PDA

View Full Version : Don't put 'em in Canton? Too ***** late.....


DMWSackMachine
08-02-2007, 10:32 AM
Talk about jumping the gun, read this:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=halloffame/nfl21-30

Listed #21 on a group of players that are the absolute best that the NFL has to offer for the previous 8-10 years, I guess it doesn't matter that he has only played 2 of them.

This just blows my mind. Many other selections that are beyond defensible, as well.

Seymour in the top 10? Juniour Seau in the teens? Michael Strahan that low, with Dwight Freeney that high?

How do people this dumb get paid to do what most of us would do a better job of for free?

Eaglez.Fan
08-02-2007, 10:35 AM
Freeney over Champ.....

bigbluedefense
08-02-2007, 10:40 AM
I just threw up in my mouth a little

Paul
08-02-2007, 10:42 AM
Freeney over Champ.....

I didn't even read the article yet, but that has already got me preparing for the worst. That is ridiculous.

Smooth Criminal
08-02-2007, 10:48 AM
This list blows. They have players that have never played a down in the nfl headed for Canton already.

I just don't get how someone that has never played a down in the NFL could even possibily be on this list when a guy the Ben who has been to 2 AFC Championships and won a superbowl is already on the list of guys being left out. How can anyone already be left out. Any one of the young players on that list could have a great career and make the hall.

What a joke.

Ravens1991
08-02-2007, 10:48 AM
He has Brady Quinn on his odd man out thing.

cardsalltheway
08-02-2007, 10:49 AM
Are we sure this is serious? It is page two we're talking about here.

Paul
08-02-2007, 10:52 AM
Adrian Peterson is on the list. Adrian Peterson. Did I miss something?

neko4
08-02-2007, 11:08 AM
I cant wait to read this but its taking a century to load

DMWSackMachine
08-02-2007, 11:11 AM
I guess they are just trying to predict the 50 most likely players to make it who will be playing in the 2007 season.

You have to project young players, I suppose, but there shouldn't be a single player of less than 4 years in the top 30, and that's even stretching it a little.

If you look around, Shawne Merriman is the highest ranked young player on that list. That is fairly ridiculous. I don't think he's done much more in his first couple of years than Patrick Swilling did, and you never hear his name mentioned in HOF talks. It's just plain stupid, and to have him there over a guy like Brian Dawkins, who has had a long and prestigious career full of personal and team success, along with terrific statistics and media support....it's just inexplicable. And don't even get me started on Jason Taylor being that low.

neko4
08-02-2007, 11:24 AM
I ageered completly w/ the top 5
The next 5 my only problem was Seymour, who should be 10-20 spots down
Strahan shouldve probably been top10
Freeney is WAY to high at 16
I dont think Alexander's name is worth mentioning in the top 30 and Jones and Dawkins should be higher
Ed Reed >>>>>> Polamalu
Leinart, Vince, AJ, AD and CJ are worth being on the list

CC.SD
08-02-2007, 11:50 AM
Wow, I was going to jump in with something about how DMW is just being bitter about Merriman again, but that is seriously the worst list I've ever read.

Shane P. Hallam
08-02-2007, 11:51 AM
I guess they are just trying to predict the 50 most likely players to make it who will be playing in the 2007 season.

You have to project young players, I suppose, but there shouldn't be a single player of less than 4 years in the top 30, and that's even stretching it a little.

If you look around, Shawne Merriman is the highest ranked young player on that list. That is fairly ridiculous. I don't think he's done much more in his first couple of years than Patrick Swilling did, and you never hear his name mentioned in HOF talks. It's just plain stupid, and to have him there over a guy like Brian Dawkins, who has had a long and prestigious career full of personal and team success, along with terrific statistics and media support....it's just inexplicable. And don't even get me started on Jason Taylor being that low.



Someone got it. They are making PREDICTIONS. If you read what they said under Merriman, you will recognize they aren't like OMG HE IS NO DOUBT A HOF! It is that he has potential to be the sack leader in the NFL year after year and has shown HOF talent, and they def. predict he will be in. You have to READ it to get it.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
08-02-2007, 11:58 AM
That list is the worst thing I've ever seen. I have many, many gripes that I don't wanna get into right now.

CC.SD
08-02-2007, 12:02 PM
Someone got it. They are making PREDICTIONS. If you read what they said under Merriman, you will recognize they aren't like OMG HE IS NO DOUBT A HOF! It is that he has potential to be the sack leader in the NFL year after year and has shown HOF talent, and they def. predict he will be in. You have to READ it to get it.

