2011 Hall of Fame Inductees (1 Viewer)

[Jason Wood]

I know there's a poll thread about who FBGs would've voted in, but a thread dedicated to discussing who got in seemed warranted.

Congrats to this year's class:

DE Richard Dent

TE Shannon Sharpe

RB Marshall Faulk

CB Deion Sanders

LB Chris Hanburger (Senior Selection)

LB (and G and K) Les Richter (Senior Selection)

Contributor Ed Sabol

It was interesting listening to NFL radio on Sirius, Howard Balzer was very open about his disagreement on Sabol's induction, citing the fact he received the prestigious Rozelle Award for his contributions to the game and is already honored in Canton, and that this is the first time someone has gotten inducted for something that isn't directly related to what happens on the field. I don't really have a strong feeling about Sabol's induction because I never really gave him much thought.

I have zero problem with the inductees who got the nod (admittedly I knew next to nothing about Richter before he made the nominations), but I do think it's getting to be a travesty that Dawson hasn't gotten in yet. He better get in next year, when the 1st year class looks particularly light. I'm surprised Curtis Martin made the final 10 over the likes of Cris Carter, so maybe Martin gets the nod next year. I wasn't sure he would get in quickly.

 

[Orange Crush]

I didn't like the idea of Sabol going in, at least not in a year where there was a glut of worthy player candidates (like this one). Balzer's arguments are persuasive (though they are merely adding fuel to my own already lit fire).

I am also surprised at Dent getting in. I'm a big fan of linemen going, but I'm surprised he got in over the others being considered.

My 2012 HOF class wish list:

OC Dermontti Dawson

OT Willie Roaf

OG Will Shields

DT Cortez Kennedy

DE Chris Doleman

I think there are strong arguments to be made in favor of the five above over all of those skill position players that most fantasy players love. Cris Carter I think deserves to go, in a couple years. Brown and Reed are borderline, and will probably lose out each year to better candidates, though Reed is building some sympathy votes amongst the football writers who vote.

CMart and Bettis piled up a lot of yards over long careers. But neither of them dominated the league in any one year like other HOF running backs did. I could see both making it in eventually. Maybe.

 

[GOB]

Andre Reed continues to get jobbed.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

When Reed retired, I thought he was 50/50 to get in but it's looking more and more likely that he'll get in soon. I thought Carter was a lock but I guess his lack of postseason success is hurting him.

I'm glad that Sharpe got in finally.

Dent is also a solid candidate.

I think Sabol certainly belongs but don't think it should come at the expense of a player.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Charles Haley should be in. Two-time DPOTY and five Super Bowl rings, which is more than anyone else ever to play the game.

 

[az_prof]

I know there's a poll thread about who FBGs would've voted in, but a thread dedicated to discussing who got in seemed warranted.Congrats to this year's classE Richard DentTE Shannon SharpeRB Marshall FaulkCB Deion SandersLB Chris Hanburger (Senior Selection)LB (and G and K) Les Richter (Senior Selection) Contributor Ed SabolIt was interesting listening to NFL radio on Sirius, Howard Balzer was very open about his disagreement on Sabol's induction, citing the fact he received the prestigious Rozelle Award for his contributions to the game and is already honored in Canton, and that this is the first time someone has gotten inducted for something that isn't directly related to what happens on the field. I don't really have a strong feeling about Sabol's induction because I never really gave him much thought.I have zero problem with the inductees who got the nod (admittedly I knew next to nothing about Richter before he made the nominations), but I do think it's getting to be a travesty that Dawson hasn't gotten in yet. He better get in next year, when the 1st year class looks particularly light. I'm surprised Curtis Martin made the final 10 over the likes of Cris Carter, so maybe Martin gets the nod next year. I wasn't sure he would get in quickly.

Here's the thing about Sabol: why him and not Howard Cozelle, for example? And are we now going to have a media selection? How many NFL media people will become eligible in coming years?It is lame and I am really disappointed.

 

[boubucarow]

More than seven deserve the Hall of Fame so it was nice to see the max get elected. Carter, Brown, Roaf, Dawson, etc... will get their call.

 

[dcgangstas]

I'm really glad that Shannon Sharpe and Richard Dent got in; Dent was long overdue.

Ed Sabol was a great selection. HIs contributions in capturing the beauty and intensity of the game are substantial, and crucial to the popularity of the game. Sabol was the Cecil B. DeMille of professional sports.

Too bad Cris Carter didn't get in. I thought this was his time. John Clayton (a HOF voter) said on the John Kincaid Show that momentum was building for Andre Reed, not Carter. It's likely that Reed will get in next year, meaning Carter and Tim Brown will have to wait longer.

Marshall Faulk was the original (as Merrill Hoge likes to say) "Factor Back". He did everything, and everything well. But what really made Marshall great was his intellect along with his physical gifts. The patience that Faulk showed in setting up his blocks was tremendous. Other than Lenny Moore (I'm really showing my age now) , I've never seen a better receiving RB than Faulk. And There was nothing better than having Marshall Faulk on your fantasy team.

