Adam Posted July 24, 2008 Posted July 24, 2008 http://myespn.go.com/blogs/afceast/0-1-15/...-in-Canton.html I'd vote yes, but I think it will be tough for him to get in. Your thoughts? If you were building a team, pick one from each two to start with: Bruce Smith or Steve Tasker Reggie White or Steve Tasker John Elway or Steve Tasker Jerry Rice or Steve Tasker Now tell me, did any of those take much thinking? Tasker may have been the best ever at what he did- I think he was. Still, the Hall of Fame needs to be more exclusionary than inclusionary. Tasker was one of the highest character players I've ever watched, but I don't feel he should be included in the hall of fame. I think Darryl Talley will fall in the same category.
nucci Posted July 24, 2008 Posted July 24, 2008 If you were building a team, pick one from each two to start with:Bruce Smith or Steve Tasker Reggie White or Steve Tasker John Elway or Steve Tasker Jerry Rice or Steve Tasker Now tell me, did any of those take much thinking? Tasker may have been the best ever at what he did- I think he was. Still, the Hall of Fame needs to be more exclusionary than inclusionary. Tasker was one of the highest character players I've ever watched, but I don't feel he should be included in the hall of fame. I think Darryl Talley will fall in the same category. You are comparing him to 1st time - probably unanimous selections - compare him to some lesser types who maybe should not have gotten in.
Steely Dan Posted July 25, 2008 Posted July 25, 2008 If you were building a team, pick one from each two to start with:Bruce Smith or Steve Tasker Reggie White or Steve Tasker John Elway or Steve Tasker Jerry Rice or Steve Tasker Now tell me, did any of those take much thinking? Tasker may have been the best ever at what he did- I think he was. Still, the Hall of Fame needs to be more exclusionary than inclusionary. Tasker was one of the highest character players I've ever watched, but I don't feel he should be included in the hall of fame. I think Darryl Talley will fall in the same category. What?! You're comparing him to positions that aren't ST's. The point is that he's the best ever at his position. That's what you should be asking. Steve Tasker or some other ST player. It's a ridiculous question you've asked.
WVUFootball29 Posted July 25, 2008 Posted July 25, 2008 I'd vote yes for Zubaz on casual Friday too, but you're right, it will be tough to push through. Casual Friday Zubaz??? Looks like it has already been done http://llnw.image.cbslocal.com/30/2007/12/.../JasonZubaz.jpg
Lori Posted July 25, 2008 Author Posted July 25, 2008 If you were building a team, pick one from each two to start with:Bruce Smith or Steve Tasker Reggie White or Steve Tasker John Elway or Steve Tasker Jerry Rice or Steve Tasker Now tell me, did any of those take much thinking? Tasker may have been the best ever at what he did- I think he was. Still, the Hall of Fame needs to be more exclusionary than inclusionary. Tasker was one of the highest character players I've ever watched, but I don't feel he should be included in the hall of fame. I think Darryl Talley will fall in the same category. Why would I compare him to players at different positions? I could insert Thurman Thomas' name against any of those four players and come up with the same result.
BigdaddyinOrlando Posted July 25, 2008 Posted July 25, 2008 My whole contention is if they say the "game" has three components that are important and matter in the outcome of a game than why not recognize best of each component in the HOF! Sure Bruce and Andre , Thurman , Jimbo, et all made plays during our "run" But how many times did Tasker make an awesome stop on a return or block a kick ar catch an all important third or fourth down catch to keep a drive going!! I think the HOF is too much name recognition and not enough substance!!Anyway don't post here alot but read everyday and for the most part enjoy all points of view!! Go Bills and ya'll be safe 'gaitin'!!!!!!!!!!!
BillsPride12 Posted July 25, 2008 Posted July 25, 2008 Special teamer or not, the guy was a friggen PLAYMAKER Takser will always be in my HOF
Tcali Posted July 25, 2008 Posted July 25, 2008 http://myespn.go.com/blogs/afceast/0-1-15/...-in-Canton.html I'd vote yes, but I think it will be tough for him to get in. Your thoughts? Yes it will. He was so scary good at STs though.-But people would have had to see him play every week. Not sure if the voters know him by more than reputation. One guy mentioned Ricky Jackson of New orleans --not on the list. I agree that Ricky was a hall of fame level LB on that amazing group of LBs that New Orleans had.
Lori Posted July 25, 2008 Author Posted July 25, 2008 Yes it will. He was so scary good at STs though.-But people would have had to see him play every week. Not sure if the voters know him by more than reputation. One guy mentioned Ricky Jackson of New orleans --not on the list. I agree that Ricky was a hall of fame level LB on that amazing group of LBs that New Orleans had. Everyone thinks of Sam Mills from that D (myself included), but when the 'best LBs by team' thread hit the Wall a couple of weeks ago, R. Rich said putting Jackson ahead of Mills was a good call. And when Rich talks 'backers, I pay attention.
