The Pro Football Hall of Fame has announced that Defensive Tackle Curley Culp and Linebacker Dave Robinson are the senior committee nominees for the Class of 2013. They will be voted on with the five other finalists on the Saturday before the Super Bowl.
Culp was drafted in the second round out of Arizona State by the Denver Broncos in 1968, but actually started his career in the AFL with the Kansas City Chiefs, where he was an important cog in the defensive line that shut down the Minnesota Vikings in Super Bowl IV. With Culp having signed t play in the World Football League in 1975, the Chiefs traded him to Houston (for John Matuszak), where he was a four time Pro Bowler (on top of two times with the Chiefs) and one-time All-Pro. He finished his career in Detroit for the final season and a half, retiring after the 1981 season.
Robinson was a first round draft pick of the Green Bay Packers in 1963, playing Linebacker for all five of Vince Lombardi’s championship teams. He was selected to three Pro Bowls in his career, one time All-Pro, and was named to the NFL all decade team for the 1960’s.
From a Zoneblitz perspective, in the 370+ comments left on our 2013 Hall of Fame Prediction post, Culp and Robinson have both been mentioned at least a few times, although not nearly as often as another Packer (Jerry Kramer) or another Robinson (Johnny), and never appeared to be favorites for the nominations.
So what say you Zoneblitz, will Culp and/or Robinson get in, and are they worthy nominees?
Loading ...
Culp?????????????? Terrible pick by the HOF seniors committee, just look at his all pro/pro bowl numbers compared to so many other more deserving seniors. Frankly the seniors committee is risking getting only one and perhaps even both not elected by the main committee.
Horrendous choice. How do you choose any LB over Chuck Howley at this point? The Seniors Committee dropped the ball big time once again.
All-Pro and Pro Bowl numbers aren’t the only factor. For a couple of guys that were before my time (and I hadn’t really heard much of), I actually thought Culp sounded like the better of the two–sounds like he was part of the origination of the 3-4 scheme, and was one of the first NT that made other DL around him better by occupying 2-3 OL on almost every play.
Not saying they both get in–and maybe neither will–but I would be surprised if at least one doesn’t.
When including PFW, NEA, UPI and TSN all pro teams their numbers improve, but still fall short of many other more deserving senior candidates. I understand that all pro and pro bowl numbers (especially pro bowls) aren’t the only factor, but it is pretty to hard to ignore several senior candidates with many more all pro/pro bowl teams. No disrespect intended to Culp and Robinson, but there are clearly better senior selections and I am afraid that the HOF voters will see that as well and all it takes is 21+% or 9/44 of HOF voters not to select.
you guys seem to have serious issues with these picks jesus what is ur guys problem
and im directing it you U paul
Robert: I am of the opinion (which given the posts on this board over the last few years is shared by many others) that there are simply other more qualified senior candidates deserving of nomination. All too often since 2004 when the policy was changed to allow two senior nominees the HOF voters have not selected senior nominees. In my view the senior committee is playing with fire by bypassing more qualified nominees and risking additional seniors not elected at a time when so many are deserving. The two slots already limit the selection of seniors, not having them filled with solid easily defined nominees each and every year is a waste. My concern that at least one of these 2013 nominees will not be elected, again wasting a slot.
Look at this long list of seniors all of whom better then Culp and Robinson and each of whom who would be easy presentations to make to the full 44 HOF voters most of whom have limited or no firsthand knowledge of players from pre 1975:
RG – Jerry Kramer 5/3/60’s (2012 finalist)
G – Bob Keuchenberg 2/6/70s 80s (2012 finalist)
C – Mick Tingelhoff 5/6/60’s-70’s
LT – Jim Tyrer 6/9/60-70’s
QB – Ken Anderson 3/4/70s/80s (2012 finalist)
WR – Cliff Branch 4/4 – 70s/80s (2012 finalist)
RLB – Maxie Baughan 2/9/60’s (2012 finalist)
RILB – Randy Gradishar 2/7/70’s-80’s
MLB – Tommy Nobis 1/5/60’s-70’s (2012 finalist)
LLB – Joe Fortunato 3/5/50’s-60’s
LLB – Chuck Howley 5/6/60’s-70’s (2012 finalist)
LB- Mike Curtis 2/4/60s-70s (2012 finalist)
CB – Lester Hayes 1/5/70s 80s (2012 finalist)
S – Johnny Robinson 6/7/60’s (2012 finalist)
FS – Cliff Harris 3/6/70’s (2012 finalist)
I would support any of the 15 players on the senior candidates list I just posted over either Culp or Robinson, easily.
ok paul i see your points where are you on kenny anderson
As much as I wanted Jerry Kramer and Johnny Robinson, I have to respect their choices. There are a lot of deserving players just like Paul mentioned. It is tough to pick just two every year for re-election.
Nothing against either of those two playera (and I think both will get in) but those were not the best two canidates. Robinson is not the best linebacker available (Howley,Baughan, Grradishar) Not the best Packer avialable (Kramer,) and not the one waiting the longest form an all-decade team (Lavie Delwig.)
Curley Culp is one of those players that should have made it years ago but Alex Karras was a more impactful interior lineman and should be in the HOF. Corey Culp, Jerry Mays, Houston Antwine, and Roger Brown Should have gone in after Harvey Martin and Alex Karras.
The one thing I can say about both of those guys is that they were winners who played on winning teams. Goodluck to both, but at some point Kramer and Howley have to go in!
I Have a suspicion that Ken Anderson, Bob Kuechenberg and Lester Hayes are going to wait a long time before they get a sniff at Canton.
Alex Karras will never be selected to the HOF and as much as I think other seniors were more deserving I would still clearly rank Culp way above Karras
Jerry Mays, Houston Antwine also not getting in the HOF ever, Roger Brown and Harvey Martin have only the slim chance.
The current quality of pool of candidates is 15-20 players deep without those and potential better future senior candidates for Karras, Mays or Antwine to be elected.
Like many people I have no idea why Kramer is not being considered again, a feeling shared by many Packer fans even after the selection of Robinson, I hope it does not cost him HOF votes.
Anderson is on my list of top 15 seniors who I already indicated I would support for election, and above both Culp and Robinson
i like both selections, they are both very deserving and both should go in, its just sad to see that jerry kramer and johnny robinson both get bypassed by this committee and nominating other worthy candidates
I can see possible cases for both Culp and Robinson as Senior nominees, but at the same time, I’m not sure why they’re more deserving than a whole host of other potential nominees — Paul’s list is a good one. They could have done worse for sure (Little/LeBeau/Goldberg), but they also could have done better.
Culp’s postseason profile of 1(1AP)/6/none is actually relatively comparable to the worst Senior DT snubs out there, such as Houston Antwine at 4(1AP)/6/allAFL and Tom Sestak at 4(3AP)/4/allAFL (short career) and Roger Brown at 2(2AP)/6/none (not a fan of Alex Karras at 4(3AP)/4/60s because of his gambling suspension) — plus there are those who will claim him to be the first nose tackle, with that being historically meaningful. Whether any of them should be HoF-ers is of course another question — I’m not sure DT is a criminally under-represented HoF position, myself.
Robinson’s profile of 3(1AP)/3/60s is thin compared to Howley, Baughan, Fortunato, Grantham, and Brazile, though he reportedly looks impressive via film study. His being on the all-60s team probably helped, too.
Being on the 1960s All Decade team hasn’t helped OT Ralph Neely get anywhere near a HoF discussion, and he’s got 3 first team All Pros (AP) (2 Pro Bowls) to only 1 for Robinson. Tommy Nobis is a 1960s All Decade LB with 5 Pro Bowls and 1 first team All Pro selection, and he’s more deserving of Canton than Robinson is. Given all the far more deserving candidates still outstanding, many of whom have been listed here, and many of whom played the same position, this is an inexcusable pick in my opinion. After this final straw I have absolutely no confidence in the Senior Committee whatsoever.
Robinson apparently became a local Ohio businessman and serves on the Pro Football Hall of Fame Board of Trustees. One has to wonder if that played any role in this decision.
Rasputin I agree with you on ralph neely he would be better than robinson
I could not disagree with these selections more.
How does Johnny Robinson get passed on again, in favor of a former teammate no less? I felt Robinson was more deserving of the honor than Emmitt Thomas was and I certainly think he would be much more deserving than Culp is. Pro Football Reference says Robinson made the equivalent of 7 Pro Bowls and 6 First Team All Pro teams. Culp? 6 Pro Bowls and 1 first team all pro.
I also am disappointed that Al Wistert was passed over again. He made 4 first team all pro selections. Like Stanfel, he had a brief but a Hall of Fame worthy career if you ask me.
When I think of the most deserving senior eligible candidates not enshrined, there are so many more I would put in before I would put Culp or Dave Robinson in.
What did Culp have that puts him over the top? What is the argument?
6 Pro Bowls- Cliff Harris, Maxie Baughan, Randy Gradishar, Chuck Howley and George Kunz all have just as many if not more.
1 time first team all pro selection- Wistert, Baughan, Mick Tingelhoff, Harris, Stanfel, who was wrongfully passed over in my opinion in February, Johnny Robinson, Howley and so many more all were a first team all pro more times in his career than Culp was.
A Super Bowl Championship- Super Bowls are won by teams and not players. Even with the Super Bowl argument, other players have better profiles and won as many or more championships than Culp did.
Also as confusing, in my opinion, is the selection of Dave Robinson. I would definitely have picked Kramer first from those great Packers teams. In addition to that, there is a log jam of linebackers and many others I would consider before him: Howley, Baughan, Gradishar, and Brazile would be much better choices in my opinion.
As people mentioned, Ralph Neely was an all decade selection and hasn’t been chosen. Joe Fortunato was a 1950s all decade selection and I think he would be a better choice than Robinson was. Fortunato was an all decade team linebacker with more Pro Bowls and more First Team All Pro selections.
Two years ago, the seniors committee did an outstanding job in selecting Chris Hanburger and Les Richter.
Last year, they made some solid choices in Jack Butler and Dick Stanfel.
This year, I’m not agreeing with these choices at all and when people talk about how much they disagreed with the selections of Dick LeBeau and Floyd Little, I would put this right up there with that.
Love him or hate him, at least Peter King brings his perspective on HOF voting to readers on a regular basis more so then any other HOF voter, he has some interesting observations on the recent senior committee nominations here:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/peter_king/08/26/mmqb/2.html
at least we know these senior nominees real well and they played on teams that won a lot of games, its not like the senior committee nominated a bunch of nobodys that we never heard of or never saw them on television
I honestly did not know that about Derrick Mason. I guess some players quietly have a good career.
Anyway, just because Kramer was judged by his peers all those times does not mean they got it right. Using that same logic then I guess it will be a long time before Johnny Robinson gets his due.
But I concede one point King makes that within the Seniors pool there are many players who have never even had one chance to be debated in the room as finalists and voted on, although we do not agree on which players better deserve that opportunity.
But Derrick Mason will fall into the increasingly large pool of modern players of WRs with 800+ receptions and RBs with 10,000 yr careers, but who lack the quality seasons of all pro/pro bowl status and playoff recognition deserving of HOF election. In many respects unfortunately he will have a very long if not impossible road to the HOF.
In terms of WRs from the mid 1990s/2000s decade era, Mason clearly falls behind Harrison, Owens, Bruce, Ward and Moss in some order for likely HOF election.
Here are my top LBs They Should have selected
1. Joe Fortunato 5/2 NFL All 50’s Team
2. Tommy Nobis 5/2 NFL All 60’s Team
3. Robert Brazile 7/6 NFL All 70’s Tea,
4. Chuck Howley 6/5
5. Maxie Baughan
Bob Talamini has a reasonable case: 6/6/60s(AFL). Member of three championship teams (1960 and 1961 Houston Oliers; 1968 New York Jets). Never missed a game.
you can put randy gradishar up there also. he is also a deserving canidate.
I wouldn’t be opposed to Talamini’s election but I wouldn’t count on it happening any time soon.
Let’s hope the senior voters make better choices in 2013. However, I think Culp and Robinson have to be elected. If neither of them are elected, what does that say about the process if three of the four candidates selected for 2012 and 2013 failed to get elected? I would put Stanfel in but I don’t know if I would say the same about Culp or Robinson.
If both of them got elected, then what would be the reason for voting them in but keeping Stanfel out?
The 2007 NFL Draft is looking like a solid class after just six seasons. Patrick Willis, Joe Thomas, Darrelle Revis, and Adrian Peterson are on there way to having Hall of Fame careers. Calvin Johnson is definitely in the running based on what he has done recently. Five potential Hall of Famers. Jon Beason is a big long shot as he stands now. Needs at least four Pro Bowl worthy seasons.
i guess dick stanfel was not a worthy canidate to but put in the hall of fame, i dont know why, he was a great player in his own right i dont see why his case is not enough to be put into the hall of fame
I think that this year’s senior candidates are decent. While there were obviously better choices that could have been made, I wouldn’t say that either of them were completely off the list of good candidates (though both would probably be in the lower half of said list). Curley Culp is in my opinion the better of the 2 candidates, because he’s one of the best DT’s that is currently eligible on the senior’s list (I’d personally put only Alex Karras definitively ahead of him, but his off-field baggage obviously tanks his chances), he holds the distinction of being one of the first true nose tackles, and he was a part of what is widely regarded as one of the better defenses of all-time. His All-Pro and Pro Bowl numbers aren’t great, but the fact that he won a Super Bowl with the Chiefs and instantly made the Oilers better after being traded to them help to offset this.
Dave Robinson is a less convincing candidate, especially when you consider the amount of great, deserving linebackers who are not in the Hall of Fame, and even further, the amount that have never been considered as finalists. While he would probably be at the bottom of my list of deserving hall of fame linebackers, he nonetheless still makes the list. His inclusion on the 1960’s all-decade team and multiple championships with the Packers help offset his weak credentials when it comes to post-season awards. In terms of the Lombardi Packers teams, I would put him behind Jerry Kramer but ahead of Boyd Dowler in terms of deservingness.
I also have to agree with Peter King’s take on the senior’s candidates. While guys like Jerry Kramer, Johnny Robinson, Bob Kuechenberg, Randy Gradishar, L.C. Greenwood, Claude Humphrey, Ray Guy, Lester Hayes and Ken Anderson are deserving candidates, they will have a hard time getting inducted simply because they’ve been put in front of the voters before, and they’ve been shut down. I think that the senior committee’s single most important objective should be to put forth candidates that WILL get inducted, because their backlog of deserving players is enormous. The voters have only shut down 4 players over the past 20 elections that came through the senior’s pool, and three of those had been finalists before, the other was Dick Stanfel who was shutdown a 2nd time last year and likely won’t get another chance for a couple of decades at least. With all this said, I don’t blame them for going with fresh candidates who don’t have a ton of people banging down the hall’s door for them being excluded. I honestly think both have a great chance at getting in, and neither would look completely out of place in the Hall of Fame.
While I’d rather see Jerry Kramer and Johnny Robinson in their seats, the smart move might be to wait another 10-20 years to allow for some turnover on the voters list before giving them another chance.
Well both Culp and Robinson did come from the list of 2012 senior finalists (I am have not seen a list of 2013 senior finalists) and although many people including me would not have placed them at the top of that list apparently the 5 members of the senior committee who made the nominations decided to do so. So perhaps all we are left with for the next few senior nominations is that they will both come from this list in some order determined by the senior committee (potentially increased by future new senior eligible candidates). At this point in my view, it is impossible to predict/guess which of these players will be nominated in the coming years.
RG – Jerry Kramer 5/3/60’s (2012 finalist)
G – Bob Keuchenberg 2/6/70s 80s (2012 finalist)
C – Mick Tingelhoff 5/6/60’s-70’s (2012 finalist)
LT – Jim Tyrer 6/9/60-70’s (2012 finalist)
QB – Ken Anderson 3/4/70s/80s (2012 finalist)
WR – Cliff Branch 4/4 – 70s/80s (2012 finalist)
RDT – Roger Brown 2/6/60’s (2012 finalist)
DE – Claude Humphrey 5/6/1970s (2012 finalist)
DT – Alex Karras 0/4 60s (2012 finalist)
RLB – Maxie Baughan 2/9/60’s (2012 finalist)
MLB – Tommy Nobis 1/5/60’s-70’s (2012 finalist)
LLB – Chuck Howley 5/6/60’s-70’s (2012 finalist)
LB- Mike Curtis 2/4/60s-70s (2012 finalist)
CB/S – Eddie Meador 2/6/60’s (2012 finalist)
CB – Lester Hayes 1/5/70s 80s (2012 finalist)
S – Johnny Robinson 6/7/60’s (2012 finalist)
FS – Cliff Harris 3/6/70’s (2012 finalist)
P – Ray Guy 6/7/70s 80s (2012 finalist)
For the sake of the process and the need to get senior nominees into the HOF I hope both Culp and Robinson get elected in 2013, they will both need strong presentations and support from the senior committee members and other HOF voters to get 80% yes votes as my fear is that one may fail given the history of senior voters in recent years.
BTW if we work just from the 2012 senior finalist list and see no additions of others or newly eligible senior candidates, it will still take another 9 years of 2 senior nominees per year just to get all these considered by the full committee and voted for HOF election! Supporters for some of these players (and they all have some) are going to be waiting and unhappy for many years to come – which is the greatest tragedy of the senior candidate pool and nominations, some of whom may not live long enough to see election, another all too common occurrence in recent senior elections.
The many players from pre-1975 on the seniors list are already in their mid 70s to early 80s in age, and other possible senior candidates are already in their late 80s or more (Culp is 66 and Robinson 71). I realize perhaps it is not a factor to consider, but as time goes on over the next several years to work through the seniors candidate list how many are still going to be alive when elected?
btw paul its kuechenberg
Regarding the 2013 senior finalists, I saw a list of jersey numbers posted in a thread over at PFRA that I assumed were the final 15 senior candidates this time around, although that was not specifically stated. The names would be Greenwood, Guy, Branch, Kuechenberg, Humphrey, Brown, Dave Robinson, Kramer, Curtis, Howley, Harris, Johnny Robinson, Meador, Culp, and Tingelhoff. Did anyone else see that list and/or know if it was accurate?
where is this located at if indeed this is accurate?
So based on what we believe to be the 2013 finalists, this appears to be the “short list” of those most likely to be considered in 2014, although it is very possible that others including previous finalists from 2012 and before plus new senior candidates could be in the mix also. With DL and LB from the 1960s this year, perhaps a look at OL from the 1970s and CB/S from the 1960s/1970s in 2014 if the defensive trend continues??? Anyway you look at the order this would appear to be the likely next 6 or 7 years of senior nominees at 2 per year. Certainly those finalists from both 2012 and 2013 (12 players) are in best situation, although I must admit to find it hard to believe that a Punter would be elected before others on this list, but with only 5 senior committee members making these decisions who knows as Guy continues to appear as a senior finalist?????
2014 Revised List
RG – Jerry Kramer 5/3/60’s (finalist 2012, 2013)
G – Bob Kuechenberg 2/6/70s 80s (finalist 2012, 2013)
C – Mick Tingelhoff 5/6/60’s-70’s (finalist 2012, 2013)
WR – Cliff Branch 4/4 – 70s/80s (finalist 2012, 2013)
RDT – Roger Brown 2/6/60’s (finalist 2012, 2013)
LDE – L.C.Greenwood 2/6/70’s (finalist 2013)
DE – Claude Humphrey 5/6/1970s (finalist 2012, 2013)
DT – Alex Karras 0/4 60s (finalist 2012)
LLB – Chuck Howley 5/6/60’s-70’s (finalist 2012, 2013)
LB- Mike Curtis 2/4/60s-70s (finalist 2012, 2013)
CB/S – Eddie Meador 2/6/60’s (finalist 2012, 2013)
CB – Lester Hayes 1/5/70s 80s (finalist 2012)
S – Johnny Robinson 6/7/60’s (finalist 2012, 2013)
FS – Cliff Harris 3/6/70’s (finalist 2012, 2013)
P – Ray Guy 6/7/70s 80s (finalist 2012, 2013)
My order if I had the sole vote to nominate would look something like this for the next few years:
2014- LB Howley, CB Meador
2015- C Tingelhoff, S Robinson
2016- DE Greenwood, G Kramer,
2017- WR Branch, DE Humphrey
2018 – G Kuechenberg, S Harris
I also saw the same list over on PFRA and what I know about the posters there, I would accept the list as valid (also since there really are no surprise additions or admissions on that list of 15)
When do Joe Jacoby (T), Steve McMichael (DT) and Richmond Webb (T) go to the senior potion of nominations. All three seemed like perenial pro bowlers and major impact player from good to very good teams. I remember watcing thode players during the eighties and feeling they were dominant at their repective positions.
25 years after they retired, you can do the research + math
“My order if I had the sole vote to nominate would look something like this for the next few years:
2014- LB Howley, CB Meador
2015- C Tingelhoff, S Robinson
2016- DE Greenwood, G Kramer,
2017- WR Branch, DE Humphrey
2018 – G Kuechenberg, S Harris”
It’s really hard to dispute those. I think some them are better choices than others. I think Ed Budde is a better candidate than Kuechenberg is. Since Kuechenberg has 1/6 compared to 2/7 for Budde.
Corey I agree with your logic with budde being a better candidate than kuechenberg budde 7/2 kuechenberg 6/1 (Larry Little 5/5 ,Langer 6/4 who are already in the hof) have better numbers than kuechenberg .
here Are some other players that should be considered
DB Dick Anderson 3/2
DB-Jake Scott 5/2
DB-Bobby Boyd 2/3
DB-Pat Fischer 3/2
LB- Jim Houston 4/0
LB- Andy Russell 7/1
DT- Bob Vegel 5/1
C Len Hauss 5/0
T- Ralph Neely 2/3
T- Charlie Cowan 3/0
G- Ken Gray 6/2
WR- Sonny Randle 4/1
My Top qb senior nominees
QB- John Hadl 6/1
QB Ken Anderson 4/1
QB Ken Stabler 4/1
Thoughts on my list
I don’t know much about Bob Vegal or Jim Houston. The only ones on that list that I could envision as a HOFamer are: Ken Anderson, Andy Russell, Jake Scott, Dick Anderson, Pat Fischer and maybe Booby Boyd. The rest I would call the Hall of Underappriciated but very good. I am probably one of the few that do not think Kenny Stabler is a HOF QB. I think Phil Simms, Joe Theismann, Roman Gabriel were all better QB’s and none of them have a chance.
Billy Looking at The qbs are mentioned
Roman Gabriel 4/2
Phil Simms 2/1
Joe Theismann 2/2
Based on that here is the new list
DB Dick Anderson 3/2
DB-Jake Scott 5/2
DB-Bobby Boyd 2/3
DB-Pat Fischer 3/2
LB- Andy Russell 7/1
My Top qb senior nominees
QB- Roman Gabriel 4/2
QB Ken Anderson 4/1
QB- Joe Theismann 2/2
This is Just me billy but i give more consideration to theismann and gabriel just my opinon
it should be anderson and simms from that list
Robert: Although I have no major issues with your list, none of them would replace the remaining candidates from the recent 2012 and 2013 elections who are all more deserving in my opinion and apparently the senior selection committee members. In my view we need to get the 2012 and 2013 finalists elected before expanding the pool further.
paul i agree with what you are saying and i agree with your view perhaps the hall of fame needs to expand the senior nominees from two from anywhere from 3-5
Peter King: “As a sideline-to-sideline playmaker, he was in the shadow of middle linebacker Ray Nitschke for much of his prime, even though Robinson made more Pro Bowls….
I don’t serve on the Senior Committee; nine of the 44 Hall of Fame selectors make up the committee, and five meet in Canton every August to nominate two candidates for selection. The committee doesn’t have as its stated objective to get the cases of the forgotten heard. But those are the players who make the most sense to me to get in the room.
Back when the Pro Bowl meant something, Culp made five of them, Robinson three and Kramer three. Is it fair that Kramer should have an 11th time as a finalist while Robinson or Culp would again not have a chance to get in the room as a Hall finalist?
I’ve always thought we should hear the cases of seniors whose candidacies fell through the cracks. Kramer never fell through the cracks. He was judged by those who watched him play 10 times in 24 years and deemed not as worthy as others.”
Well gee, Mr. King, while that might have some validity it seems to me the most QUALIFIED guys to slip through the cracks should have their day first. Chuck Howley has twice as many Pro Bowls and five times as many AP first team All Pro selections as Robinson, not to mention being a Super Bowl MVP, and yet has never been a HoF finalist. I don’t think Mick Tingelhoff, Eddie Meador, Tommy Nobis, Cliff Branch, Drew Pearson, Roger Brown, Cornell Green or numerous other far more deserving individuals have had their day as a finalist yet either. That’s why these picks were atrocious.
it is going to be interesting to see how the senior nominees will be discussed for induction into the hall of fame the day before super bowl 47 in february
i dont know why rasputin but u irritate me
The tingling means it’s working!
Since both Culp and Robinson are defensive players, does this help the current Wide Receiver log jam between Cris Carter, Tim Brown, and Andre Reed ?
I do not believe it makes any difference as the bigger issue is getting the voters to circle around one WR and instead of splitting their votes among all three and none getting the required 80% on the finalist vote. Besides seniors are voted on separate and before the modern candidates and it is not as if senior WRs have been elected in large numbers in recent years.
to pauls point i do agree with him it doesnt make a difference on that note who are the top senior wr’s
however i do think andre reed is the leading candidate as far as the logjam of wide receivers go as he has waited the longest 6 or 7 years as a finalist i believe as opposed to carter and brown
on your logic chris i do agree with you
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/R/ReedAn00.htm?redir http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MonkAr00.htm?redir
Yes that would seem to be the case, however it was complicated in 2012 when Carter also moved into the final 10, again suggesting that a split among the voters continues to exist. The voters need to make up their collective minds, hopefully assisted by someone giving a strong and compelling case for one of them presented better than for the other.
Is Zach Thomas Hall of Fame worthy?
yes, but it may take a few years to get him elected. In my view anyone with 5+/5+ deserves election and all the members of first team all decade should be in HOF. Thomas was 2nd team all decade but meets my 5+/5+ rule.
i suppose but i do believe they will sort it out and one of those wide recievers will get in for the 2013 class
DeMarcus Ware just helped his Hall of Fame stock tonight: 5 tackes and 2 sacks. He now has 101.5 sacks for a career. He is a four time 1 first team All Pro.
D-Ware is most certainly on his way to the Hall. Andre Johnson and Larry Fitzgerald are two Wide Receivers that have reasonable cases thus far in their careers. They are also looking as though they will make the Hall of Fame. Thoughts?
Yes I would say all three are well on their way to the HOF, but if they retired today the case would not be as strong or clear without for each player 3-5 more years of high quality (all pro/pro bowl level) numbers, plus better playoff success would also greatly help all three.
What about Jason Witten (5/7, and currently 3rd in career TE recs and 4th career yards for TE)? I am thinking he also needs another 3-5 years as well which at the age of 30 should be possible if he can avoid injuries (which is same for all these 4 players who are now at or close to 30). My interesting story about Witten is that he was in the audience at the 2010 HOF induction for Emmit Smith and at the time I wondered would he one day be up on the stage himself?
not first ballot though for demarcus ware
I really think that DeMarcus Ware could pile up another 50-60 sacks over the next 5 years if he stays healthy. At that point he will most definately be a first team HOFamer especially if the Cowboys ever put together A SB Run. As for Jason Whitten, I think he will get in along with Tony Gonzalez and Antonio Gates, and hopefully one day Todd Christiansen, Pete Retzlaff and Ben Coates.
Jason Witten certainly deserves HoF induction, though Dallas fans have learned to take nothing for granted when it comes to Cowboys and Canton, so a few more years of production and a Super Bowl win would be preferred. Witten has been a better TE than Gates, though the former has been screwed out of at least a couple of first team AP All Pro selections and was robbed of a Pro Bowl spot last year in favor of Gonzalez. The voters only glance at receiving stats and have shown a preference for Gates and Gonzalez, despite Witten being a better blocker than either and a far more complete TE, as even they admit. Despite being used to block a lot in the red zone, which has limited his TD opportunities, Witten is about as good a receiver as Gates and Gonzalez. He ended with 1 fewer catch and 67 more yards than Gonzalez last year. Witten had 79 receptions and 942 yards versus 64 catches and 778 yards for Gates, yet Gates made the Pro Bowl. Granted the AFC had a weaker TE field, but Gates was still boosted over more deserving candidates.
I’d put all 3 TEs from this era in the HoF, so I’m hoping they recognize the importance of the position and don’t limit induction to two from this era, especially since I’m not confident they’d make the right choice if they did.
