Biggest HOF Snubs?

[scar988]

Falcons players:

OT Mike Kenn - One of the best LTs of his generation and never got his due because the Falcons were terribad.

LB Jessie Tuggle

LB Tommy Nobis

DE John Abraham - Comparable stats on his career to Michael Strahan. But no championships so no notice.

 

Non-Falcons players:

WR Torry Holt

WR Steve Smith Sr.

WR Reggie Wayne

LB Zach Thomas

EDGE Jared Allen

EDGE Simeon Rice

[Duluther]

3 hours ago, scar988 said:

Non-Falcons players:

WR Torry Holt

WR Steve Smith Sr.

WR Reggie Wayne

LB Zach Thomas

EDGE Jared Allen

EDGE Simeon Rice

Thomas is in the HOF.

Also, I can’t understand how people watched Wayne and saw a HOFer.

[ShinobiMusashi]

I don't think Bo belongs in the HOF but if you were looking for some way to make a case for him look to Marion Motley, he may be one of the most overrated old schoolers in the Hall and almost identical career to Bo yet is in the HOF. Motley ran over c-level competition in an alternate league during his prime in the AAFC, that league was like the Harlem Globetrotters league for the Browns team that dominated it all 4 years(they went undefeated one season). I just can't put as much weight in those AAFC stats it would be the equal of counting somebody's USFL or XFL stats in the modern era and putting them in the HOF for that. In his NFL career Motley did little to nothing had maybe 1-2 good years I don't know/too lazy to check but guessing Bo had better numbers than him career-wise if you take out the AAFC stats. There are a few other old Browns like Motley that I feel bad for saying this but they are in the NFL HOF based on maybe 3-5 good seasons(half their careers were in the AAFC). 

Edited July 28, 2023 by ShinobiMusashi

[RaidersAreOne]

Bo is not a HOFer.

[OkeyDoke21]

6 hours ago, ShinobiMusashi said:

I don't think Bo belongs in the HOF but if you were looking for some way to make a case for him look to Marion Motley, he may be one of the most overrated old schoolers in the Hall and almost identical career to Bo yet is in the HOF. Motley ran over c-level competition in an alternate league during his prime in the AAFC, that league was like the Harlem Globetrotters league for the Browns team that dominated it all 4 years(they went undefeated one season). I just can't put as much weight in those AAFC stats it would be the equal of counting somebody's USFL or XFL stats in the modern era and putting them in the HOF for that. In his NFL career Motley did little to nothing had maybe 1-2 good years I don't know/too lazy to check but guessing Bo had better numbers than him career-wise if you take out the AAFC stats. There are a few other old Browns like Motley that I feel bad for saying this but they are in the NFL HOF based on maybe 3-5 good seasons(half their careers were in the AAFC). 

Yes, if you only include a RB's career, after they are 30, the numbers would probably be comparable to Bo's.   Doing that to Motley feels a little like saying Satchel Paige shouldn't be in Cooperstown because he had under 30 wins, a losing record and like 200 strikeouts in his MLB career, though.  I wouldn't say that would make for a very strong case for Bo, at all.  

[ShinobiMusashi]

On 7/28/2023 at 12:03 PM, OkeyDoke21 said:

Yes, if you only include a RB's career, after they are 30, the numbers would probably be comparable to Bo's.   Doing that to Motley feels a little like saying Satchel Paige shouldn't be in Cooperstown because he had under 30 wins, a losing record and like 200 strikeouts in his MLB career, though.  I wouldn't say that would make for a very strong case for Bo, at all.  

Motley only played 5 NFL seasons, 1,696 career rushing yards, 5 total career rushing touchdowns, started 32 games, the Browns won the 1950 NFL title his first season in the league but after that he really did nothing in the NFL. The AAFC that he dominated with the Browns from 1946-1949 wasn't a colored league it was a failed attempt at an alternate league competing against the NFL, they had 8 teams one of them was the Cleveland Browns they also had the 49ers the only formidable challenger to Cleveland the other 6 teams were like the Washington Generals that were jobbers to the Harlem Globetrotters in every game and all of them barely survived financially from week to week to give you an idea of how strong their teams on the field were. Motley got in the Hall Of Fame on one single dominant season in the NFL against real competition he was just super likeable guy that had a huge reputation coming out that other league and in that tiny little window he really was one of the baddest dudes to have played the game up to that point, easily a comparable case for Bo Jackson if somebody were truly looking to make a case for him in the HOF. 

