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

[DannyB]

5 hours ago, PapaShogun said:

Well, Andre Reed is in as a receiver though. Never first team All Pro, never won anything. Moon same deal. Jackie Harris same deal. Yet they are in. I know for you Gore wouldn't work, and I'd probably feel the same. I am saying that Gore wouldn't be the first type of player of his caliber to get into the HOF, and probably won't be the last. So him getting in wouldn't be a travesty. 

Andre Reed was a key part of one of the most prolific offenses the league has ever seen, and appeared in 4 Super Bowls. He also has 3 second-team all-pros compared to Gore's 1. And despite all that, I still wouldn't be all that mad if they'd left him out.

Warren Moon was perennially one of the most prolific passers in the late 80s-early 90s. He was consistently in the top 3 in passing yardage, leading the league twice, and easily could have led them a third time in 1994 if he hadn't missed a game (still came in 3rd despite a missed game). He ONCE AGAIN, could have easily led the league a FOURTH time in 1997 if he didn't miss a game (came in 5th regardless). His 1990 season is probably underrated as far as QB seasons go. He led the league in passing, despite missing a game. If he hadn't missed a game, and had an AVERAGE GAME FOR HIM that year, he would have been the second QB to eclipse 5,000 yards passing in a season, something that wouldn't be done again for almost two decades, and basically an entire lifetime in NFL years. Warren Moon was operating at a level as a passer that Frank Gore has never even sniffed as a runner.

By Jackie Harris, I'm going to assume you mean Jackie Smith the tight end, and not 4-time SB champion Franco Harris. I don't know a lot about Jackie Smith, and I think it's not entirely fair to compare today with when he was elected into the Hall over 25 years ago. However, from what I can gather, and I dunno why this is as difficult as it seems to be, but it looks like Jackie Smith absolutely DUSTED the receiving yardage record for a tight end, and he didn't need an uncommonly lengthy career to do it. From what I can tell, and please someone correct me if I'm wrong or don't see the right list, it looks like Mike Ditka held the record with 5.8k yards. Jackie passed that in like 8-9 seasons, then continued to add for several ore until he had 7.9k on his career. So he bested the record by over 2,000 yards. He beat the career yardage record BY THIRTY-THREE PERCENT. Imagine a running back coming into the league today, gashing out 18,000 rushing yards in his first 8 seasons, then tacking on a few more after that to end his career with 25,000 yards. I know it's not apples to apples, but as far as tight ends go, it seems like Jackie Smith just came in, and crashed and reset the entire market.

Man this post took me forever. I go down some random-*** rabbit holes while doing these. But uh, Frank Gore doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame.

[Mr Raider]

5 hours ago, DannyB said:

That's such a weird take. Like...I'm not saying he definitely does or doesn't, I've just literally NEVER considered him until this thread, and it doesn't sound like I'm the only one.

Yeah, I mean reading the case for him in this thread I could see how/why someone thinks he's deserving or how he gets in to the hall. But I don't think he's anywhere close to a lock. And if I'm looking back at lists of guys that should be in the HOF and see Talib listed having still not got in he won't be one of those guys that I think how is he not in there. 

And I am not a huge fan of Talib, mostly just because of his time playing for a team that is a huge rival to my favorite team. But I am usually pretty good at keeping that bias aside when talking about the HOF. There's plenty of Raider rivals I have argued belong in or thought they were an easy choice. I don't think my feelings towards Talib the person/player have anything to do with it besides the fact that I just don't think he was a good enough player. He's classic hall of very good player IMO. But I'm sure there are guys with comparable stats, length of time played, and accolades that one can say if this guy is in Talib deserves to be in. I just simply think there's quite a few guys that wouldn't be in my version of the HOF. But I would have it a little more exclusive than the current NFL HOF. 

[TecmoSuperJoe]

9 hours ago, DannyB said:

Andre Reed was a key part of one of the most prolific offenses the league has ever seen, and appeared in 4 Super Bowls. He also has 3 second-team all-pros compared to Gore's 1. And despite all that, I still wouldn't be all that mad if they'd left him out.

