Jump to content
Starless

Which of these would be the most controversial Hall of Fame inclusion?

Which of these would be the most objectionable to you?  

101 members have voted

  1. 1. Which of these would be the most objectionable to you?

    • Eli Manning
      18
    • Philip Rivers
      12
    • Priest Holmes
      9
    • Antonio Brown
      17
    • Reggie Wayne
      1
    • Terrell Suggs
      2
    • Robert Mathis
      9
    • Aqib Talib
      33


Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, thebestever6 said:

Because your less than stellar comment is a joke dude was he amazing no but less than stellar comment is a joke man. Eli did more with less talent on offense than you give him credit for that's all I'm saying.

So calling him less than "stellar" is a joke...but you're saying he wasn't "amazing"?

So somehow in your pantheon of adjectives, "amazing" ranks among the highest tier, but stellar is...what? middle of the pack? subpar? toward the bottom of the barrel?

MOST people would say that you can essentially use "stellar" and "amazing" interchangeably. And when I say, "most people", let's consult a thesaurus: Some synonyms for stellar are "outstanding" and, "dominant". Meanwhile, when it comes to the word amazing, it lists "awesome", and "incredible".

We're basically drawing adjectives out of pretty much the same word bucket here, y'see? So if I call him less than stellar, and you say he wasn't amazing, it's kinda the same thing.

If you've read the other stuff I've written about Eli in this thread, you'd know that I've thought that for stretches, he was actually pretty damn good. However, I feel compelled to make it clear that he has no business being in the Hall of Fame, since I think he eventually will no matter what.

If you don't think he belongs either, then there's nothing to get pissed at me about. We're on the same page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, personally, I don't think any of these deserves a place in the HOF. Suggs is the closest to being deserving and I'd put EManning as the most objectionable because at least all the other players were near the top of their respective positions while Manning was below average for most of his career. Would Flacco make the HOF with another ring? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, thebestever6 said:

I just don't know why people feel the need to paint the narrative that he sucked in order to make the argument he shouldn't make the HOF. There's a ton of NFL teams that would have loved to have Eli for the stretch of his career.

Don’t think anyone was really saying that Eli outright sucked. Maybe you were painting the narrative that people were attacking him?

Edited by Yin-Yang

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/21/2020 at 2:32 PM, Starless said:

 

Aqib Talib

Cons: Only thought to have five elite seasons; Outshined by a number of his peers (Sherman, Peterson, Revis, Gilmore, Harris)

Five elite seasons is my benchmark, so that isn't a "con" to me. I hate to shine a light on OJ Simpson, but look at his career. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yin-Yang said:

Don’t think anyone was really saying that Eli outright sucked. Maybe you were painting the narrative that people were attacking him?

Adjective. less-than-stellar (comparative form only) (slang, sarcastic) Mediocre; not satisfactory; not very good, poor; not meeting standards or expectations.

people say this when there's 20+ teams I'd take Eli on over his careers over the QBs they've had to play a majority for them during that time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I notice two distinct lines of thought in the thread. One is to argue least deserving. The other is to argue the actual question posed--most controversial. 

Just sayin'.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, thebestever6 said:

Adjective. less-than-stellar (comparative form only) (slang, sarcastic) Mediocre; not satisfactory; not very good, poor; not meeting standards or expectations.

people say this when there's 20+ teams I'd take Eli on over his careers over the QBs they've had to play a majority for them during that time

Stellar - exceptionally good; outstanding. 

“Was he amazing, no”

“He was less than stellar”

Pretty interchangeable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/25/2020 at 4:33 AM, DannyB said:

-Art Monk had multiple years where he was among the best at his position. I wouldn't say the best, and I wouldn't have given him 1st team AP in '84. But he also has three SB rings, so I understand that putting him over the top. And if he'd been left out, I don't think I would pitch a fit.

-1,200/12 years is impressive in its longevity, but not height

-I don't need the player to have a year where they had a claim to be THE best, but it helps if you're in the discussion for some time. It also helps when you win three Super Bowls like Art Monk.

-As stated before, I wouldn't have voted Andre Reed. But I still think he has a more legit claim than Gore: He was the #1 receiving on one of the best offenses in the league (for an extended number of years), and made it to the Super Bowl four times. He's like Michael Irvin-lite, since he never actually got over the hump and got a ring. Again, he wouldn't be in my Hall though.

