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.

Should Lawrence Taylor be removed from the HoF? (1 Viewer)

Jewell

Footballguy
My own opinion is that once you are in you should be in for life.

So no.
So someone could retire, be voted in, and turn into a serial killer/rapist, and you're cool with that?
Yes, because it is the Pro Football Hall of Fame, not the Life Hall of Fame. If that were the case, who knows how many of these players wouldn't qualify. There is a point as fans where I believe we need to have perspective that a great football player is just that, and trying project any other greatness onto person is our fault. We need to separate our adoration of on-field accomplishments from the true human we know little about outside the lines.
Why? Part of what we love about sports as a society are the personalities. We prefer Broadway Joe over Bart Starr. We prefer the self-espoused "Greatest of All Time" Muhammad Ali over Joe Louis. And we prefer Charles Barkley over Tim Duncan. In each of those cases, the latter player is likely better (certainly iffy with Louis-Ali), but the majority of society prefers the former guy because he showed some personality or a personality trait that people like. It's the same reason that Tim Tebow's jersey is the top selling NFL jersey before he even takes a pro snap, and it's the same reason America prefers John Madden to more analytical analysts like Chris Collinsworth. People put weight on other people's personalities. We elect the politician who's charismatic, we hire the guy we liked during the interview process, and we hang around with guys we like (for the most part).

If we consider personality in every other facet of life, why not the Hall of Fame? If a person's personality is so great that we reward them like a Tebow. Why can't a person's personality be so bad (say either a rapist, murderer, or pedophile) that we completely punish them as a society, including removal from fraternities where their presence may tarnish other members who've lived an exemplary life? Almost any club in America would wipe itself clean of a murderer, rapist, or pedophile. Why not the Hall of Fame?

EDIT: The bolded part is why I'd like to see these things voted on by the other living members of the Hall. Not sportswriters, not fans, just the other members of the fraternity.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

RUSF18

Footballguy
My own opinion is that once you are in you should be in for life.

So no.
So someone could retire, be voted in, and turn into a serial killer/rapist, and you're cool with that?
Yes, because it is the Pro Football Hall of Fame, not the Life Hall of Fame. If that were the case, who knows how many of these players wouldn't qualify. There is a point as fans where I believe we need to have perspective that a great football player is just that, and trying project any other greatness onto person is our fault. We need to separate our adoration of on-field accomplishments from the true human we know little about outside the lines.
Why? Part of what we love about sports as a society are the personalities. We prefer Broadway Joe over Bart Starr. We prefer the self-espoused "Greatest of All Time" Muhammad Ali over Joe Louis. And we prefer Charles Barkley over Tim Duncan. In each of those cases, the latter player is likely better (certainly iffy with Louis-Ali), but the majority of society prefers the former guy because he showed some personality or a personality trait that people like.
Interesting choice there. How has public perception of Namath changed after his drunken "I wanna kiss you!"?
 

Nemesis

Footballguy
While I think it's too tough to enforce a total removal (based on the "where do you draw the line?" question)......I do heavily support the ability of the HOF enshrinees being able to suspend a fellow member from being displayed at Canton and said player would have to ask for re-instatement in the future.

 

B-Deep

Footballguy
as I understand the rules had he done this before he was in the hall of fame they should still not consider it even when discussing induction. No way should he be removed

change the rules if you want though

 

3nOut

Footballguy
No, they shouldn't remove him. Unless they prove someone cheated in the game (steroids, etc.) noone should be removed once they are inducted.

Although its a different sport, this is the reason I think Shoeless Joe (never proven of doing anythng wrong) and Pete Rose should be in their HOF. Their accomplishments on the field say they should be in.

 

Tanner9919

Footballguy
Just like being in the NFL, being in the HoF is a privelage. Guys want to be in it. Sure it is based off your performance playing, but if someone is elected, and commits crimes, then absolutely he should be removed. Should OJ be removed? I say yes, but like one stated, he wasnt found guilty. If LT is found guilty, then yes he shoulod be removed. He's already had his 1st, 2nd, 3rd (etc) chances...
a ridiculous statement if there ever was one. what does off the field stuff have to do with on the field performance??I mean, I can understand banning someone guilty of using steroids or (as in Lt's case) coke during his playing career, while in games, but not for something that happened off the field..

LT had many,many,many chances while still playing, and still managed to get into the HOF..I'm a Giants fan,

we've all heard the rumors about alleged failed tests that the Giants front office swept under the rug...if he was a player in in today's NFL, LT would have already been suspended for life...

but,he played in a different era..

and this latest incident has nothing to do with him being a linebacker or the one-time NFL sack leader..if you want to say he should be banned because of coke use during his playing career and during games, fine, I'll take that..but not something done 15 years after he retires,which has absolutely nothing to do with football or his NFL career..