 

[zanti8]

surprised haily didnt get in, also carter .

 

[cobalt_27]

Here's the thing about Sabol: why him and not Howard Cozelle, for example? And are we now going to have a media selection? How many NFL media people will become eligible in coming years?It is lame and I am really disappointed.

Who's Howard Cozelle?

 

[Insomniac]

I know there's a poll thread about who FBGs would've voted in, but a thread dedicated to discussing who got in seemed warranted.Congrats to this year's classE Richard DentTE Shannon SharpeRB Marshall FaulkCB Deion SandersLB Chris Hanburger (Senior Selection)LB (and G and K) Les Richter (Senior Selection) Contributor Ed SabolIt was interesting listening to NFL radio on Sirius, Howard Balzer was very open about his disagreement on Sabol's induction, citing the fact he received the prestigious Rozelle Award for his contributions to the game and is already honored in Canton, and that this is the first time someone has gotten inducted for something that isn't directly related to what happens on the field. I don't really have a strong feeling about Sabol's induction because I never really gave him much thought.I have zero problem with the inductees who got the nod (admittedly I knew next to nothing about Richter before he made the nominations), but I do think it's getting to be a travesty that Dawson hasn't gotten in yet. He better get in next year, when the 1st year class looks particularly light. I'm surprised Curtis Martin made the final 10 over the likes of Cris Carter, so maybe Martin gets the nod next year. I wasn't sure he would get in quickly.

Did Pete Rozelle ever do anything that was directly related to what happens on the field? I'd prefer that non-players be considered separately from players. Maybe elect 1 every 2 or 3 years. If they don't want more than 7 inductees then the years they select a contributer they only have 1 Senior candidate.That said Ed Sabol was truly great as NFL Propaganda Minister.

 

[Mr. Retukes]

The Senior Committee should start focusing on overlooked guys who started their careers in the '70s and '80s.

If the guys from the 1950s haven't been able to change the Committee's mind after 40 years, then they probably don't deserve induction....ever.

 

[Multiple Scores]

I'm still shocked Cris Carter isn't in. I can't see how he isn't in and Irvin swann stallworth and monk are all in.

 

[Norseman]

I'm still shocked Cris Carter isn't in. I can't see how he isn't in and Irvin swann stallworth and monk are all in.

 

[by_the_sea_wannabe]

I'm still shocked Cris Carter isn't in. I can't see how he isn't in and Irvin swann stallworth and monk are all in.

As he said today, he just has to look down at his hand to know why.

 

[David Dodds]

I don't know anything about the seniors selected, but the others all seem worthy. I think Dawson and Roaf definitely belong too. I think the others are mostly on the fence for me (I would not be too shocked either way). I think Curtis Martin will eventually get in (and deserves that to happen). and it's a travesty that Ray Guy is not in.

 

[David Yudkin]

It's a travesty that Ray Guy is not in.

I agree Guy was a great punter. But how much impact would having the best punter really be? If he lead the league by 2 yards per punt (which would be a lot BTW), with 75 punts in a season that would be a difference of 150 yards of field position on the season. In principle, I am not sure a guy that's in a game only 5 plays a game is really that big of a difference maker. And IIRC, Guy wasn't even in the Top 20 in yds per punt at the time he retired.If they want to start honoring special teamers, sure, I'm all in favor of Guy making it in. But to take away a spot from someone else that played half the downs and had a greater impact on many more individual games almost seems wrong.

 

[Tau837]

it's a travesty that Ray Guy is not in.

David, I don't recall you posting on this before. Assuming this is not sarcasm, can you justify this? There seems to be a mythical belief in how great a punter Guy was, but it just doesn't stand up to any type of statistical scrutiny.ETA: Great old post on this by Doug Drinen:

More Ray Guy facts:

1. he led the league in punting average once. He led the league in net punting average twice.

2. his career* ratio of Inside-the-20 punts to touchbacks was 1.64. Compare that with some other punters of the time: John James = 2.39. Dave Jennings = 2.39. Pat McInally = 1.91. Bob Parsons = 2.94!

* - my source does not have touchback and Inside-the-20 stats for the first three years of Guy's career.

Did the Raiders have a consistently horrible coverage team, or what? His yardage totals and net average were good but not dominant, and he did not do a good job of sticking punts inside the 20.

Now, let me pre-emptively answer the "you can't measure the impact he had on the game with stats" argument.

First, as I detailed in my last post, a punter would have to be as valuable as Jim Brown and **** Butkus at the same time to deserve Hall of Fame enshrinement. But I don't see the evidence that Guy was even head-and-shoulders above the other punters of his time.

