In honor of the "Bledsoe To Be Released" thread that's raging out of control, I wanted to post another thread and ask people what they think qualifies people for Hall of Famer status. To me, a Hall of Famer is/has: - Someone who is considered one of the best (top 4 or 5) at his position frequently throughout his career. - Someone who is a gamebreaker - Someone who is feared and/or highly regarded by their opponents - Someone who single-handedly wins games for their team/carries their team - Someone who makes an opponent alter their gameplan to account for their play Things that help: - Championships - Pro Bowls (see "considered the best" above) - Statistical records What do you guys think qualifies someone to be a hall of famer?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pack Attack)</div><div class='quotemain'>In honor of the "Bledsoe To Be Released" thread that's raging out of control, I wanted to post another thread and ask people what they think qualifies people for Hall of Famer status. To me, a Hall of Famer is/has: - Someone who is considered one of the best (top 4 or 5) at his position frequently throughout his career. - Someone who is a gamebreaker - Someone who is feared and/or highly regarded by their opponents - Someone who single-handedly wins games for their team/carries their team - Someone who makes an opponent alter their gameplan to account for their play Things that help: - Championships - Pro Bowls (see "considered the best" above) - Statistical records What do you guys think qualifies someone to be a hall of famer?</div> I totally agree with that. To me the two ways to get in are: A: Winning, if you win a ton of games and Championships, you dont need the best stats. (i.e. Tom Brady, Bradshaw) Even if you get to the Super Bowl multiple times, and dont win, you can still qualify (i.e. Jim Kelly, Fran Tarkenton). B: Jaw Dropping stats (i.e. Marino, Barry Sanders). Basically, with only 5 people getting in each year, getting into the HOF is not easy. There have only been 22 Modern Era QB's in the HOF. It just shows how hard it is to get in, and it's left for the best in the game, the best of ALL TIME.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Eagles4Life)</div><div class='quotemain'>I totally agree with that. To me the two ways to get in are:.</div> At least you do this week. Who knows in a week or two you will claim you never said it, and say you stand by those words.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pack Attack)</div><div class='quotemain'>In honor of the "Bledsoe To Be Released" thread that's raging out of control, I wanted to post another thread and ask people what they think qualifies people for Hall of Famer status. To me, a Hall of Famer is/has: - Someone who is considered one of the best (top 4 or 5) at his position frequently throughout his career. - Someone who is a gamebreaker - Someone who is feared and/or highly regarded by their opponents - Someone who single-handedly wins games for their team/carries their team - Someone who makes an opponent alter their gameplan to account for their play Things that help: - Championships - Pro Bowls (see "considered the best" above) - Statistical records What do you guys think qualifies someone to be a hall of famer?</div> I agree with you on all of those points. Couldnt have said it better. Definately the things that make a true HOFer.