One challenge I see for Witten is even if he continues to put up 75+ rec seasons, the number of young TEs in the game today and putting up those and even larger numbers and they will get the all pro and pro bowl selections. But I agree if Witten can retire in the top 3 in TE rec and yards and hold that until eligible he should get elected eventually. Given that in the 2000s/2010s decades TEs are putting up numbers comparable to many WRs so if there is room for 3 or more WRs in HOF from a decade/era (including 2000s/2010s), same should be for TEs.
how about art modell for the hall of fame now that he is passed on recently?
Art Modell has done a lot for the NFL, the City of Baltimore and Cleveland. But if you asked the Fans of the Cleveland Browns, they would give a resounding “NO!” I have many friends that are from Ohio that had a true dusdain fir the man. Hopefully now that he has passed people will ley bygones be bygones and see what kind of owner he truly was.
I would not say there are better tight ends in the NFC. Actually, it is fairly equal. Whitten should get to the HOF more pro-bowls or not. But he would not have an easier time getting to the pro-bowl in the AFC.
Last year only 3 of the top 9 TEs in either yardage or receptions were AFC guys, the two Patriots and the Jets’ Dustin Keller. That could change this year, but either way you could be right, Billy, since voters vaulted Gates over more deserving candidates anyway (I just said the field was weaker). Witten had more yards than every NFL TE but Gronkowski and Graham and still got screwed out of the Pro Bowl, despite also being an all around, blocking TE, unlike most of the receiving TEs.
Unfortunately pro bowl (and all pro) voting on TEs tends to focus on receptions and TDs so unless Witten can keep pace with the much younger TEs who are increasingly more of a focus in offenses (such as Gronk, Graham, V Davis) securing those additional pro bowl and all pro slots is going to get harder. And if Dallas continues to have success with 3 WR formations Witten may find the 75 rec, 5+ TD seasons harder to come by, and of course now at at age 30 the injuries, declining speed (never his strength), and overall wear and tear can start to take a toll. I think this season and the next 2 or 3 will really decide his strength and potential as a sure lock HOFer.
yeah tighe ends have a tough time getting in the hall of fame, i mean look at shannon sharpe he had to wait for a while
Sharpe was elected in his third year of eligibility, not really that long of a wait, just that some people believed he deserved 1st year election.
Being first ballot is hard to come by. Alan Page comes to mind.
Am I the only one who thinks Sterling Sharpe belongs in the HoF? Tragedy abbreviated his career but his longevity passed the Sayers threshold, and he was dominant when he played, posting outstanding stats for half a decade. From my eyeball test the three best WRs of the decade were Rice, Irvin, and Sharpe. I would have put Sterling in Canton before his brother. Not much of a blocker, Shannon was basically a large receiver of somewhat above average ability whom they lined up next to the tackle and called a “tight end”. That seemed like a cheap and easy way to become a HoFer to me. When Shannon said his brother was better than he was he was being classy, but he was also telling the truth.
Meant to say “injury” rather than “tragedy”.
Once Reed, Carter and Brown are elected, no other WRs from the 1990s era will make the HOF. Unfortunately Sharpe’s career was just too short and he is not even close to any “Sayers” threshold.
Shannon Sharpe was perhaps the first of the new era TEs, big and fast, less role in blocking, but creating mismatches downfield with LBs and S. If you want to consider him a “WR” fine, as his career numbers and awards rank him among the best of his era and even all time even as a “WR”. And his 3 SBS separate him from his brother and other TE and event WRs from his era.
My God, another KC Chief and no Johnny Robinson!! Did they get the wrong Robinson or what? :)
I had Culp on my HOF worthy list. This is a GREAT DAY for NG!! I watched a lot of Oilers football in the 1970’s and actually thought Culp was more impactful than Elvin Bethea when the Defense was good.
Culp is the first Nose Guard to be recognized and hopefully it will bring more attention to players such as Fred Smerlas and Bob Baumhower . Casey Hampton may be the next. I believe Culp was the first NG to win a Super Bowl.
I strongly disagree, Paul. The “Sayers threshold” is the Mendoza line for longevity. Sayers had 5 real seasons. Sterling Sharpe had 7 seasons. In those 7 seasons Sharpe made 5 Pro Bowls and 3 first team AP All Pro teams. He led the league in receptions 3 years and in touchdowns 2 years. Sterling broke the NFL single season receptions record in 1992, and broke his own record the following year, becoming the first player to post consecutive 100+ catch seasons. In 1992 he became one of just 7 players in history to win the receiving triple crown, leading the league in receptions, yards, and touchdowns. Of the other 6 men, 5 are in the HoF and the sixth is still active. Three of them were on the 75th Anniversary All Time NFL Team. Sterling started every game of his career, and in his second season broke Don Hutson’s single season franchise record for receptions and yards. Although he played with Brett Favre near the end, a majority of his career was spent catching passes from guys like Don Majkowski and Mike Tomczak. He had cemented himself as one of the best receivers in the league before Favre showed up, despite being the only offensive threat on the team and receiving the bulk of opponents’ attention.
Sterling packed astounding accomplishments into those 7 years, and would have continued to perform at an elite level if not for the career ending neck injury. His 18 receiving TDs in 1994, his final season, still stand third all time, behind only Jerry Rice’s 22 in 1987 and Randy Moss’s 23 in 2007.
Here’s how he stacks up against some other top receivers. I’ll throw in Shannon Sharpe too for fun since you claim his numbers would be great by WR standards:
Yards/Game
Jerry Rice – 75.6
Michael Irvin – 74.9
Sterling Sharpe – 72.6
Cris Carter – 59.4
Tim Brown – 58.6
Andre Reed – 56.4
Shannon Sharpe – 49.3
Receptions/Game
Sterling Sharpe – 5.3
Jerry Rice – 5.3
Michael Irvin – 4.7
Cris Carter – 4.7
Tim Brown – 4.3
Andre Reed – 4.1
Shannon Sharpe – 4.0
Touchdowns/Game
Jerry Rice – 0.65
Sterling Sharpe – 0.58
Cris Carter – 0.56
Michael Irvin – 0.41
Tim Brown – 0.39
Andre Reed – 0.37
Shannon Sharpe – 0.30
It was right that Sterling Sharpe wasn’t a first ballot HoFer. Longevity is a legitimate variable. It’s not the only variable though, and 6 elite seasons (actually his first year was great for a rookie too) more than meets the minimum longevity threshold for consideration. I never said he will make Canton, especially since I have little confidence in the voters, but I am saying he should make Canton eventually. It would be the right thing to do. If I was building a team I’d take Sterling over Shannon, or for that matter over Brown, Carter, or Reed, any day.
Of course we should probably be having this modern era discussion on the other thread. This one should be reserved for talking about how badly the senior era committee screwed up.
Actually I found another receiving triple crown winner from 1932 who’s often omitted from media accounts for some reason: Ray Flaherty. Flaherty made the HoF as a coach but he was a great player who was selected first team All Pro 3 times. Depending on whether one counts AFL stats or not, Dave Parks, a three time Pro Bowler and college HoFer, and Johnny Morris won the pure NFL triple crown in the 1960s. Lance Alworth led AFL receivers in all three metrics in 1966. Obviously he’s a HoFer and a fourth member of this list on the 75th NFL Anniversary Team.
The 7 mentioned earlier are:
Don Hutson
Sterling Sharpe
Jerry Rice
Raymond Berry
Pete Pihos
Elroy “Crazy Legs” Hirsch
Steve Smith
That totals either 10, 11, or 9, depending on how you count it. Regardless, it’s very elite company for Sterling Sharpe to be in. Only 4 men have accomplished it in the Super Bowl era. Among the other three, two are in the HoF and one is a still active player with 5 Pro Bowls and over 10,000 yards.
In regards to Sterling Sharpe you can not fairly compare his 7 year career based on per game averages against the other WRs from his era as we have no idea how his career would have played out if not injured. All players, even Rice, see declining numbers included in their careers as the years go on. Seven year simply is not a longer enough career to make such a comparison in terms of who is worthy of HOF and who is not. Clearly the 44 voters have not deemed Sharpes 7 year career significant enough to advance into the final 25 or further I simply do not see that changing. It is really hard in the case of Sharpe and T Davis to fairly compare their short careers against many other players of all positions as or more deserving of the HOF when it comes to getting that list to 25, 15 and election. He simply did not play long enough to make a strong case and having seen him and all his peers (WRs and other positions) from his era I would tend to agree with the voters. He had some great years but that is not a career.
And no he does not compare to Sayers:
4× Pro Bowl (1965, 1966, 1967, 1969)
5× All-Pro (1965–1969)
NFL 75th Anniversary All-Time Team
NFL 1960s All-Decade Team
1965 UPI NFL-NFC Rookie of the Year
3× Pro Bowl MVP (1967, 1966, 1969)
2× NFL Rushing champion (1966, 1969)
Making an all decade team really helps in this case Sayers
I have no idea as to the debate (or any disagreement among voters and the public regarding his selection) and overall quality of the competing players that Sayers faced when elected in 1977 but it does appear that he was a 1st time selection. In my view one challenge that Sterling Sharpe (and T Davis) are facing is a deep quality of candidates in the final 25 and then down to the final 15, making much harder now for short career players to get into the final 15 for discussion in front of the HOF voters. And I can agree with the view that many HOF voters must face when going from 100+ candidates down to 15 then down to 15: How to weight and evaluate short careers against so many deserving long career players?
I didn’t equate Sharpe’s overall career with Sayers. I said 7 years was more than long enough from a strictly longevity standpoint going by the 5 year mark of Sayers, widely considered to be around the minimum necessary for Canton induction, a standard I happen to agree with. That’s why Terrell Davis falls short. It’s fallacious to lump him in with Sharpe. Davis only had 3 elite seasons. Sterling had at least 5.
Obviously simply playing for 7 years isn’t enough to put one in the HoF in and of itself, so after passing the longevity test one has to look at how good those years were. Now that you mention it Sharpe is actually more similar to Sayers than you think. Sharpe has one more Pro Bowl, two fewer first team All Pros, one receiving yardage title versus two rushing titles, and three reception leading seasons and two touchdown leading seasons versus one yards/attempt leading season and three yards/game leading seasons for Sayers. Sterling doesn’t have All Decade accolades, but Sayers was a first ballot HoFer. No one’s saying Sterling should have been first ballot. We’re discussing whether or not he deserves EVENTUAL induction, so he doesn’t have to be anywhere near as good as a first ballot HoFer who’s on the 75th Anniversary team. That a guy who only had 5 real seasons possesses such accolades, especially since he only won two rushing titles, proves that a 7 year career is more than enough to merely make the HoF if it’s good enough.
I anticipated your comment about it being unfair to compare averages of careers of different lengths. More precisely, it’s not the ONLY thing to look at. Let’s examine peak performance:
Total Yardage; Best Single Season (Year)
Jerry Rice – 1848 (1995)
Michael Irvin – 1603 (1995)
Sterling Sharpe – 1462 (1992)
Tim Brown – 1408 (1997)
Cris Carter – 1371 (1995)
Andre Reed – 1312 (1989)
Shannon Sharpe – 1107 (1997)
Best Three Years (not necessarily consecutive)
Jerry Rice – 4921
Michael Irvin – 4522
Sterling Sharpe – 4158
Tim Brown – 4094
Cris Carter – 3901
Andre Reed – 3728
Shannon Sharpe – 3179
What makes this even more impressive is the fact that the mid to late 1990s experienced rapid passing stat inflation, as the above numbers show. 1995, the first season after Sharpe retired, was especially explosive for receivers across the league. If Sharpe hadn’t retired in his prime after 1994 he almost certainly would have improved his peak performance, and the shortened career cuts both ways regarding career averages.
Let’s compare Andre Reed, Sharpe, and Carter in the years they overlapped. Lest you think this unfair, all 7 of Reed’s Pro Bowls just happen to coincide with Sharpe’s entire career, while Sharpe’s rookie season is obviously included, so if anything it’s unfair to Sharpe. Carter started a year earlier than Sharpe. Irvin was injury plagued his first 3 years and Brown was mostly used as a returner for a couple of years, so I’ll leave them out. Shannon didn’t start until 1990 and Rice was on a different planet during this stretch.
1988-1994
Sterling Sharpe – 8134 yards, 595 receptions, 65 touchdowns
Andre Reed – 7408 yards, 518 receptions, 50 touchdowns
Cris Carter – 5749 yards, 444 receptions, 47 touchdowns
My eyeball impression keeps being vindicated. Sterling Sharpe was the most well rounded of the 90s receivers not yet in the HoF. He had a better peak and better career averages than the others, despite missing out on the rapid stat inflation of the mid to late 1990s. Sharpe led the league in more categories than Carter, Brown, Reed, and his brother despite the shorter career. He was far and away better in the years they overlapped. Sharpe is the only one of the bunch to have won the rare receiving triple crown, joining an exclusive list of HoFers and 75th Anniversary Team members. He set records multiple years. The others didn’t. I know Sterling has been passed over by the HoF so far; in fact I just made that point myself, so I’m not sure why you felt it was worth saying again, but part of the rationale for forums like this is to provide a place where people can argue why the selection panel has been wrong. Neither, Carter, Brown, Reed, nor Shannon would ever have seasons as good as Sterling’s best ones, despite longer careers that saw high stat inflation. The ONLY thing they have on him is longevity, or, in Shannon’s case, the position fluke I mentioned earlier. Longevity matters, but it’s not the only thing. Sterling’s career was long enough to prove his dominance was no fluke. To the extent Canton is about choosing the best players, clearly Sharpe was greater than the other candidates and should at least be in the HoF discussion.
I should clarify that the “total yardage” figures above are total receiving yards, though hopefully that’s obvious.
sterling sharpe will have no chance just like terrell davis will have no shot also
Maybe, Chris, but that’s a prediction from you, not an argument one way or another. I think it’s a mistake for people to put Sterling Sharpe in the same category with Terrell Davis. Sharpe sustained greatness years longer than Davis did.
Longevity does matter, perhaps more so then any other number or argument you could make for Sterling Sharpe. Based on a shorter than average HOF quality career of 7 years is the one factor that will continue to keep him our of the HOF. Again it is really hard to look at the current depth of HOF candidates, including WRs, with longer and more honored careers and to place Sharpe above them based on a seven year career. Shannon has much on his brother and is well deserving of his election to the HOF as perhaps one of the top five TEs of all time, a standard – regardless of his great seven year career – that Sterling can not even come close to. Longevity is a critical factor in choosing the best players for the HOF and on that measure Sterling falls short, sorry but I agree with the votes in this case.
Again you repeat something I already said multiple times. Yes longevity matters, but surely you agree it’s not the ONLY factor to consider. After all, is the Hall of Fame about choosing the greatest players or simply those who played the longest? I’ve shown that Sharpe was the best receiver of the bunch among those not already inducted. I can understand disqualifying someone who had one or two spectacular seasons and not much else, but a seven year career is long enough to prove that his dominance was no fluke. It’s shorter than average for Canton, because fortunately most players aren’t cut down in their prime by injury, but not unprecedented. Shannon has nothing on his brother except longevity and the team accomplishment of winning titles, as the above numbers show. By WR standards Shannon’s numbers were pedestrian for the era. They vaulted him to the HoF because he’s technically considered a “tight end” based on where he lined up, despite him not performing the blocking duties traditionally associated with a tight end. None of the remaining WR candidates won any Super Bowls, so that’s a non factor.
Despite comparing favorably to them though, Sterling doesn’t have to be ranked above the other three candidates to be HoF worthy. Is there a law somewhere that says only 3 more WRs can be inducted from the era, and not 4? Are the late 1980s – mid 1990s even necessarily the same era as the late 1990s – early 2000s? There are currently 9 HoF WRs who played extensively in the 1960s, at least 5 years during the decade. There are only 3 HoFers so far who played at least 5 years in the 1990s, and Monk played most of his career in the 1980s. Half of Rice’s career spills over into adjacent decades. It seems to me that only inducting the 3 you list would leave the 1990s underrepresented, especially given the greater importance of the passing game in that era. There’s room for more WRs.
Yes longevity is a key factor, Sayers was the exception not the usual. Once Reed, Carter and Brown are elected the 1990s decade will have four WRs, I am not so sure there is a need for more, especially if you consider others with careers that overlap the 1990s.
And of those seven years of Sharpe, 4 perhaps 5 were great seasons. If you include WRs who overlap the late 1980s into early 2000s that era of the 1990s decade+ is going to be very well represented in the HOF without Sterling Sharpe.
Fact is that HOF voters look at career numbers and Shannon simply falls to far down the list of modern WR career numbers to warrant consideration for the HOF.
No all you have shown is that is a short career of seven years he put up some great numbers, but seven years is not long enough career to be considered for the HOF. The voters, including myself, are simply not going to advance a 7 year career player for other WRs and position players more deserving of longer higher quality careers.
And yes just like the modern TEs of the late 1990s to present, Shannon lined up in the TE position and through his entire career was listed as a TE, his career numbers and SBs rank him very more worthy then his brother for the HOF.
Another major problem for Sterling Sharpe is that his 7 year career overlaps too many other better WRs from the late 1980s into 1990s era including HOFers (or soon to be) Rice, Irvin, Carter, Brown, Reed, and also a large group of other WRs who also put up quality careers such as H Moore, Fryar, and Rison – none of them deserve the HOF either but it crowds the field of candidates.
Depending how you count the long careers crossing two decade players, there are currently 5 Wrs from the 70s in the HOF, 3 from the 80s, and 2 from the 90s, and once Carter, Reed and Brown are added the 90s will have 5. Seems like the right number to me, if anything the 70s and 80s are underrepresented not the 90s.
why isnt fryar paul im dying for an explanation
Haloti Ngata, 3/3, could get another All Pro selection this year the way it is looking. Is he on his way to the Hall as a Defensive Tackle/Nose Tackle? Irving Fryar had a good career; not arguing against that, but he is not a hall of fame worthy. Not one 1st team All Pro, only named 1st team all conference once, and 2nd team All Pro twice. He had five 1,000 receiving seasons out of seventeen seasons of play.
explain to me why u guys are biased against some people
It’s not being biased one bit. It’s based on factual evidence.
Ronde Barber started in his 200th consecutive game at Cornerback yesterday. He also got a sack and an interception also. He now has 44 interceptions and 28 sacks for a career. That is impressive for a cornerback. He is not lacking All Pro teams; he has been named first team All Pro three times. He has also scored 13 non-offensive touchdowns. He is definitely hall of fame worthy.
This is definitely an interesting debate, and I agree to some degree with both sides. I personally feel that Sterling Sharpe’s neck injury is the single most underestimated and under-reported career-ending injury of the past 30 some odd years. Sharpe was truly an elite receiver who stood out in an era with many great receivers. Maybe it was because I was only 9 at the time and the state of sports reporting was much different in 1994, but it was a shock to me when he suddenly he wasn’t playing in the 1995 season…it literally got no play in the news where I’m from. Anyway, I fully agree with Rasputin’s claim that Sharpe was the best receiver during his career (1988-1994) not named Rice or Irvin. Personally, I think his peak was better than any point of Andre Reed or Tim Brown’s careers and I think it was on par with Cris Carter’s peak.
Sharpe’s per-game averages are much better than Reed’s, Brown’s or Carter’s, but part of that has to do with the careers they led. Reed played his whole career in a rushing offense, and really wasn’t an elite receiver after the middle of the 90’s, while Carter and Brown took several years before they really got their careers going. I really don’t think that Sharpe’s 7-year career should be held that much against him to the degree that Paul states though. Despite retiring at 29, he finished 14th on the all-time receptions list, and in the top 30 of both receiving yards and receiving TD’s. I also am of the opinion that anyone that gets 3 1st-Team All-Pro belongs in the conversation, and while it’s obvious that Sharpe won’t get a shot as a modern-era candidate, I am hopeful that he’ll get some love as a senior candidate. I’d personally induct him over all of the frequently mentioned senior candidates at the position. I also don’t think that longevity is always a huge advantage. If Andre Rison retired after his 1st 7 seasons, he’d probably have a better chance at the Hall of Fame than he does now. The all-decade team is also somewhat overrated in my opinion, because it can often depend on how a player’s career falls between 2 decades. Marshall Faulk, Curtis Martin and Jerome Bettis didn’t make an all-decade team in large part because they started their careers in the middle of the 90’s and finished them in the middle of the 2000’s. Jamal Lewis’ inclusion on the all-decade team meanwhile was helped by the fact he started his career in 2000 and finished it at the end of the decade. No one would argue that Jamal Lewis is the worst of those 4 backs, yet he’s the one on the all-decade team. I think this similar issue hurt Sharpe as well. If Sharpe played from 1990-1996, I think he’d be on the 1990’s all-decade team.
I have to disagree that there is any magic number of players that should make the hall of fame from a position by era. Since passing was not emphasized in the 1970’s, and few WR’s dominated, I would be fine if no other players from the decade made it including Cliff Branch, Drew Pearson, Harold Jackson, etc. I think that the 2000’s and possibly 2010’s will produce a similar effect with running backs with the lack of dominant players at the position and the emphasis on the passing game. The late 80’s and 90’s were full of great receivers, several of whom were either dominant for short periods of time or great for an extended period of time, so I don’t think that there is a “rule” that says they should stop at 5.
I think making the hall of fame should be (and perhaps is) more based on the following argument: Who is the best player at position X not in the hall of fame, and was their career significantly better than the next 5 best players that haven’t been inducted. If you look at modern era-eligible WR’s, Carter, Brown and Reed are obviously the top 3 (at least in the eyes of the voters), but I’d slot Sharpe in at #4 as of right now. I think that the next 5 behind him are Gary Clark, Henry Ellard, Jimmy Smith and some combination of Rod Smith, Andre Rison, Herman Moore, Mark Clayton, Wes Chandler and Stanley Morgan. This is however where Sharpe’s chances get muddied. It’s tough to say if he had a much better career than Clark, Ellard and Jimmy Smith. Smith and Clark are #2 and #3 in receiving yards per game behind Sharpe among modern-era candidates and Ellard had more receiving yards per game than Carter, Brown and Reed despite playing the same amount of years, so even if that is Sharpe biggest strength, it’s not as big of an advantage is it is at 1st sight. Ellard and Smith also finished their careers with elite counting stats (at the time of their retirement), while Clark was the most dangerous offensive weapon on 2 Super Bowl teams. I’d be inclined to say that Sharpe is better given his All-Pro numbers, but I don’t know if he’s that much better than the pack behind him who all have great parts to their candidacies mixed with a couple of fatal flaws. He also will have to contend with Harrison, Holt, Bruce, Owens, Ward and possibly Randy Moss before he heads to the senior committee. I personally think Sharpe belongs, but he’s not a slam dunk and he will likely have a long, hard road to get inducted.
“The voters, including myself, are simply not going….”
Are you a HoF voter, Paul? I’m sincerely asking because I don’t know. I didn’t think you were, but I try to avoid making assumptions. As for the rest of your post….
“Yes longevity is a key factor, Sayers was the exception not the usual. ”
I acknowledged a 7 year player would be unusual, but we agree it’s not unprecedented. I’ll remind you that Sayers, despite a briefer true career than Sharpe, didn’t just squeak into the HoF, but was first ballot. If one approves of that, then logically there’s room for inducting someone with a similar or slightly longer career length after a long wait.
“And of those seven years of Sharpe, 4 perhaps 5 were great seasons. ”
Sharpe had 5 Pro Bowl seasons, a great rookie season, and the remaining year was solid (as opposed to Sayers, who barely played his last 2 years, or Terrell Davis, who played sparingly his last 3 years). Five Pro Bowl seasons over a six year, non-rookie career is incredible.
“Fact is that HOF voters look at career numbers and Shannon simply falls to far down the list of modern WR career numbers to warrant consideration for the HOF.”
They need to start looking deeper than a quick glance at career totals. Sterling Sharpe was one of the three best WRs of the 1990s.
“Once Reed, Carter and Brown are elected the 1990s decade will have four WRs, I am not so sure there is a need for more, especially if you consider others with careers that overlap the 1990s.”
That would make 6 WRs who played at least 5 years in the 1990s. There are currently 9 WRs who played at least 5 years in the 1960s in the HoF.
“Seems like the right number to me, if anything the 70s and 80s are underrepresented not the 90s.”
Those decades currently are too. It’s not surprising that more recent decades have less representation than earlier ones do at this point. We’re discussing how many they should EVENTUALLY end up with. On the other thread we discussed Drew Pearson and some other WRs from the 1970s and 1980s who belong in the HoF. It’s astonishing that some want to cut off 1990s WRs at a point that would leave that decade short of where the 1960s are now, and where other decades will likely end up.
“No all you have shown is that is a short career of seven years he put up some great numbers, but seven years is not long enough career to be considered for the HOF. ”
No, we’ve established that’s not true. You can try to argue that his 7 year career wasn’t good enough, but guys with similar length and even shorter careers HAVE been considered and ARE in the HoF.
“And yes just like the modern TEs of the late 1990s to present, Shannon lined up in the TE position and through his entire career was listed as a TE, his career numbers and SBs rank him very more worthy then his brother for the HOF.”
We’ll have to agree to disagree on that, but earlier you boasted that his numbers would be great for WRs of his era, and I’ve shown that’s certainly not the case.
“The voters, including myself, are simply not going to advance a 7 year career player for other WRs and position players more deserving of longer higher quality careers.”
Longer, but not higher quality. Sterling Sharpe was more productive and accomplished, as the stats show.
“Another major problem for Sterling Sharpe is that his 7 year career overlaps too many other better WRs from the late 1980s into 1990s era including HOFers (or soon to be) Rice, Irvin, Carter, Brown, Reed, and also a large group of other WRs who also put up quality careers such as H Moore, Fryar, and Rison – none of them deserve the HOF either but it crowds the field of candidates.”
You just assert that Carter, Brown, and Reed are “better” than Sharpe when I’ve laid out all these facts demonstrating that they aren’t. Sterling Sharpe was a cut above guys like that, and was in the ballpark of Michael Irvin and Jerry Rice. Let’s examine this overlapping period “from the late 1980s into the 1990s” and see which HoF candidate dominated that era.
1988 – 1994
Sterling Sharpe – 8134 yards, 595 receptions, 65 touchdowns
Andre Reed – 7408 yards, 518 receptions, 50 touchdowns
Andre Rison – 6453 yards, 475 receptions, 60 touchdowns
Irving Fryar – 5968 yards, 376 receptions, 31 touchdowns
Cris Carter – 5749 yards, 444 receptions, 47 touchdowns
Tim Brown – 4734 yards, 316 receptions, 36 touchdowns
Herman Moore – 3209 yards, 195 receptions, 21 touchdowns
Sharpe has more yards, catches, AND touchdowns than any other non-HoF WR in HIS era, the years in which he played. It’s not even close.
But a couple of those guys didn’t play every year in that period, so to be fair let’s use per game averages.
1988 – 1994
Sterling Sharpe – 72.6 y/g, 5.3 r/g, 0.58 tds/g
Andre Rison – 68.6 y/g, 5.1 r/g, 0.64 tds/g
Andre Reed – 67.3 y/g, 4.7 r/g, 0.45 tds/g
Herman Moore – 57.3 y/g, 3.5 r/g, 0.38 tds/g
Irving Fryar – 56.8 y/g, 3.6 r/g, 0.30 tds/g
Cris Carter – 53.2 y/g, 4.1 r/g, 0.44 tds/g
Tim Brown – 49.3 y/g, 3.3 r/g, 0.38 (excluding 1989-1991, where he was used mostly as a returner, it’s 62.0 y/g, 4.1 r/g, 0.44 tds/g)
Rison edges out Sharpe in touchdowns per game, but Sharpe beats Rison in yards and receptions per game, and BEATS EVERY OTHER RECEIVER IN EVERY CATEGORY DURING HIS ERA. If we had to choose one still outstanding WR to represent the period of the late 1980s – to mid 1990s, it clearly has to be Sterling Sharpe.
But some of these guys had their best years outside of that span, so let’s apply the comparison used earlier to the expanded field, despite the fact that the rapid stat inflation from 1995 onward puts Sharpe at a disadvantage.
Full Careers
Sterling Sharpe – 72.6 y/g, 5.3 r/g, 0.58 tds/g
Herman Moore – 62.8 y/g, 4.6 r/g, 0.42 tds/g
Cris Carter – 59.4 y/g, 4.7 r/g, 0.56 tds/g
Tim Brown – 58.6 y/g, 4.3 r/g, 0.39 tds/g
Andre Reed – 56.4 y/g, 4.1 r/g, 0.37 tds/g
Andre Rison – 54.9 y/g, 4.0 r/g, 0.45 tds/g
Irving Fryar – 50.1 y/g, 3.3 r/g, 0.33 tds/g
SHARPE BEATS EVERYONE IN EVERY CATEGORY! This isn’t a fluke finding here or there. The guy was consistently better than all the WRs not named Rice or Irvin. He was also better than HoFers Art Monk and James Lofton, though I’m focusing on potential HoFers now.