-Honestly, I think every player we've talked about has a better case for the Hall than Gore (except maaaybe Carmichael), and many if them I still wouldn't have let in. Looking over the other running backs in the Hall of Fame, especially those from the 90s onward, whom I have a better grasp on, Gore would stick out like a sore thumb. Jerome Bettis and Curtis Martin might be the only ones that come close, but they both have much more legitimate claims (and Bettis would still be on the outside looking in for me). This is to say, I do think in a way the bar would be lowered by electing Gore, BUT, that still isn't the crux of my argument. Even if it WASN'T a case of lowering the bar, I don't think that's a good reason to let someone in. I feel like I have to asy this in every post: Just because there are members of the HoF who don't deserve to be there, doesn't mean we should add more members who don't deserve to be there

- Andre Reed was in a high profile offense, yet didn't put up monster production that rivaled his peers. I'd hate to imagine what he'd do on a bad team as the most important offensive piece. He went to 4 Super Bowls. So what. He has zero championships. Same boat as Gore as everyone else that didn't win anything. Reed doesn't have a better case because he happened to be drafted by a quality organization and Gore wasn't. That's the only reason Gore wasn't going to Super Bowls, not because Reed was a "better"/HOF worthy player. 

- Yes Art Monk did have multiple seasons where he was among the best at his position. So did Gore. 

- "1,200/12 years is impressive in its longevity, but not height". Yup, and it's a milestone no one else has accomplished. Just saying, if someone like Reed who doesn't even have feather in his cap like that is in the HOF, then Gore being in would just be more the status quo. I know you don't like that thinking, but like I said before it only seems fair instead of being hypocritical. 

I understand your position. I look forward to your response, but obviously our opinions on the matter just differ too much to gain anything more insightful about the matter. Imma head out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, PapaShogun said:

- Andre Reed was in a high profile offense, yet didn't put up monster production that rivaled his peers. I'd hate to imagine what he'd do on a bad team as the most important offensive piece. He went to 4 Super Bowls. So what. He has zero championships. Same boat as Gore as everyone else that didn't win anything. Reed doesn't have a better case because he happened to be drafted by a quality organization and Gore wasn't. That's the only reason Gore wasn't going to Super Bowls, not because Reed was a "better"/HOF worthy player. 

Going to 4 Super Bowls isn't nothing. Better than one, two, or three. It's the second best ending a season can have. And again, Andre Reed wouldn't be in my hall of fame, but I get it.

1 hour ago, PapaShogun said:

- Yes Art Monk did have multiple seasons where he was among the best at his position. So did Gore.

When was Gore among the best at his position? To me it was really only 2006. And Gore doesn't have those pesky little Super Bowl wins that Monk has on his resume.

1 hour ago, PapaShogun said:

- "1,200/12 years is impressive in its longevity, but not height". Yup, and it's a milestone no one else has accomplished.

So if a running back ever gains 800 yards per year for 25 years I'll make sure you're first in line to go to bat for their Hall of Fame candidacy. If extended goodness is just as impressive as greatness, then super-extended subpar play must be as well.

1 hour ago, PapaShogun said:

but obviously our opinions on the matter just differ too much to gain anything more insightful about the matter.

I mean yeah, 'tis what 'tis. I'm sure it doesn't have anything to do with you being a 49ers fan, and having a very positive bias toward the guy because you rooted for him for a long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, DannyB said:

I mean yeah, 'tis what 'tis. I'm sure it doesn't have anything to do with you being a 49ers fan, and having a very positive bias toward the guy because you rooted for him for a long time.

On today's episode of "Let's attack a person's character instead of their argument"...

I'm a 49ers fan, so I can't have a non-biased opinion regarding a quality player that played for them. Because logic. I rooted for Ken Norton Jr. too. Guess that means I think he should be in the HOF because he was a 49er. :)

Believe what you want. I even insinuated I don't think he should probably be in, but I guess we'll just conveniently not have you mention that. 

Edited by PapaShogun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, PapaShogun said:

I rooted for Ken Norton Jr. too. Guess that means I think he should be in the HOF because he was a 49er.

If you don't think KNJ is a Hall of Famer we're 'bout to throw hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing for me on Manning - outside of impressively winning two SBs - is that to win those two he had to beat whom many consider the greatest of all time at QB to do it. That knocks it up a peg or two.

The answer(s) to me were Holmes and Talib for reasons already stated throughout the thread. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×