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)

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.

 
when it comes to stone cold locks for canton i'd not book reservations till it was announced, they can do some crazy #### in those comittees

 
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:
First off, the bolded is irrelevant.

Second, TD had one thing (among others) that Alexander never had: toughness. Remember him toughing out and becoming the MVP of the SUper Bowl despite having a migraine? Contrast that to Alexander, who used to take heat even from Seahawks fans for being way too soft. I get that toughness cannot be measured objectively, but being the driving force on back-to-back championship teams is not something many RBs have done.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
i can see where people would prefer alexander, i prefer davis

i don;t think it is a run away for either

i think that the 2 super bowls and the 2000 yard season give TD an edge, sp when someone said Alexander is hands down better, i disagree

I think Davis' career was too short and he will never get in, Alexander probably will as he almost hit 10,000 yards

 
when it comes to stone cold locks for canton i'd not book reservations till it was announced, they can do some crazy #### in those comittees
In Jones I TrustHe's the Marino of OL, only knock against him is no ring.

I really hate that his last game was the worst if his career. He'd been fighting through a knee injury and Ware just abused Jones on his way to DMVP on Thanksgiving. Got two sacks against Jones which was more than he'd given up in the previous 5 seasons. Think he drew some holding calls which had a similar scarcity during Jones' career as well. After the game Big Walt knew he couldn't keep playing like that and shut down, tried micro surgery but never recovered enough to play again. The only positive to take from his last game is that at least it was the best defensive player in the league that schooled him. My homer bias says he was better than Ogden for this generation if OTs, but its not homerism whatsoever to say he was top 5 all time without a doubt.

 
going to canton to see a player you love inducted is awesome

i highly reccomend it. I went for Emmitt and it was a blast. I'll be going again someday for Peyton Manning

 
i can see where people would prefer alexander, i prefer davis

i don;t think it is a run away for either

i think that the 2 super bowls and the 2000 yard season give TD an edge, sp when someone said Alexander is hands down better, i disagree

I think Davis' career was too short and he will never get in, Alexander probably will as he almost hit 10,000 yards
Alexander is the only player in NFL history with 5 straight seasons of at least 15TDs. I'd have taken Davis without a microsecond of hesitation over SA due to the latter's aversion to picking up 3rd and short (unless it was fir a TD, for some reason he could do that but not if it was to move the chains), but TD's career wasn't long enough unfortunately.
 
going to canton to see a player you love inducted is awesome

i highly reccomend it. I went for Emmitt and it was a blast. I'll be going again someday for Peyton Manning
Let's say Manning and Brady are inducted the same year. Do you think there would be a riot?

 
Art Vandalay said:
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.
Prior to his MVP season, the general consensus around the league concerning Alexander was that he was soft. People didn't like that he #####ed out his coach for calling a QB sneak that scored a touchdown in a game that Seattle won only to have it turn out Alexander fell one yard short of the league lead for rushing yardage. People think that his numbers were largely a product of having two Hall of Fame offensive linemen blocking for him (Jones and Hutchinson), and the fact that his numbers suddenly fell off a cliff when Hutch left didn't dissuade anyone from that viewpoint. The three pro bowls and 1 first team All Pro are both very small numbers for a back with no extenuating circumstances.

Also, I'm throwing the flag on "string of 5 years no one has put together". Yudkin already mentioned Tomlinson, so I don't have to go there. Alexander never topped 2000 yards from scrimmage during his streak. His 1550 fantasy points and 741 VBD are both huge marks, but neither is unprecedented. From 1997 to 2001, Faulk had 1530 fantasy points and 839 VBD. Priest Holmes put up 591 VBD in just three seasons. If you figure his VBD per game from his fourth season, Holmes actually accumulated an impossible-to-believe 711 points of VBD in just 3.5 years. Holmes is actually a very interesting guy- If you want to be making a Hall of Fame case on raw statistics, Holmes is the guy. He put up more yards from scrimmage over his career than Alexander in 10-14 fewer games. His Kansas City tenure (65 games) crushed Alexander's 5-year streak (about 320 more yards and 1 more TD per every 16 games played). He had three times as many All Pros, played in one of the best offenses in history, and was much more efficient with the ball, averaging more yards per carry and per catch. From a purely statistical standpoint, I'd give the nod to Holmes before Alexander.

Honestly, Terrell Davis beats Alexander on raw statistics, too- longevity or no. Include playoffs, and Shaun Alexander has 1,431 more yards than Davis... in 42 more games. Terrell Davis averaged more yards per carry and more yards per reception. If you count regular season and postseason, Terrell Davis' 1998 season holds the record for most rushing yards in a single year with 2476... and Terrell Davis' 1997 season ranks second with 2331! Davis has a whole boatload of hardware and records to throw into the mix, too (1x MVP, 2x OPoY, 3x All Pro, 1x SBMVP, the offensive engine of a 2x SB champion, greatest postseason rusher in history). Davis is pretty clearly a far superior candidate to Shaun Alexander, and the fact that he's facing such tough sledding indicates to me that Alexander isn't even close.