As stated earlier, the shortened career can cut both ways on the averages. It’s true that players often decline in later years, but a 7 year career is long enough to have up and down seasons, and Sharpe retired after the 1994 season, right before the huge explosion in passing stats really got going, while the other guys on this list were still playing. Despite the disadvantage of not playing in the late 1990s or 2000s, when several of these guys had their best seasons and Sharpe likely would have set personal bests, no one on this list ever managed to hit the heights in all three categories that Sterling Sharpe did.
Herman Moore came the closest, hitting a spectacular burst from 1995 – 1997 in an attacking spread offense alongside Barry Sanders, but Sharpe beats Moore because only 3 elite seasons puts the latter on the wrong side of the Sayers threshold. He does have a fourth Pro Bowl in 1994 for some reason, despite finishing 11th in the league in yards and 23rd in receptions, maybe because he tied for third in TDs, but, even counting that, 4 elite seasons still falls on the wrong side of the Sayers threshold. Moore also didn’t dominate the NFL the way Sharpe did, only led the league twice in receptions, and never led in yards or touchdowns.
Sterling Sharpe was the best of this bunch.
BSLO, I hadn’t read your post before my last two posts so it’s a coincidence that I used some of the same phrasing that you did word for word, lol. I agree with most of what you said, though I am a strong advocate for inducting Drew Pearson. Regarding Sharpe, for now I’d be happy if he was just mentioned in the conversation. The guy utterly dominated when he played and it’s like most people have forgotten him.
I would definetly put Sterling Sharpe in the HOF. He played with lousy teams and still dominated. He may have only played a short period of time but in that time frame he was great!
out of all the tampa bay bucs, the bucs that will go into the hall of fame is warren sapp, john lynch, ronde barber, and derrick brooks
Simeon Rice has a long shot of getting in, but he has a case. He finished second in sacks to Kevin Carter, Michael Strahan, and Jason Taylor in 1999, 2002,and 2003 respectively. He has named first team All Pro in 2002 and 2003. When he retired, he was the 2nd fastest player to 100 sacks, behind Reggie White. That 2nd place record now belongs to DeMarcus Ware, future potential Hall of Fame player. Five Players elected from one team is a tall order, but they were that good.
HOF voters (and I am not one but like many others posting here have an informed opinion on the voting of players into the HOF) focus extensively on total career numbers, including total all pro/pro bowls, and playoff numbers and successes (conference/SB wins) as an indication of their impact and significance to the game. You can make all the arguments you wish for how Sharpe had a great seven year career based on average per game etc…. But the truth of the matter is, having looked at HOF voting over the last 20+ years, it is very difficult almost close to impossible to make the HOF based on a career as short as 7 years regardless of how great those 7 (or in the case of Sharpe 4 or 5) years were. Go ahead and name the number of players elected in the last 20 years with careers 7 years or less.
And I have never said that there is a set or predetermined limit on the number of players from a given position from a decade, but again looking at voting and election history it appears that in most cases once you get 5 or 6 at a position from a decade the voters appear to defer from additional elections (and lets not compare the 1960s when two pro football leagues were in place). My view is that only by looking at trends, history and voting can we get an idea which players are likely to someday be elected and based on that information the real case for Sharpe appears very unlikely. I also agree with the view that unfortunately his case falls into a 2nd tier of a large number of late 1980s/early 90s WRs which all have some overlap, he may be the best of that group but it will not be enough to separate him for likely election.
And as time passes more and more other players, WRs and other positions, come into the modern pool, and also many eventually into the seniors pool, all of which means a harder path for Sharpe. Forget for the moment about the other 1990s WRs closer to election (Reed, Carter, and Brown and they will all get elected within the next several years), just the influx of more players from 1990s and 2000s means Sharpe will fall short of the qualifications of those players with even greater accomplishments, thus it becomes hard to envision any time soon where he gets into the final 25 or 15 regardless of all the arguments for him, there simply are better players now and in the future within those final 25 and 15 groups. Is any HOF voter going to consider a 7 year dominant player, perhaps the 4 or 5 best WR from the late 1980s/early 1990s even after electing 5 from that era, while ignoring a DB with 10 pro bowls or a team of the decade member OL? Sometimes the reality is hard when it comes to these HOF elections.
” (and lets not compare the 1960s when two pro football leagues were in place)”
But fewer total teams than in the 1990s or now.
“Go ahead and name the number of players elected in the last 20 years with careers 7 years or less.”
There have been plenty elected with 5 or fewer Pro Bowl quality seasons. Jack Butler, who was the primary starter for 8 seasons of a 9 year career and made 4 Pro Bowls, was just inducted this year. Fred Dean, inducted in 2008, was only a primary starter for 6 seasons, though he did have a lot of sacks in 1983 coming off the bench and made one of his 4 Pro Bowls that year. Benny Friedman was inducted in 2005 for an 8 year career, though he only played one game his final season, so it was a really a 7 year career. Fritz Pollard only had a 6 year career but was inducted in 2005 for his contributions as both a player and a coach. Floyd Little was inducted in 2010 for a 9 year career in which he made 5 Pro Bowls and earned 1 first team All Pro selection, but didn’t do much his final two seasons. I don’t see how one could argue that those 2 years somehow put him over the top. Lynn Swann, inducted in 2001, only started a majority of games in 8 seasons, one of those strike shortened. Earl Campbell only started a majority of games in 7 seasons. Center Dwight Stephenson only started a majority of games in 6 seasons, 2 of them strike shortened, and was inducted in 1998. Kellen Winslow, a 1995 induction, only started a majority of games in 6 seasons, two of them strike shortened. There are other examples.
Sterling Sharpe started right out of the gate as a rookie and never missed a game. He accomplished more in a tightly packed 7 years than many HoFers with longer careers did. Of course the reason most HoFers have longer careers is because those great enough to make the HoF generally aren’t cut into early retirement, not because those extra, often mediocre seasons themselves are what make the difference between Canton and exclusion. Sterling Sharpe obviously was in no danger of losing his job. He suffered a career ending injury, and when that’s happened to HoF quality players in the past, like Gale Sayers or an Earl Campbell showing the consequences of his punishing running style, they’ve been inducted anyway as long as they played long enough to pass a minimum threshold.
All that said, again, I’m not predicting anything but just saying that I would vote to induct Sharpe.
The issue with the 1960s is not the total number of teams, but that as individual leagues each will have it own set of league and career number leaders along with all decade, all pro, and pro bowl teams, so it makes sense that you would have the potential for several players in the HOF from the same position. Again that comparison simply does not carry to the 1990s since we are not talking about number of players elected relative to number of teams in the league but defining the top 4 -6 players from a position from one era/decade regardless of the number of teams there are only so many league and career leaders, pro bowls, and all pro awards: a measure that Sharpe falls short on.
What now you are starting to count the number of games started by players? And since the seniors pool election is separate from the modern elections lets keep Butler, Friedman, and Pollard out of this debate as those eras pre 1960s were completely different in regards to player safety, length of careers. No one cares how many games Swann, Campbell, and Winslow played or complete seasons, they are all much stronger candidates then Sterling Sharpe and all have more career numbers, awards and playoff successes. Stephenson is perhaps the only comparison you have and he was a member of the 1980s all decade team.
When someone has to work harder and harder to justify an election of a player to the HOF, including by dismissing previous elected HOF players, it only shows how weak the case is. To somehow compare Sharpe to Earl Campbell as a case for short HOF quality careers as a means of supporting Sharpe’s case for the HOF is a joke as Campbell is perhaps within the top 10 RBs of all time, whereas it would be hard pressed to place Sterling Sharpe anywhere near that level on any list of the top WRs of all time.
There are very good solid basic reasons (which I have outlined) why Sterling Sharpe has not (and will not) been elected: with only 5 modern slots each year, the length and quality of his career is less than many other deserving players including 5 other WRs from the 1990s and he fails short of the standard for election. And attacking the election of other players into the HOF only cheapens your arguments.
Not comparing the two, but Charley Hennnigan deserves consideration someday. He was named to 3 First All Pro Teams. Played seven years all with the Houston Oliers. He had two sensational seasons in 1961(1,746 yards) and 1964 (1,546 yards) and accomplished them in a 14 game schedule. He is the first player ever to have more than 100 receptions in a season. He averaged 71.8 receiving yards per game; I believe was second best of all time when he retired, behind Lance Alworth.
I’ll try to meet you both in the middle here. I agree that Sharpe has 0 chance at making it in as a modern-era nominee, but I think that he stands a chance once he hits the senior committee. It may be 50 years from now when he gets that chance, but to write him off as someone who will never ever get considered is ridiculous. From a basic argument standpoint, having 5 Pro Bowls and 5 1st/2nd Team All-Pro selections, even in a short career, will keep him on the short list of senior receivers for a long time, as will the opinion that he will soon be arguably the best receiver from the 90’s not in the Hall of Fame. If you examine the fact that among those other top senior receivers, he led the league in receiving categories just as much if not more than all of the rest of them, it vaults him nearly to the top of the list.
Now, here’s where things will get tough. Once Sharpe hits the senior committee, a close look shows that there are a few receivers with similar credentials and similar career arcs that he will be competing against and inevitably get compared to:
1) Mac Speedie – Played 7 Seasons (1946-1952), Made 6 1st/2nd Team All Pro Teams and 2 Pro Bowl teams (not bad since he spent 4 seasons in the AAFC where they did not have Pro Bowls), Led his league in receptions 4 times and receiving yards twice, Finished 2nd all-time in receptions and receiving yards, 3rd in receiving yards/game, 10th in receiving TD’s, Member of the 1940’s All-Decade Team, Member of 4 AAFC and 1 NFL championship teams. Has been a finalist 3 times including once as a senior candidate where he was turned down. Partly hurt by the fact that he played more than half his career in the more wide-open AAFC league, and possibly by the fact that he had a Hall of Fame QB and WR on his team (Otto Graham and Dante Lavelli), suggesting that he may have been a product of their success.
2) Del Shofner – Played 11 Seasons (1957-1967), Made 5 Pro Bowls and 5 FIRST-Team All-Pro Teams, Led the NFL in receiving yards once, Finished 24th all-time in receptions, 15th all-time in receiving yards, 29th all-time in receiving yards per game (hurt by the fact that he spent all of his non-Pro Bowl seasons playing hurt or primarily playing another position), and 17th all-time in receiving TD’s, Starter on the 1960’s All-Decade Team, NEVER has been a finalist. Hurt by the fact that his 5 Pro Bowl seasons were his only above average seasons in the NFL, never won a championship, played for the Giants for most of his career on teams that were loaded with HOFers.
3) Charley Hennigan – Played 7 Seasons (1960-1966), Made 5 AFL All-Star Teams and 4 1st/2nd Team All-Pro Teams, Led his league in receptions once and receiving yards twice, Finished 9th all-time in receptions, 10th all-time in receiving yards, 3rd all-time in receiving yards per game (behind HOFer Lance Alworth and Dave Parks, who exploded onto the scene in 1964 and only had 3 good seasons in his career), 16th in receiving TD’s, set single-season records for receptions, receiving yards and receiving yards/game that stood for over 20 years, Member of AFL All-Time Team, Won 2 AFL Championships, NEVER has been a finalist. Hurt by his short career and the fact he spent his whole career in the AFL.
These three are all short career/high-peak type players. I would argue that in all three cases, they are among the best candidates from their eras and yet only one of them has ever been considered for the Hall of Fame, and he was even shut down as a senior candidate. If Sharpe is ever considered as a senior finalist, there will inevitably be voters that will compare him to these 3, and bring up the “but they have waited longer” argument. Plus, coincidentally all four of these players played with Hall of Fame QB’s (Otto Graham, Y.A. Tittle, George Blanda and Brett Favre) during at least some of their best seasons, which will inevitably lead to the “product of their success” argument, which in my opinion is not a fair argument in any of the four cases.
Now for Sharpe’s profile:
Played 7 Years (1988-1994), made 5 Pro Bowls and 5 1st/2nd All-Pro Teams, Led the NFL in receptions 3 times, receiving yards once, and receiving TD’s twice, Finished 14th in receptions, 30th in receiving yards, 3rd all-time in receiving yards/game, and 24th in receiving TD’s, set single-season record for receptions that was broken the next season, never considered as a finalist, some how not consistently on the preliminary nominees list (seriously, nobody has mailed in a nomination for him in some years…that is definitely a disgrace!). Hurt by the fact that he had a short career, only appeared in 2 playoff games, and played in an era with several exceptional receivers, 3 of which are not inducted yet.
Overall, would you take Sharpe’s career over the other three? It’s a very tough call, and now that I’ve looked at basic arguments for all 4, I’m now inclined to think that I wouldn’t. However, this is not because of the fact that he only played 7 years, it’s because I think there may be better short-career/high-peak candidates at his position.
Sorry Brad, didn’t mean to steal your thunder on Charley Hennigan. I didn’t see your post before I posted :)
It’s ok. No problem!
Andre Johnson, Calvin Johnson, and Larry Fitzgerald will be all in the Hall someday. Calvin is young, but future looks promising.
“The issue with the 1960s is not the total number of teams, but that as individual leagues each will have it own set of league and career number leaders along with all decade, all pro, and pro bowl teams, so it makes sense that you would have the potential for several players in the HOF from the same position.”
No, presumably voters would take that into account if they’re competent. Number of teams IS the issue because it means more players and therefore more potential HoF quality players, with competent voters accounting for accolade deflation when evaluating them.
“What now you are starting to count the number of games started by players?”
Why not? Do you feel players are earning their way to the HoF from the bench? Another unusual aspect of Sharpe’s career, one that should work in his favor if voters were competent, is that he never missed a game and started all of them.
” And since the seniors pool election is separate from the modern elections lets keep Butler, Friedman, and Pollard out of this debate as those eras pre 1960s were completely different in regards to player safety, length of careers.”
No, you asked for guys with similar length careers inducted in the past 20 years and all those players have been inducted recently. I also listed modern era candidates who played and started in fewer games than Sharpe did. As for process, while I’d prefer Sharpe be inducted as a modern era candidate, obviously senior era candidacy is an option too in a discussion about eventual HoF status.
“No one cares how many games Swann, Campbell, and Winslow played or complete seasons, they are all much stronger candidates then Sterling Sharpe and all have more career numbers, awards and playoff successes.”
Sterling Sharpe – 5 Pro Bowls, 3 first team All Pros
Lynn Swann – 3 Pro Bowls, 1 first team All Pro
Kellen Winslow – 5 Pro Bowls, 3 first team All Pros
Earl Campbell – 5 Pro Bowls, 3 first team All Pros
Sterling Sharpe beats Swann in season accolades and equals the rest. As for “career numbers”….
Sterling Sharpe – 8,134 yards (72.6 y/g), 595 receptions (5.3 r/g), 65 touchdowns (0.58 tds/g)
Lynn Swann – 5,462 yards (47.5 y/g), 336 receptions (2.9 r/g), 51 touchdowns (0.44 tds/g)
Kellen Winslow – 6,741 yards (61.8 y/g), 541 receptions, (5.0 r/g), 45 touchdowns (0.41 tds/g)
Of course Winslow was a TE and Swann played in a slightly earlier era, but you claimed that they “all” have more career numbers, awards, “and” playoff successes than Sharpe, and clearly that’s not true. Sharpe’s team did win a couple of playoff games, though Swann was the only one of the bunch whose team won a Super Bowl. SB wins are a resume bonus, but I’m not sure that Sharpe largely carrying a subpar team by himself should be held against him.
Sharpe was far more individually dominant than Swann. Sharpe led the league in receptions three times, twice setting NFL records. He led the league in touchdowns twice, his final year with a mark of 18 that had only been surpassed once before (by Jerry Rice with 22) and once since (by Randy Moss with 23). In 1992 he won the triple crown by leading the league in yards, receptions, and touchdowns, something only accomplished by two other men since 1970. By contrast, Lynn Swann only led the league in touchdowns once (with 11), and never led the league in yards or receptions. Swann’s “career” numbers were nowhere near as good vis a vis players from his own era as Sharpe’s were.
“When someone has to work harder and harder to justify an election of a player to the HOF, including by dismissing previous elected HOF players, it only shows how weak the case is. To somehow compare Sharpe to Earl Campbell as a case for short HOF quality careers as a means of supporting Sharpe’s case for the HOF is a joke as Campbell is perhaps within the top 10 RBs of all time, whereas it would be hard pressed to place Sterling Sharpe anywhere near that level on any list of the top WRs of all time.”
Actually my job is getting easier and easier. You keep committing unforced errors, like claiming that more HoFers should come out of the 1960s despite there being fewer players back then, and falsely claiming that Shannon Sharpe’s numbers would be great for a WR. When I refute something you say you just move on like nothing happened and try to throw something else against the wall to see if it sticks, or simply repeat your earlier assertion without supporting it with any facts.
Again, that guys like Earl Campbell (whose league leading stats are actually similar to Sharpe’s, btw) and Gale Sayers are first ballot HoFers despite relatively short careers helps my argument, not yours. If players with careers of similar length to Sharpe’s can get in on the first ballot, then there’s plenty of room for a guy like to Sharpe to get in after a long wait. He doesn’t need to be anywhere near as good as Sayers or Campbell, though Sharpe was so dominant that the gap isn’t as much as you imply.
That you’ve failed to address or even acknowledge that point in multiple replies now illustrates that your case is evaporating.
“There are very good solid basic reasons (which I have outlined) why Sterling Sharpe has not (and will not) been elected: with only 5 modern slots each year, the length and quality of his career is less than many other deserving players including 5 other WRs from the 1990s and he fails short of the standard for election. And attacking the election of other players into the HOF only cheapens your arguments.”
Leaving aside the fact that we’re on a senior era thread and including senior era induction as a possibility in this discussion, I’ve shown that Sharpe had a higher quality career than all the other “deserving players” you mention. The ONLY thing they have on him is longevity, so it comes down to how much one is willing to dismiss quality. Since I view longevity as but one of many factors to consider, I say Sharpe does meets the standard for HoF induction. It is hilarious to see YOU outraged over an attack on a player’s HoF worthiness in THIS discussion though.
Rasputin i will keep this short and simple i agree with you sterling sharpe will never get into the hof his problem was he was in a era of great receivers reed carter rice brown, also Kellen winslow was imo a much better tight end than sterling sharpe imo also winslow was on the all decade team for the 80’s and the nfl 75th anniversary team
also for all or most of winslows career he had hof quarterback in dan fouts while sharpe only had favre for only 2/1/2 years while in the other years he had magic don maj.
Now then on to the next train of thought how does shofner compare to the other nfl all decade 60’s team
SE- Del Shofner 5/5
SE- Charley Taylor (Hof) 8/1
FL- Gary Collins 2/0
FL- Boyd Dowler 2/2
Lets Compare Gary Collins to Lynn Swann
Gary Collins
Rec 331 Yds 5299 TD 70
Lynn Swann
Rec 336 Yds 5462 TD 51
Now Lets Compare
Charlie Hennigan
Rec 410 Yds 6283 TD 51
Art Powell
Rec 479 Yds 8046 TD 81
what do u guys think
“No, presumably voters would take that into account if they’re competent. Number of teams IS the issue because it means more players and therefore more potential HoF quality players, with competent voters accounting for accolade deflation when evaluating them.”
Wrong, my point was not the total number of players or teams but that one important factor considered for potential HOF players is the number of all pro and pro bowl selections with two leagues in the 1960s there are going to be more such selections including players that played most or all of their career in the AFL.
“What now you are starting to count the number of games started by players?”
Why not? Do you feel players are earning their way to the HoF from the bench? Another unusual aspect of Sharpe’s career, one that should work in his favor if voters were competent, is that he never missed a game and started all of them.”
Voters simply do not take into account the number of games a player has, and it is very common for players to play 10+ years with weaker years at start or finish but the assessment is based on career totals.
” And since the seniors pool election is separate from the modern elections lets keep Butler, Friedman, and Pollard out of this debate as those eras pre 1960s were completely different in regards to player safety, length of careers.”
No, you asked for guys with similar length careers inducted in the past 20 years and all those players have been inducted recently. ”
You can not compare the modern era elections to the senior candidates nor can you compare players from pre 1960 to post 1980, completely different game and the election processes are completely separate, so no I maintain examining recent senior elections to justify selecting Sharpe as a modern candidate is invalid – simple.
“I also listed modern era candidates who played and started in fewer games than Sharpe did. As for process, while I’d prefer Sharpe be inducted as a modern era candidate, obviously senior era candidacy is an option too in a discussion about eventual HoF status.” And I pointed out why Swann (playoffs, SBs), Campbell (one of the best RBs of all time), and Winslow (top in TE career records and rankings when he retired) are all short career players with much better qualifications and more deserving then Sharpe and none are a fair comparison to make to Sharpe.
“Actually my job is getting easier and easier. You keep committing unforced errors, like claiming that more HoFers should come out of the 1960s despite there being fewer players back then, and falsely claiming that Shannon Sharpe’s numbers would be great for a WR. When I refute something you say you just move on like nothing happened and try to throw something else against the wall to see if it sticks, or simply repeat your earlier assertion without supporting it with any facts.
Look at Shannon Sharpe’s career receiving records which are still among the best for TEs, and he had more career catches, yards, TDs plus 3 SB titles, more than many of the other 1990s receivers including his brother.
You are focusing on the quality of selected and smaller number of seasons (and ignoring the average 2-3 years of his 7 year career) whereas I look at the voters and voting history for the HOF which clearly focuses on longer sustained careers, performance, and playoff successes. The more you break down his career to the best 4-5 seasons you lose that career focus and attempting to value him over other already selected HOFers with better careers only makes his case look weaker.
“Again, that guys like Earl Campbell (whose league leading stats are actually similar to Sharpe’s, btw) and Gale Sayers are first ballot HoFers despite relatively short careers helps my argument, not yours. If players with careers of similar length to Sharpe’s can get in on the first ballot, then there’s plenty of room for a guy like to Sharpe to get in after a long wait. He doesn’t need to be anywhere near as good as Sayers or Campbell, though Sharpe was so dominant that the gap isn’t as much as you imply.”
Very simple, Campbell and Sayers are both considered among the top 10/15 RBs of all time, no one is going to make that argument for Sharpe.
“That you’ve failed to address or even acknowledge that point in multiple replies now illustrates that your case is evaporating.”
The factor that Sharpe has never come close to election and will not in coming years is the only fact needed to show that after several years of consideration the 44 HOFers have not even deemed him worthy of including in the final 25 – why? Simply because there are better players at all positions including WRs. And it is not my case as I am not a voter, but it looks to me the voters agree with my position and facts, and not your weak case for a seven year player. I actually like Sharpe, he was a great player for a few years, but when you compare him to the many other players awaiting selection as HOFers anyone would be hard pressed to elect him over so many other more deserving players including Reed, Brown and Carter all of whom have much better career numbers – it is as simple as that regardless of how complicated you try and make his case.
“Leaving aside the fact that we’re on a senior era thread and including senior era induction as a possibility in this discussion, I’ve shown that Sharpe had a higher quality career than all the other “deserving players” you mention.”
No you have only shown that he had a short quality career, but not long enough or high enough quality to deserve election as a modern candidate, and perhaps even senior where the chance of being selected is even smaller.
“The ONLY thing they have on him is longevity, so it comes down to how much one is willing to dismiss quality.”
No they have him on quality long careers and yes that is perhaps the most important criteria for election since there are many players with excellent 4-5 years, but few that can sustain the quality or have an impact on the game while playing (playoffs) – that is what defines a HOFer.
“It is hilarious to see YOU outraged over an attack on a player’s HoF worthiness in THIS discussion though.”
When have I ever questioned a players HOF worthiness in this discussion? If you are refering to Culp and Robinson I never said they did not deserve selection to the HOF (in fact in these posts over the last few years both have appeared on my list of top senior candidates), the only issue I have had with their selection is that they were selected this year over more qualified candidates – a few shared by many other posters BTW.
The facts and evidence are on my side, the truth is the Sharpe is not going to get elected as a modern candidate and it will be years if ever he gets considered as a senior candidate – there simply are better players and only 5 modern and 2 senior slots each year. Just on the modern side alone I can list right now 20-30 players (next 5-6 elections) of who will get elected in some order and none of them are Sharpe. Right now in the senior pool I have 7 to 8 more years of senior slots filled in some order. Both the case and time are on my side and not yours, so feel free to continue to make your case including the need to insult me along the way, I can take it because in the long run I am right and you are simply misguided and wrong. Time to simply be happy with that Sharpe shrine in your bedroom.
dont forget reggie wayne also.
BSLO, in my personal opinion the fact that Sharpe played his entire career in the NFL does give him a boost over Speedie and Hennigan. Speedie’s production fell precipitously when he joined the NFL. He went from leading the AAFC in yards and receptions in 1949 to 14th in yards and 8th in receptions in 1950 after the Browns joined the NFL. In fact he had led the AAFC in yards in 1947 as well and in receptions from 1947-1949, but only led in receptions once in his 3 year NFL career and never led in yards. His reception leading season was his last one, and was also his best NFL yardage season, so it’s hard to chalk up his stat drop to decline. In fact he left the NFL and had success in the CFL.
Mac Speedie (excluding rookie season)
AAFC (1947-1949) – 78.7 y/g, 4.9 r/g, 0.45 tds/g
NFL (1950-1952) – 60.2 y/g, 4.1 r/g, 0.26 tds/g
By Year – Yardage, Receptions (rank)
1946 – 564 (3rd), 24 (6th)
1947 – 1146 (1st), 67 (1st)
1948 – 816 (3rd), 58 (1st)
1949 – 1028 (1st), 62 (1st)
1950 – 548 (14th), 42 (8th)
1951 – 589 (6th), 34 (12th)
1952 – 911 (5th), 62 (1st)
Otto Graham and other transition players follow similar patterns to varying degrees. Clearly there was a huge difference between playing in the AAFC and the NFL. There was also a huge difference between the AFL and NFL, especially in the former’s early years when Hennigan played and when every franchise was essentially an expansion team. The AFL was a more wide open, pass friendly league, so one can’t directly translate AFL stats into NFL stats.
All that said, Speedie was easily the best AAFC WR, Hennigan was one of the best early AFL WRs, and I wouldn’t be opposed to either of them landing in Canton some day. I wouldn’t use them as a reason for not inducting Sterling Sharpe though. Shofner is a tougher call since he was purely NFL, but Sterling’s non Pro Bowl seasons were better than all of Shofner’s non Pro Bowl seasons, and Shofner never led the league in receptions or touchdowns. For me Sharpe winning the rare triple crown, and STILL sitting at #12 in yards/game almost two decades after he retired, with the only two guys ahead of him who retired before 2000 being Michael Irvin and Lance Alworth, puts him over the top.
“Wrong, my point was not the total number of players or teams but that one important factor considered for potential HOF players is the number of all pro and pro bowl selections with two leagues in the 1960s there are going to be more such selections including players that played most or all of their career in the AFL.”
And I explained why you were wrong to focus on that, since you’re assuming and endorsing voter incompetence. Reread my post. I never denied what point you were making, and you failed to point out anything I was “wrong” about. Voters may or may not take accolade deflation into account, but they obviously should, so you’re basing your argument on a fatally flawed premise. It’s logical that more players means more great players.
“Voters simply do not take into account the number of games a player has”
Whether that’s true or not, you failed to explain why not doing so would be a good thing, especially in sample set and longevity discussions.
“You can not compare the modern era elections to the senior candidates”
We certainly can mention both if the discussion is eventual HoF induction and not just modern era induction, lol.
“…nor can you compare players from pre 1960 to post 1980”
Good thing I also listed post 1980 players.
“And I pointed out why Swann (playoffs, SBs),….are all short career players with much better qualifications and more deserving then Sharpe ”
Sharpe (yardage, receptions, touchdowns, league dominance, Pro Bowls, first team All Pros)…..
“Look at Shannon Sharpe’s career receiving records which are still among the best for TEs, and he had more career catches, yards, TDs plus 3 SB titles, more than many of the other 1990s receivers including his brother.”
Only because he played forever. Neither Shannon’s peak performance nor career averages comes close to the top several 1990s WRs, much less his brother’s. Again, he didn’t perform the traditional duties of a TE but was basically just a big, extra receiver. If he had been labeled a WR instead of technically being designated a “TE”, he wouldn’t have caught a whiff of the HoF. Shannon just didn’t possess the skills that Sterling did. Shannon himself said as much.
“You are focusing on the quality of selected and smaller number of seasons (and ignoring the average 2-3 years of his 7 year career) whereas I look at the voters and voting history for the HOF which clearly focuses on longer sustained careers, performance, and playoff successes. The more you break down his career to the best 4-5 seasons you lose that career focus and attempting to value him over other already selected HOFers with better careers only makes his case look weaker.”
