NFL 2023 Offseason/Free Agency/Draft Thread

[Honolulu_Blue]

Super on board with the Lions. I have many thoughts.

[QuikSand]

FOFC GroupThink 2023: We take over the Detroit Lions - Front Office Football Central

[Honolulu_Blue]

Yeah, I love The Athletic, but that re-draft was pretty terrible.

In terms of concussions, I often think about former Red Wing forward Johan Franzen. He suffered several concussions during his career and was eventually forced to retire due to them. I read an article following up on him several years after he retired and he was still massively struggling with post-concussion symptions. They sounded incredibly debilitating.

[QuikSand]

Latest On Ravens-Lamar Jackson Negotiations

[flere-imsaho]

Two thoughts:

1. If the Ravens don't give Jackson the Watson-esque contract he wants, do we think there are other teams who will?

2. Does Jackson understand that a Watson-esque contract significantly constrain his team's ability to construct a roster that will actually help him win?

[tzach]

1. Yes, and he doesn't need to travel very far on i95


2. i think that's not clear cut -- the contract can be structured in a way that allows BAL to navigate the cap as needed. and it doesn't seem that BAL has a problem to give 45 Mil/yr to lamar, as the whole issue seems to be the % guaranteed for injury and possibly the duration of the deal. not guaranteeing the later years is more about BAL being able to win after they cut lamar, not *during* lamar's years.

[Ksyrup]

There's a fascinating article on Athletic about the S2 Cognition Test and the high correlation between elite scores and elite play. The people who developed the test say they've been doing them for the NFL draft for 7 years and that last year's QB group was the worst they've ever tested - except Brock Purdy, who scored in the elite, Drew Brees score ballpark. Mahomes, Allen and Burrow also scored in the mid-upper 90s. The test is not so much an intelligence test as it is a reaction/distraction/information processing test.

There's not a ton of detail and they focus, of course, on the successes, but there is a general statement that the score seems to be predictive of NFL QB rating. Anything above 80% is elite. And the teaser is that they suggest Bryce Young will make his score public because of how high it is. The players own the scores, not the league or this company, so they would only ballpark scores (except Burrow, who was just fine with them telling everyone he scored in the 97th percentile).

There is a short discussions in the article about positions other than QB and the successes there, too.

Interesting stuff. I wonder if the Purdy thing is going to have more GMs taking the test score more seriously.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

2. Does Jackson understand that a Watson-esque contract significantly constrain his team's ability to construct a roster that will actually help him win?

Getting paid as much as possible is far more important to most of these guys than winning.

[miked]

I mean, is the point to win or to get paid? I would imagine starting with NIL (and the shenanigans that happened prior) the main goal for most of these folks is to get paid.

Same for most of us, I would imagine.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by miked

I mean, is the point to win or to get paid? I would imagine starting with NIL (and the shenanigans that happened prior) the main goal for most of these folks is to get paid.

Same for most of us, I would imagine.

Well, pretty sure that's the goal for most sports owners, so...

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by miked

I mean, is the point to win or to get paid? I would imagine starting with NIL (and the shenanigans that happened prior) the main goal for most of these folks is to get paid.

Same for most of us, I would imagine.

Yeah, I know none of us are ever going to see the kind of money these guys make, but it really hard to slam a guy that his whole life is competition for not wanting the most money possible. That is a tangible way in which he shows he is better than the rest. Not to mention for Lamar specifically this might be his only big cash contract. His play-style probably will not age well.

[Swaggs]

Even under the best run franchises, I would have to imagine that most NFL players, that have at least a few years of experience, quickly recognize how fast most NFL careers end and that they have to do what is best for them with the little time that they have. I used to get annoyed by holdouts and trade demands and such, but every fall the team cuts like 40-50 guys, most of whom are never going to play again, and every offseason guys that have been your teammates for 3-5+ years get drafted over or replaced by free agents. I can't blame them for trying to maximize their incomes when most of their careers are over by the time they are 25. Lamar has stayed healthy and productive long enough to get the big payday that guys like RGIII, Vince Young, Johnny Manziel, Pat White, Tim Tebow, and Matt Leinhart couldn't, so I have no problem with him maxing it out and letting whatever his respective team is or may be figure out how to win with him.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

There's a fascinating article on Athletic about the S2 Cognition Test and the high correlation between elite scores and elite play. The people who developed the test say they've been doing them for the NFL draft for 7 years and that last year's QB group was the worst they've ever tested - except Brock Purdy, who scored in the elite, Drew Brees score ballpark. Mahomes, Allen and Burrow also scored in the mid-upper 90s. The test is not so much an intelligence test as it is a reaction/distraction/information processing test.

