For those who don't think Drew makes the HOF

[tyke1doe]

I agree that Bledsoe is iffy as a HOF candidate. But that is because the process is so flawed.

When you talk about impact, what you are really talking about is HYPE.
Swann had impact/hype in the league because he made big plays in the superbowl. But the overall production was not good enough to go to the HOF, IMO.

Just 1 year later, Ottis Anderson's rookie season was almost as great as Earl Campbell's.

But the Cardinals had a poor defense, while the Oilers had one of the best in the league, so Anderson didn't get to play on Monday Night football or make the playoffs.

So no impact/hype for Anderson. And no HOF.

Because Bledsoe does not have the impact/hype from playing on a winning team, he will have to go in on personal production.

And I don't think he has enough to overcome the bias of not playing on a great team. If he reaches 50,000 yards, and 300 tds I think he will have enough personal production to overcome that bias.

The HOF should IMO, be more about what the individual player was able to accomplish, not the team.

That's why you see players from Championship teams get more credit than other players.

Like Scottie Pippen being rated over Dominique Wilkins for the NBA's 50 greatest.

Or the guy who called in on a talk show and said that Robert Horry should be considered for the Basketball HOF.

I don't disagree.

Just a few points:

1. I think fans do a disservice to the debate by trying to pinpoint one criterion as the standard for selection into the Hall of Fame, whether focusing on stats or big plays or signifcance to the game or importance to the success of a franchise or pro-bowls or league MVPs. It's not that simple to peg. It can be one or it can be a combination of criteria. I think discerning/intelligent fans know the difference. I mean, we know the difference (or should know the difference) between a Namath and a Testverde and why one should be in the Hall of Fame with his lack of stats and one shouldn't because he has the stats.

2. It's the Hall of FAME not the Hall of Stats.
Swann may not have had the stats but because of the famous plays he made and being a part of a dynasty, he's in. And I think he should be in stats because his plays elevated him to legendary status in the annals of NFL history. Same with Brady. Brady doesn't have to have the stats. I say he's a shoo-in for the Hall of Fame if he retires today.

 

[dbair1967]

Wolverine,

Bledsoe is indeed having a great season thus far.

Lets take a look at the defenses that Bledsoe has faced.

The Chargers - #21
The Commanders - #5
The 49ers - #32
The Raiders - #29
The Eagles - # 20

The only formidable D that Bledsoe has faced is the Commanders.

Even take a look at scoring.

SD - #21
WAS - #4
SF - #32
OAK - #20
Philly - # 17

Stats are meaningless sometimes, but with all of these teams having at least 4 games under their belts it should tell you something.

its still too early in the season...Philly took a big drop in defensive stats after last weeks game vs us, our game wasnt indicative of their other 4 games to date

David

 

[Hostile]

For the Stabler, Archie Manning HOF supporters:

Archie Manning - Aints 23,000 yards 125 TD 173 iNT - NEXT
Stabler - Gambler 28,000 yards 194 TD 222 iNT - NEXT

Bledsoe 41,000 yards (33) 234 TD 184 iNT - A candidate for HOF

That's why I keep telling you that you don't get it. No one, not one single solitary person here, said Archie or Snake deserved to be in the Hall of Fame.

You're barking at shadows.

 

[Hostile]

I don't disagree.

Just a few points:

1. I think fans do a disservice to the debate by trying to pinpoint one criterion as the standard for selection into the Hall of Fame, whether focusing on stats or big plays or signifcance to the game or importance to the success of a franchise or pro-bowls or league MVPs. It's not that simple to peg. It can be one or it can be a combination of criteria. I think discerning/intelligent fans know the difference. I mean, we know the difference (or should know the difference) between a Namath and a Testverde and why one should be in the Hall of Fame with his lack of stats and one shouldn't because he has the stats.

2. It's the Hall of FAME not the Hall of Stats.
Swann may not have had the stats but because of the famous plays he made and being a part of a dynasty, he's in. And I think he should be in stats because his plays elevated him to legendary status in the annals of NFL history. Same with Brady. Brady doesn't have to have the stats. I say he's a shoo-in for the Hall of Fame if he retires today.

Best post in the thread so far.

 

[Nors]

Hos - BB was just called on a factual mistatement. He pulled a if it were stats - Archie Manning and Stabler were in. He didn't do his research.

Manning and Stabler Stats SUCKED. Bledsoe's don't.

Game, set, match - TWICE now!

"Originally Posted by bbgun
Bled ain't getting in. If all it took was numbers or yards, Vinny would be a shoo-in too. Ditto for Archie Manning or Stabler."

 

[Hostile]

Hos - BB was just called on a factual mistatement. He pulled a if it were stats - Archie Manning and Stabler were in. He didn't do his research.

Manning and Stabler Stats SUCKED. Bledsoe's don't.

Game, set, match - TWICE now!

"Originally Posted by bbgun
Bled ain't getting in. If all it took was numbers or yards, Vinny would be a shoo-in too. Ditto for Archie Manning or Stabler."

A factual mistatement?

The oxymoron of the day.

 

[Nors]

moronic?

A tad harsh,but yes there is no factual stat rationale to suport BB's statement.

 

[Hostile]

moronic?

A tad harsh,but yes there is no factual stat rationale to suport BB's statement.

Uh, when two consecutive words are opposite it is called an oxymoron

In other words there was nothing "harsh" about it at all. It is an actual English langauge word. I wasn't calling you a moron in other words.

So pick up the victim card.

 

[Wolverine]

What if the Cowboys and Patriots meet in the Super Bowl. The Cowboys beat the Pats and Bledsoe wins Super Bowl MVP.


some in here say how Brady does hurts Bledsoe more and more. Well if Bledsoe leads the Boys to a Super Bowl win over the Pats then it can be said that if Bledsoe had played in those NE Super Bowls they still would have won. Brady lucked out and was in the right place at the right time.

I would just love it if Bledsoe leads the Boys to a SB win over the Pats.

 

[Nors]

Uh, when two consecutive words are opposite it is called an oxymoron

In other words there was nothing "harsh" about it at all. It is an actual English langauge word. I wasn't calling you a moron in other words.

So pick up the victim card.

classic Hos - makes a blatant mistatement, is called on it (twice )- Facts in his face

And he goes off on a tangent!

 

[Wolverine]

NORs has owned Hostile on this Bledsoe thing.

 

[DIAF]

If Bledsoe does not win a Super Bowl he should get into the HOF. By the time he retires he will have over 50000 yards passing and probaly over 300 TD passes. If that is not nuff to get into the HOF then what will. There are other QBs who have never won the big one who are in the HOF. I would guess if he does not win a SB that he will in the HOF as a Patriot.


But if he wins 1 Super Bowl here as a Cowboy then I am not sure if he goes in a Cowboy or not. But 1 Super Bowl win guarentees he gets in.

If he wins 2 Super Bowls here in Dallas he goes into the HOF a Dallas Cowboy guarenteed. That would just p*ss off the Cowboy haters in the media.


The big things going for Bledsoe are this -

1. He is showing ZERO signs of slowing down or being past his prime. He is one of the best 3 QBs in the game.

Are you kidding? I can think of about 8 QBs i would rather have right now over Drew Bledsoe. Drew's having a nice season, but lets not go too far now.

 

[Hostile]

NORs has owned Hostile on this Bledsoe thing.

Yeah right.