Warren Moon was perennially one of the most prolific passers in the late 80s-early 90s. He was consistently in the top 3 in passing yardage, leading the league twice, and easily could have led them a third time in 1994 if he hadn't missed a game (still came in 3rd despite a missed game). He ONCE AGAIN, could have easily led the league a FOURTH time in 1997 if he didn't miss a game (came in 5th regardless). His 1990 season is probably underrated as far as QB seasons go. He led the league in passing, despite missing a game. If he hadn't missed a game, and had an AVERAGE GAME FOR HIM that year, he would have been the second QB to eclipse 5,000 yards passing in a season, something that wouldn't be done again for almost two decades, and basically an entire lifetime in NFL years. Warren Moon was operating at a level as a passer that Frank Gore has never even sniffed as a runner.

By Jackie Harris, I'm going to assume you mean Jackie Smith the tight end, and not 4-time SB champion Franco Harris. I don't know a lot about Jackie Smith, and I think it's not entirely fair to compare today with when he was elected into the Hall over 25 years ago. However, from what I can gather, and I dunno why this is as difficult as it seems to be, but it looks like Jackie Smith absolutely DUSTED the receiving yardage record for a tight end, and he didn't need an uncommonly lengthy career to do it. From what I can tell, and please someone correct me if I'm wrong or don't see the right list, it looks like Mike Ditka held the record with 5.8k yards. Jackie passed that in like 8-9 seasons, then continued to add for several ore until he had 7.9k on his career. So he bested the record by over 2,000 yards. He beat the career yardage record BY THIRTY-THREE PERCENT. Imagine a running back coming into the league today, gashing out 18,000 rushing yards in his first 8 seasons, then tacking on a few more after that to end his career with 25,000 yards. I know it's not apples to apples, but as far as tight ends go, it seems like Jackie Smith just came in, and crashed and reset the entire market.

Man this post took me forever. I go down some random-*** rabbit holes while doing these. But uh, Frank Gore doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame.

But none of those players at any point were considered to have a year better than everyone else. First team all pro. That's what I'm saying. Most HOF players have at least one year where they were or won something. But it's just a bunch of Pro Bowl nominations. In spite of that, if we're going to give context to those players as to why they are probably in, or give them a pass for era (or their flaws) despite never having a year where they were thought to be the best in the league, then one could do the same with Gore and say that he had 12 straight seasons of at least 1200 yards from scrimmage. Something I don't believe anyone else has ever done. No he wasn't apart of any prolific offense, because he was the offense. Being on bad teams wasn't his fault, and he still produced.  

Folks can not think Frank doesn't belong, and that's fine. But there are players enshrined that are in my opinion on the same scale career-wise, that probably shouldn't be in either. I mean Harold Carmichael just got elected. 

Edited May 24, 2020 by PapaShogun

[DannyB]

1 hour ago, PapaShogun said:

But none of those players at any point were considered to have a year better than everyone else. First team all pro. That's what I'm saying. Most HOF players have at least one year where they were or won something. But it's just a bunch of Pro Bowl nominations. In spite of that, if we're going to give context to those players as to why they are probably in, or give them a pass for era (or their flaws) despite never having a year where they were thought to be the best in the league, then one could do the same with Gore and say that he had 12 straight seasons of at least 1200 yards from scrimmage. Something I don't believe anyone else has ever done. No he wasn't apart of any prolific offense, because he was the offense. Being on bad teams wasn't his fault, and he still produced.  

Folks can not think Frank doesn't belong, and that's fine. But there are players enshrined that are in my opinion on the same scale career-wise, that probably shouldn't be in either. I mean Harold Carmichael just got elected. 