...

There is a short discussions in the article about positions other than QB and the successes there, too.

Interesting stuff. I wonder if the Purdy thing is going to have more GMs taking the test score more seriously.

It's a copycat league, I'll be shocked if we don't hear a ton about it as the "Brock Purdy Test" more or less.

If you told me that a prospect had a high score in "being able to figure out what the fuck is going on" then I'd be super-interested, as that is clearly a huge missing piece when we measure arm strength and the other combine numbers. For QB most obviously, but maybe even for other positions like off-ball LB and S.

[flere-imsaho]

It feels like in the 21st century there are four archetypes for QB.

One is the Tom Brady / Peyton Manning "can decipher the defense at the LoS and adjust the offense on the fly to exploit it".

Two is the Aaron Rodgers / Brett Favre "I'm a fucking gunslinger".

Three is the Warner / Stafford / Wilson "our offensive system is really great and our QB executes is really well". Arguably some years of Roethlisberger, Eli Manning, and Brees fit in here, maybe even early-years Peyton Manning.

Four is the Dilfer / Johnson / Foles "our QB doesn't lose us games that our defense wins".

There are probably some hybrids, too. Mahomes seems like a combo between 2 and 3. Could get to 1 someday/soon, too.


Clearly Group One is what you want, as it accounts for the greatest number of SB victories this century, but those guys are also unicorns, to the extent that I can't really think of an exact pre-2000 analog to those two. Maybe Montana, though for all his excellence he seems more Group Three.

So, I would suspect that most front offices, knowing you can't really count on getting a Group One, either fall into a category where they want to find a Group Two and "let him cook" (where, based on Favre & Rodgers, at least, doesn't get you as far, as consistently, as you'd think) or, more recently, have looked at Sean McVay and Goff then Stafford and want go go Group Three (which starts with the hire of a particular Head Coach profile, that clearly brings along some of its own potential issues).

And then there are clearly some front offices willing to delude themselves into thinking they have a Two or Three when in reality they have a Four at best.

[miami_fan]

What is the upside to the franchise QB having his own office in the team facility? I am trying to think of the positives but none are coming to mind.

[QuikSand]

Not familiar with the reference… but the upside of any bizarre concession like that has to be “it makes the player willing to keep winning games for our team.”

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Not familiar with the reference… but the upside of any bizarre concession like that has to be “it makes the player willing to keep winning games for our team.”

Then perhaps Russell Wilson needs a bigger office.

[miami_fan]

The reference is to a story in the Athletic about the 2022 Broncos. Russell Wilson had (has?) an office at the team facility on the 2nd floor where the coaches' offices were located. They even added the detail that Russ told the players he had an open door policy for the office. Obviously the office did serve as an incentive to win games last season.

[Ksyrup]

And that he and his personal QB coach held some sort of bonding sessions on off-days where players were encouraged to attend and they were basically film sessions.

The Broncos absolutely botched marrying a personality like Wilson with a first-time head coach. He was essentially running his own shadow coaching staff on the side.

[albionmoonlight]

It seems like the perfect example of a post-hoc analysis thing.

Is Russell Wilson had won a bunch of games for the Broncos, then all of the Talking Heads on the morning shows would’ve been laughing it up and saying variations of “if your first ballot Hall of Fame quarterback wants an office? You give him an office!! You give him a parking spot!! You give him a puppy, if he wants a puppy!! We are talking about Russell Wilson, here, people!!!”

But because he did not win, everyone agrees that it was horrible mismanagement to let him have his own office, coaches, etc.

[Ksyrup]

Given the allegations, if it worked, then you've still got a leadership/organizational alignment issue that could (should/would) ultimately blow up, because what is Hackett bringing to the table as an offensive guru (not to mention, head coach!) when Wilson and his personal coach are mostly responsible for their success, and who are half the players on your team really listening to? In that alternate history, it's still untenable and a powder keg ready to explode.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

It seems like the perfect example of a post-hoc analysis thing.

