What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

2014 Hall of Famers announced - '15 class now being discussed (1 Viewer)

What makes Tony Dungy a HOFer other than the fact that he won a Superbowl and people generally like/respect him and think he's humble?

I can pitch some knocks on him... he couldn't get TB over the hump but Gruden could, and he only took Peyton Manning to the SB once. Even that bumbling coach after him was able to ride Manning to the SB against the Saints...

Is he generally credited with the design of the Tampa-2? What am I missing?
139 wins (21st all time).668 winning % (12th best all time)

11 playoff appearances (T-8th most all time)

I'm not saying he is or is not HOF worthy, but those are his base coaching numbers.
Wasn’t Tampa Bay atrocious before Dungy got there? I recall something like a decade of double digit losses before Dungy took over
13 straight losing seasons before Dungy.
 
I really only care about the slam-dunk, first ballot HOF'ers in any given year. I understand that there are numbers to keep up and all that, and will be perfectly content seeing all the really good players get in sooner or later. But as long as that guy or two who nobody on the planet would deny enshrinement to, if they knew the first thing about the game, gets in, all is well with the universe.

This year, it's Derrick Brooks. The rest makes for interesting discussion, but is ultimately secondary.

If you were picking the All-NFL, All-Pro, All-Time starting lineup, and you happened to run a 4-3 defense, Brooks would get lots of votes as the starting Willie LB. And would probably be the only guy since 1980 to get any.

Looking forward to his enshrinement, along with whatever supporting cast the voters see fit to shovel in there alongside him this year.
Agree about Brooks. Hes the only slam dunk

 
Is he generally credited with the design of the Tampa-2? What am I missing?
I think that's it.
Popular misconception. He added a wrinkle or two, but he learned the system playing DB under Chuck Noll

The roots of the Tampa 2 system actually are in the Steel Curtain days of Pittsburgh football. "My philosophy is really out of the 1975 Pittsburgh Steelers playbook,” said Dungy during media interviews while at Super Bowl XLI. “That is why I have to laugh when I hear 'Tampa 2'. Chuck Noll and Bud Carson — that is where it came from, I changed very little.
Cool info. Thanks!

 
How is Marvin Harrison not a first ballot HOFer? His numbers dwarf receivers that have gone in before him.
Compare his numbers to his peers, not the WRs from the "dead ball" eras.

I still think he gets in, but it will be interesting to see who gets in first of Marvin / Reed / Brown.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh, and Patrick Surtain. I don't want any part of a universe where Patrick Surtain isn't a first ballot HOF'er.
Seriously? The two guys you think absolutely have to get in on the first ballot are Derrick Brooks and... Patrick Surtain? What a random name to throw in.

Personally, I don't think Patrick Surtain is a Hall of Famer, let alone a first-ballot Hall of Famer. He was a great cornerback for a handful of years, but Aeneas Williams was way better for way longer, and Williams has been waiting for years.

 
Oh, and Patrick Surtain. I don't want any part of a universe where Patrick Surtain isn't a first ballot HOF'er.
Seriously? The two guys you think absolutely have to get in on the first ballot are Derrick Brooks and... Patrick Surtain? What a random name to throw in.

Personally, I don't think Patrick Surtain is a Hall of Famer, let alone a first-ballot Hall of Famer. He was a great cornerback for a handful of years, but Aeneas Williams was way better for way longer, and Williams has been waiting for years.
Agreed. I was forced to assume MOZ was joking with that comment.

 
Raider Nation said:
Adam Harstad said:
^^^ Very capable quarterback, nice TD-INT ratio, losing record as a starting QB, absolutely nothing special about him.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/G/GreeTr00.htm
Nothing special? Again, led one of the highest-scoring offenses in history. Led the league in passing yardage from 2003-2005 and was second in passing yardage from 2001-2005 despite having garbage at wide receiver (Eddie Kennison, Johnnie Morton, Marc Boerigter, Dante Hall, and Samie Parker were his top 5 WRs over that stretch). For about a half decade he was the best QB in the league not named Brady or Manning. None of that will get him anywhere near the hall, but he definitely deserves to at least be among the 90 semifinalists.
And he made the same number of Pro Bowls as Vince Young.

ETA: I notice you forgot to mention Tony Gonzalez and Priest Holmes, who caught a boatload of passes.
From 2001 to 2004, only three QBs were selected from the AFC each year. In 2006 (Young's first pro bowl), four QBs made it from the AFC. In 2009 (Young's second pro bowl), SIX QUARTERBACKS represented the AFC in the pro bowl. When Trent Green missed the pro bowl, the QBs to make the pro bowl over Trent Green were Peyton, Brady, Brees, Gannon, and McNair. Quarterbacks who made the pro bowl over Vince Young included Derek Anderson, Jay Cutler, Kerry Collins, David Garrard, Philip Rivers, Matt Schaub, and Matt Cassel. Not the same thing.

Priest Holmes caught a ton of passes FOR A RUNNING BACK, but he never topped even 700 receiving yards. Tony Gonzalez caught a ton of passes FOR A TIGHT END, but he only topped 1,000 yards once during his time with Trent Green. And yet, despite getting pretty meager receiving yardage totals from Gonzo and Holmes, Green still led the league in passing yards over a 3-year span and finished second over a 5-year span. Need me to list those wide receivers again?

