PDA

View Full Version : Who would you take out of the Hall of Fame?


Dam8610
07-24-2007, 08:06 PM
Inspired by the "Who is your Shocking Hall of Fame Pick?" thread, this thread instead allows you to (in your own hypothetical world of course) remove one player you think is entirely undeserving of the honor of being enshrined in Canton, but has already been enshrined.

My pick: Joe Namath. He's in for one reason, and one reason alone: "The Guarantee". If the Jets lose that game, Namath never even sniffs Canton, and I don't believe that one moment of greatness should outshine an entire career of mediocrity.

nfrillman
07-24-2007, 09:41 PM
Gayle Sayers

I know this may be a questionable pick. I have my reasons though. Sayers was unquestionably a great player, but there have been many great players (particularly RB's) that have not been admitted into The Hall for various reasons. The reason Sayers should not be in The Hall is because he simply did not have a long enough career and was injured far too often. Explain to me why Sayers is in The Hall while Terrell Davis is not. Roll the stats please.

Sayers............................... Rushing .............................Receiving
Year Team ....Games ..No..... Yds.... Avg.... TD .....No.... Yds.... Avg... TD
1965 Chicago ...14 ....166 .....867 ....5.2 ....14 ...... 29 ....507 ....17.5 ...6
1966 Chicago ...14 ....229 ....1231 ...5.4 .....8 ........34 ....447 ....13.1 ...2
1967 Chicago ...13 ....186 .....880 ....4.7 .....7........ 16 ....126 ....7.9 ....1
1968 Chicago ....9 ....138 .....856 .....6.2 .....2 ...... 15 ....117 .....7.8 ....0
1969 Chicago ...14 ....236 ....1032 ....4.4 ....8 ........17 ....116 .....6.8 ...0
1970 Chicago ....2 .....23 .......52 .....2.3 .....0 ........1 .....-6 ......-6 .....0
1971 Chicago ....2 .....13 .......38 .....2.9 .....0 ....... 0 ......0 ......-- ......0
Career ..........68 .....991 ...4956 ....5 .......39 .....112 ...1307 ....11.7... 9

Davis............................... Rushing .............................Receiving
1995 Denver ....14 ....237 ....1,117 ...4.7..... 7 .......49 ....367..... 7.5..... 1
1996 Denver ....16.... 345 ....1,538 ...4.5.... 13....... 36... 310 .....8.6 .....2
1997 Denver ....15 ....369 ....1,750... 4.7 ....15 ......42 ....287..... 6.8 .....0
1998 Denver ....16.... 392.... 2,008 ...5.1 ....21 ......25.... 217 .....8.7 .....2
1999 Denver .....4...... 67 .....211 .....3.1.... 2 .........3 .....26 ......8.7.... 0
2000 Denver .....5 ......78 .....282..... 3.6 ....2 ........2 ......4 ........2.0.... 0
2001 Denver ....11 ....167 .....701 .....4.2 ....0 .......12 .....69 ......5.8 .....0
Career ............81 ...1655.... 7607.... 4.6 ...60 ......169....1280.... 7.6 ....5

Davis- 7607 career rushing yards, 8887 total yards
Sayers- 4956 career rushing yards, 6263 total yards

Davis has played in more career games, Davis played in 72.3% of his teams games compared to Gayers playing in 69.4% of his teams games, 21 more rushing TDs, as well as more receptions.

I would have no problem with Sayers being in The Hall if Davis were in as well, but Sayers being in and Davis not being in shows an astonishing lack of consistency in the requirements to be in The Hall. The main problem is that sports writers are the only people who vote on it, Hello large media market biases. Besides that though, it needs to be determined whether The Hall requires being very good over a long period of time, amazing over a short period, or both, because having a little bit of each leaves many players being left out who have the same, if not better stats than others that are in.

skinzzfan25
07-24-2007, 11:08 PM
Art Monk:
224 career games
940 receptions (tied for 6th in NFL history)
12,721 receiving yards (11th in NFL history)
68 touchdowns
Three Pro Bowls
Five 1,000-yard seasons
Three Super Bowl victories (injured in his third) (zero touchdowns)


Class act of the league, not flashy, simple and humble.

Michael Irvin:
159 career games
750 receptions (tied for 20th in NFL history)
11,904 receiving yards (14th in NFL history)
65 touchdowns
Five Pro Bowls
Seven 1,000-yard seasons
Three Super Bowl victories (two touchdowns)

Showoff, crackhead, lower stats.

neko4
07-24-2007, 11:27 PM
Art Monk:
224 career games
940 receptions (tied for 6th in NFL history)
12,721 receiving yards (11th in NFL history)
68 touchdowns
Three Pro Bowls
Five 1,000-yard seasons
Three Super Bowl victories (injured in his third) (zero touchdowns)


Class act of the league, not flashy, simple and humble.

Michael Irvin:
159 career games
750 receptions (tied for 20th in NFL history)
11,904 receiving yards (14th in NFL history)
65 touchdowns
Five Pro Bowls
Seven 1,000-yard seasons
Three Super Bowl victories (two touchdowns)

Showoff, crackhead, lower stats.

Thank you!
Ive been wanting it to happen for 3 years now, but then the comitee put in Irvin

Shiver
07-24-2007, 11:30 PM
Art Monk:
224 career games
940 receptions (tied for 6th in NFL history)
12,721 receiving yards (11th in NFL history)
68 touchdowns
Three Pro Bowls
Five 1,000-yard seasons
Three Super Bowl victories (injured in his third) (zero touchdowns)


Class act of the league, not flashy, simple and humble.

Michael Irvin:
159 career games
750 receptions (tied for 20th in NFL history)
11,904 receiving yards (14th in NFL history)
65 touchdowns
Five Pro Bowls
Seven 1,000-yard seasons
Three Super Bowl victories (two touchdowns)

Showoff, crackhead, lower stats.

Those stats only reinforces that Irvin belongs in. He played sixty five fewer games, yet had almost as many yards and touchdowns, more pro bowls, more 1,000 yard seasons. Dominance > Longevity for the most part, in Hall of Fame discussions. That doesn't mean that one should be in, and Monk be out, but Irvin deserves it.

skinzzfan25
07-24-2007, 11:33 PM
Thank you!
Ive been wanting it to happen for 3 years now, but then the comitee put in Irvin

Chris Carter will get in before him too, rightfully so, he has better stats. They waited too long on Monk and now with these high powered offenses of the modern day, he's gonna have to wait till he's on that list of way old people to get in.

