Dibs

Hey, this is the modern day NFL. Dallas could be REAL bad this year. Looking at DBs 2nd half last season & adding in the TO factor for the second half of this years season, I'm not seeing Dallas being much more than quite good.... & I agree, KC will be a smart pickup for somebody.

Why? What are your reasons? If entry was granted to every player who simply did not perform to level the fans wanted, the HOS would be bursting at the seams. I purposefully only gave one example because I figured people would get the gist with LL. Looks like I was wrong. What has Bledsoe done that is considered(league wide) as shameful(or pathetic, or exceptionally arrogant, or mind numbingly stupid, etc, etc)?

For years now a mate & I have had an unwritten 'Hall Of Shame' category for players. To gain entry a player has to..... 1. Be an active or retired NFL player. 2. Be considered 'famous' in some way...usually due to at least decent playing ability &/or longevity in the NFL though other reasons can apply. 3. Do something(usually multiple times) which is generally received by one & all negatively. Pretty much this is the opposite of the Hall of Fame. My nomination for is a player who in my HOS has achieved special 'Legend' status. Leon Lett: Guilty of the notorious 'Thanksgiving day blunder' where the Cowboys had the game won & he slid through the snow like a school boy, made contacted with the ball & lost the 'Boys the match. He was also guilty of the SBXXVII blunder where he waved the ball around for Don Beebe to knock down. He also was suspended for 4 matches for substance abuse & then to kill his career was suspended for a year for substance abuse again. The fact that he was a dominating player for a dominating team only adds to his shame. Who is your nomination for the 'HALL OF SHAME'? Please provide valid reasons for entry.

I agree. I tend to think the 'fame' aspect of HOF can warp what I fell should be the criteria of entry. DB being a #1 overall pick & starting his career strongly is remembered(has more fame) more than KC. Though(like you), I would leave both out, I think DB is more famous & therefore has a better chance of getting in even though the stats & achievements of the two are similar.

Aaron Rodgers. Does he?

Yes but Thurman will get in(I believe next induction class). I thought he deserved to get in 1st year eligible but he is bound to get in second year. So....If Thurman gets in, would TD get in?

Good question. I've looked at the stats & Davis only had 4 good years(3 great ones). IMO he certainly was 'great' but having only 3 great seasons & playing on the Broncos who always seem to have top production at RB might keep him out. I would have him in but whether he'll get in or not is a different question. Warner still might have 4 years left. Then again he might not. Great correlation between TD & KW. Only 3 great seasons for KW as well. I really don't think I would have him in....way too much talent around him. I tend to think a Bledsoe would have achieved just as much for those 3 seasons at the Rams. IMO Warner has also developed 'the yips' since he has been injured & learned how to lose. If he puts up a couple more good QBR years I reckon he will get in.

I think you place too much emphasis on winning SBs(mind you, that view seems to be in the majority). If Elway had gotten career endingly injured 2 years before he retired....SB wins: 0....Elway into HOF. If Elway had gotten career endingly injured 6 years before he retired....QBR: 73.8....Elway still into HOF A huge number of 'great' players do not get SB rings. Comparing Elway(or any 'great' player) to those lesser(possible) HOF contenders is counter productive. The truly 'great' players show it wherever they play & for however long. When watching Elway or B. Sanders or J. Rice etc play on a losing team, it was just as obvious they were 'great' players. 'Great' players get into the HOF regardless of SB success, stats or longevity(to a point). Lesser players need these other factors to 'help' them along.

Cool....all I was pointing out to you was that by wording it the way you did could imply blah, blah, blah. There are some on TBD who are somehow under the impression that Losman cost us 2 1st rounders & it gets under my skin when they say it.(obviously not referring to you). Wording it as "...the Bills used(or spent) a first round pick" would not have the possibility of the implication. I used the word quibble because I know this is a petty argument on something that at best can be described as a side-point.(well beneath us all...well, most of us...O.K. some of us.) Sometimes though, it can be fun(?) to bandy semantics about something unimportant.

Don't take this the wrong because I understand what you are saying & sympathise with you. I just find it a bit amusing. You have become an example of what I was saying in my post earlier. From one or two minor utterances or comments from you, you have been discussed about & taken out of context until the view on you is quite skewed from what you are actually about. I thank one & all for providing me with a tangible modern example of my point. Back to WM....It is not to say WM is being taken out of context, just that with knowledge of the fact it can be so easily done, perhaps a more open minded approach on the subject is wise.

AAAAARRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!! A PARROT!!

None. One day I'll get over for a game.

In answer to the actual question.... A resounding NO. It can contribute, i.e. a 'Very Good' player who maintains that level for a 'long' time will probably be as deserving to be in the HOF as a 'Great' play who plays at that level for a 'normal' length of time. IMO a 'Great' player who plays for a 'long' time is therefore deserved of 1st year entry. Moon IMO was a 'Very Good' player who played for a 'long' time. Therefore deserves HOF status but certainly not in his 1st year elegable. I find it odd having a discussion on Bledsoe(or Vinny) making the HOF when the question of whether they are 'Very Good' players or not is a hotly debated issue in its own right.

I think quibble is the correct word here. When you say "...for whom the Bills traded away a first round pick." you put the situation out of context. You imply we used an extra first round pick. "Traded away" implies getting no return for the pick. Had you said, 'exchanged' or 'swapped' you would have implied closer to the reality of the situation.(which of course would be counter to your purpose of mentioning it in the first place). Quibbling? Yes. Important? No. Misleading? ???

Is it possible to merge this thread with the other MW thread? I just think the other one needs to be bigger.

If a QB emerges..... YIPPEE!!!

I think the point cantankerous was making is that perhaps WM being known as a 'me' guy is an unjustified label. At the start of the great 'glory days' for the Bills, the team was dubbed by the media as the 'Bickering Bills'. This was due to a couple of incidents generally taken out of context. The end result being that the entire team was tarred with a brush that none deserved let alone all of them. Is it possible that our views on WM being a 'me' guy are perhaps based on media reports(slanting) that form a more salacious view than the reality?

Maybe the 1/2 poorly game play was due to him having his eyes closed because he couldn't look at BAs play anymore.

Why the sad face? That's only +1 to the Pats.

But he's not that bad either.

A thread saying "I hate Kelly Holcomb" & Holcombs_Arm being the last post.....I had to read that. Not that I think KH is going to have much upside(he's too old) but.... Rich Gannon(years after the assumtion he was 'O.K'. to 'good' in ability went on to get league MVP at the age of 37(?). Keep the dream HA! KH could be next.

Linky not working.

It was absolutely pathetic...& I loved the first two....& I was not hoping for too much from the 3rd. Did anybody else notice that just after the bridge moving scene it changed from bright midday sunlight to pitch black nighttime???? That was some baaaaad movie making.

DT. Irrelevant of how good or bad the players we have already are, we need numbers for rotation & depth for injuries. It may be possible that those players backing up at the moment might develop but.....there are big enough questions about our starters(top 3) themselves. I wouldn't mind seeing a (suitable for system) old vet traded for as insurance over the next couple of seasons. As it is at the moment(similar to last year), 1 injury & we find ourselves in a massive hole....massive enough to let RBs run through easily.