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?  

102 members have voted

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

    • Eli Manning
      19
    • Philip Rivers
      12
    • Priest Holmes
      9
    • Antonio Brown
      17
    • Reggie Wayne
      1
    • Terrell Suggs
      2
    • Robert Mathis
      9
    • Aqib Talib
      33


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, minutemancl said:

The point I'm trying to make is that the two aren't mutually exclusive. Longevity contributes to greatness; longevity can be why a player is great. Obviously though, like anything else, it can't be the only reason someone gets into the hall of fame. Gore has other accomplishments, along with his longevity, that I think should get him in.

Gore had ONE impressive season. I've gone through his history so many times at this point. He had ONE season that makes you go "oh wow, that's one of the best running backs in the league". Every other season, there were PLENTY of guys ahead of him. For instance, one measure: most years, he's been toward the bottom of the top 10 in the league in rushing. That's NOT great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, minutemancl said:

The point I'm trying to make is that the two aren't mutually exclusive. Longevity contributes to greatness; longevity can be why a player is great. Obviously though, like anything else, it can't be the only reason someone gets into the hall of fame. Gore has other accomplishments, along with his longevity, that I think should get him in.

Everyone’s got their own criteria. Longevity (meaning no Bo Jacksons), accolades (stats/awards), and greatness (dominating the league, elite at your position) are the three most important factors IMO - with the last being the most crucial. Gore falls well short in that category and doesn’t really move the needle from a stats/accolades POV. The stats he does show up in are results of his play at a very good-to-decent level for a long period of time, not as a result of him being an elite player. Which I don’t think Frank ever was for more than a season or so, at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gore is a weird case. He's had longevity rarely seen by a RB. And yet, he only has one All Pro selection (2nd team in 06) and was rarely, if ever, mentioned/viewed as a top 5 RB during his playing career.

I get why he'll most likely get in the HOF. Personally, if you were never viewed as a top 5 player during the majority of your playing career( no matter how long it was) you're not a HOFer to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

Everyone’s got their own criteria. Longevity (meaning no Bo Jacksons), accolades (stats/awards), and greatness (dominating the league, elite at your position) are the three most important factors IMO - with the last being the most crucial. Gore falls well short in that category and doesn’t really move the needle from a stats/accolades POV. The stats he does show up in are results of his play at a very good-to-decent level for a long period of time, not as a result of him being an elite player. Which I don’t think Frank ever was for more than a season or so, at best.

There's a quarterback who is 16th all-time on the passing TD list, ahead of Montana, Bradshaw, Warner, Jurgensen, Jim Kelly, Fouts, and Steve Young.

He's also 15th in passing yards, ahead of Montana, Unitas, Young, Jim Kelly, Steve Young, Troy Aikman, etc.

Rectify this injustice and elect Vinny Testaverde into the Hall of Fame, he played in 21 seasons!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

Everyone’s got their own criteria. Longevity (meaning no Bo Jacksons), accolades (stats/awards), and greatness (dominating the league, elite at your position) are the three most important factors IMO - with the last being the most crucial. Gore falls well short in that category and doesn’t really move the needle from a stats/accolades POV. The stats he does show up in are results of his play at a very good-to-decent level for a long period of time, not as a result of him being an elite player. Which I don’t think Frank ever was for more than a season or so, at best.

Difference of opinion it seems. I like seeing guys make it in for different things. I like that Joe Namath is in the HoF along with Dan Marino. I like that Terrell Davis is in along with Curtis Martin. I think Tony Boselli should be in. I also think Frank Gore should be in.

Hell, I'd even be in support of getting guys in the hall mainly for their personalities. I'd have no problem with Chad Johnson getting into the hall of fame. His stats and accolades alone maybe aren't enough, but everyone remembers his touchdown dances and last name change and mic'd up segments. He was a great character in NFL history.

Share this post


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

There's a quarterback who is 16th all-time on the passing TD list, ahead of Montana, Bradshaw, Warner, Jurgensen, Jim Kelly, Fouts, and Steve Young.

He's also 15th in passing yards, ahead of Montana, Unitas, Young, Jim Kelly, Steve Young, Troy Aikman, etc.

Rectify this injustice and elect Vinny Testaverde into the Hall of Fame, he played in 21 seasons!

