lets_go_bills Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 Andre will get in next year. He beat out Carter and Brown this year and will get in before they do. Next year's class is somewhat weak. 2012 is Andre's year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benderbender Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 I can't believe Reed didn't get in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganesh Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 Andre will get in next year. He beat out Carter and Brown this year and will get in before they do. Next year's class is somewhat weak. 2012 is Andre's year. Agree. Once again goes to show why you need to be on the Networks after your playing days to push your agenda...Faulk gets in on 1st ballot only because he was on TV. Thurman was anyday better than Faulk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 Apparently Reed was the 2nd longest discussion http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/jim_trotter/02/05/HOF.insider/index.html?xid=cnnbin&hpt=Sbin My question is why are idiot sportswriters voting on the HOF inductions? I've never understood that logic. Also, the guy states next year could be tougher because Of the list of 1st year eligibles.. but I don't see any of them as HOF material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted February 6, 2011 Share Posted February 6, 2011 My question is why are idiot sportswriters voting on the HOF inductions? Tradition. Sportswriters were always the one that selected the best players of each year (precursors to the All-Pro and Pro Bowl lists). It was naturally thought that they were the most knowledgeable. You would also get great players of the game and innovators to select lists (Walter Camp, Knute Rockne, etc). They just kept that tradition when they started the HOF process. My problem with it is that most of the writers really do not know about the older players (ones that played before they started covering the NFL). As a result, the seniors candidates suffer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JÂy RÛßeÒ Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 Tradition. Sportswriters were always the one that selected the best players of each year (precursors to the All-Pro and Pro Bowl lists). It was naturally thought that they were the most knowledgeable. You would also get great players of the game and innovators to select lists (Walter Camp, Knute Rockne, etc). They just kept that tradition when they started the HOF process. My problem with it is that most of the writers really do not know about the older players (ones that played before they started covering the NFL). As a result, the seniors candidates suffer. Really? My impression, at least lately, is that seniors candidates are almost rubber-stamped in. I do not have time to look this up - it's just an impression from the last 5 years or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 7, 2011 Share Posted February 7, 2011 I disagree that it's a weak year and don't see how you can dismiss Sanders; he's almost certainly a top five player all time at his position. He defined the 'shutdown corner' and was a great kick/punt returner; 19 TDs on D/ST is an astounding number. One thing about Andre -- do you guys think the recent run of other Bills from that era works against him with some voters? Let's hope not. The fact that SHANNON SHARPE was inducted into the HOF ahead of Andre is criminal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Really? My impression, at least lately, is that seniors candidates are almost rubber-stamped in. I do not have time to look this up - it's just an impression from the last 5 years or so. When they get to the main room, the seniors are rubber stamped (for the most part). My problem is the candidates presented as the two nominees. At least one of the two have been a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Agree. Once again goes to show why you need to be on the Networks after your playing days to push your agenda...Faulk gets in on 1st ballot only because he was on TV. Thurman was anyday better than Faulk. How did that work for Carter? Anyway, Faulk was hardly seen on TV. His first ballot cred is solid. He was ahead of TT in just about every stat. He's got a SB ring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JÂy RÛßeÒ Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 When they get to the main room, the seniors are rubber stamped (for the most part). My problem is the candidates presented as the two nominees. At least one of the two have been a joke. Ah - now I understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T master Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 OH NO !! WE HAVE TO PUT IN DEON HE'S A FIRST BALLOT HOF CB --------- NOT !!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 I realize I may be crucified here, but I have always thought that Reed was very borderline. He never really had a truly dominating season, and his stats are in part a product of hanging around for so long (Tim Brown is even worse in this regard). Perhaps more importantly, his ypg average is pretty lousy -- 69th all time ( http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/rec_yds_per_g_career.htm ). People can point to playing in occasional bad weather, but he played for most of his career on a pass-to-set-up-the-run team. Moreover, he was never named to the all-pro squad once in his entire career. Was he an excellent player? Yes. Was he the talent that two-time first team all-pro Chris Carter was? I'd say no. (And I don't care if Carter played in a dome. The guy was good.) How did that work for Carter? Anyway, Faulk was hardly seen on TV. His first ballot cred is solid. He was ahead of TT in just about every stat. He's got a SB ring. Faulk was definitely better than Thomas. Is there really an argument about that? Thomas was a damn good player--just not as good as Faulk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts