NFL Hall of Fame Finalists (1 Viewer)

[MarshallRob]

If these stats get one into the hall of fame....

Rushing | Receiving |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| 1974 pit | 11 | 1 14 14.0 0 | 11 208 18.9 2 |

| 1975 pit | 14 | 3 13 4.3 0 | 49 781 15.9 11 |

| 1976 pit | 12 | 1 2 2.0 0 | 28 516 18.4 3 |

| 1977 pit | 14 | 2 6 3.0 0 | 50 789 15.8 7 |

| 1978 pit | 16 | 1 7 7.0 0 | 61 880 14.4 11 |

| 1979 pit | 13 | 1 9 9.0 1 | 41 808 19.7 5 |

| 1980 pit | 13 | 1 -4 -4.0 0 | 44 710 16.1 7 |

| 1981 pit | 13 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 34 505 14.9 5 |

| 1982 pit | 9 | 1 25 25.0 0 | 18 265 14.7 0 |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| TOTAL | 115 | 11 72 6.5 1 | 336 5462 16.3 51

Postseason Data

Year Opp Result | RSH YD TD | REC YD TD

---------------------+-----------------+-----------------

1975 bal W,28-10 | 0 0 0 | 2 15 0

1975 oak W,16-10 | 0 0 0 | 2 45 0

*1975 dal W,21-17 | 0 0 0 | 4 161 1

1976 bal W,40-14 | 0 0 0 | 5 77 2

1976 oak L,7-24 | 0 0 0 | 3 58 0

1977 den L,21-34 | 0 0 0 | 1 6 0

1978 den W,33-10 | 0 0 0 | 2 52 1

1978 hou W,34-5 | 0 0 0 | 4 98 1

*1978 dal W,35-31 | 0 0 0 | 7 124 1

1979 mia W,34-14 | 0 0 0 | 3 37 1

1979 hou W,27-13 | 0 0 0 | 4 64 0

*1979 ram W,31-19 | 0 0 0 | 5 79 1

1982 sdg L,28-31 | 0 0 0 | 1 14 0

---------------------+-----------------+-----------------

TOTAL | 0 0 0 | 43 830 8

I fail to see how these stats do not....

| Rushing | Receiving |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| 1988 dal | 14 | 1 2 2.0 0 | 32 654 20.4 5 |

| 1989 dal | 6 | 1 6 6.0 0 | 26 378 14.5 2 |

| 1990 dal | 12 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 20 413 20.6 5 |

| 1991 dal | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 93 1523 16.4 8 |

| 1992 dal | 16 | 1 -9 -9.0 0 | 78 1396 17.9 7 |

| 1993 dal | 16 | 2 6 3.0 0 | 88 1330 15.1 7 |

| 1994 dal | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 79 1241 15.7 6 |

| 1995 dal | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 111 1603 14.4 10 |

| 1996 dal | 11 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 64 962 15.0 2 |

| 1997 dal | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 75 1180 15.7 9 |

| 1998 dal | 16 | 1 1 1.0 0 | 74 1057 14.3 1 |

| 1999 dal | 4 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 10 167 16.7 3 |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| TOTAL | 159 | 6 6 1.0 0 | 750 11904 15.9 65 |

