HOF Candidates

[53Fan]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

The answer is...

Billy Shaw - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I never heard of him either

He was drafted by the Cowgirls and the Bills and chose to play with the Bills. Never would have guessed it.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

The answer is...

Billy Shaw - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I never heard of him either

Outstanding question! I enjoy football history. Thanks Matty!

BTW if Shaw turned down the Cowpies, he had good taste.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

I'd say yes on LT but no on Champ. What has he done? He's a reputation player his whole career but never did anything to significantly impact any team he's been on. What's his signature season or his signature play? He's been good but I don't put him in the Rod Woodson/Darrell Green/Deion category.

Well, that's just the thing: Champ's case is similar to LdT's, in that they were the premier player at their position for many, many years. However, neither was a trancendental player who oozed greatness. There have been better than LdT, and there will be better in the future. Like Champ, he has no specific claim to fame or great team-related successes to push him in.

It all comes down to where you draw the line. By Irish's definition, neither Tomlinson nor Bailey makes the Hall. I would put both of them in, because I don't think the Hall should exclude great players regardless of the circumstances.

The only argument I would use against Hall canidacy is that player 'x' was not a "great" player. Like Jim Plunkett. He was not a great player, though he has an argument for the hall based on four years in the early 80's.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Well, that's just the thing: Champ's case is similar to LdT's, in that they were the premier player at their position for many, many years. However, neither was a trancendental player who oozed greatness. There have been better than LdT, and there will be better in the future. Like Champ, he has no specific claim to fame or great team-related successes to push him in.

It all comes down to where you draw the line. By Irish's definition, neither Tomlinson nor Bailey makes the Hall. I would put both of them in, because I don't think the Hall should exclude great players regardless of the circumstances.

The only argument I would use against Hall canidacy is that player 'x' was not a "great" player. Like Jim Plunkett. He was not a great player, though he has an argument for the hall based on four years in the early 80's.

Wow man, I don't know about that in regards to Tomlinson. He's only had one year in his 8 year career where he rushed for less than 1200 yards, never scored less than 10 TD in a season, has the rushing TD record year with 28, never less than 50 receptions in a year. I'd feel pretty comfortable calling him the best RB since Emmitt and definitely the best RB this decade.

I guess I don't know if I'd consider Champ as the premier player at his position for an extended period of time. Early in his career as a Redskin and his first year in Denver-yes, I'd agree but his last season here teams threw at him with no fear. Outside of his first season in Denver teams have gone at him as well. For most of his career you could name a few CB that you would put above or on the same level as him (C. Woodson, Asomugha, Ronde Barber, Clements). He's in the discussion, no doubt, but I just don't know if I consider Champ a Hall of Fame player.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by an23dy

Mark McGwire and these guys broke the law. Baseball doesn't have to specifically state every rule. I never understood why the players union made the players seem like they were immune from the law, like a foreign country. It was like everybody knew people were using steroids, but nobody did anything and they always used the excuse the players union is too strong, like they didn't have to follow the laws of the US. If Mark McGwire and all these guys didn't do anything wrong then how come they all lied about it. I think all these guys should not get into the HOF. They'll have to live with the fact that they cheated and they didn't get in for the rest of their life. The most important thing is that kids will learn that it's not acceptable and it's not going to get them anywhere and these guys really regret what they did.

Baseball doesn't even follow the nations' antitrust rules clearly the laws that apply to the rest of us don't apply to the league or its players.

In all seriousness though a) baseball would be a bit hypocritical not letting these guys in because they know that, especially after the 1994, two things helped bring baseball back-Ripken and the long ball. The league office can't get on its high horse all it wants now but it knew what was happening with Bonds, McGwire, Sosa back then but why stop it when those 500 foot blasts were putting fans in the seats and more money in the owners' pockets? and b) what about a guy like Ferguson Jenkins, who broke the law by possessing and using cocaine? He's in the Hall of Fame. Is what he did ok because it wasn't steroids?

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by irish

I dont think you can put Rose & McGuire in the same category because Rose broke the only rule baseball really cared about, gambling. There are signs in every locker room saying no gambling, Rose knew he shouldnt bet but he did anyway.

Roids werent illegal (in baseball) when the ball were flying out of the park so IMO, McGuire didnt break any baseball rules so to me he could go in.