Wrong. Peak performance is and should be taken into account by voters. And I posted career numbers too. Sharpe had a better career than many HoFers, and certainly a better one than non-HoFers from his own era, if not as long of one. Posting these comparisons makes his case look stronger.
“Very simple, Campbell and Sayers are both considered among the top 10/15 RBs of all time, no one is going to make that argument for Sharpe.”
But we aren’t making a first ballot case for Sharpe. If guys with similar or shorter careers are inducted on the first ballot, that leaves someone like Sharpe, who was almost as dominant, with plenty of room for induction after a long wait. Despite quoting it you failed to address this point AGAIN, even after I called you out for it in my last post!
“The factor that Sharpe has never come close to election and will not in coming years is the only fact needed to show that after several years of consideration the 44 HOFers have not even deemed him worthy of including in the final 25 –…..And it is not my case as I am not a voter, but it looks to me the voters agree with my position and facts, and not your weak case for a seven year player.”
Wrong. Part of my argument is that HoF voters are MISTAKEN if they don’t induct Sharpe, so citing their failure to induct him as proof that he doesn’t deserve induction is an invalid circular argument on your part. Besides, we’ve already established that the HoF process and voters are fallible. Remember when you said this on this very thread?
“Culp?????????????? Terrible pick by the HOF seniors committee, ” – Paul
LOL!
And I’m not sure what “facts” you feel you’ve presented, but I’ve cited many proving both that there’s ample precedent for inducting someone with Sharpe’s longevity and that his peak and career averages trounce the other candidates from his era. None of the other WRs you favor were ever as good or dominant as Sterling was. Trying to hide behind HoF voters further underscores how weak your argument is.
” I actually like Sharpe, he was a great player for a few years, but when you compare him to the many other players awaiting selection as HOFers anyone would be hard pressed to elect him over so many other more deserving players including Reed, Brown and Carter all of whom have much better career numbers – it is as simple as that regardless of how complicated you try and make his case.”
Career averages ARE career numbers, and Sharpe trounces those three players in that department. It’s not complicated. Regardless, you’ve failed to cite a good reason why all 4 couldn’t be inducted.
“No they have him on quality long careers and yes that is perhaps the most important criteria for election since there are many players with excellent 4-5 years, but few that can sustain the quality or have an impact on the game while playing (playoffs) – that is what defines a HOFer.”
No, no one you’ve cited surpasses Sharpe in pure quality, and we’ve repeatedly established that there are plenty of HoFers with 5 elite seasons, old and recent. None of your three WRs ever won a Super Bowl either, so I’m not sure why you feel post season success is a meaningful point here.
“When have I ever questioned a players HOF worthiness in this discussion?”
This site needs emoticons because sometimes words just won’t suffice. Uh……Sterling Sharpe?
“The facts and evidence are on my side,”
Wrong. I’m the only one presenting facts and evidence. You make vague assertions with varying degrees of accuracy.
“the truth is the Sharpe is not going to get elected as a modern candidate and it will be years if ever he gets considered as a senior candidate – there simply are better players and only 5 modern and 2 senior slots each year.”
Again, not what I’m debating. You seem to have trouble keeping the difference between “will” and “should” straight.
“Both the case and time are on my side and not yours, so feel free to continue to make your case including the need to insult me along the way, I can take it because in the long run I am right and you are simply misguided and wrong.”
When did I allegedly “insult” you? Considering how wrong you are (something not contingent on future events, since, again, I’m not making predictions) on various points, along with your exasperating non responses to points, flippant dismissals, red herrings, and circular arguments, I think I’ve been remarkably restrained.
“Time to simply be happy with that Sharpe shrine in your bedroom.”
I’m a Cowboys fan, genius. In fact I think there are too many Packers in the HoF. I just hate seeing great players get shafted by halfwits in the sports media and/or the HoF panel.
“And I explained why you were wrong to focus on that, since you’re assuming and endorsing voter incompetence.”
I am not assuming anything, just trying to explain to you why there are more HOFs from the 1960s, because with two leagues there are two decade teams, two decade records, and two decades of all pro and pro bowl teams. An issue the HOF voters are clearly aware of in making selections from the 60s.
” Reread my post. I never denied what point you were making, and you failed to point out anything I was “wrong” about. Voters may or may not take accolade deflation into account, but they obviously should, so you’re basing your argument on a fatally flawed premise. It’s logical that more players means more great players.”
No it is not a function of more players as there are more players and teams in the NFL then existed in the NFL plus AFL in the 1960s, but there were TWO leagues.
“Voters simply do not take into account the number of games a player has”
Whether that’s true or not, you failed to explain why not doing so would be a good thing, especially in sample set and longevity discussions.
The focus is on total career numbers and the quality of a long career versus a player with 4-5 great seasons like Sharpe. His biggest issue is how his overall career numbers compare to his peers Reed, Brown and Carter, unfortunately injuries limited his career to 4-5 excellent seasons, that simply is not a long enough body of work to warrant the HOF.
“You can not compare the modern era elections to the senior candidates”
We certainly can mention both if the discussion is eventual HoF induction and not just modern era induction, lol.”
But right now he is a modern candidate so the focus and discussion should stay on whether he can be elected as a modern candidate and he needs to be compared to others in that current pool, especially his peers the other WRs from the 1990s. When he enters the senior pool and he is competing against a whole new set of candidates then those comparisons become valid.
“…nor can you compare players from pre 1960 to post 1980?
Good thing I also listed post 1980 players.” And you list consisted of 1 or 2 players???? That is the best you can do with 30+ years of elections?
“And I pointed out why Swann (playoffs, SBs),….are all short career players with much better qualifications and more deserving then Sharpe ”
“Sharpe (yardage, receptions, touchdowns, league dominance, Pro Bowls, first team All Pros)…..”
Yet Swann played in the 1970s so total receptions and yards are not a fair comparison as it was a completely different era then of course Swann has those SB catches! Besides Sharpe is not competing against Swann to get into the HOF as I and others have mentioned players compete against other finalists in their pool, that is who they have to beat. Previous elections and earlier modern candidate pools are meaningless for comparison since each year/decade brings new candidates into the pools.
“Look at Shannon Sharpe’s career receiving records which are still among the best for TEs, and he had more career catches, yards, TDs plus 3 SB titles, more than many of the other 1990s receivers including his brother.” Only because he played forever. Neither Shannon’s peak performance nor career averages comes close to the top several 1990s WRs, much less his brother’s. ”
He had a long and high quality career, a very important criteria for selection to the HOF. Players are not selected for their peak years but the complete body of work which in the case of Sterling is only 4-5 years – simply not enough.
“Again, he didn’t perform the traditional duties of a TE but was basically just a big, extra receiver. If he had been labeled a WR instead of technically being designated a “TE”, he wouldn’t have caught a whiff of the HoF. ”
He was not just labeled a TE he played as a TE and as I mentioned before the TE position has changed greatly in the last decade, in some part a result of the success of Shannon.
” Shannon just didn’t possess the skills that Sterling did. Shannon himself said as much.”
Maybe he did but skills alone do not get you into the HOF, quality careers do, and 4-5 years is simply not enough of a quality career.
“Wrong. Peak performance is and should be taken into account by voters.” As one factor, but the overall career length and quality is a better deciding facor”
“And I posted career numbers too. Sharpe had a better career than many HoFers, and certainly a better one than non-HoFers from his own era, if not as long of one. Posting these comparisons makes his case look stronger.” Which total career numbers does Sharpe have in comparison to his 1990s era peer WRs besides average catches/yards per game, which given that he has a limited sample size of games compared to his peers is not a fair comparison.
“Very simple, Campbell and Sayers are both considered among the top 10/15 RBs of all time, no one is going to make that argument for Sharpe.”
“But we aren’t making a first ballot case for Sharpe. ”
Nor was I, you (not me) are using two of the greatest players in the history of the NFL as justification to elect Sharpe into the HOF when clearly his career achievements fall way short of those players.
“If guys with similar or shorter careers are inducted on the first ballot, that leaves someone like Sharpe, who was almost as dominant, with plenty of room for induction after a long wait.”
Because players like Campbell and Sayers had better careers then Sharpe. And I am not debating when he should be elected to the HOF, I am making the point that his career falls short of the standard for election to the HOF – ever.
” Despite quoting it you failed to address this point AGAIN, even after I called you out for it in my last post!” What are you missing when I repeating counter your claim with the point that a comparison of two of the greatest players in the history of the HOF does not make you case but only weaken it as Stirling falls way short of that standard which for some reason you continue to make when no one else would.
“The factor that Sharpe has never come close to election and will not in coming years is the only fact needed to show that after several years of consideration the 44 HOFers have not even deemed him worthy of including in the final 25 –…..And it is not my case as I am not a voter, but it looks to me the voters agree with my position and facts, and not your weak case for a seven year player.”
“Wrong. Part of my argument is that HoF voters are MISTAKEN if they don’t induct Sharpe, so citing their failure to induct him as proof that he doesn’t deserve induction is an invalid circular argument on your part.”
No it is evidence that he has been considered among the candidates but the HOF voters clearly have determined that he is not a better candidate each year then 25 other more deserving players. They clearly do not value his career as you would.
“Besides, we’ve already established that the HoF process and voters are fallible. Remember when you said this on this very thread?”
I was talking about the senior candidate selection process (which does not apply in the case of Stirling, at least not yet) and my issues are not which players are considered and elected but the order in which they are selected. I do not have the same issues with the modern selection and if you looked over my posts in recent years my predictions of modern elections are pretty good and I have argued against any modern player election, just preference as to the order Since Stirling has yet to even make the final 25 of modern candidates that debate does not apply to him.
“Culp?????????????? Terrible pick by the HOF seniors committee, ” – Paul
LOL!” Yes and if you read the rest of that post and others you would see that my issue was not that Culp deserves election but that others should have come first, and again that is the senior candidate selection a completely different process (5 voters make that decision). In case of Stirling I am not making that case – he simply does not deserve election.
“And I’m not sure what “facts” you feel you’ve presented, but I’ve cited many proving both that there’s ample precedent for inducting someone with Sharpe’s longevity and that his peak and career averages trounce the other candidates from his era. None of the other WRs you favor were ever as good or dominant as Sterling was. Trying to hide behind HoF voters further underscores how weak your argument is.”
I am not trying to hide behind the voters, I work to understand how the voting occurs and the trends and in the case in regards to Stirling I agree with them, here is their argument which I agree with:
Stirling (3/5) 595, 8134, 65t
Reed (0/7) 951, 13198 87t
Brown (0/9) 1094 14934 100t
Carter (2/8) 1101 13899 130t
Guess what based on those numbers from his peer WRs Stirling is not getting into the HOF as the 6/7 best WR of the 1990s.
“Career averages ARE career numbers, and Sharpe trounces those three players in that department. It’s not complicated.” Career averages are not a fair comparison when the entire body of work is not the same (total years), it makes for a week argument for Stirling in attempt to “hide” the low career totals”
“Regardless, you’ve failed to cite a good reason why all 4 couldn’t be inducted.” Yes I did, looking at the history of HOF voters 6 or 7 players at the same position from the same era/decade is not common. There is no rule or guideline, but with so many other players from an era and from other positions at some point voters are moving on to other eras and other positions. There are only 5 modern slots each year and dozens of deserving players, why select the 6 or 7th best WR from the 1990s while bypassing the 2 or 3 OL or DB.
“No they have him on quality long careers and yes that is perhaps the most important criteria for election since there are many players with excellent 4-5 years, but few that can sustain the quality or have an impact on the game while playing (playoffs) – that is what defines a HOFer.”
“No, no one you’ve cited surpasses Sharpe in pure quality, and we’ve repeatedly established that there are plenty of HoFers with 5 elite seasons, old and recent.”
We disagree for example Reed, Brown and Carter all exceed Stirling in pure quality over their entire and longer careers. And I have already stated that the few short career players in the HOF, especially recent are simply better players then Stirling, and we already covered that you simply can not compare short careers and numbers from earlier decades, especially considering that Stirling is not currently competing against them to get in the HOF.
” None of your three WRs ever won a Super Bowl either, so I’m not sure why you feel post season success is a meaningful point here.” Because it mattered to Swann (an example you raised) and it certainly matters to Reed (four conference championships do mean something).
“When have I ever questioned a players HOF worthiness in this discussion?”
This site needs emoticons because sometimes words just won’t suffice. Uh……Sterling Sharpe?
I was referring to current HOFers with that statement not candidates like Sterling.
“The facts and evidence are on my side,”
Wrong. I’m the only one presenting facts and evidence. You make vague assertions with varying degrees of accuracy.”
I have provided plenty of facts and evidence based on the HOF voting, selection of HOF players, the value of length of quality career.
“the truth is the Sharpe is not going to get elected as a modern candidate and it will be years if ever he gets considered as a senior candidate – there simply are better players and only 5 modern and 2 senior slots each year.”
Again, not what I’m debating. You seem to have trouble keeping the difference between “will” and “should” straight.
I fail to see the difference? Why waste you time here debating a “should”, if you case is so strong stand behind it and argue that he “will” make it (of course he will not, right).
“Both the case and time are on my side and not yours, so feel free to continue to make your case including the need to insult me along the way, I can take it because in the long run I am right and you are simply misguided and wrong.”
“When did I allegedly “insult” you? Considering how wrong you are (something not contingent on future events, since, again, I’m not making predictions) on various points, along with your exasperating non responses to points, flippant dismissals, red herrings, and circular arguments, I think I’ve been remarkably restrained.”
I have provided repeated points and presented a strong case as to why a player like Stirling does not deserve to be elected to the HOF. I am not wrong, since it is clear the point I have been making are the exact reasons why even through he has been eligible Stirling has not even made the final 25, perhaps it is you who need to look more clearly at the facts and reality of his situation instead of employing debate techniques. They are not helping your case.
“Time to simply be happy with that Sharpe shrine in your bedroom.”
I’m a Cowboys fan, genius. In fact I think there are too many Packers in the HoF. I just hate seeing great players get shafted by halfwits in the sports media and/or the HoF panel.
“I am not assuming anything, just trying to explain to you why there are more HOFs from the 1960s, because with two leagues there are two decade teams, two decade records, and two decades of all pro and pro bowl teams. An issue the HOF voters are clearly aware of in making selections from the 60s.”
A speculation on your part, and I explained to you that simply glancing at such accolades without taking into account the inflated Pro Bowl numbers from back then would represent an extremely shallow selection process. If true, it’s not the way things should be.
“No it is not a function of more players as there are more players and teams in the NFL then existed in the NFL plus AFL in the 1960s, but there were TWO leagues.”
So? There’s one HoF. Are you more likely to have more great players in a smaller league or in a larger one? And no, you’re wrong anyway. Only two WRs who played extensively in the pre merger AFL are in Canton, Alworth and Maynard, and they both played well past the merger and finished their careers on NFC teams. Most of Biletnikoff’s career and accolades came post merger. That leaves 6 HoFers who played at least 5 years in the 1960s and were pure NFL guys. Are you contending that some of those players wouldn’t have made the HoF if the leagues had been united? Which ones? Regardless, you would artificially cap the 1990s, a decade that placed far more importance on passing and had more teams than the 1960s AFL and NFL combined, at the same level as the pure NFL group at most. I see no rational basis for that.
You: “Voters simply do not take into account the number of games a player has”
Me: “Whether that’s true or not, you failed to explain why not doing so would be a good thing, especially in sample set and longevity discussions.”
You: “The focus is on total career numbers and the quality of a long career versus a player with 4-5 great seasons like Sharpe. His biggest issue is how his overall career numbers compare to his peers Reed, Brown and Carter, unfortunately injuries limited his career to 4-5 excellent seasons, that simply is not a long enough body of work to warrant the HOF.”
You sort of dodged the issue. Obviously me listing just several of the many recent Canton inductions with fewer career starts and sometimes even games than Sharpe illustrated that there are lots of HoFers who didn’t have careers much if any longer than Sharpe’s. Your final claim is manifestly wrong, as there are a huge number of HoFers with only 5 elite seasons. Some had shorter careers than Sharpe did. Most had longer careers, but many weren’t that good or even playing much in the extra seasons. Maybe we’ll have to agree to disagree on how vital a few years riding the bench and/or maybe giving your stats a little padding is in earning your way into Canton.
“But right now he is a modern candidate so the focus and discussion should stay on whether he can be elected as a modern candidate and he needs to be compared to others in that current pool, especially his peers the other WRs from the 1990s. When he enters the senior pool and he is competing against a whole new set of candidates then those comparisons become valid.”
No, they’re valid now, especially since this is a thread about senior nominees. Regardless, I’ve been pointing out that Sharpe compares favorably to his contemporaries in any pool.
“And you list consisted of 1 or 2 players???? That is the best you can do with 30+ years of elections?”
No, I listed at least 5 HoFers with relatively short careers who played well past 1980, and could have listed more. How many precedents do you need?
“Yet Swann played in the 1970s so total receptions and yards are not a fair comparison as it was a completely different era then of course”
But Sterling was more dominant in his own era in terms of stat ranking, Pro Bowls, and first team All Pro selections than Swann was in his.
“Swann has those SB catches!”
Give me a break. Yeah, that was some “complete body of work”. Sterling Sharpe has the triple crown.
“Besides Sharpe is not competing against Swann to get into the HOF as I and others have mentioned players compete against other finalists in their pool,”
The comparisons establish precedents disproving your claim that Sharpe’s career wasn’t long enough to warrant HoF consideration. Of course you could claim the voters were mistaken to allow players like Swann, Stephenson, Butler, Dean, etc. in I guess, but I’m guessing you won’t.
“He (Shannon Sharpe) had a long and high quality career, a very important criteria for selection to the HOF.”
Quality for a “TE”, not a WR of his era, contrary to your earlier boast.
“Players are not selected for their peak years but the complete body of work which in the case of Sterling is only 4-5 years – simply not enough.”
We’ve established that you’re wrong on both counts. Sterling’s “body of work” was 7 seasons, 5 of them elite, 1 average but solid, and the other a very strong rookie campaign. Huge numbers of HoFers only had 5 elite seasons, and many had careers of similar length to Sharpe. Some had shorter careers. And voters should and usually do take peak years into account. By ignoring them you aren’t fully examining the complete body of work from all angles. More information is better than less.
“He was not just labeled a TE he played as a TE and as I mentioned before the TE position has changed greatly in the last decade, in some part a result of the success of Shannon.”
He “played as a TE” by lining up next to the tackle. If offenses continue to just use the “TE” as another receiver, rather than as the traditional blocking/receiver hybrid, then at some point HoF voters should and very well might stop treating them separately, and start judging their numbers by WR standards. If that happens many of them, including Shannon, would look a whole lot less impressive.
“Which total career numbers does Sharpe have in comparison to his 1990s era peer WRs besides average catches/yards per game, which given that he has a limited sample size of games compared to his peers is not a fair comparison.”
7 years isn’t very limited, but Sterling Sharpe crushed his contemporaries in both totals and per game averages in the years they overlapped. I’d love for you to explain how it’s unfair to Andre Reed to compare numbers only from his 7 Pro Bowl years with those from from Sharpe’s entire career, including his rookie season, and why you feel it’s irrelevant that Sharpe still decisively beats him. Sharpe also crushes the other contenders in career averages, despite most of them having the unfair advantage of playing into the stat inflated late 1990s-early 2000s, and enjoying their best seasons then. The truth is that none of them were ever as good as Sharpe.
“Nor was I, you (not me) are using two of the greatest players in the history of the NFL as justification to elect Sharpe into the HOF when clearly his career achievements fall way short of those players.”
No, I pointed out that it’s possible to consider two players among the greatest of all time despite them having similar or shorter careers than Sharpe. That obliterates your (paraphrasing) “not long enough body of work” contention. If it’s long enough to place people among the greatest in NFL history, then it’s long enough to merely make the HoF. And it’s not like Sharpe was just pretty good in those 7 years, either. He was utterly DOMINANT, with similar stats and seasonal accolades to Sayers and Campbell.
Me:“If guys with similar or shorter careers are inducted on the first ballot, that leaves someone like Sharpe, who was almost as dominant, with plenty of room for induction after a long wait.”
You: “Because players like Campbell and Sayers had better careers then Sharpe. ”
Somewhat, perhaps, but you overstate the gap.
“And I am not debating when he should be elected to the HOF, I am making the point that his career falls short of the standard for election to the HOF – ever.”
So in your opinion a player with a 7 year career is either a first ballot HoFer or not a HoFer at all? Someone with a slightly less impressive career immediately drops completely off the map? What bizarre reasoning. You might have a point if Sayers and Campbell were viewed as borderline cases who had to wait a long time for induction, but that’s not the case.
“What are you missing when I repeating counter your claim with the point that a comparison of two of the greatest players in the history of the HOF does not make you case but only weaken it as Stirling falls way short of that standard which for some reason you continue to make when no one else would.”
That doesn’t counter my claim. You have yet to explain your logic. And others on this thread have already agreed with me about Sterling’s longevity not being a disqualifier.
Me: “Wrong. Part of my argument is that HoF voters are MISTAKEN if they don’t induct Sharpe, so citing their failure to induct him as proof that he doesn’t deserve induction is an invalid circular argument on your part.”
You: “No it is evidence that he has been considered among the candidates but the HOF voters clearly have determined that he is not a better candidate each year then 25 other more deserving players. They clearly do not value his career as you would.”
No, it’s not clear you understand what a circular argument is. Let me try this again. I’m arguing that the HoF voters are WRONG not to induct Sharpe, if indeed they never do. Nowhere have I claimed that they already have inducted him, or that I would respect their decision if they don’t. I already have almost no confidence in the HoF selection committee or the corrupt, opaque process. You, on the other hand, are repeatedly claiming that the HoF voters are right not to induct Sharpe…..because they haven’t inducted him. You aren’t offering pertinent evidence of anything.
“I was talking about the senior candidate selection process (which does not apply in the case of Stirling, at least not yet) and my issues are not which players are considered and elected but the order in which they are selected.”
So you feel the HoF committee is fallible on the order of selection but infallible on which players it inducts or doesn’t induct? They’ve NEVER made a mistake on the latter? Wow.
“In case of Stirling I am not making that case – he simply does not deserve election.”
Yes, you’re arguing against his HoF credentials. As I said. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on whether he deserved election.
“I am not trying to hide behind the voters, I work to understand how the voting occurs and the trends and in the case in regards to Stirling I agree with them”
Apparently you agree with them at all times, which is a fascinating tangent in and of itself.
“here is their argument which I agree with:
Stirling (3/5) 595, 8134, 65t
Reed (0/7) 951, 13198 87t
Brown (0/9) 1094 14934 100t
Carter (2/8) 1101 13899 130t”
Yes, you’ve presented the laziest and most shallow argument possible. Meanwhile, I posted mountains of stats higher in the thread showing that Sterling Sharpe was SIGNIFICANTLY better than Reed, Brown, and Carter in actual game by game quality, facts that should ALSO be considered in any serious HoF discussion.
“Career averages are not a fair comparison when the entire body of work is not the same (total years), it makes for a week argument for Stirling in attempt to “hide” the low career totals””
No, I look at career totals too, but I refuse to ignore everything else while you recoil from taking a deeper look. More information is better than less. As for your “fair comparison” claim, even though your talking point is shaky, that’s why I also looked at peak performance and overlapping years to see if the career averages were distorted. They aren’t. Sterling was better.
Me: “Regardless, you’ve failed to cite a good reason why all 4 couldn’t be inducted.”
You: “Yes I did, looking at the history of HOF voters 6 or 7 players at the same position from the same era/decade is not common.”
The 1960s have 9 HoF WRs who played at least 5 years in the decade, and later decades likely haven’t seen their full inductees yet.
“There is no rule or guideline, but with so many other players from an era and from other positions at some point voters are moving on to other eras and other positions. There are only 5 modern slots each year and dozens of deserving players, why select the 6 or 7th best WR from the 1990s while bypassing the 2 or 3 OL or DB.”
There’s still the senior avenue, but the passing game has steadily increased in importance over the past half century so it wouldn’t be surprising if WRs end up being better represented than some other positions. Besides, some those 6 or 7 WRs you mention played extensively in and represent other decades too, so there’s more room for modern era induction than you imply.
“We disagree for example Reed, Brown and Carter all exceed Stirling in pure quality over their entire and longer careers.”
But not over any particular segment of their careers, or in career averages, lol. They were lesser players who played longer. I want the best in the HoF.
“Because it mattered to Swann (an example you raised) and it certainly matters to Reed (four conference championships do mean something).”
I suppose, but I guess Sharpe’s playoff win means something too. His team wasn’t good enough to get to the postseason much, but he did have 11 catches for 229 yards and 4 tds in the 2 playoff games he was healthy enough to play in, so he made the most of the chance and performed well on the big stage. Usually people only pay much attention to postseason success in terms of Super Bowl wins though. The big advantages are longevity for Reed and quality for Sharpe. You need some of both to be HoF worthy. How one weights the two and draws the line for various minimal thresholds differs from person to person.
“I have provided plenty of facts and evidence based on the HOF voting, selection of HOF players, the value of length of quality career.”
Not really.
“I fail to see the difference? Why waste you time here debating a “should”, if you case is so strong stand behind it and argue that he “will” make it.”
Because I’m not confident that the HoF committee will do the right thing. I don’t know how many different ways I can say that. As for wasting time, what’s the point of debating anything here? We’re giving our opinions. Who knows? Points made on internet forums might get picked up and mentioned elsewhere. Some might even make their way to the media over the years and eventually be heard by HoF voters, altering the way they think about something, or causing them to think about players that had slipped off their radars.
Me: “When did I allegedly “insult” you? Considering how wrong you are (something not contingent on future events, since, again, I’m not making predictions) on various points, along with your exasperating non responses to points, flippant dismissals, red herrings, and circular arguments, I think I’ve been remarkably restrained.”
You: “I have provided repeated points and presented a strong case as to why a player like Stirling does not deserve to be elected to the HOF. I am not wrong, since it is clear the point I have been making are the exact reasons why even through he has been eligible Stirling has not even made the final 25, perhaps it is you who need to look more clearly at the facts and reality of his situation instead of employing debate techniques. They are not helping your case.”
At risk of “employing debating techniques”, I have to point out that you failed to answer my question. And you are wrong. Your case basically boils down to a circular argument: he’s not deserving because he hasn’t been voted in. Apart from that you claimed that 7 years isn’t long enough to form a “complete body of work” and be HoF worthy, something we’ve established is false in resounding fashion. Most of the rest of your posting here has been obfuscation or piddling around the edges (speculative caps on WRs per decade, claiming we shouldn’t be discussing Sharpe as anything but a modern era candidate for some reason, etc.) . The end of your post sort of trails off. It looks like maybe you made a copy paste error.
“I am not assuming anything, just trying to explain to you why there are more HOFs from the 1960s, because with two leagues there are two decade teams, two decade records, and two decades of all pro and pro bowl teams. An issue the HOF voters are clearly aware of in making selections from the 60s.”
A speculation on your part, and I explained to you that simply glancing at such accolades without taking into account the inflated Pro Bowl numbers from back then would represent an extremely shallow selection process. If true, it’s not the way things should be.”
The issue with inflated Pro Bowls impacts all decades, again my point was two leagues created two different season, decade and career awards, hence with TWO leagues one would expect more players selected for the HOF. How does this not make sense????
“No it is not a function of more players as there are more players and teams in the NFL then existed in the NFL plus AFL in the 1960s, but there were TWO leagues.”
“So? There’s one HoF. Are you more likely to have more great players in a smaller league or in a larger one? And no, you’re wrong anyway. Only two WRs who played extensively in the pre merger AFL are in Canton, Alworth and Maynard, and they both played well past the merger and finished their careers on NFC teams. Most of Biletnikoff’s career and accolades came post merger. That leaves 6 HoFers who played at least 5 years in the 1960s and were pure NFL guys. Are you contending that some of those players wouldn’t have made the HoF if the leagues had been united? Which ones? Regardless, you would artificially cap the 1990s, a decade that placed far more importance on passing and had more teams than the 1960s AFL and NFL combined, at the same level as the pure NFL group at most. I see no rational basis for that.”
The rational basis is very simple, how many top players come from one position in the same decade/era? At what point do you consider more than 5 or 6 from a position how is that greatest if that many come from the same decade? I have no answer to that question but clearly voting trends indicate that it has been an issue in the HOF voters mind. Beyond 5 WRs from the 1990s how many more should there be? And it is not based on the passing era, but a question of quality over number.
“You sort of dodged the issue. Obviously me listing just several of the many recent Canton inductions with fewer career starts and sometimes even games than Sharpe illustrated that there are lots of HoFers who didn’t have careers much if any longer than Sharpe’s.”
