|
AMERICA'S BEST-SELLING 
Click here for more info. KUBIAK UPDATE ROTOWORLD.COM The perfect complement
 |
» Printable version
The Great Hall of Fame Debateby Michael David Smith and Mike Tanier Tanier: Another year, another great Hall of Fame class. If I wasn’t feeding a two-week old baby right now, I would be in Canton honoring Reggie White’s memory. Smith: I was in Canton a few months ago and had a great time. I think all football fans revere the Pro Football Hall of Fame, which is why we take it so seriously when we disagree with the decisions of the selection committee. Tanier: Enough small talk. Let’s start arguing. Terrell DavisTanier: In an Extra Points blog a few weeks ago, you expressed doubts about Terrell Davis’ HoF qualifications. Let me see if I can change your mind. Years ago, in a Baseball Abstract, Bill James outlined a series of standards to determine the legitimacy of a HoF bid. Three of the most important standards were: “Was he ever the best player in the league?” “Was he ever the best player in the league at his position?” “Did he contribute to championships?” Smith: I’ve got three other Bill James standards that explain why I’m leaning toward “no” on Davis: “Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?” I think the answer to that is “yes.” Mike Shanahan’s system and the Broncos’ offensive line made Davis look better. In his last four healthy games, the first games of the 1999 season, Davis had 67 carries for 211 yards (a 3.1 average), and 2 touchdowns. Then an unheralded rookie named Olandis Gary stepped in and played the final 12 games, going for 276 carries, 1159 yards (a 4.2 average), and 7 touchdowns. If Davis is a Hall of Famer, shouldn’t he have been significantly better, not significantly worse, than an unheralded rookie? Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying the other Denver backs have been as productive as Davis. Certainly, none of them have matched Davis’s 1998 season. But they’ve been close enough that it indicates to me that Davis was not as good a player as his statistics suggest. Tanier: Maybe part of Shanahan’s “system” is his ability to recognize exceptional talents in late rounds and develop them into great players. Clinton Portis and Reuben Droughns have done pretty well in other systems. Gary didn’t, but are we really turned on by his 1,100 yard season? And like you said, nobody in the system has come close to Davis in his two best seasons. Smith: “How many All-Star type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most other players at his position who made the Hall of Fame play in a comparable amount of games or have a comparable amount of All-Star seasons?” He made the Pro Bowl three times. That’s awfully low for a Hall of Famer. Tanier: Canton is full of Joe Namath/Lynn Swann/Dan Hampton type players who were outstanding for a few seasons, won a Super Bowl or two, and then got hurt of faded. Frankly, I’d rather see players like that inducted than “gold watch guys” who played for 14 years and some statistical plateau. Davis fits in perfectly with players like Swann, who only reached three Pro Bowls. And those who say Davis’ career is too short are forgetting about his 240-carry, 1,140-yard, 12-touchdown season. You know when that occurred? In the playoffs. Davis played in eight playoff games, gaining over 100 yards from scrimmage in all of them. The only one he didn’t score in was Super Bowl XXXIII. Smith: “Was he the best player in [foot]ball at his position?” This might seem like sacrilege, but I don’t think I can honestly say he was the best running back in any season. In 1997, I think most people would agree that Barry Sanders was the best running back in football. In 1998, when Davis was widely acclaimed as the best running back in the NFL, my vote would have been cast for Marshall Faulk. Faulk actually had more total scrimmage yards in 1998 than Davis despite playing in a much, much worse offense than Davis. (If you want more advanced statistics, I’ll quote our good friend Aaron Schatz: “The Rams running backs in 1998 combined for -5.0 DPAR and -17.7% DVOA. Playing for the Colts, Marshall Faulk was sixth in the league with 22.5 DPAR and tenth in the league with 1.0% DVOA. Faulk was better than his conventional stats looked — he had twice as many DPAR as PAR because the Colts played a schedule of very difficult run defenses. This is nothing compared to the way Faulk blew away the other NFL running backs in the receiving game. Faulk had 34.7 DPAR as a receiver. The second-ranked RB in receiving was Amp Lee of — oddly enough — the Rams, but he had just 15.1 DPAR.”) In 1996, the one other year in which you can make the case that Davis was the best player in football at his position, my vote goes to Ricky Watters. He led the league in scrimmage yards despite being saddled with Ty Detmer and Rodney Peete as quarterbacks. Tanier: It’s the Hall of Fame, not the “Hall of Guys Who Could Have Done Well in Ideal Circumstances” or the “Hall of Guys Who Come Out Slightly Better Using Advanced Metrics.” I’m not interested in what Watters or Faulk or Rodney Hampton or whoever “could’ve” done with the 1998 Broncos. I’m concerned about what Davis did: he gained 2,000 yards and won a Super Bowl. Those accomplishments made him famous for all the right reasons. He belongs in Canton. The 80s-90s Receivers: (Tim Brown, Cris Carter, Michael Irvin, Art Monk, Andre Reed)Tanier: These five players fall neatly along a numbers/rings continuum. Start with Carter, who scored 130 touchdowns but has no Super Bowl pedigree. Then you have Brown, Reed, Monk, and finally Irvin at the other extreme: three rings, low career totals. A fan’s opinion on these players usually reveals his concept of what the HoF is all about. Fans who like stats want to see Carter and Brown in. Fans who like Super Bowl rings want to see Irvin and Monk in. Reed gets a smattering of support from both sides. I could advocate for any of these players. But if they all join Jerry Rice in Canton, that’s six wide receivers from one era, and fans of Henry Ellard and Sterling Sharpe still wouldn’t be satisfied. So who belongs? Smith: I would probably rank those five like this: 1) Tim Brown, 2) Cris Carter, 3) Art Monk, 4) Michael Irvin, and 5) Andre Reed Brown clearly ranks first because of the teams he was on. He rarely had a good quarterback throwing him the ball or a good receiver on the other side of the field. For the majority of his career he was going up against the No. 1 CB and doing it with a mediocre QB. Also keep in mind that if the Raiders had chosen to use him that way, he would have been one of the all-time great kickoff and punt returners. Carter had great hands, probably the best of those five. He was also very impressive in the red zone. And although his quarterbacks were a bit better than Brown’s, they weren’t as good as Troy Aikman or Jim Kelly, and probably not as good as Monk’s. At this point, if Art Monk gets in I think it sets an awfully bad message, implying that Hall of Fame voters are subject to lobbying. Tanier: Voters subject to lobbying? Two words: Elvin Bethea. Smith: Nothing about Monk’s career has changed, and if he didn’t belong before, he doesn’t belong now. I just can’t get over the fact that through most of his career, Monk wasn’t even the first option in his team’s passing game. Irvin was an important component in a great team, but do you honestly think he’d be a Hall of Fame candidate if he had been drafted by any team other than the Cowboys or 49ers? With Emmitt Smith and that offensive line, opposing teams often had to stack eight in the box. That meant Irvin could go over the middle with a lot more room than most receivers could. And, of course, he created a whole lot of room for himself with a whole lot of offensive pass interference. I don’t hold that against him — he could do it without getting called. But I do doubt that he would have been the same player on just about any other team. And I feel even more that way about Andre Reed. I think there were three players on that Buffalo offense who belong in the Hall – Kelly, Thurman Thomas and Kent Hull. Tanier: I rank Carter, then Irvin, then Monk, then Brown, then Reed. I don’t like the “if he played for some other team, he wouldn’t be a candidate” argument very much. You can use it against just about any player who isn’t in the Jerry Rice class. And circumstantial arguments work both ways. Brown faced a lot of double coverage, but thanks to a mediocre supporting cast he had dozens of extra passes thrown his way over the course of his career. Emmitt Smith and the offensive line made life easy for Irvin, but the Cowboys ran so well that his receiving stats are low. As an Eagles fan, I don’t like Irvin much, but the Triplets belong in the Hall of Fame; they were the NFL’s biggest story for over five years. Ricky WattersSmith: I’d vote for him. I like the way he did some of everything: running, receiving, going deep at times. I also like the fact that he was productive with three different teams, and even though the Niners, Eagles, and Seahawks ran similar offenses, you can’t really call him a product of a system. Tanier: Yeah, right. Ricky Watters belongs in the Hall of Famd right next to Ryan Leaf. Anyone who says “For who? For what?” after alligator-arming a pass shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near Eastern Ohio. Watters was a good player with a me-first attitude who would grouse about his touches every week; he caused one coaching migraine for every two touchdowns. And I am not impressed by his 10,000 rushing yards. He did it with a bunch of 1,210-yard, 3.7 yards per carry seasons. I don’t want Canton to become Cooperstown, where some journeyman reaches some magic milestone and all the voters just shrug their shoulders and select him. Ten thousand yards won’t seem like that impressive an accomplishment in a few years if guys like Fred Taylor reach it. Smith: You don’t have to be impressed with 10,000 rushing yards, but you do have to be impressed with 14,891 scrimmage yards. Every player ahead of Watters on the scrimmage yards list is either already in the Hall of Fame or will get in. Watters should, too. Thurman ThomasSmith: I find it incredible that the voters consider Thurman Thomas a borderline candidate. He led the league in total yards from scrimmage four years in a row. I think a lot of voters are from the old school and think of running backs as runners only, forgetting the contributions that guys like Thomas (and Ricky Watters) made as receivers. I also think the fact that Thomas peaked relatively early in his career hurts him. The voters remember the so-so player of the mid-90s and later, not the phenomenal player of the late 80s and early 90s. Tanier: Thomas’ biggest problem is that fumble in the Super