Is Russell Wilson had won a bunch of games for the Broncos, then all of the Talking Heads on the morning shows would’ve been laughing it up and saying variations of “if your first ballot Hall of Fame quarterback wants an office? You give him an office!! You give him a parking spot!! You give him a puppy, if he wants a puppy!! We are talking about Russell Wilson, here, people!!!”

But because he did not win, everyone agrees that it was horrible mismanagement to let him have his own office, coaches, etc.

I just read that quote in my head using Stephen A. Smith’s voice and it was insanely accurate! Well done! Also, spot on.

[JPhillips]

I remember reading a book on the 75 and 76 Reds. Sparky at one point told the team something along the lines of Rose, Morgan, Bench, and Perez can do whatever they want, but the rest of you assholes have to follow my rules.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

I just read that quote in my head using Stephen A. Smith’s voice and it was insanely accurate! Well done! Also, spot on.

SI

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

It seems like the perfect example of a post-hoc analysis thing.

Is Russell Wilson had won a bunch of games for the Broncos, then all of the Talking Heads on the morning shows would’ve been laughing it up and saying variations of “if your first ballot Hall of Fame quarterback wants an office? You give him an office!! You give him a parking spot!! You give him a puppy, if he wants a puppy!! We are talking about Russell Wilson, here, people!!!”

But because he did not win, everyone agrees that it was horrible mismanagement to let him have his own office, coaches, etc.

That is why I asked what the positives were. I agree with what you are saying about the analysis after the fact. I just don't see what the positives are. The shadow coaching staff is not that big of a deal to me to be honest. I feel like all of these guys have someone outside the organization who they work with and that they trust more than some coaches in the organization. We've all see the cute stories about the old HS coach who saw a flaw in a player's mechanics and help fix their issues. It is the office that is the issue for me. Everyone gets it. He is the franchise QB and makes the most money. Supposedly, he is also a leader of the team IN THE LOCKER ROOM. I am pretty sure that they can find a regular old film room for these special film sessions if Russ requested one. Or even better, Wilson could bring the players over to his house bond and watch film there. Quarterbacks have been doing stuff like that my entire life.

I would not be shocked but I would be surprised to hear that other QBs have gotten offices at the team's facility. IIRC I think the TB12 guru used to have office space at the Pats facility. Unless he also had role as a scout or as the assistant GM or even serving some sort of internship for one of those jobs post career, I don't see the benefit. To me it is not necessary and has a greater chance of alienating the QB from rest of the group than whatever you get from those bonding sessions.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Is Russell Wilson had won a bunch of games for the Broncos, then all of the Talking Heads on the morning shows would’ve been laughing it up and saying variations of “if your first ballot Hall of Fame quarterback wants an office? You give him an office!! You give him a parking spot!! You give him a puppy, if he wants a puppy!! We are talking about Russell Wilson, here, people!!!”

Out of curiosity, do we think Russell Wilson is a first ballot HoF QB?

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I remember reading a book on the 75 and 76 Reds. Sparky at one point told the team something along the lines of Rose, Morgan, Bench, and Perez can do whatever they want, but the rest of you assholes have to follow my rules.

There's a similar story with Sir Alex Ferguson & Eric Cantona, where Cantona would routinely show up irresponsibly dressed for team and sponsor functions. Eventually someone had the temerity to ask Ferugson about it, and his answer was along the lines of "have you seen him play?"

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Out of curiosity, do we think Russell Wilson is a first ballot HoF QB?

I've never been as big of a Russ guy as most, but I think that the general consensus is that he's a HOF QB (which for big name players tends to mean first ballot).

I'm willing to be talked out of that, though. Maybe Jim's got some era comparison stats to throw at us.

[flere-imsaho]

1x SB champion (not MVP)
2x SB appearances (threw INT to lose one)
Never MVP
1x top passer rating for season (2015)
1x top passing TDs for season (2017)
Holds most Seattle passing records

Most HoF QBs have multiple SB wins except Marino, notably, and Favre (1). But both hold or held multiple league-wide records, which is not even close to true for Wilson.