No I did not there are over 280 HOFs and a large number elected since 1980s and since then how many have been elected solely on the basis of 4 or 5 excellent seasons? How many??
“No, they’re valid now, especially since this is a thread about senior nominees. Regardless, I’ve been pointing out that Sharpe compares favorably to his contemporaries in any pool.
“And you list consisted of 1 or 2 players???? That is the best you can do with 30+ years of elections?”
“No, I listed at least 5 HoFers with relatively short careers who played well past 1980, and could have listed more. How many precedents do you need?” Lets see that list again as I do not recall 5 or more HOFers who played less than 10 years from the playing era of post 1980 and we already ruled out Sayers and Campbell.
“Yet Swann played in the 1970s so total receptions and yards are not a fair comparison as it was a completely different era then of course” But Sterling was more dominant in his own era in terms of stat ranking, Pro Bowls, and first team All Pro selections than Swann was in his.” “Swann has those SB catches!” Give me a break. Yeah, that was some “complete body of work”. Sterling Sharpe has the triple crown.”
Yes playoff and SB numbers are meaningful, yet it did take 18 years for Swann to get elected. You act as if the triple crown of WRs has some great historical significance and that having one year like that out of a seven year career should get a player elected, I am not sure I have ever heard of the triple crown of receiving or any historical significance tied to it. One great season does not make a HOF career.
“Besides Sharpe is not competing against Swann to get into the HOF as I and others have mentioned players compete against other finalists in their pool,”
The comparisons establish precedents disproving your claim that Sharpe’s career wasn’t long enough to warrant HoF consideration. Of course you could claim the voters were mistaken to allow players like Swann, Stephenson, Butler, Dean, etc. in I guess, but I’m guessing you won’t.” Again Butler comes from a completely different era and voting process as a senior. We already covered why Swann was selected, Stepenson is a member of an all decade team, and Dean also has the playoff and SB successes. HOF selection is simply not based on a few great seasons which is all Sharpe has.
“He (Shannon Sharpe) had a long and high quality career, a very important criteria for selection to the HOF.” Quality for a “TE”, not a WR of his era, contrary to your earlier boast.” I never said he was elected as a WR you keep making that claim all I have stated is that he started the change to the TE position where TEs started to put up season and career numbers greater than WRs, Shannon’s career receiving numbers surpass many 1990s WRs including his brother”
“Players are not selected for their peak years but the complete body of work which in the case of Sterling is only 4-5 years – simply not enough.”
No the history and trends in selection to the HOF clearly favor by far longer quality careers, 4-5 years of very good to excellent seasons is not enough, the voters have clearly made that determination for many players including Sterling.
We’ve established that you’re wrong on both counts. Sterling’s “body of work” was 7 seasons, 5 of them elite, 1 average but solid, and the other a very strong rookie campaign.
Lets be clear here Stirling had a seven year career with 4 very good seasons as no one is going to call a 67rec, 1105y, 6td season from the 1990s elite.
Huge numbers of HoFers only had 5 elite seasons, and many had careers of similar length to Sharpe. But they played longer, had more awards and playoff successes, 5 elite seasons on it own is simply enough as I have shown for every 5 elite season HOF player you have shown me, there are other strong reasons why they were elected.
“Some had shorter careers. And voters should and usually do take peak years into account. By ignoring them you aren’t fully examining the complete body of work from all angles. More information is better than less.”
Yet you ignore all the information regarding why other short career players have been elected, such as all pro/pro bowls, playoff numbers
“He was not just labeled a TE he played as a TE and as I mentioned before the TE position has changed greatly in the last decade, in some part a result of the success of Shannon.”
“He “played as a TE” by lining up next to the tackle. If offenses continue to just use the “TE” as another receiver, rather than as the traditional blocking/receiver hybrid, then at some point HoF voters should and very well might stop treating them separately, and start judging their numbers by WR standards. If that happens many of them, including Shannon, would look a whole lot less impressive.”
And what does a TE lining up next to the tackle do on a running play?? They block at the line, unlike WRs who may or may not block downfield. Try and watch the game as even receiving TEs like Shannon and the current era TEs who put up big receiving numbers do block, not as much in the old style of run first and pass second, but they do block and have line assignments.
“Which total career numbers does Sharpe have in comparison to his 1990s era peer WRs besides average catches/yards per game, which given that he has a limited sample size of games compared to his peers is not a fair comparison.”
“7 years isn’t very limited, but Sterling Sharpe crushed his contemporaries in both totals and per game averages in the years they overlapped. I’d love for you to explain how it’s unfair to Andre Reed to compare numbers only from his 7 Pro Bowl years with those from from Sharpe’s entire career, including his rookie season, and why you feel it’s irrelevant that Sharpe still decisively beats him. Sharpe also crushes the other contenders in career averages, despite most of them having the unfair advantage of playing into the stat inflated late 1990s-early 2000s, and enjoying their best seasons then. The truth is that none of them were ever as good as Sharpe.”
Because career averages are bias when the shorter sample size (years) are compared to long sample sizes. Yes they were as good if not better as they continued to put up very good numbers for a long period of time, again it is really that simple length or short quality is a key factor in HOF elections. Sharpe was not even good enough (played long enough) to make the 1990s decade team.
“Nor was I, you (not me) are using two of the greatest players in the history of the NFL as justification to elect Sharpe into the HOF when clearly his career achievements fall way short of those players.”
“No, I pointed out that it’s possible to consider two players among the greatest of all time despite them having similar or shorter careers than Sharpe. That obliterates your (paraphrasing) “not long enough body of work” contention. If it’s long enough to place people among the greatest in NFL history, then it’s long enough to merely make the HoF. And it’s not like Sharpe was just pretty good in those 7 years, either. He was utterly DOMINANT, with similar stats and seasonal accolades to Sayers and Campbell.”
Yet Sayers and Campbell are listed among the greatest RBs in the history of the HOF, and Stirling makes no such list. So their careers and impact were significant even with shorter careers, whereas Stirling was simply another in the long line of WRs putting up big numbers in the 1980s.
Me:“If guys with similar or shorter careers are inducted on the first ballot, that leaves someone like Sharpe, who was almost as dominant, with plenty of room for induction after a long wait.”
You: “Because players like Campbell and Sayers had better careers then Sharpe. ”
Somewhat, perhaps, but you overstate the gap.”
Or you fail to understand that there is a gap and it is a big one between Sayers, Campbell and Stirling. No one else I know of would have that problem but you.
“And I am not debating when he should be elected to the HOF, I am making the point that his career falls short of the standard for election to the HOF – ever.”
“So in your opinion a player with a 7 year career is either a first ballot HoFer or not a HoFer at all? Someone with a slightly less impressive career immediately drops completely off the map? What bizarre reasoning. You might have a point if Sayers and Campbell were viewed as borderline cases who had to wait a long time for induction, but that’s not the case.”
Where did I ever make that claim???? I have said nothing about first ballot HOFers and again if you were familiar with my many posts and positions here in regards to first ballot HOFers you would know that I would make no such claim or distinction as their are many deserving players, long and shorter careers who deserve selection to the HOF even if not as first time selections.
“What are you missing when I repeating counter your claim with the point that a comparison of two of the greatest players in the history of the HOF does not make you case but only weaken it as Stirling falls way short of that standard which for some reason you continue to make when no one else would.”
“That doesn’t counter my claim. You have yet to explain your logic. And others on this thread have already agreed with me about Sterling’s longevity not being a disqualifier.”
But is longevity does not place him in the class of Sayers or Campbell. My logic is very simple and has been stated over and over again, he has 4 very good years during an era when many WRs were putting up similar large numbers and based on those 4 years alone the quality of his career fails short of election to the HOF, and the voting history and trends support that view.
Me: “Wrong. Part of my argument is that HoF voters are MISTAKEN if they don’t induct Sharpe, so citing their failure to induct him as proof that he doesn’t deserve induction is an invalid circular argument on your part.”
You: “No it is evidence that he has been considered among the candidates but the HOF voters clearly have determined that he is not a better candidate each year then 25 other more deserving players. They clearly do not value his career as you would.”
“No, it’s not clear you understand what a circular argument is. Let me try this again. I’m arguing that the HoF voters are WRONG not to induct Sharpe, if indeed they never do. Nowhere have I claimed that they already have inducted him, or that I would respect their decision if they don’t. I already have almost no confidence in the HoF selection committee or the corrupt, opaque process. You, on the other hand, are repeatedly claiming that the HoF voters are right not to induct Sharpe…..because they haven’t inducted him. You aren’t offering pertinent evidence of anything.”
Do even know how the election process works? My point was that they have had several years to select him into the final 25, thus the HOF voters have already assessed his career and decided year after year that there are 25 more deserving players – that was the only point I was trying to make. How is that circular? My evidence is that his case has been considered by the voters and be their collective decision not to advance him to the final 25 his career has been judged.
BTW I am well aware of the issues regarding the HOF selection process and the committee itself, and although there are many debates here about the selection each year, especially in regards to the order, I do believe that in the majority of cases the HOF selection committee gets it right although it is not perfect (what system is) and it may take sometime. Having followed the process for over 20 years I have seen improvements including turnover in members and increase in the number of members, all for improving the process. But hey if you want to start another tread or post about the election process and how you would improve it please do. But regardless of any changes Stirling is not going to get elected to the HOF because his career was too short.
“I was talking about the senior candidate selection process (which does not apply in the case of Stirling, at least not yet) and my issues are not which players are considered and elected but the order in which they are selected.” So you feel the HoF committee is fallible on the order of selection but infallible on which players it inducts or doesn’t induct? They’ve NEVER made a mistake on the latter? Wow.”
Over its almost 50 year history, and with many different elections and voters, yes there were some mistakes in the selection of the 280+ HOFers, but the errors are rare and not selecting Stirling is certainly not one of those mistakes. Overall the process works and even though it may take years (which has been unfair in many cases) the system works.
“In case of Stirling I am not making that case – he simply does not deserve election.”
Yes, you’re arguing against his HoF credentials. As I said. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on whether he deserved election.”
And the difference is???????? He does not have the credentials and thus does not deserve election, and the voters have taken the same view.
“I am not trying to hide behind the voters, I work to understand how the voting occurs and the trends and in the case in regards to Stirling I agree with them”
Apparently you agree with them at all times, which is a fascinating tangent in and of itself.
” No, as I have stated here and on other posts I do not always agree with the voters, but I understand how the voting occurs why certain decisions are made even when I am not in agreement (for example selection of the 2013 senior candidates) but in the case of Stirling I certainly undertand and agree with them on that case and many others.
“here is their argument which I agree with:
Stirling (3/5) 595, 8134, 65t
Reed (0/7) 951, 13198 87t
Brown (0/9) 1094 14934 100t
Carter (2/8) 1101 13899 130t”
“Yes, you’ve presented the laziest and most shallow argument possible. Meanwhile, I posted mountains of stats higher in the thread showing that Sterling Sharpe was SIGNIFICANTLY better than Reed, Brown, and Carter in actual game by game quality, facts that should ALSO be considered in any serious HoF discussion.”
No career number are very important and impossible to ignore, Reed, Brown and Carter have career numbers and awards that are simply unavoidable to ignore or fail to consider.
“Career averages are not a fair comparison when the entire body of work is not the same (total years), it makes for a week argument for Stirling in attempt to “hide” the low career totals””
No, I look at career totals too, but I refuse to ignore everything else while you recoil from taking a deeper look. More information is better than less. As for your “fair comparison” claim, even though your talking point is shaky, that’s why I also looked at peak performance and overlapping years to see if the career averages were distorted. They aren’t. Sterling was better.
Me: “Regardless, you’ve failed to cite a good reason why all 4 couldn’t be inducted.”
You: “Yes I did, looking at the history of HOF voters 6 or 7 players at the same position from the same era/decade is not common.”
“The 1960s have 9 HoF WRs who played at least 5 years in the decade, and later decades likely haven’t seen their full inductees yet.”
Take about your circular arguments, how many times are we going to go back to the 1960s debate, and yes in regards to the 1970s the debate within the modern pool regarding WRs from that era is over and same will be the case for the 1980s WRs as none appear to be close to modern election. The number of WRs in the HOF from the 1970s and 1980s is not going to change any time soon.
“There is no rule or guideline, but with so many other players from an era and from other positions at some point voters are moving on to other eras and other positions. There are only 5 modern slots each year and dozens of deserving players, why select the 6 or 7th best WR from the 1990s while bypassing the 2 or 3 OL or DB.”
“There’s still the senior avenue, but the passing game has steadily increased in importance over the past half century so it wouldn’t be surprising if WRs end up being better represented than some other positions. Besides, some those 6 or 7 WRs you mention played extensively in and represent other decades too, so there’s more room for modern era induction than you imply.”
There will still be a point in which the voters select WRs from a decade/era and then focus back on other players. Remember it is a numbers game, only 5 modern slots per year, and it is going to get very difficult for voters to consider a 5th or 6th player at a position, even WR from the 1990s+, from one single decade while ignoring top players at other positions. Just look at the recent debates and trends to get more defensive players into the HOF as they historically have been underrepresented, do you think that trend helps WRs from 1990s+?
“We disagree for example Reed, Brown and Carter all exceed Stirling in pure quality over their entire and longer careers.”
But not over any particular segment of their careers, or in career averages, lol. They were lesser players who played longer. I want the best in the HoF.”
Players are not selected based on any particular segment of their careers, but the complete body of work, Reed, Carter and Brown all had more top seasons over a longer period, those are the best WRs from the 1990s and will all end up in the HOF, Stirling falls below those plus Rice and Irvin, and will not be elected.
“Because it mattered to Swann (an example you raised) and it certainly matters to Reed (four conference championships do mean something).”
I suppose, but I guess Sharpe’s playoff win means something too. His team wasn’t good enough to get to the postseason much, but he did have 11 catches for 229 yards and 4 tds in the 2 playoff games he was healthy enough to play in, so he made the most of the chance and performed well on the big stage. Usually people only pay much attention to postseason success in terms of Super Bowl wins though. The big advantages are longevity for Reed and quality for Sharpe. You need some of both to be HoF worthy. How one weights the two and draws the line for various minimal thresholds differs from person to person.”
So know you are trying to compare Sharpes 2 playoff games with Swann SBs? Good luck trying to make that comparison, boy you are really working harder to make that reach. Remember the rule of thumb I cited earlier,m the harder you have to make the case, the less likely they deserve election, thanks for showing me the way there buddy.
“I have provided plenty of facts and evidence based on the HOF voting, selection of HOF players, the value of length of quality career.”
Not really.” Must be hard for you to read this point or even study the history of voting and elections to understand which players are elected and which are not.
“I fail to see the difference? Why waste you time here debating a “should”, if you case is so strong stand behind it and argue that he “will” make it.”
Because I’m not confident that the HoF committee will do the right thing. I don’t know how many different ways I can say that. As for wasting time, what’s the point of debating anything here? We’re giving our opinions. Who knows? Points made on internet forums might get picked up and mentioned elsewhere. Some might even make their way to the media over the years and eventually be heard by HoF voters, altering the way they think about something, or causing them to think about players that had slipped off their radars.
I am confident given what I know about the selection and HOF voting that the committee has made the right decision and will continue to do so: focus on players from all positions and eras that are more deserving then Stirling, of that I have no doubt in my mind.
Me: “When did I allegedly “insult” you? Considering how wrong you are (something not contingent on future events, since, again, I’m not making predictions) on various points, along with your exasperating non responses to points, flippant dismissals, red herrings, and circular arguments, I think I’ve been remarkably restrained.”
You: “I have provided repeated points and presented a strong case as to why a player like Stirling does not deserve to be elected to the HOF. I am not wrong, since it is clear the point I have been making are the exact reasons why even through he has been eligible Stirling has not even made the final 25, perhaps it is you who need to look more clearly at the facts and reality of his situation instead of employing debate techniques. They are not helping your case.”
“At risk of “employing debating techniques”, I have to point out that you failed to answer my question. And you are wrong. Your case basically boils down to a circular argument: he’s not deserving because he hasn’t been voted in. ”
No he is not deserving because he does not make the standard of a HOF career, a point I have made numerous times and supported with evidence and facts from the candidates and the election process. I was also pointing out (yet again to address another of your circular arguments) that his case has been assessed by the HOF voters when they have failed to advance him to the final 25.
“Apart from that you claimed that 7 years isn’t long enough to form a “complete body of work” and be HoF worthy, something we’ve established is false in resounding fashion. Most of the rest of your posting here has been obfuscation or piddling around the edges (speculative caps on WRs per decade, claiming we shouldn’t be discussing Sharpe as anything but a modern era candidate for some reason, etc.) . ”
No I am putting the issues surrounding his qualifications and that elections are based on looking and comparing a large number of players, I never used the word cap on WRs per decade, just pointed out that the voting history indicates that voters elect players at a position from a decade/era while attempting to balance with players from other decades and other positions, as with only 5 modern candidates each year there are limits to how many players from a large pool (100+ considered each year) will someday get elected.
And you continued to treat the modern and senior elections as the same when clearly they are two completely different processes and pools of candidates (and only a small subset of voters involved). I do not care that this thread started with the 2013 seniors, you decided to post a topic of a current modern player so to have that discussion we need to focus on the modern selection process and current modern pool. Someday in the future when Stirling falls into the seniors pool perhaps we can continue the debate there and then.
he will get in though someday just not now wit these backlog of receivers that need to get into the hall of fame first
Perhaps, but given the order of the other three 1990s WRs already in the final 15, and the additional WRs and other position players coming into the ballot over the next several years, it will be very hard for him to crack into the final 15 before he slides into the seniors pool in 2019 and we now how deep and difficult that pool is to get out of. I just think he faces to much competition from so many other players, and not even his 1990s WR peers, to make it in. For me he is a classic case of how difficult it should be (and is) to get into the HOF, especially with a short but very excellent career without making a major impact on the game.
agreed paul
Me: “That leaves 6 HoFers who played at least 5 years in the 1960s and were pure NFL guys. Are you contending that some of those players wouldn’t have made the HoF if the leagues had been united? Which ones?”
You: *crickets*
Come on, Paul, answer the question.
“The issue with inflated Pro Bowls impacts all decades”
So? You’re the one who singled out the 1960s in this regard, remember?
“…again my point was two leagues created two different season, decade and career awards, hence with TWO leagues one would expect more players selected for the HOF. How does this not make sense????”
Again, this site needs emoticons because sometimes words won’t suffice. Paul, it makes perfect sense that some voters would be so shallow, ignorant, and disinterested that they would feel there are more HoF worthy players from the 1960s than….say….the 1990s because they simply glance at such award totals without taking into account the difference you mention and adjusting appropriately. Your point has been clear since the beginning and at no time have I expressed any confusion about it whatsoever, though you’ll no doubt feel the need to repeat yourself again in your next response. MY point was that such shallow voting behavior, if true, isn’t a good thing. However, I also made the point that I’m not sure your premise is right. If the leagues had been unified I wouldn’t be surprised if all the same WRs were in the HoF.
“The rational basis is very simple, how many top players come from one position in the same decade/era? At what point do you consider more than 5 or 6 from a position how is that greatest if that many come from the same decade?….Beyond 5 WRs from the 1990s how many more should there be?”
So 6 is fine but not 7? They had no problem inducting 9 WRs from the 1960s. Some 1990s receivers, like Art Monk and Jerry Rice, also represent the 1980s going by the 5 year test (Rice also represents the 2000s!), so we aren’t necessarily talking about 6-9 different WRs from each decade. The 5 year test is just a quick and rough measure of era coverage. And we might see even more 1960s WRs inducted through the senior route.
“No I did not there are over 280 HOFs and a large number elected since 1980s and since then how many have been elected solely on the basis of 4 or 5 excellent seasons?”
Yes you did and a huge number. I already listed several whose entire careers were about the same length as Sharpe’s, not to mention elite seasons. I’m not going to go through and count every single one when you showed in your last post that you were unwilling to read or count what I had already posted.
“Lets see that list again as I do not recall 5 or more HOFers who played less than 10 years from the playing era of post 1980 and we already ruled out Sayers and Campbell.”
No, Campbell counts. He played 8 years, mostly in the 1980s, and only started a majority of games in 7 seasons. He played a total of 115 games versus 112 for Sharpe and started 103 versus all 112 for Sharpe. If Campbell’s career was long enough to form a “complete body of work” for HoF evaluation, then so was Sharpe’s. Then there’s center Dwight Stephenson, who joined the league as a rookie in 1980 but rode the bench his first year and a half. He went on to start for 6 and a half years (87 games) before retiring and making the HoF. Kellen Winslow, Lynn Swann, and Fred Dean all had fewer starts than Sterling Sharpe did. Go back up and reread my post.
“You act as if the triple crown of WRs has some great historical significance and that having one year like that out of a seven year career should get a player elected, I am not sure I have ever heard of the triple crown of receiving or any historical significance tied to it. One great season does not make a HOF career.”
Since the small handful of men who have accomplished it reads like a Who’s Who list of HoF greats (Jerry Rice, Raymond Berry, Don Hutson, etc.), yes, it has great historical significance. It obviously wasn’t a fluke either. Sterling led the league receptions, yards, and/or tds 4 different season, and was among the leaders in a fifth Pro Bowl season. He had a great 7 year career.
“Again Butler comes from a completely different era and voting process as a senior. We already covered why Swann was selected, Stepenson is a member of an all decade team, and Dean also has the playoff and SB successes.”
So? The discussion was about longevity. Your claim that a career of Sharpe’s length was simply too short for HoF consideration has been proved false. I suppose you could argue that his career wasn’t good enough, but so far you’ve failed to do so. Sure, Swann has the SBs, but Sharpe has the superior stats and league domination. All these guys have their peculiar reasons for people to vote for them, including Sharpe. And, as someone else pointed out here, the All Decade thing can be misleading since it hinges on timing. If Sharpe had started in 1990 he could very well be on the 1990s All Decade team. We established that he was certainly the best WR not named Rice or Irvin from 1988-1994, which is almost a decade in and of itself.
“I never said he was elected as a WR you keep making that claim all I have stated is that he started the change to the TE position where TEs started to put up season and career numbers greater than WRs,”
No, that’s all I said you said. And the only career numbers Shannon has that would be decent for WRs (though not HoF levels by themselves) are the raw volume totals because he played so long. His career averages are mediocre by the WR standards of his era, and especially compared to his brother.
“Lets be clear here Stirling had a seven year career with 4 very good seasons as no one is going to call a 67rec, 1105y, 6td season from the 1990s elite.”
It was deemed a Pro Bowl season, and his yardage ranked 5th that year. If you want to start diminishing Pro Bowl seasons then a lot of HoFers would have FEWER than 5 elite seasons.
Me: “Huge numbers of HoFers only had 5 elite seasons, and many had careers of similar length to Sharpe.”
You: “But they played longer, had more awards and playoff successes…,”
Not necessarily, as I’ve shown.
“….5 elite seasons on it own is simply enough as I have shown for every 5 elite season HOF player you have shown me, there are other strong reasons why they were elected.”
No, you’ve shown that they accomplished special things in those 5 years that most others didn’t. So did Sharpe.
“Yet you ignore all the information regarding why other short career players have been elected, such as all pro/pro bowls, playoff numbers”
Wrong. But you keep ignoring Sterling Sharpe’s unusual dominance and statistical accomplishments.
“Try and watch the game as even receiving TEs like Shannon and the current era TEs who put up big receiving numbers do block, not as much in the old style of run first and pass second, but they do block and have line assignments.”
No, they don’t block much more than WRs do. Even Antonio Gates and Tony Gonzalez have commented on the differences between what they do and what a guy like Jason Witten does. A lot of times they don’t even line up next to the tackle, but are split out.
Me: “7 years isn’t very limited, but Sterling Sharpe crushed his contemporaries in both totals and per game averages in the years they overlapped. I’d love for you to explain how it’s unfair to Andre Reed to compare numbers only from his 7 Pro Bowl years with those from from Sharpe’s entire career, including his rookie season, and why you feel it’s irrelevant that Sharpe still decisively beats him.
You: “Because career averages are bias when the shorter sample size (years) are compared to long sample sizes.”
Sometimes even emoticons aren’t sufficient. Reread my comment, and indeed this entire discussion. In overlapping year and peak year comparisons the sample sets ARE THE SAME SIZE! Again, in what universe is it biased against Reed to take his 7 best years and compare them to all of Sharpe’s 7 years, including the rookie season? Why do you feel it’s irrelevant that Sharpe still trounces him even when the comparison is rigged against Sharpe? The truth is none of those guys were as good as Sharpe.
You: “Nor was I, you (not me) are using two of the greatest players in the history of the NFL as justification to elect Sharpe into the HOF when clearly his career achievements fall way short of those players.”
Me: “No, I pointed out that it’s possible to consider two players among the greatest of all time despite them having similar or shorter careers than Sharpe. That obliterates your (paraphrasing) “not long enough body of work” contention. If it’s long enough to place people among the greatest in NFL history, then it’s long enough to merely make the HoF. And it’s not like Sharpe was just pretty good in those 7 years, either. He was utterly DOMINANT, with similar stats and seasonal accolades to Sayers and Campbell.”
You”: “Yet Sayers and Campbell are listed among the greatest RBs in the history of the HOF, and Stirling makes no such list. So their careers and impact were significant even with shorter careers, whereas Stirling was simply another in the long line of WRs putting up big numbers in the 1980s.”
And, like I said….
I guess I can keep repeating myself as many times as you can in hopes that you eventually acknowledge that I made a good point, but I’ll try to keep wording it differently and approaching from different angles. How do you know that Sayers and Campbell are two of the greatest RBs in history? Is it because the “few great seasons” they had were enough to make such a conclusion? They had a sufficient “body of work”?
Of course that’s leaving aside guys with similar career lengths like Swann and Butler who aren’t considered to among the greatest of all time but are still in the HoF.
“Or you fail to understand that there is a gap and it is a big one between Sayers, Campbell and Stirling. No one else I know of would have that problem but you.”
No, I said there’s a gap but you overstate it. Sharpe had as many Pro Bowls and first team All Pro selections as Campbell, and had a similar pattern of league leading metrics.
Me: “So in your opinion a player with a 7 year career is either a first ballot HoFer or not a HoFer at all? Someone with a slightly less impressive career immediately drops completely off the map? What bizarre reasoning. You might have a point if Sayers and Campbell were viewed as borderline cases who had to wait a long time for induction, but that’s not the case.”
You: “Where did I ever make that claim????”
Whether you grasp it or not, that’s the logical extension of your position. Sayers and Campbell were first ballot HoFers, ranked by many (including you) as among the greatest of all time. Yet you’re claiming that there’s no place AT ALL in Canton for someone with a similar length or slightly longer career who was almost as dominant as they were, even after a long wait.
“I have said nothing about first ballot HOFers and again if you were familiar with my many posts and positions here in regards to first ballot HOFers you would know that I would make no such claim or distinction as their are many deserving players, long and shorter careers who deserve selection to the HOF even if not as first time selections.”
Many players with 7 year careers or shorter? So much for your longevity argument.
“But is longevity does not place him in the class of Sayers or Campbell.”
Huh? He doesn’t need to be in the class of Sayers or Campbell to be Canton worthy. That’s my point.
“My logic is very simple and has been stated over and over again, he has 4 very good years during an era when many WRs were putting up similar large numbers and based on those 4 years alone the quality of his career fails short of election to the HOF, and the voting history and trends support that view.”
He had 5 elite seasons and a great 7 year career. He put up significantly better numbers than contemporaneous WRs did, as we’ve established.
Me: “No, it’s not clear you understand what a circular argument is. Let me try this again. I’m arguing that the HoF voters are WRONG not to induct Sharpe, if indeed they never do. Nowhere have I claimed that they already have inducted him, or that I would respect their decision if they don’t. I already have almost no confidence in the HoF selection committee or the corrupt, opaque process. You, on the other hand, are repeatedly claiming that the HoF voters are right not to induct Sharpe…..because they haven’t inducted him. You aren’t offering pertinent evidence of anything.”
You: “Do even know how the election process works? My point was that they have had several years to select him into the final 25, thus the HOF voters have already assessed his career and decided year after year that there are 25 more deserving players – that was the only point I was trying to make. How is that circular? My evidence is that his case has been considered by the voters and be their collective decision not to advance him to the final 25 his career has been judged. ”
So I was right about you not knowing what a circular argument is. Got it. Yes, I know how the corrupt process works. A circular argument is you, in a discussion about whether the HoF committee is right to pass over Sterling Sharpe, claiming that them passing over him means they were right to pass over him.
“Having followed the process for over 20 years I have seen improvements including turnover in members and increase in the number of members, all for improving the process.”
Who chose the members to their lifetime appointments? If these guys are supposed to represent their cities, then the teams and/or fans should be picking them. The votes should also be public, possibly with members required to release statements explaining themselves. An increasing number of people have lost confidence in the process. It needs transparency.