Warren Moon was a first team all-pro in 1990

Jackie Smith was a 4 time second team all-pro, but I implore you to go look at 1967. I cannot figure out how on god's green earth this happened, but I'm going to assume that back in the day there was something getting lost in the mix as far as the press is concerned, or if they heavily favored certain ball clubs or something. Jackie Smith had 1,200 receiving yards and  9 touchdowns, while the 1st team all-pro selection, John Mackey, had 686 yards receiving, and 3 touchdowns. Tell me that's not just an effed up vote. John Mackey won it the previous year too, so I think maybe a lot of voters were like, oh that guy, yeah him again. Jackie Smith was far and away the best tight end in football that year.

I don't even need a player to have a year where they are far and away THE best, but consistently being in the mix, and having one or two years where they have a pretty good resume to say yes they are the best, is pretty indicative. Both Jackie Smith and Warren Moon have that.

Frank Gore has one second team all-pro, that's all, and that's pretty much all he's deserved. That was one GREAT year. 12 seasons with 1,200 yards from scrimmage is NOT impressive from a production standpoint. From a consistency standpoint -- that is, showing up, staying healthy, and basically doing your job -- it's impressive. But those just aren't great numbers. Just to be clear for everything: that's 1,200 yards rushing + receiving, not 1,200 rushing. So that includes a season like 2015 where he had 967 rushing yards and 267 receiving yards. That year, in no uncertain terms, stinks. Trent Richardson did better than that his first season, and he was a disaster, and a laughingstock, and got traded the next season. Frank Gore has simply never shown any level of consistent greatness. He flashed once -- ONCE -- and then was pretty much just varying degrees of "good" for the next 8 years.

As for Harold Carmichael, I would say he doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame, pretty easily. But no reason to chase bad choices with more bad choices.

[TecmoSuperJoe]

37 minutes ago, DannyB said:

Warren Moon was a first team all-pro in 1990

Jackie Smith was a 4 time second team all-pro, but I implore you to go look at 1967. I cannot figure out how on god's green earth this happened, but I'm going to assume that back in the day there was something getting lost in the mix as far as the press is concerned, or if they heavily favored certain ball clubs or something. Jackie Smith had 1,200 receiving yards and  9 touchdowns, while the 1st team all-pro selection, John Mackey, had 686 yards receiving, and 3 touchdowns. Tell me that's not just an effed up vote. John Mackey won it the previous year too, so I think maybe a lot of voters were like, oh that guy, yeah him again. Jackie Smith was far and away the best tight end in football that year.

I don't even need a player to have a year where they are far and away THE best, but consistently being in the mix, and having one or two years where they have a pretty good resume to say yes they are the best, is pretty indicative. Both Jackie Smith and Warren Moon have that.

Frank Gore has one second team all-pro, that's all, and that's pretty much all he's deserved. That was one GREAT year. 12 seasons with 1,200 yards from scrimmage is NOT impressive from a production standpoint. From a consistency standpoint -- that is, showing up, staying healthy, and basically doing your job -- it's impressive. But those just aren't great numbers. Just to be clear for everything: that's 1,200 yards rushing + receiving, not 1,200 rushing. So that includes a season like 2015 where he had 967 rushing yards and 267 receiving yards. That year, in no uncertain terms, stinks. Trent Richardson did better than that his first season, and he was a disaster, and a laughingstock, and got traded the next season. Frank Gore has simply never shown any level of consistent greatness. He flashed once -- ONCE -- and then was pretty much just varying degrees of "good" for the next 8 years.

As for Harold Carmichael, I would say he doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame, pretty easily. But no reason to chase bad choices with more bad choices.

No Warren Moon wasn't first team All Pro in 1990. Not by the AP (the publication people recognize). Joe Montana was, and was also MVP that year. Moon also fumbled like crazy at a ridiculous rate, and never made even a championship game once in his 17 year career. 

Jackie Smith probably should have gotten All Pro in 1967, but he didn't. That's the fact whether we agree or not. And he was was usually outshined in his prime by his peers John Mackey and Jerry Smith. Jackie also played forever, and was compiler long after his best days were behind him. 