Second, I understand that stats aren't perfect, but I don't think they're any less perfect for punters than they are for quarterbacks or running backs, and no one has a problem using QB and RB stats, with an effort to put them into context. If you try to tell me that he had so many touchbacks because he was constantly booming them from his own 30, I'll ask why his gross average wasn't higher. If you tell me that he was a master at punting away from the other team's best return threat, I'll ask why his net average wasn't better. If you try to tell me that you once saw him boom an 80 yarder that totally changed the game, I'll point out that Oronde Gadsden made some of the most incredible catches I've ever seen and that Quentin Coryatt laid the biggest hit I've ever seen, but that doesn't mean they're a Hall of Famers. Specifically what is it that he did so much better than every other punter, and why do the numbers fail to capture it?

 

[Tau837]

It's a travesty that Ray Guy is not in.

I agree Guy was a great punter. But how much impact would having the best punter really be? If he lead the league by 2 yards per punt (which would be a lot BTW), with 75 punts in a season that would be a difference of 150 yards of field position on the season. In principle, I am not sure a guy that's in a game only 5 plays a game is really that big of a difference maker. And IIRC, Guy wasn't even in the Top 20 in yds per punt at the time he retired.If they want to start honoring special teamers, sure, I'm all in favor of Guy making it in. But to take away a spot from someone else that played half the downs and had a greater impact on many more individual games almost seems wrong.

No player who was special teams only (i.e., not making a HOF level contribution on offense or defense) deserves to make the HOF IMO. Not under the current setup, where induction of a guy like Guy or Tasker or Morten Andersen would be at the expense of guys like Shannon Sharpe, Richard Dent, Dermontti Dawson, Willie Roaf, Cris Carter, etc. IMO there has been no player yet whose impact on special teams approached the impact of a HOF level offensive or defensive player.

 

[TylerRoseFan]

It's a complete travesty that Carter isn't in. Unreal. Tim Brown also deserves a nod.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

It's a travesty that Ray Guy is not in.

I agree Guy was a great punter. But how much impact would having the best punter really be? If he lead the league by 2 yards per punt (which would be a lot BTW), with 75 punts in a season that would be a difference of 150 yards of field position on the season. In principle, I am not sure a guy that's in a game only 5 plays a game is really that big of a difference maker. And IIRC, Guy wasn't even in the Top 20 in yds per punt at the time he retired.If they want to start honoring special teamers, sure, I'm all in favor of Guy making it in. But to take away a spot from someone else that played half the downs and had a greater impact on many more individual games almost seems wrong.

No player who was special teams only (i.e., not making a HOF level contribution on offense or defense) deserves to make the HOF IMO. Not under the current setup, where induction of a guy like Guy or Tasker or Morten Andersen would be at the expense of guys like Shannon Sharpe, Richard Dent, Dermontti Dawson, Willie Roaf, Cris Carter, etc. IMO there has been no player yet whose impact on special teams approached the impact of a HOF level offensive or defensive player.

Tasker deserves to be in the hall of fame.. His contributions were tremendous.. And I can't understand why anyone one could or would suggest differently..

edit to add:

BTW, he didn't only play Gunner, he was a WR as well

 

[Mr. Retukes]

Tasker deserves to be in the hall of fame.. His contributions were tremendous.. And I can't understand why anyone one could or would suggest differently..

I agree Tasker was a great gunner. But how much impact would having the best gunner really be? If Buffalo lead the league by 2 yards per kickoff field position, with 75 kickoffs in a season that would be a difference of 150 yards of field position on the season. In principle, I am not sure a guy that's in a game only 5 plays a game is really that big of a difference maker. And IIRC, Buffalo wasn't even in the Top 20 in field position at the time Tasker retired.(©2011 David Yudkin)

 

[Tau837]

I didn't like the idea of Sabol going in, at least not in a year where there was a glut of worthy player candidates (like this one). Balzer's arguments are persuasive (though they are merely adding fuel to my own already lit fire).I am also surprised at Dent getting in. I'm a big fan of linemen going, but I'm surprised he got in over the others being considered.My 2012 HOF class wish list:OC Dermontti DawsonOT Willie RoafOG Will ShieldsDT Cortez KennedyDE Chris DolemanI think there are strong arguments to be made in favor of the five above over all of those skill position players that most fantasy players love. Cris Carter I think deserves to go, in a couple years. Brown and Reed are borderline, and will probably lose out each year to better candidates, though Reed is building some sympathy votes amongst the football writers who vote.CMart and Bettis piled up a lot of yards over long careers. But neither of them dominated the league in any one year like other HOF running backs did. I could see both making it in eventually. Maybe.

