I think we can agree

[Bob Sacamano]

I think that Irvin should be borderline. It depends how a voter would look at the situation. If a voter looks solely on the on-field player, he would vote Yes. If a voter looks at both on-field and off-field(which I would look at), he would most likely vote No...

the HOF is for ON-the-field accomplishments

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Woulda. Woulda. Woulda. Irvin was involved in stuff that offsets some of this -- at least in enough voters eyes. 1 or 2 more seasons woulda made it impossible not to vote him in.

and while we all associate him with the 3 rings -- many associate him with the post-SB team's fall and bad image. he was kinda the insipration leader for that too.

so what is your thoughts on Irvin's HOF chances, in or not?

 

[AbeBeta]

67

the HOF is for ON-the-field accomplishments

but there is no way that voters ignore off-field stuff -- it is silly to think that.

do you also turn in sloppy work at school and argue that it should be the content that counts -- and the fact that it looks like your dog peed on your paper shouldn't matter?

and I think 88 should be in. But I'm a boys fan so i'm biased.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

67

but there is no way that voters ignore off-field stuff -- it is silly to think that.

the voters are SUPPOSED to look at the on-field accomplishments, and use that in determining said players HOF worthiness, they are NOT supposed to look at anything else, but you're right, they do, and that's stupid, it's the Pro FOOTBALL Hall of Fame

 

[AbeBeta]

the voters are SUPPOSED to look at the on-field accomplishments, and use that in determining said players HOF worthiness, they are NOT supposed to look at anything else, but you're right, they do, and that's stupid, it's the Pro FOOTBALL Hall of Fame

are the voters explicitly instructed to do that? or are you making that judgement. some voters likely believe that you don't want bad people honored.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

are the voters explicitly instructed to do that? or are you making that judgement. some voters likely believe that you don't want bad people honored.

bad people? how about just human? and I believe voters are explicitly instructed to do that

 

[AbeBeta]

bad people? how about just human? and I believe voters are explicitly instructed to do that

I doubt it. Voters are likely told to vote -- and not given explicit guidlines on how to vote. voters are considered experts -- and experts don't get told how to do things.

and don't give me the LT argument -- LT was a much much more dominant player than 88.

with marginal cases like Irvin the off the field stuff can sway voters in the other direction. even if they are told to ignore off the field issues -- it is difficult for them to do so. it is very much like a court case where jurors are exposed to prejudicial evidence and then told to ignore it -- just not possible.

 

[Echo9]

are the voters explicitly instructed to do that? or are you making that judgement. some voters likely believe that you don't want bad people honored.

Yes, voters are explicitly instructed to take only on the field action in to account.

This was a big deal when LT was named. Before that particular vote, there was debate over the criteria & it was announced that off-field issues were not to be taken into account.

But regardless of instructions, some voters include it anyway. Especially if they do not like the person. I call that a bias

 

[AbeBeta]

Yes, voters are explicitly instructed to take only on the field action in to account.

This was a big deal when LT was named. Before that particular vote, there was debate over the criteria & it was announced that off-field issues were not to be taken into account.

But regardless of instructions, some voters include it anyway. Especially if they do not like the person. I call that a bias

Hmmm. That may have been what the press and sportsreporters were saying -- but I'd be shocked if the HoF was giving out this info.

and it wouldn't matter in LT's case - he was one of the best players at his position in the history of the league. Irvin is not the dominant force that LT was -- he's a borderline case and that is when off the field issues are going to have the biggest impact.

i think what folks fail to understand is that performance evaluation is naturally subjective -- even if someone is told to "ignore off the field issues" it is impossible for that information not to impact evaluation.

kinda like the arguments we've had on this board about race not impacting hiring -- even if you try to ignore it, and even if you pretend it doesn't impact -- it does.

 

[Wimbo]

On at least one thing.

The Commanders and the Cowboys are both not represented enough in the HOF.

Aikman, Irvin, Wright, Hayes, Pearson, Monk, Clark, Grimm, Jacoby.

All belong in the HOF.

I think we can also agree that the Steelers have more HOF'er than they deserve.

Lynn Swann and John Stallworth?! ***!?

Swann had 336 catches!

Art Monk had 1009 catches for 13,783 yards and 75 TD's over his 14 season career. Michael Irvin had 837 catches for 13,218 yards and 73 TD's over his 11.4 season career. Lynn Swann had 379 catches for 6,292 yards and 59 TD's in his 9 season career. (note: regular and post season stats included, source: pro-football-reference.com)

If Monk and Irvin don't deserve it, Swann doesn't come close.

 

[Jay9508]

I think that Irvin should be borderline. It depends how a voter would look at the situation. If a voter looks solely on the on-field player, he would vote Yes. If a voter looks at both on-field and off-field(which I would look at), he would most likely vote No...

well you dont go to the HOF because of a player's off-field issues, they go because of what they do on the field. i think he deserves to go in the HOF
:starspin

 

[AmishCowboy]

Monk and Irvin should both be in, especially if you put Swann in!. In a few years Chris Carter should go in as well. On Fox Radio this morning they pointed out that Irvin's Stats were almost equaled by Andre Rison, but there was not a cry for him in the HOF.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

On at least one thing.

