HOF Candidates

mlmpetert · 07-08-2009, 11:29 PM

Rodney Harrison Demands Your Respect -- NFL FanHouse

I think Rodney Harrison is a HOF saftey. But i also thought Monk was instant Hall of Fame material. Seeing less popular players have to wait I wonder if it takes away from being hall of fame, just like the pro bowl is now.

Does off the field conduct (good, bad or inactive) count towards status as a great or a pioneer of the game?

So my thought is does the Hall of Fame still hold the credibility that we give it or has it become a popularity contest? Should it?

Also does the position you play decide your greatness or should it. Does a QB or LB have more rights to being a all time great over an O tackle, TE, or D tackle? Should it?

jsarno · 07-09-2009, 01:34 AM

To me, off the field conduct SHOULD count. Just like Rose isn't in the hall as well as McGwire. If you test positive, you should be out IMO. They all know the rules, and they take their chances trying to beat the system. We all know they cheat, but we accept it cause they all do it. Problem is, the old players didn't. They had enough respect for the game not to do it. But again, just my opinion.

GMScud · 07-09-2009, 03:01 AM

They had no issue putting Michael Irvin in. He was a classless loudmouth showboat with legal issues involving crack and prostitutes. That said, he was a great player, and what he did on the field is what got him in. But a part of it is popularity as well. I don't think popularity should play a role, but as long as humans are voting, it inevitably always will. But overall the Hall of Fame is still a lofty, super highly respected thing.

I think off the field conduct should absolutely count towards your status as one of the greats and/or a pioneer of the game.

The position you play shouldn't dictate your greatness, but flashy positions like WRs and QBs are always going to get more publicity than O-lineman, fullbacks, etc.

dmek25 · 07-09-2009, 03:15 AM

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

rypper11 · 07-09-2009, 10:10 AM

He absolutely changed the way the position was played and his point about Ed Reed, Troy Polamalu, and Bob Sanders is very valid. And the Pro Bowl is ridiculous and shouldn't even be mentioned among retired players stats. I think he was a great player but not HOF great. Even if he hadn't been caught doping he shouldn't be in but since he was he shouldn't even be considered.
As for the position argument I think only kickers and punters have an argument. Ray Guy altered the game and gave his team a huge field position advantage every game. Mosley was a league MVP but is never even considered for HOF.

MTK · 07-09-2009, 10:22 AM

Harrison is a HOF player to me, but I won't be surprised to see the voters keep him out for a while out of spite.

Paintrain · 07-09-2009, 11:45 AM

As for Harrison's credentials, he's definitely a HOF player, but I agree Matty that some of the press will keep him out for a few cycles.

It a travesty that former players don't have a say in the voting until it gets to the veterans committee which is for, basically, overlooked players. Most players thought it was a sham that it took Monk so long to get in. There are former players across the league who can make strong cases for former teammates or opponents that some schmuck writer has barely heard of and probably never watched, but will determine their worthiness for the HOF. The process is a joke, but it's the same across all sports so it probably won't change.

irish · 07-09-2009, 11:46 AM

I dont think off the field stuff should count toward getting into the HOF. Its about football not about being a great guy. If that was the case there would be a lot less people in there.

IMO, the HOF isnt what it used to be. I think the need to indict people every year has diluted the Hall. I think some years there just arent any players worthy of all time great status (they were very good but not HOF great) but they get considered and enshrined.

Paintrain · 07-09-2009, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irish

I dont think off the field stuff should count toward getting into the HOF. Its about football not about being a great guy. If that was the case there would be a lot less people in there.

IMO, the HOF isnt what it used to be. I think the need to indict people every year has diluted the Hall. I think some years there just arent any players worthy of all time great status (they were very good but not HOF great) but they get considered and enshrined.

You probably meant induct not indict but I got what you were saying.

What examples of some years where non-greats were inducted can you cite to support what you are saying?

MTK · 07-09-2009, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paintrain

You probably meant induct not indict but I got what you were saying.

What examples of some years where non-greats were inducted can you cite to support what you are saying?

Name a Redskin

Paintrain · 07-09-2009, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Name a Redskin

Are you channeling Peter King today?

irish · 07-09-2009, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Name a Redskin

If the off field stuff counts (as some think it should) then GP Marshall shouldnt be in as he was a racist.

A Skin - Art Monk

Others off the top of my head - Warren Moon, Stallworth & Swann, Thurman Thomas, Fran Tarkenton

I guess I see the HOF as a place for a few elites not for a few elites and other very goods.

skinsfan69 · 07-09-2009, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsarno

To me, off the field conduct SHOULD count. Just like Rose isn't in the hall as well as McGwire. If you test positive, you should be out IMO. They all know the rules, and they take their chances trying to beat the system. We all know they cheat, but we accept it cause they all do it. Problem is, the old players didn't. They had enough respect for the game not to do it. But again, just my opinion.

It's different in baseball. Baseball is a stat driven sport. I can understand a baseball player not getting in because he used steriods....even though I think it's silly cause the pitchers were doing it too. In football a guy like Troy Aikman can get in even though his stats aren't what a lot of HOF QB's are because he QB'd 3 SB winning teams.

skinsfan69 · 07-09-2009, 12:27 PM

Off the field onduct should not matter one bit. It's what someone does on the field, not off it. And that fact that sports writers vote on it is a big joke. Former players and coaches are the ones that should vote. Not a sports writer.

irish · 07-09-2009, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsarno

To me, off the field conduct SHOULD count. Just like Rose isn't in the hall as well as McGwire. If you test positive, you should be out IMO. They all know the rules, and they take their chances trying to beat the system. We all know they cheat, but we accept it cause they all do it. Problem is, the old players didn't. They had enough respect for the game not to do it. But again, just my opinion.

