What should qualify a player for the Hall of Fame?

[Hukos]

I've had this argument with people on this board before about the Hall of Fame, and I always run into friction because what I value in the HoF and what other people do is pretty different. So let's boil it down, what are your standards for the Hall of Fame?

For me, I do not value narratives ("telling the story of the NFL" type of crap) or longevity into the hall. What i want is players who were elite at their position for a period of time. It doesn't have to be their entire career, but there should at least be an era of a few years that you can definitively say that player was elite. You can look back to them and say they were absolutely a force to be reckoned with, that they were absolute best at that position that you would play against. This is why I refer to guys like Frank Gore as "hall of very good guys", since at no point in their career were they ever an elite RB. Being able to play at a competent level for as long as he has is impressive and a skill of it's own, but it's not something I take very seriously when considering all-time great RBs. Frank Gore can take the all-time lead in career rushing yards and rushing tds and it still wouldn't change my mind on him.

This is also why I would vote no to the Phillip Rivers and Matt Ryan's of the world, when it comes to QBs (also hall of very good guys). They were just never elite, even if they were very good in their primes. However, I would vote yes for a guy like Antonio Brown into the hall, because even though his career imploded, when he was playing - he was legitimately a dominant force at WR. Basically it boils down to, was your play legitimately amazing and elite? If so, you should be in the hall, if it wasn't, sorry, good luck next life.

Now, I also know that a lot of people disagree with me and value things like narratives way more (the case for Eli, for example) and that's fine, we're just not going to agree. The whole point of this thread is get people's standards/qualifications out in the open to make it more clear where people stand on the Hall of Fame.

 

[pwny]

It’s the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Elite Stats.

Your standards for what you expect out of the Hall are clearly different from the standards of the actual Hall. While you may want them to follow a certain criteria that you deem appropriate, that’s clearly not the way the Hall operates and never has been.

I view the Hall under the standards it practices under; a place for elite players, those who have longevity on their side, as well as those who helped shape the story of the league. And I believe having any other standard is silly, as you’re simply arguing players should or shouldn’t get into a club that exists no where outside of your own mind.

[x0x]

Hall of FAME

Decided by 48 people.

That's pretty much the shtick. You need 80% of those 48 which is 39 (that's technically 81% but you get it) unless there's an absentee and that's not counted.

Now, 39 would typically be too many to have a strong personal reason to vote somebody in, but a strong personal reason is a start. The voters are selected from all over the United States ( don't think there are any non-Americans) so you don't have too much regional bias, but you could easily have a disproportionate amount of people from big metro areas (either born, grew up or worked for extended periods). This is why many people the big city icons get a bit of an advantage and smaller city icons less. But dynasties getting a lot of media recognition play a part in this too. Then you obviously have the accolades and stats as well as position bias. Much has been talked about with linemen on both sides of the ball getting less recognition than QBs, which is obvious. It's also obvious MVP awards are heavily slanted towards QBs as well right? So how do you evaluate the value of other position as clearly?

Anyways, it's a balancing act, but the OP asks what SHOULD qualify a player as a Hall of Famer. I think like the tennis hall of fame (which is a joke mind you) there should be an automatic entry point (which is probably the best new outline for the tennis hall of fame) and some fan balloting (not online, sorry). Like perhaps every ticket to the enshrinement ceremony should warrant a single vote for an extended player list who aren't in the hall of fame and the results tabulated over-time to aid decision making.

[Hukos]

1 hour ago, pwny said:

Your standards for what you expect out of the Hall are clearly different from the standards of the actual Hall

This was outlined in my opening post, but thanks for not reading.

This thread is about shoulds, not woulds. It's about what you personally value. The hall of fame voters lost my respect when they denied TO being a 1st ballot Hall of Famer because he was mean to some people. Thus, I don't respect their decisions on who to include into the Hall of Fame.

Edited January 23, 2020 by Hukos

[Bolts223]

Being among the top players of your position for a sustained period of time.

Things like breakout seasons, rings, big moments, etc can all put a borderline player over the top.

But I think the idea that someone who wouldn't even be considered for the HOF if not for the fact that they happen to have 2 rings getting in is a bit ridiculous.

