Some issues with the HoF...

[blindzebra]

When all else is equal, it makes sense to look at a player's performance in big games. Seems obvious enough.

Since no other running back equaled Payton's career numbers when he retired, his Super Bowl performance didn't weigh into it when he was being considered for the HOF. (And anyway, Payton's 61 yards on 22 carries was the biggest reason Jim McMahon (who had a career 7.1 ypa) averaged 12.8 ypa in that game.)

Thomas retired in the top 5 all-time in yards from scrimmage, so he didn't need help from playoff games either, but 21 post-season TD's in 21 games couldn't have hurt.

The problems are limits on the numbers going in...it's stupid. You are either HOF worthy or you are not. Couple that with no set guidelines and bias.

For me it should come down to this:

Was the player instrumental to cause drastic change within the game?


Was the player considered among the best at his position during his career?


Did the player have stats that rank among the all-time best?


Was the player at his best in the big game?


Was the player outstanding even without great support?


Players that fit into 3 to 5 of those areas should be a lock for the HOF, IMO.

 

[percyhoward]

I disagree. Irvin and Emmitt would be in that mix and so would the Dodger.

It would be a good topic for it's own thread, but Aikman's 89.0 playoff rating beats Roger's 76.5

As for Emmitt and Irvin, I agree they're in the mix. But Aikman played the most important position, and in an 11-game playoff stretch from 1992-95 was as good as any QB ever over a similar time period.

 

[percyhoward]

The problems are limits on the numbers going in...it's stupid. You are either HOF worthy or you are not. Couple that with no set guidelines and bias.

For me it should come down to this:

Was the player instrumental to cause drastic change within the game?


Was the player considered among the best at his position during his career?


Did the player have stats that rank among the all-time best?


Was the player at his best in the big game?


Was the player outstanding even without great support?


Players that fit into 3 to 5 of those areas should be a lock for the HOF, IMO.

Sounds great, but it comes down to how you quantify it, and there's a lot of argument there. I like to compare Pro Bowls and All-Pro selections because it takes out the effect of changes in the game over the years, like rules that open up the passing game. Championships have to factor in there too.

 

[tyke1doe]

Too much whining over subjectives.

It's not the Hall of Stats (which rules out Vinny Testeverde and Drew Bledsoe) or the Hall of Longevity (which rules out Testeverde, Brad Johnson and Clay Matthews) or the Hall of Super Bowl rings (which rules out most of the Steelers not in the HoF and Charles Haley - who should be in based on contributions).

It's called the Hall of FAME. It's a combination of a lot of factors, including but not limited too a spectacular play that lives in the annuls of NFL history.

No, Swann didn't have the stats. But understand he was playing on a well-balanced Steelers team and in an era where passing yards were harder to come by. But as much as I hated him because of his catches against the Cowboys in Super Bowl 10, the Steelers don't win that game if he doesn't make those SPECTACULAR catches, in a game he wasn't even suppose to play in. He was definitely a big-game receiver. And combined with playing with a dynasty, he gets in because of the FAME associated with his name and his career.

Pearson had that too. But Pearson didn't do it in the biggest game there is - The Super Bowl.

I know it irks us that the Steelers have more players in the Hall of Fame than the Cowboys. But the Steelers won 4 Super Bowls - 2 over the Cowboys.

That's just the way it is. The winner gets more glory.

If the Bills beat the Cowboys in any of those two Super Bowls or any of the others they lost, their trio (Kelly, Thurman and Reed) would likely have been considered better than the Cowboys.

The difference (beyond Smith's career rushing title) is the Cowboys won and the Bills didn't.

Having said that, I think Bob Hayes will ultimately get in. Pearson, I don't know. I doubt it because there are more Cowboys (Cliff Harris, Allen, Emmitt, Haley - I think he will eventually get in - Sanders - okay, a rent-a-Cowboy, but still he loves the STAR - and maybe Darren Woodson - I think his work in the media will engender the voters to him) on the cusp of induction.

 

[blindzebra]

Sounds great, but it comes down to how you quantify it, and there's a lot of argument there. I like to compare Pro Bowls and All-Pro selections because it takes out the effect of changes in the game over the years, like rules that open up the passing game. Championships have to factor in there too.

Well obviously you'd have sub-categories with each.

Impact on the game is more subjective, although Hayes does have evidence to support him there because the zone was developed to combat him.

Best of your time would obviously include pro bowl, all pro, individual awards.

Stats are just that stats...even these need to be weighed based on era and not just all time...guys like Pearson should be gauged against guys like Swann who are already in, and not Jerry Rice.

Big games are all playoff games, and should be more individual and not just championships...players who played great, but their teams lost shouldn't be penalized while others ride the coat tails of others and get in under the blanket of the championship.

Great players on a bad team...again it's more subjective, but if you were unlucky enough to play for a terrible team, but you excelled none the less, credit should be given.

 

[percyhoward]

Too much whining over subjectives....That's just the way it is. The winner gets more glory.

The process could be a little less subjective than it is, though. I'll accept Swann over Pearson because of more rings and Super Bowl MVP, but then you have to scratch your head when Dave Wilcox (no rings) makes it in ahead of Chuck Howley, who is a Super Bowl MVP.

Good point about Woodson in the media, there is a definite efect there.