It feels like a really, really weak case.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Honolulu Blue

It still kills me that the Rams pick isn't better. That stupid Bakery Mayfield comeback against the Raiders and that ridiculous Houston victory over the Colts did not help. Two games that should have ended very differently and in the Lions favor. (The Denver/Rams game was, also, very bad for the Lions, but that was such a blowout for the Rams that it's hard to get too upset by it.)

As a result, the Lions are picking sixth. By all consensus, defensively in this draft there is Jalen Carter and Will Anderson and then huge cliff and no consensus third best player.

Your Lions breakdown was top notch, but on this part, I wanted to say that it seems to me 6th is an absolute gift. The Rams could easily have been a good playoff team again. At the time the trade was made, any Lions fan would have considered 6th to be incredibly fortunate. The pick is better than it has any right to be.

I also think the other thread on the Lions is giving me 'Raiders looking good in pre-season' vibes. Let's all remember that these are the Detroit Lions. They are not a normal professional sports franchise where the normal rules of logic, building for the future through the draft, and other such concepts apply.

These are the Detroit Lions, and they are still owned by a Ford. They are where successful coaches and former Heisman Trophy winners go to die (professionally speaking). As Jeff Goldblum would say ...

Fail ... Finds A Way.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Your Lions breakdown was top notch, but on this part, I wanted to say that it seems to me 6th is an absolute gift. The Rams could easily have been a good playoff team again. At the time the trade was made, any Lions fan would have considered 6th to be incredibly fortunate. The pick is better than it has any right to be.

I also think the other thread on the Lions is giving me 'Raiders looking good in pre-season' vibes. Let's all remember that these are the Detroit Lions. They are not a normal professional sports franchise where the normal rules of logic, building for the future through the draft, and other such concepts apply.

These are the Detroit Lions, and they are still owned by a Ford. They are where successful coaches and former Heisman Trophy winners go to die (professionally speaking). As Jeff Goldblum would say ...

Fail ... Finds A Way.

I hear you about the pick. It's definitely a ton higher than anyone expected for sure. But I am really viewing it through the lens of expectations once it was clear how bad and beat up the Rams were. Once that was established, you essentially had two incredibly improbable victories cut hard against our draft position. It irks.

As for the Lions failing. Yeah, I hear you. The first Super Bowl I can remember watching was the 1980 Rams/Steelers one. So, I have been a fan of the Lions for 43 or so years now and have really known nothing but pain, disappointment, and crushing defeat as a NFL fan. (My second favorite team has always been the Browns, because my mom and her whole family is from Cleveland, so I am especially cursed.)

That being said, it's fun to feel positive for once. Will it all likely end in sorrow and heartache? Almost positively. But, it's fun to be excited and hope for more, especially when you start to actually see results. It's the fun of being a fan. Even one of this sad sack franchise.

[thesloppy]

It would be foolish to ever bet against the Lions imploding, but I think it's worth pointing out that the crucial difference difference now is entirely external: the conference & more importantly the division kind of suck right now. For seemingly the last 30 years the Packers dominance of that division have made it so that good was never good enough for the Lions (or anybody else in the NFC North) & they were effectively always playing for a wild card slot. That division hasn't been as up-in-the-air as it is right now since literally the last millennium.

[QuikSand]

5 bargain defensive free agents for Lions to consider in 2023

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I believe I saw the Cardinals listed as a 200-1 longshot to win the next SB.

I'm not saying I love their chances. but at the midpoint of the 2021 season they had the best record in football and were atop many "power rankings." I know the last year wasn't kind to them, but they will have a new regime/scheme in place, and it's hard to imagine it being worse than before.

I know it's hard to back longshots, but I think the proper odds should be more like... 60-1? Flawed as they are, this isn't the Texans and their roster.

I listened to the PFF podcast on “fix every team,” where they gave a quick overview of roster needs, tossed out certain guys to re-sign or pursue in free agency, and speculated on draft strategy. Time well spent for a February football fan.

Their segment on the Cards was, in short, “tank, strip it for parts, start over.” Far more blunt than any team. So… yeah, guess I have less vigor for this than I had been thinking. Yikes.

[QuikSand]

Dolphins’ Byron Jones says he ‘can’t run or jump’ due to his injuries | FOX Sports

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

1x SB champion (not MVP)
2x SB appearances (threw INT to lose one)
Never MVP
1x top passer rating for season (2015)
1x top passing TDs for season (2017)
Holds most Seattle passing records

Most HoF QBs have multiple SB wins except Marino, notably, and Favre (1). But both hold or held multiple league-wide records, which is not even close to true for Wilson.