You certainly make a point. I was one of a few that defended McGwire because he admitted to using Andro, which was a LEGAL substance. Although he has been implicated in using other PED's.
Funny how MLB was not OK with gambling, but OK with players beefing up using substances.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Baseball doesn't even follow the nations' antitrust rules clearly the laws that apply to the rest of us don't apply to the league or its players.

Keep in mind, we always blame "baseball", when in fact it's cause there is a complete cancer in MLB, called the Players Association. If they didn't have certain things they would walk. Don't forget, they finally saw the error of their ways and allowed for testing in 05. One of the agreements was to not allow tests before 05 to NEVER be made public. The PA is the main reason for the PED era. The owners didn't help by not demanding it no matter what, but they didn't want the best players in the world sitting out, that would have hurt their pocket book, so they accepted demands. The PA needs to be abolished. It doesn't help baseball at all, it's once gave baseball a black eye, now it gave baseball cancer.

what about a guy like Ferguson Jenkins, who broke the law by possessing and using cocaine? He's in the Hall of Fame. Is what he did ok because it wasn't steroids?

This brings up an interesting point...maybe all the HOF's should put ground rules in place that you won't be accepted if you are not a decent member of society. Of course that could cause legal ramifications, but maybe if the HOF's took a stronger stance, we wouldn't need to debate these things.

[an23dy]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Baseball doesn't even follow the nations' antitrust rules clearly the laws that apply to the rest of us don't apply to the league or its players.

In all seriousness though a) baseball would be a bit hypocritical not letting these guys in because they know that, especially after the 1994, two things helped bring baseball back-Ripken and the long ball. The league office can't get on its high horse all it wants now but it knew what was happening with Bonds, McGwire, Sosa back then but why stop it when those 500 foot blasts were putting fans in the seats and more money in the owners' pockets? and b) what about a guy like Ferguson Jenkins, who broke the law by possessing and using cocaine? He's in the Hall of Fame. Is what he did ok because it wasn't steroids?

Personally, I don't think Jenkins should be in, unless he worked to be a better person after. I think Michael Irvin is a good example of this, because he made mistakes, but became a better person after and became a role model. I think the difference between Jenkins and the steroid guys is you can directly point to the fact that the steroids helped make the stats that these guys put up, but the cocaine is different. You never know if they would have put up HOF numbers if they didn't take steroids.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Paintrain

I guess I don't know if I'd consider Champ as the premier player at his position for an extended period of time. Early in his career as a Redskin and his first year in Denver-yes, I'd agree but his last season here teams threw at him with no fear. Outside of his first season in Denver teams have gone at him as well. For most of his career you could name a few CB that you would put above or on the same level as him (C. Woodson, Asomugha, Ronde Barber, Clements). He's in the discussion, no doubt, but I just don't know if I consider Champ a Hall of Fame player.

I do think that the same argument fits for Tomlinson, in that, you wouldn't have taken him over Portis + the Broncos offensive line, you probably wouldn't have taken him over Shaun Alexander in 2004 and 2005, or Larry Johnson in 2005. What Tomlinson has going for him is that one MVP (which probably should have gone to Peyton, but I digress), and the fact that he's been the common link stretching from Marshall Faulk and Preist Holmes to Brian Westbrook and Adrian Peterson.

Which, I think, is what the argument for Champ relies on. He was good in 2000 when Troy Vincent was the premier CB in the NFL, and he was just as good in 2006, when Nnamdi Asomugha was the premier CB.

Charles Woodson though has an intriguing hall of fame case, because there was a four year period in the middle of his career where nobody really knew his whereabouts (it was the Raiders training room). But he's a 5 time pro bowler these days, and that could reach 6 or 7, in which case, if he strings togethether elite apperances in 2009 and 2010 as a veteran, I'd say yes, Woodson is a hall of famer.

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I do think that the same argument fits for Tomlinson, in that, you wouldn't have taken him over Portis + the Broncos offensive line, you probably wouldn't have taken him over Shaun Alexander in 2004 and 2005, or Larry Johnson in 2005. What Tomlinson has going for him is that one MVP (which probably should have gone to Peyton, but I digress), and the fact that he's been the common link stretching from Marshall Faulk and Preist Holmes to Brian Westbrook and Adrian Peterson.

Which, I think, is what the argument for Champ relies on. He was good in 2000 when Troy Vincent was the premier CB in the NFL, and he was just as good in 2006, when Nnamdi Asomugha was the premier CB.