Dawson - I would have voted him in this year; should make it next year IMORoaf - should make it next year IMOShields - IMO not likely to make it next year in his first year of eligibility; will likely get in eventually, but the guy was only 1st team All Pro 2 times in his career; that is a very low number for a HOF OL, and I think he is a bit overrated (but still ultimately worthy); I also don't see a class with 3 OLKennedy - this year was his third year as a finalist, and he made the first cutdown to 10; I think he stands a pretty good chance of making it next yearDoleman - this year was his first year as a finalist, and he didn't make the first cutdown to 10; I doubt he makes it next yearI would put Carter in, but based on this year's cutdowns, I'm not sure that will happen. However, with Reed, Carter, and Brown all among the finalists this year, I expect a WR to make it. Personally, I would rank Reed third among this group, but the voting this year seems to show Reed is likely to make it before the others. This was his fifth year as a finalist.I was mildly surprised at how high Martin finished, and I think it bodes well for his chances next season.It's possible next year could be a class with less than 5 non-senior inductees... the 2006 and 2007 classes had only 4 non-senior nominees apiece.All that said, I predict the following non-senior class for next yearawsonRoafKennedyMartinReedIf I could choose the class, I'd substitute Carter for Reed.

 

[David Dodds]

Here would be the case for Ray Guy:

- 7× Pro Bowl selection (1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1980)

- 6× First-team All-Pro selection (1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978)

- 3× Super Bowl champion (XI, XV, XVIII)

- NFL's 75th Anniversary Team

- NFL 1970s All-Decade Team

- Played in 207 consecutive games

- Had 210 punts inside the 20 yard line (not counting his first 3 seasons, when the NFL did not keep track of this stat), with just 128 touchbacks

- Led the NFL in punting three times

- Had a streak of 619 consecutive punts before having one blocked

- Never had a punt returned for a touchdown

 

[Ministry of Pain]

Here would be the case for Ray Guy:

- 7× Pro Bowl selection (1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1980)

- 6× First-team All-Pro selection (1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978)

- 3× Super Bowl champion (XI, XV, XVIII)

- NFL's 75th Anniversary Team

- NFL 1970s All-Decade Team

- Played in 207 consecutive games

- Had 210 punts inside the 20 yard line (not counting his first 3 seasons, when the NFL did not keep track of this stat), with just 128 touchbacks

- Led the NFL in punting three times

- Had a streak of 619 consecutive punts before having one blocked

- Never had a punt returned for a touchdown

Guy should be in already, any other position and they would have been in the HoF for these type of stats.

 

[David Dodds]

The stat needed to measure punter's effectiveness is hang time. To my knowledge that isn't recorded (or at least wasn't when Guy played). But being a fan of the AFC West my whole life, he completely dominated the position in the games I saw him. He never had a punt returned for a TD on him. Anyone else that dominated their position with this many All-Pro awards would be in instantly. Ray Guy will never be in because of the position he plays. Seems pretty stupid to me to call this the Pro-Football Hall of Fame and exclude punters.

 

[Tau837]

It's a travesty that Ray Guy is not in.

I agree Guy was a great punter. But how much impact would having the best punter really be? If he lead the league by 2 yards per punt (which would be a lot BTW), with 75 punts in a season that would be a difference of 150 yards of field position on the season. In principle, I am not sure a guy that's in a game only 5 plays a game is really that big of a difference maker. And IIRC, Guy wasn't even in the Top 20 in yds per punt at the time he retired.If they want to start honoring special teamers, sure, I'm all in favor of Guy making it in. But to take away a spot from someone else that played half the downs and had a greater impact on many more individual games almost seems wrong.

No player who was special teams only (i.e., not making a HOF level contribution on offense or defense) deserves to make the HOF IMO. Not under the current setup, where induction of a guy like Guy or Tasker or Morten Andersen would be at the expense of guys like Shannon Sharpe, Richard Dent, Dermontti Dawson, Willie Roaf, Cris Carter, etc. IMO there has been no player yet whose impact on special teams approached the impact of a HOF level offensive or defensive player.

Tasker deserves to be in the hall of fame.. His contributions were tremendous.. And I can't understand why anyone one could or would suggest differently..

edit to add:

BTW, he didn't only play Gunner, he was a WR as well

Tasker has been discussed, and his worthiness completely refuted, in numerous threads here over the years. For example, see:Steve Tasker & Brian Mitchell - Special Teams Aces

 

[Tau837]

The stat needed to measure punter's effectiveness is hang time. To my knowledge that isn't recorded (or at least wasn't when Guy played). But being a fan of the AFC West my whole life, he completely dominated the position in the games I saw him. He never had a punt returned for a TD on him. Anyone else that dominated their position with this many All-Pro awards would be in instantly. Ray Guy will never be in because of the position he plays. Seems pretty stupid to me to call this the Pro-Football Hall of Fame and exclude punters.

Doug Drinen made an interesting post some years ago where he pointed out that there are two general perspectives on the HOF. One is that it is based on how valuable players were, the other is based on an extension of the All Pro team, which would support that the best players at each position should be in, regardless of the actual value/impact they had on the game during their careers. I take it you favor the latter approach?