It's a shame :\

neko4
07-24-2007, 11:33 PM
Those stats only reinforces that Irvin belongs over Monk. He played sixty five fewer games, yet had almost as many yards and touchdowns, more pro bowls, more 1,000 yard seasons.

Dominance > Longevity for the most part, in Hall of Fame discussions.

But Irvin played with Aikman, Monk played with Theisman, Schroeder, Williams, and Rypien

Plus he sets a bad image

Shiver
07-25-2007, 12:14 AM
I personally think that both should be in.

PACKmanN
07-25-2007, 12:32 AM
Ok I have to ask this question. If Terrell Owens wins 1-2 superbowls before he retires does he make the Hall of Fame? He brought teams like the 49ers and Eagles to the superbowl and playoffs also put up extreme numbers. I'm asking this because of Michael Irvin making it into the Hall of Fame.

neko4
07-25-2007, 12:34 AM
I personally think that both should be in.

I agree with that, but Art shouldve been in first

Geo
07-25-2007, 01:36 AM
Gayle Sayers

I know this may be a questionable pick.
Now there's an understatement.

Those stats only reinforces that Irvin belongs in. He played sixty five fewer games, yet had almost as many yards and touchdowns, more pro bowls, more 1,000 yard seasons. Dominance > Longevity for the most part, in Hall of Fame discussions. That doesn't mean that one should be in, and Monk be out, but Irvin deserves it.
Plus Irvin was the emotional driving force of the Cowboys dynasty, relative to the players.

nfrillman
07-25-2007, 03:52 AM
Ok I have to ask this question. If Terrell Owens wins 1-2 superbowls before he retires does he make the Hall of Fame? He brought teams like the 49ers and Eagles to the superbowl and playoffs also put up extreme numbers. I'm asking this because of Michael Irvin making it into the Hall of Fame.

Based purely off of stats I would say he is a Hall of Famer right now, but I am pretty sure that stats are not the only thing the voters are told to consider. That is where Owens may come across some problems.

flave1969
07-25-2007, 05:02 AM
I have a real problem with the duo of Stallworth/Swann being in the Hall.

They were both drafted in 74 and operated as a duo for 9 seasons on the greatest Championship side in the 70's.

As a duo they had a combined for 635 catches for 10766 yards and 95 TD's from 1974 - 1982 in 224 games.

Monk/Clark in comparison over 8 seasons had 1090 catches 16114 yards and 99 TD's from 1985-1992 in 243 games.

If Monk/Clark were in I would have no problem with the Steeler duo being in simply because of their Superbowl exploits which is effectively the case.

BTW Michael Irvin thoroughly deserves too be in the Hall, he was amazing. I hate him but he deserved too get in. Not ahead of Monk but definately in.

Interesting stat lines

Clark 167 games 699 Receptions 10856 yards 65TD's 2 Rings
Irvin 159 games 750 Receptions 11904 yards 65TD's 3 Rings

If Gary Clark does not play in the USFL in 1984 he would be right up there with Michael Irvin

skinzzfan25
07-25-2007, 09:28 AM
I personally think that both should be in.

I agree that both should eventually be in also, just realistically speaking last year was Monks last year. Now he's going to have to go up against the Chris Carters and Jerry Rices, plus the modern day receivers like Harrison and others. Due to more powerful and pass happy offenses, Monk can't compete with their stats.

The people that vote players into the hall is the media. Monk was a douche to the media, and liked to keep matters within the organization. Irvin, was flamboyant and was a personality to the media during his playing days. Then later, he joined the media. Being that close to the media had to have helped Irvin a little...

Turtlepower
07-25-2007, 10:36 AM
I think Al Davis deserved to be in for his past success with the Raiders in the 70s, but should be taken out for what he has done with the Raiders recently and for giving Art Shell a coaching job...twice.

Man_Of_Steel
07-25-2007, 10:56 AM
Gayle Sayers

I know this may be a questionable pick. I have my reasons though. Sayers was unquestionably a great player, but there have been many great players (particularly RB's) that have not been admitted into The Hall for various reasons. The reason Sayers should not be in The Hall is because he simply did not have a long enough career and was injured far too often. Explain to me why Sayers is in The Hall while Terrell Davis is not. Roll the stats please.

Sayers............................... Rushing .............................Receiving
Year Team ....Games ..No..... Yds.... Avg.... TD .....No.... Yds.... Avg... TD
1965 Chicago ...14 ....166 .....867 ....5.2 ....14 ...... 29 ....507 ....17.5 ...6
1966 Chicago ...14 ....229 ....1231 ...5.4 .....8 ........34 ....447 ....13.1 ...2
1967 Chicago ...13 ....186 .....880 ....4.7 .....7........ 16 ....126 ....7.9 ....1
1968 Chicago ....9 ....138 .....856 .....6.2 .....2 ...... 15 ....117 .....7.8 ....0
1969 Chicago ...14 ....236 ....1032 ....4.4 ....8 ........17 ....116 .....6.8 ...0
1970 Chicago ....2 .....23 .......52 .....2.3 .....0 ........1 .....-6 ......-6 .....0
1971 Chicago ....2 .....13 .......38 .....2.9 .....0 ....... 0 ......0 ......-- ......0
Career ..........68 .....991 ...4956 ....5 .......39 .....112 ...1307 ....11.7... 9

Davis............................... Rushing .............................Receiving
1995 Denver ....14 ....237 ....1,117 ...4.7..... 7 .......49 ....367..... 7.5..... 1
1996 Denver ....16.... 345 ....1,538 ...4.5.... 13....... 36... 310 .....8.6 .....2
1997 Denver ....15 ....369 ....1,750... 4.7 ....15 ......42 ....287..... 6.8 .....0
1998 Denver ....16.... 392.... 2,008 ...5.1 ....21 ......25.... 217 .....8.7 .....2
1999 Denver .....4...... 67 .....211 .....3.1.... 2 .........3 .....26 ......8.7.... 0
2000 Denver .....5 ......78 .....282..... 3.6 ....2 ........2 ......4 ........2.0.... 0
2001 Denver ....11 ....167 .....701 .....4.2 ....0 .......12 .....69 ......5.8 .....0
Career ............81 ...1655.... 7607.... 4.6 ...60 ......169....1280.... 7.6 ....5

Davis- 7607 career rushing yards, 8887 total yards
Sayers- 4956 career rushing yards, 6263 total yards

Davis has played in more career games, Davis played in 72.3% of his teams games compared to Gayers playing in 69.4% of his teams games, 21 more rushing TDs, as well as more receptions.