Yeah, but that doesn't explain the rookies. Guys who haven't even played a down. Don't defend this piece of crap.

PoopSandwich
08-02-2007, 12:03 PM
That list is the worst thing I've ever seen. I have many, many gripes that I don't wanna get into right now.

So true... It seems like they just started to throw names out there later on.

Man_Of_Steel
08-02-2007, 12:11 PM
Thomas Neumann and Scott Symmes apparently do not wake up in the morning and piss excellence like some people I know.

How is Eli Manning even on the bubble?

Bills2083
08-02-2007, 12:26 PM
Where's Lee Evans? He should at least be at #50. AD hasn't played a down in the NFL, but Evans is one of the best, if not the best deep threat in the NFL. It's probably because we're a small market team...

bigbluedefense
08-02-2007, 12:48 PM
I guess they are just trying to predict the 50 most likely players to make it who will be playing in the 2007 season.

You have to project young players, I suppose, but there shouldn't be a single player of less than 4 years in the top 30, and that's even stretching it a little.

If you look around, Shawne Merriman is the highest ranked young player on that list. That is fairly ridiculous. I don't think he's done much more in his first couple of years than Patrick Swilling did, and you never hear his name mentioned in HOF talks. It's just plain stupid, and to have him there over a guy like Brian Dawkins, who has had a long and prestigious career full of personal and team success, along with terrific statistics and media support....it's just inexplicable. And don't even get me started on Jason Taylor being that low.

Thats pretty much why youre so angry about it. The fact that Merriman is getting so much love by the media. Hey, what can I say bro. He is one hell of a player. If he plays this year the same way he did last year, without any positive drug tests, I don't see how anyone can deny him being the biggest force on defense in the NFL.

doingthisinsteadofwork
08-02-2007, 12:57 PM
I can always count on ESPN to give me a laugh.
Seriously ESPN is a joke.ALl they do is focus on teams like the Yankees.

Go_Eagles77
08-02-2007, 01:03 PM
Vince Young already on over Donovan McNabb? wtf?

Shiver
08-02-2007, 01:27 PM
Where's Lee Evans? He should at least be at #50. AD hasn't played a down in the NFL, but Evans is one of the best, if not the best deep threat in the NFL. It's probably because we're a small market team...

Yeah, because Minnesota is such a media favorite...

Shiver
08-02-2007, 01:31 PM
I'm with JBond, people are whining too much about this.

Vikes99ej
08-02-2007, 01:41 PM
Where's Lee Evans? He should at least be at #50. AD hasn't played a down in the NFL, but Evans is one of the best, if not the best deep threat in the NFL. It's probably because we're a small market team...

Minnesota is the epitome of a small market.

I hope that thing was made just as a joke.

PackerLegend
08-02-2007, 03:51 PM
atleast they 100% got #1 right but that would be pretty hard to mess up.

Shane P. Hallam
08-02-2007, 03:54 PM
Yeah, but that doesn't explain the rookies. Guys who haven't even played a down. Don't defend this piece of crap.

Actually it does, they are PREDICTING the rookies. Basically, if you had the list the Top 50 players MOST LIKELY to end up in the HOF, you're gonna put some rookies on there I bet. Sure, you'd put McNabb and Brees too, but it's a good read.

ks_perfection
08-02-2007, 04:25 PM
The rating system isnt right. No way a players team success should be just as important as his stats.

BigDawg819
08-02-2007, 05:36 PM
I would be intrigued to see this list and the players that actually get in the Hall in the next 15-20 years.

JT Jag
08-02-2007, 06:15 PM
They should have cut it off at 30.

DeathbyStat
08-02-2007, 06:21 PM
Adrian Petterson and AJ Hawk....wow what retards

What percent of the list will actually make make?

About 1-5 % I guess

Cerni88
08-02-2007, 06:22 PM
I could really care less about this list but i think Olin Kreutz has more potential then a lot of people on there

DeathbyStat
08-02-2007, 06:25 PM
I could really care less about this list but i think Olin Kreutz has more potential then a lot of people on there

Your right another then Manning and Brady I wouldn't be shocked if the rest of the list didn't make the hall of fame. Sure there will be others but these are the only too locks.