“But regardless of any changes Stirling is not going to get elected to the HOF because his career was too short.”
No, we’ve proved that his career wasn’t too short. If he doesn’t get in it will because voters didn’t take the time to look deeper at the numbers and see how great he was.
You: “I was talking about the senior candidate selection process (which does not apply in the case of Stirling, at least not yet) and my issues are not which players are considered and elected but the order in which they are selected.”
Me: So you feel the HoF committee is fallible on the order of selection but infallible on which players it inducts or doesn’t induct? They’ve NEVER made a mistake on the latter? Wow.”
You: “Over its almost 50 year history, and with many different elections and voters, yes there were some mistakes in the selection of the 280+ HOFers, but the errors are rare and not selecting Stirling is certainly not one of those mistakes.”
At least you concede that the HoF is fallible regarding whom it inducts and whom it leaves out, even if we disagree about Sterling deserving induction.
“And the difference is????????”
You earlier complained about me diminishing the HoF credentials of a player, despite this whole debate being about you doing that to Sterling and others, so I thought it was funny.
“He does not have the credentials and thus does not deserve election, and the voters have taken the same view.”
He does have the credentials and the voters who disagree are wrong, as you’ve admitted they have been from time to time in the past.
“No career number are very important and impossible to ignore, Reed, Brown and Carter have career numbers and awards that are simply unavoidable to ignore or fail to consider.”
Career averages ARE career numbers, and all such metrics, including but not only absolute career totals, should be considered. Sterling Sharpe’s dominance shouldn’t be ignored. He was a cut above those guys.
Me: “Regardless, you’ve failed to cite a good reason why all 4 couldn’t be inducted.”
You: “Yes I did, looking at the history of HOF voters 6 or 7 players at the same position from the same era/decade is not common.”
Me: “The 1960s have 9 HoF WRs who played at least 5 years in the decade, and later decades likely haven’t seen their full inductees yet.”
You: “Take about your circular arguments”
That’s not a circular argument on my part. I cited evidence countering your decade cap argument.
“There will still be a point in which the voters select WRs from a decade/era and then focus back on other players. Remember it is a numbers game, only 5 modern slots per year, and it is going to get very difficult for voters to consider a 5th or 6th player at a position, even WR from the 1990s+, from one single decade while ignoring top players at other positions. Just look at the recent debates and trends to get more defensive players into the HOF as they historically have been underrepresented, do you think that trend helps WRs from 1990s+?”
I don’t know, but, again, it hasn’t stopped them from inducting 9 HoFers who played at least 5 years in the 1960s, with possibly more to come. I also seriously doubt they’re finished inducting WRs from the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. This discussion is about eventual induction, not just the modern era process. That said, again, with the 5 year test we’re talking about era coverage, not necessarily WRs who only represent one decade.
“Players are not selected based on any particular segment of their careers, but the complete body of work,”
A peak is part of a complete body of work. You keep misusing the phrase. It doesn’t just refer to a shallow glance at absolute career totals. One should view a complete body of work from different angles.
“Reed, Carter and Brown all had more top seasons over a longer period, those are the best WRs from the 1990s and will all end up in the HOF, Stirling falls below those plus Rice and Irvin, and will not be elected.”
Reed’s top seasons coincided exactly with Sterling’s career, and Sterling was significantly better. It wasn’t even close. If voters ignore that they’ll be vaulting inferior players into the HoF. Carter and Brown were never as good as Sharpe was either. I would probably induct all of them, but you’re adamantly dead set that it’s fine to enshrine those 5 but not those 6 for some bizarre reason, even if the last one or two come after a long wait in the senior pool.
You: “Because it mattered to Swann (an example you raised) and it certainly matters to Reed (four conference championships do mean something).”
Me: “I suppose, but I guess Sharpe’s playoff win means something too. His team wasn’t good enough to get to the postseason much, but he did have 11 catches for 229 yards and 4 tds in the 2 playoff games he was healthy enough to play in, so he made the most of the chance and performed well on the big stage. Usually people only pay much attention to postseason success in terms of Super Bowl wins though. The big advantages are longevity for Reed and quality for Sharpe. You need some of both to be HoF worthy. How one weights the two and draws the line for various minimal thresholds differs from person to person.”
You: “So know you are trying to compare Sharpes 2 playoff games with Swann SBs? Good luck trying to make that comparison, boy you are really working harder to make that reach. Remember the rule of thumb I cited earlier,m the harder you have to make the case, the less likely they deserve election, thanks for showing me the way there buddy.”
No, I explicitly responded to your comparison of Sharpe and Reed’s postseason success, and pointed out why it wasn’t a big deal since neither won a Super Bowl. Even you had to work really hard to pretend to misunderstand what I clearly wrote, so by your own logic you’re recognizing that your position is evaporating.
“Must be hard for you to read this point or even study the history of voting and elections to understand which players are elected and which are not.”
What point? You made a false claim about yourself.
Me: “At risk of “employing debating techniques”, I have to point out that you failed to answer my question. And you are wrong. Your case basically boils down to a circular argument: he’s not deserving because he hasn’t been voted in. ”
You: “No he is not deserving because he does not make the standard of a HOF career, a point I have made numerous times and supported with evidence and facts from the candidates and the election process. I was also pointing out (yet again to address another of your circular arguments) that his case has been assessed by the HOF voters when they have failed to advance him to the final 25.”
You failed to cite any circular argument I’M guilty of. You clearly don’t know what the term means. Look it up. Sharpe does meet the standard for a HoF career in my opinion. I’ve posted mountains of facts and numbers supporting this. You haven’t supported your assertions with anything concrete.
“No I am putting the issues surrounding his qualifications and that elections are based on looking and comparing a large number of players, I never used the word cap on WRs per decade, just pointed out that the voting history indicates that voters elect players at a position from a decade/era while attempting to balance with players from other decades and other positions, as with only 5 modern candidates each year there are limits to how many players from a large pool (100+ considered each year) will someday get elected.”
Please rewrite this “sentence” in a coherent manner. And no, responding to the parts I can decipher, while I didn’t quote you using the word “cap” you HAVE been claiming that there’s a fairly specific cap on WRs, at least from the 1990s, that would keep Sterling out. You haven’t provided a strong basis for that though.
“And you continued to treat the modern and senior elections as the same when clearly they are two completely different processes and pools of candidates (and only a small subset of voters involved). I do not care that this thread started with the 2013 seniors, you decided to post a topic of a current modern player so to have that discussion we need to focus on the modern selection process and current modern pool. Someday in the future when Stirling falls into the seniors pool perhaps we can continue the debate there and then.”
Actually modern era players were already being discussed by other posters, which you can confirm by scrolling up. We’re discussing eventual HoF induction. A HoFer is a HoFer regardless of process, and I see no reason to pretend the senior avenue to Canton doesn’t exist. Senior era candidates are still judged in the context of the era in which they played.
At least you have finally conceded that the HoF voters are fallible, so we’re making progress.
To further illustrate Sharpe’s well rounded statistical dominance, consider the 3 primary receiving categories: yards, receptions, and touchdowns. Sterling led the NFL in those categories 6 times. Only 4 other men in NFL history have matched that feat, and all of them are in the HoF:
NFL Players Who Led the NFL 6 or More Times in Yards, Receptions, or Receiving Touchdowns
Sterling Sharpe
Jerry Rice
Raymond Berry
Pete Pihos
Don Hutson
Lance Alworth, another first ballot HoFer, was the only man to accomplish the feat in the AFL. That’s very elite company, and for Sterling to do it in the expanded league of the 1990s in just a 7 year career is incredible. Here are the players to come closest in recent years:
Marvin Harrison – 5
Randy Moss – 5
Tory Holt – 4
Andre Johnson – 4 (still active)
All 4 are likely future HoFers. Too many people are understating Sterling Sharpe’s greatness. Shannon was right, HoF voters should give Sterling’s career another look.
I should add Randy Moss is still active too.
Whoops, actually Torry Holt only led the league 3 times, twice in yards and once in receptions.
Me: “That leaves 6 HoFers who played at least 5 years in the 1960s and were pure NFL guys. Are you contending that some of those players wouldn’t have made the HoF if the leagues had been united? Which ones?”
You: *crickets*
Come on, Paul, answer the question.
Lance Alworth 1962-1972 AFL
Raymond Berry 1955-1967 1
Bob Hayes 1965-1975 2
Don Maynard 1958, 1960-1973 AFL
Tommy McDonald 1957-1968 3
Bobby Mitchell (also HB) 1958-1968 4
Charley Taylor (also HB) 1964-1975, 1977 5
Paul Warfield 1964-1977 6
Of course Mitchell and Taylor also were HBs and Taylor spent more time in 70s, so that leaves us with 4 NFL WRs These are the players who played or had their greatest impact as WRs in the 1960s
“The issue with inflated Pro Bowls impacts all decades”
So? You’re the one who singled out the 1960s in this regard, remember? No I did not, I said there were two leagues thus two pro bowl teams in the 1960s
“…again my point was two leagues created two different season, decade and career awards, hence with TWO leagues one would expect more players selected for the HOF. How does this not make sense????”
Paul, it makes perfect sense that some voters would be so shallow, ignorant, and disinterested that they would feel there are more HoF worthy players from the 1960s than….say….the 1990s because they simply glance at such award totals without taking into account the difference you mention and adjusting appropriately.
No it makes perfect sense to me, others and the HOF voters that two leagues would result in more players elected from the 1960s.
“Your point has been clear since the beginning and at no time have I expressed any confusion about it whatsoever, though you’ll no doubt feel the need to repeat yourself again in your next response. ”
So if you agree with me, stop making the point that since the 1960s has 6 WRs so should the 1990s.
“So 6 is fine but not 7? They had no problem inducting 9 WRs from the 1960s. TWO LEAGUES IS WHY
“Yes you did and a huge number. I already listed several whose entire careers were about the same length as Sharpe’s, not to mention elite seasons. I’m not going to go through and count every single one when you showed in your last post that you were unwilling to read or count what I had already posted.” You refuse to do that because I already clearly refuted two of: Sayers and Campbell.
Then there’s center Dwight Stephenson, who joined the league as a rookie in 1980 but rode the bench his first year and a half. AND MEMBER OF THE TEAM OF THE 1980S
He went on to start for 6 and a half years (87 games) before retiring and making the HoF. Kellen Winslow, Lynn Swann, and Fred Dean all had fewer starts than Sterling Sharpe did. Go back up and reread my post. BUT THEY ALL HAD MORE POST SEASON AWARDS AND SUPERBOWLS.
Since the small handful of men who have accomplished it reads like a Who’s Who list of HoF greats (Jerry Rice, Raymond Berry, Don Hutson, etc.), yes, it has great historical significance. It obviously wasn’t a fluke either. Sterling led the league receptions, yards, and/or tds 4 different season, and was among the leaders in a fifth Pro Bowl season. He had a great 7 year career. NO HE HAD 4 GREAT SEASONS.
“Again Butler comes from a completely different era and voting process as a senior. We already covered why Swann was selected, Stepenson is a member of an all decade team, and Dean also has the playoff and SB successes.”
So? The discussion was about longevity. NO THE DISCUSSION WAS ABOUT A COMPLETE CAREER QUALITY.
Your claim that a career of Sharpe’s length was simply too short for HoF consideration has been proved false. NO I NEVER STATED HIS CAREER WAS TOO SHORT BUT THAT 4 GREAT YEARS IS NOT ENOUGH BODY OF WORK, HE LACKS THE CAREER QUALITY
I suppose you could argue that his career wasn’t good enough, but so far you’ve failed to do so. Sure, Swann has the SBs, but Sharpe has the superior stats and league domination. All these guys have their peculiar reasons for people to vote for them, including Sharpe. And, as someone else pointed out here, the All Decade thing can be misleading since it hinges on timing. If Sharpe had started in 1990 he could very well be on the 1990s All Decade team. We established that he was certainly the best WR not named Rice or Irvin from 1988-1994, which is almost a decade in and of itself. NO THE FACTS SHOW HE WAS THE BEST WR FOR FOUR YEARS. LOOK AT HIS ANNUAL NUMBERS.
“I never said he was elected as a WR you keep making that claim all I have stated is that he started the change to the TE position where TEs started to put up season and career numbers greater than WRs,”
No, that’s all I said you said. And the only career numbers Shannon has that would be decent for WRs (though not HoF levels by themselves) are the raw volume totals because he played so long. His career averages are mediocre by the WR standards of his era, and especially compared to his brother. BUT WE ALREADY ESTABLISHED HE WAS NOT A WR BUT A TE AND WAS JUDGED BASED ON HIS CAREER NUMBERS AS A TE PLUS 3 SB.
“Lets be clear here Stirling had a seven year career with 4 very good seasons as no one is going to call a 67rec, 1105y, 6td season from the 1990s elite.”
It was deemed a Pro Bowl season, and his yardage ranked 5th that year. If you want to start diminishing Pro Bowl seasons then a lot of HoFers would have FEWER than 5 elite seasons.
PRO BOWL THAT YEAR YES, ELITE NO.
Me: “Huge numbers of HoFers only had 5 elite seasons, and many had careers of similar length to Sharpe.”
You: “But they played longer, had more awards and playoff successes…,”
Not necessarily, as I’ve shown. APPARENTLY YOU DID NOT AS I SHOWN WHY MANY OF THE SHORT CAREER PLAYERS YOU KEEP COMPARING TO STIRLING WERE MORE DESERVING.
“….5 elite seasons on it own is simply enough as I have shown for every 5 elite season HOF player you have shown me, there are other strong reasons why they were elected.”
No, you’ve shown that they accomplished special things in those 5 years that most others didn’t. So did Sharpe. NO YOU ARE MISSING PLAYOFFS, AWARDS, SBS AND IN THE CASE OF CAMPBELL AND SAYERS CONSIDERATION AS TWO OF THE GREATEST PLAYERS EVER AT THEIR POSITION.
“Yet you ignore all the information regarding why other short career players have been elected, such as all pro/pro bowls, playoff numbers”
Wrong. But you keep ignoring Sterling Sharpe’s unusual dominance and statistical accomplishments. NO I AM QUITE AWARE OF HIS UNUSUAL DOMINANCE FOR FOUR YEARS.
“Try and watch the game as even receiving TEs like Shannon and the current era TEs who put up big receiving numbers do block, not as much in the old style of run first and pass second, but they do block and have line assignments.”
No, they don’t block much more than WRs do. TRYING WATCHING THE GAME SOMEDAY.
Even Antonio Gates and Tony Gonzalez have commented on the differences between what they do and what a guy like Jason Witten does. A lot of times they don’t even line up next to the tackle, but are split out. YES THEY ARE SPLIT OUT MORE OFTEN THEN IN THE PAST BUT THEY CERTAINLY BLOCK ON AND NEAR THE LINE MORE THAN ANY WR , THEY ARE TE NOT WR.
Me: “7 years isn’t very limited, but Sterling Sharpe crushed his contemporaries in both totals and per game averages in the years they overlapped. I’d love for you to explain how it’s unfair to Andre Reed to compare numbers only from his 7 Pro Bowl years with those from from Sharpe’s entire career, including his rookie season, and why you feel it’s irrelevant that Sharpe still decisively beats him.
You: “Because career averages are bias when the shorter sample size (years) are compared to long sample sizes.”
Sometimes even emoticons aren’t sufficient. Reread my comment, and indeed this entire discussion. In overlapping year and peak year comparisons the sample sets ARE THE SAME SIZE! Again, in what universe is it biased against Reed to take his 7 best years and compare them to all of Sharpe’s 7 years, including the rookie season? Why do you feel it’s irrelevant that Sharpe still trounces him even when the comparison is rigged against Sharpe? The truth is none of those guys were as good as Sharpe. FOUR HIS FOUR YEARS BUT THEN THEY PLAYED LONGER AND CONTINUED TO HAVE HIGH QUALITY SEASONS.
You: “Nor was I, you (not me) are using two of the greatest players in the history of the NFL as justification to elect Sharpe into the HOF when clearly his career achievements fall way short of those players.”
Me: “No, I pointed out that it’s possible to consider two players among the greatest of all time despite them having similar or shorter careers than Sharpe. BECAUSE THEIR SHORT CAREERS WERE MORE ACCOMPLISHED
That obliterates your (paraphrasing) “not long enough body of work” contention. If it’s long enough to place people among the greatest in NFL history, then it’s long enough to merely make the HoF. NO IT IS NOT ENOUGH OR WE WOULD HAVE PLENTY OF FOUR YEAR WONDERS IN THE HOF
And it’s not like Sharpe was just pretty good in those 7 years, either. He was utterly DOMINANT, with similar stats and seasonal accolades to Sayers and Campbell.” HE WAS NOT DOMINANT FOR SEVEN YEARS, FOUR YEARS.
You”: “Yet Sayers and Campbell are listed among the greatest RBs in the history of the HOF, and Stirling makes no such list. So their careers and impact were significant even with shorter careers, whereas Stirling was simply another in the long line of WRs putting up big numbers in the 1980s.”
And, like I said…. BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO RESPONSE TO THE FACT THAT EVEN WITH HIS FOUR GREAT YEARS AND SHORT CAREER NO ONE IS PLACING STIRLING ON ANY LIST OF THE TOP WRS OF ALL TIME.
I guess I can keep repeating myself as many times as you can in hopes that you eventually acknowledge that I made a good point, but I’ll try to keep wording it differently and approaching from different angles.
How do you know that Sayers and Campbell are two of the greatest RBs in history? Is it because the “few great seasons” they had were enough to make such a conclusion? They had a sufficient “body of work”? BECAUSE HISTORIANS OF THE GAME HAVE MADE THAT DETERMINATION
Of course that’s leaving aside guys with similar career lengths like Swann and Butler who aren’t considered to among the greatest of all time but are still in the HoF. WE ALREADY DISCUSSED SWANN (THINK SB) AND BUTLER PLAYED IN A DIFFERENT ERA AND ENTERED THE HOF UNDER A DIFFERENT PROCESS BUT HE WAS ALSO A MEMBER OF THE 1950S DECADE TEAM
“Or you fail to understand that there is a gap and it is a big one between Sayers, Campbell and Stirling. No one else I know of would have that problem but you.”
No, I said there’s a gap but you overstate it. Sharpe had as many Pro Bowls and first team All Pro selections as Campbell, and had a similar pattern of league leading metrics. YET HE IS CONSIDERED ONE OF THE GREATEST RB OF ALL TIME.
Me: “So in your opinion a player with a 7 year career is either a first ballot HoFer or not a HoFer at all? Someone with a slightly less impressive career immediately drops completely off the map? What bizarre reasoning. You might have a point if Sayers and Campbell were viewed as borderline cases who had to wait a long time for induction, but that’s not the case.”
You: “Where did I ever make that claim????”
Whether you grasp it or not, that’s the logical extension of your position. NO IT IS NOT, THE ISSUE OF FIRST BALLOT HOFER AND NOT A HOFER IS WORTHY OF A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT DEBATE AND THAT IS NO LOGICAL EXTENSION OF MY POSITION IN ANY WAY, TRY NOT TO PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH.
Sayers and Campbell were first ballot HoFers, ranked by many (including you) as among the greatest of all time. Yet you’re claiming that there’s no place AT ALL in Canton for someone with a similar length or slightly longer career who was almost as dominant as they were, even after a long wait. SEE YOU ARE GETTING IT NOW HIS CAREER OF 4 GREAT YEARS IS NOT ENOUGH FOR THE HOF.
“I have said nothing about first ballot HOFers and again if you were familiar with my many posts and positions here in regards to first ballot HOFers you would know that I would make no such claim or distinction as their are many deserving players, long and shorter careers who deserve selection to the HOF even if not as first time selections.” Many players with 7 year careers or shorter? So much for your longevity argument. YES THE GREAT PLAYERS LIKE SAYERS AND CAMPBELL.
“But is longevity does not place him in the class of Sayers or Campbell.”
Huh? He doesn’t need to be in the class of Sayers or Campbell to be Canton worthy. That’s my point.
BUT YOU ARE THE ONE WHO KEEPS BRINGING UP ALL THE SHORT CAREER HOFS AND ATTEMPTING INSIST THAT STIRLING IS JUST AS DESERVING WHEN HIS CAREER IS EVEN SHORTER (4 YEARS) AND LESS OUTSTANDING THEN SAYERS OR CAMPBELL.
“My logic is very simple and has been stated over and over again, he has 4 very good years during an era when many WRs were putting up similar large numbers and based on those 4 years alone the quality of his career fails short of election to the HOF, and the voting history and trends support that view.”
He had 5 elite seasons and a great 7 year career. He put up significantly better numbers than contemporaneous WRs did, as we’ve established. HIS PEERS PLAYED LONGER AND WITH CONTINUED QUALITY AND PLAYOFF SUCCESSES, THOSE CRITERIA MATTER AND WHY BROWN, REED AND CARTER ARE GETTING ELECTED AND STIRLING NOT.
Me: “No, it’s not clear you understand what a circular argument is. Let me try this again. I’m arguing that the HoF voters are WRONG not to induct Sharpe, if indeed they never do. Nowhere have I claimed that they already have inducted him, or that I would respect their decision if they don’t. I already have almost no confidence in the HoF selection committee or the corrupt, opaque process. You, on the other hand, are repeatedly claiming that the HoF voters are right not to induct Sharpe…..because they haven’t inducted him. You aren’t offering pertinent evidence of anything.”
You: “Do even know how the election process works? My point was that they have had several years to select him into the final 25, thus the HOF voters have already assessed his career and decided year after year that there are 25 more deserving players – that was the only point I was trying to make. How is that circular? My evidence is that his case has been considered by the voters and be their collective decision not to advance him to the final 25 his career has been judged. ”
So I was right about you not knowing what a circular argument is. Got it. Yes, I know how the corrupt process works. A circular argument is you, in a discussion about whether the HoF committee is right to pass over Sterling Sharpe, claiming that them passing over him means they were right to pass over him. YES THEY WERE AND ARE RIGHT AND IT IS NOT BECAUSE OF ANY CORRUPT PROCESS, CHANGE THE VOTERS, CHANGE THE PROCESS AND STIRLING IS STILL BEHIND DOZENS OF BETTER PLAYERS WAITING FOR ELECTION.
“Having followed the process for over 20 years I have seen improvements including turnover in members and increase in the number of members, all for improving the process.”
Who chose the members to their lifetime appointments? THE HOF
If these guys are supposed to represent their cities, then the teams and/or fans should be picking them. THEN THE REAL BIAS WOULD COME OUT ALONG WITH A TRULY CORRUPT PROCESS THAT YOU ARE SO CONCERNED ABOUT
The votes should also be public, possibly with members required to release statements explaining themselves. I AGREE, BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH STIRLING NOR WOULD IT LEAD TO HIS ELECTION BY THIS COMMITTEE OR ANY OTHER NEW PROCESS OR COMMITTEE.
An increasing number of people have lost confidence in the process. I DOUBT THAT VERY MUCH SO EVERY ELECTION SOME FANS GET UPSET BUT IN MORE CASES THEN NOT THE VOTERS GET IT RIGHT EVEN IF IT TAKES A FEW YEARS, BUT CHANGING THE PROCESS WILL NOT HOPE A 4 YEAR CAREER PLAYER THAT STIRLING IS
It needs transparency. I AGREE BUT GO AHEAD PROPOSAL AN IMPROVED PROCESS WITHOUT THE SAME ISSUES AND FLAWS
“But regardless of any changes Stirling is not going to get elected to the HOF because his career was too short.” No, we’ve proved that his career wasn’t too short. YOU MAY HAVE, I CERTAINLY DID NOT 4 YEARS IS NOT ENOUGH.
If he doesn’t get in it will because voters didn’t take the time to look deeper at the numbers and see how great he was. NO BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTAND THAT WITH DOZENS OF ELIGIBLE PLAYERS EACH YEAR THERE SIMPLY ARE BETTER PLAYERS WITH ONLY 5 SLOTS AND MANY MORE THEN THE 1990S WRS TO CONSIDER.
You: “I was talking about the senior candidate selection process (which does not apply in the case of Stirling, at least not yet) and my issues are not which players are considered and elected but the order in which they are selected.”
Me: So you feel the HoF committee is fallible on the order of selection but infallible on which players it inducts or doesn’t induct? They’ve NEVER made a mistake on the latter? Wow.”
You: “Over its almost 50 year history, and with many different elections and voters, yes there were some mistakes in the selection of the 280+ HOFers, but the errors are rare and not selecting Stirling is certainly not one of those mistakes.”
At least you concede that the HoF is fallible regarding whom it inducts and whom it leaves out, even if we disagree about Sterling deserving induction. I WOULD NEVER CLAIM THAT NO ONE PERSON, GROUP OR PROCESS IS PERFECT AS HUMAN NATURE IS IMPERFECT. BUT THAT DOES NOT EXPLAIN WHY STIRLING HAS NOT OR WILL BE ELECTED AS MANY CANDIDATES NEVER ARE. TO THIS DAY THERE ARE MANY SENIOR CANDIDATES PASSED OVER BY THE VOTES FOR YEARS THAT STILL DESERVE SELECTION.
“And the difference is????????”
You earlier complained about me diminishing the HoF credentials of a player, despite this whole debate being about you doing that to Sterling and others, so I thought it was funny.
I WAS REFERRING TO CURRENT HOF PLAYERS NOT THOSE AS CANDIDATES.
“He does not have the credentials and thus does not deserve election, and the voters have taken the same view.” He does have the credentials and the voters who disagree are wrong, as you’ve admitted they have been from time to time in the past. YES THEY ARE IMPERFECT AND MAKE MISTAKES BUT NOT IN THIS CASE.
“No career number are very important and impossible to ignore, Reed, Brown and Carter have career numbers and awards that are simply unavoidable to ignore or fail to consider.”
Career averages ARE career numbers, and all such metrics, including but not only absolute career totals, should be considered. Sterling Sharpe’s dominance shouldn’t be ignored. He was a cut above those guys. THE CAREER NUMBERS STATE OTHERWISE.
Me: “Regardless, you’ve failed to cite a good reason why all 4 couldn’t be inducted.”
You: “Yes I did, looking at the history of HOF voters 6 or 7 players at the same position from the same era/decade is not common.”
Me: “The 1960s have 9 HoF WRs who played at least 5 years in the decade, and later decades likely haven’t seen their full inductees yet.”
You: “Take about your circular arguments”
That’s not a circular argument on my part. I cited evidence countering your decade cap argument.
NO YOU COMPLETELY CONTINUE TO IGNORE THE TWO LEAGUE ISSUE OF THE 1960S WHICH MAKES THE COMPARISON TO THE 1990S INVALID COMPLETELY.
“There will still be a point in which the voters select WRs from a decade/era and then focus back on other players. Remember it is a numbers game, only 5 modern slots per year, and it is going to get very difficult for voters to consider a 5th or 6th player at a position, even WR from the 1990s+, from one single decade while ignoring top players at other positions. Just look at the recent debates and trends to get more defensive players into the HOF as they historically have been underrepresented, do you think that trend helps WRs from 1990s+?”
I don’t know, but, again, it hasn’t stopped them from inducting 9 HoFers who played at least 5 years in the 1960s, with possibly more to come. I also seriously doubt they’re finished inducting WRs from the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. This discussion is about eventual induction, not just the modern era process. That said, again, with the 5 year test we’re talking about era coverage, not necessarily WRs who only represent one decade. LOOK AT THE MODERN AND SENIOR POOL THERE ARE PLENTY OF DESERVING PLAYERS NOT WRS IN FACT MANY MANY MORE.
“Players are not selected based on any particular segment of their careers, but the complete body of work,”
A peak is part of a complete body of work. You keep misusing the phrase. It doesn’t just refer to a shallow glance at absolute career totals. One should view a complete body of work from different angles. NO A COMPLETE BODY OF WORK IS NOT ONE YEAR OR ONE PIECE A COMPLETE BODY OF WORK IS ALL OF IT, IN THIS CASE EVERY YEAR AND EVERY QUALIFICATION (OR LACK THERE OF).
“Reed, Carter and Brown all had more top seasons over a longer period, those are the best WRs from the 1990s and will all end up in the HOF, Stirling falls below those plus Rice and Irvin, and will not be elected.”
Reed’s top seasons coincided exactly with Sterling’s career, and Sterling was significantly better. It wasn’t even close. CAN YOU SAY FOUR CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIPS
If voters ignore that they’ll be vaulting inferior players into the HoF. Carter and Brown were never as good as Sharpe was either. CAN YOU SAY 900+ RECS 13000+ YDS AND 100+TDS.