 

[David Dodds]

The stat needed to measure punter's effectiveness is hang time. To my knowledge that isn't recorded (or at least wasn't when Guy played). But being a fan of the AFC West my whole life, he completely dominated the position in the games I saw him. He never had a punt returned for a TD on him. Anyone else that dominated their position with this many All-Pro awards would be in instantly. Ray Guy will never be in because of the position he plays. Seems pretty stupid to me to call this the Pro-Football Hall of Fame and exclude punters.

Doug Drinen made an interesting post some years ago where he pointed out that there are two general perspectives on the HOF. One is that it is based on how valuable players were, the other is based on an extension of the All Pro team, which would support that the best players at each position should be in, regardless of the actual value/impact they had on the game during their careers. I take it you favor the latter approach?

I definitely think all positions should be covered.

 

[Tau837]

The stat needed to measure punter's effectiveness is hang time. To my knowledge that isn't recorded (or at least wasn't when Guy played). But being a fan of the AFC West my whole life, he completely dominated the position in the games I saw him. He never had a punt returned for a TD on him. Anyone else that dominated their position with this many All-Pro awards would be in instantly. Ray Guy will never be in because of the position he plays. Seems pretty stupid to me to call this the Pro-Football Hall of Fame and exclude punters.

Doug Drinen made an interesting post some years ago where he pointed out that there are two general perspectives on the HOF. One is that it is based on how valuable players were, the other is based on an extension of the All Pro team, which would support that the best players at each position should be in, regardless of the actual value/impact they had on the game during their careers. I take it you favor the latter approach?

I definitely think all positions should be covered.

So just out of curiosity, how far do you go with that?If you think punters and kickers should be recognized, how many of them? How to draw the line on how many of them?What about kick returners? If it turns out that the best kickoff and/or punt returner is not also a HOF caliber offensive or defensive player, do you think he/they should be in?How about special teams gunners? Do you consider that a position?What about fullbacks? Should the best blocking fullback be in? (I use the blocking qualifier because the only fullbacks in the HOF are from previous generations, when fullbacks carried the ball a lot, unlike today.)Etc.

 

[Saints-Man]

I am probably in the minority, but I don't think Deon Sanders was a worthy first-ballot HOF selection. He deserved to be in the HOF, but not as a first ballot. While very good, he was overhyped. A defensive player that doesn't tackle and tackles poorly when he does? No way.

The myth around him is astounding to me. He was regularly assigned an opposing teams #2 WR. While at Atlanta, he didn't cover Jerry Rice. While at SF, he didn't cover Michael Irvin in the big games. He was a very good CB, but he was no **** Lane, Mel Blount, or even Rod Woodson. He is HOF worthy, just not on the first ballot.

On another note, Ed Sabol did more for the league than any player on the list. He is quite deserving.

 

[ffldrew]

I want to say congrats to Chris Hanburger for getting in - IMO he's deserving.

I'm an old guy who saw him play and even growing up in St. Louis area when you were a little kid playing backyard football there were plenty of arguments over who was Chris Hanburger - in the era of Butkus and Nitschke - every kid wanted to be him - the way he attacked the QB on blitzes made him a big favorite of mine - and I hated the Redskins.

 

[Tau837]

I am probably in the minority, but I don't think Deon Sanders was a worthy first-ballot HOF selection. He deserved to be in the HOF, but not as a first ballot. While very good, he was overhyped. A defensive player that doesn't tackle and tackles poorly when he does? No way.

The myth around him is astounding to me. He was regularly assigned an opposing teams #2 WR. While at Atlanta, he didn't cover Jerry Rice. While at SF, he didn't cover Michael Irvin in the big games. He was a very good CB, but he was no **** Lane, Mel Blount, or even Rod Woodson. He is HOF worthy, just not on the first ballot.

On another note, Ed Sabol did more for the league than any player on the list. He is quite deserving.

The bolded is completely false. He was often assigned single coverage on one side of the field. That meant that offenses could choose which WR to put on his side. That kind of dictation of how the offense lined up, as well as his ability to effectively play single coverage without help, whether or not he was covering the opponent's top WR, was invaluable to his defenses.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

It's a travesty that Ray Guy is not in.

I agree Guy was a great punter. But how much impact would having the best punter really be? If he lead the league by 2 yards per punt (which would be a lot BTW), with 75 punts in a season that would be a difference of 150 yards of field position on the season. In principle, I am not sure a guy that's in a game only 5 plays a game is really that big of a difference maker. And IIRC, Guy wasn't even in the Top 20 in yds per punt at the time he retired.If they want to start honoring special teamers, sure, I'm all in favor of Guy making it in. But to take away a spot from someone else that played half the downs and had a greater impact on many more individual games almost seems wrong.

No player who was special teams only (i.e., not making a HOF level contribution on offense or defense) deserves to make the HOF IMO. Not under the current setup, where induction of a guy like Guy or Tasker or Morten Andersen would be at the expense of guys like Shannon Sharpe, Richard Dent, Dermontti Dawson, Willie Roaf, Cris Carter, etc. IMO there has been no player yet whose impact on special teams approached the impact of a HOF level offensive or defensive player.

