PDA

View Full Version : Weak Hall of Fame Class


sumo
02-05-2007, 03:58 PM
I'm really having a hard time accepting Thomas, Irvin, and Sanders as HOF worthy. I know a lot of it is my bias in favor of the Steelers still left out (mainly Greenwood and Shell)Thomas choked in all of the SBs except the first one, Irvin should have been kicked out of the league on 2 occasions and Sanders is one of about 20 receivers with similiar stats...

I don't have a problem with Mathews - the guy was a stud for so many years and Werli was pretty good (not nearly as good as Shell) - I don't know - being a huge fan of the NFL, it's hard for me every year when they announce the new inductees...

Atlanta Dan
02-05-2007, 04:13 PM
I would like to see L.C. get in, but since it is not the Hall Of Every Very Good Player that won Super Bowls I have no problem with any of the three selections you cite.

MIchael Irvin is a jerk, but he had both the stats and was the leader of a team that won 3 SBs. If you can stay in the Hall after cutting your ex-wife's throat I think it is hard to exclude anyone for off the field conduct.

As for Sanders, if you base it on stats a lot of HOF inductees are questionable, most notably Swann, while someone like Art Monk is excluded. I am old enough to remember Sanders, who along with Mackey redefined the TE positioin in the late 60s, as a star from his time.

As for Thomas, getting to 4 SBs counts for something and, as I think Peter King said, Thomas was Marshall Faulk before there was Marshall Faulk.

I bleed Black & Gold, but if you look at such criteria as Pro Bowl or All-Pro designations, it is difficult to support the induction of L.C. and (more so) Shell over others (e.g. - Kuechenberg) who have not made it in from that era. Maybe they suffered because there were only so many All-Pro slots left for Steeler defenders after players such as Ham, Lambert, and Greene got their seemingly annual slots, but you can be HOF worthy without being on a team that won it all if you were consistently regarded as among the best at your position.

PisnNapalm
02-05-2007, 04:15 PM
Thurman Thomas is worthy of the HOF. I lived in upstate NY during a good part of his career. I always liked to watch him play.

polamalufan43
02-05-2007, 04:16 PM
I think Thomas is worthy, but I too would have liked to see L.C. get in.

~Polamalufan43:tt02:

stlrtruck
02-05-2007, 04:23 PM
I think the NFL has a policy against Steelers getting in to the Hall as of late. If they allow to many in, they'll have to build a separate building just for them. And they don't want all the fans going to that one building instead of seeing the entire thing!

memphissteelergirl
02-05-2007, 04:29 PM
I think the NFL has a policy against Steelers getting in to the Hall as of late. If they allow to many in, they'll have to build a separate building just for them. And they don't want all the fans going to that one building instead of seeing the entire thing!

Hmm...there might be some truth to that...

Anyway, I cannot believe Irvin got voted in....I just shook my head and thought to myself "Un-friggin-believable."

sumo
02-05-2007, 04:42 PM
I would like to see L.C. get in, but since it is not the Hall Of Every Very Good Player that won Super Bowls I have no problem with any of the three selections you cite.

MIchael Irvin is a jerk, but he had both the stats and was the leader of a team that won 3 SBs. If you can stay in the Hall after cutting your ex-wife's throat I think it is hard to exclude anyone for off the field conduct.

As for Sanders, if you base it on stats a lot of HOF inductees are questionable, most notably Swann, while someone like Art Monk is excluded. I am old enough to remember Sanders, who along with Mackey redefined the TE positioin in the late 60s, as a star from his time.

As for Thomas, getting to 4 SBs counts for something and, as I think Peter King said, Thomas was Marshall Faulk before there was Marshall Faulk.

I bleed Black & Gold, but if you look at such criteria as Pro Bowl or All-Pro designations, it is difficult to support the induction of L.C. and (more so) Shell over others (e.g. - Kuechenberg) who have not made it in from that era. Maybe they suffered because there were only so many All-Pro slots left for Steeler defenders after players such as Ham, Lambert, and Greene got their seemingly annual slots, but you can be HOF worthy without being on a team that won it all if you were consistently regarded as among the best at your position.

I'm not basing what I posted on stats - Thomas had the stats, but he choked in some big games - Irvin was protected big time for crimes he committed while he was playing - the guy is lucky he didn't serve time -- obviously greatness is subjective - IMHO, Swann, Stallworth, Namath, Sayers, etc belong in the HOF for a lot of reasons - I could write a book - even though their stats are average...I agree, consistency over time is huge - that's why I think LC and Shell deserve to be in the HOF...and I don't necessarily "have a problem" with the players I cited - they were good - I just don't think they are HOF good.

