If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Hasselbeck and Alexander even being mentioned in football discussions today is thanks to: (1) Mike Holmgren, one of the best coaches in his era; and (2) The Seahawks moved from the AFC West to the NFC West. They have no business whatsoever in a HOF thread.
To be fair, Alexander's overall numbers were quite decent while splitting time with Ricky Waters in the AFC West back in the day. He put up fine numbers before Walter Jones and before Hasselbeck really developed. Holmgren played a huge part with the scheme and design, but I'm not going to knock individual players for working under him. That's like saying that Favre's Super Bowl title is counterfeit because Holmgren was the coach...
You of all people should understand the short sighted manner in which people evaluate players. Tony Romo made the pro-bowl based off of one good month, for example. In '02, he was a top-5 NFL QB. Since then, his 'stats' have declined. Even so; he has still been decent as a overall player. Even setting a few NFL records. Obviously there has been debate as to why his passing stats since his first year as the starter have declined. I don't feel like getting into that one, beating that dead horse again.
I resent the statement that he wasn't playing the QB position, when if any other Quarterbacks attained a 3,000 yard, 2:1 TD/INT ratio, 13 Yards Per Completion, season they would have been noted for having a solid year. He led a mediocre team into the playoffs, with several notable come from behind efforts where he willed his team back in games, even winning on the road in Green Bay in the playoffs. Football Outsiders' metrics, he graded out as a top-10 passer, which when combined with his 777 yards rushing and eight touchdowns, made him a top-5 NFL QB in the '02 season. All the hype that came from that season, had merit. The hype has died down as of late, migrating to Vince Young.
What YFS was saying; what if Michael Vick become had four, or five great years in a row from here on out? I don't think anyone seriously thinks Michael Vick should be a serious contender for the hall of fame. He was just throwing out a hypothetical.
I apologize for the unnecessary harshness. I overstepped my bounds there, and it was unfair. I didn't take the Vick suggestion as a hypothetical, which is why I reacted that way. No worries. When Vick has 4-5 great seasons in a row, you can say "I told you so"...
I'm not calling for all of them to make the Hall right now or right after retirement, but eventually, all of them should be in. I figure this list is no longer than the actual list of players in from any period of time in modern NFL history.
I mentioned younger guys who have started out well as examples of why my list was so short. Thanks for completely missing the point...
No I understand your point, I just hate when people crown younger players who have a good season or two. I'm not saying you are or were, it just makes me mad when people do and I wasn't entirely sure what your point was exactly.
Patriots, Red Sox, Celtics, Bruins, Texas Longhorns
My note below the original list was to keep people from saying, "how can Shawne Merriman not be on your list. He's a god..." It was more of a disclaimer than anything. I was focusing on players with at least 7 years of service (a solid career).
Seau is already retired, so he doesn't qualify. I'm pretty sure he will make it to Canton, but he will have to wait a little.
TO has the numbers already. If he keeps putting up these numbers, he will make himself a lock in 2-3 more seasons. His attitude won't help, but this is the Hall of Fame. Numbers and performance on the field merits more than the other stuff.
Bruce is a solid player who had a nice career, but he only had 1 100+ catch season and only 2 seasons with more than 10 TD's. He has been consistent and productive, but I wouldn't call him dominant and transcendent.