Bowl. It’s not fair to hold one bad play against a great player, but that fumble against the Cowboys branded Thomas as a “not quite good enough” player in many people’s eyes. Smith: I think if Scott Norwood’s field goal had been good in Super Bowl XXV, Thomas would be a sure-thing Hall of Famer despite the fumble in Super Bowl XXVIII. He would certainly have won the MVP award; add that and a ring to his already impressive resume, and he’s in. Derrick ThomasSmith: Thomas gets a thumbs-down from me. Although he had some great games as a pass-rusher, I don’t think he did enough as an all-around player. The guys like Lawrence Taylor, Reggie White and Bruce Smith, who could both rush the passer and stop the run, are the ones who merit induction. Derrick Thomas is more in the Kevin Greene class: very good at one aspect of the game, but not worthy of the Hall as an all-around player. Tanier: I think Thomas falls short, too, though I hesitate to use the “not a complete player” argument. Many people argue against Deion Sanders, saying that he can’t tackle. Well, he can’t, but he’s so good that he didn’t have to. If you blow the curve on the things you do well, if they make you a Pro Bowler, then I don’t care if you come up short in some other area. Smith: Well, hang on a second. It’s convenient shorthand to say both Deion Sanders and Derrick Thomas were great against the pass but bad against the run. However, Derrick Thomas didn’t pressure the quarterback as well as Deion Sanders covered receivers, and playing the run is more important to a linebacker’s job than it is to a cornerback’s. Tanier: Either way, Thomas is a pure sack specialist, and his resume consists of one amazing 20-sack season and a bunch of good 13-sack seasons. Smith: Even that 20-sack season has always carried a bit of an asterisk in my mind. Seven of the 20 came in one game, and in that game the Chiefs lost on a late touchdown pass in which Thomas had a chance to sack Dave Krieg and missed him. In any event, we’re in agreement; Thomas is out. Ray LewisTanier: Is your backlash-o-meter working? Lewis is a two-time Defensive Player of the Year. In 2000, he really was the league’s MVP. He was probably the best defender in the NFL from 1998-2001. He took the Ravens to the Super Bowl on his shoulders. And that affair in Atlanta was more smoke than fire. I would put him in Canton tomorrow. Smith: Ray Lewis is an automatic Hall of Famer. Anyone who votes against Lewis isn’t fit to be on the selection committee. Other Current DefendersTanier: We both agree on Ray Lewis, Deion Sanders, and Junior Seau, all obvious choices. I also like Michael Strahan. Derrick Brooks has had an outstanding career and helped win a Super Bowl; I think he’s Canton worthy. I was high on Ty Law before the Patriots won a Super Bowl without him and he turned into a mercenary. If you look back at him in the years leading up to the Pats first Super Bowl title, his record is pretty impressive. Smith: Strahan is an absolute lock in my book. I can’t really imagine a case against Derrick Brooks making it. He’s been the most important player to the Bucs’ defense over the last decade. He’s also a great guy off the field. That isn’t supposed to have any bearing on whether he gets into the Hall, but some voters have acknowledged they consider such things. I would probably vote no on Ty Law, but he’s close. If he makes an instant impact with the Chiefs this year, I might change my mind. Tanier: All three of the biggest-name safeties of the past few years — Rodney Harrison, Brian Dawkins, John Lynch — fall a little short for me, though I wouldn’t lobby against Harrison, who had all of those fine years (and a Super Bowl appearance) in San Diego before reaching the Patriots. Smith: Of the three safeties, I think Dawkins has the best case. I love how aggressive he is. Lynch definitely doesn’t belong in the Hall. I’d take Ronde Barber over Lynch. Harrison is a tough call. He’s definitely been a solid player for a long time, but I don’t know if there’s ever been a time that I’ve considered him truly great. And he dishes out a lot of cheap shots. Offensive LinemenTanier: You and I both love it when the big guys make it to Canton. Who do you like among active offensive linemen? I have a short list: Orlando Pace, Tom Nalen, Will Shields, Larry Allen, maybe Jon Ogden. That’s two tackles, two guards, and a center: a great starting line to block for the Hall of Fame passers and runners of the late 90’s and today. Smith: Shields and Allen are the two best linemen of my lifetime (I’m 29), and Nalen is just a step below them. They’re definite locks. If any of those three don’t make the Hall, I’m going to take a page from Homer Simpson’s playbook and throw a pie in the face of every member of the selection committee. Ogden and Pace are good, but I’d have to see who they’re up against before I could say if I’d vote for them. I think both players have coasted on their reputations at times. I’ve seen them both get beaten by quick defensive ends on the outside. Tanier: I’m guessing Forrest Gregg got beat once or twice, too. Pace went to two Super Bowls and was the top lineman on one of the best offenses ever. He’s been to seven Pro Bowls. Left tackles are critical players, but there aren’t many in the Hall or in the pipeline right now. Smith: What about Willie Roaf? He’s a slam-dunk for me. I think he’s the best tackle of the last decade, a great one with both the Saints and the Chiefs. Every Lions fan cringes at the memory that Detroit traded the pick that became Roaf so they could get Pat Swilling. Tanier: Roaf is borderline for me, and I place him below Pace and Ogden. Not to contradict my Forrest Gregg remark, but I remember Roaf getting abused by Mike Mamula when Roaf was a Pro Bowler in New Orleans. Hall of Famers just aren’t abused by Mike Mamula. Jimmy SmithTanier: When he retired, I heard some serious discussions of Jimmy Smith as a HoF candidate. There was no other football to talk about when Smith called it quits, so I think the HoF talk was an “angle” to juice up the story. Is there anything that differentiates Smith from 25 other receivers who aren’t in Canton? Smith: He did finish in the Top 5 in receiving yards five times, and he did that without the benefit of a great quarterback throwing him the ball. But no, I don’t see any way that he should get into the Hall. To me, the really interesting question about Smith is how might his career have turned out if the Cowboys or the Eagles had recognized his promise? Would we think more highly of him because he would have been on higher-profile teams? Or would we think less highly of him because he wouldn’t have been the main attraction as he was in Jacksonville? Tanier: At least in Jacksonville, Smith can get into the Ring of Honor, or whatever. Recent CoachesSmith: I think Dick Vermeil should definitely go into the Hall of Fame next year. He had success in three different places and in two different eras. It’s hard to argue with that. Some might argue that his tenure in Kansas City was a disappointment, with only one playoff berth in five years, but he did a great job in 2003. I think that’s the season that puts him over the top and into the Hall. Tanier: And Greg Kinnear is playing him in a movie. That did wonders for Bob Crane’s legacy. If Vermeil gets in, they’ll close Philadelphia for the induction ceremony. That wouldn’t happen for Ricky Watters. Smith: Is there any coach as beloved in his former city than Vermeil? It’s been over 25 years since he took the Eagles to the Super Bowl, and he’s still a local legend in Philadelphia. Usually, only college coaches get that kind of treatment. Tanier: What about other current/recent coaches? Let’s skip the “duh” candidates like Bill Parcells and Bill Belichick. I think Bill Cowher became a HoFer in February. Let me throw some names at you: Mike Holmgren, Mike Shanahan, Marty Schottenheimer. Smith: Shanahan and Holmgren all deserve “yes” votes. I’d probably vote “yes” on Cowher, too, although I’d put him a notch below the other two. I’d vote “no” on Schottenheimer; he’s an example of a good but not great coach who doesn’t quite merit induction. And, although he hasn’t earned it yet, I’d be shocked if Jon Gruden doesn’t eventually get to the Hall of Fame. He’s an excellent coach, already has a Super Bowl ring, and could easily coach 20 more years: He’s 42 and hasn’t expressed an interest in doing anything but coaching. OthersSmith: As long as we’re talking non-players, I have two more. I think Paul Tagliabue belongs in the Hall. He’s done a great job of keeping labor peace, something neither his predecessor nor any of the other major sports commissioners of the last 15 years have been able to do. And I would vote “yes” on Ed Sabol, who founded NFL Films. I think NFL Films is an important reason for the league’s popularity, and something every football fan loves. Tanier: Some people thought of Tagliabue as a custodian commish before this off-season. He blew a hole in that theory with the latest CBA extension. As for Sabol, he belongs in both the Pro Football Hall of Fame and the American Film Institute Hall of Fame. Smith: The problem with both of the above is that they compete with the players for a finite number of slots. If you’re in that room and it comes down to casting a vote for Thurman Thomas or for Ed Sabol, how do you decide? Paul Zimmerman has suggested separating the players from the non-players, and I think that’s a good idea. Parting ShotsTanier: The Pro Football Hall of Fame exists partly for the players and for the historians but mostly for the fans. The Hall should reflect our memories of the game. The players we are sick of hearing about right now – Brett Favre, Ray Lewis – are the players we will be telling our grandchildren about. For me, the Hall of Fame should be reserved for players who captured our imagination and shaped our fan experience. It should be for guys we cheered for or booed against extra hard, guys who shaped the history of the game by dominating opponents or stealing the spotlight in January. That may be why I put the stats aside (a little) when talking about Canton; I want my Hall of Famers to have feats, not numbers. Smith: With so much of the NFL devoted to the casual fan, I think the Hall of Fame should be devoted to more serious fans — people who can name dozens of great offensive linemen, who know about the greats of the past, and who appreciate that players who touch the ball aren’t the only ones who deserve recognition. I hope the Hall of Fame will always be a place that the most intellectual of football scholars can enjoy. 261 Comments » |
Since this thread is sure to turn into a homer-fest (M. Furtek, this is your monthly thread to hijack for Art Monk!), I’ll go ahead and get it started from the Northwest.