The Commanders and the Cowboys are both not represented enough in the HOF.

Aikman, Irvin, Wright, Hayes, Pearson, Monk, Clark, Grimm, Jacoby.

All belong in the HOF.

I think we can also agree that the Steelers have more HOF'er than they deserve.

Lynn Swann and John Stallworth?! ***!?

Swann had 336 catches!

I agree. I've always felt that the media really hates the Skins and probably hates the Cowboys the second most. The difference is that the the Skins have a bunch of former players working for ESPN. Dallas has Aikman and Moose, but they are typically overly afraid of being labeled as a "homer" so they sometimes go out of their way to knock the Cowboys. And say what you will about Irvin, he bashed Parcells and Company left and right in 2004 and kept bashing them about not having a #1 WR this season. The only guy that seems to not be afraid to praise Dallas is Darren Woodson and even he has reported about being afraid to seem too happy while in ESPN headquarters when the Cowboys win because he doesn't want to be labeled as a homer.

I still don't think Monk is an HOF'er, by *my* standards. I look at yards and TD's much more importantly than I do receptions for a WR. I also don't care too much for career accumulated stats. Basically, I look for how well does WR stack up against his peers in yards and TD's per season. Is he in the top 10? Is he in the top 5? Is he in the top 3?

Monk only had 3 seasons where he was in the top 10 in receiving yards. He also only had 1 season where he was in the top 10 in TD's.

However, that's *my* way of looking at WR's. Typically the HOF has been reserved for guys that have accumulated great totals or were breakout stars for a very short period of time. Monk definitely fits the former and I don't see how he's not in and Charlie Joiner is.

OTOH, I think Gary Clark should be an HOF'er at some point. What's sad is he gets little consideration when he should get a lot of consideration. Grimm was on the all 80's team and was a member of one of the best O-Line's ever. Him not getting in is ridiculous. Jacoby should get strong consideration as well.

Hayes and Wright not being inducted yet are probably the biggest travesties of the bunch. Hayes didn't play long, but careers back in his time didn't usually last very long. Still, from 1965-1968 no receiver put up the number of yards and TD's like he did and he was a top 5 WR in the game in '70 & '71. He changed the game on many levels as well.

Pearson is a borderline guy to me. I think Clark was more effective in his career compared to Pearson. But like Clark, the fact that Pearson gets almost no consideration is really sad.

I think Irvin was more effective than Clark. Arguably the best in the game from 1991-1993 in yards and TD's along with Rice. After that, Irvin had about 4 more seasons where he was either a top 5 or top 10 WR.

What very few voters consider about Irvin is that he played in a very traditional offense when during his era all of the teams became pass happy West Coast or Run N Shoot offenses. Even still, Irvin was able to have great numbers on a consistent basis.

I'd have to take a look more at Aikman. I think Aikman might wind up being the equivalent of Art Monk at WR. Aikman didn't have the impressive #'s each and every season compared to his peers and was held back by an offense that wasn't as pass happy and made for lower completion %'s. But, Aikman won and typically that's what HOF voters look for in a QB. But, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if Aikman didn't get voted in. Even still, I'd be ticked off at the hypocrisy.

The real problem with the HOF voting is there's really no rhyme or reason to it. Some guys get in because of career totals, some guys get in because how they stacked up against their peers (my method), some guys are "shooting star" types, and some guys are just likeable to the voters for whatever reason.

It's about as big of a crapshoot as it gets.

Rich...................

 

[Idgit]

I'm pretty sure every team thinks they get snubbed in every way. Every team's fans think that their borderline HoF guys should get in.

Not every team has played in 8 Super Bowls, however, or won 5 of them.

 

[Idgit]

Hmmm. That may have been what the press and sportsreporters were saying -- but I'd be shocked if the HoF was giving out this info.

Well, be shocked, because the HoF has specific guidelines for voting for inclusion, and off the field behavior is not to be considered. I couldn't find the PFHoF bylaws readily, but here's an article that mentions the requirement:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=whatsthedealwithvotingfo&prov=tsn&type=lgns

In any event, Irvin is a HoF player, he's not borderline, and we would not have won the three Super Bowls without him.

 

[Billy Bullocks]

On at least one thing.

The Commanders and the Cowboys are both not represented enough in the HOF.

Aikman, Irvin, Wright, Hayes, Pearson, Monk, Clark, Grimm, Jacoby.

All belong in the HOF.

I think we can also agree that the Steelers have more HOF'er than they deserve.

Lynn Swann and John Stallworth?! ***!?

Swann had 336 catches!

agreed. Numbers dont say it all, Swann showed up big time in the SB. But hey, Irvin has 3 rings, and had a big part in Dallas being as .\dominant as we were in the early 1990's. You can see Irvin's worth when looking at how good Dallas started out the year he got injured. The team never quite looked the same after that terrible day at the Vet.

I don't have a problem with Swann being in there, just as long as Irvin gets in as well. There's no doubt guys like Charles Haley should be in there as well.