For the HoF groupies (1 Viewer)

[BigRed]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writ...ex.html?cnn=yes



This guy always was an ### clown....but wtf w/D Sanders - who tackled like a girl (when he actually bothered to tackle at all that is), and would have not been NEARLY so (grossly over-) hyped if he wasn't such a media draw - a "shoo in" while questioning Favre and going "I'd vote for him based on what he's done in the past." Freakin duh sparky.

This guy makes Petey King and his starbucks dribblings look worthwhile by comparison. And these are the people voting players in? No wonder it's becoming more of a joke each year. Before long it'll probalbly be as lame as the pro bowl. (hey yeah.....Alstott for the Hof I can see it now....)

 

[jurb26]

Both are locks.

 

[trader jake]

i know quite a few FBG's love dr. z so we'll just agree to disagree because i think the guy is a hacki love that he'd vote for favre "based on his past" (as opposed to what?). he would vote double yes on tom brady, but peyton manning has to win when the games are big...that's fine, but then he follows that up with the opposite "logic"

Palmer and Big Ben are still babies, of course. But I like Palmer's chances better. He seems to carry the team, whereas Roethlisberger, as effective as he is, is more a product of the system.

how is that different that brady and manning? wouldn't palmer and big ben be the same argument at this early point in their careers?dr. z = logic master and football expert

 

[Tau837]

Both are locks.

 

[The Jerk]

Both are locks.

Favre is a no-brainer, and while I cannot stomach Deion or the Cowboys of that era (I know he played for several other teams), he's going to be in the HoF. There is no doubt that he significantly impacted the game. At one point, few QBs even looked at the receiver he was covering.

 

[Chase Stuart]

How in the world does Carson Palmer get mentioned but Randy Moss, Terrell Owens and Torry Holt do not?

Moss and Holt seem like locks to me, and Owens is just a hair behind.

 

[Despyzer]

Never cared much for Deion (or any of the teams he played on), but he is one of the first people in the discussions about the greatest cornerback ever. Sadly, he's in.

 

[SSOG]

Palmer and Big Ben are still babies, of course. But I like Palmer's chances better. He seems to carry the team, whereas Roethlisberger, as effective as he is, is more a product of the system.

how is that different that brady and manning? wouldn't palmer and big ben be the same argument at this early point in their careers?

Pittsburgh in the last 2 years: 1167 runs, 737 passes. That's 38.7% of plays that were passes.New England in the last 5 years: 2304 runs, 2675 passes. That's 53.7% of plays that were passes.Big Ben's never thrown more than 295 passes. Tom Brady's never thrown fewer than 413.Any more questions?

 

[Z-Dog]

It's not much of a Hall of Fame if Deion doesn't get in. Aside from being in the top-5 of CBs all-time, the guy has two rings, and played for the greatest teams of his era (Dallas and 49ers). He's the only guy to play in the Superbowl and the World Series, and the only guy to play in an MLB and NFL game on the same day. He was an 8-time Pro-Bowler, and a 1-time defensive player of the year. Oh, he was also one of the most dangerous return men of his era at both kicks and punts, and he even had some success as a two-way player. Add to that his outsize personality and star qualities, and he's gotta be a lock for the Hall even if he is a putz.

 

[Borat]

Palmer and Big Ben are still babies, of course. But I like Palmer's chances better. He seems to carry the team, whereas Roethlisberger, as effective as he is, is more a product of the system.

how is that different that brady and manning? wouldn't palmer and big ben be the same argument at this early point in their careers?

Pittsburgh in the last 2 years: 1167 runs, 737 passes. That's 38.7% of plays that were passes.New England in the last 5 years: 2304 runs, 2675 passes. That's 53.7% of plays that were passes.Big Ben's never thrown more than 295 passes. Tom Brady's never thrown fewer than 413.Any more questions?

Surprised this even had to be addressed.

 

[Chaka]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writ...ex.html?cnn=yes



This guy always was an ### clown....but wtf w/D Sanders - who tackled like a girl (when he actually bothered to tackle at all that is), and would have not been NEARLY so (grossly over-) hyped if he wasn't such a media draw - a "shoo in" while questioning Favre and going "I'd vote for him based on what he's done in the past." Freakin duh sparky.