Tasker deserves to be in the hall of fame.. His contributions were tremendous.. And I can't understand why anyone one could or would suggest differently..

edit to add:

BTW, he didn't only play Gunner, he was a WR as well

Tasker has been discussed, and his worthiness completely refuted, in numerous threads here over the years. For example, see:Steve Tasker & Brian Mitchell - Special Teams Aces

The bold is silly for you to say, as you well know.

 

[Tau837]

Tasker has been discussed, and his worthiness completely refuted, in numerous threads here over the years. For example, see:

Steve Tasker & Brian Mitchell - Special Teams Aces

The bold is silly for you to say, as you well know.

I disagree. Why do you think Tasker has been eligible for the HOF for the past 9 years but hasn't made the finalists list? I don't know where to find the semifinalists lists for all of those years... has he even been a semifinalist? I doubt it. If you don't think that is because of the same reasons that have been presented in those threads I was referring to, how do you explain it?

 

[johnnyboy8102]

Charles Haley should be in. Two-time DPOTY and five Super Bowl rings, which is more than anyone else ever to play the game.

When was Haley DPOY? The answer is NEVER. He was the 1990 NFC Defensive Player of the year from the KC 101 Committee but the AP DPOY that season was Bruce Smith. It is sad that the actual voters for the HOF have incorrect information when they are voting.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Charles Haley should be in. Two-time DPOTY and five Super Bowl rings, which is more than anyone else ever to play the game.

When was Haley DPOY? The answer is NEVER. He was the 1990 NFC Defensive Player of the year from the KC 101 Committee but the AP DPOY that season was Bruce Smith. It is sad that the actual voters for the HOF have incorrect information when they are voting.

As nice as it would be, I am not one of the actual voters.

 

[johnnyboy8102]

Charles Haley should be in. Two-time DPOTY and five Super Bowl rings, which is more than anyone else ever to play the game.

When was Haley DPOY? The answer is NEVER. He was the 1990 NFC Defensive Player of the year from the KC 101 Committee but the AP DPOY that season was Bruce Smith. It is sad that the actual voters for the HOF have incorrect information when they are voting.

As nice as it would be, I am not one of the actual voters.

Clearly. My point was that many of the voters have been spitting out this incorrect information all week.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Tasker has been discussed, and his worthiness completely refuted, in numerous threads here over the years. For example, see:

Steve Tasker & Brian Mitchell - Special Teams Aces

The bold is silly for you to say, as you well know.

I disagree. Why do you think Tasker has been eligible for the HOF for the past 9 years but hasn't made the finalists list? I don't know where to find the semifinalists lists for all of those years... has he even been a semifinalist? I doubt it. If you don't think that is because of the same reasons that have been presented in those threads I was referring to, how do you explain it?

Almost positive he was a semifinalist at least once, maybe twice. I remember Peter King talking about it and saying that both he and Zimmerman would support his inclusion, for what it's worth. No link though. You made some excellent points in that thread but I wouldn't say you completely refuted his worthiness. If so, he's never get a single "vote" or voter like King to say he's worthy, right?

I doubt he gets in anytime soon, but I don't think it would be that surprising if the Senior Committee nominates him one year. What do you think the chances are of that?

 

[Jason Wood]

I agree with others that someone who made their career as a special teamer is almost by definition eliminated from HOF consideration. Guys don't become career special teamers because they're the best in the league, they are the best of the guys not good enough to earn regular playing time on offense or defense.

 

[Tau837]

Tasker has been discussed, and his worthiness completely refuted, in numerous threads here over the years. For example, see:

Steve Tasker & Brian Mitchell - Special Teams Aces

The bold is silly for you to say, as you well know.

I disagree. Why do you think Tasker has been eligible for the HOF for the past 9 years but hasn't made the finalists list? I don't know where to find the semifinalists lists for all of those years... has he even been a semifinalist? I doubt it. If you don't think that is because of the same reasons that have been presented in those threads I was referring to, how do you explain it?

Almost positive he was a semifinalist at least once, maybe twice. I remember Peter King talking about it and saying that both he and Zimmerman would support his inclusion, for what it's worth. No link though. You made some excellent points in that thread but I wouldn't say you completely refuted his worthiness. If so, he's never get a single "vote" or voter like King to say he's worthy, right?

I doubt he gets in anytime soon, but I don't think it would be that surprising if the Senior Committee nominates him one year. What do you think the chances are of that?

I would say completely refuting his chances would mean he would never get close to making it. Peter King talking about him doesn't bear on that one way or the other.I would be extremely surprised if the senior committee ever nominates him. Look at it this way... the senior committee to date has dealt with eras with fewer teams, and thus fewer offensive and defensive players... yet to my knowledge the senior committee has never nominated a player who was primarily a special teams player. Why would that change as they start dealing with players in eras with more teams? And if it does change, how do you know they will choose Tasker instead of a punter or kicker or returner?