I would probably induct all of them, but you’re adamantly dead set that it’s fine to enshrine those 5 but not those 6 for some bizarre reason, even if the last one or two come after a long wait in the senior pool. IT IS A NUMBERS GAME AND SOME DAY AS A MODERN OR SENIOR CANDIDATE STIRLING IS GOING TO CONTINUE TO RUN UP AGAINST A BETTER QUALIFIED PLAYER FROM ANOTHER ERA AND POSITION AND LOSE.
You: “Because it mattered to Swann (an example you raised) and it certainly matters to Reed (four conference championships do mean something).”
Me: “I suppose, but I guess Sharpe’s playoff win means something too. His team wasn’t good enough to get to the postseason much, but he did have 11 catches for 229 yards and 4 tds in the 2 playoff games he was healthy enough to play in, so he made the most of the chance and performed well on the big stage. Usually people only pay much attention to postseason success in terms of Super Bowl wins though. The big advantages are longevity for Reed and quality for Sharpe. You need some of both to be HoF worthy. How one weights the two and draws the line for various minimal thresholds differs from person to person.”
You: “So know you are trying to compare Sharpes 2 playoff games with Swann SBs? Good luck trying to make that comparison, boy you are really working harder to make that reach. Remember the rule of thumb I cited earlier,m the harder you have to make the case, the less likely they deserve election, thanks for showing me the way there buddy.”
No, I explicitly responded to your comparison of Sharpe and Reed’s postseason success, and pointed out why it wasn’t a big deal since neither won a Super Bowl. CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIPS ESPECIALLY FOUR IN A ROW DO MATTER
Even you had to work really hard to pretend to misunderstand what I clearly wrote, so by your own logic you’re recognizing that your position is evaporating. YOU ARE THE ONE DOING THE HEAVY LIFTING IN HERE BUDDY.
“Must be hard for you to read this point or even study the history of voting and elections to understand which players are elected and which are not.”
What point? You made a false claim about yourself. I DID, PLEASE ENLIGHTEN ME
Me: “At risk of “employing debating techniques”, I have to point out that you failed to answer my question. And you are wrong. Your case basically boils down to a circular argument: he’s not deserving because he hasn’t been voted in. ”
You: “No he is not deserving because he does not make the standard of a HOF career, a point I have made numerous times and supported with evidence and facts from the candidates and the election process. I was also pointing out (yet again to address another of your circular arguments) that his case has been assessed by the HOF voters when they have failed to advance him to the final 25.”
You failed to cite any circular argument I’M guilty of. You clearly don’t know what the term means. Look it up. Sharpe does meet the standard for a HoF career in my opinion. I’ve posted mountains of facts and numbers supporting this. You haven’t supported your assertions with anything concrete.
YES I DID YOU JUST CAREFULLY AVOID THEM
“No I am putting the issues surrounding his qualifications and that elections are based on looking and comparing a large number of players, I never used the word cap on WRs per decade, just pointed out that the voting history indicates that voters elect players at a position from a decade/era while attempting to balance with players from other decades and other positions, as with only 5 modern candidates each year there are limits to how many players from a large pool (100+ considered each year) will someday get elected.”
VERY SIMPLE – THERE ARE MANY CANDIDATES FROM ERAS AND OTHER POSITIONS YET ONLY A FEW SLOTS, SO SHORT 4 YEAR CAREER PLAYERS ARE GOING TO GET LEFT BEHIND. IS THAT COHERENT ENOUGH FOR YOU?
Please rewrite this “sentence” in a coherent manner. And no, responding to the parts I can decipher, while I didn’t quote you using the word “cap” you HAVE been claiming that there’s a fairly specific cap on WRs, at least from the 1990s, that would keep Sterling out. You haven’t provided a strong basis for that though. NO I NEVER CLAIMED ANY CAP JUST MANY OTHER PLAYERS BESIDES WRS AND FROM OTHER DECADES MORE DESERVING.
“And you continued to treat the modern and senior elections as the same when clearly they are two completely different processes and pools of candidates (and only a small subset of voters involved). I do not care that this thread started with the 2013 seniors, you decided to post a topic of a current modern player so to have that discussion we need to focus on the modern selection process and current modern pool. Someday in the future when Stirling falls into the seniors pool perhaps we can continue the debate there and then.”
Actually modern era players were already being discussed by other posters, which you can confirm by scrolling up. We’re discussing eventual HoF induction. A HoFer is a HoFer regardless of process, and I see no reason to pretend the senior avenue to Canton doesn’t exist. Senior era candidates are still judged in the context of the era in which they played. BUT THE PROCESS IS DIFFERENT, I NEVER SAID TO IGNORE IT BUT SINCE STIRLING IS CURRENTLY A MODERN CANDIDATE LETS FOCUS ON THAT PROCESS AT LEAST UNTIL HE MOVES INTO THE SENIORS POOL IN 2019.
At least you have finally conceded that the HoF voters are fallible, so we’re making progress. WOW HUMANS MAKE MISTAKES, SO THAT IS GOING TO BE YOUR FALLBACK EXCUSE AS TO WHY STIRLING IS NOT GETTING ELECTED. AS I MENTIONED BEFORE GO AHEAD AND PROPOSE A NEW PROCESS AND VOTERS IF YOU THINK SOMEHOW THAT IMPROVES HIS 4 YEAR GREAT YEARS.
Me: “That leaves 6 HoFers who played at least 5 years in the 1960s and were pure NFL guys. Are you contending that some of those players wouldn’t have made the HoF if the leagues had been united? Which ones?”
You: *crickets*
Me: “Come on, Paul, answer the question.”
You: “Of course Mitchell and Taylor also were HBs and Taylor spent more time in 70s, so that leaves us with 4 NFL WRs These are the players who played or had their greatest impact as WRs in the 1960s”
Mitchell and Taylor were primarily WRs. That’s why they’re in the HoF. And you forgot about Biletnikoff. It doesn’t matter that some of them also represent the 1970s. We’re discussing era coverage, and the 5 year test is a quick, objective way to quantify how well a decade is represented in Canton. Some of those you’ve counted toward the 1990s played extensively in other decades too. So that leaves us with 3 AFL and 6 NFL HoF WRs, a total of 9, who played at least 5 years in the 1960s.
Regardless, YOU DODGED THE QUESTION AGAIN!!! You claimed earlier that there were more receivers from the 1960s than there eventually should be from the 1990s because there were two leagues back then and Pro Bowl accolades were easier to get. You repeated this again in your last post.
Do you think any of these 9 guys wouldn’t be in the HoF if the leagues had been unified from the start? If so, which ones? Answer the question.
Me: “Paul, it makes perfect sense that some voters would be so shallow, ignorant, and disinterested that they would feel there are more HoF worthy players from the 1960s than….say….the 1990s because they simply glance at such award totals without taking into account the difference you mention and adjusting appropriately. Your point has been clear since the beginning and at no time have I expressed any confusion about it whatsoever, though you’ll no doubt feel the need to repeat yourself again in your next response. MY point was that such shallow voting behavior, if true, isn’t a good thing. However, I also made the point that I’m not sure your premise is right. If the leagues had been unified I wouldn’t be surprised if all the same WRs were in the HoF.”
You: “No it makes perfect sense to me, others and the HOF voters that two leagues would result in more players elected from the 1960s”
Holy crap. At least I called it right about you repeating yourself.
“So if you agree with me, stop making the point that since the 1960s has 6 WRs so should the 1990s.”
I don’t agree with you. I said I understood your point. I just got done saying, AGAIN, that your explanation would represent shallow and incompetent voter behavior. I also said that, fortunately, I’m not sure your explanation of voter behavior is explains what’s happened. Still waiting on your answer about which HoFers you feel only got in because there were two leagues…..
Me: “Then there’s center Dwight Stephenson, who joined the league as a rookie in 1980 but rode the bench his first year and a half. He went on to start for 6 and a half years (87 games) before retiring and making the HoF.”
You: “AND MEMBER OF THE TEAM OF THE 1980S”
Despite playing for less time than Sharpe. How about that? Again, timing is critical to making an All Decade team. If Sterling Sharpe had played from 1990-1996 he very well may have made the All Decade team too.
“NO HE HAD 4 GREAT SEASONS.”
No, Sharpe had 5 elite seasons and a great 7 year career.
Me: “So? The discussion was about longevity.”
You: “NO THE DISCUSSION WAS ABOUT A COMPLETE CAREER QUALITY.”
And your whole anti-Sharpe argument rests on his relatively short longevity. You claimed that 7 years just isn’t long enough a body of work to be seriously considered for the HoF. That so many other players have been inducted, and inducted without controversy, with careers of similar or or shorter length destroys your argument.
“NO I NEVER STATED HIS CAREER WAS TOO SHORT BUT THAT 4 GREAT YEARS IS NOT ENOUGH BODY OF WORK, HE LACKS THE CAREER QUALITY”
No, he had 5 Pro Bowl season, lol, which is more than many HoFers had. And what’s with your long all caps screeds? Are you foaming at the mouth, Paul? Are you pounding the keyboard in red faced fit of rage? Should we be worried about your health?
“NO THE FACTS SHOW HE WAS THE BEST WR FOR FOUR YEARS. LOOK AT HIS ANNUAL NUMBERS.”
No, the facts show he was better than everyone not already in the HoF over the 7 years he played. He also wins in total career average comparisons. I can repost the numbers if you need reminding.
“BUT WE ALREADY ESTABLISHED HE (Shannon Sharpe) WAS NOT A WR BUT A TE AND WAS JUDGED BASED ON HIS CAREER NUMBERS AS A TE PLUS 3 SB.”
Of course, but earlier you boasted that his numbers were great by WR standards, and we’ve established that they aren’t.
You: “Lets be clear here Stirling had a seven year career with 4 very good seasons as no one is going to call a 67rec, 1105y, 6td season from the 1990s elite.”
Me: “It was deemed a Pro Bowl season, and his yardage ranked 5th that year. If you want to start diminishing Pro Bowl seasons then a lot of HoFers would have FEWER than 5 elite seasons.”
You: “PRO BOWL THAT YEAR YES, ELITE NO.”
So you don’t consider a Pro Bowl season in which he ranked 5th in the NFL in yards to be elite. Like I said, then by your logic there are plenty of HoFers with fewer than 5 elite seasons, and Sharpe’s case becomes even stronger.
“I already clearly refuted two of: Sayers and Campbell.”
You refuted nothing. As I explained, focusing on Sayers and Campbells’ recognized extreme greatness despite short “bodies of work” fatally undermines your longevity argument. You might have had a point if their short careers made them borderline cases because it takes more than “a few great seasons” to form a Canton worthy body of work, but it didn’t. They were first ballot. Sharpe was almost as dominant.
“APPARENTLY YOU DID NOT AS I SHOWN WHY MANY OF THE SHORT CAREER PLAYERS YOU KEEP COMPARING TO STIRLING WERE MORE DESERVING.”
No you haven’t. Some were and some aren’t. And even some who were somewhat more deserving, like Campbell and Sayers, made it with short careers on the FIRST BALLOT, indicating there’s room for a guy who was almost as dominant over a similar or longer span to make it after a long wait at worst.
Me: “No, you’ve shown that they accomplished special things in those 5 years that most others didn’t. So did Sharpe.”
You: “NO YOU ARE MISSING PLAYOFFS, AWARDS, SBS”
No I’m not. Many in the HoF with short careers had no SB wins or any more awards than Sharpe. You’re missing his special statistical dominance, which I documented further in a separate post above.
“TRYING WATCHING THE GAME SOMEDAY.”
Physician, heal thyself. Also, switch to decaf.
“YES THEY ARE SPLIT OUT MORE OFTEN THEN IN THE PAST BUT THEY CERTAINLY BLOCK ON AND NEAR THE LINE MORE THAN ANY WR , THEY ARE TE NOT WR.”
On the certain teams in question the positions are merging. WRs block too, Paul. Some TEs don’t block much more than WRs.
Me: “7 years isn’t very limited, but Sterling Sharpe crushed his contemporaries in both totals and per game averages in the years they overlapped. I’d love for you to explain how it’s unfair to Andre Reed to compare numbers only from his 7 Pro Bowl years with those from from Sharpe’s entire career, including his rookie season, and why you feel it’s irrelevant that Sharpe still decisively beats him.
You: “Because career averages are bias when the shorter sample size (years) are compared to long sample sizes.”
Me: “Sometimes even emoticons aren’t sufficient. Reread my comment, and indeed this entire discussion. In overlapping year and peak year comparisons the sample sets ARE THE SAME SIZE! Again, in what universe is it biased against Reed to take his 7 best years and compare them to all of Sharpe’s 7 years, including the rookie season? Why do you feel it’s irrelevant that Sharpe still trounces him even when the comparison is rigged against Sharpe? The truth is none of those guys were as good as Sharpe.
You: “FOUR HIS FOUR YEARS BUT THEN THEY PLAYED LONGER AND CONTINUED TO HAVE HIGH QUALITY SEASONS.”
All of Andre Reed’s best seasons coincided with Sharpe’s career, and Sharpe trounced him. It wasn’t even close. And you feel that’s irrelevant. Got it. Reed didn’t even have any Pro Bowls outside of that period, so how many of HIS seasons were “elite”? I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Me: “No, I pointed out that it’s possible to consider two players among the greatest of all time despite them having similar or shorter careers than Sharpe.
You: “BECAUSE THEIR SHORT CAREERS WERE MORE ACCOMPLISHED”
Somewhat, maybe, but you overstate the gap, and ignore the fact that them going first ballot leaves plenty of room for Sharpe’s induction after a long wait.
Me: “That obliterates your (paraphrasing) “not long enough body of work” contention. If it’s long enough to place people among the greatest in NFL history, then it’s long enough to merely make the HoF.”
You: “NO IT IS NOT ENOUGH OR WE WOULD HAVE PLENTY OF FOUR YEAR WONDERS IN THE HOF”
Sharpe led the NFL in yards, tds, or receptions more times than any man in history except for Jerry Rice, Don Hutson, Raymond Berry, and Pete Pihos (who tied Sharpe), all HoFers. I’m not sure why you feel Sterling is chopped liver, but he did as much as it’s possible for a WR to do in a 7 year career. Good luck trying to find “plenty of four year wonders” who come close to matching him. You’re wrong.
“HE WAS NOT DOMINANT FOR SEVEN YEARS, FOUR YEARS.”
How many years was Earl Campbell dominant? In 2 of his 5 Pro Bowl seasons, 1981 and 1983, he didn’t lead the league in anything. In 1981 he ranked 5th in rushing, sort of like how Sharpe ranked 5th in receiving yards in 1990. In 1983 he ranked 7th. Did he only have 3 elite seasons? Don’t get me wrong, I think Campbell remained dominant in that span but by your own logic he wasn’t.
Regardless, Sharpe’s 7 years certainly dominated Reed’s best 7 years, lol.
“BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO RESPONSE TO THE FACT THAT EVEN WITH HIS FOUR GREAT YEARS AND SHORT CAREER NO ONE IS PLACING STIRLING ON ANY LIST OF THE TOP WRS OF ALL TIME.”
He’s one of the greatest WRs I’ve ever seen, so I guess your “fact” is wrong.
Me: “How do you know that Sayers and Campbell are two of the greatest RBs in history? Is it because the “few great seasons” they had were enough to make such a conclusion? They had a sufficient “body of work”?”
You: “BECAUSE HISTORIANS OF THE GAME HAVE MADE THAT DETERMINATION”
LOL! Since you’ve abandoned independent thought, let me try again. How do THEY know that Sayers and Campbell are two of the greatest RBs in history? Is it because the “few great seasons” they had were enough to make such a conclusion? They had a sufficient “body of work”?
Me: “Of course that’s leaving aside guys with similar career lengths like Swann and Butler who aren’t considered to among the greatest of all time but are still in the HoF.”
You: “WE ALREADY DISCUSSED SWANN (THINK SB) AND BUTLER PLAYED IN A DIFFERENT ERA AND ENTERED THE HOF UNDER A DIFFERENT PROCESS BUT HE WAS ALSO A MEMBER OF THE 1950S DECADE TEAM”
So? You cite Swann’s SBs and Butler’s All Decade status and I’ll counter with Sharpe’s superiority in production and his amazing statistical accomplishments. Like I said, they each have something special about their careers. You’re cherry picking. Oh, and if he’s not inducted as a modern era candidate the senior process will be available to Sharpe too.
Me: “No, I said there’s a gap but you overstate it. Sharpe had as many Pro Bowls and first team All Pro selections as Campbell, and had a similar pattern of league leading metrics.”
You: “YET HE IS CONSIDERED ONE OF THE GREATEST RB OF ALL TIME.”
So maybe you should upwardly appraise Sharpe, lol.
Me: “So in your opinion a player with a 7 year career is either a first ballot HoFer or not a HoFer at all? Someone with a slightly less impressive career immediately drops completely off the map? What bizarre reasoning. You might have a point if Sayers and Campbell were viewed as borderline cases who had to wait a long time for induction, but that’s not the case.”
You: “Where did I ever make that claim????”
Me: “Whether you grasp it or not, that’s the logical extension of your position. Sayers and Campbell were first ballot HoFers, ranked by many (including you) as among the greatest of all time. Yet you’re claiming that there’s no place AT ALL in Canton for someone with a similar length or slightly longer career who was almost as dominant as they were, even after a long wait.
Yes: “NO IT IS NOT, THE ISSUE OF FIRST BALLOT HOFER AND NOT A HOFER IS WORTHY OF A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT DEBATE AND THAT IS NO LOGICAL EXTENSION OF MY POSITION IN ANY WAY, TRY NOT TO PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH.”
Yes it is, and I didn’t put any words in your mouth. I explained the consequences of your position, and why it’s self defeating.
You:”…if you were familiar with my many posts and positions here in regards to first ballot HOFers you would know that I would make no such claim or distinction as their are many deserving players, long and shorter careers who deserve selection to the HOF even if not as first time selections.”
Me: “Many players with 7 year careers or shorter? So much for your longevity argument.
You: “YES THE GREAT PLAYERS LIKE SAYERS AND CAMPBELL.”
And Stephenson, Swann, Dean, etc.. I’d add Sharpe to that list.
You: “But is longevity does not place him in the class of Sayers or Campbell.”
Me: “Huh? He doesn’t need to be in the class of Sayers or Campbell to be Canton worthy. That’s my point.”
You: “BUT YOU ARE THE ONE WHO KEEPS BRINGING UP ALL THE SHORT CAREER HOFS AND ATTEMPTING INSIST THAT STIRLING IS JUST AS DESERVING WHEN HIS CAREER IS EVEN SHORTER (4 YEARS) AND LESS OUTSTANDING THEN SAYERS OR CAMPBELL.”
I’m pointing out that Sterling’s 7 year career (with at least 5 elite seasons) was almost as good as guys who cleared the higher bar for first ballot status, underscoring how much he deserves at least eventual induction, through the senior committee if nothing else.
“HIS PEERS PLAYED LONGER AND WITH CONTINUED QUALITY AND PLAYOFF SUCCESSES, THOSE CRITERIA MATTER AND WHY BROWN, REED AND CARTER ARE GETTING ELECTED AND STIRLING NOT.”
But they played with lower quality than Sterling and never won a Super Bowl either. Pure quality and dominance matters too. If Sterling’s not elected the HoF committee will be making a serious mistake.
Me: “So I was right about you not knowing what a circular argument is. Got it. Yes, I know how the corrupt process works. A circular argument is you, in a discussion about whether the HoF committee is right to pass over Sterling Sharpe, claiming that them passing over him means they were right to pass over him.”
You:” YES THEY WERE AND ARE RIGHT AND IT IS NOT BECAUSE OF ANY CORRUPT PROCESS, CHANGE THE VOTERS, CHANGE THE PROCESS AND STIRLING IS STILL BEHIND DOZENS OF BETTER PLAYERS WAITING FOR ELECTION.”
I disagree. I think a competent, in depth evaluation that gives quality the proper weighting, given the HoF’s ostensible purpose of enshrining the greatest players, would induct Sterling. Of course I have little confidence in the HoF committee at this point, and even you’ve conceded they screw up sometimes.
Me: “Who chose the members to their lifetime appointments?”
You: “THE HOF”
Who in the HoF?
Me: “If these guys are supposed to represent their cities, then the teams and/or fans should be picking them.”
You: “THEN THE REAL BIAS WOULD COME OUT ALONG WITH A TRULY CORRUPT PROCESS THAT YOU ARE SO CONCERNED ABOUT”
At least it would be real representation, instead the current farce being perpetrated. Some cities currently have strong advocates, while other selection members aren’t even from the regions they supposedly represent and evidently have little interest in advancing the local teams’ players, leaving them without a spokesman and at an unfair disadvantage. I’d also do away with lifetime appointments. No system is perfect, but I’d prefer having some way to hold selectors accountable over the current, corrupt back room politicking.
Me: “The votes should also be public, possibly with members required to release statements explaining themselves. ”
You: “I AGREE, BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH STIRLING NOR WOULD IT LEAD TO HIS ELECTION BY THIS COMMITTEE OR ANY OTHER NEW PROCESS OR COMMITTEE.”
I disagree. In a better system there would at least be more feedback and some selectors might be exposed to new ideas.
Me: “It needs transparency.”
You: ” I AGREE BUT GO AHEAD PROPOSAL AN IMPROVED PROCESS WITHOUT THE SAME ISSUES AND FLAWS”
I just did.
Me: “An increasing number of people have lost confidence in the process.”
You: ” I DOUBT THAT VERY MUCH SO”
Then you haven’t been paying attention. There’s more outrage over these senior nominees than I’ve seen in a long time, and in the internet age more people are following the opaque and frustrating HoF selection process than ever. Resentment is growing.
And why are you still shouting? Did you push your “caps lock” button and then forget where it was?
Me: “At least you concede that the HoF is fallible regarding whom it inducts and whom it leaves out, even if we disagree about Sterling deserving induction.”
You: ” I WOULD NEVER CLAIM THAT NO ONE PERSON, GROUP OR PROCESS IS PERFECT AS HUMAN NATURE IS IMPERFECT. BUT THAT DOES NOT EXPLAIN WHY STIRLING HAS NOT OR WILL BE ELECTED AS MANY CANDIDATES NEVER ARE.”
Yes, it would be a mistake not to elect Sterling. And if you’re going to pretend to be such an expert on the guy at least learn how to spell his name, please. At first I thought it was just a harmless typo, but it seems like you’re calling him “Stirling” every time now.
Me: “You earlier complained about me diminishing the HoF credentials of a player, despite this whole debate being about you doing that to Sterling and others, so I thought it was funny.”
You: “I WAS REFERRING TO CURRENT HOF PLAYERS NOT THOSE AS CANDIDATES.”
Why would questioning the validity of one be offensive when the other isn’t? After all, you’ve conceded that the HoF has made mistakes over the years.
Me: “Career averages ARE career numbers, and all such metrics, including but not only absolute career totals, should be considered. Sterling Sharpe’s dominance shouldn’t be ignored. He was a cut above those guys.
You: “THE CAREER NUMBERS STATE OTHERWISE.”
Not the average career numbers, or those measuring peak performance or overlapping years.
“NO YOU COMPLETELY CONTINUE TO IGNORE THE TWO LEAGUE ISSUE OF THE 1960S WHICH MAKES THE COMPARISON TO THE 1990S INVALID COMPLETELY.”
False. Still waiting on you to answer the questions at the top, btw. And even if your claim here was true, which it’s not, that wouldn’t make anything I said a “circular argument”. Hopefully you’ve looked up the term.
Me: “A peak is part of a complete body of work. You keep misusing the phrase. It doesn’t just refer to a shallow glance at absolute career totals. One should view a complete body of work from different angles. ”
You: “NO A COMPLETE BODY OF WORK IS NOT ONE YEAR OR ONE PIECE A COMPLETE BODY OF WORK IS ALL OF IT, IN THIS CASE EVERY YEAR AND EVERY QUALIFICATION (OR LACK THERE OF)”
That’s what I just said. It’s not just absolute career totals either. It’s everything. You should examine a career from various angles to see all its contours and notable features.
Me: “Reed’s top seasons coincided exactly with Sterling’s career, and Sterling was significantly better. It wasn’t even close.”
You: “CAN YOU SAY FOUR CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIPS”
Can you say “team versus individual”? After all, Reed averaged 35.4 y/g and scored 1 td in his 4 conference championship games. Sharpe averaged 114.5 y/g and scored 4 tds in his two shots at the playoffs. Now Reed played solid overall in the playoffs (if not as well as Sharpe), so I’m not trying denigrate him, but it is a team accomplishment and it certainly wasn’t Sharpe’s fault that the Packers didn’t get there more often or go further than they did.
Me: “If voters ignore that they’ll be vaulting inferior players into the HoF. Carter and Brown were never as good as Sharpe was either.”
You: “CAN YOU SAY 900+ RECS 13000+ YDS AND 100+TDS.”
Can you say 72.6 y/g versus 59.4 y/g, and 6 times leading the league in yards, receptions, or touchdowns versus 4?
Me: “I would probably induct all of them, but you’re adamantly dead set that it’s fine to enshrine those 5 but not those 6 for some bizarre reason, even if the last one or two come after a long wait in the senior pool.”
You: “IT IS A NUMBERS GAME AND SOME DAY AS A MODERN OR SENIOR CANDIDATE STIRLING IS GOING TO CONTINUE TO RUN UP AGAINST A BETTER QUALIFIED PLAYER FROM ANOTHER ERA AND POSITION AND LOSE.”
Or not. If he does it will be a travesty. I love how it’s apparently not a “numbers game” for #5 but you’re so emotional and adamant that #6 would be too many, as though a guy who can’t consistently remember how to spell “Sterling” has crunched all the numbers and gamed out every possible future scenario, perhaps with the help of psychic power and/or alien technology. You can’t even acknowledge that he’s at least a credible borderline candidate, lol.
“YOU ARE THE ONE DOING THE HEAVY LIFTING IN HERE BUDDY.”
Your shouting indicates you’re the one under severe strain. You must realize that your position is evaporating.
Me: “What point? You made a false claim about yourself.
You: “I DID, PLEASE ENLIGHTEN ME”
You claimed you had provided “plenty of facts and evidence” and you haven’t.
“VERY SIMPLE – THERE ARE MANY CANDIDATES FROM ERAS AND OTHER POSITIONS YET ONLY A FEW SLOTS, SO SHORT 4 YEAR CAREER PLAYERS ARE GOING TO GET LEFT BEHIND. IS THAT COHERENT ENOUGH FOR YOU?”
Except Sharpe had a 7 year career with 5 elite seasons; better than many already in the HoF and those being considered.
“NO I NEVER CLAIMED ANY CAP”
That’s the tack much of your “numbers game” talk takes.
Me: “Actually modern era players were already being discussed by other posters, which you can confirm by scrolling up. We’re discussing eventual HoF induction. A HoFer is a HoFer regardless of process, and I see no reason to pretend the senior avenue to Canton doesn’t exist. Senior era candidates are still judged in the context of the era in which they played.
You: “BUT THE PROCESS IS DIFFERENT, I NEVER SAID TO IGNORE IT BUT SINCE STIRLING IS CURRENTLY A MODERN CANDIDATE LETS FOCUS ON THAT PROCESS AT LEAST UNTIL HE MOVES INTO THE SENIORS POOL IN 2019.”
No, I’ll continue to include the senior avenue as an eventual possibility in the discussion, since it is.
And, Paul, you didn’t address this, so I’ll repost it lest it get buried. Face it, you’ve underestimated him. Don’t be stubborn about it. Be open minded, accept the new knowledge, and move on:
To further illustrate Sharpe’s well rounded statistical dominance, consider the 3 primary receiving categories: yards, receptions, and touchdowns. Sterling led the NFL in those categories 6 times. Only 4 other men in NFL history have matched that feat, and all of them are in the HoF:
NFL Players Who Led the NFL 6 or More Times in Yards, Receptions, or Receiving Touchdowns
Sterling Sharpe
Jerry Rice
Raymond Berry
Pete Pihos
Don Hutson
Lance Alworth, another first ballot HoFer, was the only man to accomplish the feat in the AFL. That’s very elite company, and for Sterling to do it in the expanded league of the 1990s in just a 7 year career is incredible. Here are the players to come closest in recent years:
Marvin Harrison – 5
Randy Moss – 5 (still active)
Andre Johnson – 4 (still active)
All 3 are likely future HoFers. Too many people are understating Sterling Sharpe’s greatness. Shannon was right, HoF voters should give Sterling’s career another look.
who in here thinks both senior nominees for 2013 will get inducted? I think both will just because they were great players
The 2012 Pro Football Hall of Fame preliminary nominees were announced on September 28th of last year. Just keep that in mind. The 2013 preliminary nominees should be announced in the next two weeks or so.
great, so this year it should be annouced on the 23rd or 30th of september this time around then
Charles Woodson should be considered first ballot, depending on how many more seasons he wants to play. He is an eight time pro bowler and named four time 1st team All Pro. He has 55 interceptions, 11 returned for TDs, including at least one in the past six seasons. He also has 17 sacks, which is pretty good for a cornerback. He also was named Defensive Rookie of The Year in 1998 and Defensive Player of the Year in 2009.
definitely first-ballot
What are Kevin Williams’ Hall of Fame chances?