Also, in case you missed it, the 2002-2005 Kansas City Chiefs were possibly the single most prolific offense over a 4-year span in NFL history. Kansas City's AVERAGE offensive DVOA during that span was 31.0%. New England's offensive DVOA last year was 30.8%. That's a 4-year run where Kansas City was a better offense than the 2012 league-best New England Patriots. That offense grades out as better than the GSoT Rams. It was a historically great offense, with a strong case for the greatest in history over a sustained period of time. I know Holmes and Gonzo were both absurd, but at the end of the day an offense only goes as far as its quarterback can take it.

Trent Green is one of the most criminally underrated players in NFL history. If his defenses had managed to just be average instead of embarassingly, disgustingly awful, he would have stacked up the accolades and postseason wins.

 
Yenrub said:
Anarchy99 said:
karmarooster said:
What makes Tony Dungy a HOFer other than the fact that he won a Superbowl and people generally like/respect him and think he's humble?

I can pitch some knocks on him... he couldn't get TB over the hump but Gruden could, and he only took Peyton Manning to the SB once. Even that bumbling coach after him was able to ride Manning to the SB against the Saints...

Is he generally credited with the design of the Tampa-2? What am I missing?
139 wins (21st all time)

.668 winning % (12th best all time)

11 playoff appearances (T-8th most all time)

I'm not saying he is or is not HOF worthy, but those are his base coaching numbers.
Wasn’t Tampa Bay atrocious before Dungy got there? I recall something like a decade of double digit losses before Dungy took over
Tony Dungy (54-42) and John Gruden (57-55) are the only two coaches in Tampa Bay history with a winning career record. If lag their records by a year (i.e. give Dungy a pass for his first season by blaming it on the previous guy, while giving him credit for the year after he left for setting everything up), Dungy's record would be 60-36 and Gruden's would fall to 48-64. Do the same thing in Indianapolis, and Dungy gets credit for seven straight 12+ win seasons, an Indianapolis record of 89-23 (79.5%!!!), and a total career record of 143-65 (68.8%), fifth best in history among coaches with 100 games. Lagging coaching records by a year also makes Dungy responsible for two SB champions, one SB loser, and two more conference championship participants.

Obviously we can debate the appropriateness of giving Dungy a pass for what happened on the first year of his watch, or giving him credit for what happened the year after he left. I don't think he deserves a full pass and full credit like I gave him in this exercise, but I do think he needs to get at least partial credit. You mean to tell me that Tampa Bay squad couldn't have made the Super Bowl with Dungy? Because John Gruden was such a great playoff coach, of course (just ignore the fact that he was 2-4 in his career outside of his SB season and never won another playoff game with Tampa Bay). You think Dungy couldn't have taken the Colts at least as far as Jim Caldwell did? Why is it that Bill Walsh gets credit for George Seifert's success following in his footsteps, and Jimmy Johnson gets credit for Barry Switzer's success following in his footsteps, and John Gruden even gets credit for Bill Callahan's success following in his footsteps, but Tony Dungy never gets credit for the success of John Gruden and Andre Caldwell, despite both of those coaches quickly running Dungy's former teams into the ground shortly after he left?

 
Yenrub said:
Anarchy99 said:
karmarooster said:
What makes Tony Dungy a HOFer other than the fact that he won a Superbowl and people generally like/respect him and think he's humble?

I can pitch some knocks on him... he couldn't get TB over the hump but Gruden could, and he only took Peyton Manning to the SB once. Even that bumbling coach after him was able to ride Manning to the SB against the Saints...

Is he generally credited with the design of the Tampa-2? What am I missing?
139 wins (21st all time)

.668 winning % (12th best all time)

11 playoff appearances (T-8th most all time)

I'm not saying he is or is not HOF worthy, but those are his base coaching numbers.
Wasn’t Tampa Bay atrocious before Dungy got there? I recall something like a decade of double digit losses before Dungy took over
Tony Dungy (54-42) and John Gruden (57-55) are the only two coaches in Tampa Bay history with a winning career record. If lag their records by a year (i.e. give Dungy a pass for his first season by blaming it on the previous guy, while giving him credit for the year after he left for setting everything up), Dungy's record would be 60-36 and Gruden's would fall to 48-64. Do the same thing in Indianapolis, and Dungy gets credit for seven straight 12+ win seasons, an Indianapolis record of 89-23 (79.5%!!!), and a total career record of 143-65 (68.8%), fifth best in history among coaches with 100 games. Lagging coaching records by a year also makes Dungy responsible for two SB champions, one SB loser, and two more conference championship participants.

Obviously we can debate the appropriateness of giving Dungy a pass for what happened on the first year of his watch, or giving him credit for what happened the year after he left. I don't think he deserves a full pass and full credit like I gave him in this exercise, but I do think he needs to get at least partial credit. You mean to tell me that Tampa Bay squad couldn't have made the Super Bowl with Dungy? Because John Gruden was such a great playoff coach, of course (just ignore the fact that he was 2-4 in his career outside of his SB season and never won another playoff game with Tampa Bay). You think Dungy couldn't have taken the Colts at least as far as Jim Caldwell did? Why is it that Bill Walsh gets credit for George Seifert's success following in his footsteps, and Jimmy Johnson gets credit for Barry Switzer's success following in his footsteps, and John Gruden even gets credit for Bill Callahan's success following in his footsteps, but Tony Dungy never gets credit for the success of John Gruden and Andre Caldwell, despite both of those coaches quickly running Dungy's former teams into the ground shortly after he left?
I see the other side of the coin on this, which is: Jim Caldwell took the Colts basically as far as Dungy did, except that the Saints were a better team than the bears. Point being that Dungy was a good coach on the Colts, but had a HOF QB, a pair of stud WRs in Harrison/Wayne for a major portion there, plus edge rushers. And for all his talk as a great defensive coach, he was never, ever, able to make the colts anything better than "average" on D. Any plus defensive team with Manning is really all you need, and yet his specialty was the Achilles heel year after year after year (well, the D plus "Manning face").