Edit: Forgot to add that I agree 100% with your last sentence. I'd put Alexander in way before Bettis. I think if Bettis gets elected, he immediately becomes one of the most undeserving members of the Hall.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
going to canton to see a player you love inducted is awesome

i highly reccomend it. I went for Emmitt and it was a blast. I'll be going again someday for Peyton Manning
I've never been to the induction since they've started holding it in the stadium. Seems like you can't get nearly as close as when it was held on the halls steps.

I saw LT, Dickerson, Ozzie go in in '99 and Montana, Lott and Long in 2000. It was a lot of fun.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's not Terrell Davis vs. Shaun Alexander. They both belong in the HOF before players like Curtis Martin and Jerome Bettis. Martin and Bettis were good players for a long time. Davis and Alexander were elite players for a shorter time. Priest Holmes too.

 
Players that are eligible that I feel deserve to be inducted. Rookie year shown in front of their name.

00 SHAUN ALEXANDER

97 WALTER JONES

97 RODNEY HARRISON

96 MARVIN HARRISON

96 ZACH THOMAS

95 TERRELL DAVIS

95 DERRICK BROOKS

93 JOHN LYNCH

93 JEROME BETTIS

93 WILL SHIELDS

93 MICHAEL STRAHAN

91 AENEAS WILLIAMS

90 LEROY BUTLER

89 STEVE ATWATER

89 ERIC ALLEN

89 STERLING SHARPE

88 TIM BROWN

86 CHARLES HALEY

85 KEVIN GREENE

85 ANDRE REED

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's not Terrell Davis vs. Shaun Alexander. They both belong in the HOF before players like Curtis Martin and Jerome Bettis. Martin and Bettis were good players for a long time. Davis and Alexander were elite players for a shorter time. Priest Holmes too.
When you claimed earlier in the thread that Martin was not an "elite" player, my first inclination was to argue the point. (Elite is such a subjective term, anyway). But after looking at his numbers, you are probably right. He had three spectacular seasons, and a bunch of other very good ones. In short, he was a reliable, highly productive NFL player who had great character. Which is good enough for me.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's not Terrell Davis vs. Shaun Alexander. They both belong in the HOF before players like Curtis Martin and Jerome Bettis. Martin and Bettis were good players for a long time. Davis and Alexander were elite players for a shorter time. Priest Holmes too.
Curtis Martin is still criminally underrated imo. He did everything well. Everything. Including being a leader, a role model, the glue of a team - and he was one heck of a runner, although hardly flashy. I am a tough grader, and he could likely be on the cusp for me, which means he should be in the current HoF, but either way he is a far better player than Bettis was, imo.

Now, Davis was elite, I'll give you that. And did most everything well, IIRC. S Alexander was a great producer, but it seemed as much a case of good to really good player plus perfect opportunity than a true HoF player. He was a great runner, at least production wise, but as noted, toughness, leadership, blocking, receiving - not on par with either Davis nor Martin.

I'd much rather have had an in his prime Martin than Alexander. The ol' switch the two teams and how do they do - S Alex being a bit of a wuss with Parcells at the helm? Meanwhile, Martin with that line and playcalling would have been fantastic... and he'd have gotten those tough third downs fwiw.

 
These are the guys I'd go with this go around.

Definitely In, Ultra Elite Players at their Position.

Marvin Harrison - 8 Years in a row 1100+ yards, double digit TDs. 6 of those were 12+ TD years. After Rice, you can argue he's the second best WR ever. He was exceptional, amazingly consistent, over a long time - very long, NFL wise. Not good or great for a long time. Exceptional

Michael Strahan (DE) - Should go without saying. Not much more you can ask for in a DE. Big mouth detracted from how solid the game was overall. And so what, Favre took a dive.

Walter Jones (T) - I will admit, as much as I "know about" the great OLmen, I can't say I watched Jones or his brethren as much as the skill players. Simply put, my opinion can't hold as much weight. But to me, he's in.

Also in, but more great players as opposed to the upper half of the HoF:

Derrick Brooks

Tony Boselli (T),

*Will Shields (G)

Oh, and this guy:

Ray Guy

 
Jones, Nalen, Wisnewski were all on my initial list (I think only 5 can go? :confused: ). I just figured Nate Newton and Shields would go before them. Derrick Brooks and Zach Thomas will make the HOF I think. Just not sure if they are 1st time go.

 
Art Vandalay said:
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.
Prior to his MVP season, the general consensus around the league concerning Alexander was that he was soft. People didn't like that he #####ed out his coach for calling a QB sneak that scored a touchdown in a game that Seattle won only to have it turn out Alexander fell one yard short of the league lead for rushing yardage. People think that his numbers were largely a product of having two Hall of Fame offensive linemen blocking for him (Jones and Hutchinson), and the fact that his numbers suddenly fell off a cliff when Hutch left didn't dissuade anyone from that viewpoint. The three pro bowls and 1 first team All Pro are both very small numbers for a back with no extenuating circumstances.

