The Hall of Very Good?

Average OT LB · 02-10-2008, 05:35 PM

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/7771002

NFLDC-favorite Jason Whitlock:) makes a good case why players like Art Monk and some other class of 2008 players do not belong in the hall of fame.

I dont like the guy very much, but i agree with him.

Vote. Discuss.

hugegmenfan · 02-10-2008, 05:58 PM

i totally agree actually...it should be reserved for the greats- everyyear the committee says "ok, we really have to put SOMEONE in" but even if that person is underqualified they feel they must put someone in.
for example, i think chris carter deserves the hall of fame over art monk but monk had been up for a long time, and almost out of sympathy they gave it to him

nvot9 · 02-10-2008, 06:14 PM

Wow...this guys makes some very unprofessional comparisons and uses some very atypical language...how is he still a writer?

Average OT LB · 02-10-2008, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nvot9

Wow...this guys makes some very unprofessional comparisons and uses some very atypical language...how is he still a writer?

Hes angry that guys like chris carter didnt get in, but Art monk did... i think he made a good point.

princefielder28 · 02-10-2008, 08:19 PM

Whitlock is a bit of an extremist in journalism and he needs to remember that the stats that players put up were proportional to the era in which they played and shouldn't be looked at in all-time. We look at stats now and if Monk had that production he would be very good but not great but in the 80s his production was top notch and should be recognized accordingly. To say Monk doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame would be disservice to him and the overall significance of his career.

DChess · 02-10-2008, 08:27 PM

ive been saying that about all the hall of fames. i think its reserved for the top tier guys. i really dont like how guys get in without making more than a couple all star games, never known as the top guy or two at his postion at one time. i dont think the people who vote should be obligated in inducting someone every year

BuddyCHRIST · 02-10-2008, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by princefielder28

Whitlock is a bit of an extremist in journalism and he needs to remember that the stats that players put up were proportional to the era in which they played and shouldn't be looked at in all-time. We look at stats now and if Monk had that production he would be very good but not great but in the 80s his production was top notch and should be recognized accordingly. To say Monk doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame would be disservice to him and the overall significance of his career.

Actually Monk's production wasn't that great even for his era. He only finished in the top 10 in recieving yards 3 times in a 16 year career. And even though he was more of a possession type reciever in the Redskins offense, he only finished in the top 10 in receptions 4 times. He never had more than 8 TD's in a season and only finished in the top 10 in that category once in his career. Now im sure that playing in a conservative run oriented offense toned down his numbers but thats just part of it. He was a good player for a long time but he was never one of the elite recievers and when you talk about all time great's he's not in the discussion. I personally am not a fan of the Hall being watered down.

On the other hand Derrick Thomas and Cris Carter should surely be in.

litlharsh · 02-10-2008, 08:31 PM

Art Monk held almost every receiving record before Rice came and smashed them. Carter not getting in was ridiculous but Monk getting snubbed for so many years previously is a travesty.

sodar21 · 02-10-2008, 08:34 PM

Often the only difference between the Hall of Famers and the "Very good" he's describing is the amount of media hype.

skinzzfan25 · 02-10-2008, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sodar21

Often the only difference between the Hall of Famers and the "Very good" he's describing is the amount of media hype.

Which is exactly why media members should not be voting these guys in.

kwilk103 · 02-10-2008, 08:55 PM

part of the problem is the election rules; dont you have to elect at least 4, but no more than 7?

i like in baseball how sometimes only 1 or 2 get in; footballs should be that way

LonghornsLegend · 02-10-2008, 09:02 PM

I dont understand how Cris Carter didnt get in, he was a first ballot guy to me, you could easily say he was one of the top 5 wrs that ever played the game and he does have the stats to show for it...

I guess Marvin Harrison wont be getting in on the first ballot either then.

Average OT LB · 02-10-2008, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LonghornsLegend

I dont understand how Cris Carter didnt get in, he was a first ballot guy to me, you could easily say he was one of the top 5 wrs that ever played the game and he does have the stats to show for it...