 

Edited January 23, 2020 by Bolts223

[Chargers]

You have to be Top 3 at your position for a period of 7 years minimum. The Terrell Davis rule. SB wins, Postseason wins and accolades all carry wait. MVP being the highest

[RamblinMan99]

45 minutes ago, Bolts223 said:

 

But I think the idea that someone who wouldn't even be considered for the HOF if not for the fact that they happen to have 2 rings getting in is a bit ridiculous.

 

It's not the two Super Bowl rings that matter as much as the two Super Bowl MVP awards that really matter.  

For him to even get his team to the Super Bowl is one thing, but to be the most substantial contributor to his team in winning the Super Bowl is at a whole other level.  

[RamblinMan99]

32 minutes ago, Classic said:

You have to be Top 3 at your position for a period of 7 years minimum. The Terrell Davis rule. SB wins, Postseason wins and accolades all carry wait. MVP being the highest

Roman Gabriel won MVP in 1969 and he still isn't in the Hall of Fame.  

[Danger]

Were you considered the best of the best in your career for a stretch of at least 5 seasons or more? Top tier, no one clearly above them.

[Bolts223]

52 minutes ago, RamblinMan99 said:

It's not the two Super Bowl rings that matter as much as the two Super Bowl MVP awards that really matter.  

For him to even get his team to the Super Bowl is one thing, but to be the most substantial contributor to his team in winning the Super Bowl is at a whole other level.  

The Super Bowl MVP is basically the Winning QB award barring extreme circumstances.

And let's be real - Justin Tuck probably should've gotten the MVP in SB42. Eli's stat line in that game was nothing special. It's not like when Nick Foles went completely off against them.

And the issue I have is with how people view QB's in a way that is incredibly simple minded and juvenile. You act like the Giants SB championships are an individual accolade for Eli. The NFL has 53 players on every roster, a head coach, coordinators and over a dozen positional coaches and assistants.

But yet we are actually going to say stuff like, "Eli won two SB's. Eli got his team to the SB. Eli is a great QB because he won two SB's."

Yeah let's forget about everything else that goes into an NFL team and focus on one player like we are talking about a PGA golfer winning the Masters or something.

 

 

 

[SkippyX]

The problem is that those 48 people do a pretty bad job of it. They don't deserve the power.

It was a room were a con man named Dr Z sold everyone against Art Monk for 7 years.

• As an Eagles fan I hated the sight of Art Monk because almost every one of those '8 yard hitches' that were talked about were on 3rd and 7.
• He was like 1st in catches, 3rd in yards, and 20th in TDs when he retired
• He contributed to the regular season of the first DC SB and he was on the field helping them win 2 more. He also played in a 3rd (the loss to the Raiders)
• He had 1000+ yards and 7 TDs in 15 playoff games
• He had more catches, yards, and TDs than Michael Irvin (in a far less pass-happy era) and he also has 3 rings.
  • Irvin skated in and Monk waited because an angry thug from NY kept him out.
    • Irvin's career was over at about the same time Monk became Hall Eligible

Meanwhile they had several years where only 4 or 5 guys went into the Hall instead of 7 like 2001 so it was not an 'other guys first' issue.

They even put Irvin in the Hall before Monk.

 

Punishing TO for a year after a career of 1078 catches 15934 yards and 153 TDs  was asinine.

Add in The Catch II and being a couple McNabb mistakes away from MVP of XXXIX just 7 weeks after breaking his leg.

TO was a selfish jerk and that cost himself lots of playing time and money from ages 38-40 when he could still play.

No one needed additional divine justice from a bunch of curmudgeons.

[SkippyX]

I don't think anyone actually thinks Plunkett's and Manning's careers were equal.

• 7 winning seasons vs 4
• 18 to 9 playoff TD/INT vs 11 to 12
• 234 starts to 144 starts
• 366 TDs to 164 TDs
• 57023 yards to 25882

Eli was very good in 6 or 7 playoff games

Plunkett was very good in 3 playoff games

[ninjapirate]

2 hours ago, RamblinMan99 said:

It's not the two Super Bowl rings that matter as much as the two Super Bowl MVP awards that really matter.  

For him to even get his team to the Super Bowl is one thing, but to be the most substantial contributor to his team in winning the Super Bowl is at a whole other level.  

They scored 21 and 17 points those games. His defense was the most substantial contributor both times. 