Also, I'm throwing the flag on "string of 5 years no one has put together". Yudkin already mentioned Tomlinson, so I don't have to go there. Alexander never topped 2000 yards from scrimmage during his streak. His 1550 fantasy points and 741 VBD are both huge marks, but neither is unprecedented. From 1997 to 2001, Faulk had 1530 fantasy points and 839 VBD. Priest Holmes put up 591 VBD in just three seasons. If you figure his VBD per game from his fourth season, Holmes actually accumulated an impossible-to-believe 711 points of VBD in just 3.5 years. Holmes is actually a very interesting guy- If you want to be making a Hall of Fame case on raw statistics, Holmes is the guy. He put up more yards from scrimmage over his career than Alexander in 10-14 fewer games. His Kansas City tenure (65 games) crushed Alexander's 5-year streak (about 320 more yards and 1 more TD per every 16 games played). He had three times as many All Pros, played in one of the best offenses in history, and was much more efficient with the ball, averaging more yards per carry and per catch. From a purely statistical standpoint, I'd give the nod to Holmes before Alexander.

Honestly, Terrell Davis beats Alexander on raw statistics, too- longevity or no. Include playoffs, and Shaun Alexander has 1,431 more yards than Davis... in 42 more games. Terrell Davis averaged more yards per carry and more yards per reception. If you count regular season and postseason, Terrell Davis' 1998 season holds the record for most rushing yards in a single year with 2476... and Terrell Davis' 1997 season ranks second with 2331! Davis has a whole boatload of hardware and records to throw into the mix, too (1x MVP, 2x OPoY, 3x All Pro, 1x SBMVP, the offensive engine of a 2x SB champion, greatest postseason rusher in history). Davis is pretty clearly a far superior candidate to Shaun Alexander, and the fact that he's facing such tough sledding indicates to me that Alexander isn't even close.

Edit: Forgot to add that I agree 100% with your last sentence. I'd put Alexander in way before Bettis. I think if Bettis gets elected, he immediately becomes one of the most undeserving members of the Hall.
I'm one of those who can't see past Alexander being softer then baby ####. He would routinely fall down just before contact.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
For those who are advocating Boselli for the HOF, based on what?

He played 91 games. To deserve HOF induction in that short a period, he would need to have been one of the best ever. What evidence is there of that? He made 1st team All Pro 3 times, and never made 2nd team All Pro. He was on the All 1990s second team, which is impressive given he began his career in 1995... but that doesn't equate to a HOFer. I don't think he is remotely close to being worthy.

 
It's not Terrell Davis vs. Shaun Alexander. They both belong in the HOF before players like Curtis Martin and Jerome Bettis. Martin and Bettis were good players for a long time. Davis and Alexander were elite players for a shorter time. Priest Holmes too.
Curtis Martin is still criminally underrated imo. He did everything well. Everything. Including being a leader, a role model, the glue of a team - and he was one heck of a runner, although hardly flashy. I am a tough grader, and he could likely be on the cusp for me, which means he should be in the current HoF, but either way he is a far better player than Bettis was, imo.

Now, Davis was elite, I'll give you that. And did most everything well, IIRC. S Alexander was a great producer, but it seemed as much a case of good to really good player plus perfect opportunity than a true HoF player. He was a great runner, at least production wise, but as noted, toughness, leadership, blocking, receiving - not on par with either Davis nor Martin.

I'd much rather have had an in his prime Martin than Alexander. The ol' switch the two teams and how do they do - S Alex being a bit of a wuss with Parcells at the helm? Meanwhile, Martin with that line and playcalling would have been fantastic... and he'd have gotten those tough third downs fwiw.
:goodposting:

 
For those who are advocating Boselli for the HOF, based on what?

He played 91 games. To deserve HOF induction in that short a period, he would need to have been one of the best ever. What evidence is there of that? He made 1st team All Pro 3 times, and never made 2nd team All Pro. He was on the All 1990s second team, which is impressive given he began his career in 1995... but that doesn't equate to a HOFer. I don't think he is remotely close to being worthy.
I've been watching since the Nixon era, and he was, bar none, the most dominant offensive lineman I ever saw. Munoz maybe the only other guy in the conversation.

I think he's got a better case for being in there for a limited body of work than a Sayers, does. Nothing Boselli accomplished would be as flashy, but Boselli was better at his job than Sayers was at his, and Boselli's job is more important.

 
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.
Without commenting on whether or not Nalen is deserving, the bolded is not a sound argument IMO. It is conceivable that there could be a "generation" that did not include any HOF worthy players at a given position. Being the best, or one of the few best, centers in a "generation" does not equate to being a HOF center.

As to Nalen specifically, what is his case? He made 1st team All Pro 2 times and 2nd team All Pro 1 time, and he made 5 Pro Bowls... in 14 seasons. In the modern era, here are the centers who made the HOF, along with their 1st team All Pro selections: Otto (10), Ringo (6), Dawson (6), Webster (5), Langer (4), Stephenson (4), Gatski (3). How does he stack up against those guys? I doubt there is a legitimate case to suggest he is equally or more worth than they are, so the question becomes whether or not the HOF bar is actually lower than that group, and, if so, does Nalen clear that bar?

If you start talking about the offensive production behind these individuals, isn't it important to consider the quality of the other OL, the QB, the RBs, the WRs, and the TEs? It's not so easy to draw quality comparisons for offensive linemen.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
For those who are advocating Boselli for the HOF, based on what?