You really think Ogden and Pace’s careers are that much more distinguished than the guy your book cover calls “The Real MVP”?
They’re all contemporaries (Ogden came in in ‘96; Pace and Walter Jones in ‘97).
:: Smeghead — 8/2/2006 @ 6:13 pm
I’d also include Walter Jones as a deserving HoF OT.
:: justanothersteve — 8/2/2006 @ 6:28 pm
You guys ranked the WRs, but didn’t draw a line for who gets in.
Cris Carter was only the best WR on his team for 4-6 seasons (1991-1997). Yes, I know I’m talking in terms about DPAR, but Jake Reed was no slacker… and once Randy Moss came along he was matched up with the #2 corner.
I seriously need to sit down and organize all the WR data I’ve looked at (mostly from data you guys compile). Jake Reed put up stats like Reggie Wayne did to Marvin Harrison. Sure, he caught 15 less footballs, but he gained ~3-4 more yards per catch.
On the flip-side… Carter was a TD machine…
I agree with Tanier about the “What if…” scenarios. Every player can use that excuse, they were what their stats say they are.
:: Matthew Furtek — 8/2/2006 @ 6:33 pm
I’d put Walter Jones ahead of Pace and Ogden as well. The guy just doesnt get beat, makes the players around him better, and can push the pile like no one can.
How about current RB’s? Who do you see going in 5-10 years down the road?
:: thepeepshow — 8/2/2006 @ 6:39 pm
MDS, before you suggest that the succession of Denver backs has been close to as productive as Terrell Davis, let me ask you one question. Terrell Davis made 3 straight Pro Bowl and All-Pro squads. How many pro bowls and All-Pros have his replacements been named to in the 7 years since he got hurt?
You really have to remember the context that the numbers were put up in. Rushing as a whole is drastically up this year compared to where it was back then. Last year there were 5 1,500 yard rushers. In 2004, there were 5. In 2003, there were 6. In 1996, there were two (Barry Sanders with 1553 and TD with 1538). In 1997 there were 3. In 1998, there were 3. Remember the DVOA numbers from 1998? Two RBs had over 10% DVOA- Jamal Anderson with just barely over 10%, and Terrell Davis with well over 20%.
Arguing the “Davis was never the best in the league” point. Terrell Davis finished 2nd, 2nd, and 1st in rushing yards. He finished 2nd, 2nd, and 2nd in yards from scrimmage (behind Watters, Sanders, and Faulk, so none of the three can say that they were better over that 3 year span). He finished 3rd, 2nd, and 1st in total TDs over that span. The only player over that entire span to rank ahead of him in two of the three categories was Barry Sanders (rushing yards and yards from scrimmage in the 2,000 yard season). That, to me, says a lot. I wouldn’t hesitate to call him the best RB in the NFL in 1996 and 1998 (Sanders wins it in 1997, on the strength of 2,000 yards).
Final arguement. Terrell Davis was offensive player of the year in 1996 and 1998. The only other RBs to win the Offensive PoY award multiple times are Earl Campbell, Barry Sanders, and Marshall Faulk. And Davis actually earned “AFC Offensive PoY” honors in 1997 (making that 3 straight AFC Offensive PoYs). Davis was the consensus MVP in 1998. The only other RBs to win the consensus league MVP (i.e. both MVP awards) in NFL history are Walter Payton, Earl Campbell, Marcus Allen, Thurman Thomas, Emmitt Smith, Barry Sanders, Marshall Faulk, and Shaun Alexander. If you pro-rate his playoff numbers, you get a 2,240 yard rushing, 2,572 total yard, 24 TD season. The rushing yards and yards from scrimmage would both be NFL records, and the TDs would be 4th on the all-time list. Even if you don’t give extra weight to playoff performance, you have to account for the fact that you face better defenses in the playoffs. In 1998, according to DVOA, he faced the #1, #3, and #4 ranked defenses in the entire NFL. The result? 537 yards (179 per game) and 3 TDs. And that includes a 206 yard, 2 TD effort against #1 Miami.
Off the topic of Terrell Davis, I love the fact that every time I roll over the phrase “Hall of Fame”, it directs me to John Elway memorabilia. It’s surreal to finally have someone in.
:: Kibbles — 8/2/2006 @ 6:44 pm
Throwing one more defender into the discussion: Darrell Green, whom I (as a Giants fan) feared even more than Deion, and for a much longer period.
Is it me, or does the OL discussion above make it seem like the late 90s/early 00s might be considered the golden age of LTs? If you add Walter Jones and Tony Boselli (I’m not saying Boselli belongs in the hall - he doesn’t - but for a stretch, he was just as good as the others), that’s 5 dominant players in their primes at the same time. For a non-glam position like LT, 5/32 seems like an awful lot. (or am I getting their playing years mixed up? I’m in the office can’t research it right now).
:: Independent George — 8/2/2006 @ 6:49 pm
Tanier comes off across as awfully ignorant about the Baseball Hall of Fame when he continues to espouse the comment “don’t want Canton to become Cooperstown, where some journeyman reaches some magic milestone and all the voters just shrug their shoulders and select him.”
The milestones long considered to be worthy of induction are as follows:
3000 hits
500 home runs
300 wins as a pitcher
I GUARANTEE that if you had one of THOSE guys as your BEST player on a team it could win a championship. Meaning that every single one of these guys post 19th century baseball who has garnered these totals had peak seasons that were MVP or Cy Young worthy seasons.
The PROBLEM with the Baseball Hall of Fame is LOWER tier of individuals who were selected due to cronyism on what is known as the Veterans Committee. That issue has been identified and corrected (at least in the last 10 years or so).
One MIGHT make the statement that guys like McGwire and Sosa have “tainted” totals. And so the 500 homer level may no longer apply.
I think Tanier needs to stick to football instead of making comparisons that are completely without foundation. He’s a smart guy. Smart guys should say and write smart things. Not ridiculously dumb things.
And if he reads this and wants to sift through each of the players in question I would be happy to do so.
And calling Robin Yount or Carl Yazstremski “journeyman” (for example) is not only insulting to these athletes accomplishments but ignorant to how these men are perceived by analysts. Analysts of BASEBALL that is.
:: BadgerT1000 — 8/2/2006 @ 6:54 pm
[obligatory]Chris Carter? All he ever did was catch touchdowns![/obligatory]
:: Independent George — 8/2/2006 @ 6:57 pm
I’d put Walter Jones ahead of Pace and Ogden as well. The guy just doesnt get beat, makes the players around him better, and can push the pile like no one can.
How about current RB’s? Who do you see going in 5-10 years down the road?
I’d say the guy Jones is blocking for is off to a good start.
On the WR front: Carter, Brown and Irvin are automatics, Reed is a maybe and Monk is a HELL no. Personally, I think Irvin should have gone in before Aikman.
:: Vince — 8/2/2006 @ 7:07 pm
6) Darrell Green? I figured he was a slam dunk easy choice HoFer, so Mike and I didn’t bother.
1 and 4) Jones would be a pretty good candidate. He really helped his profile this year with the deep playoff run.