And Farve I forgot about farve

Actually the top ten is pretty solid

11-20 gets dicey in some spots

soybean
08-02-2007, 06:36 PM
That list is the worst thing I've ever seen. I have many, many gripes that I don't wanna get into right now.

no cutler?

HoopsDemon12
08-02-2007, 07:00 PM
i had a nice laugh.. sorry guys... i was supposed to watch my grandpa and give him his medcine... he got out and published this... my bad

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
08-02-2007, 07:11 PM
no cutler?

Well if I had made the list, I wouldn't have had any 06 or 07 draftees on it. But them putting Leinart and Young on it means Cutler should have, at the very least, an odd man out mention. Especially considering he's shown he can do something the others haven't yet. Like throwing more TDs than INTs, for starters.

Also, I don't like how Mario is in odd man out, because hes one of the best DE prospects in recent years(better than Peppers) and to assume he won't win a championship and the Titans might is also wrong. The Saints might, though.

Also Jamarcus Russell, Mayock says "The best physical tools since Elway". That is not someone who should be written off like it's nothing.

ripdw27
08-02-2007, 07:19 PM
um im going to reserve my anger for a second... did anyone see champ bailey on there

Brent
08-02-2007, 07:19 PM
calvin johnson shouldnt even be on that list

ripdw27
08-02-2007, 07:22 PM
i cant believe that calvin johnson is in the top 50 when (has he even signed a contract??????) he hasnt even played a single SNAP?!??!?!? i wanna beat this guy over the head with a football cuz then thats gonna be the only football in his head... hes writing sports out of his ass this dumb monkey **** sucker jeezus

BigDawg819
08-02-2007, 07:43 PM
do you have any idea what the point of the article was, or did oyu just see other people complaining about the list and decided to join in?

We're going to take door number 2 Bob!

TheChampIsHere
08-02-2007, 08:33 PM
Id say you guys are taking this a little too serious. Beyond the obvious HOF candidates/locks, its just about what players we think have the POTENTIAL to make the HOF, and thats a pretty subjective thing and its hard to tell someone theyre wrong about something like that.

Philliez01
08-02-2007, 08:36 PM
Dammit, it's an effing projection. They are assuming the future, given Johnson's overall skillset; he does have the talent to be one. Will he? Who the F knows but it's just a projection. But I didn't see Reggie Wayne on there.

Smooth Criminal
08-02-2007, 09:12 PM
If I had to predict 50 players to go to Canton I wouldn't have a single rookie I don't think. I think we can come up with alot more certainty about players that have played for 6 or 7 years.

There is just way to high of a bust percentage to say that there is even a good chance of Russell, Johnson, or Peterson to make the Hall.

Dam8610
08-02-2007, 09:17 PM
The rating system isnt right. No way a players team success should be just as important as his stats.

Two words: Terry Bradshaw. Troy Aikman would qualify also, but even he's not as bad as Bradshaw.

duckseason
08-02-2007, 09:19 PM
If I had to predict 50 players to go to Canton I wouldn't have a single rookie I don't think. I think we can come up with alot more certainty about players that have played for 6 or 7 years.

There is just way to high of a bust percentage to say that there is even a good chance of Russell, Johnson, or Peterson to make the Hall.
The thing is, some of these youngsters will end up as HOFers. And 50 vets won't. So, you'd have to make a list of like 30 vets. The guy made the point that he was just trying to project every future HOF guy that was going to play this year. You have to include some rookies and 1 year guy's if you're going to attempt such a prognostication.

BigDawg819
08-02-2007, 09:29 PM
Two words: Terry Bradshaw. Troy Aikman would qualify also, but even he's not as bad as Bradshaw.

Try Lynn Swann, without the rings I don't think he's in.

Smooth Criminal
08-02-2007, 09:31 PM
The thing is, some of these youngsters will end up as HOFers. And 50 vets won't. So, you'd have to make a list of like 30 vets. The guy made the point that he was just trying to project every future HOF guy that was going to play this year. You have to include some rookies and 1 year guy's if you're going to attempt such a prognostication.

I guarentee if I made a list of 50 vets I could come up with more that will make the hall that what he has here.

Its easy to figure out really. A guy that has played at a high level for 5 or 6 years already stands a much better chance of making it than a guy like Leinart, Johnson, or Peterson that have all done nothing.

Smooth Criminal
08-02-2007, 09:33 PM
Dammit, it's an effing projection. They are assuming the future, given Johnson's overall skillset; he does have the talent to be one. Will he? Who the F knows but it's just a projection. But I didn't see Reggie Wayne on there.