It feels like a really, really weak case.

Forget first ballot. That looks like he has no case for the HoF at all if he continues at that rate.

Most people fairly or unfairly consider him a passenger when the Seahawks won the Super Bowl. People at the very least indirectly blame him for the loss in the second one. Not only has he not won the MVP but he has not even got an MVP vote though that may change if he comes back to his best in the futre. Finally, no disrespect to Matt Hasselback, Dave Krieg, and Jim Zorn, Wilson holding all the franchise passing records says more about them, the era they played in and the era that Wilson played even if he may have been constrained by the Schneider/Carroll regime.

[QuikSand]

Wilson is going to the HOF

[miami_fan]

Ahhh to be rich enough to be this petty.

Jeff Bezos reportedly denied chance to bid on Washington Commanders | FOX Sports

I get it though. I think it is clear that Snyder does not want to sell the team. The idea of selling it to someone that he hates has to eat at him no matter the profit. I wonder if someone could buy the team for $6 billion and immediately flip it to Bezos for $10 billion.

[weegeebored]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Wilson is going to the HOF

If he gets in it is the football equivalent of Harold Baines in the MLB hall.

[Solecismic]

I've written a lot about quarterbacks and the Hall of Fame. Maybe too much. We have some interesting cases coming up that will redefine the standards. I should update my work on this, though.

Throwing the concepts out there. Overall performance level and longevity+Super Bowl seem to be the determining factors. There are almost no exceptions. The only past quarterback I've found who "should" be in and isn't is Ken Anderson.

However, increased longevity is going to force a re-evaluation. And the unusually long period in which only one QB has even been voted on (Peyton Manning) is allowing that re-evaluation to feel natural.

It's telling that someone who passes the statistical test without a Super Bowl appearance (Tony Romo) didn't even get to the voting semifinals. Quarterbacks who reach the semifinals get in pretty quickly because of name recognition. The Romo case illustrates that the re-evaluation is indeed real.

What do you do about similar players? Phillip Rivers, Matt Ryan. Both have exceptional numbers, but it's year after year accumulation and Ryan's one Super Bowl appearance is notable only for the most notorious collapse from lock status in (I would say, not knowing much about the history of the other sport called football) sports history. I don't think Rivers gets in. I think Ryan, even though he's someone who declined early and this past season's performance might be what he is right now, will get in. These two will redefine that border.

The second category is players who have the big game success without the statistical excellence. That's going to be Eli Manning. I don't think he gets in, either, though the parallel case 20 years earlier was an easy choice (John Elway).

We have four certain choices coming up: Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees and Ben Roethlisberger. All have the stats, the accumulated wins, at least one Super Bowl win. It's not close in any of these cases, and that may be what keeps Rivers, Ryan and Eli Manning from even getting to the semifinals.

The Hall has historically admitted one QB every two years, on average. The Big Five - Peyton Manning (1998 entry), Brady (2000), Brees (2001), Roethlisberger (2004), and Rodgers (2005) - should account for ten years' worth.

Trying to get to five from the next ten years or so...

Candidates:

2008 - Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco. Ryan certainly has the numbers on both sides. Flacco has wins and a Super Bowl MVP, but is more like Eli Manning in accumulated performance. I'd say Ryan is going to be close and Flacco isn't.

2009 - Matthew Stafford. Not quite up to the statistical standard, sheer number of wins is there, but below-.500, which is an anomaly on its own. Not close.

2011 - Cam Newton and Andy Dalton. Neither will (or in Newton's case, did) reach either standard.

2012 - At this point, we're talking about careers with some life left. The obvious generational player, Andrew Luck, retired very early. Then there's Ryan Tannehill, Russell Wilson and Kirk Cousins. Cousins is starting to look a little like Ryan, without the one Super Bowl appearance. Tannehill doesn't seem like he's going to get close. So Wilson... you have the total wins and an unusually good W/L record. You have the stats. You have two Super Bowl appearances and one win. I'd say absolutely yes, even if this year is his new performance level.