7) I would never call Yount or Yaz a “journeyman”, and journeyman might be too strong a word when I used it in the article. But for the record, I know a thing ot two about baseball history. Anyway, not a discussion for this site :)
:: MikeT — 8/2/2006 @ 7:10 pm
Chris Carter? All he ever did was catch touchdowns!
And create The X Files.
:: Richie — 8/2/2006 @ 7:31 pm
On the WRs, I agree with MDS order exactly, and that it should be cut off after Carter, and before Monk. And I’m a skins fan.
For my other cent….
Terrell Davis: no (but it’s very close)
Ricky Waters: no
Thurman Thomas: yes, easily
Derrick Thomas: no
Ray Lewis, Deion Sanders, and Junior Seau: yes to all, Deion should be 100% yes
Darrell Green: Is this even a debate? obviously yes
Orlando Pace, Tom Nalen, Will Shields, Larry Allen, Jon Ogden: all yes
Roaf: yes
Jimmy Smith: not even close
:: BillWallace — 8/2/2006 @ 7:34 pm
I’m really surprised that Ricky Watters is getting support for the HOF. I just don’t remember him as someone who you worried about on the other team, and it seems like in order for a RB to get in he should be the kind of guy that you include in your game plan. When Watters went to the Eagles, I don’t remember it being a huge deal, and it seems to me that if a HOF player switches teams in the prime of his career, it should make some waves. Maybe I just don’t remember it that well, I wasn’t following football as much then, particularly the NFC.
I dunno, I guess I kind of think of Watters as kind of a mid-90s version of Deuce McAlister, but maybe he was better than I am remembering him. I just don’t remember ever thinking that he was working on a HOF career when he was playing.
:: ABW — 8/2/2006 @ 7:56 pm
Smeghead,
You’ve missed the threads where I’ve softened my stance on Monk.
The problem with the WRs is that they all have achilles flaws for their brilliance.
Monk had a long consistent career, especailly early on. Early in his career the pass reception leaders were dominated by RB and TEs, not nearly as much as after 1985-1986 when the WRs took over. I’m not sure the Redskins had a clear #1… Clark for sure dominated when he came along… but Monk wasn’t too shabby. He was never the speedy type of WR that dominated the era (Henry Ellard).
Cris Carter has the same negatives as Monk. He benefits from playing along-side Anthony Carter and Randy Moss (Jake Reed is kind’ve like Stokely). Due to personal issues he is a late bloomer. If you penalize Monk for his YPC… what do you say about Carter, who really is the guy who only caught 8 yard hitches. But that is all offset by the TDs.
Brown is similar to Monk, except he was a clear #1 receiver.
Carter, Brown and Monk are all possession WRs… and I think the question should be “Does a possession WR deserve to be in Canton”.
I don’t know why Reed and Irvin don’t get any love, particularly Reed. I think Irvin is in based on his dominance of Darrell Green (as a Redskins fan). I never paid too much attention to Reed but he’s got a ton of Pro Bowls.
I don’t think any of them should get in… because if you put any of them in, they all have arguments, plus Henry Ellard… and the door is wide open for Marvin Harrison AND Randy Moss (based on supplanting Cris Carter on the depth chart).
:: Matthew Furtek — 8/2/2006 @ 8:10 pm
Personally, I’m a big fan of Jeff Saturday. Perhaps not right now, but giving him a few more years. I believe he’s a huge part of what has made Indianapolis’s machine tick.
:: Fnor — 8/2/2006 @ 8:31 pm
Dawkins and Roaf are the two that I really don’t agree with Mike on.
With Roaf, I can’t see how a guy who for essentially his entire career has been considered one of the absolute top linemen can’t be a Hall of Fame lock. If Roaf doesn’t get in, I don’t know what more you have to do. Blow up defensive linemen with your eyes? Anyway, I think the simple question is “what other offensive lineman has been to the Pro Bowl for every season where he played more than half a season?” Any? At all?
With Dawkins, I think it’ll become a lot more evident after he retires. If Mike means “if Dawkins retires right now”, that I can kinda see. If he plays two more years at the level he’s currently playing at, I can’t see how he wouldn’t be considered one of the best safeties to ever play.
:: Pat — 8/2/2006 @ 8:39 pm
I always ask this in any hall of fame discussion, and thus far haven’t gotten an answer for it. Could someone please tell me why Richard Dent is not getting a lot of consideration for the hall?
He is a superbowl MVP and has two rings (although he was injured for much of the year he spent on San Francisco). Is it maybe that he only has 4 Pro-Bowl appearances?
:: Aaron Boden — 8/2/2006 @ 8:40 pm
Derrick Thomas, not in the HOF? Don’t get me started. Oops, too late.
Let me begin with a caveat… I was fairly young while Thomas played, and I wasn’t as knowledgeable about NFL play back then. I didn’t necessarily pay attention to formations, line play, etc.
But as I recall, comparing Thomas with other linebackers isn’t quite fair. He played almost like a 3rd DE. He had one heck of a ‘motor’, and was always around the ball. Most of his game was played BEHIND the LOS. He definitely WAS NOT a conventional LBer, and he was successful. Defenses were forced to account for him on every play, and even then, they often got beat. He had to be gameplanned for, ran away from, trapped, etc.
We shouldn’t be comparing Thomas to players like Seau, for instance. Seau is asked to do an entirely different job than Thomas was. In their primes, Seau and Thomas BOTH dominated games. But a more adequate person to compare Thomas’ stats to would be Michael Strahan (another general consensus HOF lock). Though I’ll throw in Seau’s 13 San Diego years as well, just for perspective.
(Incidentally, defensive stats in general, and *especially* sack yardage, stuffs, and retired players’ stats; if anyone knows of a good resource for these, please let me know!)
Sacks per game:
Strahan .68 for an avg loss of
Thomas .75
Seau .24
Stuffs per game (since 1994):
Strahan .39 for an avg loss of 2.27 yards
Thomas .52 for an avg loss of 2.77 yards
Seau .54 for an avg loss of 2.21 yards
Tackles per game:
Strahan 3.97 (Solo: 3.11 Solo PCTG: 78%
Thomas 3.8 (Solo: 3.15 Solo PCTG: 83%)
Seau 7.42 (Solo: 6.13 Solo PCTG: 83%)
Forced Fumbles per game:
Strahan .12
Thomas .24
Seau .06
Turnovers caused per game ([FF/2 + INT]/games)
Strahan .08
Thomas .12
Seau .10
Passes Defensed per game:
Strahan .17
Thomas .11 (though it was .2 in the second half of his career (thus .05 in the first half)… it looks like they didn’t start dropping him back into coverage until ‘94)
Seau .43
I leave these stats open to interpretation.
It looks to me like Derrick Thomas should be in. He was an amazing player, who’s career was tragically cut short. He had yet to show signs of deterioration from age, and likely would’ve continued playing at a high level for at least several more years. He had several VERY memorable games (such as the 7 sack game, on Veteran’s day, dedicated to his father that died in ‘Nam… and he even said the right thing after the loss: “I’d trade them all for a win”.) He has the allegedly moot off-field contributions. And he has the stats.
Granted, he’s not a first ballot lock like LT, Reggie White, or Bruce Smith. But I also don’t remember him as having as fine of a supporting cast as those players.
But Derrick Thomas’ main problem is that people continue to think of him as an LBer and/or sack specialist, and expect him to rack up tackles and defend receivers in order to be ‘elite’. But he wasn’t asked to do that. He was an undersized DE. He helped to change the stereotype of a LBer. Heck, if he played today, under Belichick’s system, people would be talking about him as a first ballot lock.
:: masocc — 8/2/2006 @ 9:00 pm
MikeT should have put Rickey Watters in the Fantasy Football Hall of Fame.
:: Duff Soviet Union — 8/2/2006 @ 9:09 pm
Shields and Allen are the two best linemen of my lifetime
First, within your lifetime, MDS, I think Randall McDaniel merits serious consideration as the best guard, but I’m not going to pretend that I paid enough attention to guard play, say, 10 years ago, let alone today, in order to rank him against Shields and Allen.
Second, I still maintain that even the best guards simply aren’t as good as the best tackles. Even if Shields and Allen are the two best guards of your lifetime, there are several to perhaps many superior offensive lineman who have played at the tackle position within your lifetime. That said, I know Allen did go to the Pro Bowl as a tackle in 1998, but I don’t know if that means he was any good (Pro Bowls selections don’t mean much to me).
I’m not set in stone with this argument. I’m certainly willing to listen to a good case for top guards being as good or better than top tackles, if someone is willing to make it.
I’m limiting this critique to offensive linemen. If you were including defensive linemen when you said that Shields and Allen were the two best linemen of your lifetime, I would disagree even more strongly.
:: CA — 8/2/2006 @ 9:53 pm
One more thing about the WRs for the night.