I guess Marvin Harrison wont be getting in on the first ballot either then.

Harrison is much better than Carter...

In 60 fewer games, Marvin has only 7 less touchdowns, 50 more receiving yards with 60 fewer catches..

He averages an astounding 20 more yards per game then Carter

Carter didnt have 100 catches in a year till his 8th year, Marvin did it in his 4th.

Carter also spent some of his more successful years on a team where he was the 2nd best wr..

Marvins a sure in 1st ballot guy..

BamaFalcon59 · 02-10-2008, 09:44 PM

I somewhat agree. I do not think very good players should get in. Only guys who dominated. Derrick Thomas DOMINATED his era. Andre Tippett did not. I mean the only guys who get in should be called 'All time greats'. Tippett was not.

WRs should get in depending on how opponents viewed them. I mean I really doubt Art Monk is even in the top fifty hardest receivers to guard of all time, maybe not top 100. I will take a guy who dominates for five to eight years over a guy who was consistent for twenty years.

princefielder28 · 02-10-2008, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BamaFalcon59

I somewhat agree. I do not think very good players should get in. Only guys who dominated. Derrick Thomas DOMINATED his era. Andre Tippett did not. I mean the only guys who get in should be called 'All time greats'. Tippett was not.

WRs should get in depending on how opponents viewed them. I mean I really doubt Art Monk is even in the top fifty hardest receivers to guard of all time, maybe not top 100. I will take a guy who dominates for five to eight years over a guy who was consistent for twenty years.

So to you Kurt Warner is in the Hall of Fame then?

BamaFalcon59 · 02-10-2008, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by princefielder28

So to you Kurt Warner is in the Hall of Fame then?

He deserves it over some current Hall of Fame QBs. I mean a career 93.3 passer rating is nothing to laugh at, and he has a ring.

I think he really only dominated for three years, and plenty of QBs have done that. So probably not, but like I said he deserves it over some current Hall of Fame QBs. Had he done the 'Greatest Show on Turf' for two to five more years (making it a total of five to eight years), then he would definitely been in.

Oh, and he has only played two complete seasons in his career. That hurts, hard to be dominant missing so much time.

DaBear89 · 02-10-2008, 10:31 PM

Dent deserved to be in!
And to whoever was talking about Marvin and Cris, let's not forget that the #1 WR that Cris was behind was Randy Moss v1.0. And that Marvin has a top receiver to help as well (Wayne) and had a great slot (Stokley) and a great receiving TE(Clark). Oh, not to mention one of the greatest QBs (the good Manning bro.)

princefielder28 · 02-10-2008, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BamaFalcon59

He deserves it over some current Hall of Fame QBs. I mean a career 93.3 passer rating is nothing to laugh at, and he has a ring.

I think he really only dominated for three years, and plenty of QBs have done that. So probably not, but like I said he deserves it over some current Hall of Fame QBs. Had he done the 'Greatest Show on Turf' for two to five more years (making it a total of five to eight years), then he would definitely been in.

Oh, and he has only played two complete seasons in his career. That hurts, hard to be dominant missing so much time.

Name me a few of those QBs please?

fenikz · 02-10-2008, 11:14 PM

He is absolutely right, Monk getting in over Carter is just ridiculous

BamaFalcon59 · 02-10-2008, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by princefielder28

Name me a few of those QBs please?

Well, I personally think Terry Bradshaw is very overrated but everyone else thinks the rings make him great.

George Blanda should have never got in the Hall of Fame.

I will stay out of the early era, and will go 70s and later.

Don't think Bob Griese should be in.

Joe Namath got in because he was a media pretty boy and made the NFL big(ger) with his guarenteed win over the Kansas City Chiefs, saying the Jets would beat a AFC team for the superbowl. Otherwise he would have not been in.

