dave mcbride Posted August 5, 2017 Posted August 5, 2017 I think that TD gets a pass because he was so dominant during his short career. It kind of reminds me of Gale Sayers. He only played in seven seasons with the Bears. His last two seasons, he only managed four appearances total. During his five good seasons, he only topped 1000 yards twice! So, I think some guys get in because of their connection to Super Bowls and MVPs. Gotta agree - he helped revolutionize the NFL. Our pass-happy league is a product of the Greatest Show on Turf. Imagine what Dan Marino or Jim Kelly would be like in this NFL? Kurt Warner should go in as a contributor! Remember that funny grip on the ball? Don't look just at rushing yardage for Sayers. He was one of the greatest return men in NFL history (37.7 yards per kickoff return in one season!), averaged 17.5 ypc in his rookie season, and led the league in all-purpose yardage his first three seasons in the league. Talent-wise, I can't think of any rb who was more visually impressive. The nfl is different from other sports with regard to hall voting because many of its transcendently great players had such short careers (e.g., rb Curt Warner and Kenny Easley). Sayers got hurtand it derailed his career.
jumbalaya Posted August 5, 2017 Posted August 5, 2017 I think that TD gets a pass because he was so dominant during his short career. It kind of reminds me of Gale Sayers. He only played in seven seasons with the Bears. His last two seasons, he only managed four appearances total. During his five good seasons, he only topped 1000 yards twice! So, I think some guys get in because of their connection to Super Bowls and MVPs. Gotta agree - he helped revolutionize the NFL. Our pass-happy league is a product of the Greatest Show on Turf. Imagine what Dan Marino or Jim Kelly would be like in this NFL? Kurt Warner should go in as a contributor! Remember that funny grip on the ball? Not only is Kurt in the HOF, you can find him in the dairy section of the supermarket where he worked prior to playing pro ball.
Formerly Allan in MD Posted August 5, 2017 Posted August 5, 2017 News flash. Neither Cortez Kennedy nor John Randle won a championship. So consider yourself wrong. Levy won four straight conference titles and he's not very worthy?
26CornerBlitz Posted August 5, 2017 Posted August 5, 2017 Levy won four straight conference titles and he's not very worthy? My point was that those two were better players than he was as a coach. Marv was a very good coach on a team with great talent. Is he among the greatest coaches ever? Not really IMO, but he's in nonetheless.
Rico Posted August 5, 2017 Posted August 5, 2017 Don't look just at rushing yardage for Sayers. He was one of the greatest return men in NFL history (37.7 yards per kickoff return in one season!), averaged 17.5 ypc in his rookie season, and led the league in all-purpose yardage his first three seasons in the league. Talent-wise, I can't think of any rb who was more visually impressive. The nfl is different from other sports with regard to hall voting because many of its transcendently great players had such short careers (e.g., rb Curt Warner and Kenny Easley). Sayers got hurtand it derailed his career. I was just a kid, but Sayers was just incredible before he got hurt. I know it can be hard to relate to though if you're younger and never saw him play. Like me, I never saw Otto Graham, but I respect the consensus opinions of those who did.
Needle Posted August 5, 2017 Posted August 5, 2017 Count me in the camp that thinks Namath is ridiculously overrated. He is quite possibly the most overrated in all of sports. He was beloved for his demeanor, looks, and playing in New York. He averaged about ten games a year and has career losing record. Combine that with his atrocious individual measurements and I can't understand how it's debatable. Of course it hasn't been debated in this thread at any point. The only arguments in his favor have been "read a book on the NFL", "millennials"!, and "you can't tell the story of the NFL without him". None of which are reasonable points that provide specifics on what he actually did to get in.
Mark Vader Posted August 5, 2017 Posted August 5, 2017 Good discussion especially regarding Namath. I would say he is HOF worthy based on impact to the game's history. Also agree Levy and Reed are better suited for Hall of Very Good than HOF. My animosity towards Marv is well documented on this board. Still he was very very good. My argument for Reed is they let Monk and Irvin in. Reed was more consistent and prolific than Irvin and more explosive than Monk. If you want to keep all three of them that would be a reasonable argument. Agree on Aikman and especially Bettis. As for Kennedy, Randle, and Sapp, these guys were as dominant as any DT in history. Harry Carson is an East coast bias joke selection. Barely in the Hall of Good. Also, I don't feel John Lynch is HOF worthy. I know he has a lot of ProBowls but so do a lot of other players like Reuben Brown. I just don't think Lynch was ever that great and certainly not in the category of Lott, Palamolu, Reed, or Woodson. As I had written, I'm more on the fence with Kennedy. He was a great player, I'm just iffy on him being in the Hall. John Randle played longer than he should have and his play diminished greatly over the last 4-5 years of his career. Not worthy of the Hall. Warren Sapp was a terror in Tampa Bay, then he went to Oakland and did nothing. He does not deserve to be in the Hall.
26CornerBlitz Posted August 5, 2017 Posted August 5, 2017 As I had written, I'm more on the fence with Kennedy. He was a great player, I'm just iffy on him being in the Hall. John Randle played longer than he should have and his play diminished greatly over the last 4-5 years of his career. Not worthy of the Hall. Warren Sapp was a terror in Tampa Bay, then he went to Oakland and did nothing. He does not deserve to be in the Hall. That's like saying Bruce Smith shouldn't have been inducted because of his last four years in Washington when he wasn't as dominant.