2013 - 2015. The best potential candidates we have from this group are Jimmy Garoppolo and Derek Carr. And neither is worthy of an evaluation right now.

After that, we'll get 2016 - Dak Prescott and Jared Goff, 2017 - Patrick Mahomes and Deshaun Watson. Obviously lots left to define in those careers, but Mahomes is already looking like a no-doubt-about-it choice.

Ranking five from 2006-2015: Wilson, Ryan, Stafford, Cousins, Flacco. In the age of the quarterback, and this is what we have for ten solid years? Maybe the standards are too high after Brady/Peyton Manning and these guys aren't that bad.

But we're not getting to five from those ten classes. We don't have to get to five by any means. The Hall doesn't care about that. However, this is why I think Eli Manning and Phillip Rivers will prompt some serious debate and Wilson (definitely) and Ryan (probably) are getting in.

[bhlloy]

Eli will get in. The rings plus the Manning name plus New York will put him over the top. Rivers will be an interesting debate but he’s kind of the other extreme, I think he misses (and as a casual Charger fan I’m 110% in agreement with that outcome).

Wilson should be there but man, he’s another couple of seasons like this one away from it not being a foregone conclusion. If he ends his career with 3 years of being a punchline, the narrative becomes really strong.

[cuervo72]

Eli may well, but he really shouldn't. He had one 12-win season. Two 11-win seasons. 117-117 lifetime. 366 TV vs 244 INT, not that great a ratio. He wasn't mobile. Only made 4 PB in an age when half the QB in the leagues get the nod.

I NEVER feared him as an Eagles fan. Never.

[Lathum]

Eli is a lock. 2 time SB winner, 2X SB MVP. Currently 10th in career passing yards, 10th in career passing TDs, 10th in career completions. Plus the Manning name. He also likely makes another deep run if Plax doesn't shoot himself. They looked like the best team in the league that year.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Manning feels like the only no-brainer (beyond the four gimmes) in the list of completed careers.

[flere-imsaho]

I looked up 4th quarter comebacks, because I figured that might be part of the reason for Elway despite the lack of stats, and sure enough he's ranked 9th with 31. But you know who's 4th? Matt Ryan. That, plus a lot else on that particular list, really puts into relief the point about longevity that Jim is making: NFL Fourth Quarter Comebacks Career Leaders (since 1960) | Pro-Football-Reference.com

[flere-imsaho]

I feel we need to start deeply discounting career stats unless the QB actually sets the all-time record during their tenure. So something like Eli being 10th in this and 10th and that doesn't really mean a lot to me, because it's more about era & longevity. Then it feels a bit like some baseball arguments, where it feels like we're not really talking about a Hall of Fame, but a Hall of Lots of Stat Accumulation.

On the flipside, things like SB wins & MVPs should really be a multiplier of sorts, so there you go Eli.

Of course, it feels unfair to some QBs who were never really in position to get to a Super Bowl to make that so important. But in those cases I think we look to a career like Dan Marino or Drew Brees (ignoring that he won one). Look up any year-by-year stats table for either and there are "led league" or "single-season record" asteriks everywhere. You get some of that with Rivers & Ryan, but not enough, in my opinion.

[Lathum]

IMO longevity in the NFL is a skill and should be factored in when discussing someones career.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by Lathum

IMO longevity in the NFL is a skill and should be factored in when discussing someones career.

It should. But at what level? Generally, it takes care of itself, but there have been exceptions. About 80% of the quarterbacks with the most starts have winning career records. None of the exceptions are in the Hall of Fame. I don't think anyone misses Vinny Testaverde or Kerry Collins. The Hall drew the longevity line with Testaverde and Drew Bledsoe. They'll have to redraw it if Ryan, Eli Manning or Stafford doesn't get the call.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

They'll have to redraw it if Ryan, Eli Manning or Stafford doesn't get the call.

That trio, just seeing the names grouped together. Absolutely reinforces my feelings about only one of them being Hall worthy. I saw enough of all three, only Manning ever entered my mind at any time in their career as a HOF'er.

[Lathum]

I think a lot of Staffords numbers come from him having to throw a lot because they were always losing.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I think a lot of Staffords numbers come from him having to throw a lot because they were always losing.

And dare I say a lot of Stat Padford's numbers also came from having Calvin Johnson as a receiver as well as the reason you mentioned.