The NFL HOF Needs To Do Something

[TecmoSuperJoe]

13 minutes ago, x0x said:

I like Vermiel, I really do but him getting in over Siefert, Coughlin, Shanahan, Holmgren and even Coryell and Dan Reeves is unjustifiable. Like seriously there's no debate to be had except he was more liked by the voters on a personal level.

Siefert going to Carolina really nukes his chances at getting into the HOF. In addition he essentially took over Walsh's team in 1989 winning right away. To his credit he did maintain the quality of the 49ers for he next near decade he was head coach. Still I think those are two major knocks on him despite having two rings. Vermeil only has one ring, but I guess the voters thought highly of his ability to turn around three franchises, two in which when he left were still good shape. I'm indifferent about his enshrinement. 

Edited February 15, 2022 by TecmoSuperJoe

[lancerman]

5 hours ago, TecmoSuperJoe said:

Siefert going to Carolina really nukes his chances at getting into the HOF. In addition he essentially took over Walsh's team in 1989 winning right away. To his credit he did maintain the quality of the 49ers for he next near decade he was head coach. Still I think those are two major knocks on him despite having two rings. Vermeil only has one ring, but I guess the voters thought highly of his ability to turn around three franchises, two in which when he left were still good shape. I'm indifferent about his enshrinement. 

Pretty much this. A lot of people view Siefert's 89 win as really just him keeping Walsh's Super Team steady for another run the same way Barry Switzer won in Dallas after Johnson left. So it's really the his run with Young in the 90's vs him absolutely tanking his legacy in Carolina. Once that happened, people just said (oh he inherited a super team and road it out for awhile)

[CP3MVP]

With Vermiel getting in  Mcvay is a lock barring a collapse the next 5 years.

 

The standards for head coach are so low now. Like I don’t think Arians is close to a HOF coach, but how are you gonna tell him no?

Edited February 15, 2022 by CP3MVP

[CP3MVP]

5 hours ago, x0x said:

I like Vermiel, I really do but him getting in over Siefert, Coughlin, Shanahan, Holmgren and even Coryell and Dan Reeves is unjustifiable. Like seriously there's no debate to be had except he was more liked by the voters on a personal level.

Coryell wasn’t a great coach. 

[lancerman]

HOF voters and Fans/Media view the HOF process very differently. Voters view it as a museum for football. A guy waiting an extra year isn't that big of deal. First ballot to them means "this guy is so obvious that he's going to create a log jam the longer we wait on him, get him out of the way now so that some day some guy who is worthy isn't on his last or second to last chance and we have to debate whether getting them in vs this obvious dude who fans are waiting for". 

Fans and media view first ballow as a distinction of honor when it's really a procedural thing.

This year was obviously a year that they felt nobody was a blindingly obvious and they could get a bunch of guys out of the way who have been waiting long enough.

[RUGmen]

It should be the HOF not the Hall of Very Good.

If you weren’t a HOFer one year, then you shouldn’t all of a sudden become one years later for whatever reason. Baseball is probably the biggest joke of a process.

To me, it’s for guys like Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Jerry Rice, Lawerence Taylor, etc. You don’t even need to think twice whether they are a HOFer.

[lancerman]

6 minutes ago, CP3MVP said:

With Vermiel getting in  Mcvay is a lock barring a collapse the next 5 years.

 

The standards for head coach are so low now. Like I don’t think Arians is close to a HOF coach, but how are you gonna tell him no?

Tbf it took a special committee to let Johnson and Cowher in. So who knows. They are weird with coaches. 

[lancerman]

2 minutes ago, RUGmen said:

It should be the HOF not the Hall of Very Good.

If you weren’t a HOFer one year, then you shouldn’t all of a sudden become one years later for whatever reason. Baseball is probably the biggest joke of a process.

To me, it’s for guys like Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Jerry Rice, Lawerence Taylor, etc. You don’t even need to think twice whether they are a HOFer.

