I just don't see Lynch standing out in this crowd. From the numbers, it looks to me like he ranks at the bottom of this group. Harrison, Butler, and Woodson all look more deserving, and Dawkins has played 54 fewer games than Lynch... who knows how his numbers will compare when he is done. There is no way all of these guys will make the HOF, and I think it will be tough for the voters to figure out which ones stood out.Can you or someone actually lay out a case for Jason Taylor? I don't see it. And I'd be interested in the case for Sapp as well.
Interesting to note that since you posted that, Lynch made his 6th Pro Bowl, giving him the lead among that crowd (and only one of the others has more All Pros). So if you're one of those "how did he compare to his peers" types, that's a point in his favor. As I said, though- I don't think Lynch is a HoFer. I don't think he's as good as Atwater was, and I don't think Atwater is a HoFer, either. Same thing for Rodney Harrison, but I think Harrison has an outside chance because everyone who played for the Patriots in the past 7 years is going to have his career overrated a little bit (it happens to every dynasty except the Broncos, apparently).Looking back at Taylor has caused me to re-evaluate him. I really thought his numbers were stronger than they were. I think the DPoY award helps his case, but he'll probably need 30-40 more sacks before he gets more than cursory consideration.As for Warren Sapp... that one is easy, an absolute no-brainer. I mean, you start with his numbers. As a defensive tackle, he has almost as many sacks as Jason Taylor, one of the most prolific passrushing DEs of our era, including four double-digit sack seasons, and a career high of 16.5 sacks in a single season. AS A DEFENSIVE TACKLE. That is ABSURD. He might just be the best pass-rushing DT the game has ever seen. He also has 7 Pro Bowls, a DPoY award, and he's already on the all-decade team for the 1990's... plus there's even a not-unreasonable chance of him landing on the all-decade team of the 2000s, too. In addition to that, there's the "Lawrence Taylor" effect. Warren Sapp changed the way teams used their defensive tackles. He basically created an NFL position (the "under tackle") and has played that position better than any of the imitations that have come along after him. Teams always talk about finding the next Warren Sapp.Even if DT is one of the hardest positions to make the HoF at (only 11 true DTs enshrined, only one of whom played in the league sometime since 1981), if you dominate the league *AND* redefine a position, you make the Hall of Fame. It's as simple as that.
Good argument for Bailey.pro-football-reference.com shows that Bailey only has 6 Pro Bowls in 8 seasons, not 7. And Williams had 5 in his first 8 seasons, despite playing the whole time for the Cardinals, who had only one winning season (9-7 in 1998) and generally had bad defenses during that span. I'd call that a push, not advantage Bailey.I don't really see the bolded statement. Can you justify that? If you are talking about awards, like Pro Bowls and All Pro selections, keep two things in mind:1. Williams may have been overlooked to some degree because he played so much of his career in Arizona.2. Williams' career overlapped with those of Deion and Woodson... stiffer competition.As I said before, I still think that if Bailey's career ended today, he is not a lock, which is the question here. I agree that Bailey will eventually make it, given that I expect him to keep playing for a while.
Pro-football-reference's statistics are great, but its pro bowl data is spotty at best (there are huge, glaring omissions and errors there). Wikipedia is a much better source for info on the Pro Bowl. Bailey has made it every single season except for his rookie year, meaning 7 in 8 vs. 5 in 8 (which is advantage: Bailey).As for explanation for why I think Bailey has been much more dominant than Williams... again, it gets back to Bailey's stats the last two seasons. Two years ago, despite playing injured and missing extensive time, Bailey had 8 INTs, two INT returns for TDs, and the famous 106 yard return vs. New England. That was a very, very good season, as good as Williams ever had. He then followed it up with the masterpiece that was last year. He intercepted 25% of the passes thrown his way- a number that Williams could never touch. He was avoided more than any CB except for Sanders in his prime and still led the league in INTs. He killed 8 drives by intercepting the ball within the 10 yard line. Most importantly, teams FEARED going at him. Bill Belichick and Tom Brady, the best QB/Coach combo in the league, feared to test Bailey- watch the tape of the Den/NE game and it was obvious how hard Brady was actually trying to avoid looking in Bailey's direction. He only sent two passes Bailey's way all game, and judging from his body language, one of them was a mistake. Coaches and QBs spent all week answering questions about how they'd account for Champ Bailey. Nobody answered questions about how they'd account for Aeneas Williams (although they did answer questions about Deion Sanders). Plus, there was always the week when Matt Leinart disrespected Champ Bailey, saying that Bailey was essentially just another CB, and in response Bailey picked off the only two passes Matt Leinart sent his way all game.Aeneas Williams was a great player. He had many phenominal seasons- seasons like Steven Jackson's season last year. Champ Bailey, on the other hand, just had perhaps the most dominant CB season in history- a season like Tomlinson's last year. Aeneas Williams had some great seasons, and Champ Bailey just dominated the league. And remember, this all comes despite the fact that Bailey is essentially playing with one arm tied behind his back thanks to all of the "new" rules against defenses.