I don't agree at all with your proclamation that 12 years of 1200 yards from scrimmage isn't something impressive. Maybe that is where we should go our separate ways as far as this discussion goes. 1200 yards gained is 1200 yards gained regardless. Dismissing it is kind of like saying Newton's 14 or 10 TD rushing seasons don't boost his season accomplishments as a QB. Or Lamar Jackson's 1200 rushing yards this past year are irrelevant, because they were gained via the ground and not the sky. 

Hard Carmichael wouldn't be the first "bad" choice though. That's the point. A precedent has already been set that the HOF operates on feelings as much as it does logic to make it's selections. 

Edited May 24, 2020 by PapaShogun

[DannyB]

10 minutes ago, PapaShogun said:

No Warren Moon wasn't first team All Pro in 1990. Not by the AP (the publication people recognize). Joe Montana was, and was also MVP that year. Moon also fumbled like crazy at a ridiculous rate, and never made even a championship game once in his 17 year career. 

Ah yes, I was looking at the wrong all-pro. Still an amazing season. In fact, better than Montana's. Go compare them, tell me Moon doesn't have a case.

16 minutes ago, PapaShogun said:

Jackie Smith probably should have gotten All Pro in 1967, but he didn't. That's the fact whether we agree or not. And he was was usually outshined in his prime by his peers John Mackey and Jerry Smith. Jackie also played forever, and was compiler long after his best days were behind him.

So a group of fallible humans made an error. Jackie Smith was, inarguably, the best tight end that year. End of story. Jackie Smith was the best at his position for a year, that's something Frank Gore can't say. Furthermore, as I said above, while Smith did play for a long

 

23 minutes ago, PapaShogun said:

I don't agree at all with your proclamation that 12 years of 1200 yards from scrimmage isn't something impressive. Maybe that is where we should go our separate ways as far as this discussion goes. 1200 yards gained is 1200 yards gained regardless. Dismissing it is kind of like saying Newton's 14 or 10 TD rushing seasons don't boost his season accomplishments as a passer. Or Lamar Jackson's 1200 yards gained on the ground this past year are irrelevant. 

time, his place in the record book was sealed like halfway through his career. He didn't NEED to just compile stats over a long time. He could have retired earlier and not played the last, like, 7 years of his career, and he still would have owned the record for most career receiving yards for a tight end.

Frank Gore is so high on the all-time rushing list ONLY because he's managed to stick around and be decent for so long. He didn't shoot up the list with several eye popping seasons, while mixing in consistently very good-to-great one

24 minutes ago, PapaShogun said:

I don't agree at all with your proclamation that 12 years of 1200 yards from scrimmage isn't something impressive. Maybe that is where we should go our separate ways as far as this discussion goes. 1200 yards gained is 1200 yards gained regardless. Dismissing it is kind of like saying Newton's 14 or 10 TD rushing seasons don't boost his season accomplishments as a passer. Or Lamar Jackson's 1200 yards gained on the ground this past year are irrelevant.

I'm sorry this makes no sense. What is impressive to you about 1,200 total yards from scrimmage being a player's entire output? If you're saying the 12 years part is impressive, I'll agree. But the amount? That's just not all that great. If you are a feature running back, and that's all you're putting up, your team is probably looking for a replacement.

How in the hell that compares to a QB adding double digit touchdowns to go along with their passing touchdowns, is beyond me. Now if Newton rushed for 14 TDs, and only threw for 10, I'd probably say, on the whole, it wasn't a very good season of quarterbacking. Same with the Jackson comparison. It's just an awful analogy.

And at no point did I say 1,200 yards are irrelevant. Man that was a weird way to try and make your point.

Gore's main accomplishment is managing to stave off obsolescence for an impressively long time. I'm not saying that's nothing, it's just not Hall of Fame worthy to me. It doesn't show that you were consistently one of the best among your peers.

31 minutes ago, PapaShogun said:

Hard Carmichael wouldn't be the first "bad" choice though. That's the point. A precedent has already been set that the HOF operates on feelings as much as it does logic to make it's selections.

