Hall of Fame Breakdown

gftChris

Before JT we had no 3,000 yard passers, BUT once he got here, we improved to ZERO 3,000 yard passers

2014 - Hoyer - 3326 yards

2012 - Weeden - 3385 yards

2007 - Anderson - 3787 yards

Team totals have been below 3000 twice ('08 and '11) since JT was drafted.

So, there's that.

Mudfly

@gftchris said:
Team totals have been below 3000 twice ('08 and '11) since JT was drafted.
So, there's that.

actually, just once.....3300 in 2011

Bob806

I think it was tragic that Stabler didn't get in before he died. Truly one of the greats of the 70s.

I also don't get why Clay Matthews isn't in, and Kevin Greene got it. Matthews, 18 seasons and was versatile and productive, while Kevin Greene played as mainly an edge rusher, piled up a bunch of sacks.

hoorta

VesnaKociper said:

Joe Thomas should be in, NOW. No offensive lineman has ever had as much impact on the NFL as Joe Thomas.

Before Joe Thomas came here, the Browns were a perennial 4 - 12 team. Now that this lard ass has been here 9 years, the Browns have blossomed into a perennial 4 - 12 team. But wait, there's more. Before JT we had no 3,000 yard passers, BUT once he got here, we improved to ZERO 3,000 yard passers. Wait for it, it gets better. Before Joe Lardass, we had no 1, 000 yard rushers, but with Joe leading the sweep, the Browns have had NINE CONSECUTIVE years of no 1,000 yard rushers. That's NINE fucking years in a row.

Send this cocksucker right to the HOF, his eligiility has already been met he is so fucking good.

HOF HOF HOF c'mon dickheads, cheer with me.

You're right about HOF for Joe, but I told you once already- short attention span doopa head. Not only WRONG about 3,000 yard passers, but regarding Browns 1,000 yard rushers. Jamal Lewis 2007, 2008. Peyton Hillis 2010. check your facts before you troll.

And in case you didn't know it- pro football reference has Joe in the top 100 players of all time regardless of position since 1950. (Peyton Manning is #1)

The Gipper

@bob806 said:

I think it was tragic that Stabler didn't get in before he died. Truly one of the greats of the 70s.

I also don't get why Clay Matthews isn't in, and Kevin Greene got it. Matthews, 18 seasons and was versatile and productive, while Kevin Greene played as mainly an edge rusher, piled up a bunch of sacks.

Those sacks are the only thing. In actuality, their careers were similar. They were equal in PFRs production average.

Greene had a 95, Matthews a 94. Greene only made 669 tackles in his career, but had 160 sacks. 24% of his total tackles were sacks. That is pretty much all he did.

Compare: Clay had 1561 tackles.....almost 3 times as many as Greene.....but he had 69.5 sacks.

Fair to say that Green basically did one thing...rush the passer, where Clay rushed the passer, stopped the run, and covered receivers.

The CA numbers must be skewed toward sacks.

Mudfly

@the-gipper said:

Those sacks are the only thing. In actuality, their careers were similar. They were equal in PFRs production average.

Greene had a 95, Matthews a 94. Greene only made 669 tackles in his career, but had 160 sacks. 24% of his total tackles were sacks. That is pretty much all he did.

Compare: Clay had 1561 tackles.....almost 3 times as many as Greene.....but he had 69.5 sacks.

Fair to say that Green basically did one thing...rush the passer, where Clay rushed the passer, stopped the run, and covered receivers.

The CA numbers must be skewed toward sacks.

1561 is a LOT of tackles too(3rd most ALL TIME in the NFL).....esp compared to 670....Id add that they didnt start keeping sack totals until well after Clay was in the league., so he got screwed out of several years production(still wouldnt be near Greenes total, but getting in on sacks alone doesnt seem right either).....

Homer view or not, in my book, Mathews is a HOFer all the way.....

Mudfly

Here is an interesting stat break out.....and before anyone freaks out, Im not implying Dansby is better than Lewis......just saying these are some interesting numbers....make of them what you will.....