If Andre Johnson gonna get in? I doubt it but he was a top reciever prospect with an awesome skill set.

Heres an even better one, Charles Rogers.

duckseason
08-02-2007, 09:34 PM
I guarentee if I made a list of 50 vets I could come up with more that will make the hall that what he has here.

Its easy to figure out really. A guy that has played at a high level for 5 or 6 years already stands a much better chance of making it than a guy like Leinart, Johnson, or Peterson that have all done nothing.
Yes, I understand that. My point is that in reality, 50 current vets will not end up as HOFers. Likewise, some youngsters will. If you're going to accurately predict which current players will end up in the HOF, you need to include some youngsters.

BigDawg819
08-02-2007, 09:35 PM
I guarentee if I made a list of 50 vets I could come up with more that will make the hall that what he has here.

Its easy to figure out really. A guy that has played at a high level for 5 or 6 years already stands a much better chance of making it than a guy like Leinart, Johnson, or Peterson that have all done nothing.

And yet that guy who has produced could battle injuries for the rest of his career and not make it into the Hall, whereas Leinart, Johnson, or Peterson could go on to dominate the league for the next decade and make it. Its a crap shoot when projection careers no matter what your criteria.

Smooth Criminal
08-02-2007, 09:35 PM
Try Lynn Swann, without the rings I don't think he's in.

Success is always going to help things like this just like it helps Pro Bowl voting. When you are on a winning team you are in alot more spotlight nationally then you are if you are on a losing team.

Smooth Criminal
08-02-2007, 09:38 PM
And yet that guy who has produced could battle injuries for the rest of his career and not make it into the Hall, whereas Leinart, Johnson, or Peterson could go on to dominate the league for the next decade and make it. Its a crap shoot when projection careers no matter what your criteria.

But someone that has already proven they can play still stands a much better chance than a rookie that hasn't done anything. With the rookie it could be a ton of things that make them not successful but with a veteran that has been good for many years you already have so many years of success that there is a much smaller chance of you getting hurt in the last 4 or 5 years of your career than there is of a rookie that still has 11-12 years.

Smooth Criminal
08-02-2007, 09:39 PM
Yes, I understand that. My point is that in reality, 50 current vets will not end up as HOFers. Likewise, some youngsters will. If you're going to accurately predict which current players will end up in the HOF, you need to include some youngsters.


Sure if you want to go for the perfect list 100% 25 years from now you would have to use some rookies.

But if you are making a list against this one just trying to get more correct than this list you would be better off with 50 vets.

If you took 50 hand picked rookies and 50 hand picked vets you'll get way more hall of famers out of the vets.

Staubach12
08-02-2007, 09:39 PM
Vince Young is on there for Crissake! This has to be a joke. This is just wrong...

BigDawg819
08-02-2007, 09:42 PM
But someone that has already proven they can play still stands a much better chance than a rookie that hasn't done anything. With the rookie it could be a ton of things that make them not successful but with a veteran that has been good for many years you already have so many years of success that there is a much smaller chance of you getting hurt in the last 4 or 5 years of your career than there is of a rookie that still has 11-12 years.


That's a ridiculous statement.

Smooth Criminal
08-02-2007, 09:48 PM
Not really. Think about it. Do you stand a better chance of getting hurt in the final 4-5 years of you career or in the 11-12 year span of your entire career.

I would say the 4-5 years but thats just me.

duckseason
08-02-2007, 09:51 PM
Sure if you want to go for the perfect list 100% 25 years from now you would have to use some rookies.

But if you are making a list against this one just trying to get more correct than this list you would be better off with 50 vets.

If you took 50 hand picked rookies and 50 hand picked vets you'll get way more hall of famers out of the vets.

Ok now you're just getting ridiculous. Tell that last sentence to a 3 year old. You're speaking to an intelligent person here. Read my previous posts and realize there's no argument here. Either you make a prediction or not. But you don't half ass it just because it's difficult to predict exactly which rookies will make it. Calvin Johnson has a better shot at the hall than Donald Driver does. Driver has proven himself as a solid #1 WR in this league already, but he's also proven that he's not quite on that HOF level. See, youngsters have potential. Many vets have already shown that they aren't HOF worthy, despite their high level of play. To project 50 vets, you'll need to toss in some Donald Drivers. IMO, that is more pointless than including a rookie with limitless potential.