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.

07-08-2009, 11:29 PM	#1
mlmpetert Playmaker Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Richmond Posts: 3,261	HOF Candidates Rodney Harrison Demands Your Respect -- NFL FanHouse I think Rodney Harrison is a HOF saftey. But i also thought Monk was instant Hall of Fame material. Seeing less popular players have to wait I wonder if it takes away from being hall of fame, just like the pro bowl is now. Does off the field conduct (good, bad or inactive) count towards status as a great or a pioneer of the game? So my thought is does the Hall of Fame still hold the credibility that we give it or has it become a popularity contest? Should it? Also does the position you play decide your greatness or should it. Does a QB or LB have more rights to being a all time great over an O tackle, TE, or D tackle? Should it? __________________ www.NRABannedGunsRaffle.org

07-09-2009, 01:34 AM	#2
jsarno Franchise Player Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: 31 Spooner St. Age: 49 Posts: 9,534	re: HOF Candidates To me, off the field conduct SHOULD count. Just like Rose isn't in the hall as well as McGwire. If you test positive, you should be out IMO. They all know the rules, and they take their chances trying to beat the system. We all know they cheat, but we accept it cause they all do it. Problem is, the old players didn't. They had enough respect for the game not to do it. But again, just my opinion. __________________ Zoltan is ZESTY! - courtesy of joeredskin

07-09-2009, 03:01 AM	#3
GMScud Swearinger Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 12,626	re: HOF Candidates They had no issue putting Michael Irvin in. He was a classless loudmouth showboat with legal issues involving crack and prostitutes. That said, he was a great player, and what he did on the field is what got him in. But a part of it is popularity as well. I don't think popularity should play a role, but as long as humans are voting, it inevitably always will. But overall the Hall of Fame is still a lofty, super highly respected thing. I think off the field conduct should absolutely count towards your status as one of the greats and/or a pioneer of the game. The position you play shouldn't dictate your greatness, but flashy positions like WRs and QBs are always going to get more publicity than O-lineman, fullbacks, etc. __________________ Tardy

07-09-2009, 03:15 AM	#4
dmek25 MVP Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: lancaster,pa Age: 63 Posts: 10,672	re: HOF Candidates no way he gets in. no one should be rewarded for dirty play. and whats a canidate? __________________ "It's better to be quiet and thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt." courtesy of 53fan

07-09-2009, 10:10 AM	#5
rypper11 The Starter Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Raleigh, NC Posts: 1,228	Re: HOF Candidates He absolutely changed the way the position was played and his point about Ed Reed, Troy Polamalu, and Bob Sanders is very valid. And the Pro Bowl is ridiculous and shouldn't even be mentioned among retired players stats. I think he was a great player but not HOF great. Even if he hadn't been caught doping he shouldn't be in but since he was he shouldn't even be considered. As for the position argument I think only kickers and punters have an argument. Ray Guy altered the game and gave his team a huge field position advantage every game. Mosley was a league MVP but is never even considered for HOF. __________________ Playing a kids game for a kings ransom.

07-09-2009, 10:22 AM	#6
MTK \m/ Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: NY Age: 52 Posts: 99,518	Re: HOF Candidates Harrison is a HOF player to me, but I won't be surprised to see the voters keep him out for a while out of spite. __________________ Support The Warpath! \| Warpath Shop

07-09-2009, 11:45 AM	#7
Paintrain Pro Bowl Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Ft. Lauderdale, FL Age: 54 Posts: 5,006	Re: HOF Candidates As for Harrison's credentials, he's definitely a HOF player, but I agree Matty that some of the press will keep him out for a few cycles. It a travesty that former players don't have a say in the voting until it gets to the veterans committee which is for, basically, overlooked players. Most players thought it was a sham that it took Monk so long to get in. There are former players across the league who can make strong cases for former teammates or opponents that some schmuck writer has barely heard of and probably never watched, but will determine their worthiness for the HOF. The process is a joke, but it's the same across all sports so it probably won't change. __________________ Paintrain's Redskins Fandom 1981-2014 I'm not dead but this team is dead to me...but now that McCloughan is here they may have new life! Jay Gruden = Zorny McSpurrier Kirk Cousins = Next Grossman

07-09-2009, 11:46 AM	#8
irish Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 4,575	Re: HOF Candidates I dont think off the field stuff should count toward getting into the HOF. Its about football not about being a great guy. If that was the case there would be a lot less people in there. IMO, the HOF isnt what it used to be. I think the need to indict people every year has diluted the Hall. I think some years there just arent any players worthy of all time great status (they were very good but not HOF great) but they get considered and enshrined.

07-09-2009, 12:27 PM	#14
skinsfan69 Living Legend Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 17,281	Re: HOF Candidates Off the field onduct should not matter one bit. It's what someone does on the field, not off it. And that fact that sports writers vote on it is a big joke. Former players and coaches are the ones that should vote. Not a sports writer.

HOF Candidates

Locker Room Main Forum