Postseason Data

Year Opp Result | RSH YD TD | REC YD TD

---------------------+-----------------+-----------------

1991 chi W,17-13 | 0 0 0 | 4 83 0

1991 det L,6-38 | 0 0 0 | 5 84 0

1992 phi W,34-10 | 0 0 0 | 6 88 0

1992 sfo W,30-20 | 0 0 0 | 6 86 0

*1992 buf W,52-17 | 0 0 0 | 6 114 2

1993 gnb W,27-17 | 0 0 0 | 9 126 1

1993 sfo W,38-21 | 0 0 0 | 2 23 0

*1993 buf W,30-13 | 0 0 0 | 5 66 0

1994 gnb W,35-9 | 0 0 0 | 6 111 0

1994 sfo L,28-38 | 0 0 0 | 12 192 2

1995 phi W,30-11 | 0 0 0 | 1 9 1

1995 gnb W,38-27 | 0 0 0 | 7 100 2

*1995 pit W,27-17 | 0 0 0 | 5 75 0

1996 min W,40-15 | 0 0 0 | 8 103 0

1996 car L,17-26 | 0 0 0 | 1 22 0

1998 ari L,7-20 | 0 0 0 | 4 32 0

---------------------+-----------------+-----------------

TOTAL | 0 0 0 | 87 1314 8

Irvin is currently the most qualified eligible receiver not in the Hall and I don't know if anyone has argued he doesn't deserve it. That said, it's unfair to compare him to Swann for 3 reasons:1) Different eras. Nobody in the 1970's put up numbers comparable to latter-day receivers. It really was a different game back then.

2) Super Bowls. I don't know that anybody in the Hall of Fame has a resume so heavily dependent on Super Bowl performances as Swann. He's the king of NFL Films' highlights and the receivers on any all-time Super Bowl team have to be Rice and Swann.

3) Least common denominator. Because he had a short career in a low offensive era, Swann's career totals are very unimpressive. If you put in every receiver with more yards or catches, that could run to hundreds of players.

 

[BoulderBob]

If these stats get one into the hall of fame....

Rushing        |        Receiving        |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| Year  TM |  G |  Att  Yards    Y/A  TD |  Rec  Yards  Y/R  TD |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| 1974 pit |  11 |    1    14  14.0    0 |    11    208  18.9    2 |

| 1975 pit |  14 |    3    13    4.3    0 |    49    781  15.9  11 |

| 1976 pit |  12 |    1      2    2.0    0 |    28    516  18.4    3 |

| 1977 pit |  14 |    2      6    3.0    0 |    50    789  15.8    7 |

| 1978 pit |  16 |    1      7    7.0    0 |    61    880  14.4  11 |

| 1979 pit |  13 |    1      9    9.0    1 |    41    808  19.7    5 |

| 1980 pit |  13 |    1    -4  -4.0    0 |    44    710  16.1    7 |

| 1981 pit |  13 |    0      0    0.0    0 |    34    505  14.9    5 |

| 1982 pit |  9 |    1    25  25.0    0 |    18    265  14.7    0 |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

|  TOTAL  | 115 |    11    72    6.5    1 |  336  5462  16.3  51

Postseason Data

Year  Opp  Result  |  RSH    YD  TD  |  REC    YD  TD

---------------------+-----------------+-----------------

1975  bal  W,28-10  |    0    0  0  |    2    15  0

1975  oak  W,16-10  |    0    0  0  |    2    45  0

*1975  dal  W,21-17  |    0    0  0  |    4  161  1

1976  bal  W,40-14  |    0    0  0  |    5    77  2

1976  oak  L,7-24  |    0    0  0  |    3    58  0

1977  den  L,21-34  |    0    0  0  |    1    6  0

1978  den  W,33-10  |    0    0  0  |    2    52  1

1978  hou  W,34-5  |    0    0  0  |    4    98  1

*1978  dal  W,35-31  |    0    0  0  |    7  124  1

1979  mia  W,34-14  |    0    0  0  |    3    37  1

1979  hou  W,27-13  |    0    0  0  |    4    64  0

*1979  ram  W,31-19  |    0    0  0  |    5    79  1

1982  sdg  L,28-31  |    0    0  0  |    1    14  0

---------------------+-----------------+-----------------

TOTAL                |    0    0  0  |  43  830  8

I fail to see how these stats do not....