Edited July 30, 2023 by ShinobiMusashi

[ShinobiMusashi]

Motleys AAFC stats really shouldn't count and if they do that's not fair to guys who had to earn all those yards the hard way in the NFL. Some of the guys that he was running over that were making AAFC teams in the 40's wouldn't make a high school team within a few decades after the country returned to normalcy after WWII. His career would have been a lot tougher had he had to play the Bears/Giants type defense those years instead of amateurs. I know people say "Well it's the pro football hall of fame not just the NFL hall of fame" when they argue against that but I don't think that is really true or I can name about a dozen AFL guys that should have been in years ago just on what they did in the AFL in the 60's. Motley and a few of the other Browns from 40's being the NFL Hall Of Fame pretty much opens the door for it to be ok for guys like Sterling Sharp and Bo and Toni Boselli to be in the Hall Of Fame. I personally wouldn't put guys in a HOF like that but I couldn't argue with the logic, when presenting some of those 40's Browns that are in there on what they have done in the 4-5 years they played in the NFL I would have to yield that argument, go ahead and put them in. If Motley is in why the hell not? If Mac Speedie from that team got in the HOF with 3 seasons in the NFL with like 33 games and less than 2,000 yards receiving why the hell not? If Bill Willis from that team got in on 4 years in the NFL and 44 games and 1 championship ring why the hell not? They went a little overboard putting that whole team in the Hall Of Fame, Gatski and Lavelli had legit great NFL careers yeah, Lou Groza, Otto Graham stuck around and won the 54-55 titles he earned it. Some of the other names from the earlier Browns from the AAFC days getting in I'm not a big fan of.  

Edited July 30, 2023 by ShinobiMusashi

[mse326]

3 hours ago, ShinobiMusashi said:

Motleys AAFC stats really shouldn't count and if they do that's not fair to guys who had to earn all those yards the hard way in the NFL. Some of the guys that he was running over that were making AAFC teams in the 40's wouldn't make a high school team within a few decades after the country returned to normalcy after WWII. His career would have been a lot tougher had he had to play the Bears/Giants type defense those years instead of amateurs. I know people say "Well it's the pro football hall of fame not just the NFL hall of fame" when they argue against that but I don't think that is really true or I can name about a dozen AFL guys that should have been in years ago just on what they did in the AFL in the 60's. Motley and a few of the other Browns from 40's being the NFL Hall Of Fame pretty much opens the door for it to be ok for guys like Sterling Sharp and Bo and Toni Boselli to be in the Hall Of Fame. I personally wouldn't put guys in a HOF like that but I couldn't argue with the logic, when presenting some of those 40's Browns that are in there on what they have done in the 4-5 years they played in the NFL I would have to yield that argument, go ahead and put them in. If Motley is in why the hell not? If Mac Speedie from that team got in the HOF with 3 seasons in the NFL with like 33 games and less than 2,000 yards receiving why the hell not? If Bill Willis from that team got in on 4 years in the NFL and 44 games and 1 championship ring why the hell not? They went a little overboard putting that whole team in the Hall Of Fame, Gatski and Lavelli had legit great NFL careers yeah, Lou Groza, Otto Graham stuck around and won the 54-55 titles he earned it. Some of the other names from the earlier Browns from the AAFC days getting in I'm not a big fan of.  

You're selling the AAFC short. Pretty much every football historian I've seen rates it very similar in quality to the AFL if not better.

As for Motley, he showed in the NFL in 1950 that his AAFC days weren't talent based. Then yes his numbers dipped a bit when he turned 30 like most RBs do. He also had kneed injuries from 1951 to the end of his career. The Browns's system also emphasied passing when if you can do that well it was a huge advantage (and with Graham, Lavelli, and Speedie they could) which cut into his oppurtunities. But his rate stats were still good. He was also a beast blocking as a FB which is imporant not just for the fledging passing game but he run game as well as they played multiple HB/FB sets. He was considered as good as O-lineman at pass blocking. Paul Brown said he was better than Jim Brown. Paul Zimmerman said he was the best football player ever, not just FB. And those guys actually watched him play rather than simply box score scouting.

You are also neglecting that they played both sides of the ball and Motley was also a monster LB. Paul Brown said he felt he was hall of fame level there alone if that is all he did.

And while he fully deserves it on his play alone, it also needs to be noted he was among the four that broke the color barrier in professional football

Everything you've argued against Motley reeks of box score scouting. Read the opinions of those that saw him play and it's pretty obvious why he is in the hall of fame and why he gets selected to all time teams like the 75th and 100th anniversary teams.

[BroncoSojia]

I think Kevin Williams (Vikings DT) should be in and as far as I know he hasn't been close yet.

[ShinobiMusashi]

18 hours ago, mse326 said:

You're selling the AAFC short. Pretty much every football historian I've seen rates it very similar in quality to the AFL if not better.

As for Motley, he showed in the NFL in 1950 that his AAFC days weren't talent based. Then yes his numbers dipped a bit when he turned 30 like most RBs do. He also had kneed injuries from 1951 to the end of his career. The Browns's system also emphasied passing when if you can do that well it was a huge advantage (and with Graham, Lavelli, and Speedie they could) which cut into his oppurtunities. But his rate stats were still good. He was also a beast blocking as a FB which is imporant not just for the fledging passing game but he run game as well as they played multiple HB/FB sets. He was considered as good as O-lineman at pass blocking. Paul Brown said he was better than Jim Brown. Paul Zimmerman said he was the best football player ever, not just FB. And those guys actually watched him play rather than simply box score scouting.

You are also neglecting that they played both sides of the ball and Motley was also a monster LB. Paul Brown said he felt he was hall of fame level there alone if that is all he did.