To me, a Hall of Famer is/has: - Someone who is considered one of the best (top 4 or 5) at his position frequently throughout his career. * I would say top 3 statistically, otherwise players who are in small markets and ignored by media would be ignored. For Ex: Mcnabb has never finished in the top 3 in any of the following categories - Yards, TDs. Testeverde did a couple times. The difference - Someone who is a gamebreaker * meaningless. Lost of players can break a game open but are not HOFers or even close. EX: Westbrook, dante hall. - Someone who is feared and/or highly regarded by their opponents * I assume you mean someone who has to be gameplanned for. No one in the NFL is scared of thier opponent. Thier are some afraid of failure(mcnabb) to the point it affects thier play. You are talking about a player like Moss, or deion or the opponents strategy is keyed on stopping/avoiding them. - Someone who single-handedly wins games for their team/carries their team * No one single handedly wins games for a team. So I am going to assume someone who is the main reason his team wins(25%) I dont think there is anyone even close to this. The only guy I can think of who could carry his team completely was Jim Brown. - Someone who makes an opponent alter their gameplan to account for their play * There are players who are gameplanned for(offense), and sucessfully shut down. Those players dont deserve HOF consideration. The ones who overcome that are the HOFers and they will have the stats. Things that help: - Championships I would say this makes a borderline guy a surefire, but it should not allow people without the numbers in (swann, namath) - Pro Bowls (see "considered the best" above) More of a popularity contest, if you are going to judge the players who are the best, see how they rank statistically over thier career vs thier peers, and how they rank all time. - Statistical records This is the only thing that should be considered for players in offensive skill position, and to a certain extent defensive. Here is how i think it should break down Offensive skill position: Stats vs era(50%) Stats vs all-time(40%) Championships(10%) Offensive Line: Stats of players the blocked for (20%) Stats of thier own(20%) Game Effect(40%) Championships(20%) Defensive: Stats vs Era(30%) Stats vs All-time(30%) Chamionship(10%) Dominance/game effect(30%) - Defensive players such as corners can be completely avoided, same with D-lineman. Only safeties and LBers cant be completely avoided. Stats pretty much paint the picture of how well someone played, the more tackles/yards/ints/tds they racked up the better they were then someone else or someone else would have racked up more. For example, their were probably 120 other QBs during the same time as testeverde, but only 2 or 3 racked up as many yrads, and thier have been 1000s during the history of the league but only 5 racked up more. The stats show he was one of the best in the league, their is no arguing, ig he wasnt that good he would not have started. It is a sucess driven league and no one is starting him so he can get to the HOF.
There is more to being an HOFer than just stats, your points on statistics are fine but Pack Attack is right on track of what it takes as well IMO anyway.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (JustBry07)</div><div class='quotemain'>There is more to being an HOFer than just stats, your points on statistics are fine but Pack Attack is right on track of what it takes as well IMO anyway.</div> The problem with judging people by perception, is that everyone has different perceptions of each player. For example. I am willing to bet every eagles fan on this site thinks Mcnabb is a HOFer based on his play. Most people think brady is cause he is winning super bowls. However, Brady's numbers blow Mcnabbs away in almost every category. He is so good and no one realizes it. Another Example. You probably think becuase of Vicks impact on the game that he is HOF type player. For every one person who percieves he is winning games, there is 2 others who think he is holding the falcons back. I just think you giving to much weight to hype and not enough weight to substance.
I see what you're saying. I'm sure the Eagles fans believe that about McNabb, no doubt. I dont think Vick is an HOF type player atleast not yet, maybe if he really improves then one day but as of now, No. I do believe that he is winning games and not holding them back though. The Falcons held losing records before he became a starter. When the games on the line he just seems to produce which ever way he can to get it done, arm or legs. Yes, stats play a huge part in being a HOFer thats true and you're right, but I still think theres other factors that should be involved in HOF selection. Could be wrong, but its just an opinion.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BearsFan1)</div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (JustBry07)</div><div class='quotemain'>There is more to being an HOFer than just stats, your points on statistics are fine but Pack Attack is right on track of what it takes as well IMO anyway.</div> The problem with judging people by perception, is that everyone has different perceptions of each player. For example. I am willing to bet every eagles fan on this site thinks Mcnabb is a HOFer based on his play. Most people think brady is cause he is winning super bowls. However, Brady's numbers blow Mcnabbs away in almost every category. He is so good and no one realizes it. Another Example. You probably think becuase of Vicks impact on the game that he is HOF type player. For every one person who percieves he is winning games, there is 2 others who think he is holding the falcons back. I just think you giving to much weight to hype and not enough weight to substance.</div> First of all, Brady's numbers do not blow away Mcnabb in every category, but that doesnt really matter. I dont think a player can be considered a HOF after only 6 years, Brady is a special case, with 3 Super Bowl wins and 2 Super Bowl MVP's, if he never plays another game I think he will make the HOF. Same cannot be said for McNabb, however if he has lets say 10 more years at the pace that he's going now, then I would say that most likely he will be very close to a HOF, he needs a Super Bowl win though.
