for the Steelers in the 70s instead of the Browns, he may have been thought of in the same terms as Bob Lilly, Randy White, or Mean Joe Greene. But he played on a poor team.
OK, so, then, you then agree with us now: The key to HOF consideration is to be on a winning team. Fair to say? A person with perhaps better talent on a losing...or nondescript team, is going to get less consideration that a slightly lesser player on a winning team.
If Jerry Sherk had played for the Steelers in the 70s instead of the Browns, he may have been thought of in the same terms as Bob Lilly, Randy White, or Mean Joe Greene. But he played on a poor team.
LOL....no I don't agree....it plays a part, but it is far from the key.
What I am saying is his borderline credentials coupled with his lack of national exposure is going to play against him.
Now....something that could play in his favor that other players in his position don't have is he has a brother in the HOF, so one would assume his brother will be a advocate for his brothers induction which will at the very least keep Clays name in front of the voters for the next several years/decades.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. -
You can see by the difference in the sack safety Int and FR numbers that Greene was definately the rush the pasher type. And I would be willing to bet that many of those FF and Fumble recoveries came off of QB's. His job was much sexier from a role standpoint. And I think that is a factor when getting into more probowls, and being named all-pro. Also the fact that the team prob. won more games helps. And all of those things together feed into Greene Being a semi-finalist 4 the HOF for the last four years.
Fair point on the stats, and I'll agree with you to a point. However, after a while it's kind of a chicken-egg thing...does the guy get attention because he has sexy numbers on a good team, or is the team good because they have guys like Greene who have a ton of sacks? Who is more likely to have a bigger impact on a game, the guy who gets more tackles in a game or the guy who gets more sacks? To take it outside of a Browns/non-Browns player scenario, you get one pick: Lawrence Taylor or Harry Carson? Both are HoF linebackers, but virtually no-one in their right mind is going to take Carson. Why, because Taylor had the sexier number of stats? No, because he was more of a game-changer than Carson, in the same way that Greene was more of a game-changer than Matthews.
Dennis
Fair point on the stats, and I'll agree with you to a point. However, after a while it's kind of a chicken-egg thing...does the guy get attention because he has sexy numbers on a good team, or is the team good because they have guys like Greene who have a ton of sacks? Who is more likely to have a bigger impact on a game, the guy who gets more tackles in a game or the guy who gets more sacks? To take it outside of a Browns/non-Browns player scenario, you get one pick: Lawrence Taylor or Harry Carson? Both are HoF linebackers, but virtually no-one in their right mind is going to take Carson. Why, because Taylor had the sexier number of stats? No, because he was more of a game-changer than Carson, in the same way that Greene was more of a game-changer than Matthews.
Dennis
But, wouldn't what each of them is asked to do allow say Greene to have many more opportunities to be a "game changer"?
If, as I suspect, Clay Matthews duties on the field were mor often or not to cover the fullback out of the backfield, rather than rush the passer, as was Greene's duties, Greene by virtue of the opportunities is likely to get more "game changing" plays.
And if not for say Clay Matthew's covering that fullback, instead of a sack, the QB Greene is chasing makes a dumpoff to that Fullback who takes for a 15-20 yard gain. But because Mathews was on the FB, Greene gets the sack because the FB isn't open on the play to throw to. So, to Greene goes the glory, but where it may really have been Mathews who made the play happen?
-
OK, so, then, you then agree with us now: The key to HOF consideration is to be on a winning team. Fair to say? A person with perhaps better talent on a losing...or nondescript team, is going to get less consideration that a slightly lesser player on a winning team.
If Jerry Sherk had played for the Steelers in the 70s instead of the Browns, he may have been thought of in the same terms as Bob Lilly, Randy White, or Mean Joe Greene. But he played on a poor team.
LOL....no I don't agree....it plays a part, but it is far from the key.
What I am saying is his borderline credentials coupled with his lack of national exposure is going to play against him.
Now....something that could play in his favor that other players in his position don't have is he has a brother in the HOF, so one would assume his brother will be a advocate for his brothers induction which will at the very least keep Clays name in front of the voters for the next several years/decades.
LOL....no I don't agree....it plays a part, but it is far from the key.
What I am saying is his borderline credentials coupled with his lack of national exposure is going to play against him.
Now....something that could play in his favor that other players in his position don't have is he has a brother in the HOF, so one would assume his brother will be a advocate for his brothers induction which will at the very least keep Clays name in front of the voters for the next several years/decades.
OK, so perhaps we agree that it is A key, but not THE key.
But, I stick by my viewpoint that if Jerry Sherk played for the Cowboys or the Steelers in the 70s instead of the below average Browns, he would have been considered one of the greats.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login