|          Rushing        |        Receiving        |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| Year  TM |  G |  Att  Yards    Y/A  TD |  Rec  Yards  Y/R  TD |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

| 1988 dal |  14 |    1      2    2.0    0 |    32    654  20.4    5 |

| 1989 dal |  6 |    1      6    6.0    0 |    26    378  14.5    2 |

| 1990 dal |  12 |    0      0    0.0    0 |    20    413  20.6    5 |

| 1991 dal |  16 |    0      0    0.0    0 |    93  1523  16.4    8 |

| 1992 dal |  16 |    1    -9  -9.0    0 |    78  1396  17.9    7 |

| 1993 dal |  16 |    2      6    3.0    0 |    88  1330  15.1    7 |

| 1994 dal |  16 |    0      0    0.0    0 |    79  1241  15.7    6 |

| 1995 dal |  16 |    0      0    0.0    0 |  111  1603  14.4  10 |

| 1996 dal |  11 |    0      0    0.0    0 |    64    962  15.0    2 |

| 1997 dal |  16 |    0      0    0.0    0 |    75  1180  15.7    9 |

| 1998 dal |  16 |    1      1    1.0    0 |    74  1057  14.3    1 |

| 1999 dal |  4 |    0      0    0.0    0 |    10    167  16.7    3 |

+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+

|  TOTAL  | 159 |    6      6    1.0    0 |  750  11904  15.9  65 |

Postseason Data

Year  Opp  Result  |  RSH    YD  TD  |  REC    YD  TD

---------------------+-----------------+-----------------

1991  chi  W,17-13  |    0    0  0  |    4    83  0

1991  det  L,6-38  |    0    0  0  |    5    84  0

1992  phi  W,34-10  |    0    0  0  |    6    88  0

1992  sfo  W,30-20  |    0    0  0  |    6    86  0

*1992  buf  W,52-17  |    0    0  0  |    6  114  2

1993  gnb  W,27-17  |    0    0  0  |    9  126  1

1993  sfo  W,38-21  |    0    0  0  |    2    23  0

*1993  buf  W,30-13  |    0    0  0  |    5    66  0

1994  gnb  W,35-9  |    0    0  0  |    6  111  0

1994  sfo  L,28-38  |    0    0  0  |  12  192  2

1995  phi  W,30-11  |    0    0  0  |    1    9  1

1995  gnb  W,38-27  |    0    0  0  |    7  100  2

*1995  pit  W,27-17  |    0    0  0  |    5    75  0

1996  min  W,40-15  |    0    0  0  |    8  103  0

1996  car  L,17-26  |    0    0  0  |    1    22  0

1998  ari  L,7-20  |    0    0  0  |    4    32  0

---------------------+-----------------+-----------------

TOTAL                |    0    0  0  |  87  1314  8

Irvin is currently the most qualified eligible receiver not in the Hall and I don't know if anyone has argued he doesn't deserve it. That said, it's unfair to compare him to Swann for 3 reasons:1) Different eras. Nobody in the 1970's put up numbers comparable to latter-day receivers. It really was a different game back then.

2) Super Bowls. I don't know that anybody in the Hall of Fame has a resume so heavily dependent on Super Bowl performances as Swann. He's the king of NFL Films' highlights and the receivers on any all-time Super Bowl team have to be Rice and Swann.

3) Least common denominator. Because he had a short career in a low offensive era, Swann's career totals are very unimpressive. If you put in every receiver with more yards or catches, that could run to hundreds of players.

makes sense...

 

[Sidewinder16]

2) Addressing your specific points, Monk's YPC is higher than Carter and Harrison. It's close with Harrison. But obviously it's TD's where Monk falls way short.

I agree. His TD numbers (or lack thereof) are by far his biggest detraction.I understand his numbers make him borderline. I just wish more people could have actually watched him play games. Like dgreen mentions, when the 'Skins needed 7 they could count on Monk to get them 8. Many may not see that as Hall worthy, but to have been consistently reliable in that regard for more than a decade (in addition to his numbers and the records he set) makes him one of the greats in my book.

 

[Sidewinder16]

When you look at stats (specifically the 16.0 YpC) you may think Largent was a speedy deep threat guy, but he wasn't. He was just so good at getting (sometimes ridiculously) wide open that he could make good yards after the catch. The Seahawks even specifically went hunting for speed guys to put opposite him - Daryl "the Burner" Turner comes to mind.