As much as it kills me to say, the best WR on that list is Michael Irvin. He’s got the stats and rings.
If I were to compare them to WRs today, I’d lump Monk/Brown/Carter into the Derrick Mason/Hines Ward/ type camp. I’d compare Irvin to someone like Terrell Owens or Randy Moss. Sure they might be a little brat, but look at how the Eagles and now Cowboys have sold their soul to get a taste of some of that talent.
:: Matthew Furtek — 8/2/2006 @ 9:55 pm
How do the two Mike’s feel about Randall Cunningham’s chances at entering the HOF?
3 MVP awards, 4 pro-bowls, 7 playoff appearances, revolutionary talent that changed the way QB is played.
:: Andrew — 8/2/2006 @ 10:05 pm
Re: 19
So how good does a guard have to be to get in the Hall? Is there no circumstance where a guard would merit enshrinement?
This seems pretty closely related to the question of whether punters should make the Hall - are there some positions on a team that simply do not ever merit enshrinement? Is one of those positions
“possession receiver”?
:: ABW — 8/2/2006 @ 10:27 pm
Carter had great hands, probably the best of those five.
No way.
Great hands?
sure.
Better than Monk’s?
Monk just never dropped balls.
Monk and Joiner had the best hands I ever saw and it wasn’t that close.
Other than that, great article
:: thad — 8/2/2006 @ 10:39 pm
At 31, Brian Dawkins remains among the best safties in the NFL (rank him below #4 and I smack you). He might still be the best FS in the game and he was the leader of some very, very good Eagle defenses. He’s still a feared hitter (ask Vick and Crumpler) and he’s can still cover. How many other free safeties can rush the passer, cover the pass, defend the run and knock chumps in the dirt all at the same time?
:: Harris — 8/2/2006 @ 10:58 pm
Psst… Dawkins was born in 73. He’s 33, not 31.
:: Pat — 8/2/2006 @ 11:14 pm
17 - Dent’s career totals aren’t all that impressive. He was a guy who could be dominant when he wanted to, but he just didn’t want to all that much.
I got another name for you - Simeon Rice
His career sack totals are getting quite impressive, he got robbed from being a Super Bowl MVP, and he’s not showing any signs of slowing down. The problems are that he only has three pro bowls, has a reputation of being weak against the run (which I think is somewhat undeserved), and was never really considered the absolute best at his position, though seemingly always in the top 5 or 6.
:: Nate — 8/2/2006 @ 11:29 pm
Is it just my Jets fan bias that I consider Kevin Mawae an HOF candidate and the best center of this era, ahead of Nalen?
And sticking with my Jets, is there any doubt on Curtis Martin? Some might say he’s a compiler, but I think he’s a lock (as did PFP 2005).
Regarding coaches, how long do you think it will take for Parcells to get in after he “retires” and leaves the Cowboys? He’s come back from retirement a couple times already, and they don’t like to induct coaches until their sure they won’t come back - and even then you have Joe Gibbs returning as a HOF coach.
:: Josh — 8/3/2006 @ 12:01 am
Another point: regarding Art Monk, and not wanting to see someone get in by lobbying/whining by people for him to get in, didn’t that just happen with Harry Carson? I’m too young to remember him as a player and if he deserves it, here in NY everyone seems to think he does, but Carson made it only after being rejected many times, criticizing the process, and asking to be removed from the ballot.
:: Josh — 8/3/2006 @ 12:06 am
Re #21: How do the two Mike’s feel about Randall Cunningham’s chances at entering the HOF?
3 MVP awards, 4 pro-bowls, 7 playoff appearances, revolutionary talent that changed the way QB is played.
I only count half an MVP award (in 1990, he was the PFW MVP and Montana was the AP MVP). I also fail to see how he “changed the way that QB is played”. How many times have you EVER heard a team say they want to go out and get a Randall Cunningham-type at QB? A Joe Montana-type, sure. A Dan Marino-type, absolutely. A Steve Young-type, of course. A John Elway-type, yeah. A Randall Cunningham-type? Not so much.
I view Randall Cunningham as Michael Vick before Michael Vick. If you want to see what it takes for a running QB to make the hall, check out Steve Young. Just my humble opinion.
Re #27: Is it just my Jets fan bias that I consider Kevin Mawae an HOF candidate and the best center of this era, ahead of Nalen?
My Broncos fan bias says yes.
:: Kibbles — 8/3/2006 @ 1:02 am
Re: #7
I have to agree. I felt like the line about Cooperstown tainted the article a bit (it was otherwise a very enjoyable, thoughtful read). I find it ridiculous that so many on these boards and so many articles rip Cooperstown. Baseball and football are obviously different games. The writing here is good enough that ripping another sport isn’t necessary.
:: Mike — 8/3/2006 @ 1:03 am
we all know football is won and lost in the trenches, by linemen - yet these unfashionable types have an unfairly low representation in the HOF. why? because they make poor highlight reel candidates. the HOF really should be called the Hall of Flash - QB’s RB’s & WR dominate. don’t get me wrong, they all deserve to be there. it’s just that the whole selection process is WRONG!! - too many non players (journalists) have too much input. surely there needs to be more input from players - after all they would know (players judge other players by TOUGHNESS as well as skill / journalists forget about toughness) . My point - UNFLASHY or what I prefer to call TOUGH GUYS don’t get enough recognition. On the field NFL is about the GO TO GUYS & TOUGH GUYS so here it is - WHY THEN is a possession reciever percieved as BAD? Surely guys like Art Monk who ran shortish routes BUT OVER THE MIDDLE!!! (not the sidelines) and hardly dropped a catch YET consistantly got HAMMERED by linebackers BUT MADE FIRST DOWNS…kept the chains movin!! (yep , that’s GOOD in my books Tough, Dependable and Durable over MANY MANY YEARS turns GOOD into GREAT - how many TOUGH YARDS did MONK have - enough to be No1 when he retired - THAT MAKES MONK A SLAM DUNK HOF in my book!). You can’t tell me other coaches DIDN’T talk about stopping ART MONK - they ALL knew the ball was coming his way BUT THEY COULDN’T stop it!! isn’t that THE SAME as the great QB’s, RB’s & WR - other teams knew it was coming but couldn’t stop it!! but no - the HALL of FLASH will never allow such a thing.
ask those defensive players who played against Art Monk if he deserves to be in the Hall - my money will be on them saying YES!
:: skins fan — 8/3/2006 @ 1:48 am
Huh. Hard to say this, but I kinda agree with Josh at 27. Maybe it’s all those years of watching Zach Thomas run right at Mawae and get stopped cold…
Though I have to say, I consider him a HOF candidate, not better than Nalen…
:: Sergio — 8/3/2006 @ 2:07 am
re: 27
Curtis Martin- absolute lock
Kevin Mawae- maybe
Art Monk- I’ve been watching football religiously since 1984 and after Rice I might put Monk at #2 on my list of best WRs I’ve seen (that includes Largent, Carter, Harrison, Moss, etc.). Monk made catches all over the field. So what if he caught a ton of passes off dodge patterns? He’d regularly catch a pass 1 or 2 yards off the line of scrimmage and take it a dozen of so yards for a first down. Seemed like he converted a ton of key first downs in his career.
:: John — 8/3/2006 @ 2:23 am
If I’m a Hall-of-Famer, why isn’t Terrell Davis?
:: Earl Campbell — 8/3/2006 @ 2:47 am
I think putting Davis in is OK, but anyone who thinks he was ever the best RB in the game is deluding himself. Sanders in a heartbeat. TD played with an all-time great QB and the great offensive line system that makes Mike Anderson look godly. Barry played for the Lions. No way that TD should get in before Thurman Thomas, too.
I think the standards for current WRs will be defined by what happens with the class discussed above. I wasn’t around to see many of those guys play when they were good, so I don’t have too many opinions, except that Tim Brown should be in. When we discuss WRs, I think it’s fair to just pretend Rice’s accomplishments don’t exist, because if we say “well he wasn’t as good as Rice,” we’ll never get any Hall of Famers. Excluding Rice, Brown is the NFL’s all time leading receiver.
:: Yaguar — 8/3/2006 @ 4:33 am
I like the T Davis discussion. I have to think if the guy played in a bigger market team, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. However, I think he gets in after a few years of debates.
As for WRs, the only guy who is HOF level is Brown. Harrison will be a lock. I can’t say at this point that Holt, Moss, or Owens have made it already (and probably in that order too). Will be interesting to see how they treat Rod Smith when all is said and done too.
Linemen getting into the HOF has always been strange to me. I like all the guys mentioned. And while Mawae deserves discussion, I don’t think he quite makes it.