He played 91 games. To deserve HOF induction in that short a period, he would need to have been one of the best ever. What evidence is there of that? He made 1st team All Pro 3 times, and never made 2nd team All Pro. He was on the All 1990s second team, which is impressive given he began his career in 1995... but that doesn't equate to a HOFer. I don't think he is remotely close to being worthy.
I've been watching since the Nixon era, and he was, bar none, the most dominant offensive lineman I ever saw. Munoz maybe the only other guy in the conversation.

I think he's got a better case for being in there for a limited body of work than a Sayers, does. Nothing Boselli accomplished would be as flashy, but Boselli was better at his job than Sayers was at his, and Boselli's job is more important.
Sayers was 1st team All Pro 5 times... in every season that he played more than 2 games. That is pure dominance. Boselli is not in the same ballpark with 3 1st team selections in 6 seasons (not including his 3 game final season).

Unfortunately, we don't have many objective measures for offensive linemen, especially going back a couple of decades or more. PFR does provide Approximate Value, and Boselli ranks #732 in weighted AV since 1950. Obviously, that is an accumulated measure, so that ranking doesn't reflect how good he was for a short period, but I'm not aware of how to determine how his weighted AV compared to other elite OL, especially if we tried to compare their first 6 seasons or best 6 seasons to Boselli's.

I guess my point is, all we have is people saying essentially that he passed the eyeball test. What else is there to suggest he is HOF worthy? I don't see it.

And that is all discussing whether he should get in. I don't think there is any chance he will get in.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
For those who are advocating Boselli for the HOF, based on what?

He played 91 games. To deserve HOF induction in that short a period, he would need to have been one of the best ever. What evidence is there of that? He made 1st team All Pro 3 times, and never made 2nd team All Pro. He was on the All 1990s second team, which is impressive given he began his career in 1995... but that doesn't equate to a HOFer. I don't think he is remotely close to being worthy.
I honestly didn't know he played so few games to be honest. He was on the second side of those who I thought should make it, but as I noted, I don't have the in depth knowledge of some of the OL as the skill players.

That said, mine was purely based on what I remember as I saw him play. Just dominant. He was a franchise for considerably longer than those 91 games would suggest. But you have a good argument.

 
I'm not going to quote your post, Zen, just in case you want to do the right thing and delete it.

But I don't think JWB deserved that. He was just giving his opinion, and I don't think he did so in a condescending manner.

 
Man of Zen said:
For those who are advocating Boselli for the HOF, based on what?

He played 91 games. To deserve HOF induction in that short a period, he would need to have been one of the best ever. What evidence is there of that? He made 1st team All Pro 3 times, and never made 2nd team All Pro. He was on the All 1990s second team, which is impressive given he began his career in 1995... but that doesn't equate to a HOFer. I don't think he is remotely close to being worthy.
I've been watching since the Nixon era, and he was, bar none, the most dominant offensive lineman I ever saw. Munoz maybe the only other guy in the conversation.I think he's got a better case for being in there for a limited body of work than a Sayers, does. Nothing Boselli accomplished would be as flashy, but Boselli was better at his job than Sayers was at his, and Boselli's job is more important.
Sayers was 1st team All Pro 5 times... in every season that he played more than 2 games. That is pure dominance. Boselli is not in the same ballpark with 3 1st team selections in 6 seasons (not including his 3 game final season).

Unfortunately, we don't have many objective measures for offensive linemen, especially going back a couple of decades or more. PFR does provide Approximate Value, and Boselli ranks #732 in weighted AV since 1950. Obviously, that is an accumulated measure, so that ranking doesn't reflect how good he was for a short period, but I'm not aware of how to determine how his weighted AV compared to other elite OL, especially if we tried to compare their first 6 seasons or best 6 seasons to Boselli's.

I guess my point is, all we have is people saying essentially that he passed the eyeball test. What else is there to suggest he is HOF worthy? I don't see it.

And that is all discussing whether he should get in. I don't think there is any chance he will get in.
This is why discussion here is such a pain in the ###. Because the ignorant, who by their own admission haven't got the faintest ####### clue how to evaluate things on the field, "correct" people whose knowledge of the game dwarfs their own.

I was doing you a favor. Because I did know what to look for. Had you asked in your follow up, I could have provided youtube clips that highlight a half-dozen ways Boselli was light years ahead of any LT to play the game during his time or since. Before wouldn't have mattered, because the nature of edge rushing changed dramatically in the years leading up to the 90's.

I could have described for you both his career arc, and the specifics of the politics that cost him All-Pros his first two years, despite consensus that he was already the most dominant player in the game. I could have provided for you a nice highlight of the specific play after which he may as well have retired, but after which instead, he tacked on some more non-All-Pro years, leading to such dimwitted conclusions as your own, "Boselli is not in the same ballpark."

Instead, accept this:

Go f u c k yourself. :shrug:

Christ, what an idiot.
Congrats, you are in the lead for ####### of the day. You must be proud.My post was not condescending in any way and did not warrant this kind of response. It was my objective viewpoint. I have seen Boselli play, and he was great. That does not mean he was a HOFer. I was attempting to discuss that.