Monk was a hands/posession reciver primarily. Largent was a hands/posession guy who got so open your closing speed wouldn't help much, and they'd run him down later.

Posession guys are not the flashy types, so they frequently go underappreciated, and having Monk who very good at it, being a contemporary of a guy who was great at it hurts Monk.

Appreciate the extra Largent info. stevec. Almost all of my Largent memories seem to be him catching a fly pattern with a DB 10 yards behind him. Like I said, I really only got to see his highlights since I'm on the east coast, so I really only knew him by his numbers.

 

[Pots]

For those of you who even think Aikman is on the bubble and not a lock for the Hall, then you better think Brady is one of the most over-rated QBs currently in the NFL.

 

[Jason Wood]

stevec really had a great point re: positional disparity. While we all understand that QBs are the poster boys and it's the glamour position, how is it that as many QBs are in as O-linemen? That's absurd when you consider there are 5 starting offensive lineman on every dominant SB team to one starting QB.

 

[Jason Wood]

stevec really had a great point re: positional disparity. While we all understand that QBs are the poster boys and it's the glamour position, how is it that as many QBs are in as O-linemen? That's absurd when you consider there are 5 starting offensive lineman on every dominant SB team to one starting QB.

 

[Marc Levin]

For those of you who even think Aikman is on the bubble and not a lock for the Hall, then you better think Brady is one of the most over-rated QBs currently in the NFL.

Uh-Oh. .Let's try to keep this clean and on point - I hereby SHUT DOWN any Brady talk in this thread - Brady is not currently HOF eligible and discussion of him is irrelevant to who wil lbe inducted THIS year

 

[Orange Crush]

This may be the best list of HOF finalists I've ever seen.The biggest detractions against Madden has been the questions regarding how much of the Raiders success he actually contributed to, and how much was really because of Al Davis.For Monk, Peter King keeps comparing him to Jerry Rice, which I think is blatantly unfair. If you compare Monk to Largent, or Joiner (the two WRs with the career receptions record before Monk) then Monk is easily HOF material. He's just unlucky in that the one of the greatest football players ever plays his position and started playing before Monk retired.I think White is the only first ballot HOFer of those qualified. That distinction is for those who are truly special. Load up on the linemen this year. Keep Aikman, Moon, and Thermal waiting.

 

[The_Man]

Every year, Peter King harkens back to his days as a Giant beat reporter when he says the Giants of the 80s were always more worried about Gary Clark than Art Monk.To which I say -- who gives an F what they said!?! Just because one teams who you were close to had a certain opinion about one player doesn't detract one bit from what is clearly a Hall of Fame career.

 

[stevec]

When you look at stats (specifically the 16.0 YpC) you may think Largent was a speedy deep threat guy, but he wasn't. He was just so good at getting (sometimes ridiculously) wide open that he could make good yards after the catch. The Seahawks even specifically went hunting for speed guys to put opposite him - Daryl "the Burner" Turner comes to mind.

Monk was a hands/posession reciver primarily. Largent was a hands/posession guy who got so open your closing speed wouldn't help much, and they'd run him down later.

Posession guys are not the flashy types, so they frequently go underappreciated, and having Monk who very good at it, being a contemporary of a guy who was great at it hurts Monk.

Appreciate the extra Largent info. stevec. Almost all of my Largent memories seem to be him catching a fly pattern with a DB 10 yards behind him. Like I said, I really only got to see his highlights since I'm on the east coast, so I really only knew him by his numbers.

I understand - as a Seahawks fan who adopted them during expansion while livign on the East Coast, it's tough. Ironically, if you asked me what Largent's worst pattern was, relative to the rest of the league, I'd say "fly" with no hesitation.Here's a quote from an opponent or Largent making the HoF:

Mike Haynes, Raiders defensive back: "For a guy too slow and too short, you sure fooled a lot of people."

 

[stevec]

This may be the best list of HOF finalists I've ever seen.

The biggest detractions against Madden has been the questions regarding how much of the Raiders success he actually contributed to, and how much was really because of Al Davis.