I think HOF players should be a lot more subjective than stats. A players stats can easily be changed by the scheme a specific team is playing. A tight end may have much better stats in a two tight-end system. A running back will have better stats if the team focuses on ball control and solid offensive line play. Look at someone like Orlando Gary. When he played with Denver, his stats looked great. Where is he now? Stats are nothing more than recordings of what a player did, they will reflect a players accomplishments. However, solid stats does not make a player great. I think the strongest reason someone should be considered for the hall is what their overall impact on the game is/was. For example, Peyton Manning deserves to be considered for the hall in the future. Not because of his stats (although they do reflect how good he is), but how he is able to control a game and his pure ability. His impact on the game is unmistakeable. Players such as McNabb and Culpepper, although they will definitely go down in franchise history, need to make more of an impact on the league before they can be considered HOFers.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (vikingfan)</div><div class='quotemain'>I think HOF players should be a lot more subjective than stats. A players stats can easily be changed by the scheme a specific team is playing. A tight end may have much better stats in a two tight-end system. A running back will have better stats if the team focuses on ball control and solid offensive line play. Look at someone like Orlando Gary. When he played with Denver, his stats looked great. Where is he now? Stats are nothing more than recordings of what a player did, they will reflect a players accomplishments. However, solid stats does not make a player great. I think the strongest reason someone should be considered for the hall is what their overall impact on the game is/was. For example, Peyton Manning deserves to be considered for the hall in the future. Not because of his stats (although they do reflect how good he is), but how he is able to control a game and his pure ability. His impact on the game is unmistakeable. Players such as McNabb and Culpepper, although they will definitely go down in franchise history, need to make more of an impact on the league before they can be considered HOFers.</div> Orlando Gary was a great player, I wonder if he's related to Olandis Gary???
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (vikingfan)</div><div class='quotemain'>I think HOF players should be a lot more subjective than stats. A players stats can easily be changed by the scheme a specific team is playing. A tight end may have much better stats in a two tight-end system. A running back will have better stats if the team focuses on ball control and solid offensive line play. Look at someone like Orlando Gary. When he played with Denver, his stats looked great. Where is he now? Stats are nothing more than recordings of what a player did, they will reflect a players accomplishments. However, solid stats does not make a player great. I think the strongest reason someone should be considered for the hall is what their overall impact on the game is/was. For example, Peyton Manning deserves to be considered for the hall in the future. Not because of his stats (although they do reflect how good he is), but how he is able to control a game and his pure ability. His impact on the game is unmistakeable. Players such as McNabb and Culpepper, although they will definitely go down in franchise history, need to make more of an impact on the league before they can be considered HOFers.</div> Ok, system has an effect as does who you play with. However you have to know the system, and operate it correctly. The better players in the league have some control over what system they are in, for ex: Manning, insisting they keep tom moore as Coordinator when mora was fired. Bottom line though, an 8 yard run by a back in the run and shoot is just as valuble as an 8 yard run in the west coast. 8 yards is 8 yards. Great players overcome obstacles and produce. If a player only produces in a system, becuase of the system(Olandis Gary) then the team will usually try to replace him with someone better who will produce more in the system(Portis) Then that player will be sent somewhere else and exposed as a fraud.
Olandis Gary is a good example....if he played 15 years with the Broncos and accumulated say, 18,000 yards, is he not a HOFer because the Broncos know how to run the ball?....the whole point of the HOF is that you produced on a high level FOR A LONG TIME...."flash in the pan" type players that have success over a small sample space do not get in, but if you sustain success for a long time, that is a positive thing....Gary had one good year and was replaced by a better back, then that back was replaced by an even better back, one that is on a HOF tear....Portis has over 4000 yards in 3 years, thats a helluva tear, does that make him a HOFer? Nope, but if he sustains it for 10 years and accumulates 15,000, how could he be kept out? Regardless of who he plays for....