I would have no problem with Sayers being in The Hall if Davis were in as well, but Sayers being in and Davis not being in shows an astonishing lack of consistency in the requirements to be in The Hall. The main problem is that sports writers are the only people who vote on it, Hello large media market biases. Besides that though, it needs to be determined whether The Hall requires being very good over a long period of time, amazing over a short period, or both, because having a little bit of each leaves many players being left out who have the same, if not better stats than others that are in.

Gale Sayers was one of the best talents the league had seen, Mario Lemieux the greatest hockey player of all time faced many injuries, that dosent take away from what he did on the ice just as you cant take away what Sayers did.

Mr. Stiller
07-25-2007, 10:57 AM
I have a real problem with the duo of Stallworth/Swann being in the Hall.

They were both drafted in 74 and operated as a duo for 9 seasons on the greatest Championship side in the 70's.

As a duo they had a combined for 635 catches for 10766 yards and 95 TD's from 1974 - 1982 in 224 games.

Monk/Clark in comparison over 8 seasons had 1090 catches 16114 yards and 99 TD's from 1985-1992 in 243 games.

If Monk/Clark were in I would have no problem with the Steeler duo being in simply because of their Superbowl exploits which is effectively the case.

BTW Michael Irvin thoroughly deserves too be in the Hall, he was amazing. I hate him but he deserved too get in. Not ahead of Monk but definately in.

Interesting stat lines

Clark 167 games 699 Receptions 10856 yards 65TD's 2 Rings
Irvin 159 games 750 Receptions 11904 yards 65TD's 3 Rings

If Gary Clark does not play in the USFL in 1984 he would be right up there with Michael Irvin


The NFL wasn't primarily a passing game, or didn't use it near as much until halfway through Stallworth/Swann's career. They put those #'s up Pre-pass happy NFL.

Man_Of_Steel
07-25-2007, 11:01 AM
Ok I have to ask this question. If Terrell Owens wins 1-2 superbowls before he retires does he make the Hall of Fame? He brought teams like the 49ers and Eagles to the superbowl and playoffs also put up extreme numbers. I'm asking this because of Michael Irvin making it into the Hall of Fame.

TO winning a Superbowl would make him a lock however I dont think he needs to, hes been on an elite level for so long.

BigDawg819
07-25-2007, 11:02 AM
Gayle Sayers

I know this may be a questionable pick. I have my reasons though. Sayers was unquestionably a great player, but there have been many great players (particularly RB's) that have not been admitted into The Hall for various reasons. The reason Sayers should not be in The Hall is because he simply did not have a long enough career and was injured far too often. Explain to me why Sayers is in The Hall while Terrell Davis is not. Roll the stats please.

Sayers............................... Rushing .............................Receiving
Year Team ....Games ..No..... Yds.... Avg.... TD .....No.... Yds.... Avg... TD
1965 Chicago ...14 ....166 .....867 ....5.2 ....14 ...... 29 ....507 ....17.5 ...6
1966 Chicago ...14 ....229 ....1231 ...5.4 .....8 ........34 ....447 ....13.1 ...2
1967 Chicago ...13 ....186 .....880 ....4.7 .....7........ 16 ....126 ....7.9 ....1
1968 Chicago ....9 ....138 .....856 .....6.2 .....2 ...... 15 ....117 .....7.8 ....0
1969 Chicago ...14 ....236 ....1032 ....4.4 ....8 ........17 ....116 .....6.8 ...0
1970 Chicago ....2 .....23 .......52 .....2.3 .....0 ........1 .....-6 ......-6 .....0
1971 Chicago ....2 .....13 .......38 .....2.9 .....0 ....... 0 ......0 ......-- ......0
Career ..........68 .....991 ...4956 ....5 .......39 .....112 ...1307 ....11.7... 9

Davis............................... Rushing .............................Receiving
1995 Denver ....14 ....237 ....1,117 ...4.7..... 7 .......49 ....367..... 7.5..... 1
1996 Denver ....16.... 345 ....1,538 ...4.5.... 13....... 36... 310 .....8.6 .....2
1997 Denver ....15 ....369 ....1,750... 4.7 ....15 ......42 ....287..... 6.8 .....0
1998 Denver ....16.... 392.... 2,008 ...5.1 ....21 ......25.... 217 .....8.7 .....2
1999 Denver .....4...... 67 .....211 .....3.1.... 2 .........3 .....26 ......8.7.... 0
2000 Denver .....5 ......78 .....282..... 3.6 ....2 ........2 ......4 ........2.0.... 0
2001 Denver ....11 ....167 .....701 .....4.2 ....0 .......12 .....69 ......5.8 .....0
Career ............81 ...1655.... 7607.... 4.6 ...60 ......169....1280.... 7.6 ....5

Davis- 7607 career rushing yards, 8887 total yards
Sayers- 4956 career rushing yards, 6263 total yards

Davis has played in more career games, Davis played in 72.3% of his teams games compared to Gayers playing in 69.4% of his teams games, 21 more rushing TDs, as well as more receptions.

I would have no problem with Sayers being in The Hall if Davis were in as well, but Sayers being in and Davis not being in shows an astonishing lack of consistency in the requirements to be in The Hall. The main problem is that sports writers are the only people who vote on it, Hello large media market biases. Besides that though, it needs to be determined whether The Hall requires being very good over a long period of time, amazing over a short period, or both, because having a little bit of each leaves many players being left out who have the same, if not better stats than others that are in.

Obviously you are not a student of the game. Gale Sayers may not have had a long career, but for what he did in his brief career was nothing short of outstanding. In his day he was the Barry Sanders or Reggie Bush of his time and at those times his exploits were unheard of my any man regardless of color. His impact on the game was astronomical and his numbers got him in and rightfully so.

flave1969
07-26-2007, 02:42 PM
The NFL wasn't primarily a passing game, or didn't use it near as much until halfway through Stallworth/Swann's career. They put those #'s up Pre-pass happy NFL.

So did Charlie Joiner, Charley Taylor, Fred Biletnikoff and a whole host of others that put real perspective on where these guys belong.

nfrillman
07-26-2007, 06:13 PM
Obviously you are not a student of the game. Gale Sayers may not have had a long career, but for what he did in his brief career was nothing short of outstanding. In his day he was the Barry Sanders or Reggie Bush of his time and at those times his exploits were unheard of my any man regardless of color. His impact on the game was astronomical and his numbers got him in and rightfully so.