For Monk, Peter King keeps comparing him to Jerry Rice, which I think is blatantly unfair. If you compare Monk to Largent, or Joiner (the two WRs with the career receptions record before Monk) then Monk is easily HOF material. He's just unlucky in that the one of the greatest football players ever plays his position and started playing before Monk retired.

I think White is the only first ballot HOFer of those qualified. That distinction is for those who are truly special.

Load up on the linemen this year. Keep Aikman, Moon, and Thermal waiting.

I think Madden is in, because he's a coach and a commentator and a "builder" if you look at the video game stuff. He's in as a coach for me, but the other two things do nothing but help his case.Monk isn't as good as Largent, and it's not really that close. Comparing to Joiner works better, but Monk's issues are:

He's got great career value but relatively poor peak value versus hall of famers.

He started playing at the beginning of the passing explosion.

I have no problem with Thomas getting in, but the HoF needs more QB's like Detroit needs more Matt Millen.

I'm amazed at the lack of consideration for non-QB/WR/RB candidates here.

 

[Jason Wood]

This may be the best list of HOF finalists I've ever seen.

The biggest detractions against Madden has been the questions regarding how much of the Raiders success he actually contributed to, and how much was really because of Al Davis.

For Monk, Peter King keeps comparing him to Jerry Rice, which I think is blatantly unfair.  If you compare Monk to Largent, or Joiner (the two WRs with the career receptions record before Monk) then Monk is easily HOF material.  He's just unlucky in that the one of the greatest football players ever plays his position and started playing before Monk retired.

I think White is the only first ballot HOFer of those qualified.  That distinction is for those who are truly special. 

Load up on the linemen this year.  Keep Aikman, Moon, and Thermal waiting.

I think Madden is in, because he's a coach and a commentator and a "builder" if you look at the video game stuff. He's in as a coach for me, but the other two things do nothing but help his case.Monk isn't as good as Largent, and it's not really that close. Comparing to Joiner works better, but Monk's issues are:

He's got great career value but relatively poor peak value versus hall of famers.

He started playing at the beginning of the passing explosion.

I have no problem with Thomas getting in, but the HoF needs more QB's like Detroit needs more Matt Millen.

I'm amazed at the lack of consideration for non-QB/WR/RB candidates here.

Who I would LIKE to see in this year:Reggie White

Harold Carson

Gary Zimmerman

John Madden

Thurman Thomas

Who I expect to see in this year:

Reggie White

Troy Aikman [note: I don't like Aikman, but I think he deserves induction]

John Madden

Art Monk

 

[Urinal Mint]

I don't know how anybody could argue Aikman not getting in the HOF. All he did was win 3 Super Bowls while leading the Cowboys.Show me a QB from a team winning 2 or more Super Bowls that isn't in the HOF.If mediocre players like Lynn Swann can get in on the strength of a couple of nifty catches in Super Bowls, then Aikman has more than earned his spot.

 

[Urinal Mint]

I think Rayfield Wright deserves to go, but I'm also a Cowboys homer. The 70s Cowboys are woefully underrepresented in the HOF despite the greatness of the franchise that decade.

 

[SSOG]

I'm amazed at the lack of consideration for non-QB/WR/RB candidates here.

It's because the rest of the positions don't put up numbers, and are therefore drastically overrated. True, defensive players put up numbers, but frequently the numbers they put up are more related to the scheme they are in (Zach Thomas), the quality of opposition they face (all #2 CBs), the quality of their teammates (all #2 CBs, Safeties), or else the numbers are completely unrelated to how good a player REALLY is (Deion Sanders). Just look at Al Wilson, who was an all-pro MLB this season despite being 102nd in the NFL in tackles. So you can't really judge defensive players by their numbers as well as you can offensive players.The result is pretty sad. Like I said, it's time the hall closed its doors to ALL QBs (except Brett Favre, who has earned his first-ballot status) for an entire decade, and to REQUIRE voters to elect at least one offensive lineman a year for that span. And make a rule that you can let in one WR or one RB, but not one of each. Let's even out the hall.