But give him the SB. and give him half of the TB SB. So 1.5 Superbowls is a HOFer? I guess its kinda close if Coughlin is a HOFer with two, but still, it seems like a low bar.

Turning to the first black head coach to win the Superbowl, I just don't think that's in the same league as e.g. Jackie Robinson or Barrack Obama or what have you. It's not like there were major societal forces working against Dungy as a black head coach, considering when he coached (in the modern era), plus that fact that once he got the HC job, he wasn't facing the same sort of obstacles as an early integration player. Early in integration for any sport, black players probably faced guys every week who wanted to tag them with something extra just because of race, and going on the road they took ugly abuse from fans in every city. I know this is going to open a whole can of worms about whether or not its appropriate to take race into such HOF deliberation, and my point is that it could very well be important, but I don't know that it is in this circumstance. But of course I'm welcome to hearing the reasons why it should be.

 
Priest Holmes caught a ton of passes FOR A RUNNING BACK, but he never topped even 700 receiving yards. Tony Gonzalez caught a ton of passes FOR A TIGHT END, but he only topped 1,000 yards once during his time with Trent Green. And yet, despite getting pretty meager receiving yardage totals from Gonzo and Holmes, Green still led the league in passing yards over a 3-year span and finished second over a 5-year span. Need me to list those wide receivers again?

Also, in case you missed it, the 2002-2005 Kansas City Chiefs were possibly the single most prolific offense over a 4-year span in NFL history. Kansas City's AVERAGE offensive DVOA during that span was 31.0%. New England's offensive DVOA last year was 30.8%. That's a 4-year run where Kansas City was a better offense than the 2012 league-best New England Patriots. That offense grades out as better than the GSoT Rams. It was a historically great offense, with a strong case for the greatest in history over a sustained period of time. I know Holmes and Gonzo were both absurd, but at the end of the day an offense only goes as far as its quarterback can take it.

Trent Green is one of the most criminally underrated players in NFL history. If his defenses had managed to just be average instead of embarassingly, disgustingly awful, he would have stacked up the accolades and postseason wins.
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: Trent Green succeeded despite playing with such bums as Priest Holmes and Tony Gonzalez!!!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
That was in reply to my post, which was in reply to his post where he only listed the crappy WIDE RECEIVERS Green played with.

Fine. Since the receptions by Holmes and Gonzo don't count, let's take them away from Green's totals and we'll see what his numbers look like now.

:)

 
Only new guys that are locks, if not this year, are Walter Jones and Derrick Brooks. I think they both make it in 2014 along with Tim Brown. The last two will be a fight.

 
Oh, and Patrick Surtain. I don't want any part of a universe where Patrick Surtain isn't a first ballot HOF'er.
Seriously?
Is there any conceivable way anybody could put those words together in that order and mean them?
I lived in South Florida while Patrick Surtain was playing. I heard several people refer to him as a future Hall of Famer. I just figured you were a homer or someone looking to stake out a controversial position.

 
Joe Summer said:
Priest Holmes caught a ton of passes FOR A RUNNING BACK, but he never topped even 700 receiving yards. Tony Gonzalez caught a ton of passes FOR A TIGHT END, but he only topped 1,000 yards once during his time with Trent Green. And yet, despite getting pretty meager receiving yardage totals from Gonzo and Holmes, Green still led the league in passing yards over a 3-year span and finished second over a 5-year span. Need me to list those wide receivers again?

Also, in case you missed it, the 2002-2005 Kansas City Chiefs were possibly the single most prolific offense over a 4-year span in NFL history. Kansas City's AVERAGE offensive DVOA during that span was 31.0%. New England's offensive DVOA last year was 30.8%. That's a 4-year run where Kansas City was a better offense than the 2012 league-best New England Patriots. That offense grades out as better than the GSoT Rams. It was a historically great offense, with a strong case for the greatest in history over a sustained period of time. I know Holmes and Gonzo were both absurd, but at the end of the day an offense only goes as far as its quarterback can take it.

Trent Green is one of the most criminally underrated players in NFL history. If his defenses had managed to just be average instead of embarassingly, disgustingly awful, he would have stacked up the accolades and postseason wins.
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: Trent Green succeeded despite playing with such bums as Priest Holmes and Tony Gonzalez!!!
So you're saying the QB isn't the single most important player on the entire offense? You're saying the quarterback doesn't deserve the lion's share of the credit for how it performs?

 
Raider Nation said:
That was in reply to my post, which was in reply to his post where he only listed the crappy WIDE RECEIVERS Green played with.

Fine. Since the receptions by Holmes and Gonzo don't count, let's take them away from Green's totals and we'll see what his numbers look like now.

:)
I never said the receptions by Holmes and Gonzo don't count. I'm saying that huge receiving totals for TEs and RBs would rank as mediocre receiving totals by WRs. In 2003, Trent Green was 2nd in the league in passing yards despite the fact that his top two targets (Kennison and Gonzo) totaled just 1750 yards. Gonzo was an amazing tight end, but even the best TE in history is not anywhere near as prolific as a mere pro bowl WR. I'm sorry, he's just not. From 2002-2005, Gonzo averaged just 950 yards a year. If that was Johnnie Morton putting up 950 yards a year, would anyone be saying "well, of course Trent Green had the second most passing yards in the NFL- after all, he had the great Johnnie Morton going for 900 every year!"?