SSOG said:
Just Win Baby said:
I suppose Strahan would be a lock if he retires today, but IMO he would be one of the weakest DEs in the HOF.
I disagree with you on Strahan. As I said, I think he'll be the third best DE in the hall once he finally makes it in.
Interesting. These are the DEs in the HOF.Doug AtkinsElvin BetheaWillie DavisCarl EllerLen FordDan Hampton (DT-DE)Deacon JonesHowie LongGino MarchettiAndy RobustelliLee Roy SelmonReggie White (DT-DE)Jack YoungbloodAnd I'm sure Bruce Smith will get in when he becomes eligible.I'm interested to know which two you rank above Strahan. Are you counting Reggie White as a DE? If so, he is definitely above Strahan. And I don't see how one can make a case to rank Strahan above Jones, Marchetti, or Smith, either.Some of the others played in the 50s and 60s, which makes it hard to compare. I never saw many of them play. I did see Long play, and he impressed me more than Strahan has when I've watched him. Strahan "only" has 4 All NFL selections. Several of the DEs above have more.
As I mentioned earlier, I rank White and Bruce Smith ahead of Strahan (I know Bruce Smith isn't technically in the HoF yet, but I was counting him as in since he's a no-brainer first-ballot guy and he'll be in by the time Strahan's up for consideration). Now, I haven't seen some of the older DEs play, so when I talk about NFL history I'm mostly talking about modern NFL history (say, mid-70s to today), but while several of those DEs were dominant players, only Smith, White, and Strahan were dominant against both the pass *and* the run. Maybe I'm overrating run support when evaluating DEs (personally, I don't think Freeney is anything all that special, because big of an asset as he is against the pass, he's an even bigger liability against the run). I know that's also why I like Taylor- he's one of those passrushers who managed to dominate without selling out against the run, although he was never in Strahan's class as a run defender.
Perhaps I did overlook Nalen . But if so it is only because he doesn't measure up in terms of Pro Bowl selections - 5 in 13 seasons. I really don't think that compares to the others I posted. If it does, it highlights that Pro Bowl selections are a poor criteria. That wouldn't surprise me but was part of the point of my post - what are the valid criteria with which to judge offensive linemen?
Pro Bowls are a notoriously poor criteria for OLs, since fan voting plays a large part in pro bowl balloting, and because there isn't a single position the general fan is more clueless about than offensive line. The players never voted for Nalen because they didn't like the blocking scheme. The fans never voted for Nalen because he didn't talk to the press and he didn't have any numbers to set himself apart from his peers. I think a large part of who gets into the HoF on the offensive line is going to come down to guys like Paul Zimmerman in the room who understand offensive linemen and understand which ones were really special. Actually, Zimmerman has said a couple of times that Nalen is his least favorite center in the league because the media silence thing pisses him off, but that Nalen is still the best center in the league (I remember an article where he said that he broke down film for hours desperately hoping to find another center who had a better season than Nalen, but just couldn't).I think evaluating offensive linemen is very much a case-by-case basis. Generally, the guys that get elected are going to do so on a combination of multiple factors- one of those factors is going to be pro bowls and all-pros, but I think the biggest factor is going to be which players were generally considered the best player on what was generally considered the best lines in NFL history. And Denver's offensive line is absolutely, without doubt, one of the most dominant lines in history (just look at the results!), and Tom Nalen is absolutely, without doubt, the best player on those lines (although Lepsis has really come on strong since he moved to LT). That'll get him solid consideration for the HoF all by itself.
Donnie Edwards 
Michael Strahan 
Old post on how Lynch compares:
How do I respond to this? Here is what Vinatieri did in the SB's in which he played:2 for 2 - Kicked game winning 48 yd FG in a Dome. If you want to give him the MVP for this game because of the kick he made in the snow in Foxboro, I actually have no problem with that. Brady should not have been the MVP. My vote went to Ty Law.