I know his exploits were amazing, but you cannot tell me that Terrell Davis' short career was nothing short of outstanding. I am basing this mostly on the fact I want a level of consistency in the rulings of The Hall. One player that dominated over a short stretch should not be allowed in if another player who also dominated over a short stretch is left out. If we are going to start talking about their impact on the game then I can see the argument, but from a statistical standpoint, he should not be in if Davis is not in.

As for the previous mention of Mario Lemiuex, that is a pretty weak comparison. Sure he had injury issues and obviously the Hodjkins thing, but he is still widely considered as one of the top 5 players of all time, top 10 in goals, top 10 in assists, top 10 in points, 2nd all time in points per game, and 2nd all time in goals per game. Those are statistical achievements that Sayers cannot come close to comparing to.

Paul
07-26-2007, 07:05 PM
How do these Hall of Fame Threads alway end up with Skins fans complaining about the Monk vs. Irvin thing? Yes I agree Monk deserves to be in the HOF, but to use that to invalidate Irvin's induction is unfair. What does it have to do with anything? Two different careers and two different decades. And I don't feel the need to validate Irvin's place in the HOF, as I see it as pointless. But I will say if Irvin wasn't with us, I doubt the Boy's would have been as successful as they were in that dynasty era. He had the stats and TD's, but most importantly he had the voice. He was the leader and heart. Not Jimmy, Emmitt or Troy, It was Michael.

flave1969
07-27-2007, 05:28 AM
How do these Hall of Fame Threads alway end up with Skins fans complaining about the Monk vs. Irvin thing? Yes I agree Monk deserves to be in the HOF, but to use that to invalidate Irvin's induction is unfair. What does it have to do with anything? Two different careers and two different decades. And I don't feel the need to validate Irvin's place in the HOF, as I see it as pointless. But I will say if Irvin wasn't with us, I doubt the Boy's would have been as successful as they were in that dynasty era. He had the stats and TD's, but most importantly he had the voice. He was the leader and heart. Not Jimmy, Emmitt or Troy, It was Michael.


I am a Redskins fan and agree that Irvin deserves too be in and this should not degenerate into the argument it always does.

I think it grates us because there is supposed too be a natural order of things in the process.

Every single receiver who broke the career record went into the Hall without fail. Others who were great in one aspect have gone in (Lofton for instance).
Stallworth/Swann are another example in basically for what they did in the Bowls, you cannot tell me their impact on the game was greater than that of Bob Hayes. Or that they were better than Harold Carmichael and Stanley Morgan as receivers.

You know in 1992 when Monk broke the record he was one of only 2 players in the whole history of the NFL with 800 plus catches. Now there are 17 (14 of whom played the entire 90's or beyond.

There were just 8 players with 10000 plus receiving yards, now it stands at 27 players.

Monk was faster to 500, 600, 700 and 800 receptions than every player in the Hall of Fame.

The danger is that he will be forgotten. It is now 11 years since he retired and the passing game of the 90's and 00's dilutes what the players of the 80's did.

neko4
07-27-2007, 05:57 AM
Fritz Pollard says hi to Art

bearsfan_51
07-28-2007, 11:14 AM
I don't think Monk or Irvin deserve to be in.

But I digress....honestly I would take out a lot of players, but I'm more stringent than most. Of the 5 inductees, the only one I agree with is Thurman Thomas. This is one of the weakest classes I would ever see.

As for the Gayle Sayers argument, as a Bears fan, I don't totally disagree with you. I think he gets in based on overwhelming ability as opposed to career stats, but I understand what you're saying.

flave1969
07-28-2007, 11:29 AM
I don't think Monk or Irvin deserve to be in.

.

So was Largent the last deserving receiver to go in and who should be the next one?

yourfavestoner
07-28-2007, 03:16 PM
I think Namath should be in simply for the fact that you can't tell the story of the NFL without him. He's an icon in terms of NFL history.

doingthisinsteadofwork
07-28-2007, 03:39 PM
I think Al Davis deserved to be in for his past success with the Raiders in the 70s, but should be taken out for what he has done with the Raiders recently and for giving Art Shell a coaching job...twice.Yeah your right that first time around when Shell had a winning record took them to the playoffs.Al shouldnt have hired him the first time.I guess him also bringing them to the SB a couple of years ago was terrible to.

BigDawg819
07-28-2007, 03:42 PM
Yeah your right that first time around when Shell had a winning record took them to the playoffs.Al shouldnt have hired him the first time.I guess him also bringing them to the SB a couple of years ago was terrible to.

That was Bill Callahan who coached them in the Super Bowl against the Bucs' and it was basically Jon Gruden's team and offense.

doingthisinsteadofwork
07-28-2007, 03:44 PM
That was Bill Callahan who coached them in the Super Bowl against the Bucs' and it was basically Jon Gruden's team and offense.
Yes but it was Al Davis who hired Gruden.

BigDawg819
07-28-2007, 03:45 PM
Yes but it was Al Davis who hired Gruden.

Yeah but your post I corrected was implying Art Shell took them to the Super Bowl which is false.

doingthisinsteadofwork
07-28-2007, 04:06 PM
Yeah but your post I corrected was implying Art Shell took them to the Super Bowl which is false.Oh.I ddint mean that.I was talking about Shells first time as a HC and that was succesful for a period of time.THen I switched to the SB a couple of years ago.

keylime_5
07-28-2007, 05:01 PM
Gayle Sayers

I know this may be a questionable pick. I have my reasons though. Sayers was unquestionably a great player, but there have been many great players (particularly RB's) that have not been admitted into The Hall for various reasons. The reason Sayers should not be in The Hall is because he simply did not have a long enough career and was injured far too often. Explain to me why Sayers is in The Hall while Terrell Davis is not. Roll the stats please.

