Mel Kiper on Monk

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by Grim21Reaper

When did I say that Barry Sanders shouldn't be in the hall?

First of all, it's clear that Sanders deserves to be in the Hall, and I don't really think you would suggest otherwise, but, judging Sanders by the criteria you laid out for Martin would keep Sanders out of the Hall, too. Sanders never even got to the Super Bowl. The Lions won their division maybe once (I don't recall, but it can't be more than once). He was always in the top 5 rushing, so, I will grant you, that is a difference.

Originally Posted by Grim21Reaper

Martin was on a lot of bad teams and it would be a travesty if he gets in before Monk.

I agree, because they should both be first ballot HoF'ers.

But you have to concede that Sanders pretty much only played on bad teams - the Lions always sucked (save a lone 12-4 season). So, why should Martin have a different standard?

[Pocket$ $traight]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

First of all, it's clear that Sanders deserves to be in the Hall, and I don't really think you would suggest otherwise, but, judging Sanders by the criteria you laid out for Martin would keep Sanders out of the Hall, too. Sanders never even got to the Super Bowl. The Lions won their division maybe once (I don't recall, but it can't be more than once). He was always in the top 5 rushing, so, I will grant you, that is a difference.



I agree, because they should both be first ballot HoF'ers.

But you have to concede that Sanders pretty much only played on bad teams - the Lions always sucked (save a lone 12-4 season). So, why should Martin have a different standard?

I tend to trust my eyes more than stats. Martin was very fortunate to be able to play effectively for a long time. Martin was probably the 2nd or 3rd best player on his team many of his years with the Patriots and Jets.

Barry Sanders was the best player on the field in probably 95% (if not higher) of every game he ever played in.

Martin isn't on the same map as Barry Sanders.

I could probably list 4 or 5 backs that were more talented than Martin every year that he played so I don't think that he deserves the Hall. Hell, his rushing title was pure luck Holmgren could have easily let Alexander have it that year.

4th all time is nothing to sneeze at but I think that if he gets in before Art Monk, it is proof that the HOF is only a beauty contest.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by Grim21Reaper

Barry Sanders was the best player on the field in probably 95% (if not higher) of every game he ever played in.

No argument there.

Originally Posted by Grim21Reaper

Martin isn't on the same map as Barry Sanders.

Nor there.

Originally Posted by Grim21Reaper

I could probably list 4 or 5 backs that were more talented than Martin every year that he played so I don't think that he deserves the Hall.

I take issue with this, although, even if it were true, maintaining top 5 status for 11 years is pretty much impossible these days. Martin did it, but who else stayed at the top of the league for so long? I know a lot of people probably disagree with this, and would argue that longevity doesn't mean Hall-worthy. However, Martin had longevity and very good numbers - that does it for me.

Originally Posted by Grim21Reaper

Hell, his rushing title was pure luck Holmgren could have easily let Alexander have it that year.

Again, I agree.

Originally Posted by Grim21Reaper

4th all time is nothing to sneeze at but I think that if he gets in before Art Monk, it is proof that the HOF is only a beauty contest.

No question, but I think they are both first ballot HoF'ers. They've already missed their chance to do right by Monk - I don't think it corrects anything to wait 5 years to let Martin in.