As I've stated over and over again, there are bad choices already in the Hall of Fame, you are right. There are more examples, too. But I don't like the precedent argument, because then the bar is CONTINUALLY AND IRREVOCABLY LOWERED. If you go by precedent, then you can never raise the bar again.

And just in case we're arguing two different angles here: I am by no means saying Frank Gore won't make the Hall of Fame. It could be the voting body sees his bulk yardage and goes, "Great! Welcome in!". Just like they might see Eli's name in front of them and be like "Two Super Bowl rings, brought down the undefeated Patriots, played in New York. You're in!". But in both cases, I'm just saying, I would vehemently disagree.

And as I've said elsewhere, I am admittedly a small-hall guy. I tend to say no to a lot of players that the majority says yes to. But in the case of Frank Gore, it isn't even close for me. Once I went back through his career, I didn't even need to think twice. Not a Hall of Fame worthy resume at all.

[SpacemanSpiff]

I'd probably go with Mathis or Talib, but I think Talib actually has a better case for the Hall. Mathis was rarely even the best player at his position on his own team. 

[DannyB]

7 minutes ago, SpacemanSpiff said:

I'd probably go with Mathis or Talib, but I think Talib actually has a better case for the Hall. Mathis was rarely even the best player at his position on his own team. 

Yeah, I mean I hate to penalize or minimize a great player simply because they're playing alongside a great player, but when it comes to borderline guys it's worth mentioning at least. Mathis was generally going to be the second biggest priority in the offense's blocking scheme. Freeney was commanding primary attention.

While I think Freeney is debatable as a Hall of Famer, my guess is he ultimately gets in (some say he's basically a lock). While there's no way Mathis would be in if Freeney doesn't, I also feel like Freeney getting in doesn't HELP Mathis's chances at all. It's not like Mathis and Freeney were keystone players in an all-time defense, they way Lewis, Suggs, and Reed were for an entire era in Baltimore. So, I doubt the Hall would be looking to let in two players of the same position from the same team.

[SpacemanSpiff]

1 minute ago, DannyB said:

Yeah, I mean I hate to penalize or minimize a great player simply because they're playing alongside a great player, but when it comes to borderline guys it's worth mentioning at least. Mathis was generally going to be the second biggest priority in the offense's blocking scheme. Freeney was commanding primary attention.

While I think Freeney is debatable as a Hall of Famer, my guess is he ultimately gets in (some say he's basically a lock). While there's no way Mathis would be in if Freeney doesn't, I also feel like Freeney getting in doesn't HELP Mathis's chances at all. It's not like Mathis and Freeney were keystone players in an all-time defense, they way Lewis, Suggs, and Reed were for an entire era in Baltimore. So, I doubt the Hall would be looking to let in two players of the same position from the same team.

After hearing other offensive linemen and the way they talk about playing against Dwight Freeney, I think he'll be in and I think he'd be well deserving of it. I actually think he's a pretty important and transformational name in how the defensive end position is played in today's NFL. That'll be another thing that will bolster his case. 

[DannyB]

10 minutes ago, SpacemanSpiff said:

After hearing other offensive linemen and the way they talk about playing against Dwight Freeney, I think he'll be in and I think he'd be well deserving of it. I actually think he's a pretty important and transformational name in how the defensive end position is played in today's NFL. That'll be another thing that will bolster his case. 

Another thing going for him, whether you think this is fair or not, is that he has a very definitive move that everyone associates with him. That Dwight Freeney spin is so identifiable and iconic, you play it in your head immediately when you see his name.

[TecmoSuperJoe]

53 minutes ago, DannyB said:

Ah yes, I was looking at the wrong all-pro. Still an amazing season. In fact, better than Montana's. Go compare them, tell me Moon doesn't have a case.

So a group of fallible humans made an error. Jackie Smith was, inarguably, the best tight end that year. End of story. Jackie Smith was the best at his position for a year, that's something Frank Gore can't say. Furthermore, as I said above, while Smith did play for a long

 

time, his place in the record book was sealed like halfway through his career. He didn't NEED to just compile stats over a long time. He could have retired earlier and not played the last, like, 7 years of his career, and he still would have owned the record for most career receiving yards for a tight end.