Sayers............................... Rushing .............................Receiving
Year Team ....Games ..No..... Yds.... Avg.... TD .....No.... Yds.... Avg... TD
1965 Chicago ...14 ....166 .....867 ....5.2 ....14 ...... 29 ....507 ....17.5 ...6
1966 Chicago ...14 ....229 ....1231 ...5.4 .....8 ........34 ....447 ....13.1 ...2
1967 Chicago ...13 ....186 .....880 ....4.7 .....7........ 16 ....126 ....7.9 ....1
1968 Chicago ....9 ....138 .....856 .....6.2 .....2 ...... 15 ....117 .....7.8 ....0
1969 Chicago ...14 ....236 ....1032 ....4.4 ....8 ........17 ....116 .....6.8 ...0
1970 Chicago ....2 .....23 .......52 .....2.3 .....0 ........1 .....-6 ......-6 .....0
1971 Chicago ....2 .....13 .......38 .....2.9 .....0 ....... 0 ......0 ......-- ......0
Career ..........68 .....991 ...4956 ....5 .......39 .....112 ...1307 ....11.7... 9

Davis............................... Rushing .............................Receiving
1995 Denver ....14 ....237 ....1,117 ...4.7..... 7 .......49 ....367..... 7.5..... 1
1996 Denver ....16.... 345 ....1,538 ...4.5.... 13....... 36... 310 .....8.6 .....2
1997 Denver ....15 ....369 ....1,750... 4.7 ....15 ......42 ....287..... 6.8 .....0
1998 Denver ....16.... 392.... 2,008 ...5.1 ....21 ......25.... 217 .....8.7 .....2
1999 Denver .....4...... 67 .....211 .....3.1.... 2 .........3 .....26 ......8.7.... 0
2000 Denver .....5 ......78 .....282..... 3.6 ....2 ........2 ......4 ........2.0.... 0
2001 Denver ....11 ....167 .....701 .....4.2 ....0 .......12 .....69 ......5.8 .....0
Career ............81 ...1655.... 7607.... 4.6 ...60 ......169....1280.... 7.6 ....5

Davis- 7607 career rushing yards, 8887 total yards
Sayers- 4956 career rushing yards, 6263 total yards

Davis has played in more career games, Davis played in 72.3% of his teams games compared to Gayers playing in 69.4% of his teams games, 21 more rushing TDs, as well as more receptions.

I would have no problem with Sayers being in The Hall if Davis were in as well, but Sayers being in and Davis not being in shows an astonishing lack of consistency in the requirements to be in The Hall. The main problem is that sports writers are the only people who vote on it, Hello large media market biases. Besides that though, it needs to be determined whether The Hall requires being very good over a long period of time, amazing over a short period, or both, because having a little bit of each leaves many players being left out who have the same, if not better stats than others that are in.

Sayers had a higher ypc and wasn't in a system that produced 1000 yard rushers out of RBs with average talent. Also keep in mind that Sayers played in 14 game seasons, not 16 game seasons, and also Sayers had about 700 less carries than Davis. Sayers also beat out Jim Brown for an MVP trophy once I think, a remarkable feat. And yes, stats aren't everything in football like they are in baseball, Sayers' incredible talent are more than enough reason to put him in the hall even though he didn't produce like E.Smith or W.Payton for a long career. Sayers is probably one of the 5 best backs ever to suit up. But no knock on you really, this is supposed to be a thread that kind of has shocking suggestions. Not many people, if any at all, who are in the hall don't belong. I for one think T.Davis should be in over some guys (say Curtis Martin for instance) despite stats.

If I had to take someone out, It'd probably be either Joe Namath or Lynn Swann (don't ask why, don't get me started).

awfullyquiet
07-30-2007, 05:04 AM
but as a hindsight. art shell IS in the hall of fame. funny that.
amazing on how an OT can produce an offence that sucked so badly as a coach. funny how these coaching things work.

Shiver
07-30-2007, 05:18 AM
I have thought about this and I have come up with my answer: Lynn Swan. Putting him in the Hall of Fame is tantamount to putting Deion Branch in. He had excellent individual plays in the Super Bowl, sure. That should not be the sole factor in making the Hall of Fame.

Art Monk > Lynn Swan any day

P-L
07-30-2007, 06:58 AM
I have thought about this and I have come up with my answer: Lynn Swan. Putting him in the Hall of Fame is tantamount to putting Deion Branch in. He had excellent individual plays in the Super Bowl, sure. That should not be the sole factor in making the Hall of Fame.

Art Monk > Lynn Swan any day
Well, I think the only people that actually think Swann deserves to be in are Steelers fans.

Career stats:
336 catches, 5462 yards, 51 TD

Single season average:
37 catches, 606 yards, 6 TD

He never had more than 880 yards in a season or more than 11 TD. Aside from the 1975 and 1978 Super Bowls his playoff stats really weren't anything special.

nobodyinparticular
07-30-2007, 11:00 AM
I have thought about this and I have come up with my answer: Lynn Swan. Putting him in the Hall of Fame is tantamount to putting Deion Branch in. He had excellent individual plays in the Super Bowl, sure. That should not be the sole factor in making the Hall of Fame.

Art Monk > Lynn Swan any day

Beautiful. Absolutely beautiful. Thank you for taking the words right out of my mouth.

bearsfan_51
07-30-2007, 01:50 PM
So was Largent the last deserving receiver to go in and who should be the next one?
Without looking I'd say John Stallworth was the last one to get in that deserved it and the next are obviously Chris Carter and Jerry Rice. That's an easy one.

leroyisgod
07-30-2007, 03:33 PM
Art Monk:
224 career games
940 receptions (tied for 6th in NFL history)
12,721 receiving yards (11th in NFL history)
68 touchdowns
Three Pro Bowls
Five 1,000-yard seasons
Three Super Bowl victories (injured in his third) (zero touchdowns)


Class act of the league, not flashy, simple and humble.

Michael Irvin:
159 career games
750 receptions (tied for 20th in NFL history)
11,904 receiving yards (14th in NFL history)
65 touchdowns
Five Pro Bowls
Seven 1,000-yard seasons
Three Super Bowl victories (two touchdowns)

Showoff, crackhead, lower stats.

Go figure, a Redskins fan complaining about Art Monk again.

Ewing
07-30-2007, 03:51 PM
Gale Sayers was one of the best talents the league had seen, Mario Lemieux the greatest hockey player of all time faced many injuries, that dosent take away from what he did on the ice just as you cant take away what Sayers did.

Is that why his jersey number is retired for every team and they bypassed the three year waiting period to induct him in the Hall Of Fame? Oh yeah, that's Wayne Gretzky, the guy who won eight straight MVP's and retired holding 61 different records.

Hines
07-30-2007, 04:07 PM
do you guys think jerome should get in?

Ewing
07-30-2007, 04:44 PM
Lynn Swann is the possibly the most rawly talented receiver of all-time. He's the wide reciever version of Gale Sayers. A reason he didn't put up incredible numbers is because he had Franco Harris in the backfield and Stallworth beside him. Had Swann been the sole target on a team he would have broken a ton of records. He gets in on talent and clutch plays alone.

Shiver
07-30-2007, 04:55 PM
do you guys think jerome should get in?

I don't, but I'm more strict than others. I think that to make the Hall of Fame you need to be at the top of your position at least once.