This guy makes Petey King and his starbucks dribblings look worthwhile by comparison. And these are the people voting players in? No wonder it's becoming more of a joke each year. Before long it'll probalbly be as lame as the pro bowl. (hey yeah.....Alstott for the Hof I can see it now....)

Z's ramblings on wine can go right out the window with Peter King's commentary on his chunky thighed daughters field hockey team.That being said Dr. Z has forgotten more about football than probably anyone on this board will ever know. He breaks down schemes and players (particularly the guys in the trenches where the games are truly won) better than any columnist working today.

He said he would vote for Favre but he posited the notion that if Favre puts up a couple more 29 INT seasons he could tarnish his reputation enough to not be a first ballot guy in his book. I would not disagree with that assesment. I am also certain that Z knows well enough that there is enough jock slobbering over Favre that nothing will keep him from being a first ballot guy, deserving or not.

 

[AB in DC]

That being said Dr. Z has forgotten more about football than probably anyone on this board will ever know.

 

[trader jake]

Palmer and Big Ben are still babies, of course. But I like Palmer's chances better. He seems to carry the team, whereas Roethlisberger, as effective as he is, is more a product of the system.

how is that different that brady and manning? wouldn't palmer and big ben be the same argument at this early point in their careers?

Pittsburgh in the last 2 years: 1167 runs, 737 passes. That's 38.7% of plays that were passes.New England in the last 5 years: 2304 runs, 2675 passes. That's 53.7% of plays that were passes.Big Ben's never thrown more than 295 passes. Tom Brady's never thrown fewer than 413.Any more questions?

first, save the "any more questions?" bs for the guppies. you're better than that SSOGsecond, statistically brady has a huge edge on big ben, but this isn't a comparison between those two players. it's between manning/brady vs. palmer/roethlisberger and dr. z's logicmanning has superior statistics to tom brady while carson palmer has superior statistics to ben roethlisberger at this early stage, but brady and big ben have the championship hardware. yet dr. z takes both sides of this debate when discussing the hall of fame. on one hand dr. z says that manning needs to win a big game to get in the hall on his first ballot while tom brady is a double yes (this would be a clear support of the super bowl winner with lesser statistics). then he follows that up by saying carson palmer has a much better shot of making the hall compared to roethlisberger (this would be a clear support of the superior statistical player instead of the super bowl winner)dr. z's consistency isn't there on this issue imo

 

[SSOG]

Palmer and Big Ben are still babies, of course. But I like Palmer's chances better. He seems to carry the team, whereas Roethlisberger, as effective as he is, is more a product of the system.

how is that different that brady and manning? wouldn't palmer and big ben be the same argument at this early point in their careers?

Pittsburgh in the last 2 years: 1167 runs, 737 passes. That's 38.7% of plays that were passes.New England in the last 5 years: 2304 runs, 2675 passes. That's 53.7% of plays that were passes.Big Ben's never thrown more than 295 passes. Tom Brady's never thrown fewer than 413.Any more questions?

first, save the "any more questions?" bs for the guppies. you're better than that SSOGsecond, statistically brady has a huge edge on big ben, but this isn't a comparison between those two players. it's between manning/brady vs. palmer/roethlisberger and dr. z's logicmanning has superior statistics to tom brady while carson palmer has superior statistics to ben roethlisberger at this early stage, but brady and big ben have the championship hardware. yet dr. z takes both sides of this debate when discussing the hall of fame. on one hand dr. z says that manning needs to win a big game to get in the hall on his first ballot while tom brady is a double yes (this would be a clear support of the super bowl winner with lesser statistics). then he follows that up by saying carson palmer has a much better shot of making the hall compared to roethlisberger (this would be a clear support of the superior statistical player instead of the super bowl winner)dr. z's consistency isn't there on this issue imo

The original quote was that Palmer carried his team and Roethlisberger is a product of the system. This isn't at all comparable to Brady and Manning, because Brady has clearly demonstrated he is not a product of the system (as evidenced by the numbers I posted where over 50% of NE's plays are passes, while under 40% of Pitt's plays are passes).You asked how Palmer:Big Ben was different from Manning:Brady. That's how. Manning and Brady have both demonstrated they aren't part of the system. Carson Palmer has demonstrated he isn't part of the system. Big Ben has not demonstrated that he's not just part of the system. There's your difference.Now, sure, 3 years ago the Manning/Brady debate would look identical to the current Palmer/Big Ben debate. And if 3 years from now, Ben proves he's not a system QB like Brady has, then the Palmer/Big Ben debate will probably look identical to the current Manning/Brady debate. Until he does, it's a fundamentally different arguement.