Another point I think that is worth mentioning - playing good/winning in SBs - fair or unfair has been a big factor in making decisions in the past - if you are a consistent pro bowler and you play well in big games then IMO, you should be a strong candidate - see Cowboys of the 70s - the Steelers are responsible for keeping a lot of their players out and most of them did play well in the SBs against the Steelers - just not good enough to win the games...

Atlanta Dan
02-05-2007, 05:38 PM
As a prior post noted, I think there is 70s Steelers fatigue with the HOF voters. As was stated on the America's Game program for the 78 Steelers, 9 of the 22 starters on that team are in the HOF, which I think is more than any other team ever (anyone have a head count on the 60s Packers in the HOF?)

Given that the offense was among the best of its time but the defense was the best of all time, it is somewhat hard to figure how the offense got 5 of the 9 slots. I think LC and Shell had as good a claim as Swann and Stallworth but that those two got in on both the general bias in favor of inducting impact players on offense and being linked with the brand name "Swann & Stallworth."

L.C. may get in as a veteran's committee pick some year like the Browns guard did this year, but I think any 70s Steelers on the outside of the HOF looking in are caught up in a numbers game.

As for Irvin, the exclusion of players based on outside activities is a slippery slope unless players are going to need to be polygraphed on whether they committed a list of "bannable" activities prior to being considered for induction.

sumo
02-05-2007, 05:52 PM
As a prior post noted, I think there is 70s Steelers fatigue with the HOF voters. As was stated on the America's Game program for the 78 Steelers, 9 of the 22 starters on that team are in the HOF, which I think is more than any other team ever (anyone have a head count on the 60s Packers in the HOF?)

Given that the offense was among the best of its time but the defense was the best of all time, it is somewhat hard to figure how the offense got 5 of the 9 slots. I think LC and Shell had as good a claim as Swann and Stallworth but that those two got in on both the general bias in favor of inducting impact players on offense and being linked with the brand name "Swann & Stallworth."

L.C. may get in as a veteran's committee pick some year like the Browns guard did this year, but I think any 70s Steelers on the outside of the HOF looking in are caught up in a numbers game.

As for Irvin, the exclusion of players based on outside activities is a slippery slope unless players are going to need to be polygraphed on whether they committed a list of "bannable" activities prior to being considered for induction.

I agree with you on the Steeler fatigue thing, however I think it's unfortunate - Shell was a stud for several years beyond the SB teams of the 70s - I don't agree on Irvin - the stuff that came out after his first arrest was inexcusable by any standards - the guy basically ran a combination crack-***** house for the Cowboys players during the Switzer years...Bob Hayes has been held out of the HOF for far less - like I said earlier, the guy was protected big time ...requiring players to refrain from running ***** houses during their football career is not a slippery slope...the guy made the Bengals look like choir boys.

Atlanta Dan
02-05-2007, 06:01 PM
I think what may be helping Irvin on the "lifestyle" issues is that the sportswriters know a lot of stuff that goes on with the players that never makes the police blotter or the news.

If someone started to point out Irvin's transgressions, there may have been a "then why is [fill in the blank] admitted?"

A lot of great athletes are 4 star jerks off the field - I believe those kind of activities will keep your marginal player out and delay the induction of others, but even if you limit it to activities while playing then with Lawrence Taylor in (an all time great, but if you exclude based on lifestyle it is hard to justify LT's admission) who can you keep out?

sumo
02-05-2007, 06:16 PM
I think what may be helping Irvin on the "lifestyle" issues is that the sportswriters know a lot of stuff that goes on with the players that never makes the police blotter or the news.

If someone started to point out Irvin's transgressions, there may have been a "then why is [fill in the blank] admitted?"

A lot of great athletes are 4 star jerks off the field - I believe those kind of activities will keep your marginal player out and delay the induction of others, but even if you limit it to activities while playing then with Lawrence Taylor in (an all time great, but if you exclude based on lifestyle it is hard to justify LT's admission) who can you keep out?

Dude - tell me about it - pro athletes in general are complete idiots off the field - I could tell you a couple of stories based on my own personal experience (I watched Tyson spar in person in Phoenix a couple of times) - but that's not what I'm trying to say -- it is ok to draw the line - if a guy get's arrested and is arrangin for drug deals and call girls etc for his teammates, breaking the law, always serving suspensions for substance abuse - does he still qualify for the HOF? it's ok to ask those questions - IMO, LT (unless he makes some major changes) will end up like Pete Rose - pathetic and broke - trying to make a few bucks here and there based on his time in pro sports - just because they elect guys like LT and Irvin IMHO, that doesn't make it ok...