JM2009 Posted August 5, 2017 Posted August 5, 2017 Joe Namath should not be in the HOF. Overall, he was a terrible QB. We agree on this. I think he has more INT than TDs, also.
Meathead Posted August 5, 2017 Posted August 5, 2017 Troy Aikman. Got to QB an offense with one of the greatest RBs ever (is Emmitt top 3 or top 5?), a top notch blocking FB, an amazing talent at WR in Irvin, and unbelievable OL. He's 34th all time in yards, by my look 16 of the guys ahead of him retired after him or are still active. 68th in TDs. Career stats averaged out over his 12 years: 2745 yards, 13.75 TD, 11.75 INT. Even though he didn't play in the same era as today's QBs, that's....kind of putrid. The only thing he has going for him is 3 rings. THANK YOU most overrated qb ever imo
BobbyC81 Posted August 5, 2017 Posted August 5, 2017 Let's look at the list... Here's 12 I'd move to the Hall of Good: Jerome Bettis Nick Buoniconti Harry Carson Cris Carter Fred Dean Tony Dungy Cortez Kennedy Art Monk Jackie Smith Jason Taylor Andre Tippett Aeneas Williams And obviously 1 ex-Bill goes to the Hall of Shame: Ralph C. Wilson I've always thought Steve Young was borderline. After a couple of underwhelming seasons with Tampa Bay, he sat for a few seasons behind Montana and then only had like 4 really great seasons. But I suppose if Warner is worthy with a Super Bowl win and a few great seasons, Young was also.
dwight in philly Posted August 5, 2017 Posted August 5, 2017 (edited) Count me in the camp that thinks Namath is ridiculously overrated. He is quite possibly the most overrated in all of sports. He was beloved for his demeanor, looks, and playing in New York. He averaged about ten games a year and has career losing record. Combine that with his atrocious individual measurements and I can't understand how it's debatable. Of course it hasn't been debated in this thread at any point. The only arguments in his favor have been "read a book on the NFL", "millennials"!, and "you can't tell the story of the NFL without him". None of which are reasonable points that provide specifics on what he actually did to get in. ok.. you win.. the white shoes must have got him in .. Edited August 5, 2017 by dwight in philly
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted August 5, 2017 Posted August 5, 2017 ...when you consider some of the divas in the electorate masquerading as sports urinalists, does anything really surprise you?.....the precise criteria is as fluid as what you deposit in your American Standard every morning.......
Needle Posted August 5, 2017 Posted August 5, 2017 ok.. you win.. the white shoes must have got him in .. Truthfully I love Joe Namath too.
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 5, 2017 Posted August 5, 2017 (edited) Looking objectively - 4 super bowls (losses), but 21st all time in wins. He's on that border of in. Any coaches in that never took a team to the Dance? George Allen, took That Team in Washington once as head coach. Lost to Miami. Funny, Marv is from his coaching tree... I think. Edited August 5, 2017 by ExiledInIllinois
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted August 5, 2017 Posted August 5, 2017 (edited) ...is there even an EXACT HOF vote criteria or does it solely depend on which way the inept, voting urinalists' nylons are knotted on Vote Day?........ever wonder why the actual vote BY NAME is a big hush hush?....gotta be hanging chads............ Edited August 5, 2017 by OldTimeAFLGuy
Buffalo716 Posted August 5, 2017 Posted August 5, 2017 ...is there even an EXACT HOF vote criteria or does it solely depend on which way the inept, voting urinalists' nylons are knotted on Vote Day?........ever wonder why the actual vote BY NAME is a big hush hush?....gotta be hanging chads............ Besides playing favorites I believe the criteria according to the HoF itself is to make sure the enshrinees are the finest the game has ever seen. Meaning the best and PUREST football players You should be able to take a HoF who played in the 2000s and drop him into the 50s game and he would still dominate or the 70s or 30s Same goes with guys from the 20s and 30s like Jim Thorpe. He would have been excellent in any era Drop Otto Graham off in the 70s or today and he'd be close to a 70% passer with Atleast 35 TDs yearly
Rico Posted August 5, 2017 Posted August 5, 2017 I've always thought Steve Young was borderline. After a couple of underwhelming seasons with Tampa Bay, he sat for a few seasons behind Montana and then only had like 4 really great seasons. But I suppose if Warner is worthy with a Super Bowl win and a few great seasons, Young was also. Agreed. One of the most overrated QB's ever. He's lucky he finally stepped up & won a Super Bowl. Other than that year, he greatly underperformed in the playoffs. Fun to watch though so I'll cut him a little slack.
oldmanfan Posted August 5, 2017 Posted August 5, 2017 Might be blasphemy but I am still surprised Marv is there. And Jerry Jones?
Augie Posted August 5, 2017 Posted August 5, 2017 (edited) I'm not saying he's not HOF worthy (because he is), but I think Emmitt Smith is waaay overrated. Big numbers, but he played for 15 years and most of that time behind a dominant OLine. Career 4.2 YPC is "nice", but what might a great back done behind those lines? Maybe it's just me, but he never looked "special". I think Thurman was a better RB. And don't pick on Lynn Swan. Any guy named Lynn who's mother drove him to ballet classes has to be tougher than you think! (But I do get that the numbers were modest, even for the times I think.) Edited August 5, 2017 by Augie
Recommended Posts