A quarterback with elite receivers will tend to pass for more yards than a quarterback with an elite tight end and an elite receiving RB, simply because WRs get more yards than RBs and TEs. That's why pro bowl WRs get paid more than All Pro TEs.

 
Raider Nation said:
That was in reply to my post, which was in reply to his post where he only listed the crappy WIDE RECEIVERS Green played with.

Fine. Since the receptions by Holmes and Gonzo don't count, let's take them away from Green's totals and we'll see what his numbers look like now.

:)
I never said the receptions by Holmes and Gonzo don't count. I'm saying that huge receiving totals for TEs and RBs would rank as mediocre receiving totals by WRs. In 2003, Trent Green was 2nd in the league in passing yards despite the fact that his top two targets (Kennison and Gonzo) totaled just 1750 yards. Gonzo was an amazing tight end, but even the best TE in history is not anywhere near as prolific as a mere pro bowl WR. I'm sorry, he's just not. From 2002-2005, Gonzo averaged just 950 yards a year. If that was Johnnie Morton putting up 950 yards a year, would anyone be saying "well, of course Trent Green had the second most passing yards in the NFL- after all, he had the great Johnnie Morton going for 900 every year!"?

A quarterback with elite receivers will tend to pass for more yards than a quarterback with an elite tight end and an elite receiving RB, simply because WRs get more yards than RBs and TEs. That's why pro bowl WRs get paid more than All Pro TEs.
I always appreciate that you come loaded with facts, and do so in a civil manner. But the Green fascination is puzzling.

 
I like these guys the most but that is quite a list.

Don Coryell
Tony Dungy
Marty Schottenheimer
Marvin Harrison
Charles Haley
Nate Newton
Will Shields
Michael Strahan


Thanks RN and SSOG for covering Dungy.

 
Joe Summer said:
Priest Holmes caught a ton of passes FOR A RUNNING BACK, but he never topped even 700 receiving yards. Tony Gonzalez caught a ton of passes FOR A TIGHT END, but he only topped 1,000 yards once during his time with Trent Green. And yet, despite getting pretty meager receiving yardage totals from Gonzo and Holmes, Green still led the league in passing yards over a 3-year span and finished second over a 5-year span. Need me to list those wide receivers again?

Also, in case you missed it, the 2002-2005 Kansas City Chiefs were possibly the single most prolific offense over a 4-year span in NFL history. Kansas City's AVERAGE offensive DVOA during that span was 31.0%. New England's offensive DVOA last year was 30.8%. That's a 4-year run where Kansas City was a better offense than the 2012 league-best New England Patriots. That offense grades out as better than the GSoT Rams. It was a historically great offense, with a strong case for the greatest in history over a sustained period of time. I know Holmes and Gonzo were both absurd, but at the end of the day an offense only goes as far as its quarterback can take it.

Trent Green is one of the most criminally underrated players in NFL history. If his defenses had managed to just be average instead of embarassingly, disgustingly awful, he would have stacked up the accolades and postseason wins.
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: Trent Green succeeded despite playing with such bums as Priest Holmes and Tony Gonzalez!!!
So you're saying the QB isn't the single most important player on the entire offense? You're saying the quarterback doesn't deserve the lion's share of the credit for how it performs?
I thought your argument jumped the tracks with the second sentence of your first post -- "He's never making it into the hall...." Exactly. So why does he deserve to take up a valuable nomination spot when there are many other likely more appropriate names who could be nominated and actually should be in the HoF.

But now it's getting ridiculous. Should Trent Dilfer get the lion's share of the credit for BAL's Superbowl-winning season? Should Brad Johnson or Jeff Hostetler given the extraordinary talent that was on their Bucs and Giants teams?

 
Raider Nation said:
That was in reply to my post, which was in reply to his post where he only listed the crappy WIDE RECEIVERS Green played with.

Fine. Since the receptions by Holmes and Gonzo don't count, let's take them away from Green's totals and we'll see what his numbers look like now.

:)
I never said the receptions by Holmes and Gonzo don't count. I'm saying that huge receiving totals for TEs and RBs would rank as mediocre receiving totals by WRs. In 2003, Trent Green was 2nd in the league in passing yards despite the fact that his top two targets (Kennison and Gonzo) totaled just 1750 yards. Gonzo was an amazing tight end, but even the best TE in history is not anywhere near as prolific as a mere pro bowl WR. I'm sorry, he's just not. From 2002-2005, Gonzo averaged just 950 yards a year. If that was Johnnie Morton putting up 950 yards a year, would anyone be saying "well, of course Trent Green had the second most passing yards in the NFL- after all, he had the great Johnnie Morton going for 900 every year!"?

A quarterback with elite receivers will tend to pass for more yards than a quarterback with an elite tight end and an elite receiving RB, simply because WRs get more yards than RBs and TEs. That's why pro bowl WRs get paid more than All Pro TEs.
I always appreciate that you come loaded with facts, and do so in a civil manner. But the Green fascination is puzzling.
I think people are forgetting just how ridiculous those early 2000s **** Vermeil Chiefs teams were on offense, and that makes me sad, because they were historically good. And if they forget how good those offenses were, it's easy to remember Trent Green as somehow less than he was, which also makes me sad. He was underrated enough while he was still playing, for him to be thought even less of ten years after the fact is a minor tragedy. I really, truly believe that Trent Green was the 3rd best QB in the NFL over a half-decade span. He's going to have to buy a ticket to get into Canton just like you or I will, but I like the fact that he made the semifinalists list, that he finally gets a moment of recognition for how quietly good he really was.