[Bearerofnews]

5 hours ago, Hukos said:

I've had this argument with people on this board before about the Hall of Fame, and I always run into friction because what I value in the HoF and what other people do is pretty different. So let's boil it down, what are your standards for the Hall of Fame?

For me, I do not value narratives ("telling the story of the NFL" type of crap) or longevity into the hall. What i want is players who were elite at their position for a period of time. It doesn't have to be their entire career, but there should at least be an era of a few years that you can definitively say that player was elite. You can look back to them and say they were absolutely a force to be reckoned with, that they were absolute best at that position that you would play against. This is why I refer to guys like Frank Gore as "hall of very good guys", since at no point in their career were they ever an elite RB. Being able to play at a competent level for as long as he has is impressive and a skill of it's own, but it's not something I take very seriously when considering all-time great RBs. Frank Gore can take the all-time lead in career rushing yards and rushing tds and it still wouldn't change my mind on him.

This is also why I would vote no to the Phillip Rivers and Matt Ryan's of the world, when it comes to QBs (also hall of very good guys). They were just never elite, even if they were very good in their primes. However, I would vote yes for a guy like Antonio Brown into the hall, because even though his career imploded, when he was playing - he was legitimately a dominant force at WR. Basically it boils down to, was your play legitimately amazing and elite? If so, you should be in the hall, if it wasn't, sorry, good luck next life.

Now, I also know that a lot of people disagree with me and value things like narratives way more (the case for Eli, for example) and that's fine, we're just not going to agree. The whole point of this thread is get people's standards/qualifications out in the open to make it more clear where people stand on the Hall of Fame.

 

What qualifies as elite exactly for a qb? Random opinions, post seasons wins, carrying a team with productive and efficient play for the season, all pro, mvps. 

I mean what qualifies a QB as elite?

What are some standard top qb play statistics that most everyone would consider elite?

If we went with 4000 yds, atleast 25 tds, 100 passer rating and an 8.0 ypa.. would you say that season is a good barometer for an elite qb season?

If so... Peyton in his career has 2, Brady 2 and Brees 2. Between them 3, thats 6 total said seasons under that criteria. Thats out of 30 plus seasons combined. Rivers alone has 5 seasons that fit that criteria.

I know people will say that is cherry picked. It is. Because i dont know what the univeral standard is for considering a qb to be elite for the season. If somebody can direct me, without "opinion" being the factor, ill adjust the criteria and recalculate. But no one ever defines what makes someone elite other than "top 3 at that position" ok, great. But what makes someone top 3? Isnt it production? I mean the OP said Brown was considered the best. Why? Because of production. Sooo... what production for qbs do we look at to consider top 3?

[MagicMT]

 

10 hours ago, Hukos said:

For me, I do not value narratives ("telling the story of the NFL" type of crap) or longevity into the hall. What i want is players who were elite at their position for a period of time. It doesn't have to be their entire career, but there should at least be an era of a few years that you can definitively say that player was elite. You can look back to them and say they were absolutely a force to be reckoned with, that they were absolute best at that position that you would play against. 

Exactly, players who were elite at their position for a number of years (ideally 5 or more). Barring some exceptions like Terrel Davis. And Frank Gore. 
I used to think that Gore shouldn't qualify because he was probably only elite for 1 year, but playing in the NFL for so long (especially in his case as a RB) is absolutely impressive AND it's not like he wasn't a top back for at least 10+ years.
9 years of 1000+ rushing yards (and 2 others over 950) + 15 000 yds rushing (3rd all-time) and almost 20 000yds from scrimmage (4th). That has to be taken into account too. 
But I totally understand why you wouldn't agree though. 
 

10 hours ago, Hukos said:

This is also why I would vote no to the Phillip Rivers and Matt Ryan's of the world, when it comes to QBs (also hall of very good guys). They were just never elite, even if they were very good in their primes. However, I would vote yes for a guy like Antonio Brown into the hall, because even though his career imploded, when he was playing - he was legitimately a dominant force at WR. 

I totally agree with that. I think longevity doesn't really apply to QBs, as they are more protected and can play up to an older age (in general).

4 hours ago, Bearerofnews said:

What qualifies as elite exactly for a qb? Random opinions, post seasons wins, carrying a team with productive and efficient play for the season, all pro, mvps. 

Has to be random opinions and AGG%