 

[Borat]

That being said Dr. Z has forgotten more about football than probably anyone on this board will ever know.

There are some knowledgable guys who post here, but it's downright laughable to see anyone from this forum criticize Zimmerman.

 

[jdoggydogg]

This guy always was an ### clown....but wtf w/D Sanders - who tackled like a girl (when he actually bothered to tackle at all that is), and would have not been NEARLY so (grossly over-) hyped if he wasn't such a media draw.

Now, I do think that Sanders was one of the best self-promoters in NFL history. But I think think that focusing only on Sanders' tackling ignores his immense talents. Can't we agree that there are great tacklers that couldn't cover a bed?

 

[Borat]

How in the world does Carson Palmer get mentioned but Randy Moss, Terrell Owens and Torry Holt do not?Moss and Holt seem like locks to me, and Owens is just a hair behind.

Only one wideout has made it on the first ballot in the last 23 years: Steve Largent in 1995. The trouble is that the numbers are getting so inflated that people cancel each other out. But I believe three heads will rise above the crowd, and I'll vote for each of them -- Rice; Cris Carter, who ranks No. 2 to Jerry on the alltime pass-receiving list; and Marvin Harrison, who is the only receiver in history to average better than 90 catches a season.

It can't - and shouldn't - be all about the skill position players. You have to draw the line somewhere.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Moss and Holt seem like locks to me, and Owens is just a hair behind.

In terms of their HOF worthiness, I'd rank them:Owens > Moss > HoltI don't think Holt is a lock at all.

 

[Despyzer]

Can't we agree that there are great tacklers that couldn't cover a bed?

Not at the CB position. Not every defender has to cover receivers, but every defender should be able to tackle. I think it's a legitimate gripe, but not enough to keep him out of the Hall.

 

[Sinrman]

Love him, or hate him, Deion is a definite lock.

Since the writers are supposed to vote on what they did ON the field, and not off, then I'd say Owens, Moss, and Holt are all very close to being shoo-ins. All three still have several more years in them, so I don't see why all three won't make it in, barring injury...

Favre is a lock. I don't care what Dr. Z says about Favre's sad state nowdays. He could throw 50 picks, and he'd still make it in with no problem. The man is the epitomy of football. And this coming from a Lions fan..........................

 

[Chase Stuart]

Moss and Holt seem like locks to me, and Owens is just a hair behind.

In terms of their HOF worthiness, I'd rank them:Owens > Moss > HoltI don't think Holt is a lock at all.

I guess I'm doing a bit of projecting, since Holt is the youngest and Owens is the oldest. But there seems to be almost no chance Holt doesn't make the HOF one day.Holt is the all-time leading receiver through 7 seasons of a career in terms of receiving yards. He's also got a Super Bowl ring. He's going to fly in, assuming anything near similar production for the next four or five seasons.

 

[Chase Stuart]

How in the world does Carson Palmer get mentioned but Randy Moss, Terrell Owens and Torry Holt do not?Moss and Holt seem like locks to me, and Owens is just a hair behind.

Only one wideout has made it on the first ballot in the last 23 years: Steve Largent in 1995. The trouble is that the numbers are getting so inflated that people cancel each other out. But I believe three heads will rise above the crowd, and I'll vote for each of them -- Rice; Cris Carter, who ranks No. 2 to Jerry on the alltime pass-receiving list; and Marvin Harrison, who is the only receiver in history to average better than 90 catches a season.

It can't - and shouldn't - be all about the skill position players. You have to draw the line somewhere.

I don't think historical data matters much -- the WR position has become significantly more important in recent years. And I don't see what you'd use to draw the line before Holt, Moss and Owens.

 

[Q-Bert]

How in the world does Carson Palmer get mentioned but Randy Moss, Terrell Owens and Torry Holt do not?Moss and Holt seem like locks to me, and Owens is just a hair behind.

Only one wideout has made it on the first ballot in the last 23 years: Steve Largent in 1995. The trouble is that the numbers are getting so inflated that people cancel each other out. But I believe three heads will rise above the crowd, and I'll vote for each of them -- Rice; Cris Carter, who ranks No. 2 to Jerry on the alltime pass-receiving list; and Marvin Harrison, who is the only receiver in history to average better than 90 catches a season.

It can't - and shouldn't - be all about the skill position players. You have to draw the line somewhere.

I don't think historical data matters much -- the WR position has become significantly more important in recent years. And I don't see what you'd use to draw the line before Holt, Moss and Owens.

Not to single you out but I think people are missing the point. The article isn't about whether or not guys will make it into the hall of fame. It is about whether they will make it in their first year of eligibility. Z said nothing about the prospects of Owens et. al. making the hall of fame. He obviously just doesn't think they will make it in their first year. I don't think that is an unreasonable assertion. Especially considering that Z is one of the selectors.

 

[BigRed]

It's not much of a Hall of Fame if Deion doesn't get in. Aside from being in the top-5 of CBs all-time, the guy has two rings, and played for the greatest teams of his era (Dallas and 49ers). He's the only guy to play in the Superbowl and the World Series, and the only guy to play in an MLB and NFL game on the same day. He was an 8-time Pro-Bowler, and a 1-time defensive player of the year. Oh, he was also one of the most dangerous return men of his era at both kicks and punts, and he even had some success as a two-way player. Add to that his outsize personality and star qualities, and he's gotta be a lock for the Hall even if he is a putz.

It just hit me:"Z Dog" = "Dr Z" Thank you. You stated my case about what a joke the HoF is becoming and why Sanders' "lock" is a joek better than anything else I could add to this.

 

[cstu]

It's not much of a Hall of Fame if Deion doesn't get in. Aside from being in the top-5 of CBs all-time, the guy has two rings, and played for the greatest teams of his era (Dallas and 49ers). He's the only guy to play in the Superbowl and the World Series, and the only guy to play in an MLB and NFL game on the same day. He was an 8-time Pro-Bowler, and a 1-time defensive player of the year. Oh, he was also one of the most dangerous return men of his era at both kicks and punts, and he even had some success as a two-way player. Add to that his outsize personality and star qualities, and he's gotta be a lock for the Hall even if he is a putz.

It just hit me:"Z Dog" = "Dr Z" Thank you. You stated my case about what a joke the HoF is becoming and why Sanders' "lock" is a joek better than anything else I could add to this.

Did you ever watch Deion play? Whenever I hear slams about his tackling I really have to wonder if it's just someone who hates for this showboating or who he played for. If I'm building a new team there's not another guy in history who I want as my #1 CB.

 

[Warpig]

I can't stand Dr. Z. That guys predictions are always way off. Every once in a while he might get something right and he toots his own horn. I stopped getting Sports Illustrated just because of him. I figured if Sports Illustrated is ignorant enough to keep the guy on staff then they obviously don't need my money.

 

[MarshallRob]

Deion made the All-Pro team 7 times. I'm not sure you can find an NFL player with those kind of credentials who isn't in the Hall of Fame. Besides his awesome cover skills, he made huge contributions on special teams as well plus the occasional reception (he caught a 47-yard pass in Super Bowl XXX that set up Dallas' first TD of the game). The guy was a great player regardless of his hitting skills.

I think Owens is going to have a harder time getting in than people think. You can't just discount a guy's behavior if that behavior gets him suspended and hurts his teams. Plus, he hasn't been the most surehanded receiver over the years, especially when he was with the Niners.

 

[Encyclopedia Brown]

Did you ever watch Deion play? Whenever I hear slams about his tackling I really have to wonder if it's just someone who hates for this showboating or who he played for. If I'm building a new team there's not another guy in history who I want as my #1 CB.

I think the originator of this thread should consider fantasy Tiddlywinks as an option for a hobby, as I think he is in over his head with football.

 

[Chase Stuart]

How in the world does Carson Palmer get mentioned but Randy Moss, Terrell Owens and Torry Holt do not?

Moss and Holt seem like locks to me, and Owens is just a hair behind.

Only one wideout has made it on the first ballot in the last 23 years: Steve Largent in 1995. The trouble is that the numbers are getting so inflated that people cancel each other out. But I believe three heads will rise above the crowd, and I'll vote for each of them -- Rice; Cris Carter, who ranks No. 2 to Jerry on the alltime pass-receiving list; and Marvin Harrison, who is the only receiver in history to average better than 90 catches a season.

It can't - and shouldn't - be all about the skill position players. You have to draw the line somewhere.

I don't think historical data matters much -- the WR position has become significantly more important in recent years. And I don't see what you'd use to draw the line before Holt, Moss and Owens.

Not to single you out but I think people are missing the point. The article isn't about whether or not guys will make it into the hall of fame. It is about whether they will make it in their first year of eligibility. Z said nothing about the prospects of Owens et. al. making the hall of fame. He obviously just doesn't think they will make it in their first year. I don't think that is an unreasonable assertion. Especially considering that Z is one of the selectors.

Thanks Q-bert, I missed that.I still wouldn't be surprised with either Moss or Holt making it on the first ballot, but that tempers my optimism a bit. I do think Holt's pretty much a lock, and if he plays like this for a few more seasons he'll absolutely be a first ballot guy. The sheer numbers are incredible. He's got over 3400 more yards than Tim Brown at the same age. And Brown's the number two all-time leading receiver. Holt's also led the league in receiving yards twice already, while Brown's top two finishes are 2nd and 5th. And Holt's got the ring. If Brown's a shoe-in -- and I think he's pretty close to that -- then Holt's gonna fly in without any problem, barring some unforeseen injury.

 

[Chaka]

It's not much of a Hall of Fame if Deion doesn't get in. Aside from being in the top-5 of CBs all-time, the guy has two rings, and played for the greatest teams of his era (Dallas and 49ers). He's the only guy to play in the Superbowl and the World Series, and the only guy to play in an MLB and NFL game on the same day. He was an 8-time Pro-Bowler, and a 1-time defensive player of the year. Oh, he was also one of the most dangerous return men of his era at both kicks and punts, and he even had some success as a two-way player. Add to that his outsize personality and star qualities, and he's gotta be a lock for the Hall even if he is a putz.

It just hit me:"Z Dog" = "Dr Z" Thank you. You stated my case about what a joke the HoF is becoming and why Sanders' "lock" is a joek better than anything else I could add to this.

I just don't get what you are trying to say Big Red. Sanders is not a first ballot HOF guy in your opinion...why?I am as big of a Deion hater as the next guy and poor tackling is a legitimate gripe but what he brought to the field far, FAR outweighed his shortcomings as a tackler.No one has mentioned the fact (I think) that Deion is also the all time leader in return TDs too, punts, kickoffs and INTs. Dude was a self serving ### but he had mad skills and is worthy of a first ballot HOF induction.

 

[SSOG]

For those who criticize Deion's tackling...

who would you rather have, a CB who was a poor tackler but the other team only threw to his side of the field twice all game, or a QB who was the greatest tackler ever, but only above-average in coverage, and who got thrown to 50% of the time? Who would you rather have lining up against Randy Moss, or Terrell Owens, or Jerry Rice in his prime?

Sure, he didn't tackle... but he didn't have to. The other team simply didn't throw at his side of the field.

In the end, if you think Deion doesn't belong in the HoF, then one of two things are true:

1. Deion should not get in the HoF, and 99.999999999999999999999% of people who follow football are wrong.

2. Deion should get in the HoF, and you are an wrong.

Tell me, which is more likely? And if you think it's more likely that you're right, please explain why you are so much more qualified to judge than pretty much everyone else who has ever watched/played/coached/heard of football in their lifetime.

 

[Tau837]

Deion is such a lock for the HOF, it isn't even worth spending time debating it. Those who disagree are simply ignorant about pro football, period.

 

[Sigfawn]

Deion is such a lock for the HOF, it isn't even worth spending time debating it. Those who disagree are simply ignorant about pro football, period.

Sanders would get into the hall of fame based on his special teams records alone. Probably the best punter returner ever. And without question a top 3 CB ever. He invented the term shutdown corner. He ran a what 4.17 at the combine? Sanders was a freak of nature. Teams simply didn't throw his direction.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

I can't stand Dr. Z and that stupid moustache.

Chrysler never should have sold out to the Germans.

 

[Borat]

How in the world does Carson Palmer get mentioned but Randy Moss, Terrell Owens and Torry Holt do not?Moss and Holt seem like locks to me, and Owens is just a hair behind.

Only one wideout has made it on the first ballot in the last 23 years: Steve Largent in 1995. The trouble is that the numbers are getting so inflated that people cancel each other out. But I believe three heads will rise above the crowd, and I'll vote for each of them -- Rice; Cris Carter, who ranks No. 2 to Jerry on the alltime pass-receiving list; and Marvin Harrison, who is the only receiver in history to average better than 90 catches a season.

It can't - and shouldn't - be all about the skill position players. You have to draw the line somewhere.

I don't think historical data matters much -- the WR position has become significantly more important in recent years. And I don't see what you'd use to draw the line before Holt, Moss and Owens.

There's no denying that passing has become more and more prevalent in professional football, but if you're going to start letting more WRs in, what position(s) will you start letting fewer guys in at? Or would you propose that the HoF start expanding its number of annual inductees?To me, the only active WR who is a lock is Marvin Harrison.

 

[Borat]

I can't stand Dr. Z. That guys predictions are always way off. Every once in a while he might get something right and he toots his own horn. I stopped getting Sports Illustrated just because of him. I figured if Sports Illustrated is ignorant enough to keep the guy on staff then they obviously don't need my money.

That's unfortunate. I'm sure you could have learned a lot from reading Zimmerman's articles.

 

[SSOG]

There's no denying that passing has become more and more prevalent in professional football, but if you're going to start letting more WRs in, what position(s) will you start letting fewer guys in at? Or would you propose that the HoF start expanding its number of annual inductees?

To me, the only active WR who is a lock is Marvin Harrison.

QUARTERBACK AND RUNNINGBACK.QBs and RBs get in at about four times the rate of all other players. This isn't the fantasy football hall of fame, it's the pro football hall of fame. The HoF ABSOLUTELY needs to start letting more WRs in, as they're one of the more underrepresented groups in the hall.

Also, increasing the inductees isn't a horrible idea, considering that, thanks to expansion, there are now more players in the league than there ever have been.

 

[Borat]

There's no denying that passing has become more and more prevalent in professional football, but if you're going to start letting more WRs in, what position(s) will you start letting fewer guys in at? Or would you propose that the HoF start expanding its number of annual inductees?

To me, the only active WR who is a lock is Marvin Harrison.

QUARTERBACK AND RUNNINGBACK.QBs and RBs get in at about four times the rate of all other players. This isn't the fantasy football hall of fame, it's the pro football hall of fame. The HoF ABSOLUTELY needs to start letting more WRs in, as they're one of the more underrepresented groups in the hall.

Also, increasing the inductees isn't a horrible idea, considering that, thanks to expansion, there are now more players in the league than there ever have been.

Fair enough, but I don't see that as a realistic solution. I agree that cutting down on QBs and RBs is the right thing to do, but I just don't see it happening. Do you, honestly, think that is a realistic possibility?I also would be open to possibly increasing the number of inductees... I'm not sold on the idea, but I'd be open to discussing it. Yes, there are more players in the league... but does that mean there are necessarily more HoF-caliber players in the league?

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

He's going to fly in, assuming anything near similar production for the next four or five seasons.

that's a huge assumption.

 

[The Jerk]

I also would be open to possibly increasing the number of inductees... I'm not sold on the idea, but I'd be open to discussing it. Yes, there are more players in the league... but does that mean there are necessarily more HoF-caliber players in the league?

I actually do think that there are more HoF-caliber players available since I think it's more likely that a certain PERCENTAGE of players are HoF-caliber rather than a certain fixed NUMBER of players.I'm not a HoF historian or anything and I don't have ready access to the number of football players in high school or college over the past few decades. However, if there are more athletes playing football now than ever before at all levels of football, or at least more now than back in the '60s and '70s when the HoF was formed and the "modern" era of the NFL began, then it would make sense for the HoF to increase the number of players inducted per year. The increase would need to be small, only an extra player or two, or else the exclusivity that makes the HoF such a special honor would be lost.

I don't think it will happen anytime soon. Why? According to the "ground rules" for the selection committee, the maximum number of inductees allowed is 6 (although somehow 7 were in the 2001 class; maybe it changed recently), and that rarely happens. Since 1991, only three of 16 classes have had more than 5 inductees. Pro Football HoF link

So if the current system isn't even maxing out (although it did this year), there will be no increase in number of inductees per year anytime soon.