HOF Candidates

[MTK]

Harrison is a HOF player to me, but I won't be surprised to see the voters keep him out for a while out of spite.

[Paintrain]

As for Harrison's credentials, he's definitely a HOF player, but I agree Matty that some of the press will keep him out for a few cycles.

It a travesty that former players don't have a say in the voting until it gets to the veterans committee which is for, basically, overlooked players. Most players thought it was a sham that it took Monk so long to get in. There are former players across the league who can make strong cases for former teammates or opponents that some schmuck writer has barely heard of and probably never watched, but will determine their worthiness for the HOF. The process is a joke, but it's the same across all sports so it probably won't change.

[irish]

I dont think off the field stuff should count toward getting into the HOF. Its about football not about being a great guy. If that was the case there would be a lot less people in there.

IMO, the HOF isnt what it used to be. I think the need to indict people every year has diluted the Hall. I think some years there just arent any players worthy of all time great status (they were very good but not HOF great) but they get considered and enshrined.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by irish

I dont think off the field stuff should count toward getting into the HOF. Its about football not about being a great guy. If that was the case there would be a lot less people in there.

IMO, the HOF isnt what it used to be. I think the need to indict people every year has diluted the Hall. I think some years there just arent any players worthy of all time great status (they were very good but not HOF great) but they get considered and enshrined.

You probably meant induct not indict but I got what you were saying.

What examples of some years where non-greats were inducted can you cite to support what you are saying?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

You probably meant induct not indict but I got what you were saying.

What examples of some years where non-greats were inducted can you cite to support what you are saying?

Name a Redskin

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Name a Redskin

Are you channeling Peter King today?

[irish]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Name a Redskin

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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