This is where I am at with it. The HOF should be

1. Guys who you see their name and instantly know they are a HOF'er. 

2. The guys you actually have to think about, when you analyze their case it has to overwhelmingly be in the positive to be in the HOF. Like the average fan might not put Marvin Harrison in the same class as Rice/Moss/TO, but then you do a  quick glance and go "hmmm 8 all pros, All Decade Team, a SB ring, 8 year stretch where he broke 1k yards, the main receiver in one of the best passing offenses ever.... duh he's a HOF'er". If you are playing pros and cons, don't even let them in. 

[THE DUKE]

It should be very hard to get in. Ken Stabler didn't get in until 2016 after he was dead and he made 4 pro bowls, won an MVP, and a Superbowl.  People talking about Stafford in the HoF is ridiculous.  Honestly, I don't even care about numbers anymore for HoF arguments.  I want to see Pro Bowls, post season awards, all pro teams, etc... How were they compared to their peers.  4000 passing yards used to be a really big deal.  10 QB's did it this year.  Counting stats as a barometer are dead, Sherman is right in that regard.

[7DnBrnc53]

On 2/15/2022 at 1:51 AM, x0x said:

I like Vermiel, I really do but him getting in over Siefert, Coughlin, Shanahan, Holmgren and even Coryell and Dan Reeves is unjustifiable. Like seriously there's no debate to be had except he was more liked by the voters on a personal level.

Shanahan could have been HOF, but he didn't do as good of a job in Denver after Elway left. He kind of mailed it in (look at the poor job he did getting defensive personnel in the 2000's). Then, with Washington, he didn't do anything of note except for one playoff spot.

Coryell was an offensive innovator in St. Louis and San Diego. Also, he got those organizations to the playoffs a total of six times despite being cursed with owners who didn't care enough about winning (Bidwill, Gene Klein). I definitely think he is HOF (even though he ran what an acquaintance called country club-style training camps with the Chargers).

 

[AlexGreen#20]

On 2/15/2022 at 7:35 AM, CP3MVP said:

Coryell wasn’t a great coach. 

Coryell should get in as a contributor more than as a coach. 

[ThatJaxxenGuy]

Hall of fame lost all legitimacy for me when they didn’t put TO first ballot because he talked too much.

 

Guy never got into any actual trouble, he was just cocky. It was a joke to weigh his off the field stuff that way, especially when we just know Big Ben will be walking in first ballot.

[lancerman]

On 2/18/2022 at 8:40 PM, ThatJaxxenGuy said:

Hall of fame lost all legitimacy for me when they didn’t put TO first ballot because he talked too much.

 

Guy never got into any actual trouble, he was just cocky. It was a joke to weigh his off the field stuff that way, especially when we just know Big Ben will be walking in first ballot.

He still got in. You don't get extra points for being first ballot.

[Malfatron]

I have an idea

Each year, pick 5  players from the Hall of Fame to make a Super Hall of Fame.

And keep the regular HOF process the same

That way, there can be tiers.

[lancerman]

3 hours ago, Malfatron said:

I have an idea

Each year, pick 5  players from the Hall of Fame to make a Super Hall of Fame.

And keep the regular HOF process the same

That way, there can be tiers.

It ruins the purpose of the HOF. Which is what the problem is letting in very good but not great guys. Everyone knows guys like Curtis Martin and Frank Gore aren't in the same class as Smith/Sanders/Payton/Brown/Simpson/Dickerson/Tomlinson but because some people bend over backwards to argue them in, now you have a diluted HOF where guys like that are put next to them and we start talking about tiering it. The easier fix was never letting unworthy candidates in to begin with.

Personally I think the metric should be "when this guy retires is there a legitimate case to be had that as a player he was a top 10 all time at his position" and then if you can make a reasonable argument that is a massive stretch, let them in. If you can't, then don't. Because a lot of it will be inflation via era, so if at the end of yours you can't get in based off that metric, you will look worse as the years go by.