Frank Gore is so high on the all-time rushing list ONLY because he's managed to stick around and be decent for so long. He didn't shoot up the list with several eye popping seasons, while mixing in consistently very good-to-great one

I'm sorry this makes no sense. What is impressive to you about 1,200 total yards from scrimmage being a player's entire output? If you're saying the 12 years part is impressive, I'll agree. But the amount? That's just not all that great. If you are a feature running back, and that's all you're putting up, your team is probably looking for a replacement.

How in the hell that compares to a QB adding double digit touchdowns to go along with their passing touchdowns, is beyond me. Now if Newton rushed for 14 TDs, and only threw for 10, I'd probably say, on the whole, it wasn't a very good season of quarterbacking. Same with the Jackson comparison. It's just an awful analogy.

And at no point did I say 1,200 yards are irrelevant. Man that was a weird way to try and make your point.

Gore's main accomplishment is managing to stave off obsolescence for an impressively long time. I'm not saying that's nothing, it's just not Hall of Fame worthy to me. It doesn't show that you were consistently one of the best among your peers.

As I've stated over and over again, there are bad choices already in the Hall of Fame, you are right. There are more examples, too. But I don't like the precedent argument, because then the bar is CONTINUALLY AND IRREVOCABLY LOWERED. If you go by precedent, then you can never raise the bar again.

And just in case we're arguing two different angles here: I am by no means saying Frank Gore won't make the Hall of Fame. It could be the voting body sees his bulk yardage and goes, "Great! Welcome in!". Just like they might see Eli's name in front of them and be like "Two Super Bowl rings, brought down the undefeated Patriots, played in New York. You're in!". But in both cases, I'm just saying, I would vehemently disagree.

And as I've said elsewhere, I am admittedly a small-hall guy. I tend to say no to a lot of players that the majority says yes to. But in the case of Frank Gore, it isn't even close for me. Once I went back through his career, I didn't even need to think twice. Not a Hall of Fame worthy resume at all.

- Moon did have a good season based on the major categories for passers. But Moon also fumbled 18 times that year. Joe Montana fumbled 4 times. I don't think Montana should have won it that year either, but I'd have given it to Cunningham over Moon. Doesn't help that Moon lost the head to head matchup against Montana that year either. 

- Yes, Jackie Smith should have gotten more recognition that year. But he didn't. And it works both ways. Art Monk for instance. He got recognition in 1984 as a first team All Pro when it really should have gone to Mark Clayton whose numbers blew Art's out the water. Or even John Stallworth or Steve Largent, but Art got the praise. Happens time and time again. And he was a massive compiler, only really garnering 3 Pro Bowl nods in 16 years. If he retired in his prime he wouldn't have led the NFL history books in total yards for a receiver. Yet he's in. Hunh? You want to say he won Super Bowls, then I go back to Andre Reed or Harold Carmichael. Yet they're also in, and don't have any accomplishments that aren't already surpassed. Frank Gore getting in would just be another player in the growing list of players already in enshrined who are probably more suited for the "Hall of Very Good" instead of the Hall of Fame. 

- I'm saying 1200 yards gained for 12 straight years is an impressive feat (which will probably stand for a long time), and it doesn't matter how those yards were gained in that 12 year streak. You brought up how his yards were split between rushing and receiving as if it mattered. It doesn't. 

- The precedent argument exists, because the precedent exists, and hasn't gone away. The bar has lowered like you said, and continues to. I don't like it either, but it is what it is. I don't see why once you let certain individuals in with accolades that don't stack up, then others in that same mold can't be admitted. Only seems fair. 

Edited May 24, 2020 by PapaShogun

[DannyB]

5 minutes ago, PapaShogun said:

- Yes, Jackie Smith should have gotten more recognition that year. But he didn't.

This whole argument has been based on, has X player EVER been the best at his position, or had a very clear, solid case for being the best? Jackie Smith WAS the best tight-end in 1967. Every reasonable minded person would agree with that. That's the point.

