footbull3196 Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 3 minutes ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said: Yeah but ST's ace isn't a Hall of Fame position. If someone wants to argue it should be, then fine but like what the hell are we doing if we're inducting guys who barely make NFL rosters in the Hall of Fame? Like Albert McClellan is one of the best ST's guys in the NFL and the Ravens straight up cut him to make room for Ty Montgomery this year... Right, I wouldn’t make the argument myself to put a ST ace into the HOF either because they don’t have nearly enough impact on a game itself. But people do consider Tasker to be one of the best players that aren’t in the HOF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JiffyJag Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 Kassim Osgood, HOF?? but seriously, probably has a better case than Edelman, but still no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancerman Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 Tasker not being in tells you what they think of special teams. Being part of 3 Super Bowl wins however does give him a bit of a flashier case imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
11sanchez11 Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 No. If he played for the Browns and as good this wouldn't be a question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancerman Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 17 minutes ago, 11sanchez11 said: No. If he played for the Browns and as good this wouldn't be a question. There is more precedent for players on dynasties getting leniency Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ty21 Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 10 hours ago, AFlaccoSeagulls said: I'm seriously not sure if both of these threads are just trolling or not. Is this a joke? I was genuinely considering making a spoof thread asking if like Rex burkhead was a future HOFer but after everything I’ve done on this website I have no intention on getting banned in freakin NFL Gen lol. That would be like surviving the war, getting in a bad car accident and beating cancer you got while recovering just to fart too hard in a McDonald’s bathroom and dying on the toilet I’m not going out like that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BleedTheClock Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ttitansfan4life Posted February 4, 2019 Share Posted February 4, 2019 Lulz hell no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TecmoSuperJoe Posted February 6, 2019 Share Posted February 6, 2019 You have to wonder how many of his accolades are actually warranted. Highly doubt the voting sportswriters know what Slater's duties entail compared to other special teams' players. Also, Slater has been on a ton of prime time games in his career in addition to Bill always talking how important special teams are. I feel like Slater is the only non kicker/punter special teams player casual fans know, so they just vote for him regardless. If you have time, you may want to check out this article: https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2019/1/29/18201377/matthew-slater-patriots-special-teams-coin-toss-super-bowl-liii I dunno. I feel like half his career is worthy of high praise, and the other half is simply being the "Patriot's Way" mascot/overtime coin toss hero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x0x Posted February 6, 2019 Share Posted February 6, 2019 On 03/02/2019 at 11:14 PM, Forge said: Pretty much this. If Tasker had set the precedent, then I'd concede there was a chance. Tasker has never gotten HOF love, Slater shouldn't either. Problem is 0-4 with Tasker. Slater going 3 for 5 makes his case stronger. Both have 7 Pro Bowls and 5 First Teams so that 3 Super Bowl margin is enough. Problem is where he fits in on balloting. I think a 4th ring would seal him in as a 10th ballot kind of guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danger Posted February 6, 2019 Share Posted February 6, 2019 Who.....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minutemancl Posted February 6, 2019 Share Posted February 6, 2019 No. He's also gotten some of those pro bowl and all-pro nods off name recognition alone. He was honestly bad at least one of those years he was named first team all-pro, but he got in because he has a reputation as a ST ace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kramxel Posted February 6, 2019 Share Posted February 6, 2019 Why not? Time for a big part of the game to get some recognition. I understand there's no history here, and know most people just don't value STs like that. My counter to that, is that they're wrong, STs matter, and people who can continually play at the highest of levels should be recognized. The only downside I see, is that STs is a dying part of the game, which will be extinct sooner or later, so not much benefit would come of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forge Posted February 6, 2019 Share Posted February 6, 2019 1 hour ago, x0x said: Problem is 0-4 with Tasker. Slater going 3 for 5 makes his case stronger. Both have 7 Pro Bowls and 5 First Teams so that 3 Super Bowl margin is enough. Problem is where he fits in on balloting. I think a 4th ring would seal him in as a 10th ballot kind of guy. I don't think that's the case. I Think the problem is their position / role. It's not big enough to warrant HOF induction in the eyes of most people. Great players are great players, regardless of super bowl. It's not like the Patriots were winning those super bowls because Slater, and it's not like the Bills lost theirs because of Tasker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Ramster Posted February 6, 2019 Share Posted February 6, 2019 Sorry we lost. We let these absurd threads thru. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.