HOF Candidates

Name a Redskin

Are you channeling Peter King today?

Name a Redskin

If the off field stuff counts (as some think it should) then GP Marshall shouldnt be in as he was a racist.

A Skin - Art Monk

Others off the top of my head - Warren Moon, Stallworth & Swann, Thurman Thomas, Fran Tarkenton

I guess I see the HOF as a place for a few elites not for a few elites and other very goods.

To me, off the field conduct SHOULD count. Just like Rose isn't in the hall as well as McGwire. If you test positive, you should be out IMO. They all know the rules, and they take their chances trying to beat the system. We all know they cheat, but we accept it cause they all do it. Problem is, the old players didn't. They had enough respect for the game not to do it. But again, just my opinion.

It's different in baseball. Baseball is a stat driven sport. I can understand a baseball player not getting in because he used steriods....even though I think it's silly cause the pitchers were doing it too. In football a guy like Troy Aikman can get in even though his stats aren't what a lot of HOF QB's are because he QB'd 3 SB winning teams.

Off the field onduct should not matter one bit. It's what someone does on the field, not off it. And that fact that sports writers vote on it is a big joke. Former players and coaches are the ones that should vote. Not a sports writer.

To me, off the field conduct SHOULD count. Just like Rose isn't in the hall as well as McGwire. If you test positive, you should be out IMO. They all know the rules, and they take their chances trying to beat the system. We all know they cheat, but we accept it cause they all do it. Problem is, the old players didn't. They had enough respect for the game not to do it. But again, just my opinion.

I dont think you can put Rose & McGuire in the same category because Rose broke the only rule baseball really cared about, gambling. There are signs in every locker room saying no gambling, Rose knew he shouldnt bet but he did anyway.

Roids werent illegal (in baseball) when the ball were flying out of the park so IMO, McGuire didnt break any baseball rules so to me he could go in.

Off the field onduct should not matter one bit. It's what someone does on the field, not off it. And that fact that sports writers vote on it is a big joke. Former players and coaches are the ones that should vote. Not a sports writer.

I think former player and coaches would pretty much put in the same people as the writers do. As some writers seem to have a bias, I am sure former players & coaches would too.

I guess I see the HOF as a place for a few elites not for a few elites and other very goods.

There would be debate no matter where you draw the line. Overall I think the HOF voters do a good job. Obviously there's a lot of subjectivity sprinkled in and it needs to be that way since stats alone as we all know don't tell the whole story.

Just my two cents:
It is called the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Good Play. Therefore off-the-field issues should count, as they are part of one's "fame."

Whether off-the-field issues count or not, though, I agree with Paintrain that the process of induction is flawed and should be changed.

Just my two cents:
It is called the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Good Play. Therefore off-the-field issues should count, as they are part of one's "fame."

Whether off-the-field issues count or not, though, I agree with Paintrain that the process of induction is flawed and should be changed.

I agree. I think you're representing the NFL and someone like Irvin is a piss-poor representation of what any league should want to stand for other than maybe the WWF.

There would be debate no matter where you draw the line. Overall I think the HOF voters do a good job. Obviously there's a lot of subjectivity sprinkled in and it needs to be that way since stats alone as we all know don't tell the whole story.

I agree. No matter how its done there will be complaints and the way its done now is as good as any.