So I will say definitely over Blanda and Namath, and probably over Griese. And then I personally would have him over Bradshaw.

princefielder28 · 02-10-2008, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BamaFalcon59

Well, I personally think Terry Bradshaw is very overrated but everyone else thinks the rings make him great.

George Blanda should have never got in the Hall of Fame.

I will stay out of the early era, and will go 70s and later.

Don't think Bob Griese should be in.

Joe Namath got in because he was a media pretty boy and made the NFL big(ger) with his guarenteed win over the Kansas City Chiefs, saying the Jets would beat a AFC team for the superbowl. Otherwise he would have not been in.

So I will say definitely over Blanda and Namath, and probably over Griese. And then I personally would have him over Bradshaw.

George Blanda played for 26 seasons and led the NFL all-time in scoring when he retired. He had passed for just under 27,000 yards and 236 TDs in a time period where football wasn't predominatly passing as it is now. Plus you should really stay away from comparing pre-70s to now.

Bob Griese led the Dolphins to three AFC titles and two Super Bowl titles. All-Pro twice and appeared in six Pro-Bowls. He was NFL Player of the year in 1971, and he played in an offense with Mercury Morris and Larry Csonka which meant ball control and steady QB play; he was the definition of that.

Joe Namath was again, as the other two, played before the current passing era we have now. He led the Jets to a victory in Super Bowl III, first one ever for the AFL. He was NFL player of the year once and he was the first QB to pass for 4,000 yards in a season. The way he carried himself help juvinize the QB position and the NFL.

Terry Bradshaw won 4 Super Bowls and two Super Bowl MVPs. He held numerous Super Bowl and postseason records plus an MVP in 1978. The Steelers won eight division titles while Bradshaw was QB.

Collectively these guys all have two things in common; they showed longevity from the day they stepped onto the field to their last snap and they played the hardest and most scrutinzed position in all of sports.

Kurt Warner was on the scene for a good four years, got a title, and won MVP. Outside of that he has backed up and has only seen appearance due to injuries. He comes nowhere near the four above and mentioned.

Geo · 02-11-2008, 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Average OT LB

Harrison is much better than Carter...

In 60 fewer games, Marvin has only 7 less touchdowns, 50 more receiving yards with 60 fewer catches..

He averages an astounding 20 more yards per game then Carter

Carter didnt have 100 catches in a year till his 8th year, Marvin did it in his 4th.

Carter also spent some of his more successful years on a team where he was the 2nd best wr..

Marvins a sure in 1st ballot guy..

Carter didn't have Peyton Manning passing him the ball year after year, it should certainly be noted.

But Harrison will be a first ballot selection, as you say. He'll likely finish second only to Rice in career stats, and regardless of any factor, the all-time single-season record of 143 receptions he set in 2002 is very impressive. And he's got the first ring he needed to seal the deal, although future championships make his chances as solid as concrete.

Dam8610 · 02-11-2008, 02:08 AM

Are you kidding me? Fred Dean is the guy who gets his ire going? Where was he when Joe Namath and Terry Bradshaw were getting enshrined? Possibly blocking for his favorite NFL player of all-time, Jeff George.

Dam8610 · 02-11-2008, 02:15 AM

If Cris Carter got passed over for the guys that made it, the HOF voters really did botch that one. Carter is a no brainer.

Crazy_Chris · 02-11-2008, 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geo

Carter didn't have Peyton Manning passing him the ball year after year, it should certainly be noted.

But Harrison will be a first ballot selection, as you say. He'll likely finish second only to Rice in career stats, and regardless of any factor, the all-time single-season record of 143 receptions he set in 2002 is very impressive. And he's got the first ring he needed to seal the deal, although future championships make his chances as solid as concrete.

Yea nothing should be taken away from Marvin Harrison(definite first ballot) but he has had the luxury of Peyton Manning as his QB for most his career. When you take into consideration that Cris Carter played with 13 different QB's over his career. It really is pretty damn impressive the numbers that he was able to put up.