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Tasker has been discussed, and his worthiness completely refuted, in numerous threads here over the years. For example, see:

Steve Tasker & Brian Mitchell - Special Teams Aces

The bold is silly for you to say, as you well know.

I disagree. Why do you think Tasker has been eligible for the HOF for the past 9 years but hasn't made the finalists list? I don't know where to find the semifinalists lists for all of those years... has he even been a semifinalist? I doubt it. If you don't think that is because of the same reasons that have been presented in those threads I was referring to, how do you explain it?

Almost positive he was a semifinalist at least once, maybe twice. I remember Peter King talking about it and saying that both he and Zimmerman would support his inclusion, for what it's worth. No link though. You made some excellent points in that thread but I wouldn't say you completely refuted his worthiness. If so, he's never get a single "vote" or voter like King to say he's worthy, right?

I doubt he gets in anytime soon, but I don't think it would be that surprising if the Senior Committee nominates him one year. What do you think the chances are of that?

I would say completely refuting his chances would mean he would never get close to making it. Peter King talking about him doesn't bear on that one way or the other.I would be extremely surprised if the senior committee ever nominates him. Look at it this way... the senior committee to date has dealt with eras with fewer teams, and thus fewer offensive and defensive players... yet to my knowledge the senior committee has never nominated a player who was primarily a special teams player. Why would that change as they start dealing with players in eras with more teams? And if it does change, how do you know they will choose Tasker instead of a punter or kicker or returner?

Well, it seems like some of the Senior nominees over the years are, for lack of a better phrase, "pet projects", guys that one or two of the members really like and lobby hard to get the nomination. They certainly don't seem to be going in any linear order to me. So I think it's possible that Tasker become some one's pet project in 20 years or whatever and get in that way. And you make a good point about him over other Kickers or Punters, but I am guessing that if nothing else that Ray Guy, right or wrong, will be a pet project too so there will be someone besides Jan Stenerud in there. Lots of assumptions though. And thanks again for being civil on this argument over the years. It sure is a lot nicer to read good counter-arguments than just read that I am an idiot that doesn't know anything about football.

 

[Rovers]

Until Joe Klecko and a few others get in, I don't have much respect for Canton. They have guys they like, and guys they don't like. It's a popularity contest more than anythingh else. It diminishes the "honor". Same could be said for Cooperstown.

 

[Jason Wood]

I do think the nomination process seems suboptimal.

There are 44 voters, many dedicated to a specific city and then those with at large spots. If a player makes the cut into the semi-finals, it's the voter from that city who does the presentation. I mean, what if that voter isn't up to snuff? What if he's not a great presenter? What if he's not particularly a fan of that particular player? [Lots of beat writers have players they don't necessarily care for or think that highly of as players].

I would like to see a broader swath in charge of at least winnowing down the list, and have a more independent way of presenting each player's nominations. I would also like to see the consideration of closed balloting, but only if they expanded those who were eligible to vote.

 

[David Yudkin]

I do think the nomination process seems suboptimal. There are 44 voters, many dedicated to a specific city and then those with at large spots. If a player makes the cut into the semi-finals, it's the voter from that city who does the presentation. I mean, what if that voter isn't up to snuff? What if he's not a great presenter? What if he's not particularly a fan of that particular player? [Lots of beat writers have players they don't necessarily care for or think that highly of as players].I would like to see a broader swath in charge of at least winnowing down the list, and have a more independent way of presenting each player's nominations. I would also like to see the consideration of closed balloting, but only if they expanded those who were eligible to vote.

I do think the voting process is flawed in that so few people get to vote. As you mentioned, there are 40 something HOF voters and 50 voters for major awards (at least in the AP model). As far as the awards go, people get one vote and there are no votes for second or third place. Using baseball as an example, there seems to be way more voters for both the HOF and for league awards (in addition to voters voting for 2nd, 4rd, etc.).

 

[Jason Wood]

I do think the nomination process seems suboptimal. There are 44 voters, many dedicated to a specific city and then those with at large spots. If a player makes the cut into the semi-finals, it's the voter from that city who does the presentation. I mean, what if that voter isn't up to snuff? What if he's not a great presenter? What if he's not particularly a fan of that particular player? [Lots of beat writers have players they don't necessarily care for or think that highly of as players].I would like to see a broader swath in charge of at least winnowing down the list, and have a more independent way of presenting each player's nominations. I would also like to see the consideration of closed balloting, but only if they expanded those who were eligible to vote.

I do think the voting process is flawed in that so few people get to vote. As you mentioned, there are 40 something HOF voters and 50 voters for major awards (at least in the AP model). As far as the awards go, people get one vote and there are no votes for second or third place. Using baseball as an example, there seems to be way more voters for both the HOF and for league awards (in addition to voters voting for 2nd, 4rd, etc.).

