My Personal Take on HOF Inductees

[HerbertGOAT]

A lot of people have a binary opinion on who is and isn't a HOFer based on their own criteria. I believe that there should be different sectors of what defines a Hall of Fame player, instead of all inductees having to fit a certain mold to make it. The way I see it, there are:

The No-Doubters

Self explanatory. The elite of the elite at their positions, the record-breakers, the greatest. Guys like Tom Brady, Lawrence Taylor, Deion Sanders, Jerry Rice, etc. You know these guys. Their cases makes itself. These are the only guys who should get in first-ballot in my opinion.

The Short But Bright

These are the guys who were unquestionably elite, but didn't do it for very long (8ish years or fewer) whether due to injuries or simply falling off. Gale Sayers, Calvin Johnson, Terrell Davis and Tony Boselli fit this mold. I would put in guys like Patrick Willis or Priest Holmes based on this criteria.

The Long Burners

Unpopular opinion, but I think guys who were very good for a very long time are still worthy of HOF, despite not being the unquestioned best at their position. These are guys who through a combo of consistency, quality, and intelligence put up some very nice counting stats even though they may not have been the absolute best for an extended period of time. Guys like Tim Brown, Curtis Martin, Charlie Joiner are examples. Frank Gore or Fred Taylor would get in based off of this.

(Side note: you could honestly consider Marcus Allen as both a Short But Bright player, as well as a long burner. He was ELITE for the first few years, and then was just consistently solid for the last 10 years)

Revolutionaries/Innovators

These are the guys who changed the game. Maybe they weren't the greatest of all time, but they changed the way we play football. Marion Motley, Paul Brown, and Bill Walsh fit this description (although all 3 are in due to much more than their innovations, they were some of the best at the actual craft as well). Don Coryell, Randall Cunningham, and Michael Vick would also fit this category.

Specialists

If you were the best to ever do something, you should be in the HOF. Devin Hester and Steve Tasker were the best of all time at their jobs. That deserves recognition in my opinion. Matthew Slater has a strong argument to make it based off of this as well.

Solid Players, Great Winners

These are guys with solid-enough longevity, were good players, but their memorable moments on the highest stage make them Hall of Famers. Joe Namath is probably what comes to mind first, and this will be the case made for Eli Manning to make the HOF. Charles Haley somewhat fits here as the winningest Non-Brady player in the Super-Bowl era.

 

That's my personal criteria for who makes the HOF or not. There's too many guys worthy of acknowledgement in the sport to have a narrow view of who should be enshrined IMO. Agree or not, I don't care, this is just my perspective.

Edited February 19, 2022 by HerbertGOAT

[biggie.]

Ok.

[ET80]

9 hours ago, biggie. said:

Ok.

For all of the random stuff you post, you could be more receptive of others doing the same.

Sorry. Not sorry.