 

[kingmalaki]

Moon deserves to be in the Hall, based on his guady numbers and his social impact to the game (I mention this because Broadway Joe is in more because of SB 3 than his numbers).

 

[SSOG]

I think Rayfield Wright deserves to go, but I'm also a Cowboys homer. The 70s Cowboys are woefully underrepresented in the HOF despite the greatness of the franchise that decade.

You want to talk about woefully underrepresented... Denver has been to more SBs than anyone but Dallas, and they only have a single player in the hall of fame (and a couple of years ago, they didn't even have that). The Denver Broncos, for all of their success (made SBs in the 70s, 80s, AND 90s), have exactly as many hall of famers as Tampa.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Thurman Thomas should be a lock. He was the most deserving offensive player of those Bills teams by far, IMO, and Kelly was already a first ballot HOFer. Led the league in yards from scrimmage for 4 straight seasons, won an MVP award, and his performance in Super Bowl XIX would have won him the MVP if Norwood's kick was a few feet to the left. The only players you could really argue were better than him in his prime were Barry Sanders and Emmitt Smith.Also, I don't think Art Monk is a HOF player. He was a possession receiver, a compiler, and only had 3 Pro Bowl seasons in a 16 season career. He wasn't even the best WR on his team for most of that time, as Gary Clark deserves that honor, IMO. I think Michael Irvin and Andre Reed are both more deserving than Monk.I think Aikman, White, and Thurman are locks. After them, I'd probably go with Moon and Madden. Not sure about the last spot, but Carson certainly seems worthy.

 

[Marc Levin]

I genuinely can't pare the list down from Aikman, Moon, R. White, T Thomas, Irvin, Monk, Greenwood and Carson - and those are the "glamor" guys.Kooch, Grimm, Zimm, and Madden deserve serious consideration.

 

[Pots]

For those of you who even think Aikman is on the bubble and not a lock for the Hall, then you better think Brady is one of the most over-rated QBs currently in the NFL.

Uh-Oh. .Let's try to keep this clean and on point - I hereby SHUT DOWN any Brady talk in this thread - Brady is not currently HOF eligible and discussion of him is irrelevant to who wil lbe inducted THIS year

Next time try not skimming over my post. In no way am I trying to bring corrolation with the Brady getting into the HOF, merely drawing comparrisons of how people say he's a great QB based on his wins, but I bet a lot of the same people are hipocritical with that point with Aikman.

 

[Pat Patriot]

Thurman Thomas should be a lock. He was the most deserving offensive player of those Bills teams by far, IMO, and Kelly was already a first ballot HOFer. Led the league in yards from scrimmage for 4 straight seasons, won an MVP award, and his performance in Super Bowl XIX would have won him the MVP if Norwood's kick was a few feet to the left. The only players you could really argue were better than him in his prime were Barry Sanders and Emmitt Smith.

Also, I don't think Art Monk is a HOF player. He was a possession receiver, a compiler, and only had 3 Pro Bowl seasons in a 16 season career. He wasn't even the best WR on his team for most of that time, as Gary Clark deserves that honor, IMO. I think Michael Irvin and Andre Reed are both more deserving than Monk.

I think Aikman, White, and Thurman are locks. After them, I'd probably go with Moon and Madden. Not sure about the last spot, but Carson certainly seems worthy.

Jim Kelly should not have been a first ballot HOFer. Thurman Thomas was the one that made that team run. If Kelly is in, Thomas is a LOCK.

 

[Pat Patriot]

I come down toAikmanR. WhiteT. ThomasHarry CarsonGary ZimmermanI really cant come up with a 6th. Monk is not a HOFer. He was never great but always good. I think Irvin should wait another year.

 

[MarshallRob]

I will probably get hammered for this but the facts are the facts.

I don't get the love for Ray Guy. Like most of us, I grew up watching Guy and he was a helluva punter, but do your research. He is being supported based on reputation...check the stats. For a position that has no player in the Hall, the first one let in has to be the best. Punting, maybe more than other positions, has to be stat heavy in looking at how effective a player was.