Absolutely. The other thing I don't like is, from listening to a few of the voters talk about the process this year, they literally get in a room and then argue for awhile until they have to make a decision and move on. Howard Balzer said he was 9 of 10 in his votes for the cut down to 10, with his lone dissent being the Sabol vote. What struck me is that he candidly said he knew "from the tone of the room" that Sabol was getting the push and he could've easily gone with the room in order to be 10-for-10, but felt strongly against it. I'm sure a lot of guys, in the interest if time and sanity, get a sense if they're in the minority on guys and quickly stick them on the backburner.

 

[Orange Crush]

I do think the nomination process seems suboptimal. There are 44 voters, many dedicated to a specific city and then those with at large spots. If a player makes the cut into the semi-finals, it's the voter from that city who does the presentation. I mean, what if that voter isn't up to snuff? What if he's not a great presenter? What if he's not particularly a fan of that particular player? [Lots of beat writers have players they don't necessarily care for or think that highly of as players].I would like to see a broader swath in charge of at least winnowing down the list, and have a more independent way of presenting each player's nominations. I would also like to see the consideration of closed balloting, but only if they expanded those who were eligible to vote.

I do think the voting process is flawed in that so few people get to vote. As you mentioned, there are 40 something HOF voters and 50 voters for major awards (at least in the AP model). As far as the awards go, people get one vote and there are no votes for second or third place. Using baseball as an example, there seems to be way more voters for both the HOF and for league awards (in addition to voters voting for 2nd, 4rd, etc.).

Absolutely. The other thing I don't like is, from listening to a few of the voters talk about the process this year, they literally get in a room and then argue for awhile until they have to make a decision and move on. Howard Balzer said he was 9 of 10 in his votes for the cut down to 10, with his lone dissent being the Sabol vote. What struck me is that he candidly said he knew "from the tone of the room" that Sabol was getting the push and he could've easily gone with the room in order to be 10-for-10, but felt strongly against it. I'm sure a lot of guys, in the interest if time and sanity, get a sense if they're in the minority on guys and quickly stick them on the backburner.

And how is that a bad thing? That's part of building consensus. It's much better for the selectors to be placed in the same room and argue things out, thus allowing everyone to become fully informed on each player and for poorly reasoned arguments to be exposed as such, than for voters to send in their ballots remotely and be done with it.

 

[Jason Wood]

I do think the nomination process seems suboptimal. There are 44 voters, many dedicated to a specific city and then those with at large spots. If a player makes the cut into the semi-finals, it's the voter from that city who does the presentation. I mean, what if that voter isn't up to snuff? What if he's not a great presenter? What if he's not particularly a fan of that particular player? [Lots of beat writers have players they don't necessarily care for or think that highly of as players].I would like to see a broader swath in charge of at least winnowing down the list, and have a more independent way of presenting each player's nominations. I would also like to see the consideration of closed balloting, but only if they expanded those who were eligible to vote.

I do think the voting process is flawed in that so few people get to vote. As you mentioned, there are 40 something HOF voters and 50 voters for major awards (at least in the AP model). As far as the awards go, people get one vote and there are no votes for second or third place. Using baseball as an example, there seems to be way more voters for both the HOF and for league awards (in addition to voters voting for 2nd, 4rd, etc.).

Absolutely. The other thing I don't like is, from listening to a few of the voters talk about the process this year, they literally get in a room and then argue for awhile until they have to make a decision and move on. Howard Balzer said he was 9 of 10 in his votes for the cut down to 10, with his lone dissent being the Sabol vote. What struck me is that he candidly said he knew "from the tone of the room" that Sabol was getting the push and he could've easily gone with the room in order to be 10-for-10, but felt strongly against it. I'm sure a lot of guys, in the interest if time and sanity, get a sense if they're in the minority on guys and quickly stick them on the backburner.

And how is that a bad thing? That's part of building consensus. It's much better for the selectors to be placed in the same room and argue things out, thus allowing everyone to become fully informed on each player and for poorly reasoned arguments to be exposed as such, than for voters to send in their ballots remotely and be done with it.

I don't think either is optimal. The NFL prides itself on improving the product on and off the field year in, year out...I don't think it's unreasonable to think the process of selecting HOF members can't be held to the same standard.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Even though off the field stuff is not supposed to matter, you can't help but wonder if the drug and alcohol problems early in his career is why they are not letting Cris Carter in.

Or maybe he turned off some with his obsession with stats and numbers. I remember him being too hurt to play in a Sunday night game later in his career, but he went in for like two plays so he could keep his consecutive games streak alive.

 

[David Yudkin]

The way it sounds, it's almost like these guys get together and there are certain guys that will get in because a bunch of voters decide "it's their time" and lobby to get them in in that particular year no matter what. I'm not sure I would want to engage in a vote that essential is predetermined by the guys that have seniority, have a clique, or otherwise are buddy buddy and I am expected to cave because they said so.