Bottom line is that some of these youngsters will make the HOF, and some of these vets will make it. But there won't be 50 of either. You've got to include players of all ages to accurately complete this prediction and make it worthwhile.

Philliez01
08-02-2007, 09:57 PM
If Andre Johnson gonna get in? I doubt it but he was a top reciever prospect with an awesome skill set.

Heres an even better one, Charles Rogers.

That doesn't mean CJ won't make it though. Those are different players, every player is different and they are projecting his career. Not Andre's, or Rogers, Calvin Johnson's.

Smooth Criminal
08-02-2007, 09:58 PM
If you want to go for the 100% perfect list then use some rookies sure. But be ready when you look back at the list 20 years from now you'll see some names that will make you laugh at how they never ammounted to what they should have been.

Smooth Criminal
08-02-2007, 10:00 PM
That doesn't mean CJ won't make it though. Those are different players, every player is different and they are projecting his career. Not Andre's, or Rogers, Calvin Johnson's.

Just pointing out that getting drafted #2 doesn't give you a great chance to enter the hall of fame. Lots of players never live up to potential and there are always busts in a draft class.

duckseason
08-02-2007, 10:01 PM
If you want to go for the 100% perfect list then use some rookies sure. But be ready when you look back at the list 20 years from now you'll see some names that will make you laugh at how they never ammounted to what they should have been.

Yes of course, that is inevitable. However, at least you had a shot at getting it right. List 50 veterans, and you can already point out which ones you got wrong. IMO, compiling a list like this is a waste of time that I would not subject myself to. But if I were to exclusively include veterans, it would be even more ridiculous.

BigDawg819
08-02-2007, 10:01 PM
Not really. Think about it. Do you stand a better chance of getting hurt in the final 4-5 years of you career or in the 11-12 year span of your entire career.

I would say the 4-5 years but thats just me.

You can get hurt no matter how long your in the league, experience doesn't matter!

Smooth Criminal
08-02-2007, 10:04 PM
I'm not saying the experience matters I'm saying the amount of time matters. If you have 4 years left and are on pace to make the hall it is much less likely that somethign happens to you then say a rookie that still has their entire career infront of them.

Smooth Criminal
08-02-2007, 10:04 PM
Yes of course, that is inevitable. However, at least you had a shot at getting it right. List 50 veterans, and you can already point out which ones you got wrong. IMO, compiling a list like this is a waste of time that I would not subject myself to. But if I were to exclusively include veterans, it would be even more ridiculous.

I don't get this list either considering I don't think there are more than 10 locks for the hall right now if they retired today.

duckseason
08-02-2007, 10:07 PM
I'm not saying the experience matters I'm saying the amount of time matters. If you have 4 years left and are on pace to make the hall it is much less likely that somethign happens to you then say a rookie that still has their entire career infront of them.

Yeah, you're just stating the obvious again. The bottom line is that there won't be 50 current vets in the Hall and there will be some youngsters. So really, there's no argument here. Just agree with that and we can be done.

duckseason
08-02-2007, 10:10 PM
I don't get this list either considering I don't think there are more than 10 locks for the hall right now if they retired today.
Yeah. And that's exactly why you have to include guys of all ages. At any one time, there are only so many guys that could retire as HOFers. You've got to have a few guys from each draft class, including this years. At least we can agree that attempting such a prediction is futile.

Smooth Criminal
08-02-2007, 10:14 PM
I've already said that there will be some youngsters in the hall. Thats obvious. But its almost impossible to pick which ones.

What really makes me mad is the people they already said are odd men out. They are saying that alot of these young players won't make it. Guys like Russell, Williams, Eli, and Ben should not be counted out at all. All still have great potential and are very young. Both Ben and Eli have shown signs of being great QBs. I just don't see how they can say they are likely out after 3 years of play but yet a rookie like Johnson is considered to be on the way to the hall.

Just a completely dumb list that can make them look nothing but stupid when half of the guys that they said are odd men out make it in and half of the people they said will make it in dont. It is way to hard to say which rookies and young players could or could not make it because, simply, they all have the same shot because they still have most of their careers in front of them.

duckseason
08-02-2007, 10:19 PM
I've already said that there will be some youngsters in the hall. Thats obvious. But its almost impossible to pick which ones.