 
Joe Summer said:
Priest Holmes caught a ton of passes FOR A RUNNING BACK, but he never topped even 700 receiving yards. Tony Gonzalez caught a ton of passes FOR A TIGHT END, but he only topped 1,000 yards once during his time with Trent Green. And yet, despite getting pretty meager receiving yardage totals from Gonzo and Holmes, Green still led the league in passing yards over a 3-year span and finished second over a 5-year span. Need me to list those wide receivers again?

Also, in case you missed it, the 2002-2005 Kansas City Chiefs were possibly the single most prolific offense over a 4-year span in NFL history. Kansas City's AVERAGE offensive DVOA during that span was 31.0%. New England's offensive DVOA last year was 30.8%. That's a 4-year run where Kansas City was a better offense than the 2012 league-best New England Patriots. That offense grades out as better than the GSoT Rams. It was a historically great offense, with a strong case for the greatest in history over a sustained period of time. I know Holmes and Gonzo were both absurd, but at the end of the day an offense only goes as far as its quarterback can take it.

Trent Green is one of the most criminally underrated players in NFL history. If his defenses had managed to just be average instead of embarassingly, disgustingly awful, he would have stacked up the accolades and postseason wins.
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: Trent Green succeeded despite playing with such bums as Priest Holmes and Tony Gonzalez!!!
So you're saying the QB isn't the single most important player on the entire offense? You're saying the quarterback doesn't deserve the lion's share of the credit for how it performs?
I thought your argument jumped the tracks with the second sentence of your first post -- "He's never making it into the hall...." Exactly. So why does he deserve to take up a valuable nomination spot when there are many other likely more appropriate names who could be nominated and actually should be in the HoF.

But now it's getting ridiculous. Should Trent Dilfer get the lion's share of the credit for BAL's Superbowl-winning season? Should Brad Johnson or Jeff Hostetler given the extraordinary talent that was on their Bucs and Giants teams?
First off, there's no limit to the number of semifinalists who can be nominated, so Trent Green isn't "tak[ing] up a valuable nomination spot". Second off, who are these "many other likely more appropriate names"? There aren't 89 guys out there right now who deserve to be in the Hall of Fame, so even if you replaced Green with someone else, you'd just be replacing him with another guy who'll never get into Canton without a ticket.

Third off, I never said Green was responsible for everything the Chiefs did, I said he was responsible for the lion's share of that offense. If you want to give Trent Dilfer credit for the Lion's share of Baltimore's offense during their superbowl season, I think that's appropriate. As bad as Baltimore's offense was, I don't think it really reflects that well on Dilfer. Quarterbacks should not receive credit for how well their defense performs, and I never at any point suggested as much.

Honestly, I think it's a relatively uncontroversial statement to say that the quarterback is the most important player on the entire offense and therefore earns the lion's share of the credit or the blame for how the offense performs. :shrug:

 
Joe Summer said:
Priest Holmes caught a ton of passes FOR A RUNNING BACK, but he never topped even 700 receiving yards. Tony Gonzalez caught a ton of passes FOR A TIGHT END, but he only topped 1,000 yards once during his time with Trent Green. And yet, despite getting pretty meager receiving yardage totals from Gonzo and Holmes, Green still led the league in passing yards over a 3-year span and finished second over a 5-year span. Need me to list those wide receivers again?

Also, in case you missed it, the 2002-2005 Kansas City Chiefs were possibly the single most prolific offense over a 4-year span in NFL history. Kansas City's AVERAGE offensive DVOA during that span was 31.0%. New England's offensive DVOA last year was 30.8%. That's a 4-year run where Kansas City was a better offense than the 2012 league-best New England Patriots. That offense grades out as better than the GSoT Rams. It was a historically great offense, with a strong case for the greatest in history over a sustained period of time. I know Holmes and Gonzo were both absurd, but at the end of the day an offense only goes as far as its quarterback can take it.

Trent Green is one of the most criminally underrated players in NFL history. If his defenses had managed to just be average instead of embarassingly, disgustingly awful, he would have stacked up the accolades and postseason wins.
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: Trent Green succeeded despite playing with such bums as Priest Holmes and Tony Gonzalez!!!
So you're saying the QB isn't the single most important player on the entire offense? You're saying the quarterback doesn't deserve the lion's share of the credit for how it performs?
I thought your argument jumped the tracks with the second sentence of your first post -- "He's never making it into the hall...." Exactly. So why does he deserve to take up a valuable nomination spot when there are many other likely more appropriate names who could be nominated and actually should be in the HoF.

But now it's getting ridiculous. Should Trent Dilfer get the lion's share of the credit for BAL's Superbowl-winning season? Should Brad Johnson or Jeff Hostetler given the extraordinary talent that was on their Bucs and Giants teams?
First off, there's no limit to the number of semifinalists who can be nominated, so Trent Green isn't "tak[ing] up a valuable nomination spot". Second off, who are these "many other likely more appropriate names"? There aren't 89 guys out there right now who deserve to be in the Hall of Fame, so even if you replaced Green with someone else, you'd just be replacing him with another guy who'll never get into Canton without a ticket.