 

7 minutes ago, PapaShogun said:

If he retired in his prime he wouldn't have led the NFL history books in total yards for a receiver.

Not yards for a receiver. Receiving yards for a tight end. Again, the stats aren't the easiest to quickly parse out, but as best I can figure: Mike Ditka had the record before Smith, with 5.8k. After 8 years of playing in the NFL, Jackie Smith also had 5.8k yards receiving. Almost literally tied for the record of most receiving yards for a tight end. The next season he tacked on another 300+, so he could have retired after 9 years, and been the record holder.  Instead, he played another several years, with the first 3 and a half of those years netting SOLID production (another 1,500+ yards to his already record-breaking career). If you don't see how that's different from Gore, I don't know what to tell you.

I don't think Jackie Smith won a Super Bowl. I think he appeared in one with Dallas though, way at the end.

16 minutes ago, PapaShogun said:

I'm saying 1200 yards gained for 12 straight years is an impressive feat (which will probably stand for a long time), and it doesn't matter how those yards were gained in that 12 year streak. If that doesn't work for you, then I think you're just being nit-picky. You brought up how his yards were split between rushing and receiving as if it mattered. It doesn't. 

It doesn't matter how the yards are gained. My point is 1,200 TOTAL yards gained isn't that impressive for a running back. Can somebody else tell me if I'm not being clear or something!? 1,200 yards is not great running back production. My only point in saying total YFS is so people didn't think I meant 1,200 rushing yards. 1,200 rushing yards, combined with what RBs usually gain through the air, like 2-300, now that's a solid season.

I don't care HOW they're split up, I'm just totaling the player's production. 1,200 total YFS per year is, IN GENERAL good for like 10-15th best in the league for a running back, over the course of Gore's career. I don't care how many years you're the 10th best running back in the league, it's not Hall worthy.

21 minutes ago, PapaShogun said:

- The precedent argument exists, because the precedent exists, and hasn't gone away. If anything the bar has lowered. As long as you acknowledge that if Frank shouldn't be in, then others shouldn't that's fine. Him getting in should be more of a "meh, whatever" instead of "wow that's a travesty" seeing how the HOF has operated for quite some time

Again, if you are telling me what the voting body is GOING TO DO, fine, maybe, that's not my point. Of course the bar has been lowered, and I disagree with it. And as I've said all along, YES there are other players who shouldn't be in there! I've said that over and over. I wouldn't have voted Jerome Bettis in, but I can at least slightly more understand his case. I also don't think I would've voted Kurt Warner in. But I also understand his case more. So these are guys that I think are more deserving than Frank Gore, that I would NOT have voted in.

Just because there are bad choices already in the hall doesn't mean I want to add more bad choices to it.

**********************************************

 

UPDATE: Also, I just look into Carmichael more. A few things: First, he wasn't even voted in the normal way we're talking about here. He's part of this "Centennial Class" thingy they're doing, not the normal classes they vote on. Second, Carmichael did league the lead in receiving yards for a year, and thus had a year where he could say he was the best at his position. He also had another year where he was 3rd. So that's better than Gore can say. Nonetheless, Carmichael still wouldn't get my vote.

[Piquel]

I'm fine with Holmes just missing out.

T. Gonzales,  W. Roaf,  W. Shields,  J. Tait,  B. Waters,  C. Wiegmann,  T. Richardson are all more worthy imho.

2000's Chiefs offense was fun to watch, but with no playoff success, how many HOFers do they deserve?

[ET80]

Voted Antonio Brown, but didn't see Aqib Talib on the list... Talib is going to have to buy a ticket to get in the HoF, period. There isn't an on field metric that exists which would outweigh the off-field nonsense Talib found himself in.

[INbengalfan]

Manning shouldn't even be in the discussion.  .500 career winning %.  The only reason he gets mentioned (besides last name) are the two SBs, which were made possible by incredibly awesome catches by Manningham and Tyree.  Without those two catches, is he even in the discussion?