If you can't stand this kind of discussion, don't participate in the Shark Pool. GTFO. No one will miss you.

ETA: deleted the rest of my response to avoid getting banned.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
An oldy but goodie... remember when you point your finger at someone else there are 4 fingers pointing back at you.

I would expect someone with the word Zen in their moniker to be more enlightened, or to at least be seeking enlightenment. Sadly I quickly learned this was not the case and had to obliterate that nonsense with trusty squelch gun.

I really believe in free speech too. So I do not do this lightly. But I also have a finite amount of time for things that are outside of "what we are here for".

Boselli was a very good LT before injuries wrecked his career. One of the categories that offensive linemen are judged by are the number of games played, their durability. I do not think Boselli will make the HOF because of this.

 
Man of Zen said:
For those who are advocating Boselli for the HOF, based on what?

He played 91 games. To deserve HOF induction in that short a period, he would need to have been one of the best ever. What evidence is there of that? He made 1st team All Pro 3 times, and never made 2nd team All Pro. He was on the All 1990s second team, which is impressive given he began his career in 1995... but that doesn't equate to a HOFer. I don't think he is remotely close to being worthy.
I've been watching since the Nixon era, and he was, bar none, the most dominant offensive lineman I ever saw. Munoz maybe the only other guy in the conversation.

I think he's got a better case for being in there for a limited body of work than a Sayers, does. Nothing Boselli accomplished would be as flashy, but Boselli was better at his job than Sayers was at his, and Boselli's job is more important.
Sayers was 1st team All Pro 5 times... in every season that he played more than 2 games. That is pure dominance. Boselli is not in the same ballpark with 3 1st team selections in 6 seasons (not including his 3 game final season).

Unfortunately, we don't have many objective measures for offensive linemen, especially going back a couple of decades or more. PFR does provide Approximate Value, and Boselli ranks #732 in weighted AV since 1950. Obviously, that is an accumulated measure, so that ranking doesn't reflect how good he was for a short period, but I'm not aware of how to determine how his weighted AV compared to other elite OL, especially if we tried to compare their first 6 seasons or best 6 seasons to Boselli's.

I guess my point is, all we have is people saying essentially that he passed the eyeball test. What else is there to suggest he is HOF worthy? I don't see it.

And that is all discussing whether he should get in. I don't think there is any chance he will get in.
This is why discussion here is such a pain in the ###. Because the ignorant, who by their own admission haven't got the faintest ####### clue how to evaluate things on the field, "correct" people whose knowledge of the game dwarfs their own.

I was doing you a favor. Because I did know what to look for. Had you asked in your follow up, I could have provided youtube clips that highlight a half-dozen ways Boselli was light years ahead of any LT to play the game during his time or since. Before wouldn't have mattered, because the nature of edge rushing changed dramatically in the years leading up to the 90's.

I could have described for you both his career arc, and the specifics of the politics that cost him All-Pros his first two years, despite consensus that he was already the most dominant player in the game. I could have provided for you a nice highlight of the specific play after which he may as well have retired, but after which instead, he tacked on some more non-All-Pro years, leading to such dimwitted conclusions as your own, "Boselli is not in the same ballpark."

Instead, accept this:

Go f u c k yourself. :shrug:

Christ, what an idiot.
Well. That escalated quickly.

 
For those who are advocating Boselli for the HOF, based on what?

He played 91 games. To deserve HOF induction in that short a period, he would need to have been one of the best ever. What evidence is there of that? He made 1st team All Pro 3 times, and never made 2nd team All Pro. He was on the All 1990s second team, which is impressive given he began his career in 1995... but that doesn't equate to a HOFer. I don't think he is remotely close to being worthy.
Or in other words, half of his (unfortunately injury-shortened) career he was one of the two best (but in reality far and away the best) players at his position. Easily the best tackle I've seen play in my lifetime. Now that being said, I don't think he sniffs the HOF, even though he was a HOF caliber player, if that makes sense.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm one of those who can't see past Alexander being softer then baby ####. He would routinely fall down just before contact.
I don't know whether he was soft or not, but I really disliked him after he cried to the media when he fell one yard short of the rushing title about how Mike Holmgren secretly hated him, and how Mike Holmgren was secretly sabotaging him, and how Mike Holmgren called a quarterback sneak (That scored a touchdown! To put away a tight game!) because Mike Holmgren had been secretly tracking Shaun Alexander's rushing yards all game and Mike Holmgren just KNEW that Shaun Alexander was a yard short and so Mike Holmgren screwed him on purpose. It was an absolutely shameful display from Alexander.

 
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.
Without commenting on whether or not Nalen is deserving, the bolded is not a sound argument IMO. It is conceivable that there could be a "generation" that did not include any HOF worthy players at a given position. Being the best, or one of the few best, centers in a "generation" does not equate to being a HOF center.