Third off, I never said Green was responsible for everything the Chiefs did, I said he was responsible for the lion's share of that offense. If you want to give Trent Dilfer credit for the Lion's share of Baltimore's offense during their superbowl season, I think that's appropriate. As bad as Baltimore's offense was, I don't think it really reflects that well on Dilfer. Quarterbacks should not receive credit for how well their defense performs, and I never at any point suggested as much.

Honestly, I think it's a relatively uncontroversial statement to say that the quarterback is the most important player on the entire offense and therefore earns the lion's share of the credit or the blame for how the offense performs. :shrug:
Point really isn't about the nomination process for the first-time Modern Era ballot -- the overall process seems broken that we're even wasting breath about a guy like Trent Green instead of Stabler, Ken Anderson, Simms, Theisman, hell even Boomer and possibly even Cunningham, all who have had more impact at their position than Trent Green. You seem to realize this when you admit that Green hasn't a shot at Canton. Why bother then, instead of spending more time discussing guys who have more right to be part of the conversation?

I used your exact verbiage, and did not take you out of context in terms of your question about Green or any other quarterback deserving the lion's share of the credit for how the team performs. I just completely disagree.

A QB is the field general, calls the plays, sets the tone. That's part of the game of football -- QBs need to be a leader of men. Indeed, not controversial, and no one ever argued that point. But that doesn't automatically mean they should be given most of the accolades when that offense is successful.

Dilfer is the perfect example. Note that I didn't even mention the defense of BAL, TB, and the NYG in my post, which I don't think can be denied was the primary reason these teams got to the dance.

All Dilfer had to do was not lose -- the lion's share of that offense was squarely on Jamal Lewis and Priest Holmes, and the incredible talent of Shannon Sharp. It was Ogden who was responsible for giving Dilfer time in the pocket, and not anything special that Dilfer did. Same with Hoss -- it was controlling the ball on the ground with OJ Anderson running behind Oates and a 3 TE set, and YAC talents like Bavaro being the difference makers. Johnson at least made the pro bowl his SB year.

When ADP breaks free for a 78 yard score on his first carry of the season, we shouldn't be carrying Ponder on our shoulders into the end zone for calling the play.

 
I do think Walter Jones is a deserving candidate, for sure, but damn...that backlog of O-linemen that almost HAVE to go in eventually is amazing right now. Looks like receiver did a few years back.

Short of some kind of time warp making Anthony Munoz eligible again next year, I think first-ballot OL's may have rough sledding for a bit.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I do think Walter Jones is a deserving candidate, for sure, but damn...that backlog of O-linemen that almost HAVE to go in eventually is amazing right now. Looks like receiver did a few years back.

Short of some kind of time warp making Anthony Munoz eligible again next year, I think first-ballot OL's may have rough sledding for a bit.
Maybe I'm missing it. Beyond Walter Jones and Shields, which ones do you view as deserving, and why?

 
A QB is the field general, calls the plays, sets the tone. That's part of the game of football -- QBs need to be a leader of men. Indeed, not controversial, and no one ever argued that point. But that doesn't automatically mean they should be given most of the accolades when that offense is successful.

Dilfer is the perfect example. Note that I didn't even mention the defense of BAL, TB, and the NYG in my post, which I don't think can be denied was the primary reason these teams got to the dance.

All Dilfer had to do was not lose -- the lion's share of that offense was squarely on Jamal Lewis and Priest Holmes, and the incredible talent of Shannon Sharp. It was Ogden who was responsible for giving Dilfer time in the pocket, and not anything special that Dilfer did. Same with Hoss -- it was controlling the ball on the ground with OJ Anderson running behind Oates and a 3 TE set, and YAC talents like Bavaro being the difference makers. Johnson at least made the pro bowl his SB year.

When ADP breaks free for a 78 yard score on his first carry of the season, we shouldn't be carrying Ponder on our shoulders into the end zone for calling the play.
Baltimore's offense WASN'T successful, though. In 2000, they ranked 22nd in the league in offensive DVOA. Trent Dilfer and Tony Banks, in my mind, get all the "credit" for that fact (and, of course, by "credit" I mean "blame"). Is it John Ogden's fault Baltimore's offense was below average? Shannon Sharpe's? Jamaal Lewis's? Priest Holmes? Was it even Qadry Ismael's? No, it was Banks' fault, and it was Dilfer's fault.

Minnesota is the perfect example. Adrian Peterson had perhaps the finest season any runningback has ever had in history, and Minnesota's offense was still mediocre. Why? Because the quarterback is far more responsible for how the offense performs than the running back. If a quarterback has one of the greatest seasons in history, his offense is one of the best in the league regardless of what his running game does. If a running back has one of the greatest seasons in history, his offense can still be thoroughly mediocre depending on how his quarterback plays.

Boomer Esaiason has been a candidate for over a decade without gaining the slightest bit of traction. Phil Simms has had 15 years. I'm perfectly okay with leaving them off while still including Trent Green in Green's first year of eligibility. Ken Anderson, rightly or wrongly, is no longer eligible to get into the Hall through the modern-era process, so who cares if Green is on the list over him? Same with Joe Thiesmann and Ken Stabler. I'm not seeing where all the outrage over Trent Green is coming from. As I keep saying, for a 5-year span he was probably the 3rd best quarterback in the league. He was the trigger man in one of the best offenses in the history of the game. I don't think those qualifications are so small that a guy looks out of place on the ridiculously-inclusive 89-name list of semifinalists.

I do agree with you about Randall Cunningham, though. I actually think he's a fringe Hall of Famer, so the fact that he gained no traction is sad.