What about Terrell Davis? There are a lot of people who think he is hall worthy, despite the brevity of his career. Everyone defends Michael Irvin as a "career cut short by injury," but not many people stand up for TD...or Sterling Sharpe, for that matter.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pack Attack)</div><div class='quotemain'>What about Terrell Davis? There are a lot of people who think he is hall worthy, despite the brevity of his career. Everyone defends Michael Irvin as a "career cut short by injury," but not many people stand up for TD...or Sterling Sharpe, for that matter.</div> Irvin still had a great career before it was cut short, he had 700 receptions. I have seen TDs numbers, i think he is just short of being HOFer. Beef thinks he is a HOFer. I dont think he is going in on first ballot regardless. I dont know sharpe's numbers, i will look and measure his worthiness, though being a packer i will hold against him
how long do you think the HOF will snub Irvin for his drug abuse? I think he was a great WR and he should be in the HOF, but I think his drug use will keep him out for a little bit...
This was Irvin's first year of eligibility... I don't think they snubbed him. I just think Marino and Young deserved nods first. Irvin will get in within five years.
BearsFan1 - This was my Sterling Sharpe vs. Michael Irvin comparison from a thread about four months ago or so... You make the call... Sharpe has just as many TDs as Irvin and just as many Pro-Bowls in a much shorter career. Irvin, on the other hand, has more arrests and more Superbowl rings. Sterling Sharpe - 112 Career Games 595 Receptions 8,134 Yards 13.7 Yards Per Catch 65 Touchdowns 23 Rushes for 72 Yards 5 seasons of 1000+ yards receiving Five Pro-Bowls, Set the NFL Single Season Receptions record in 1992 with 108 receptions and broke his own record with 112 in 1993. Four of his Nine seasons he had 90+ catches and double digit TD catches. Michael Irvin - 159 Career Games 750 Receptions 11,904 Yards 15.9 Yards Per Catch 65 Touchdowns 6 Rushes for 6 Yards 7 seasons of 1000+ yards receiving Two of his Twelve seasons resulted in 90+ receptions. One season with double digit Touchdowns. Five Pro Bowls. NFL Record for 11 straight games with 100 yards receiving.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Pack Attack)</div><div class='quotemain'>BearsFan1 - This was my Sterling Sharpe vs. Michael Irvin comparison from a thread about four months ago or so... You make the call... Sharpe has just as many TDs as Irvin and just as many Pro-Bowls in a much shorter career. Irvin, on the other hand, has more arrests and more Superbowl rings. Sterling Sharpe - 112 Career Games 595 Receptions 8,134 Yards 13.7 Yards Per Catch 65 Touchdowns 23 Rushes for 72 Yards 5 seasons of 1000+ yards receiving Five Pro-Bowls, Set the NFL Single Season Receptions record in 1992 with 108 receptions and broke his own record with 112 in 1993. Four of his Nine seasons he had 90+ catches and double digit TD catches. Michael Irvin - 159 Career Games 750 Receptions 11,904 Yards 15.9 Yards Per Catch 65 Touchdowns 6 Rushes for 6 Yards 7 seasons of 1000+ yards receiving Two of his Twelve seasons resulted in 90+ receptions. One season with double digit Touchdowns. Five Pro Bowls. NFL Record for 11 straight games with 100 yards receiving.</div> Sharpe is definately close. As i referred to earlier in the thread I think a borderline guy, with titles gets pushed in, that is where i think irvin is. I think sharpe falls into that category, a lot closer to Irvin, but he has no titles to push him the extra bit. I would say he is 98% HOF worthy and Irvin is 94% the titles push Irvin the extra 6%
I happen to think Terrell Davis should get in....his career totals are very similar to Gale Sayers, who also had his career cut short....Davis was the best back in the league for a few years, which contributed to back-to-back titles, he broke the 2000 yard plateau as well....
