muck Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 (edited) How long does an "era" need to be for one to meet that criteria? To wit: Gayle Sayers: 1965: 1374 total yards and 20 TDs 1966: 1678 total yards and 10 TDs 1967 - 1969: 973-1148 total yards each year and 18 total TDs across all three years; largely hurt Terrell Davis: 1995: 1484 total yards and 8 TDs 1996: 1848 total yards and 15 TDs (pro bowl) 1997: 2037 total yards and 15 TDs (pro bowl) 1998: 2225 total yards and 23 TDs (pro bowl) 1999 - 2001 ... largely hurt Kurt Warner: 1999: 4353 passing yards and 41 TDs (pro bowl, NFL MVP and SB MVP) 2000: 3429 passing yards and 21 TDs (pro bowl) 2001: 4830 passing yards and 36 TDs (pro bowl, NFL MVP) 2002 - current: hurt and inconsistent ... 36 total games across five seasons for approx. 7800 passing yards and 27 TDs ............. So, the question is ... Was Warner dominant enough in that three year stretch to get into the HOF, even though he hasn't done much since (except for a spurt at the end of last year)? No matter what, it's hard to be more dominant than to be a two-time NFL MVP and a SB MVP in a three year stretch... Also, and IIRC ... if he doesn't get in, he'd be the only two-time NFL MVP not in the HOF and he'd be the only guy to ever win an NFL MVP and a SB MVP to not be in the HOF. Edited January 18, 2007 by muck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bier Meister Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 i don't think so. i believe that perfromance needs to be substained for a good 6-10 years Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd1 Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 I know Sayers is an icon, but I don't think any of those guys should be in the HOF. You need to do it for a longer period of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NewbieTewl Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 All three players very accomplished and when healthy the best of their day. Also they are all extremely famous. Also it is the hall of Fame, not the Hall of longetivity. Just a thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bier Meister Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 (edited) All three players very accomplished and when healthy the best of their day. Also they are all extremely famous. Also it is the hall of Fame, not the Hall of longetivity. Just a thought. good criteria right there. edit: while i think td would have continued his pace for several years to come, when he got hurt we saw gary run for 1200 in 12 games and the next year anderson 1400 in 14 games. Edited January 18, 2007 by Bier Meister Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockerbraves Posted January 18, 2007 Share Posted January 18, 2007 IMO considering how Warner came into the league & produced those kinds of numbers he just might get in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 (edited) All three players very accomplished and when healthy the best of their day. Also they are all extremely famous. Also it is the hall of Fame, not the Hall of longetivity. Just a thought. Exactly: I think Warner could get in... Look at Lynn Swann he is in the Hall and Art Monk is not... Lynn Curtis Swann. . .Steelers’ first-round draft pick, 1974. . .Caught game-winning touchdown in AFC championship as rookie. . .Became starting receiver second season, led NFL with 11 touchdown receptions. . . MVP, Super Bowl X. . . Graceful moves, tremendous leaping ability led to superlative catches that highlighted career. . .Career record: 336 receptions, 5,462 yards, 51 touchdowns. . .All-Pro, 1975, 1977, 1978. . .Played in three Pro Bowls. . . Born March 7, 1952, in Alcoa, Tennessee. Monk played in Super Bowl XVIII, Super Bowl XXII and Super Bowl XXVI. He also won a Super Bowl ring as a member of the team in Super Bowl XVII, but did not play in it due to injury. Monk finished his 16 NFL seasons with 940 receptions for 12,721 yards and 68 touchdowns, along with 332 rushing yards. Monk's most noteworthy NFL accomplishment was his record for career receptions (940), broken by Jerry Rice during the final week of 1995, Monk's last season in the league. Despite being the first to eclipse 900 receptions, as well as retiring with the single season receptions record (106) and the most consecutive games with a catch (183), Art Monk has been passed over several times for entry into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Edited January 19, 2007 by Outshined Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 Guys like Sayers, Namath, and Earl Campbell don't get into the Hall anymore. You need a good 8-10 productive years now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaxfactor Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 Exactly: I think Warner could get in... Look at Lynn Swann he is in the Hall and Art Monk is not... Lynn Curtis Swann. . .Steelers’ first-round draft pick, 1974. . .Caught game-winning touchdown in AFC championship as rookie. . .Became starting receiver second season, led NFL with 11 touchdown receptions. . . MVP, Super Bowl X. . . Graceful moves, tremendous leaping ability led to superlative catches that highlighted career. . .Career record: 336 receptions, 5,462 yards, 51 touchdowns. . .All-Pro, 1975, 1977, 1978. . .Played in three Pro Bowls. . . Born March 7, 1952, in Alcoa, Tennessee. Monk played in Super Bowl XVIII, Super Bowl XXII and Super Bowl XXVI. He also won a Super Bowl ring as a member of the team in Super Bowl XVII, but did not play in it due to injury. Monk finished his 16 NFL seasons with 940 receptions for 12,721 yards and 68 touchdowns, along with 332 rushing yards. Monk's most noteworthy NFL accomplishment was his record for career receptions (940), broken by Jerry Rice during the final week of 1995, Monk's last season in the league. Despite being the first to eclipse 900 receptions, as well as retiring with the single season receptions record (106) and the most consecutive games with a catch (183), Art Monk has been passed over several times for entry into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. This I simply don't understand. What more does a guy need to do to be acknowledged? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seminoles Posted January 19, 2007 Share Posted January 19, 2007 What if the criteria for the HOF was simply just: the greatest players to ever play the game. Then who would be up for likely consideration. Saying that Terrell Davis is one of the greatest running backs to ever put on a uniform is quite true, disregarding the years he played. Others would obviously become bigger nominees too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted January 19, 2007 Author Share Posted January 19, 2007 What if the criteria for the HOF was simply just: the greatest players to ever play the game. If this was the only criteria, Bo Jackson would have been a first ballot guy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 This I simply don't understand. What more does a guy need to do to be acknowledged? Kiss up more to reporters? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 All three players very accomplished and when healthy the best of their day. Also they are all extremely famous. Also it is the hall of Fame, not the Hall of longetivity. This sort of spirals into what a "Hall of Fame" is supposed to do - is it supposed to recognize "fame", even when not necessarily coupled with sustained greatness over a playing career (best two current HoFers who exemplify this are Namath and Paul Hornung)? I think the key to being a Hall of Fame talent is not only greatness, but SUSTAINED greatness. Davis, Sayers, and Warner, through no faults of their own (I think it's pretty apparent that Warner, though still playing, has been robbed of a LOT of ability due to injury), were not able to sustain their level of production. Warner and Davis especially are hurt by the fact that lesser players were put in their situations and put up numbers not that far off of theirs. And even though numbers lie in football moreso than in most sports, there is a premium put on them; players such as Charlie Joiner or Warren Moon had one year if that where they were CLEARLY "great" (defined as "among the best 2 or 3 at their position") but due to their lengthy playing careers piled up numbers that made it impossible for them NOT to be put in the HoF eventually, making it a "Hall of the Very Good" in some eyes. Aside from that, there are numerous players out there - my personal crusade is for Sterling Sharpe, but every team probably has their guy - Jeff Van Note for the Falcons, Ottis Anderson for the Cardinals, Andre Reed in Buffalo, just to throw a few out there - who have CLEARLY performed at a level that meets the thresholds that seem to have been established for HoF induction but for whatever reason aren't even considered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 And regarding Art Monk, I often play Devil's Advocate against his induction, but that's just to piss off Skins fans - by the standards established, he deserves induction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 I'm never sure what the HoF is supposed to be about. I don't think it can be simply about career totals but I also believe a HoF player has to have abody of work as well. I never saw Sayers play but of the people I trust who did, none of them think Sayers should not be in the HoF. I'll defer to them. I think I'm a know it when I see it kind of guy. I'm not sure I can define what makes a non-Cowboy a HoFer but I know it when I see it. For example, I guess Bettis will probably get in for his great career numbers. I don't personally think his career stats are any more deserving of induction than Warner's great numbers while he was hot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 muck, do you think Bettis is a HoFer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgcoach Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 There are some very good points made here but unless there is some sort of criteria set in place, all this is at the whim of the voters. Which is very good for some inductees and bad for others who in many of our eyes (fans) are just as or more deserving to be inducted. Personally, I don't think longevity should be a factor while a one year burst shouldn't be considered. A career cut short by injury doesn't make a player any less talented, while playing for 15 years and accumulating mediocre stats and having them pile up over time really isn't a judge of talent or greatness. It just means the person was lucky enough not to get hurt badly enough to affect him. I don't know the answer, I do know there are some very deserving players that don't get considered or just get passed over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xMRogers Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 Sayers is an exception to the normal rule (and probably a good one). I would personally not vote for TD, and no way for Warner, and it would be due to lack of total career. Consider this - if Randy Moss had gotten hurt after 4 years (I don't know the stats, but I know his first 4 were the best first 4 of any WR), would he be a HOF? Let's give him a ring too for kicks. I doubt it. Heck, let's take it a step further - LT never plays another down - is he a HOF? I'd say yes, but that's about where the line is - 6 years of unbelievable, never seen before productivity. Rings alwasy play a part, and spectacular years do too (almost a prerequisite at the skill position - Monk is the example - he just never stood out overall. It's a travesty he's not in, but is what it is - I think he may get it this year). Getting back on point - Warner - not a chance unless he somehow lands somehwere, plays 16 games with normal Warner stats, wins a SB or comes close, and probably plays at least one more good year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Egret Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 I'd rather see TDavis and KWarner in than AMonk. Short careers that were great seem better to me than good careers that lasted a long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted January 22, 2007 Author Share Posted January 22, 2007 muck, do you think Bettis is a HoFer? I think he'll get in ... but I'm not sure he should. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted January 22, 2007 Author Share Posted January 22, 2007 And, to Egret's point ... I think I would rather see guys like Davis and Warner (and maybe even Bo Jackson) in than guys that just happened to play for forever and amass big numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.