I noted that Dansby and Ray Lewis have very similar stats, and in fact, Dansby has overall better #'s, even though he has played 5 years less than Lewis....so I decided just to break it out into a yearly average and see how it looked....

Ray Lewis.........(per season) = 78 tkls....2.4 sacks....1.8 ints....3.9 Pdef....1.0 FF...7.0.TFL

Carlos Dansby..(per season) = 100 tkls..3.4 sacks....1.6 ints....5.7 Pdef....1.5 FF...9.5 TFL

So....technically....Id say Dansby has him beat, based solely upon stats....more tackles, more sacks, more tackles for loss, more forced fumbles.....and "almost" as much mouth....

gftChris

@mudfly said:

Here is an interesting stat break out.....and before anyone freaks out, Im not implying Dansby is better than Lewis......just saying these are some interesting numbers....make of them what you will.....

I noted that Dansby and Ray Lewis have very similar stats, and in fact, Dansby has overall better #'s, even though he has played 5 years less than Lewis....so I decided just to break it out into a yearly average and see how it looked....

Ray Lewis.........(per season) = 78 tkls....2.4 sacks....1.8 ints....3.9 Pdef....1.0 FF...7.0.TFL

Carlos Dansby..(per season) = 100 tkls..3.4 sacks....1.6 ints....5.7 Pdef....1.5 FF...9.5 TFL

So....technically....Id say Dansby has him beat, based solely upon stats....more tackles, more sacks, more tackles for loss, more forced fumbles.....and "almost" as much mouth....

Fewer murder investigations though.

Mudfly

@gftchris said:
Fewer murder investigations though.

Ha!....absolutely right....

The Gipper

@mudfly said:

Here is an interesting stat break out.....and before anyone freaks out, Im not implying Dansby is better than Lewis......just saying these are some interesting numbers....make of them what you will.....

I noted that Dansby and Ray Lewis have very similar stats, and in fact, Dansby has overall better #'s, even though he has played 5 years less than Lewis....so I decided just to break it out into a yearly average and see how it looked....

Ray Lewis.........(per season) = 78 tkls....2.4 sacks....1.8 ints....3.9 Pdef....1.0 FF...7.0.TFL

Carlos Dansby..(per season) = 100 tkls..3.4 sacks....1.6 ints....5.7 Pdef....1.5 FF...9.5 TFL

So....technically....Id say Dansby has him beat, based solely upon stats....more tackles, more sacks, more tackles for loss, more forced fumbles.....and "almost" as much mouth....

Well, Lewis was the leader of a defense that won 2 Super Bowls....so that obviously helps.

Lewis is also #7 overall in Production average....behind only the likes of Peyton, Favre, Rice, Reggie White, Bruce Smith and Tarkenton.

Dansby so far has not cracked the Top 250 in that category.

Mudfly

@the-gipper said:

Well, Lewis was the leader of a defense that won 2 Super Bowls....so that obviously helps.

Lewis is also #7 overall in Production average....behind only the likes of Peyton, Favre, Rice, Reggie White, Bruce Smith and Tarkenton.

Dansby so far has not cracked the Top 250 in that category.

AV?....I wonder how they come up with that, considering it cant just be stats....they must really weight winning as well as their estimate on how much that player is responsible for the wins???

The Gipper

@mudfly said:
AV?....I wonder how they come up with that, considering it cant just be stats....they must really weight winning as well as their estimate on how much that player is responsible for the wins???

I don't know the math behind it. One factor is longevity. Favre, Manning Lewis, Tarkenton, Rice.....these guys all played at a fairly high level for almost 20 years. So that is huge.

I honestly don't think winning per se is part of the algorithm.