The facts are as follows:

Guy is not in the top 5 all-time in average.

2 players led the league for more seasons in best league avg (4), and 3 others led the NFL as many seasons as Guy did (3).

Guy is not in the top 3 of punts inside the 20.

Of the top 5 best seasons as far as punting avg. , Guy has none of them.

Again, I am not knocking Guy, probably best punter of our era, just saying he should not be the first punter in the Hall (if they ever let 1 in). I have no problem with him being in, just not as the first and maybe only punter.

Well, so far nobody has hammered you and I will applaud you. To make a case for Guy, you have to do two things:1) Show that a punter belongs in the Hall of Fame. Not just an "all positions ought to represented" argument. You have to show that a player who's on the field 4 or 5 plays a game has the same type of impact that a star offensive or defensive player has. If you put a pure punter in the Hall of Fame, then logically wouldn't you have to put in the best pure punt-return man as well? Each man's job is the exact flipside of the other. At least for a placekicker you can look at the points he racked up and note all the pressure-filled game-winning kicks he made. If somebody out there has studied the issue and can show that teams with great punters have a huge advantage over teams that don't, that would go a long way towards getting a punter in. Can anybody point to some Ray Guy punts in the Raiders' Super Bowl seasons that made the difference for his team in a key game? I just can't imagine guys like Harry Carson or Bob Kuechenberg, brutally fighting in the trenches on play after play, having to wait even longer for deserved enshrinement so that a punter can get in.

2) Show that Guy is the best pure punter of all-time. I know he has the reputation of being so. But are there numbers to back it up? It's extremely tough to find detailed punting statistics, especially for when Guy played. All I can find is his gross average, and it's not that impressive. He was known for getting good height on his punts, but I have absolutely no idea what percentage of his (non-touchback) punts were returned. Was he unusually successful at downing kicks inside the 10 or 20, or did he boot it into the endzone a lot? The one thing in Guy's favor is the number of All-Pro teams he made. Writers of his time clearly thought he was the best in the game. But what kind of stats were they studying? Did they know anything more than his average? Were they just voting him on reputation? It's been known to happen. And even if Guy was the best punter of his own era, what about all the punters before and after him? If we're going to put the first one in, it should be the best ever. Does anyone have the numbers to prove that's Ray Guy?

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I think Steve Tasker and Bill Bates should be in the HOF before Ray Guy.

 

[BassNBrew]

I'm amazed at the lack of consideration for non-QB/WR/RB candidates here.

It's because the rest of the positions don't put up numbers, and are therefore drastically overrated. True, defensive players put up numbers, but frequently the numbers they put up are more related to the scheme they are in (Zach Thomas), the quality of opposition they face (all #2 CBs), the quality of their teammates (all #2 CBs, Safeties), or else the numbers are completely unrelated to how good a player REALLY is (Deion Sanders). Just look at Al Wilson, who was an all-pro MLB this season despite being 102nd in the NFL in tackles. So you can't really judge defensive players by their numbers as well as you can offensive players.The result is pretty sad. Like I said, it's time the hall closed its doors to ALL QBs (except Brett Favre, who has earned his first-ballot status) for an entire decade, and to REQUIRE voters to elect at least one offensive lineman a year for that span. And make a rule that you can let in one WR or one RB, but not one of each. Let's even out the hall.

One could argue that the most talented players play at the skill positions and we should expect the Hall to be weight accordingly.

 

[stevec]

I think Steve Tasker and Bill Bates should be in the HOF before Ray Guy.

Tasker actually is making the list of nominees. I think I posted it back a ways in this thread.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I think Steve Tasker and Bill Bates should be in the HOF before Ray Guy.

Tasker actually is making the list of nominees. I think I posted it back a ways in this thread.

I'd love to see him get in. What a player. Affected alot of games considering he was a ST player, played WR decently when they needed him to, was MVP of the Pro Bowl. He's a football player.