Shiver
07-30-2007, 04:58 PM
Lynn Swann is the possibly the most rawly talented receiver of all-time. He's the wide reciever version of Gale Sayers. A reason he didn't put up incredible numbers is because he had Franco Harris in the backfield and Stallworth beside him. Had Swann been the sole target on a team he would have broken a ton of records. He gets in on talent and clutch plays alone.

Gale Sayers' dominance and athleticism transcended the game. They don't look great now, but they were dominant in his era. He also had injuries snuff out his prime. You cannot apply the same tag to Swann. Lynn Swann made the hall of fame only for his clutch Super Bowl performances; however, you should put Deion Branch in there for that as well.

SuperMcGee
07-30-2007, 05:00 PM
Is that why his jersey number is retired for every team and they bypassed the three year waiting period to induct him in the Hall Of Fame? Oh yeah, that's Wayne Gretzky, the guy who won eight straight MVP's and retired holding 61 different records.

Actually, they did waive the three year waiting period to induct Mario into the HOF.

Ewing
07-30-2007, 05:01 PM
I don't, but I'm more strict than others. I think that to make the Hall of Fame you need to be at the top of your position at least once.

The debate in the NFL over the past six years is who is the best quarterback, Manning or Brady. Do you mean to tell me that guy who you don't think is the best between those two, doesn't get in the Hall Of Fame by your standards?

Ewing
07-30-2007, 05:02 PM
Actually, they did waive the three year waiting period to induct Mario into the HOF.

Doesn't matter, Mario isn't even close to Gretzky; nobody is.

Shiver
07-30-2007, 05:05 PM
The debate in the NFL over the past six years is who is the best quarterback, Manning or Brady. Do you mean to tell me that guy who you don't think is the best between those two, doesn't get in the Hall Of Fame by your standards?

My idea of "top" that isn't inclusive of the #1 position. It's too subjective to quantify it as such. Was Jerome Bettis (or Curtis Martin for that matter) ever considered an elite RB? The answer is no. If they didn't have longevity no one would ever consider them great players. As for the QB position: Brady, Manning, Favre are the only ones who should make it from this era.

Ewing
07-30-2007, 05:12 PM
As for the QB position: Brady, Manning, Favre are the only ones who should make it from this era.

What about Ryan Leaf?

Shiver
07-31-2007, 12:56 PM
What about Ryan Leaf?


You know what? That's a good idea. Canton should open the new Hall of Infamy, as an extension of the Hall of Fame.

Hines
07-31-2007, 01:19 PM
i think jerome should be in it because i mean he is a top 5 rusher of all time and he does have a ring and thats a main factor for it...just like i believe cowher will be in when he retires for good

yourfavestoner
08-03-2007, 11:59 AM
Some food for thought...

John from Jacksonville: You often mention that postseason play is one of your criteria for entry to the Hall of Fame. Is the postseason even more important for a coach?
Vic: It’s important. I don’t care if it’s for players or coaches, postseason performance, in my opinion, is a major measuring stick for evaluating players’ and coaches’ careers. There are exceptions, of course. Some guys play their whole careers for bad teams and don’t see much postseason action. Barry Sanders kind of fits into that category. For the guys who have played a lot of postseason games, however, I judge them in a big way on what they’ve done in the postseason. Take a guy who’s played the equivalent or near equivalent of a whole season in the postseason. Now compare his stats from the postseason to his regular seasons. I’ll use two guys – Michael Irvin and Lynn Swann – as examples, but there are a lot more of them I could use. Irvin’s and Swann’s postseasons are as good as their best regular seasons. In other words, when the light was shining brightest, the games were the biggest and the competition was the toughest, they played at their highest level. That, in my opinion, is a Hall of Famer. The same goes for coaches.

http://jaguars.com/news/article.aspx?id=6183

ny10804
08-03-2007, 12:08 PM
Is that why his jersey number is retired for every team and they bypassed the three year waiting period to induct him in the Hall Of Fame? Oh yeah, that's Wayne Gretzky, the guy who won eight straight MVP's and retired holding 61 different records.

Man of Steel, your rebuttal please.

:)

boknows34
08-05-2007, 12:38 PM
Dr Z says Doak Walker is the weakest Hall of Famer so I decided to look up his HOF profile. Walker never rushed for more the 400 yards in a season.

http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/member.jsp?player_id=223

Six seasons, only 1,520 yards rushing, 2,539 receiving and was 49-87 in FGs. Walker also punted and played DB. He was a jack of all trades, master of none.

neko4
08-05-2007, 12:40 PM
Dr Z says Doak Walker is the weakest Hall of Famer so I decided to look up his HOF profile. Walker never rushed for more the 400 yards in a season.

http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/member.jsp?player_id=223

Six seasons, only 1,520 yards rushing, 2,539 receiving and was 49-87 in FGs. Walker also punted and played DB. He was a jack of all trades, master of none.

And QB, and he basically was the reason DET, was good back in the 50's

BigDawg819
08-05-2007, 12:40 PM
Dr Z says Doak Walker is the weakest Hall of Famer so I decided to look up his HOF profile. Walker never rushed for more the 400 yards in a season.

http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/member.jsp?player_id=223

Six seasons, only 1,520 yards rushing, 2,539 receiving and was 49-87 in FGs. Walker also punted and played DB. He was a jack of all trades, master of none.

Doak actually made the Detroit Lions winners and more importantly champions. That alone qualifies you as a Hall of Famer. :D

neko4
08-05-2007, 12:42 PM
You know what? That's a good idea. Canton should open the new Hall of Infamy, as an extension of the Hall of Fame.

Ryan Leaf
Tony Mandarich
Keyshawn Johnson

cardsalltheway
08-05-2007, 01:44 PM
Ryan Leaf
Tony Mandarich
Keyshawn Johnson

Why Keyshawn? He had a very good career.

BigDawg819
08-05-2007, 01:50 PM
Why Keyshawn? He had a very good career.