As to Nalen specifically, what is his case? He made 1st team All Pro 2 times and 2nd team All Pro 1 time, and he made 5 Pro Bowls... in 14 seasons. In the modern era, here are the centers who made the HOF, along with their 1st team All Pro selections: Otto (10), Ringo (6), Dawson (6), Webster (5), Langer (4), Stephenson (4), Gatski (3). How does he stack up against those guys? I doubt there is a legitimate case to suggest he is equally or more worth than they are, so the question becomes whether or not the HOF bar is actually lower than that group, and, if so, does Nalen clear that bar?

If you start talking about the offensive production behind these individuals, isn't it important to consider the quality of the other OL, the QB, the RBs, the WRs, and the TEs? It's not so easy to draw quality comparisons for offensive linemen.
I agree that "best in his generation" is not necessarily "Hall of Fame caliber". I was making two distinct statements- Nalen and Mawae were the best, I think at least one of them should get in. If I were arguing that the second point was a result of the first point, I would have used "so" instead of "and".

The scuttlebutt is that Nalen was pretty universally disliked around the league. The players hated him because he cut block, and the writers hated him because he started the thing where none of Denver's offensive linemen were allowed to speak to the media. As a result, he never did well in voting for postseason awards.

I think a big argument in Nalen's favor is the huge diversity of players who succeeded behind him. He blocked for Elway, Griese, Plummer, and Cutler, and all four made a pro bowl. He blocked for Davis, Gary, Anderson, Portis, Droughns, and Bell, and all six ran for 1,000 yards. He blocked for a 2,000 yard rusher in 1998, and nearly blocked for two 1,000 yard rushers in 2005. Similarly, the rest of the line around Nalen was in a constant state of flux. He and Rod Smith were pretty much the only constants on one of the most consistently successful offenses for a decade. His career AV of 133 is also absolutely Hall of Fame worthy (as is Mawae's 154).

 
Jones, Nalen, Wisnewski were all on my initial list (I think only 5 can go? :confused: ). I just figured Nate Newton and Shields would go before them. Derrick Brooks and Zach Thomas will make the HOF I think. Just not sure if they are 1st time go.
If Derrick Brooks is not a first-ballot Hall of Famer, then there is something wrong with the Hall of Fame. If Derrick Brooks is not a first-ballot Hall of Famer, then no one is.

 
It's not Terrell Davis vs. Shaun Alexander. They both belong in the HOF before players like Curtis Martin and Jerome Bettis. Martin and Bettis were good players for a long time. Davis and Alexander were elite players for a shorter time. Priest Holmes too.
Being very good for a really long time has value, too.

One quick and dirty metric I like to use when considering peak vs. longevity is "cumulative top-5 finishes". Basically, you can rack up a ton in a very short span, like Davis, or you can hang around for a really long time getting a few at a time, like Martin, but both routes will lead you to about the same place. If we consider the major categories for RBs to be carries, rushing yards, rushing TDs, yards per carry, yards from scrimmage, and total TDs, then Terrell Davis racked up 18 cumulative top-5 finishes (basically, he was top 5 in all six categories for 3 straight years). Curtis Martin got... 17 cumulative top-5 finishes (basically, he picked up one or two top-5 finishes a year for a decade). By this measure, both backs were pretty comparable. Meanwhile, to see how it treats a guy who was more of a compiler... Jerome Bettis had just 13 top-5 finishes.

If we want to reward peak more, we can raise the bar to top-3 finishes. In that case, Terrell Davis had 16 top-3 finishes, Curtis Martin had 12, and Jerome Bettis had just 8.

You can play with the categories, if you want- maybe you don't want to double-reward touchdowns by counting both rushing TDs and total TDs, or you don't want to double-reward yards by counting both rushing yards and total yards. Most of the time, though, whichever categories you pick are going to have Martin or Davis at the top, the other one close behind, and Bettis a ways back.

 
It's not Terrell Davis vs. Shaun Alexander. They both belong in the HOF before players like Curtis Martin and Jerome Bettis. Martin and Bettis were good players for a long time. Davis and Alexander were elite players for a shorter time. Priest Holmes too.
If they ever put Alexander's bust in the HOF it better be put directly behind Jones and Hutchinson. No way he comes close to his MVP season without them in front. Of the 27 TDs he piled up that season I believe 26 were over the left side.

Consider this poll over at Fieldgulls.com. Mind you, these are Seattle fans voting. LINK

Will Alexander make the HOF?

Yes 28%

No 57%

I have no idea 15%

We watched every snap for many years. No way he is deserving. Alexander was the recipient of a gift every RB wishes they had. A dominant HOF O-line.

EDIT: To add NFL HOF voters don't care about numbers as much as the fans. Other factors are more important like leadership and character. I'm fine with that. Alexander scores well in some of the character questions, but comes up short on leadership.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jones, Nalen, Wisnewski were all on my initial list (I think only 5 can go? :confused: ). I just figured Nate Newton and Shields would go before them. Derrick Brooks and Zach Thomas will make the HOF I think. Just not sure if they are 1st time go.
If Derrick Brooks is not a first-ballot Hall of Famer, then there is something wrong with the Hall of Fame. If Derrick Brooks is not a first-ballot Hall of Famer, then no one is.
Well the HOF is a pretty subjective thing. So there will be many deserving canidates that do not make it, and not many people will agree about the results. Does that mean there is something wrong with it? Perhaps. But just stating your opinion that it is wrong does not necessarily make it so.

