HOF Candidates

[irish]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

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.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by irish

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.

[Lotus]

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.

[53Fan]

Originally Posted by Lotus

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.

[irish]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

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.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by irish

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.

Speaking of GPM...did you know that 77 years ago today the Boston Braves were formed?

Anyhow, why don't you think some of these guys you've mentioned should be in? Mainly Moon, Thomas, and Tarkenton.

[irish]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Speaking of GPM...did you know that 77 years ago today the Boston Braves were formed?

Anyhow, why don't you think some of these guys you've mentioned should be in? Mainly Moon, Thomas, and Tarkenton.

I didnt know that. Thanks for the info.

I think they were very good players with nice numbers but as all time greats I just dont think they are HOF worthy. As I mentioned in a previous post, I see the HOF as a place for a few elites. As the HOF currently enshrines players these guys fit in fine but if it was up to me there'd only be half (at max) the players in that are currently there now.

I admit that my way is totally unrealistic as there just wouldnt be enough players in to make it a place worth visiting and going years without players being enshrined wouldnt work because Canton counts on people filling their hotels and restaurants every year to attend the ceremony.

[SmootSmack]

I see, I don't know I think those three guys had some pretty stellar pro careers that are worthy of the Hall of Fame.

[GTripp0012]

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?

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by irish

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 agree. But IMO what gives sports writers qualification to vote on HOF players? It doesn't make sense to me. As much as we all hated to see Monk wait, Chris Carter is getting shafted big time. IMO if players were voting both Monk and Carter would not gone if right away. A guy like Rod Woodson is more qualified to vote than Peter King.

[SmootSmack]

I think a strong case could be made for both LT and CB.

I think Ray Guy of course definitely belongs in the HOF. I think Doug Flutie does too actually, and other CFL and USFL beasts, as long as it's the Pro Football Hall of Fame

[irish]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I think a strong case could be made for both LT and CB.

I think Ray Guy of course definitely belongs in the HOF. I think Doug Flutie does too actually, and other CFL and USFL beasts, as long as it's the Pro Football Hall of Fame

Great point Smoot. I was surprised the first time I visited that there is only NFL players in. Its called the Pro Football HOF but its really the NFL HOF.

[MTK]

There is one player in the Hall who never played in the NFL.

Can anyone name him without looking it up?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

There is one player in the Hall who never played in the NFL.

Can anyone name him without looking it up?

I think I can

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

There is one player in the Hall who never played in the NFL.

Can anyone name him without looking it up?

Jim Thorpe?