What really makes me mad is the people they already said are odd men out. They are saying that alot of these young players won't make it. Guys like Russell, Williams, Eli, and Ben should not be counted out at all. All still have great potential and are very young. Both Ben and Eli have shown signs of being great QBs. I just don't see how they can say they are likely out after 3 years of play but yet a rookie like Johnson is considered to be on the way to the hall.

Just a completely dumb list that can make them look nothing but stupid when half of the guys that they said are odd men out make it in and half of the people they said will make it in dont. It is way to hard to say which rookies and young players could or could not make it because, simply, they all have the same shot because they still have most of their careers in front of them.
I agree. If I made a list, it would go from oldest to youngest for the most part. The youngsters would round out the bottom.

Smooth Criminal
08-02-2007, 10:31 PM
I would start the list with eveyrone I thought was a lock to get in. Then it would be people probably more by years played than age that have the best shots. I honestly don't think I'd get to the bottom and throw a rookie on. I would fill the bottom with players that had the best rookie seasons. I would sooner put a guy like Colston, McNeil, or Ryans than Johnson or Peterson. Even though one good season isn't enough to go off of it would still be more than the rookies who are nothing more than a roll of the dice.

Ewing
08-02-2007, 10:33 PM
Richard Seymour ahead of Marvin Harrison and LT? What drug were these guys on because I want some if it screw you up that much.

Smooth Criminal
08-02-2007, 10:37 PM
Its called the Patriots drug. Anyone that is on the Patritots is amazing, until they get let go. Then they were overrated and only good caues of the system they played in.

duckseason
08-02-2007, 10:39 PM
I would start the list with eveyrone I thought was a lock to get in. Then it would be people probably more by years played than age that have the best shots. I honestly don't think I'd get to the bottom and throw a rookie on. I would fill the bottom with players that had the best rookie seasons. I would sooner put a guy like Colston, McNeil, or Ryans than Johnson or Peterson. Even though one good season isn't enough to go off of it would still be more than the rookies who are nothing more than a roll of the dice.

Yeah, but I'm sticking to the criteria that ESPN layed out in this article since that's what we're talking about. If I were going to predict every guy that would make it who's playing this year, I'd include at least a rookie or two. Otherwise I wouldn't bother.

bearsfan_51
08-03-2007, 08:54 PM
I'm the biggest stalwart about the HOF on here, and probably pay the most attention to the process of who gets in and who doesn't.

This list isn't perfect, but if you actually take it for what it is, which is a HUGE projection, it's not bad considering its speculative nature. To simply say that random 34 year old player should be higher than a 2nd year player because he has better stats is idiotic. If anything, I think they could have projected even more.

For example:

Reggie Bush is ranked one spot ahead of Ty Law.

Has Reggie Bush had the career that Ty Law has had? Hell no!!

BUT.....Ty Law's chances at the HOF are probably about 10-15%, and let's face it, he's not going to do anything more in KC that will increase his resume.

Is it possible that Bush could completely bust and not even come close to having the career that Law did? Sure. But I would argue based on potential alone that he is more likely to make the HOF at the end of his career than Law. That is what this list is about. It's not about comparing career resumes. Open your minds a little bit and take it for what it's worth.


Not to mention that a lot of you are the same people that were arguing Randall Cunningham should be in the HOF.

bearsfan_51
08-03-2007, 08:57 PM
Just a completely dumb list that can make them look nothing but stupid when half of the guys that they said are odd men out make it in and half of the people they said will make it in dont. It is way to hard to say which rookies and young players could or could not make it because, simply, they all have the same shot because they still have most of their careers in front of them.

Good point, they should only write about things that they can absolutely verify with facts. Heaven forbid they guess on anything and are wrong. I mean..it's not like they are a media outlet that's trying to attract readers to create revenue. That would just make too much sense. Just tell me the scores and stats and leave your opinions to yourself media folk. Why not just watch the ticker? Why even read an article? Isn't this the entire point of sports in the first place?

Eaglez.Fan
08-03-2007, 09:08 PM
These are PREDICTIONS, nowhere on that link says they will 100% be in the hall of fame, because if it did noone would even read it. But it's interesting to see who they THINK will get it. I'm not saying I agree with the rankings, like Brady Quinn, on the bubble.... Most teams ranked him out of the 1st round in talent and now he's on the bubble in the HOF. I don't agree with alot of stuff on there but it's a PREDICTION.

TitleTown088
08-03-2007, 11:54 PM
Who's that at number 1? Oh yeah, die furur.