Maybe if Dansby plays fairly well for the next 5 years he could start to move up the ranks (but, as noted, he is not in the top 250)

Tour2ma

Doug's Brief AV Explanation:

"AV is not meant to be a be-all end-all metric. Football stat lines just do not come close to capturing all the contributions of a player the way they do in baseball and basketball. If one player is a 16 and another is a 14, we can't be very confident that the 16AV player actually had a better season than the 14AV player. But I am pretty confident that the collection of all players with 16AV played better, as an entire group, than the collection of all players with 14AV."

"Essentially, AV is a substitute for --- and a significant improvement upon, in my opinion --- metrics like 'number of seasons as a starter' or 'number of times making the pro bowl' or the like. You should think of it as being essentially like those two metrics, but with interpolation in between. That is, 'number of seasons as a starter' is a reasonable starting point if you're trying to measure, say, how good a particular draft class is, or what kind of player you can expect to get with the #13 pick in the draft. But obviously some starters are better than others. Starters on good teams are, as a group, better than starters on bad teams. Starting WRs who had lots of receiving yards are, as a group, better than starting WRs who did not have many receiving yards. Starters who made the pro bowl are, as a group, better than starters who didn't, and so on. And non-starters aren't worthless, so they get some points too."

You can get as deep as you wish into their AV methodology through this page:

http://www.sports-reference.com/blog/approximate-value/

Mudfly

@tour2ma said:

Doug's Brief AV Explanation:

"AV is not meant to be a be-all end-all metric. Football stat lines just do not come close to capturing all the contributions of a player the way they do in baseball and basketball. If one player is a 16 and another is a 14, we can't be very confident that the 16AV player actually had a better season than the 14AV player. But I am pretty confident that the collection of all players with 16AV played better, as an entire group, than the collection of all players with 14AV."

"Essentially, AV is a substitute for --- and a significant improvement upon, in my opinion --- metrics like 'number of seasons as a starter' or 'number of times making the pro bowl' or the like. You should think of it as being essentially like those two metrics, but with interpolation in between. That is, 'number of seasons as a starter' is a reasonable starting point if you're trying to measure, say, how good a particular draft class is, or what kind of player you can expect to get with the #13 pick in the draft. But obviously some starters are better than others. Starters on good teams are, as a group, better than starters on bad teams. Starting WRs who had lots of receiving yards are, as a group, better than starting WRs who did not have many receiving yards. Starters who made the pro bowl are, as a group, better than starters who didn't, and so on. And non-starters aren't worthless, so they get some points too."

You can get as deep as you wish into their AV methodology through this page:

http://www.sports-reference.com/blog/approximate-value/

Awesome....thanks

The Gipper

@tour2ma said:

Doug's Brief AV Explanation:

"AV is not meant to be a be-all end-all metric. Football stat lines just do not come close to capturing all the contributions of a player the way they do in baseball and basketball. If one player is a 16 and another is a 14, we can't be very confident that the 16AV player actually had a better season than the 14AV player. But I am pretty confident that the collection of all players with 16AV played better, as an entire group, than the collection of all players with 14AV."

"Essentially, AV is a substitute for --- and a significant improvement upon, in my opinion --- metrics like 'number of seasons as a starter' or 'number of times making the pro bowl' or the like. You should think of it as being essentially like those two metrics, but with interpolation in between. That is, 'number of seasons as a starter' is a reasonable starting point if you're trying to measure, say, how good a particular draft class is, or what kind of player you can expect to get with the #13 pick in the draft. But obviously some starters are better than others. Starters on good teams are, as a group, better than starters on bad teams. Starting WRs who had lots of receiving yards are, as a group, better than starting WRs who did not have many receiving yards. Starters who made the pro bowl are, as a group, better than starters who didn't, and so on. And non-starters aren't worthless, so they get some points too."

You can get as deep as you wish into their AV methodology through this page:

http://www.sports-reference.com/blog/approximate-value/

Yes, it is just a thumbnail stat. It tries to do something other stats cannot do: measure players against each other that play wholly different positions. Like comparing LBs to WRs etc.

Until something that can do that better comes along, this is about as good as I know of to try to do that.