Linebacker is a position that does not seem to get as much love from the HOF as others do. When it does the focus is often on MLB or LBer who get a lot of sacks.

Brooks is without question one of the best WLB to play in the Dungy defense which tends to let the will roam a free to use their instincts to make plays, which he made a lot of them including splash plays like sacks and interceptions.

I just won't be surprised/offended either way if he is a 1st time go or not. I am pretty certain he will be in Canton either way.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Alexander wouldn't be the first RB who avoided contact to get into Canton. Franco Harris almost always stepped out of bounds rather than take on a tackler in order to gain another tough yard or two. And he's still taking grief about it to this day. But he's got a yellow jacket. Harris has 2,000+ more yards than Alexander, but in four fewer years. But Shaun has him by 9 TDs in what was much more of a passing era.

I cannot, however, refute the inevitable "4 rings" argument which is coming next.

 
Jones, Nalen, Wisnewski were all on my initial list (I think only 5 can go? :confused: ). I just figured Nate Newton and Shields would go before them. Derrick Brooks and Zach Thomas will make the HOF I think. Just not sure if they are 1st time go.
If Derrick Brooks is not a first-ballot Hall of Famer, then there is something wrong with the Hall of Fame. If Derrick Brooks is not a first-ballot Hall of Famer, then no one is.
Well the HOF is a pretty subjective thing. So there will be many deserving canidates that do not make it, and not many people will agree about the results. Does that mean there is something wrong with it? Perhaps. But just stating your opinion that it is wrong does not necessarily make it so.

Linebacker is a position that does not seem to get as much love from the HOF as others do. When it does the focus is often on MLB or LBer who get a lot of sacks.

Brooks is without question one of the best WLB to play in the Dungy defense which tends to let the will roam a free to use their instincts to make plays, which he made a lot of them including splash plays like sacks and interceptions.

I just won't be surprised/offended either way if he is a 1st time go or not. I am pretty certain he will be in Canton either way.
I'm just saying, whatever your criteria is for the Hall of Fame, Derrick Brooks ranks among the best in history. You want dominance? Brooks was a DPoY and a 5-time first-team AP All Pro. Longevity? 11 pro bowls, 1st team all decade for the 2000s. Character? Walter Peyton Man of the Year. Rings? Derrick Brooks was the best player on the best unit of a championship team. PFR's AV formula ranks him 14th all-time, regardless of position. He's one of the rare players who ticks every box. I can't think of a single reason why anyone could possibly raise an objection. He should sail through the process on his first ballot without any trouble.

 
Landeta played for a million years. If all the Ray Guy fans couldn't get him in, I'm not sure Sean ever will be in, but I do think he's one of the best punters ever.

Morten deserves to go in if we're putting Ks in.

Strahan not making it last year was ridiculous, so he'll get in this year.

Walter Jones is a no brainer.

I thought Newton made it, unsure how his post career stuff will affect him.

Rodney Harrison should get in real soon.

I don't know if Boselli played long enough but he's one of my favorites.

Compiler Bledsoe should be discussed often to utilize his stats to weed out tons of other QBs. Let better than Bledsoe be a new marker for the HOF so we don't have to discuss so many.

I can't believe Trent Green is eligible and Elvis isn't. I imagine every QB discusses Elvis at some point in their career.

Bruschi just made the team HOF and he deserves just that.

I thought Ty Law would be on this one.

 
For those who are advocating Boselli for the HOF, based on what?

He played 91 games. To deserve HOF induction in that short a period, he would need to have been one of the best ever. What evidence is there of that? He made 1st team All Pro 3 times, and never made 2nd team All Pro. He was on the All 1990s second team, which is impressive given he began his career in 1995... but that doesn't equate to a HOFer. I don't think he is remotely close to being worthy.
I've been watching since the Nixon era, and he was, bar none, the most dominant offensive lineman I ever saw. Munoz maybe the only other guy in the conversation.

I think he's got a better case for being in there for a limited body of work than a Sayers, does. Nothing Boselli accomplished would be as flashy, but Boselli was better at his job than Sayers was at his, and Boselli's job is more important.
Sayers was 1st team All Pro 5 times... in every season that he played more than 2 games. That is pure dominance. Boselli is not in the same ballpark with 3 1st team selections in 6 seasons (not including his 3 game final season).

Unfortunately, we don't have many objective measures for offensive linemen, especially going back a couple of decades or more. PFR does provide Approximate Value, and Boselli ranks #732 in weighted AV since 1950. Obviously, that is an accumulated measure, so that ranking doesn't reflect how good he was for a short period, but I'm not aware of how to determine how his weighted AV compared to other elite OL, especially if we tried to compare their first 6 seasons or best 6 seasons to Boselli's.

I guess my point is, all we have is people saying essentially that he passed the eyeball test. What else is there to suggest he is HOF worthy? I don't see it.

And that is all discussing whether he should get in. I don't think there is any chance he will get in.
Shortness of career, maybe not and you have an extremely valid point that could make the rest of the discussion pointless. However, if a few RBs can get in with short careers, can an OL if he's dominant? That's probably the vital Q here.