Ray Ray Lewis is/was an accessory to murder in Miami, never convicted of it, but he brought the would-be killer to Miami for SB week..he's a walking soon-2-be HOF'er...should he get in? of course he should..

What if Donte Stallworth was another Jerry Rice, i.e, a grrreat WR - should he be eligible for the HOF after killing someone while drunk driving? yes, if he is another Jerry Rice, he should get in...again, the tragedy happened off-the-field.

 

Warhogs

Footballguy
I say he is in and should be in. My view is that the football hall of fame is to recognize the best football players of all time. Lawrence Taylor was one of the greatest football players of all time. He has had plenty of off the field issues but that means nothing to me when I evaluate his football career. I don't think a crappy football player should be in the hall of fame because he was a great humanitarian so I won't penalize a guy whose life outside of football has been filled with issues.

 

Thorpe

Footballguy
I'd let Taylor have his day in court. If the facts are as bad as they seem, then I would be in favor of removing him. The Hall of Fame is for the best of the best, and I think citizenship is part of that. If the NFL is going to ban players for bad behavior, then the Hall of Fame should have the same policy. If a player commits a crime that is severe enough to keep him out of the hall, then to me it shouldn't matter that he committed it before or after he was elected.

I think I would have a policy where a certain number of HOF voters petition for a revote, and then there would have to 75% or so in favor of removal.

 

3nOut

Footballguy
Thorpe said:
I'd let Taylor have his day in court. If the facts are as bad as they seem, then I would be in favor of removing him. The Hall of Fame is for the best of the best, and I think citizenship is part of that. If the NFL is going to ban players for bad behavior, then the Hall of Fame should have the same policy. If a player commits a crime that is severe enough to keep him out of the hall, then to me it shouldn't matter that he committed it before or after he was elected.

I think I would have a policy where a certain number of HOF voters petition for a revote, and then there would have to 75% or so in favor of removal.
IMO, the HOF is not an award but more of a historical museum. You can't take someone out of the HOF because things he did off the field. If you do, you are simply revising history to depict football through rose colored glasses where everything is pretty and neat. It would not be an accurate cronology of the history of football. Why only capture the good parts and ignore the bad? It would be like removing and references of Stalin and Hitler from any WWII museum.
 

Mikey16x

Footballguy
Nope, he stays. Sure, he might not be the most model citizen off of the field but your talking about a guy that changed the way his position was played. He is possibly the best LB to ever live. Should he be removed, 1000x no.

 

Topes

Footballguy
My own opinion is that once you are in you should be in for life.

So no.
:goodposting:

Pretty much begins and ends my opinion on the matter, as well.

Lawrence Taylor is probably even more famous now than he was two weeks ago.

 

two_dollars

Footballguy
When was the last time someone got into the HOF because of their charity work in the community?

In other words, No way.

He should stay in for what he did on the field. All considerations about in or out of the HOF ended with his retirement from the NFL.

 

Koya

Footballguy
1. The NFL HOF does not have a citizenship component.

2. Where do we draw the line? At getting a hooker and finding out afterward she was underaged? Or is it beating your wife (we know there are those still PLAYING in the NFL), which in my book, because its premeditated / on purpose is far worse. Is it murder? Robbery? Where do we discern acceptable from unacceptable behavior?

3. LT will get off on the more serious charges here, so it's going to be a moot point. Just out in the post is word that the hooker bragged to her friend about making easy money because she didnt have to have sex with him - neither intercourse nor oral.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/year_ol...BQn4hnDgnxIsvfL

 

JamesTheScot

Footballguy
My own opinion is that once you are in you should be in for life. So no.
:goodposting: We're not putting them in the HoF because they were nice guys and role models.
Anyone think that if LT had done this while still a player, he might not get into the HOF?Same with OJ. Would you vote to put him in if he had commited those murders before he retired?I ask because I'm not sure why one would take off-the-field matters into account when doing the initial voting, but then ignore them after the fact. If it would have kept you out, I'm not sure why it shouldn't get you kicked out.I also don't have a problem with the HOF being reserved for those guys that were great both on the field and off. When we are elevating someone to that point, why not hold them to a higher measure? Is saying to your kids "He's a great player, but don't be like him off the field!" any better a teaching moment than to teach your kids that being a scumbag in society means you won't be respected or held in esteem no matter how good an athlete you are? Why not hold the guys who played well but also played well with others off the field in higher esteem than those that played well but engaged in nefarious conduct off the field?Don't we preach that setting your goals and standards high encourages those seeking them to to aim high as well? Why shouldn't we do that with the HOF? Wouldn't doing so encourage NFL players to strive for that same level of excellence? Really, how hard is it not to murder someone or hire an underage prostitute?We get what we have because we are willing to tolerate it. Maybe if we stop tolerating it and looking the other way, we might get less of it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top