Jump to content

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


Apparition

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

1 hour ago, Starless said:

Wayne: 4 seasons in top-10 in receptions; 7 seasons in top-10 in receiving yards; 4 seasons in top-10 in TDs

Gore: 8 seasons in top-10 in touches; 6 seasons in top-10 in rushing yards; 2 seasons in top-10 in TDs

doesn't seem like that big a gap.

First of all, there are differences in the position. There are more receivers taking more shares of the touches on a weekly basis, all across the league, so to be in the top 10 is more impressive than a running back in the top 10. Being in the top 10 in receiving stats puts you in more impressive company.

For both positions, TDs don't impress me as much as yardage. Obviously it's a sliding scale, and I definitely love big TD numbers, but if you aren't also picking up yardage, or aren't running efficiently at all, it won't impress me all that much.

So, let's look at yardage.

For Reggie Wayne, here's where he stacked up in receiving yardage from when he broke out in 2004, through his last great season in 2012, in chronological order:

8th, 16th, 3rd, 1st, 10th, 5th, 3rd, 22nd, 7th. (keep in mind, in 2011 the Colts were intentionally tanking as hard and deliberately as I've ever seen a team tank, and made the conscious choice to not field an NFL quarterback for the entire season)

Now, for Frank Gore, here are his rankings in total yards from scrimmage among running backs, from his breakout 2006 campaign, until now:

4th, 6th, 11th, 6th, 15th, 14th, 10th, 14th, 13th, 11th, 12th, 14th, 33rd, and I'm not bothering to count down to his name in 2019 he was off the map.

So basically, through his career, he's been a fringe. top 10 back, but closer to 15.

Wayne, on the other hand, was easily a top 10, fringe top 5 receiver during his prime years.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a huge Skip Bayless fan, but his barometer (or at least one of them) for does a guy belong in the HOF is, if he has to think twice about it, you aren't a hall of famer. I don't think that is necessarily a perfect way to determine it, but I like it more than the cliche, of can you tell the story of whatever sport without mentioning them. 

I have always been one that would prefer the HOF be more exclusive than it is at times. I personally wouldn't have any of Talib, Mathis, Holmes, Rivers, or Eli in the HOF. In that order would also be how I would put them in terms of furthest from the HOF to closest. 

Talib - I just never saw his talent or game as stand alone, HOF quality. I think he's a hall of very good type. When he was on he could certainly shut down the best of the best, but he also had a specific type of the top tier wideouts that he would dominate and a specific type that would give him trouble. In his best years where he was closest to being dominant he played under terrific coordinators that could scheme up elite defenses, played opposite another very good to borderline elite corner that fit him perfectly keeping him off of the smaller, shifter, quicker precious route runners that could give him trouble, and behind some elite pass rushers and overall dominant front sevens that made his job much easier. He was also a hot head that was prone to the occasional irrational mistake/action/play that hurt the team. Also had some off the field issues if I remember correctly. All of that to me means a guy with some really great seasons and at his best flashed HOF talent, but the total package just isn't there to put him in IMO. 

Mathis - Mathis was always one of my favorites to watch. He was in a perfect situation for much of his career playing in a dome, opposite Freeny (a sure fire HOFer IMO), on a defense designed to play fast and pin their ears back to take advantage of a Peyton Manning and then Andrew Luck led offense. But he was never the focal point of any defense he was on. Dwight was always the guy teams prioritized over him, and Sanders for a few years on the backend kept coaches up at night over Mathis. He had one year where I would consider him among the top 3-5 elite pass rushers. And that season was great. Plus I love all the forced fumbles. It's an underrated aspect of any defensive player. But he also wasn't a terrific run defender and could be a liability on that end. I grew up watching Mathis, and he was a very very good player. And I think he has a shot at getting in, he just wouldn't be in my HOF. 

Holmes - Even though he's second on the list, part of me wants to put him in. Because when he was on... I have seen very few better at playing the running back position. But him being on, whether by circumstance or fault of his own, just wasn't often enough to put him in IMO. I think you need more than 3 uber elite years to get in, or if you only have that you need to add some longevity by being a productive player for longer even if at a lower level. I feel like some more post season success would go a long way, and is why I would have TD in the HOF. The playoffs matter, big games matter, and while football is a team sport so it's never on just one guy, getting into the HOF isn't easy and it's not fair because not everyones situation is created equal. That's not to say a guy can't get in without post season success, especially at RB, but it helps your case if you put the team on your back for memorable moments in the biggest games. Whether he won a super bowl doesn't mean much to me because he wasn't much of a contributing factor. Rings themselves don't do it, you have to have played a part in getting there for the bonus to override such a short, but dominant career.

Rivers - Another hall of very good IMO. Like all of these guys. Rivers at his peak was a fantastic QB. A few seasons of top 5 play at his position, and more top 10, but at the end of the day when you're a QB being discussed for the HOF I need more overall success. No championships, no super bowl appearances even, and although some seasons his supporting cast could have been better or injuries really hurt the team (and that happened to Rivers more than a lot of QBs I remember) they just never got over the hump, and he had some teams that were certainly super bowl caliber. I don't even have many memories of Rivers having great performances and was just outdone by an elite team (not to say it didn't happen). Teams win championships, not individual players, but the HOF should be reserved for the elite players, and elite, all time QB's just win at least a super bowl. He's got the longevity, the bulk stats, he seemed to be a good leader, but he just falls a little short because of the position he plays and lack of success at the highest level. It doesn't help that in his draft class there are 4 super bowls combined for the 2 other big QBs from his class and every other elite QB in his era got at least one (Brady, Manning, Brees, Rodgers). If he makes a super bowl or two with the Colts or manages to win one? I'd more than likely put him in. 