Of the safeties, I’d only vote for Harrison, and mostly because of what he did in New England (not to say his time in SD was irrelevant, but the rings go a long way). Dawkins has had a great career, but one of the best safeties of all time? C’mon. If he plays his career in San Diego, his name doesn’t even come up. And Lynch is a great safety, but if he gets in, it will be more because of his great public image and relationship with the press than it will be because of his solid play on the field.
:: JeffS — 8/3/2006 @ 5:16 am
Have I gone crazy? I *swear* I wrote a rather long case for Derrick Thomas deserving to be in the HOF, posted it, and saw it up here earlier?
Did it disappear, somehow? Or have I gone insane, and started hallucinated FO posts?
:: masocc — 8/3/2006 @ 6:17 am
14 — no, i’ve seen them. gentle ribbing is all — and for the record, i’ve got a lot of respect for the way you’ve dived into the numbers and your willingness to let your head do such violence to your heart.
Re Roaf and other linemen, the Pro Football Reference blog just posted a topical bit on Pro Bowl retention rates by position, inferring that the heavier retention rates for linemen suggest reputation plays a larger role in their selection since they don’t fill up any stats sheets. It’s linked on my name, and though I can’t argue with Pat (16) that if the guy makes the Pro Bowl every bloody year of his career, he’s a HoF’er, it might mean the coinage of lineman Pro Bowls in these conversations needs to be correspondingly revalued.
:: Smeghead — 8/3/2006 @ 7:16 am
#14 - Matt - I really don’t understand your complaints about letting Carter in means we have to let X in, when X is often somebody I think is a HOFer. Putting Carter in the HOF opens the door for Marvin Harrison and Randy Moss? So what? They are likely to be considered for the HOF and are often considered to be the best WRs of the late 90s –> now. I don’t quite see how letting Carter in opens the door for Ellard. Ellard’s career is more comparable to Monk’s - 3 Pro Bowls & a small number of seasons (’88, ‘89, ‘90, ‘94) at the top in at least one of the standard WR stat categories (Receptions/Yards/TDs). Carter has 8 Pro Bowls and 10 seasons in the top 10 in one of those categories. Harrison is at 7 Pro Bowls and 7 seasons at the top 10 in one of those categories, and most analysts consider Harrison the best WR of his time. Moss is at 5 Pro Bowls and 7 seasons in the top 10 in one of those categories in 8 seasons that he played. Last year was the first year he failed in that regard.
:: James G — 8/3/2006 @ 7:47 am
Re: Watters. Ricky Watters just doesn’t quite do it for me. I think he should get more consideration than he has been, but when you look at his #s, they just aren’t at the very top often enough. He led the league in yards from scrimmage in ‘96, but only hit the top 5 two other times (although hit the top 10 a bunch of times). He only hit the top 5 in rushing one time. I guess I just can’t buy him over Davis, who was #2 in yards from scrimmage 3 times, had a #1 season for rushing yards and two #2 seasons. I’m thinking I’d hold both out, but I like Davis over Watters. Still, both merit some consideration.
Interesting discussion about Davis’s lack of Pro Bowls with 3. When comparing Pro Bowls, I would not compare across positions, so I wouldn’t use Swann’s 3. OTOH, maybe I would use the fact that Riggins only had 1 Pro Bowl, and he’s in the HOF.
:: James G — 8/3/2006 @ 7:56 am
How about Steve Tasker?
:: Rob — 8/3/2006 @ 8:04 am
One more comment: I don’t think Monk getting in would set any sort of precedent. The precedent’s already been set by other players.
:: James G — 8/3/2006 @ 8:06 am
“Frankly, I’d rather see players like that inducted than “gold watch guysâ€? who played for 14 years and some statistical plateau”
I dunno, if you play NFL Football for 14 years, thats something in and of itself.
For years I was ribbed about my contention that Marcus Allen wasn’t a HOFamer. I mean, after his monster career start culminating in his truly awesome 1985, he pretty much fell off a cliff. If Marcus Allen retired after gaining 578 yds from scrimmage in 92′ for the raiders, instead of reviving his career with the chiefs, would he have been a HOF? Those extra 5 years put him in Canton.
Now I dunno if that example is enough to put Ricky Watters in the Hall, but I think they’re much more similar players than at first glance.
:: Lou in Cincy — 8/3/2006 @ 8:15 am
Kibbles #29:
I only count half an MVP award (in 1990, he was the PFW MVP and Montana was the AP MVP).
1988 - Maxwell Club MVP, 1990 - PFW MVP, 1998 - Maxwell Club MVP
I also fail to see how he “changed the way that QB is played�. How many times have you EVER heard a team say they want to go out and get a Randall Cunningham-type at QB? A Joe Montana-type, sure. A Dan Marino-type, absolutely. A Steve Young-type, of course. A John Elway-type, yeah. A Randall Cunningham-type? Not so much.
I view Steve Young, McNair, Stewart, McNabb, Culpepper, Vick, and now Vince Young as all following in Cunningham’s footsteps. Certainly teams are out looking for those type of players.
I view Randall Cunningham as Michael Vick before Michael Vick. If you want to see what it takes for a running QB to make the hall, check out Steve Young.
Cunningham was always much better than Vick has ever been. Cunningham essentially was the first or second QB in the league in total value in 1987, 1988, 1990, and 1998. However, this is a good point. Vick is a person who is generally the best athlete on the field on offense when he is in the game, and around whom the opposing team’s game plan must center. Cunningham was that type of person long ago, and he had far less talent around him on offense than Vick does (except in Minnesota in 1998), and did far more with it. Vick, for example, has a running game to go with his scrambling. Cunningham was the Eagles running game.
If one of the qualifications for HOF entry is changing the way the game is played, then Cunningham’s introduction of extreme QB mobility to the game has to be given consideration, along with the credentials previously listed (and his all-time best QB rushing statistics). Cunningham’s chances in my view are of course hurt by his injury history (especially in 1991, when the Eagles had the best defense in football, and possibly one of the top 3 defenses ever), his benching in 1995, and his own immaturity and lack of work ethic to develop his talents, which artificially limited his production to a few good or great years (1987-1990, 1992, 1994, 1998). This leaves him an iffy case.
:: Andrew — 8/3/2006 @ 9:17 am
44. Randall Cunningham kinda followed in Fran Tarkenton’s footsteps. There have always been scramblers. And every great scrambler is said to be the harbinger of a new type of play, which never really happens.
I have images of Randall burned permanently into my brain. He was breathtaking. He was extraordinary. And he won exactly one playoff game with the Eagles. He didn’t even throw a TD until his fourth playoff game. Yes, one of those games was the Fog Bowl, when he threw 3 picks, but he had awful playoff games against the Rams and Redskins the following years, and it was clear that if a good defense gameplanned for him (the Rams only rushed 2 or 3 linemen for much of the game) they could make Randall play terribly.
Then, in 1995, he came on in relief of Rodney Peete against the Cowboys in the playoffs and stunk. He later admitted that he hadn’t bothered to study the gameplan that week.
Randall earned a rep as a me-first player and a flake in Philly. To put him in the HoF, you have to put a lot of stock in his 1997 and 1998 seasons with the Vikings. Two more great statistical years, two more playoff disappointments (though he played better).
Randall’s a guy whose stat line is much better than he was.
:: MikeT — 8/3/2006 @ 9:42 am
Re: 27
Dermontti Dawson was the best center of his era not Kevin Mawae.
-Pittsburgh Homer
:: Dan Rooney — 8/3/2006 @ 9:44 am
Discounting Cris Carter’s ability to make catches in the end zone against tight red zone coverage, at a rate higher than anybody not named Jerry Rice, indicates that one doesn’t really understand what is valuable in a wide receiver. There isn’t a single coordinator in the NFL, on offense or defense, who would share that view. Buddy Ryan later said that his famous remark was just his typical wisecrack, and wasn’t to be taken seriously.
:: Will Allen — 8/3/2006 @ 9:49 am
MDS, don’t forget that John Hannah was playing when you were alive.
I can’t evaluate Randall Cunningham objectively. I’m still mad at him for grossly underthrowing Randy Moss, when Moss was open by five steps, 60 yards downfield, in overtime, during the infamous Falcons victory over the ‘98 Vikings in the NFC Championship Game.
:: Will Allen — 8/3/2006 @ 9:57 am
Re: coaches.
Do you think Jimmy Johnson will ever get in? Or does he rub too many folk up the wrong way?
Now that Madden’s in, the winning coaches of the previous 26 Super Bowls are all in Canton except Don McCafferty, Tom Flores, George Seifert and Parcells (whose bust is sitting in a depot somewhere already). Flores and Seifert have two rings each, but not much love from the electors.
If you’re right, then only Switzer and Billick will miss out among the modern-era coaches. It seems that rings impress on a coach more than for any other position.
