HOF Candidates

I'm having a hard time thinking of an AFL player who made it but didn't play at least one year in the NFL. :confused:

Honest question: should LaDainian Tomlinson be a hall of famer? How about Champ Bailey?

That, to me, is the big question of our era. Obviously, Manning and Brady are easy, along with Brett Favre, Derrick Brooks, Marvin Harrison, Tony Gonzalez and Michael Strahan. But there's other players who should be hall of famers who you simply couldn't put in if you limit the honor to only the best players ever.

Do you draw the line at those 5 time pro bowlers? Or do they get in too?

I'd say yes on LT but no on Champ. What has he done? He's a reputation player his whole career but never did anything to significantly impact any team he's been on. What's his signature season or his signature play? He's been good but I don't put him in the Rod Woodson/Darrell Green/Deion category.

I still think Jake Scott should have gone in years ago. Along with the all pro awards we still remember SB VII where he was the MVP.

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.

Mark McGwire and these guys broke the law. Baseball doesn't have to specifically state every rule. I never understood why the players union made the players seem like they were immune from the law, like a foreign country. It was like everybody knew people were using steroids, but nobody did anything and they always used the excuse the players union is too strong, like they didn't have to follow the laws of the US. If Mark McGwire and all these guys didn't do anything wrong then how come they all lied about it. I think all these guys should not get into the HOF. They'll have to live with the fact that they cheated and they didn't get in for the rest of their life. The most important thing is that kids will learn that it's not acceptable and it's not going to get them anywhere and these guys really regret what they did.

I'm having a hard time thinking of an AFL player who made it but didn't play at least one year in the NFL. :confused:

The answer is...

Billy Shaw - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Shaw)

I never heard of him either

The answer is...

Billy Shaw - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Shaw)

I never heard of him either

He was drafted by the Cowgirls and the Bills and chose to play with the Bills. Never would have guessed it.

The answer is...

Billy Shaw - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Shaw)

I never heard of him either

Outstanding question! I enjoy football history. Thanks Matty!

BTW if Shaw turned down the Cowpies, he had good taste. :)

I'd say yes on LT but no on Champ. What has he done? He's a reputation player his whole career but never did anything to significantly impact any team he's been on. What's his signature season or his signature play? He's been good but I don't put him in the Rod Woodson/Darrell Green/Deion category.Well, that's just the thing: Champ's case is similar to LdT's, in that they were the premier player at their position for many, many years. However, neither was a trancendental player who oozed greatness. There have been better than LdT, and there will be better in the future. Like Champ, he has no specific claim to fame or great team-related successes to push him in.

It all comes down to where you draw the line. By Irish's definition, neither Tomlinson nor Bailey makes the Hall. I would put both of them in, because I don't think the Hall should exclude great players regardless of the circumstances.

The only argument I would use against Hall canidacy is that player 'x' was not a "great" player. Like Jim Plunkett. He was not a great player, though he has an argument for the hall based on four years in the early 80's.

Well, that's just the thing: Champ's case is similar to LdT's, in that they were the premier player at their position for many, many years. However, neither was a trancendental player who oozed greatness. There have been better than LdT, and there will be better in the future. Like Champ, he has no specific claim to fame or great team-related successes to push him in.

It all comes down to where you draw the line. By Irish's definition, neither Tomlinson nor Bailey makes the Hall. I would put both of them in, because I don't think the Hall should exclude great players regardless of the circumstances.

The only argument I would use against Hall canidacy is that player 'x' was not a "great" player. Like Jim Plunkett. He was not a great player, though he has an argument for the hall based on four years in the early 80's.

Wow man, I don't know about that in regards to Tomlinson. He's only had one year in his 8 year career where he rushed for less than 1200 yards, never scored less than 10 TD in a season, has the rushing TD record year with 28, never less than 50 receptions in a year. I'd feel pretty comfortable calling him the best RB since Emmitt and definitely the best RB this decade.

I guess I don't know if I'd consider Champ as the premier player at his position for an extended period of time. Early in his career as a Redskin and his first year in Denver-yes, I'd agree but his last season here teams threw at him with no fear. Outside of his first season in Denver teams have gone at him as well. For most of his career you could name a few CB that you would put above or on the same level as him (C. Woodson, Asomugha, Ronde Barber, Clements). He's in the discussion, no doubt, but I just don't know if I consider Champ a Hall of Fame player.

Mark McGwire and these guys broke the law. Baseball doesn't have to specifically state every rule. I never understood why the players union made the players seem like they were immune from the law, like a foreign country. It was like everybody knew people were using steroids, but nobody did anything and they always used the excuse the players union is too strong, like they didn't have to follow the laws of the US. If Mark McGwire and all these guys didn't do anything wrong then how come they all lied about it. I think all these guys should not get into the HOF. They'll have to live with the fact that they cheated and they didn't get in for the rest of their life. The most important thing is that kids will learn that it's not acceptable and it's not going to get them anywhere and these guys really regret what they did.

Baseball doesn't even follow the nations' antitrust rules clearly the laws that apply to the rest of us don't apply to the league or its players.

In all seriousness though a) baseball would be a bit hypocritical not letting these guys in because they know that, especially after the 1994, two things helped bring baseball back-Ripken and the long ball. The league office can't get on its high horse all it wants now but it knew what was happening with Bonds, McGwire, Sosa back then but why stop it when those 500 foot blasts were putting fans in the seats and more money in the owners' pockets? and b) what about a guy like Ferguson Jenkins, who broke the law by possessing and using cocaine? He's in the Hall of Fame. Is what he did ok because it wasn't steroids?