Who is the better HOF candidate right now? (1 Viewer)

[David Yudkin]

Given me the guy with elite short term numbers over a compiler any day of the week that happened to play forever.

Happened to play forever? You say that as if it's just dumb luck someone gets to have a long career. Sure, injuries are a factor and those to some extent are random. But, for the most part, guys who play forever do so because they are really good players.

There a many players that have played quite a few years that may never have been an elite player. They just played for a very long time. IMO, that does not make them HOFers . . . just guys that played for a very long time.For example, Keenan McCardell played long enough to rank around the top 10 in some important receiving categories by playing for 16 years. Is he really a HOF candidate? Ottis Anderson had several big years out of the gate but didn't do a ton beyond that in his 15 year career . . . should he be in the HOF? Of course, there is Vinny Testaverde who managed to bounce around to 7 teams in 20 years. Sure, he played a long time . . . but a HOF guy?That's where, IMO, there should be a subjective threshold to evaluate how well a player did in his peak and his average per game production. Guys that played in 200 games and averaged 40-50 yards of offense (as a non QB) really didn't do a whole heck of a lot. I'd rather induct a player that accounted for 120 yards of offense a game in 100 games.

 

[renesauz]

There a many players that have played quite a few years that may never have been an elite player. They just played for a very long time. IMO, that does not make them HOFers . . . just guys that played for a very long time.For example, Keenan McCardell played long enough to rank around the top 10 in some important receiving categories by playing for 16 years. Is he really a HOF candidate? Ottis Anderson had several big years out of the gate but didn't do a ton beyond that in his 15 year career . . . should he be in the HOF? Of course, there is Vinny Testaverde who managed to bounce around to 7 teams in 20 years. Sure, he played a long time . . . but a HOF guy?That's where, IMO, there should be a subjective threshold to evaluate how well a player did in his peak and his average per game production. Guys that played in 200 games and averaged 40-50 yards of offense (as a non QB) really didn't do a whole heck of a lot. I'd rather induct a player that accounted for 120 yards of offense a game in 100 games.

That's plenty fair. But your using some extreme cases to prove a point about a guy that's far from the extreme. Personally, I would rather have 15 years of pro-bowl caliber play then take 5 years of top 3 play (even with an MVP or two) and 10 years of average to below average play.McNabb has had a bunch of pro-bowl caliber years, and missed due to injury in a couple of other seasons he would have probably been elected. Your example and argument makes sense when considering a Testaverde. It's falling whoafully short on a McNabb.

 

[David Yudkin]

There a many players that have played quite a few years that may never have been an elite player. They just played for a very long time. IMO, that does not make them HOFers . . . just guys that played for a very long time.For example, Keenan McCardell played long enough to rank around the top 10 in some important receiving categories by playing for 16 years. Is he really a HOF candidate? Ottis Anderson had several big years out of the gate but didn't do a ton beyond that in his 15 year career . . . should he be in the HOF? Of course, there is Vinny Testaverde who managed to bounce around to 7 teams in 20 years. Sure, he played a long time . . . but a HOF guy?That's where, IMO, there should be a subjective threshold to evaluate how well a player did in his peak and his average per game production. Guys that played in 200 games and averaged 40-50 yards of offense (as a non QB) really didn't do a whole heck of a lot. I'd rather induct a player that accounted for 120 yards of offense a game in 100 games.

That's plenty fair. But your using some extreme cases to prove a point about a guy that's far from the extreme. Personally, I would rather have 15 years of pro-bowl caliber play then take 5 years of top 3 play (even with an MVP or two) and 10 years of average to below average play.McNabb has had a bunch of pro-bowl caliber years, and missed due to injury in a couple of other seasons he would have probably been elected. Your example and argument makes sense when considering a Testaverde. It's falling whoafully short on a McNabb.

I never once even tried to indicate that McNabb fell in the compiler category. I only stated that IMO compilers and longevity guys usually have lower production but for a longer period. At this point I would not consider McNabb in that category, but his injuries have made him look like that in that his total year end numbers usually don't stack up against QBs that played in every game.As I mentioned in the other HOF QB thread, given the other options in recent times McNabb starts to look better than just comparing him to Warner. That thread covered who the HOF balloters might consider from the 2000s, and McNabb looks better than many here may think.

 

[gianmarco]

Next week should be fun

 

[gianmarco]

Next week should be fun

 

[Jason Wood]

I would say that puts this debate to rest.