KOKBILLS Posted July 25, 2008 Posted July 25, 2008 Andre has competition at WR, and it will only get more difficult for him as the West Coast Offense players -- and their inflated stats -- become eligible. Tasker? There's no history with which to compare him. Before he came along, nobody ever tried some of the things he did. As others have noted, the league made up new rules to stop him, and they created a position for him in the Pro Bowl. HOF voter Ira Miller uses this benchmark to judge prospective enshrinees: can you write the history of the game without him? In Tasker's case, the answer is no. That should be all anyone needs to cast a ballot in his favor. Agreed... I guess what I'm trying to say is I can't allow Myself to get too worked up over an obviously deserving Tasker, when I'm already worked up over an obviously deserving Dre... A few Years ago I was REALLY optimistic about Tasker's chances...I remember more than one discussion here about it...I remember reading articles about a few writers who were gung-ho on backing Tasker before He was even eligible...There was talk of highlight reel presentations championing #89's HOF bid and the whole bit...But these past few Years have left Me dumbfounded where the HOF is concerned...And I've just about assumed Tasker has little chance remaining because these voters are, by and large, clueless... To Me (and I'll be the first to admit I'm bit of a Bills homer ), Thurman not getting in on the 1st Ballot and Dre not getting in yet are rediculous travesties...I'll never think differently...Just My opinion...I have a hard time seperating the whole Position thing in My mind...I think when it comes to the HOF You should be able to throw a great deal of the Positional comparisons and numbers out the window...Assuming of coarse the Stats are basically in line...I think a Hall Of Famer is a Hall Of Famer...Don't get Me wrong, I felt that Dre not getting in immediately was understandable mainly because of Monk...But the minute Irvin was in I felt Dre HAD to get in on the next Ballot...Simply because He was deserving...And I've always felt Monk should be in...I just figured Monk AND Reed would get in this Year, and Carter would have to wait his one Year...If Dre does not go in on this next Ballot and Carter does...well...And now I'm thinking with the insane way these voters look at things will they hesitate to put Dre in on this next Ballot because it's Bruce's Year? IMHO, when it's all said and done, Tasker is FAR more than deserving...I just feel like if it's this hard for Dre to get in, WR or not, Tasker has little chance...But I'd love to be wrong and see Bruce, Dre and Tasker all go in next Year...Now that would be pretty sweet would it not?
Pyrite Gal Posted July 25, 2008 Posted July 25, 2008 I'd put Alex Karras in the HOF merely because of University of Mars comment. It broke up his fellow professionals on MNF Gifford and Cosell to such an extent they could not broadcast the game for a few minutes because they were laughing and even several minutes after the well-timed comment they were giggling while broadcasting. I almost blew my milk through my nose. Regarding Tasker being incredibly impressive he was so good they had to change the rules of the game to stop him from doing what he was doing. There are few greater tributes to a players' prowess.
Tsaikotic Posted July 25, 2008 Posted July 25, 2008 at some point i think the HOF has to crack and put a ST section in...for one you allready have Tasker not to mention any STers I dont know about that deserve to go in...whats going to happen if Hester keeps going like he is for the bears?...what if he smashes records for TD returns for kickoffs and punts?....dose he get in the HOF being a crappy WR..I think not..dose he get in for record setting #'s of TD's on ST..Id hope he would.
#89 Posted July 25, 2008 Posted July 25, 2008 Of course I think he should be in but even Steve thinks it will never happen. We talked about this several times. I wanted to start a letter writing campaign, he said NO.
scribo Posted July 25, 2008 Posted July 25, 2008 I think Tasker gets inducted. His staying around the sport is going to help him down the road. He belongs in there and most everyone knows that. It is just a matter of timing, a year where special teams play is on everyone's mind and when there is a bit of a lull in big names first-time balloters.
SamsBuffetTable Posted July 25, 2008 Posted July 25, 2008 That list needs Andre Reed and Ray Guy. Guy is pretty much considered the best punter ever but he gets the same lack of credit that tasker does for having played special teams.
Tryan44 Posted July 25, 2008 Posted July 25, 2008 What?! You're comparing him to positions that aren't ST's. The point is that he's the best ever at his position. That's what you should be asking. Steve Tasker or some other ST player. It's a ridiculous question you've asked. That's exactly my point of view too. To get into the Hallf of Fame, you have to be one of the best ever at his POSITION! His position was on ST's, and he was the best at it. He changed games countless times in his career through his ST playing, justlike Hall of Famers at regular positions changed games from their respective position. Its without question he deserves to be in the hall, it's just the rest of the football world doesn't understand the true value of special teams, only the big marquee stats and positions.
Adam Posted July 25, 2008 Posted July 25, 2008 Why would I compare him to players at different positions? I could insert Thurman Thomas' name against any of those four players and come up with the same result. Because you don't have to take a certain number of offensive players, defensive players and a certain number of special teamers. You go in as a player. My point is this- compare him to a hall of famer or great player and he comes up short. And that shouldn't be taken as a slam against him- he was one of the highest character players I have seen, and he probably was the best ever at what he did.
BillsWatch Posted July 25, 2008 Posted July 25, 2008 That's exactly my point of view too. To get into the Hallf of Fame, you have to be one of the best ever at his POSITION! His position was on ST's, and he was the best at it. He changed games countless times in his career through his ST playing, justlike Hall of Famers at regular positions changed games from their respective position. He did not only changes games - they changed the rules of the game to slow him down and created the Pro Bowl position just because of him. Many players would NOT be in Hall of Fame according to standards some set but standards are set unevenly. Another big example is "contributor".
Adam Posted July 25, 2008 Posted July 25, 2008 That's exactly my point of view too. To get into the Hallf of Fame, you have to be one of the best ever at his POSITION! His position was on ST's, and he was the best at it. He changed games countless times in his career through his ST playing, justlike Hall of Famers at regular positions changed games from their respective position. Its without question he deserves to be in the hall, it's just the rest of the football world doesn't understand the true value of special teams, only the big marquee stats and positions. I don't care about stats....I laughed at people who thought there was any argument for Drew Bledsoe based on stats. Tasker changed a bunch of games during his career- many players who don't make the hall do that. He was a great player, and there is no debating that
stuckincincy Posted July 25, 2008 Posted July 25, 2008 I don't care about stats....I laughed at people who thought there was any argument for Drew Bledsoe based on stats. Tasker changed a bunch of games during his career- many players who don't make the hall do that. He was a great player, and there is no debating that No debating Tasker's contributions - but when it comes to ST HOF consideration, Ray Guy comes first: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Guy
Recommended Posts