What about owners? Will there be room for Jimmy Jones or Ralph Wilson? And how about the perennial question of an enshrined general manager: Ron Wolf must be the top candidate, no?
:: ammek — 8/3/2006 @ 9:59 am
Jerry Jones. Duh.
:: ammek — 8/3/2006 @ 10:01 am
One position you didn’t mention is TE. What do you feel about Shannon Sharpe? How about Tony Gonzalez? Are either HOF worthy? Personally, I think it’s a hard position to interpret, but I’d probably vote Yes on both of them (assuming Gonzales has a few more good years in him).
:: wrmjr — 8/3/2006 @ 10:54 am
Isn’t about time for a Punter to be in the HOF? I mean, every team needs one. It’s an important part of the game. There are obvious candidates for the best ever at the position, like Rey Guy or Reggis Roby. Placekickers are in there. How bout some luv for the guys who do the dirty work of controlling field position.
:: Lou in Cincy — 8/3/2006 @ 11:13 am
Shouldn’t the number of probowls start having less affect on players getting into the HOF now that fans get to vote?
I mean, some guys (especially the lineman and defensive players) get lots of votes based on name recognition.
:: PackMan — 8/3/2006 @ 11:20 am
skins fan,
learn to turn off your caps lock. makes you look insane.
earl campbell,
because terrell davis never ran over Isaiah Robertson like a Mack truck over a Tonka. And there was no cool footage of him running out of his shirt.
As a Chiefs fan for 30+ years, I say ‘no’ to Derrick Thomas in the HoF. He was one-dimensional and once teams went to quick routes and three-step drops, not even that effective against the pass. As far as playing the run goes, well, you’re not HoF material when opposing teams realize that you can’t handle them running right at you. The Chiefs have a LB legacy that includes Willie Lanier, Jim Lynch, and the great, great Bobby Bell. Thomas isn’t a patch on any of them.
:: michael — 8/3/2006 @ 11:21 am
ROBO-PUNTER would be in already, but as he’s unafflicted by the aging of these meatbags, he’s never going to retire.
:: Smeghead — 8/3/2006 @ 11:23 am
#53,
Players got into the Pro Bowl based on rep long before fans were involved. When Mick Tingelhoff was named to his first PB, Fran Tarkenton said, “You’re gold now.” Tingelhoff proceeded to make 18 straight PBs. That’s a big reason I don’t consider Pro Bowl status at all.
:: michael — 8/3/2006 @ 11:24 am
Some random thoughts:
What about Russ Grimm and Joe Jacoby? Assuming that Monk gets stiffed, the great Skins teams of 1982-91 are woefully underrepresented in Canton.
Barring injury, Ed Reed is going in.
The continued omission of Mick Tingelhoff is an absolute disgrace.
:: Jim C. — 8/3/2006 @ 11:40 am
Someone who deserves some consideration, but will get very little, is Darren Woodson. He had a pretty low profile, but was an outstanding SS for many seasons. While not known for “jacking people up”, he was strong against the run, good in coverage, and very heady. Also stood out on special teams while starting on D. The Cowboys D of that era had some standouts at times - Haley, Deion, Norton - but Woodson was a rock.
Larry Allen is a no brainer, even if he was predominantly a guard.
I will turn my Cowboys homerism off now.
Watters is an interesting one - he was kind of like Thurman Thomas, but not quite. I think he deserves some consideration, whatever that means, but that is it.
What about Leroy Butler?
:: tighthead — 8/3/2006 @ 11:50 am
What about Bryant Young?
Before he got his leg broken he was the best lineman I personally have ever watched. He got double teamed just about every play and the only time he didn’t see two guys was when he saw three. Yet he still dominated the games he played in. He seemed to live in the opponents backfield. He was never quite the same player after the injury but still remained one of the top tackles in the league for almost his whole career. It was not BY’s fault that the niners went to cap purgatory for years upon years. Furthermore I would make the point that if you are going to consider Terrell Davis on just a few years work why not Bryant Young? His contribution to the niners before his injury was as big as TD’s was to the Broncos. The defensive MVP that Dana Stubblefield won should have been given to Young as he was the one getting double teamed. If you remember Merton Hanks and Tim McDonald getting loads of picks at safety for the Niners, go back and look at how many of those picks were caused by Bryant Young forcing the quarterback to throw and stopping him stepping up (usually with lineman draped all over him).
On the short career vote that gets TD in BY’s first few years were incredible, as I have previously stated the best I have ever seen a lineman play. Does the fact that he was able to rehab his injury and continue to play at a very high level albeit not quite up there with his pre-injury form on an awful team with very little press attention count him out?
Players from bad teams have gotten into the hall before (Manning, Selmon), BY did win a championship and then quietly excelled for a decade. Put him in the Hall.
For the record I am not a Niners fan.
:: James C — 8/3/2006 @ 12:17 pm
Rich Kotite
:: Jimbo — 8/3/2006 @ 12:21 pm
“I’m not interested in what Watters or Faulk or Rodney Hampton or whoever “could’veâ€? done with the 1998 Broncos. I’m concerned about what Davis did: he gained 2,000 yards and won a Super Bowl. Those accomplishments made him famous for all the right reasons. He belongs in Canton.”
You said this in the discussion on RBs at the top of the article. You say you’re concerned that Davis gained 2,000 yds and won a Super Bowl. Well, so did Jamal Lewis, does that make him a HOF?
:: dan — 8/3/2006 @ 12:24 pm
Responding to a couple of these …
Shannon Sharpe: I think he’s in. Gonzo’s career is fairly similar to Winslow’s and Newsome’s, so he’s not a bad candidate. He helped his reputation as a blocker and a team player last year. Remember, not too long ago he played summer basketball and threatened to quit the NFL in a contract dispute. He’s not the first great player to hold out, but it gave him a little bit of a stats-and-dough image that can hurt a guy who never played in a Super Bowl.
Punters: Mike and I wrote a segment about special teamers, but we cut it because the article was running long. Here’s my take: I would like the first pure punter to go in to be clearly head and shoulders above the competition. I want him to average 49 yards per punt, or I want him to have pinned the opponent inside the 20 three times in a Super Bowl, or something. Basically, I’d want to say “that punter really changed his team’s fortunes for x-years.” or was 10% better than any other punter in the league for 5 years, other than, well, he made several Pro Bowls and led the league in net average 3 times, so he’s a HoFer. I wouldn’t boycott if Ray Guy or Reggie Roby made it, but I have a feeling they won’t.
Tinglehoff: he got destroyed in a Super Bowl, I think by Curley Culp (who would make a pretty good HoFer), and that hurt his reputation with a lot of voters.
Mawae and Woodson: Great players, long careers. But the bar is really high in Canton, and like it or not, it is higher for linemen and defenders. Mawae has always been considered one of the 2 or 3 best centers in the NFL, but always being one of the 2 or 3 best at center doesn’t cut it unless a) you do it for 12 years or b) you win jewelry. Tinglehoff is an odd case, so look at Jeff Van Note, who went to 5 Pro Bowls and was one of the best centers in the league for a decade. He probably won’t make it in, in part because no one’s that jazzed about Falcons football of the 1970s.
Woodson’s a different case, because he has hardware, but then the question becomes this: how many of the Jimmy Johnson Cowboys go in? Aikman, Emmitt, Irvin, Larry Allen, then you have all of the guys like Haley, Woodson, Stepnoski, Moose, Norton, Novacek, and a couple of others. Novacek and Haley each have 5 Pro Bowls, like Woodson. Moose has two, but the Pro Bowl added the fullback category in the middle of his career just to accomodate him. A few of those guys are in, but a lot of others are out. I would guess Woodson is among the “outs”
:: MikeT — 8/3/2006 @ 12:27 pm
Will (Re 47)
Art Monk and Michael Irvin can’t read your post… they are blinded by their Super Bowl rings. (Apologies to Patrick Roy)
For all the TDs Carter caught, his teams still never went to the Super Bowl.. whereas Monk was there in 1983, 1984, 1987, 1991. Doesn’t that diminish the value of Carter’s TD stats? Looking at the TD leaders of all time, you can see the bias of the current scoring era.
Passing/Receiving TDs are more valuable to QBs than WRs. I don’t know what point that proves, but that’s not really why I discount Cris Carter. In my mind he is more discounted because of his low YPC. I don’t see how the Hall can justify putting Carter in when they’ve held firm against Monk. Carter has TDs, Monk has rings. Monk has Gary Clark/Charlie Brown, Carter has Randy Moss/Anthony Carter (and Mike Quick?). Monk peaked early in his career, Carter peaked late in his career. Both of them made their teammates better and are great WRs.
I do think in looking at the stats we are forgetting that NFL rules changes drastically impacted passing/receiving stats… which looks better for Monk who caught more passes in the hostile era.