People just love to hate on Keyshawn. Besides if what would the criteria be for this Hall of Infamy? If its off field incidents, then Michael Irvin and Lawrence Taylor would certainly be in it.

scottyboy
08-05-2007, 01:56 PM
i know this is probably a major reach here, but what about Amani Toomer? im not saying this out of homerism but compare his stats with some other WR's in the HOF, and he's not that far off, plus he's got at least 1 more year to add to those stats. granted he doesnt have the rings, but his stats are right up there with Swann. I know he wont get in, just want your thoughts

BigDawg819
08-05-2007, 02:01 PM
i know this is probably a major reach here, but what about Amani Toomer? im not saying this out of homerism but compare his stats with some other WR's in the HOF, and he's not that far off, plus he's got at least 1 more year to add to those stats. granted he doesnt have the rings, but his stats are right up there with Swann. I know he wont get in, just want your thoughts

Toomer is a definite no, without question. He's been a quality receiver over the years but he's never been anything special. He's never dominated the game or been considered a top receiver. He's been in the league 11 years and only has 5 1,000 yard seasons and has never had double digit touchdowns. Toomer is a good receiver but not a Hall of Famer.

scottyboy
08-05-2007, 02:03 PM
Toomer is a definite no, without question. He's been a quality receiver over the years but he's never been anything special. He's never dominated the game or been considered a top receiver. He's been in the league 11 years and only has 5 1,000 yard seasons and has never had double digit touchdowns. Toomer is a good receiver but not a Hall of Famer.

thats what i thought, but dang, if he had QB's other than Dave Brown, Danny Kannel and Kerry Collins for the earlier parts of his career, he could've had a shot... :(

BigDawg819
08-05-2007, 02:07 PM
thats what i thought, but dang, if he had QB's other than Dave Brown, Danny Kannel and Kerry Collins for the earlier parts of his career, he could've had a shot... :(

Actually he wouldn't have had a shot considering his best years were with Kerry Collins as the QB. Again he's a good receiver, a gamer, possession guy, not afraid to go across the middle, but not a Hall of Famer.

scottyboy
08-05-2007, 02:09 PM
Actually he wouldn't have had a shot considering his best years were with Kerry Collins as the QB. Again he's a good receiver, a gamer, possession guy, not afraid to go across the middle, but not a Hall of Famer.

he'd be in the Hall of very good like so many other players haha

and the only reason he was good during the KC era was he was in his prime.

Mr. Stiller
08-05-2007, 02:14 PM
i know this is probably a major reach here, but what about Amani Toomer? im not saying this out of homerism but compare his stats with some other WR's in the HOF, and he's not that far off, plus he's got at least 1 more year to add to those stats. granted he doesnt have the rings, but his stats are right up there with Swann. I know he wont get in, just want your thoughts

People don't think Ward should be in but he's way outdone both Swann and Stallworth.

I think he's a borderline. The thing going for Hines is he has about 3-4 years left and a Superbowl Ring/MVP with him.

flave1969
08-05-2007, 02:57 PM
Lynn Swann is the possibly the most rawly talented receiver of all-time. He's the wide reciever version of Gale Sayers. A reason he didn't put up incredible numbers is because he had Franco Harris in the backfield and Stallworth beside him. Had Swann been the sole target on a team he would have broken a ton of records. He gets in on talent and clutch plays alone.

So you are saying that because Swann had Harris and Stallworth, they took plays away from him. You make an argument for Swann that is given no truck by those who vote against Monk. In fact this argument is used against Monk.

OK Art Monk, played with Riggins, Rogers, Byner and a host of others in probably the strongest power running team of the 80's. He also played alongside Charlie Brown, Gary Clark and Ricky Sanders (at the same time) and still had 888 receptions for 12026 yards and 65 TD's as a Redskin.

He also sits 7th on the all time post season receiving list. He played with skill players at all positions and still recorded those stats. Not to mention he also broke the season and career records in his career, as well as the consecutive games with a reception record

Mr. Stiller
08-05-2007, 02:59 PM
So you are saying that because Swann had Harris and Stallworth, they took plays away from him. You make an argument for Swann that is given no truck by those who vote against Monk. In fact this argument is used against Monk.

OK Art Monk, played with Riggins, Rogers, Byner and a host of others in probably the strongest power running team of the 80's. He also played alongside Charlie Brown, Gary Clark and Ricky Sanders (at the same time) and still had 888 receptions for 12026 yards and 65 TD's as a Redskin.

He also sits 7th on the all time post season receiving list. He played with skill players at all positions and still recorded those stats. Not to mention he also broke the season and career records in his career, as well as the consecutive games with a reception record

Swann played half of his career before the NFL made major rule changes that insisted on a more pass oriented offense.

Geo
08-05-2007, 03:53 PM
(I guess this is our Hall of Fame thread, so I'll post this here.)

Rick Gosselin, in his recent "From the 50" column/newsletter (http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/nwsltr/sports/fromthe50/stories/080107dnspofromthe50.cbd2be2f.html), wrote an excellent piece on the lack of defensive players in the Hall of Fame:

Hall of Fame needs more 'D'
12:08 PM CDT on Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Defense may win championships, but it doesn't win much support for the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

I'll be in Canton this weekend for the enshrinement of the Class of 2007: wide receiver Michael Irvin, running back Thurman Thomas, tight end Charlie Sanders, offensive linemen Gene Hickerson and Bruce Matthews and cornerback Roger Wehrli.

But forget the names and focus on the numbers. That's five offensive players, one defensive player.

There are now 249 members of the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Thirty-eight of them are coaches, owners and administrators. Another 47 came from the game's early era – players from the 1920s, '30s and '40s.

That leaves 164 players from the game's modern era. One hundred five of them are offensive players: centers, guards, tackles, tight ends, wide receivers, running backs and quarterbacks. There's also one kicker, Jan Stenerud, who was another offensive point producer.

That means only 58 defenders from the modern era are enshrined in Canton. That represents only 35.3 percent of the 164 modern-era inductees. Offensive players represent 64 percent of the modern-era Cantonites.

What's wrong with that picture?

Fifty percent of football is supposed to be defense. It's an even greater percentage of championship football. Thirty-five of the 41 Super Bowl champions ranked in the top 10 in defense. Only 33 of them ranked in the top 10 in offense.

Yet defensive players continue to be bypassed in the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

I'm a member of the Hall of Fame selection committee. In the last four years, we've enshrined five quarterbacks who played in the 1990s. Wehrli is the first cornerback we've enshrined since 1997 – and the last time he set foot on an NFL field was 1982.

We've inducted eight offensive linemen in the last seven years. We have not inducted any safeties during that same stretch.

Last year four pass rushers reached the penultimate cutdown to 11 for the Class of 2007: ends Fred Dean and Richard Dent and linebackers Derrick Thomas and Andre Tippett. But all were eliminated in the final voting cutdown to six.

Cornerback Dick LeBeau ranks seventh on the all-time interception list with 62 in a 14-year career. He has never been a finalist for the Hall of Fame.

Cornerback Emmitt Thomas ranks ninth on the all-time interception list with 58 in a 13-year career. He too has never been in the room to have his Hall of Fame candidacy discussed by the full selection committee – and both LeBeau and Thomas retired from the game in the 1970s.