 
LeRoy Butler is deserving I think.
I agree, but he's gotten no substantive consideration, so I don't see it happening for him unless via the senior nomination process.
Butler is the most deserving safety who is eligible for the Hall and not in yet, but as we know, the Hall hates safeties. I'd rank the eligible safeties as follows: Butler, Atwater, Woodson, Lake, Harrison, Lynch. When Sharper becomes eligible in a few years, he'll slot in between Harrison and Lynch.

Unfortunately, if recent seasons are anything to go by, the most likely guys to make the HoF from that group are Atwater (which is fine) and Lynch (which is not). Both guys survived the first cut down in 2013, and Atwater also survived the cut down in 2012 (Lynch wasn't eligible yet). I'm hoping that Lynch's candidacy last year was just a "new car smell" thing and he doesn't make it past the first cut down again this year. I'm not holding my breath, though. Atwater's candidacy seems to be gaining a bit of steam, because the last two seasons were actually the first time he's made it past the initial cut down. Hopefully that's a positive sign, because the Hall does need more safeties, just as long as it's choosing the right ones (I'd put Butler, Atwater, and Woodson in).

 
I do think Walter Jones is a deserving candidate, for sure, but damn...that backlog of O-linemen that almost HAVE to go in eventually is amazing right now. Looks like receiver did a few years back.

Short of some kind of time warp making Anthony Munoz eligible again next year, I think first-ballot OL's may have rough sledding for a bit.
Maybe I'm missing it. Beyond Walter Jones and Shields, which ones do you view as deserving, and why?
I think Nalen is deserving. He and Mawae were the best centers in the league in the generation following Dawson, and I think one of them should get in. I'd prefer Nalen because I'm a biased homer, and also because he was the only constant behind the most famous rushing attack in modern NFL history. He also got two rings, which shouldn't matter even though it obviously does. Mawae had more individual honors (8 PBs and 3 1APs vs. 5 and 2 for Nalen), and has a huge advantage in that the media actually liked him.

 
I don't think the bust makers are breaking out their tools over the probable 3rd best QB in the league over the span of a handful of years. That would make for the worst enshrinement speech in history.

 
I don't think the bust makers are breaking out their tools over the probable 3rd best QB in the league over the span of a handful of years. That would make for the worst enshrinement speech in history.
Again, of the 89 names on the list, maybe only 30 of them have a shot at the Hall. The initial list is supposed to be inclusive, and the first cut down is designed to take care of the guys that don't have a realistic shot. Given those criteria, the probable 3rd best QB in the league over a half decade doesn't look at all out of place on the initial 89-member list.

 
I don't get how Shaun Alexander never gets the love the deserves.

Stats wise he a Hall of famer.

He put together a string of 5 years NO ONE in NFL history has put together, not Barry Sander Emmitt Smith Jerry Rice, this being a fantasy board you think you would remember that.

He has the NFL MVP, went to a Superbowl and would have won the MVP if it were not the most poorly officiated game in NFL history.

He put the Seahawks on the map again, 110+ TDs, meets every requirement set by the Hall, its a disgrace that Jerome Bettis is being considered before him.

 
Trent Green got hurt and thus stepped out of the way of Kurt Warner, that was his crowning achievement

 
I don't get how Shaun Alexander never gets the love the deserves.

Stats wise he a Hall of famer.

He put together a string of 5 years NO ONE in NFL history has put together, not Barry Sander Emmitt Smith Jerry Rice, this being a fantasy board you think you would remember that.

He has the NFL MVP, went to a Superbowl and would have won the MVP if it were not the most poorly officiated game in NFL history.

He put the Seahawks on the map again, 110+ TDs, meets every requirement set by the Hall, its a disgrace that Jerome Bettis is being considered before him.
sorry

but that argument does to your credibility what LT did to Theisman's leg

 
I don't get how Shaun Alexander never gets the love the deserves.

Stats wise he a Hall of famer.

He put together a string of 5 years NO ONE in NFL history has put together, not Barry Sander Emmitt Smith Jerry Rice, this being a fantasy board you think you would remember that.

He has the NFL MVP, went to a Superbowl and would have won the MVP if it were not the most poorly officiated game in NFL history.

He put the Seahawks on the map again, 110+ TDs, meets every requirement set by the Hall, its a disgrace that Jerome Bettis is being considered before him.
He has a little bit of the Terrell Davis stigma. Five terriffic seasons where he was one of the very best in the league. Then, just when he was really begining to get recognized for his body of work, he fell off a cliff. Davis has the same pedigree over a four year period, but he won two super bowls in the process. Both are question marks for voters who have some minimum longevity threshold.

In his prime, though, yes he was awesome. The Sunday Night vs Oakland was a sight to behold. Looked like Bo Jackson for a while!

 
I don't get how Shaun Alexander never gets the love the deserves.

Stats wise he a Hall of famer.

He put together a string of 5 years NO ONE in NFL history has put together, not Barry Sander Emmitt Smith Jerry Rice, this being a fantasy board you think you would remember that.

He has the NFL MVP, went to a Superbowl and would have won the MVP if it were not the most poorly officiated game in NFL history.

He put the Seahawks on the map again, 110+ TDs, meets every requirement set by the Hall, its a disgrace that Jerome Bettis is being considered before him.
He has a little bit of the Terrell Davis stigma. Five terriffic seasons where he was one of the very best in the league. Then, just when he was really begining to get recognized for his body of work, he fell off a cliff. Davis has the same pedigree over a four year period, but he won two super bowls in the process. Both are question marks for voters who have some minimum longevity threshold.