When Monk is compared to his peers (WRs drafted within 4 years of him… an 8 year window)… I see Largent as #1 and Lofton as #2 followed by Monk (then Ellard and Irving Fryar).
The same comparison for Carter yields Rice, Tim Brown, Reed, Ellard, Fryar and Irvin. So Carter could could be #3 when compared to his peers as well (depending on how you rank him vis a Irvin and Brown).
To me, Monk/Carter/Tim Brown is a tie. You can’t bring them all in, and if one of those guys is in the others are deserving.
I still think (typingthisisgonnakillme) Michael Irvin is the best receiver of the group. If I were to build a football team and I had to pick one of those WRs, it would be Irvin. Even though he got away with so many pushoffs (all of them did)… teams knew they had to either double him or put 8 men in the box… and couldn’t stop Emmitt or Aikman/Irvin.
:: Matthew Furtek — 8/3/2006 @ 12:40 pm
57 - Ed Reed? Are you kidding me? That’s woefully premature. He’s only player four seasons. Might as well say the same about Brian Urlacher and Dwight Freeney then. Heck, throw Polamalu in the Hall as well.
:: Nate — 8/3/2006 @ 12:53 pm
The “rings” arguments seems as shaky to me as the Pro Bowl standard. Is Alvin Harper HoF material? He got rings! Bill Bates? Lin Elliott? Rings, baby! Marlin Briscoe? Sam Davis? Bennie Cunningham? Mark Bavaro? Ring-bearers all. In football, more than any other sport, great players can be stuck on horrible teams and look like losers. A great baseball player can be on a team that goes 62-99, yet he will still have an opportunity to go .325/34/125. A great basketball player can lift a bad/mediocre team to the heights. Football? If the pieces aren’t there, greatness can not only miss out on championships, it can sometimes not even look very great.
Oh, and Ray Guy should be in the HoF.
:: michael — 8/3/2006 @ 1:06 pm
Oh, and #62,
Last time I checked, Shannon Sharpe played on two Super Bowl teams. Did you mean Sterling Sharpe?
:: michael — 8/3/2006 @ 1:08 pm
I don’t even understand how Carter and Brown are being debated. Carter is number 2 all time in TDs and Brown in yards…NUMBER 2! I realize that stats can be deceiving but…#2 all time! Furthermore, both are in the top 20 all time in yards from scrimmage. Can you really say that the individuals with the second most yards and touchdowns by a WR of all time should be kept out of Canton? Ludicrous.
:: TheWedge — 8/3/2006 @ 1:30 pm
For some non-WR topics.
Watters, no. At least not before Roger Craig is in.
Thurman Thomas, heck yes! Before Reed even gets a sniff. The fact he is not in is silly. The fact that people consider Faulk a lock and not Thomas is why people need to look through history.
Cunningham, not before Ken Andersen.
:: Matthew Furtek — 8/3/2006 @ 1:43 pm
Mike & Mike-
I’m not trying to make a case for Derrick Thomas going in the hall, but I don’t see how you can hold having 7 sacks in one game against him. The man sets an NFL record and you use it to say that he shouldn’t be in the HOF??
:: bmw1 — 8/3/2006 @ 1:56 pm
RE 57:
Waaaaay too early to be talking about Ed Reed for the hall. He had a couple of pretty good years…but he didnt do much in 10 games last year.
:: steelberger1 — 8/3/2006 @ 2:00 pm
Gary Andersen and Morten Anderson should be locks. I’ve stated my case in other threads but it boils down to if you think kicking is an important facet of the game. If kicking is relevant in football then they should be in.
:: mactbone — 8/3/2006 @ 2:01 pm
#67,
Yes, you can. The rules changes that fostered such a difference have made such statistical comparisons very sketchy. Paul Warfield was a HoF WR in an era when catching 40 passes a year was a big number. Watch old footage of Jim Marsalis or Emmit Thomas covering Fred Biletnikoff, or Willie Brown on Otis Taylor. They did everything but break out blackjacks. The game of the late ’90s-00s is just that different from the ’60s-80s.
:: michael — 8/3/2006 @ 2:02 pm
re: 56
He only played 17 seasons.
I have him as being a 6-time Pro Bowler.
re: 62
Buck Buchanan was the other tackle who battered Tingelhoff in IV.
:: John — 8/3/2006 @ 2:09 pm
John,
17 is correct. Pro Bowl probably should have read All-Pro. And the actual number is more like 14.
:: michael — 8/3/2006 @ 2:14 pm
Wasn’t Rod Woodson on the 75th anniversary team? How can you say a guy who is one of top 5 or so at his position isn’t HOF worthy?
Who picked the all 75th anniversary team? If it was the HOF voters, or a similar group, you would have to think Woodson is in. I always thought of him as a first balloter.
:: PackMan — 8/3/2006 @ 2:15 pm
PackMan,
Rod Woodson isn’t Darren Woodson.
:: michael — 8/3/2006 @ 2:30 pm
Rod was one of 4 CBs on the NFL 75th anniversary all-time team. And it says the team was chosen by a selection committee of media and league personnel in 1994. I would assume a lot of the media personnel are HOF voters.
Link to the all-time team.
:: PackMan — 8/3/2006 @ 2:41 pm
#74
In the above post, Woodson refers to Darren Woodson. Rod Woodson getting in is a no brainer.
As to the article:
Thurman Thomas: Definately
Ricky Waters: probably not, though the fact that he is even discussed is a credit to you guys. I’m betting most HOF voters will dismiss him off hand.
The WR’s: I’m joining those who are surprised that there’s even a debate about Carter. Yes, his prime was short and he caught a lot of short passes, but during that time he was one of the most feared receivers in the NFL. Irvin has the next best case, he should have made it in ahead of Aikman. Brown was a better overall player than Jimmy Smith, but to me they’re similar cases; both of them have stats that are padded because of their era and the lack of other quality receiving options on their teams during their primes. Reed has a strong case, but I agree with MDS that Thomas and Kent Hull were more important to those Bills teams. Besides, those teams already have Kelly and Marv Leavy in the Hall, with Bruce Smith a lock and Cornelius Bennett also to be considered.
:: S — 8/3/2006 @ 2:43 pm
Darren Woodson was only in the league for 2 years when the all-time team was selected.
:: PackMan — 8/3/2006 @ 2:43 pm
Oh, sorry guys. I couldn’t believe that people were arguing Rod’s HOF chances. haha
:: PackMan — 8/3/2006 @ 2:46 pm
Darren Woodson? C’mon, Darren Woodson? Welcome to the Hall of Above Average, Mr. Woodson. You’ll be signing autographs today after Craig James and Christian Okoye.
Plus, we should hold off on putting in any more QB’s, RB’s, and WR’s until there are ten more o-linemen, 3 kickers, and a punter in the HOF.
And just because Lynn Swann snuck in with the rest of the Steelers doesn’t mean we should water down the Hall for players like Monk and Irvin.
If you have to think about it, they shouldn’t get in.
:: Pats on the Potomac — 8/3/2006 @ 3:03 pm
I disagree with those people who claim that there are too many QBs in the Hall of Fame or that it is too easy for QBs to be enshrined. QB inherently is potentially the most valuable position on the field. Consequently, a merely very good QB generally is more important to his team’s success than a great guard or safety or, to use a more extreme example, long snapper.
For instance, look at the Steelers. Alan Faneca may well be the best guard in the NFL. Ben Roethlisberger is merely a good, but not great (yet, anyway), QB. Nonetheless, Roethlisberger rightly is viewed as more important to the Steelers’ success than Faneca.
I’ve heard some people say that Troy Aikman shouldn’t be in the Hall of Fame but that Larry Allen is a no brainer for enshrinement. Certainly Allen has been a better guard than Aikman was a QB. But as good as Allen is, does anyone honestly believe that he made a greater contribution to the success of the Cowboys than Aikman did? Certainly a very good case can be made for the Cowboys’ line as a whole being more important than Aikman, but not for any one individual. I know that Allen was there for only one of the Super Bowl years, so it’s a bit of an unfair comparison, but I think you get the point.
Good QBs get more glory than good players at other positions in part because they deserve more glory than good players at other positions.
:: CA — 8/3/2006 @ 3:43 pm
Wow a lot of posts here….
I am looking for some media-related help: In the past few weeks I have read a lot about Edgerrin James, whom I assume would be headed to Canton if he has three more decent years. The problem for me is, he’s saying things to his new AZ teammates like “Don’t mess up my hall of fame career.”
Crap, man, you were always a great team player. With quotes like “I’m a baller, I play ball, I do whatever the coach asks me to do,” you really won me over. Now asking your new teammates to protect your Canton credentials…. it’s just so tacky.
Anybody else care to weigh in on Edge’s chances? I think he still