Manning - Kind of the opposite of Rivers in that he was never consistently near the top of the league in QB play but he stepped up huge and won when it counted. He has the bulk stats for sure. But he wasn't terribly efficient. He was prone to some jaw dropping bone head plays, he wasn't the most accurate, or have a cannon. And his teams outside of the two super bowl years weren't dominant. Even the super bowl years they weren't seen as a juggernaut behind their elite, franchise QB. The win over the undefeated Patriots is huge. It's a prime example of a guy stepping up in crunch time and making plays when the pressure is highest. I am a sucker for that. But the first super bowl was largely won because of a dominant performance by a defense, slowing down one of the best offenses ever. Regardless how much I love post season success and how heavily I way it, a couple of wins with the pressure being the highest doesn't overweigh your performance on the whole of your career. It makes for a great narrative which helps anyones HOF chance, but it's not enough to fit my personal HOF criteria. He is a Giants ring of honor type, he was a franchise QB, and a good one, sometimes even a little better. But he was never truly great for any length of time. And as much as I factor in post season success (particularly at his position) it can't be the only real HOF argument you hang your hat on. 

Suggs I would have in the HOF. I think he has enough of the bulk stats, enough of the accolades for the people that value that stuff above all else, he has a lot of post season success, played on some absolutely great defenses, and he had a lot of help around him for sure, but I do feel like there was a stretch of football where I would turn on games and just felt like I was watching one of the best all around edge players in the game. He wasn't among the elite pure pass rushers, but he was a very very good one capable of winning with speed, power, technique, hustle and will. He had a terrific motor. And he was incredibly versatile. And I think run defense is often overlooked by many for edge players and while I do agree its not the most important thing for an end, and the elite of the elite can even be poor at it and could get my HOF vote, I can't overlook that aspect when talking about Suggs. It was one of the great things he brought to the table. He also has the longevity of being a cornerstone piece of a defense capable of playing at the highest level of football in the game for a really long time. Suggs is the only guy on this list that I would personally have in the HOF if it was done my way. 

I think all but Holmes and Talib will have my stamp of approval as HOFers if we go simply off of what history says is that caliber of player based on who is already in.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here’s my thing. If you can’t automatically say “yeah they are a hall of fame”, then when you run the numbers they should have an overwhelming case in their favor with almost no major negatives to keep them out. 
 

Rivers as an example. 
 

1. Was never the best QB in the league. 

2. Never won a SB

3. Never won an All Pro

4. Never won an MVP

At his position those are the biggest ways QB’s are judged. That’s a deal breaker for a guy who isn’t automatic. 
 

Gore and Wayne are the only two who I would lean yes on. Eli is a no for me (and to a lot of voters) but I can see him eventually getting in 

Edited by lancerman
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lancerman said:

Here’s my thing. If you can’t automatically say “yeah they are a hall of fame”, then when you run the numbers they should have an overwhelming case in their favor with almost no major negatives to keep them out.

That's not a bad way to think about it. If your first instinct is "What? No!", then when you go back and examine their career, it better be CLEAR that you were wrong. Not some borderline thing where you have to start really explaining certain deficits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jakuvious said:

My gut feeling is that Talib seems least deserving, but man do I not want Eli Manning in the hall of fame.

Yeah. The way I WANT to answer this poll is "If you could only choose one, who would you prohibit from being elected into the hall of fame", and choose Eli, even though that isn't the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, ClutchDJ said:

I’d put Matt Ryan before Philip Rivers in the HOF.

Matt Ryan is statistically pretty much on pace with Rivers when you account for time in the league. Stat wise they are the same player. Less than a point apart in passer rating and completion percentage. Very close TD-INT ratio. Basically if you added Ryan’s averages up for the amount of years it takes to equalize careers with Rivers, they have ballpark same stats. 
 

Only Ryan has a Super Bowl appearance, an All Pro and an MVP. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, lancerman said:

Matt Ryan is statistically pretty much on pace with Rivers when you account for time in the league. Stat wise they are the same player. Less than a point apart in passer rating and completion percentage. Very close TD-INT ratio. Basically if you added Ryan’s averages up for the amount of years it takes to equalize careers with Rivers, they have ballpark same stats. 
 

Only Ryan has a Super Bowl appearance, an All Pro and an MVP. 

They're a pretty equal comp all things considered. I'd rate them pretty closely. Never one of the true elites, but consistently VERY good, a couple hiccup years, gaudy stats.

Ryan probably gets the slight lean due to his MVP-year with the SB appearance, but it's not by much, and one of the things in Rivers's favor is he plays outdoors and I always prefer that. But it's freaking San Diego (now L.A.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, JustAnotherFan said:

People using raw numbers to compare to QB's is always laughable.

Okay then what’s your take on Ryan vs Rivers. Stats aside they’ve always been in the same tier. Just the very next level under elite and very low accolades or accomplishments 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, DannyB said:

Again, I'm not sure how Martin is remotely a comp to Gore. MUCH better career.

As far as Riggins and Allen go, I think in the 70s and 80s, the HoF took things like being on "great" teams/eras for teams, and SB-winning teams much more into account.

Riggins and Allen have much better hardware: SB winners, SB MVPs, Allen was the damn league MVP,  first-team All-Pros, Pro Bowls when half the league didn't pull out with hamstring soreness and need replacing.

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. 

Edited by PapaShogun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Siv said:

People may not like him but Talib is definitely a Hall of Famer. No question. 

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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...