Blackstar12 Posted Wednesday at 06:33 PM Share Posted Wednesday at 06:33 PM What’s the benchmark for a OL to be HOF worthy. There’s a certain criteria for QB, WRs, etc. However what about a really great OL that happens to play on a bad team. Is there a certain number of pro bowls, All-pros he should get? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OkeyDoke21 Posted Wednesday at 07:04 PM Share Posted Wednesday at 07:04 PM (edited) I don't know what the bottom threshold would be, but it seems like guys that have 10+ All-Pros+Pro Bowls, with a decade as a starter, have a really good shot. Anybody that gets over 4 All-Pros don't seem to have to wait around long. At least for the more modern players. I'm sure there are guys that get in without meeting that (Tony Boselli comes to mind) but that's normally what I look for when I'm contemplating whether I think someone will get in or not. Edited Wednesday at 07:05 PM by OkeyDoke21 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scar988 Posted Wednesday at 07:13 PM Share Posted Wednesday at 07:13 PM There's not enough offensive linemen in the hall of fame 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soko Posted Wednesday at 08:31 PM Share Posted Wednesday at 08:31 PM As it is with every position, there shouldn’t be a benchmark. Hit this many [blank], and you’re a HOFer. PBs and APs should be a factor, along with (and most importantly IMO) dominance + consistency. Joe Thomas played for one of the worst teams in that span of years, and he’s still a no brainer HOFer. Eye test is admittedly a lame excuse, but after a certain amount of time, these guys just floor it. It’s what makes it tough. Like, Jason Peters and Trent Williams were pretty similar players for most of their primes. Plenty even had Peters ahead. But Trent’s still dominating and Peters fell off at the end, so I believe one will be remembered much better than the other. It’s one of the crappy parts about “eye test”, there’s not really something quantitative to lean back on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CP3MVP Posted Thursday at 01:23 AM Share Posted Thursday at 01:23 AM There is a bias against non LT offensive lineman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HerbertGOAT Posted Thursday at 02:14 AM Share Posted Thursday at 02:14 AM 5 hours ago, Soko said: As it is with every position, there shouldn’t be a benchmark. Hit this many [blank], and you’re a HOFer. PBs and APs should be a factor, along with (and most importantly IMO) dominance + consistency. Joe Thomas played for one of the worst teams in that span of years, and he’s still a no brainer HOFer. Eye test is admittedly a lame excuse, but after a certain amount of time, these guys just floor it. It’s what makes it tough. Like, Jason Peters and Trent Williams were pretty similar players for most of their primes. Plenty even had Peters ahead. But Trent’s still dominating and Peters fell off at the end, so I believe one will be remembered much better than the other. It’s one of the crappy parts about “eye test”, there’s not really something quantitative to lean back on. The problem with All-Pros is it falls to biased sportswriter who often don't even know what they're talking about. Trent Williams is the same guy he was in Washington, and he only made a single All-Pro team. 2nd team at that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.