Charles Woodson though has an intriguing hall of fame case, because there was a four year period in the middle of his career where nobody really knew his whereabouts (it was the Raiders training room). But he's a 5 time pro bowler these days, and that could reach 6 or 7, in which case, if he strings togethether elite apperances in 2009 and 2010 as a veteran, I'd say yes, Woodson is a hall of famer.

Interesting take on LT, I hadn't really considered that at any point during the decade he wasn't far and away the top player at his position. I guess I was looking at it from a standpoint of sustained greatness. I suppose if you use that same scope then Champ does meet that criteria.

That's the problem I have with Kurt Warner, is he a Hall of Famer? He wasn't great for a sustainable period of time but if you look at the past 10 years he's in the conversation with Manning, Brady in terms of accomplishments (4 playoff appearances, 3 Super Bowl) and has put up some serious numbers. I'd put him in the conversation for QB of the decade behind Manning and Brady but ahead of McNabb and Big Ben.

[irish]

Originally Posted by jsarno

You certainly make a point. I was one of a few that defended McGwire because he admitted to using Andro, which was a LEGAL substance. Although he has been implicated in using other PED's.
Funny how MLB was not OK with gambling, but OK with players beefing up using substances.

MLB wasnt ok with gambling because gambling almost brought down the game in 1919. I dont think MLB was ok with players doing it but like another post says, the players union has a say in how things happen.

I do think there is a double standard when it comes to baseball and roids. When a baseball player (especially a high profile one) uses roids its almost a national scandal where the public demands they be banned for like but when an NFL player is caught (I think it was Shawn Merriman but I know it was a charger a few years ago) they get 2 weeks off, are back in time for the playoffs, and there is almost no public outcry. Its like the public expects football players to use and so when they get caught its expected.

[MTK]

Show me a sport that hasn't been tainted by performance enhancing drugs at some point. Yet for some reason the purists act like baseball is supposed to be so above this.

I was at the baseball Hall of Fame over the weekend and overheard a guy talking to his son about how Rafael Palmeiro cheated and took steroids, and he was talking with such disgust. It would be wise if the voters just accepted the steroid era and voted in the guys that were the best players during the time. To shut them all out when it was pretty obvious what was going on at the time is insane and hypocrisy at it's best.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Show me a sport that hasn't been tainted by performance enhancing drugs at some point. Yet for some reason the purists act like baseball is supposed to be so above this.

I was at the baseball Hall of Fame over the weekend and overheard a guy talking to his son about how Rafael Palmeiro cheated and took steroids, and he was talking with such disgust. It would be wise if the voters just accepted the steroid era and voted in the guys that were the best players during the time. To shut them all out when it was pretty obvious what was going on at the time is insane and hypocrisy at it's best.

Good point Matty, why is no one screaming for the heads of players from the 80's,70's, and 60's?.......there were steroids back then but I guess that was ok.You know Reggie Jackson must have been on something.
Better yet lets look at Lyle Alzzado or John Matuzack(sp) both admitted (after) that they had used steriods and that it help lead directly to their early deaths.

[irish]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Show me a sport that hasn't been tainted by performance enhancing drugs at some point. Yet for some reason the purists act like baseball is supposed to be so above this.

I was at the baseball Hall of Fame over the weekend and overheard a guy talking to his son about how Rafael Palmeiro cheated and took steroids, and he was talking with such disgust. It would be wise if the voters just accepted the steroid era and voted in the guys that were the best players during the time. To shut them all out when it was pretty obvious what was going on at the time is insane and hypocrisy at it's best.

I totally agree. As much as people like to dis baseball I think this purist attitude comes from the hold that baseball has on the national sports psyche that no other sport has. For a lot of people baseball is the first sport a lot of kids play and the Dad & kid at a ballgame is a fond memory in a lot of minds. Baseball may not have the passionate following that football has but it does have deep happy memories for lots of sports fans in the USA.

I think the MLB record book should have a preamble that adresses the fact that at some point the ball was dead, then it was lively, then the pitchers mound was lowered, then most parks had astroturf, then players in large numbers took PEDs and each of these changes had an impact on the game and the records. When looking at this book please keep these facts in mind.

[tryfuhl]

Originally Posted by dmek25

no way he gets in. no one should be rewarded for dirty play. and whats a canidate?