Kinda disingenuous to make that comparison. At least Gore remained a featured back well into his 30s. 

Testaverde spent much of the latter half of his career as a backup and was mediocre for much of the first half. 

Edited by Starless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eli is already controversial and he would get the most debate 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Starless said:

Kinda disingenuous to make that comparison. At least Gore remained a featured back well into his 30s. 

Testaverde spent much of the latter half of his career as a backup and was mediocre for much of the first half. 

So being not-great, and just playing for a long time to accumulate stats shouldn't get you into the Hall of Fame?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, minutemancl said:

Difference of opinion it seems. I like seeing guys make it in for different things. I like that Joe Namath is in the HoF along with Dan Marino. I like that Terrell Davis is in along with Curtis Martin. I think Tony Boselli should be in. I also think Frank Gore should be in.

Yeah, and that's all fine, but I feel like there are limits on both ends of the spectrum. For example, I would probably keep Priest Holmes out just because it was too short, whereas I think my cutoff is right about at TD: Short career, but absolutely dominant while he was at it, AND, and this is crucial, absolute postseason dominance that led to two SB wins. That's what does it for me with Davis. On the other end of the spectrum, despite his impressively long career, Gore was simply not great for all but one season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DannyB said:

So being not-great, and just playing for a long time to accumulate stats shouldn't get you into the Hall of Fame?

There's a difference between not-great and not-good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Starless said:

There's a difference between not-great and not-good. 

Should either get you into the Hall of Fame?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DannyB said:

Oh my god don't get me started on Frank Gore. If there was a jury trial to determine Hall of Fame inclusion, I would be the lawyer arguing to keep him out. He and Eli are probably my two biggest "I will die on this hill" players as far as that goes.

I feel the exact same way about those exact two players. It's so unfortunate to me that both guys are shoe-ins for the Hall because were above average at their best (save one season for Gore). 

As has been mentioned, Eli's efficiency numbers are abysmal. He has a lower career Comp% than guys like Andy Dalton and Nick Foles. He has a lower TD% than Jay Cutler and Ryan Tannehill. His YPA (he's tied for 87th all-time here) is lower than Chad Pennington, Colin Kaepernick, Marcus Mariota, and Matt Schaub. It's already been mentioned that he's a career .500 QB who was never so much as a 2nd-team All-Pro in the league, but keep in mind he only made the PRO BOWL in 25% of his seasons (4/16). Think that's bad? The Giants only won the NFC East in 3 of those seasons! It's a stain on the HoF that a guy can essentially go from career average to shoe-in for the Hall by winning 2 games. 

Frank Gore isn't much better (though I feel less passionate about him than Eli). While he is 3rd all-time in career carries, he falls OUTSIDE of the top 20 in career rushing TDs. Gore has been playing for 15 season. There are several RBs ahead of him who only played 10 seasons or less. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DannyB said:

Should either get you into the Hall of Fame?

Define "not-great"

A guy who consistently produced at a Pro-Bowl level well into his 30s as a RB doesn't really match my definition, even if he was outpaced by some of his peers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I know a large reason Frank Gore is a probable Hall of Famer is the fact he had incredible durability that allowed him to amass stats. I honestly don't think you can hold that against him. In other words, durability (maybe even a little bit of luck if you will) DOES play a role in these players making the Hall of Fame.

To take it in reverse, many in the know would suggest Bert Jones (Colts) or even Greg Cook (Bengals) as "Hall of Fame talents", however, injuries derailed both of their promising careers (Cook's before it really got going, at least Jones had 3 great years). That said, neither Jones nor Cook will ever make the HOF simply because they didn't produce the numbers. Even if that is byproduct of bad fortune it's just sadly the way it is (Bill Walsh said Cook was the finest passer he ever saw, and the accolades about Jones are too numerous to recite, in short both were dazzling talents). Therefore, I don't think we should punish guys for "good fortune". That's the reason I'd maybe lean to Gore. I mean, he had to be good enough to keep getting the ball despite his advancing age, in a profession that most often preys on the aging. 

Edited by kwolf68

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Starless said:

Define "not-great"

Frank Gore, RB for the New York Jets at NFL.com

 

 

finger-guns • Bitches Get Riches

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...