He was and still is the prototype for the OT position. At his time OT were getting bigger and faster and people wanted Boselli like Tackles.

There may never have been a more well coached tackle in the history of the game that used proper technique as perfectly as him. This is an enormous point with some, while others will shirk it off.

You mentioned no medium to gauge OL play, well there's sacks allowed and he barely ever allowed any. There's 100 yard rushers and fred taylor broke a then record for consecutive games.

Most of all what caught my attention was when you said the eyeball test. I don't recall who remained with the Bills but assuming some of Kelly Reed and Thurman were there, Jimmy Smith and Keenan each getting 1000 or maybe Smith got 100 receptions and Fragile Freddy was impressing and....the cameras and announcers followed Bruce Smith versus Boselli. When has that ever happened? Despite all those stars or "names" they were so focused on the DE and T matchup. I still remember some of those games against Bruce. Smith was frustrated like nothing we'd ever seen and he literally tried every move, yet Boselli reacted perfectly to everything.

I really want to say he faced a young Strahan and even Reggie White but feel like I'm exaggerating and too lazy to do the research. It seemed like he faced best ever DEs more often than most would in a career and he dominated them.

Boselli had what seemed like the longest arms ever and the strongest shoulders ever(yeah his eventual downfall) and with awesome feet you were not getting past him. The Jaguars did this roll out where everyone went right except Boselli. Brunell would curl around and be behind Boselli. He was enough for whatever defenders were left to chase him. That was showtime.

When the Texans had their expansion draft he was hurt and may never have much of a career, yet he was the prize of the draft. If he could somehow get fixed up they wouldn't have a horribly cliched terrible OL. He didn't, they did, and Carr got hit more often than any QB in history at the time, which probably goes back to what they thought of Boselli even when he was down and out.

Boselli hit his second assignments with regularity. Alot of NFL people will adore him for this.

He was a top notch person and I think this (aside from his play) drew fans to him moreso than most linemen that have ever played the game-few were ever as popular as him. It's really not normal for an OL to hold much of any celebrity sports status.

 
You mentioned no medium to gauge OL play, well there's sacks allowed and he barely ever allowed any. There's 100 yard rushers and fred taylor broke a then record for consecutive games.
The record for consecutive 100 yard games is 14, set by Barry Sanders in 1997 (Sanders rushed for 53 yards in the season's first two games and 2,000 yards in its last 14 games, topping 100 every time). Fred Taylor's best streak was 9 straight 100 yard games in the 2000 season- also impressive, but only about 2/3s of the way to the record.

 
Adam Harstad said:
You mentioned no medium to gauge OL play, well there's sacks allowed and he barely ever allowed any. There's 100 yard rushers and fred taylor broke a then record for consecutive games.
The record for consecutive 100 yard games is 14, set by Barry Sanders in 1997 (Sanders rushed for 53 yards in the season's first two games and 2,000 yards in its last 14 games, topping 100 every time). Fred Taylor's best streak was 9 straight 100 yard games in the 2000 season- also impressive, but only about 2/3s of the way to the record.
Interesting, guess I was wrong, thought he did.

 
Adam Harstad said:
You mentioned no medium to gauge OL play, well there's sacks allowed and he barely ever allowed any. There's 100 yard rushers and fred taylor broke a then record for consecutive games.
The record for consecutive 100 yard games is 14, set by Barry Sanders in 1997 (Sanders rushed for 53 yards in the season's first two games and 2,000 yards in its last 14 games, topping 100 every time). Fred Taylor's best streak was 9 straight 100 yard games in the 2000 season- also impressive, but only about 2/3s of the way to the record.
Interesting, guess I was wrong, thought he did.
Improve your sources, brother.

war

 
QBs: None of this group are really worthy.

RBs: Shaun Alexander didn't do enough...just barely. Warrick Dunn? Not even close. Tiki? Very good player too, but not quite good enough IMO.

Bus? Maybe. He has 13K yards.

Priest Holmes was special but he didn't win a SB and he didn't last long enough to eclipse 10K rushing.

Ottis Anderson deserves consideration as an Old Timer pick.

WRs: Tim Brown and Andre Reed deserve consideration. Not sure they should get the nod but they're close. There are so many WRs from that generation and future who put up huge statistics...but they don't all belong because the game changed.

OT: Walter Jones seems like a first ballot to me. Will Shields was a 12 time pro bowler...

DL Michael Strahan...141.5 sacks and 22 in one season. 7 time pro bowler...

LB Derrick Brooks, 11 time pro bowler, 5 time First Team.

DB: Surprised to see that Rodney Harrison is only a 2 time pro bowler, 2 time first team. To put that in perspective, Joey Browner is a 6 time pro bowler, 3 time first team. Probably neither are deserving but Harrison may get it because of SB and name recognition.

Coaches: Any of those three could be picked. I prefer Dungy.

That's six; I can only name five. I would probably drop the Coach.

My five: Brooks, Strahan, Walter Jones, Will Shields and Ottis Anderson as the Old Timer.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top