I'm also a member of the seniors sub-committee for the Hall of Fame. The numbers there are even worse.

Since the establishment of a "senior" candidate in 1972, there have been 39 nominations. Twenty-eight have been offensive players, and there also have been five owners and coaches. That leaves six defensive nominees in 35 years – and former Green Bay Packers defensive tackle Henry Jordan was nominated twice.

The last time a defensive player was nominated as a senior candidate was linebacker Nick Buoniconti in 2001. Overall, we've nominated 13 offensive linemen as senior candidates – but we've never nominated a defensive back.

The process needs to be fixed. We the voters need to learn what NFL coaches figured out decades ago – defense wins championships. And defensive players need to be recognized in Canton for their contributions.

BigDawg819
08-05-2007, 03:55 PM
(I guess this is our Hall of Fame thread, so I'll post this here.)

Rick Gosselin, in his recent "From the 50" column/newsletter (http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/nwsltr/sports/fromthe50/stories/080107dnspofromthe50.cbd2be2f.html), wrote an excellent piece on the lack of defensive players in the Hall of Fame:

I saw that article and Peter King wrote a similar one as well and they're both right. Its uncomprehendable how few Defensive players are in the Hall. This is a travesty and a joke and needs to be rectified immediately.

flave1969
08-05-2007, 04:47 PM
Swann played half of his career before the NFL made major rule changes that insisted on a more pass oriented offense.

He played three seasons 74-76 before the rules changes of 1977. The first he played very little 1975 saw him make the Pro Bowl, 76 was a poor season by his standards. So including 1977 he played a further 6 seasons.

The thing is throughout the 80's enforcement of the pass interference laws brought in for the 1977 were not really enforced as initially planned. It wasn't until a review in 1992 that the Referees took stock and started to enact the rules as set out in 77.

I can name at least four receivers that I consider better than Swann who did not benefit from playing on the Steelers and are not in the Hall. Harold Carmichael, Bob Hayes, Drew Pearson and Cliff Branch. Then when you stand him against the greats of the 60's and 70's he pales in comparison. Take Biletnikoff, Charley Taylor, Bobby Mitchell even Charlie Joiner he just doesnt compare.

yourfavestoner
08-05-2007, 08:07 PM
For the people arguing against Swann, I'll quote myself again.

Some food for thought...

John from Jacksonville: You often mention that postseason play is one of your criteria for entry to the Hall of Fame. Is the postseason even more important for a coach?
Vic: It’s important. I don’t care if it’s for players or coaches, postseason performance, in my opinion, is a major measuring stick for evaluating players’ and coaches’ careers. There are exceptions, of course. Some guys play their whole careers for bad teams and don’t see much postseason action. Barry Sanders kind of fits into that category. For the guys who have played a lot of postseason games, however, I judge them in a big way on what they’ve done in the postseason. Take a guy who’s played the equivalent or near equivalent of a whole season in the postseason. Now compare his stats from the postseason to his regular seasons. I’ll use two guys – Michael Irvin and Lynn Swann – as examples, but there are a lot more of them I could use. Irvin’s and Swann’s postseasons are as good as their best regular seasons. In other words, when the light was shining brightest, the games were the biggest and the competition was the toughest, they played at their highest level. That, in my opinion, is a Hall of Famer. The same goes for coaches.

http://jaguars.com/news/article.aspx?id=6183

Really, the only argument people have against Swann are statistics. No, he did not put up dominating statistics. However, he was a dominant presence on the field for the Steelers. Hell, he ended with a career average 16.3 yards per catch.

Mr. Stiller
08-05-2007, 09:00 PM
For the people arguing against Swann, I'll quote myself again.



Really, the only argument people have against Swann are statistics. No, he did not put up dominating statistics. However, he was a dominant presence on the field for the Steelers. Hell, he ended with a career average 16.3 yards per catch.

I think John Stallworths was 17.8 YPC

nfrillman
08-05-2007, 11:31 PM
Really, the only argument people have against Swann are statistics. No, he did not put up dominating statistics. However, he was a dominant presence on the field for the Steelers. Hell, he ended with a career average 16.3 yards per catch.

Wow, you mean the only arguments against a player have to do with his performance on the field, playing the game. Wow, so unfair, a travesty of justice.

HerthaFootballFan
08-05-2007, 11:42 PM
Wow, you mean the only arguments against a player have to do with his performance on the field, playing the game. Wow, so unfair, a travesty of justice.

the whole point was his on the field performance aren't well represented by his statistics, on the field he was a much better player than his numbers show.

bearsfan_51
08-05-2007, 11:54 PM
Richard Dent should have gotten in like 5 years ago.

Namy
08-06-2007, 01:03 AM
Some food for thought...

John from Jacksonville: You often mention that postseason play is one of your criteria for entry to the Hall of Fame. Is the postseason even more important for a coach?
Vic: It’s important. I don’t care if it’s for players or coaches, postseason performance, in my opinion, is a major measuring stick for evaluating players’ and coaches’ careers. There are exceptions, of course. Some guys play their whole careers for bad teams and don’t see much postseason action. Barry Sanders kind of fits into that category. For the guys who have played a lot of postseason games, however, I judge them in a big way on what they’ve done in the postseason. Take a guy who’s played the equivalent or near equivalent of a whole season in the postseason. Now compare his stats from the postseason to his regular seasons. I’ll use two guys – Michael Irvin and Lynn Swann – as examples, but there are a lot more of them I could use. Irvin’s and Swann’s postseasons are as good as their best regular seasons. In other words, when the light was shining brightest, the games were the biggest and the competition was the toughest, they played at their highest level. That, in my opinion, is a Hall of Famer. The same goes for coaches.

http://jaguars.com/news/article.aspx?id=6183

Eh, but the thing is that Swann's regular season numbers are soo average that it's not that amazing that his post-season play is "as good" or "better" than his regular season numbers.

Talking about WR's... as a Bronco fan, I'm wondering what people would think about Rod Smith and his chances of the HoF.

Mr. Stiller
08-06-2007, 01:06 AM
I have a feeling Dermontti Dawson will either not get in because of the amount of Steelers in there, or it'll take a long time.

He was the best Center during his career. I hope he gets in soon.

Dam8610
08-06-2007, 02:28 AM
Talking about WR's... as a Bronco fan, I'm wondering what people would think about Rod Smith and his chances of the HoF.

If Art Monk can't get in, Rod Smith has very little chance, although he does have a "signature play" from Super Bowl XXXIII, so that might help him out. :rolleyes: