Kelce on Justin Tucker (1 Viewer)

[efactor]

Also, should this impact his Hall of Fame resume?

It's an honest question. Should off field issues impact Hall of Fame placement? Orenthal the bus driving murderer is still in Canton. Why should Tucker be excluded?

Well, OJ was found innocent by a jury of his peers. The NFL couldn't really justify booting him out of the HOF without a conviction regardless of how ridicules the verdict was. You either believe in the process or you don't. Can't be found innocent and still punished like you were found guilty.

Same thing with Tucker. He was accused but until there's a conviction, the accusation shouldn't come into play. He should make or it not based on his performance.

OJ was found guilty in civil court. Where does "the process" land on that?

It doesn't land at all. The burden of proof is way less and all monetary.

Not standing up for OJ. I detested the guy but the NFL couldn't justify kicking the guy out based on a civil suit case after he was found innocent in criminal court which has a much higher burden of proof.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

Also, should this impact his Hall of Fame resume?

It's an honest question. Should off field issues impact Hall of Fame placement? Orenthal the bus driving murderer is still in Canton. Why should Tucker be excluded?

Well, OJ was found innocent by a jury of his peers. The NFL couldn't really justify booting him out of the HOF without a conviction regardless of how ridicules the verdict was. You either believe in the process or you don't. Can't be found innocent and still punished like you were found guilty.

Same thing with Tucker. He was accused but until there's a conviction, the accusation shouldn't come into play. He should make or it not based on his performance.

OJ was found guilty in civil court. Where does "the process" land on that?

It doesn't land at all. The burden of proof is way less and all monetary.

Not standing up for OJ. I detested the guy but the NFL couldn't justify kicking the guy out based on a civil suit case after he was found innocent in criminal court which has a much higher burden of proof.

Not saying you do, but If found guilty I don't think he should be kicked out of the HOF. You wanna put an asterisk next to his plaque, by all means.

ETA - He’s likely a murdering, awful person but I dont have any feeling about the player one way or another. He was before my time and I never studied him, which is odd because I was interested in all the old greats but never him. Maybe he just wasn’t that old/old enough when I was a kid.

 

[pinkstapler]

I brought it up in another Tucker thread, but I think Jim Tyrer is the counter argument to "HoF shouldn't reflect off the field issues". I'm sure there are some long time Chiefs fans who can speak on it better than me, but from everything I've read on him Tyrer his resume is as good if not better than plenty of other linemen who are already in there.

Super Bowl champion (IV)
3× AFL champion (1962, 1966, 1969)
5× First-team All-AFL (1965–1969)
First-team All-Pro (1970)
Second-team All-AFL (1963, 1964)
8× AFL All-Star (1962–1966, 1968, 1969)
2× Pro Bowl (1970, 1971)
AFL All-Time Team
Kansas City Chiefs Hall of Fame

Looking past the meta theme of "well we don't really KNOW anything"; it's very hard to not believe him killing his wife and then committing suicide is not the driving factor that kept voters from putting him into the HoF. Don't have to take my word for it, plenty of articles out there for anyone who wants to make their own opinion. Don't want to get too far off topic for the thread, but I do believe with what we know now about CTE there's a better chance he would have made it into the hall these days than back then. Not absolving him of what he did, but I think we have a lot more understanding as to the why now, than when they were voting on him.

All this to say, voters gonna vote how they want and by what standards they want. Even if directed to not considered off the field stuff, I'm pretty sure plenty of voters will.