Cape Cod Steel Head
02-05-2007, 08:00 PM
Art Monk got screwed! He has better #'s then that wife beater Irvin.

sumo
02-05-2007, 08:55 PM
Art Monk got screwed! He has better #'s then that wife beater Irvin.

I agree - Monk should have got in before any of the other receivers..

RoethlisBURGHer
02-06-2007, 08:20 PM
Art Monk got screwed! He has better #'s then that wife beater Irvin.

I don't know what thier biased is against Monk,but it totally sucks.

Back in the 90's when the Cowpatties needed the field chalked for a game,they just asked Irvin to blow his nose.

Godfather
02-06-2007, 08:43 PM
How can they leave out LC Greenwood and Donnie Shell while leaving the seventh spot vacant and electing a couple of those other guys??!

What a joke.

Stillers#1
02-06-2007, 10:11 PM
Tagliabue deserved to be in too.

Atlanta Dan
02-06-2007, 10:30 PM
Unless every Commissioner gets in the HOF I think the jury is still out on Tags - if some of the owners exercise the early opt out clause for the collective bargaining agreement in 2008 and the CBA collapses Tags may be regarded as simply having kicked the can down the road until he retired on the big issue that was not resolved during the last several years of his tenure, which is keeping the lid on open warfare between the small and big market teams.

Add to that this observation from Dr. Z on the debate on Tagliabue:

Blood was flowing at the Hall of Fame enshrinement meeting Saturday morning. I don't want to go too deeply into this thing because there were heavy repercussions. The Paul Tagliabue discussion set a record of 58 minutes. Two speakers began matters by endorsing him. I was the first of the anti voices. One of my points was that under his stewardship, and without his intervention, the rights of the press were eroded almost beyond recognition. Later I was told that I was a bit over the top. Maybe so. He didn't, as you know, reach level two, composed of 11 candidates.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/dr_z/02/06/notes/2.html

Kermit
02-07-2007, 09:32 AM
(anyone have a head count on the 60s Packers in the HOF?)

Check out this page from the HOF website:

Hall of Famers and League Champions (http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/story.jsp?story_id=316)

Atlanta Dan
02-07-2007, 11:08 AM
Check out this page from the HOF website:

Hall of Famers and League Champions (http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/story.jsp?story_id=316)

Thanks

silver & black
02-07-2007, 07:31 PM
How can they leave out LC Greenwood and Donnie Shell while leaving the seventh spot vacant and electing a couple of those other guys??!

What a joke.

I agree. I can't believe those two aren't in yet.

I can't believe Ken Stabler, Cliff Branch, Lester Hayes, or Ray guy aren't in yet, either. I think Irvin deserves to be in the HOF, but not before any of these other players.

sumo
02-07-2007, 07:40 PM
I agree. I can't believe those two aren't in yet.

I can't believe Ken Stabler, Cliff Branch, Lester Hayes, or Ray guy aren't in yet, either. I think Irvin deserves to be in the HOF, but not before any of these other players.

Do you remember Ray Guy in the Pro Bowl? - he was told by everybody on the AFC squad - no way he could punt high enough to hit the big screen in the silverdome - and he did it with ease on a real punt during the game - freakin amazing! - I tell that story to people and they think it's a wise tale - but I was watching the game and saw it happen in real time...

silver & black
02-07-2007, 07:44 PM
Do you remember Ray Guy in the Pro Bowl? - he was told by everybody on the AFC squad - no way he could punt high enough to hit the big screen in the silverdome - and he did it with ease on a real punt during the game - freakin amazing! - I tell that story to people and they think it's a wise tale - but I was watching the game and saw it happen in real time...

Yes, I remember it! There has never been a punter, before or since, like Ray Guy. Shane Lechler is close, though.

sumo
02-07-2007, 07:51 PM
Yes, I remember it! There has never been a punter, before or since, like Ray Guy. Shane Lechler is close, though.

I know I have been agreeing with you a lot, but this is where we part ways - Lechler or anybody else - doesn't matter - Ray Guy will always be the best punter in the history of the NFL - nobody else comes close ...and it's hard to believe anybody ever will

silver & black
02-07-2007, 07:56 PM
I know I have been agreeing with you a lot, but this is where we part ways - Lechler or anybody else - doesn't matter - Ray Guy will always be the best punter in the history of the NFL - nobody else comes close ...and it's hard to believe anybody ever will

I agree. What I meant was, Lechler is the only one even remotely close. There is no one playing right now that is even close to Lechler.