In his prime, though, yes he was awesome. The Sunday Night vs Oakland was a sight to behold. Looked like Bo Jackson for a while!
Shaun was a better player then TD hands down. TD had 3 great years and a 4th OK one.

Superbowls when it comes to RB's shouldn't hold as much weight. Broncos had alltime great teams its hard to credit that to an RB who only does his job when hes handed the ball. Shaun was pretty good in the playoffs as well with a far worse supporting cast.

When you say best rb's of the decade outside of LT who he was better then some years its hard to put him outside the top 2. So you have a player top 2/3 (I would put Steven Jackson into the argument) and the best entire league regardless of position. To me that's a Hall of famer.

 
I don't get how Shaun Alexander never gets the love the deserves.

Stats wise he a Hall of famer.

He put together a string of 5 years NO ONE in NFL history has put together, not Barry Sander Emmitt Smith Jerry Rice, this being a fantasy board you think you would remember that.

He has the NFL MVP, went to a Superbowl and would have won the MVP if it were not the most poorly officiated game in NFL history.

He put the Seahawks on the map again, 110+ TDs, meets every requirement set by the Hall, its a disgrace that Jerome Bettis is being considered before him.
SA put up a 5 year period with 8850 total yards and 98 total TD. Tomlinson had a 5 year stretch with 10250 total yards and 104 total TD. Not knocking Alexander, as he was awesome for 5 years, but from a pure statistical perspective LT2 seemed to have had a better 5 year grouping.

 
in there prime i take TD over Alexander

so I do not agree with the Alexander is hands down the better player

 
I don't get how Shaun Alexander never gets the love the deserves.

Stats wise he a Hall of famer.

He put together a string of 5 years NO ONE in NFL history has put together, not Barry Sander Emmitt Smith Jerry Rice, this being a fantasy board you think you would remember that.

He has the NFL MVP, went to a Superbowl and would have won the MVP if it were not the most poorly officiated game in NFL history.

He put the Seahawks on the map again, 110+ TDs, meets every requirement set by the Hall, its a disgrace that Jerome Bettis is being considered before him.
He has a little bit of the Terrell Davis stigma. Five terriffic seasons where he was one of the very best in the league. Then, just when he was really begining to get recognized for his body of work, he fell off a cliff. Davis has the same pedigree over a four year period, but he won two super bowls in the process. Both are question marks for voters who have some minimum longevity threshold.

In his prime, though, yes he was awesome. The Sunday Night vs Oakland was a sight to behold. Looked like Bo Jackson for a while!
Shaun was a better player then TD hands down. TD had 3 great years and a 4th OK one.

Superbowls when it comes to RB's shouldn't hold as much weight. Broncos had alltime great teams its hard to credit that to an RB who only does his job when hes handed the ball. Shaun was pretty good in the playoffs as well with a far worse supporting cast.

When you say best rb's of the decade outside of LT who he was better then some years its hard to put him outside the top 2. So you have a player top 2/3 (I would put Steven Jackson into the argument) and the best entire league regardless of position. To me that's a Hall of famer.
Alexander did well in the post season, compiling 616 yards from scrimmage and scoring 8 TD in 9 playoff games. Davis, on the other hand, went nuts in the post season, totaling 1,271 yards from scrimmage and scoring 12 TD in 8 playoff games. Having double the yardage and 50% more TD playing in one less game is nothing to sneeze at.

 
I know he's not going to make it but if Curtis Martin is a HOF, then Shaun Alexander (and Terrell Davis) are HOF backs too. They just lack longetivity but both were dominant for a multiple year stretch.
But Priest Holmes wasn't? How about Tiki Barber? (Not taking sides, just throwing out other players that were also very good but may not have the longevity.)
As a Seahawks fan I would say Shaun Alexander does NOT belong in the HoF. My grandmother could have run for 1,000 yards when Walter Jones and Steve Hutchinson were on the line. It's a shame Hutch left for Minnesota on the poison pill (which was our fault for not franchising him).
Don't let him and his agent off the hook though. Underhanded nonsense went into that contract. Russell deserves most of the blame but those two were dirty #####es for that stunt.
 
B-Deep said:
in there prime i take TD over Alexander

so I do not agree with the Alexander is hands down the better player
TD was a good fit for the ZBS. He was patient in waiting for the hole to develop, then one cut and BAM he was gone. But that O-line in Denver provided him with some stupidly mammoth holes which any capable RB could have run through. I understand that Alexander also had some great blocking, but he was the better pure talent to me. As an aside, Alexander is still a high school legend in Kentucky. He ran for 3,166 yards with 54 TDs in his senior year alone. :eek: Then he starred at BAMA.

TD didn't have the same pedigree. In his four years at Georgia, he carried the ball 55, 53, 167 & 97 times. His NFL success came out of nowhere. Their respective background has nothing to do with what they accomplished in the NFL -- I get it. But I think it speaks to how they were viewed as running talents. Alexander would have done everything TD did in Denver, and more. I can't say the same if you put TD in Seattle.

Just my :2cents:

 
Jones is a stone cold mortal lock. He was the better player at his position than anyone for about 4-5 years. Zero chance he doesn't make it first time. Which also gives Akexander zero chance. No way two Seahawks go in together, although it would be great to see Alexander ride Jines' coat tails in the ceremony. I think SA gets in, but probably not right away. He's got the numbers and thigh I didn't care for him as much as his production should've engendered, his career is a HoF career. He'll just have to follow behind jones again.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top