Clay Matthews HOF

[Browns57]

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

[Browns57]

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.

[dencyguy]

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.

[dencyguy]

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

 

[hoorta]

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?

[ballpeen]

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.

 

[The Gipper]

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?

[The Gipper]

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.