And while he fully deserves it on his play alone, it also needs to be noted he was among the four that broke the color barrier in professional football

Everything you've argued against Motley reeks of box score scouting. Read the opinions of those that saw him play and it's pretty obvious why he is in the hall of fame and why he gets selected to all time teams like the 75th and 100th anniversary teams.

I'm sure Bo Jackson a lot of people would say the same, he was probably the greatest athlete a lot of people had ever seen with their eyes, better than Barry Sanders or Jim Brown or Walter Payton but that's not a good enough reason to put him in the Hall of Fame based on a tall tale Paul Bunyon reputation he had, yet that seems to be the basis for why Marion Motley is in there. That doesn't make him a Hall Of Famer by my own standards, Bo doesn't belong in the Hall for the same reasons Motley/Mac Speedie/Bill Willis belong in the Hall because they didn't put in a HOF career in the NFL. By these standards there is no reason at all we can't have Bo Jackson and Sterling Sharpe in the Hall Of Fame. Sharpe in his prime was better than any receiver that played the game, but he got hurt and his career cut short. With Motley it's unfortunate that he split his already short career playing semi-amateurs in an alternative start up league. I hate that it seems like I'm casting shade on Motley the guy was bad *** for sure but there have been a lot of bad *** dudes that did more or played longer against way tougher guys that we all agree just don't belong in the Hall(Bo Jackson being one).  

I don't think Motley breaking color barriers should get him in, there were black players in the league before him and he's not like a Jackie Robinson type of civil rights case where Motley had that same struggle all on his shoulders. Not in the same ball park at all if we're trying to make Motley a hero for NFL civil rights that is really retconning things. There were black players in the NFL while Motley was in the AAFC and a few others in that class that took the field in the AAFC in 46. Whatever Motley and those players went through with racism in the 1940's there are tons of black AFL players in the 1960's who went through it too at the peak of the civil rights movement. 

I think it's laughable to compare the AAFC to the AFL, maybe the first 2 or 3 years of the AFL you could make a case. Even still in the first 2-3 AFL seasons when it was at it's most bush league the talent wasn't all bunched up on one team like the Browns where they had a massive advantage on recruiting(no AAFC draft, Paul Brown had first dibs on any player worth a damn). The Browns built an NFL level team while the rest of the other teams in the AAFC were scraping the bottom of the barrel. And the AAFC never got a multi-million dollar TV deal that gave their teams leverage to raid NFL drafts the way AFL did. There is no comparison here. 

But to even compare the two leagues is totally missing my point to begin with. So we are putting guys into the Hall of Fame for their AAFC stats/success then how can you explain why we left out some of the AFL greats that aren't in there? Look at Lionel Taylor, Jerry Mays, Otis Taylor, several other AFL guys snubbed, whats with the double standard? Why is it ok to put players in the Hall based on AAFC accomplishments but not AFL guys? The level of competition was far more equal in the AFL there were no Harlem Globetrotter Browns in the AFL clowning on everybody only losing like 3 games in 4 years against a scrub league. By 1964-1965 the AFL was well and truly strong and legit, there were bad teams but that league was a beast by that point, they had raped 4-5 NFL drafts in a row, coaches were all stealing each others ideas and there was an iron sharpens iron effect among the top teams to the point where they killed the NFL in the last 2 AFL vs NFL Super Bowls. To compare the AAFC to the AFL is like comparing The Rock's XFL or the new USFL to the NFL. 

 

Edited July 31, 2023 by ShinobiMusashi

[ukjets21]

Mark Gastineau. Someone mentioned about sacks not being an official stat for a time and in my opinion he may be the biggest loser from that. Klecko just got in but this one feels quite an odd one. 

[AngusMcFife]

One thing I heard about Motley is that he was maybe the best blocking back in history. It was like if you had Trent Williams in the backfield and he could either block or run it at 5.7 yards per carry, and he had decent hands. He was an unprecedented weapon.  

He also played LB. 

If you just look at the stat sheet, I can see why someone can be skeptical, but if you learn about the history of the game you can see why Motley was special. 

[Mr Bad Example]

Motley aside, I bristle when someone says Sharpe didn't achieve much in the HoF. Led the league in catches 3x, td rec 3x, yds 2x, set all time single season catch record twice, 5x over 1000 yds....that's a HoF resume for a compiler, never mind someone who played only 7 yrs. Pencil 3 yrs of the 85-1200-12 that was the default for GB #1s under Favre and he'd have been a mortal lock.

[INbengalfan]

On 8/1/2023 at 8:29 AM, ukjets21 said:

Mark Gastineau. Someone mentioned about sacks not being an official stat for a time and in my opinion he may be the biggest loser from that. Klecko just got in but this one feels quite an odd one. 

The belief he was juicing a ton before they knew how to test for it?

[Mr Bad Example]

1 hour ago, INbengalfan said:

The belief he was juicing a ton before they knew how to test for it?

That belief is widely held about the Steelers from the 70s as well. 

I'm reminded of why Lance Armstrong is a cycling pariah while his teammates/rivals are still active in the cycling world  - "we don't hate him because he cheated, we hate him because he was an arse"