I think Williams has a very good chance at the HOF especially if he can finish his career stronger (at least it is longer then 7 years)
Larry Grantham, WInston Hill, and Joe Klecko are all deserving of the Hall of Fame someday.
If Williams gets in, it will be on the strength of his 6 Pro Bowl seasons and 5 first team All Pro selections, not a few extra, non-elite seasons.
plus his selection to the 2000s decade team
ok what about lance briggs from the bears?
I am thinking Briggs is close, but will need a few more years of high level performance.
NEW YORK — NFL Films president Steve Sabol, half of the father-son team that revolutionized sports broadcasting and mythologized pro football into the country’s favorite sport, died Tuesday from brain cancer. He was 69.
R.I.P this great promoter and innovator for the NFL.
Williams was selected All Decade based on the 7 years of his career that occurred in the 2000s.
Does Steve Sabol make it to the list of finalists so soon after Ed went in?
“Williams was selected All Decade based on the 7 years of his career that occurred in the 2000s.”
And your point is? You do not have to play all ten years in the decade to make an all decade team. He was a member of the 2nd team all decade, which is why I mentioned that he still needs to close his career with some high quality years.
I am not so sure when and if Steve Sabol makes the list of finalists as it is the same issue with Art Model – mixing in contributors with players is a disservice to both groups and only makes the election voting difficult and the selections of individuals from both groups take more years.
London Fletcher was never named first team all pro. he was named to 2nd team in 2011. He is only a 2x Pro Bowler. But, he has been very consistent in his play. He needs one more interception to be the newest member of the 20-20 club and also the 20-30 club(interceptions-sacks). He has yet to miss a game in the NFL, playing in 226 consecutive games and starting in 209 consecutively. He is deserving of the Hall of Fame.
My point was that 7 years, a figure you sneeringly dismissed in passive aggressive fashion, was considered a significant enough body of work to make the All Decade team, Paul. Tacking on more high quality years would obviously enhance his HoF argument, but if they’re just average seasons his Canton case will obviously rest on his 6 Pro Bowls and 5 first team All Pro seasons, which is formidable enough to put him in the conversation.
Brad, I think London Fletcher would be a stretch for the HoF, though I think he arguably should have made more Pro Bowls and I agree with the premise that there’s more than one way to earn one’s way to Canton.
In selection for a position on an all decade team (and he was 2nd team among the four DL) 7 years leading to 6 pro bowls and 5 first time all pro seasons is impressive and enough to make such an honor. But the process to select only 5 modern candidates from a pool of 15 finalists each year is much more difficult and competitive with a much higher standard expected so the same qualifications may not be enough, which is why I stated additional high quality seasons are needed. Many second team all decade players are not in the HOF and many of those may never get in.
The problem London Fletcher faces like so many other players is that when you get down to the final 25 then the final 15 there are so many other players with more pro bowls, all pro teams and impressive season and career numbers that it is going to be very hard for him to surpass those players just to get into the room as a 15 finalists to have his case debated as one of the 5 elected each year. That is a deep pool of candidates to surpass.
the preliminatary list should be announced soon possibly by this weekend. and steve sabol will get in but probably in a couple of years down the line as more players need to get in first before the contributors do
I don’t know when or if Williams is getting into Canton, but my point was that 7 years wasn’t considered an incomplete sample set or potential fluke when evaluating his greatness, and was good enough for him to be selected as one of the best 4 DTs of the decade. Who knows how many 2000s DTs they’ll eventually end up inducting through the modern and senior era process? I will say that O-Linemen and DTs are mostly judged on accolades, since it’s harder for them to shine in pure statistical terms than it is for……say….receivers, or even DEs who play a premier sack position, so more longevity might be needed to rack up as many Pro Bowls as possible, but 5 first team All Pro seasons should always put one in the HoF conversation.
I’m sorry Steve Sabol died and I supported his father’s induction, but I’m not sure it’s necessary to put both of them in the HoF. Is every President of NFL Films automatically going in the HoF?
Steve Sabol was much more than just the President of NFL Films but a true innovator in recording the history of the game, just read the many strong testimonies from the league, players and media following his passing, and his candidacy for the HOF has been stated for the last two decades. I have no idea as to when he will get into the HOF nor agree that he should be elected this year or soon after his passing, but he is deserving as shown by his many other professional awards including from the HOF.
“I don’t know when or if Williams is getting into Canton, but my point was that 7 years wasn’t considered an incomplete sample set or potential fluke when evaluating his greatness, and was good enough for him to be selected as one of the best 4 DTs of the decade. ”
Yes it was, but the competition and standard for the HOF are both much more higher. There are many members of the various all decade teams (especially those 2nd team selections like Williams) not in the HOF and some will not be selected.
“Who knows how many 2000s DTs they’ll eventually end up inducting through the modern and senior era process?”
As we have discussed there is no cap on the number of players from one position and era/decade, but looking at the history and trends in voting suggests that any such number is not going to be very large, especially for lineman and defensive players. It really comes down to the numbers game: so few slots, too many deserving players.
” I will say that O-Linemen and DTs are mostly judged on accolades, since it’s harder for them to shine in pure statistical terms than it is for……say….receivers, or even DEs who play a premier sack position, so more longevity might be needed to rack up as many Pro Bowls as possible, but 5 first team All Pro seasons should always put one in the HoF conversation.”
I agree, but in the conversation among the 100+ preliminary and then the final 25 is great, but actually getting into the final 15 is much harder even for a 5 time first team All Pro, I do think in the long term Williams deserves to be in that discussion and debate at some point.
Conversely, many players will be inducted who weren’t on the All Decade team. At least we agree that Williams deserves to be in the Canton discussion at some point, despite playing a position where Pro Bowls are roughly equal, as opposed to a position like WR, where it’s possible for varying levels of statistical dominance.
As for the Sabols, I think the HoF worthy innovator was Ed. I haven’t been a fan of Steve’s work over the years, but given his recent passing I’ll refrain from arguing against the guy for now.
“Conversely, many players will be inducted who weren’t on the All Decade team.”
Yes, but membership on a first team all decade team is a strong qualification for election, at least it means an easier and quicker path to election, especially in regards to positions like OL where comparative stats are lacking.
I have never seen a comparative assessment of the contributions of Ed versus Steve in terms of specific innovations, although Ed started NFL Films and many of the early, and to become standards, of the work of NFL Films started with with Ed. Such a critique would be an interesting read. All I know is that Steve has received numerous film and NFL awards for his work with NFL Films including 35 Emmys, the Pete Rozelle Award and Dan Reeves Pioneer Award from the HOF, so although I agree that Ed deserved first recognition with election to the HOF, someday Steve will also deserve the same.
I’m still hoping the last two members of the offensive/defensive 70s All Decade team get inducted some day, though Cowboys fans are also still waiting for Chuck Howley’s induction, his 6 Pro Bowl/5 first team All Pro/SB MVP/20/20 Club career placing him ahead of them in line.
I’m sure Sabol won plenty of awards, and I say this not to diminish him in particular but about awards in general, but entertainment industry awards (especially Emmys and Oscars) are worthless to me. It’s all politics, ad campaigns, and self indulgent back slapping. I’ve seen too many great shows and movies get snubbed over the years while garbage reliably gets the awards. I can often predict which movies and tv shows will receive awards just from watching the previews and discerning the theme, political agenda, actors involved, etc.. I just roll my eyes at them now.
“I’m still hoping the last two members of the offensive/defensive 70s All Decade team get inducted some day, though Cowboys fans are also still waiting for Chuck Howley’s induction, his 6 Pro Bowl/5 first team All Pro/SB MVP/20/20 Club career placing him ahead of them in line. ”
I agree, but at least Cliff Harris is in the discussion among senior candidate finalists, unfortunately for Drew Pearson there does not appear to be any movement by the seniors committee to consider him, which is unlikely to change until after both Howley and Harris are elected, meaning a very long wait for Pearson.
The Pete Rozelle and Dan Reeves Pioneer Awards from the HOF are pretty impressive on his resume, but as posted before mixing players with contributors makes it hard for many deserving contributors to get considered and usually only 1 or 2 among the final 15 in a given year. Hence my earlier proposal (also made by others over the years) to separate the elections of players and contributors.
Of course I obviously meant still outstanding first team 70s All Decade members.
steve will get in sooner rather than later it will just take some time
I saw earlier mention of Howley, Harris and Pearson as should be HOFamers. How about Harvey Martin?
yes or jake scott hard-hitting safety from those 70s miami dolphins teams
Jake Scott will have a problem getting into the HOF for several reasons. First for some reason HOF voters have never been kind to S, second he was not even on the 1970s decade team suggesting that there were four better Safeties, and third, some believe that he was not even the best S on his team, that Dick Anderson was better (and his on the 1970s all decade team). Once you get past Ken Houston (already in HOF) the other top safeties including Cliff Harris are all grouped together and appears that Harris is next one in given he was a 2012 and 2013 senior finalist.
I am also not so sure on Harvey Martin, who may be suffering from the higher interest given to other Cowboys from the 1970s (Howley, Harris and Pearson), with Harris and Pearson first time members of the 1970s decade team. Martin may struggle to get attention like many other players from successful decade teams like the 1960s Packers and 1970s Steelers as if you once get 2 or 3 more 1970s Cowboys in HOF the attention will be focused on other teams and players from the 1970s more deserving.
Maurice Jones-Drew rushed for his 7,000th career yard and scored his 76th career TD vs Colts. He is closing in on a Hall of Fame career.
Same with Andre Johnson and Larry Fitzgerald.
MJD is in good shapefor a HOF career if he can avoid the post 30 year old age huge decline all to familiar with so many RBs. The pounding RBs are taking today and the shift to RBs by committee are going to make 10,000+ yard careers and multiple all pro/pro bowl seasons much rarer.
As I mentioned on an earlier post both Johnson and Fitzgerald are quickly picking up the numbers and awards on a path to the HOF, any playoff success (who sees a Houston vs Arizona Superbowl this year!) will also help greatly.
i dont see arizona in the superbowl this year, maybe houston but not arizona
maurice jones drew is close but not quite yet to be a hall of famer
another reason why i find you annoying rasputin he certainly belongs
It is much easier to make the case for Steve Sabol then it would be to dismiss his candidacy. I would welcome a critical fact based assessment of why Steve Sabol does not belong in the HOF. I am not saying he should be elected in 2013 or soon or perhaps above other more deserving players and contributors already on the ballot and recent finalists, but that his qualifications in my view and many others are very solid.
Another? You never provided the first reason, Robert Ewing. I figured maybe it was my mastery of capital letters or my ability to read and write at above a fifth grade level that annoyed you enough to pound out those insipid one liners. Now you’re apparently crying because I said something that you disagree with. That’s nice. No wonder I always liked JR better.
Paul, I already said I don’t feel comfortable arguing against a guy who recently died, but if you insist I’ll point out that the only facts cited so far as supposed qualifications for Sabol’s induction are those awards that NFL Films received. The Emmys were in the sports category, and it’s not like there’s a huge field of competition, especially given NFL Films’ monopolistic access to all that footage. I predict that NFL Films will continue to routinely win Emmys under whoever succeeds Sabol.
I personally think inducting one Sabol is enough to reflect the innovative impact of the creation of NFL Films itself, and that man should obviously be and fortunately was Ed. I’m not sure whatever tweaks Steve made, and I have yet to see any concrete innovations by him laid out, warrant displacing a player for Canton induction.
What year did Steve Sabol win the Rozelle award? That claim vaguely appears in his viral obituary and some unsourced wiki pages, but the only list of “Rozelle award” winners I’ve found is for the Pete Rozelle Radio-Television Awards, and Steve did NOT win that, though his father did.
http://www.profootballhof.com/story/2012/6/28/Len-Dawson-wins-Rozelle-broadcasting-award/
Maybe he won a different category of the Rozelle award, but for such a “prestigious” award I’m having a hard time finding any mention of it online. He was given the Order of the Leather Helmet award by the NFL Alumni at the same time as his father (maybe what’s confusing some people?), and did receive the Pioneer Award. One would expect someone who ran the NFL’s in house documentary department for decades to pick up an award or two over that span.
I think the biggest reason for a push to induct Steve is simply because he was so front and center for so long that his became a household name among most NFL fans. Everyone knows him and associates him with the NFL. I suppose any head of NFL Films could choose to do that though, and I’m not sure that’s enough to warrant HoF induction. The new guy will be at the disadvantage of not having the name “Sabol”, but if we all come to know him well over the next 20-30 years it might not matter. Or he might choose to remain behind the scenes and avoid becoming that famous, possibly sinking his chances at Canton.
Pat Summerall DID win the Rozell Radio-Television Award, and the Order of the Leather Helmet award, along with other stuff. He’s the best NFL tv broadcaster I’ve ever listened to and I’d put him in the HoF first.
The issue of contributors displacing players for election to the HOF is a much bigger issue than just Steve Sabol as many have debated the merits of selecting any coach, owner or other contributor, the same debate came up when Ed Sabol was elected, hence the call for separate elections. It may be the in many cases the close working relationship of both Sabols have lead to confusion over awards they received individually as well as those awarded to NFL films, although I will note that as a director and producer Steve Sabol (and not Ed or NFL Films or simply any head of NFL Films) received Emmys and other professional awards in many areas way beyond simply what anyone in NFL Films would have earned simply by association. It is more then just public recognition as his peers in the media and those in the NFL, including players and coaches, have been starting their respect and praise for Steve for many years and the innovations that he brought to NFL Films lead to many of the media products we see today. If you were too dig a little deeper into his background and history you would see his influence on Inside the NFL, HBO Hard Knocks, the NFL Network, miking coaches and players, personal behind the scenes look at the NFL. To date no NFL TV broadcaster has been inducted into the HOF (John Madden had to have the coaching record to back up his election) and the Sabols were much more then broadcasters, they were major contributors to the history of the game more so then may other potential contributors including owners, GMs, and league officials.
http://www.nesn.com/2012/09/steve-sabols-top-10-innovations-introduced-to-sports-television-broadcasting-with-nfl-films.html
The preliminaries are to be announced tomorrow, I believe .
“The preliminaries are to be announced tomorrow”
Should be fun, but with 120+ names, it will be hard to determine any new trends or obvious omissions since anyone can nominate pretty much anyone as the HOF does little in way of venting the list.
It will start to get interesting for debates once the 25 finalist list is announced in mid November.
Of course it would be hard to determine that. Will Vinny Testaverde and his 275 TDs passes (70 different receivers, NFL record) make the preliminaries?
Receiver including: Andre Rison, Steve Smith,Jonathan Ogden, Curtis Martin, Eric Metcalf, Kennan McCardell, Jason Witten, James Wilder, Jumbo Elliot, Troy Brown,Earnest Byner, Keith Byars, Wayne Chrebet, and Keyshawn Johnson.
overrated quarterback vinny testaverde
Of his 275 TD passes, 175 are either in 2nd quarter(87) or 4th quarter/OT(4th: 87, OT: 1); just 100 in first (51) and third quarter (49).
I hope they will be correcting some of the very well deserving players who were snubbed in the 2012 prelim list.
They include:
Corey Dillon (11,241 rushing yds and 89 career TDs), Mark Bavaro, Jay Novacek, Irving Fryar (851 rec, 12,785 yds, 88 career TDs), Stanley Morgan, Mark Duper, Richmond Webb, Mark Stepnoski, Mark Gastineau, Keith Millard, Greg Lloyd, Hardy Nickerson, Pat Swilling, Deron Cherry, Carnell Lake and Frank Minnifield.
Paul, let’s just say that NFL Films is a vehicle that puts “directors” in a position to win awards in a sports category with limited competition. So far I’m the one doing the digging. I discovered that the Rozelle award you cited earlier was probably a journalistic error and that Steve never received it. I’m still waiting for this list of concrete innovations you keep vaguely mentioning. I’m sure NFL Films will continue to develop original programming regardless of who’s running it, which is why I asked earlier if every long time boss of the in house outfit should automatically make the HoF. I’d personally say no, especially when, as you say, there’s currently not a separate slot for contributors.
As for broadcasters, Pat Summeral’s clear, competent voice defined the NFL for over a generation. In that venue and others his vast experience as a player and observer let him become the most respected and insightful pundit of the game, enhancing the esteem in which people held the league. If one were ever to induct a broadcaster, he should top the list.
My previous post had a link to a list of innovations credited to Steve Sabol and I listed several in that same post.
I am not sure if the HOF will ever consider broadcasters in the contributors section of those eligible for the HOF. Especially since they are already eligible for the Rozelle Award given by the HOF. But Ed and Steve Sabol are not considered broadcasters or writers but as members of the NFL.
As to the list of preliminary names although it should complete and perhaps some deserving players are left off in error , my understanding is that the HOF does not prepare, review or vent the list, so unless someone (and anyone can do so) nominates a player or contributor (I have done so in the past) there is always a chance someone could be missed. I do recall Peter King writing last fall that all the voters see the list before it is released so they can cross check and add names, but even then it is possible some are left off. Personally I do not place a great value or meaning to the long preliminary list, but I can see that some players and others may see their inclusion as an ‘honor”. Just that for me the preliminary list is not a good indicator of how the voting process will play out that year.
The innovations listed in your link occurred in the Ed Sabol era, and the piece vaguely attributes most of them to “NFL Films” without clearly differentiating between Steve and Ed. The only item I know Steve is personally responsible for is “Autumn Wind”, which is admittedly an awesome poem, but by itself I’m not sure it’s Canton worthy.
I know the Sabols and Summeral are in different categories. I wasn’t trying to equate them, but mentioned Summeral as the contributor I’d most like to see inducted, possibly along with legendary scout Gil Brandt. It’s the Pro Football HoF, not the NFL HoF, and I’m not sure one necessarily has to be a member of the league (though of course Summeral did play) to make a major contribution to it. I see no reason why the best broadcaster in NFL history can’t be inducted at some point.
Even back in the 1960s when Ed started the company that resulted in NFL Films, he credited Steve personally to many of the innovations as have many other people inside and outside NFL Films. If you truly believe that anyone is claiming a poem is why Steve Sabol should be selected to the HOF you clearly do not understand his qualifications and support for consideration of selection.
Anyone connected to pro football can be nominated and potentially elected, no broadcaster has yet to be elected and with all the scouts, GMS, owners and others suggested in previous lists of contributors I am not so sure we will see much interest in any broadcaster in the near future.
here is the list from 2012, which has not changed greatly in recent years and expect the 2013 preliminary list of contributors to be very similar ( I am suggesting any these are better or more deserving of a broadcaster, just this is what the list looks like):
Contributors
K.S. “Bud” Adams, Jr. (Owner), Bobby Beathard (Admin.), Gil Brandt (Admin.), Leo Carlin (Admin.), Jack Kent Cooke (Owner), Otho Davis (Trainer), Ed DeBartolo, Jr. (Owner), Ron Gibbs (Official), Jim Kensil (Admin.), Eddie Kotal (Admin.), Art McNally (Official), Art Modell (Owner), Steve Sabol (NFL Films), Paul Tagliabue (Commissioner), Burl Toler, Sr. (Official), Jim Tunney (Official), Ron Wolf (Admin.), George Young (Admin.)
I didn’t say anyone was basing an argument on the poem. My citation, while genuinely praising Steve, obviously assumed the absurdity of such a case. I mentioned it because so far no other specific innovations have been attributed to him. If Steve was responsible for the innovations of NFL Films, then one has to wonder why Ed was inducted. Before putting Ed’s underling in Canton, I’d like to know what his specific contributions were. So far all I’ve seen have been the obligatory vague praise expected after a death and some apparently false claims by a sloppy media about the awards he won.
I know broadcasters haven’t traditionally been considered. I spoke of Summeral because I think it’s time for that to change.
Good list of preliminary snubs boknows34. I think the 5 that stand out the most for me on your list are:
Gastineau (last year of eligibility, criminally ignored for years)
Webb (hasn’t made the preliminary list since his 1st year of eligibility, the only player with 7 or more Pro Bowls that doesn’t consistently make the list),
Cherry (6/3/80’s, 50 career INT’s, yet rarely makes the list. May have a chance this year with Easley and Shell dropping off)
Dillon (I don’t think he’s Hall of Fame worthy, but how does a 4-Time Pro Bowler, Super Bowl winner and top 20 all-time rusher not get a token nomination in his 1st year of eligibility? Especially when Stephen Davis does? I forget where I read this, but I believe the 1st-timers on the preliminary list are somewhat picked by the hall or the voters to ensure no one gets missed…if that’s true, they did a bad job last year)
Swilling (Dominant pass rusher from the LB and DE position, but probably loses out in a numbers game given the amount of outstanding pass rushers from the late 80’s/early 90’s)
There were definitely less players on the preliminary list last year than usual, as they really went thin on QB’s, TE’s and LB’s, went heavy on non-players and several consistent nominees suddenly got omitted. It’s hard to say whether the player number will increase this year, but my guess is that it will simply given the stronger than usual 1st-year nominee pool (Strahan, Allen, Sapp, Ogden, Andersen, Lynch and Brown are guaranteed locks and guys like Priest Holmes, Steve McNair, Tom Nalen, Bryant Young and Simeon Rice among others seem likely to get included), and very few great players lost their eligibility (Kenny Easley, Donnie Shell, Marvin Powell and Dave Butz were the best of the 1987 retiree group).
In addition to boknows34’s list, I’d also add the following players that I would hope would get another shot at the preliminary list even if they are only borderline cases:
QB: Boomer Esiason, Randall Cunningham and Rich Gannon (all are more Hall of Very Good types, but they are right on par with the only two QB’s nominated last year in Drew Bledsoe and Phil Simms)
RB: Ottis Anderson (the analysis I’ve done suggests he’s the best RB from his era aside from Roger Craig that isn’t in the Hall. As usual, his lack of Pro Bowls and consistent greatness kill his case, but I think his overall body of work warrants a spot over most of the other RB’s that made the preliminary list last year)
WR: Herman Moore, Wes Chandler, Mike Quick, Andre Rison (all of these players had good enough careers to get consistently nominated, unfortunately aside from Keyshawn Johnson I don’t know if I’d take any of these guys or the 3 receivers on boknows34’s list over the guys nominated last year)
TE: Keith Jackson (I don’t think he’s ever been nominated despite a lot of good credentials (5/3, Super Bowl ring). Unless there’s a character flag I’m missing, he’s the most surprising never-nominated modern era player for me).
OL: No One (Aside from snubbing Webb and Stepnoski, the Hall generally has done a great job with O-linemen)
DL: Neil Smith and Michael Dean Perry (As a biased long-time Chiefs fan, Neil Smith is the most confusingly ignored player by the Hall. I consider him a borderline hall of famer, yet he hasn’t made the preliminary nomination list since his 1st year of eligibility. The modern era DT field is fairly weak, especially with Kennedy and Butz out and Klecko out after this year. I’d think that Perry would be able to make the list given his competition).
LB: No One (Aside from Nickerson, Swilling and Lloyd, the Hall got all the major guys last year. Some fan must love Ken Harvey because I don’t understand why he’s on the list over those 3).
DB: No One (If Cherry, Lake and Minnifield were on last year’s list, it would have been perfect)
ST: Sean Landeta (I’m surprised he’s never been nominated as a member of 2 all-decade teams, 2 Super Bowl teams and 3 first-team All-Pro teams over his 21-year NFL career. I doubt it matters but he also is the punter on the All-USFL team as well.)
This is unrelated and probably the wrong page for this post, but what an unfortunate and potentially career-altering injury for Darrelle Revis. Just 6 years into his career, he already looked like he was well on his way to the Hall of Fame.
Do you guys think he will go the way of Rod Woodson and come back at a high level, or will he return as a mere above-average (or worse) player?
Ed Sabol deserved to be inducted first as he created and lead what would become NFL Films, many stated that they were shocked he had not already been elected years ago. Again all I know is that over the years there have been strong statements from many people inside and outside NFL Films and the league of the true innovator that Steve Sabol was and that he is also deserving of election. I will leave it to those with a much longer and complete understanding of the NFL, NFL Films and their respective histories to make the case for Steve that they have been doing. I do believe he should be elected to the HOF, not this year or in the near future as there currently are more deserving players and perhaps a few other collaborators, but at some point in the future he should be considered.
And keep in mind in regards to omissions on the preliminary list, anyone can send the HOF names for that list (I have done that in the past). That is one way to ensure that everyone deserving is included. In years past I have seen that list grow to over 140 names as I do not believe there is any limit, and having seen some really questionable names included (including many that are much less deserving then the omissions BSLO) it appears the HOF does little venting as long as they have contributed to professional football they can be included.
Hard to say about the future for Revis as recovery from such a serious knee injury can be really difficult, he will lose one perhaps two prime years in his career and then uncertainty as to future productivity. Other younger CBs will start rising into pro bowls and all pro slots making it harder for him to be the dominant CB in the league that he has been the last several years. This is the reason we need to be very careful about projecting HOF careers for players as age and injuries all too often rob a player of productive years to close a HOF quality career.
wut time will they announce the preliminary nominees?
It was 2pm EST last year. I’m looking at my twitter feed for the update.
http://www.profootballhof.com/enshrinement/2012/9/27/2013-nominees-for-football-hall-of-fame/
list of prelim nom
Well I’d be willing to listen to a fact based argument for Sabol’s induction, if anyone ever comes along and provides one.
I have provided several facts and links to support his induction, plus there are numerous testimonies from those within professional football. You may not agree with the facts or supporting information and opinions of others or that he is deserving and that is your right and opinion, but a case has been made by many others over the years for the election of Steve Sabol. Again I do not need to make the basis or justification for his election, many others have and you are welcome to do the research.
But I also understand that for many contributor candidates their cases are very subjective since unlike players the stats and awards approach for contributors simply does not work. The only argument you have made to not elect Steve Sabol is that you do not believe he was an innovator (even through many people inside the game and NFL Films have stated he was) and that anyone with NFL Films including the President would have the same basic criteria for election, which is a position no one else familiar with NFL Films or Steve Sabol is making.
I am not sure it is worth my time to continue to assert (and provide evidence and testimonies) that he was an innovator and deserving when you will simply claim he was not and should not be in the HOF. You can have your opinion and I will have mine supported by the views of many others inside the pro football game.
What other “facts” am I suppose to provide as for contributors all we have are the opinions and views of those within pro football that a contributor is deserving of election.
No, again, your link provided no specific facts on Steve’s alleged innovations. Apart from that all you did was repeat some brief claims you read in his obituary, which, thanks to my digging a little deeper, we’ve now discovered were at least partially false. The burden isn’t on me to build a case AGAINST someone’s induction, but is on those who support induction. If we’re putting this guy in the HoF then we should be able to reel off some significant, specific accomplishments. The only facts presented here so far to support Sabol’s induction are the Emmys, which aren’t very compelling for reasons I explained. Simply saying that a lot of people support his induction isn’t a valid argument. I’m making no predictions. It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if Sabol is carried into Canton by a combination of sympathy voting and his last name. I’m just asking if it’s warranted, and so far no one here made much of a rational case for it.
I am not sure how you expect me to provide specific facts on his innovations. I have provided a list of the innovations and links to discussions of those innovations and supporting testimonies based on those innovations by many inside NFL Films and associated with pro football. I have no means to prove that he alone was responsible for these innovations just as you have no way of disproving them. Someday when he makes the final 15 a presenter will need to make his case in front of all the HOF voters who will then have to determine whether he is worthy for election over the over 14 candidates also considered.
http://www.nesn.com/2012/09/steve-sabols-top-10-innovations-introduced-to-sports-television-broadcasting-with-nfl-films.html
http://blog.chron.com/sportsmedia/2012/09/nfl-films-president-steve-sabol-remembered-as-innovative-champion-of-football-films/
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865562773/Gridiron-empire-Remembering-NFL-pioneer-Steve-Sabol.html?pg=all
http://www.insidesocal.com/tomhoffarth/archives/2012/09/why-steve-sabol.html
The 1960’s All Decade Team(Both NFL and AFL) has quiet several Hall of Fame caliber players: Winston Hill, John David Crow, Jerry Kramer, Art Powell, Ed Budde, Del Shofner, Bob Talamini, Larry Grantham, Johnny Robinson, Eddie Meador, and Tom Sestak.
Actually the link I provided (and there are others as well) present a detailed list of the innovations by Steve Sabol, supported by testimonies by those within NFL Films and pro football. I am not sure what other facts or evidence anyone is to provide. Since you nor I work in NFL Films there is no way either of us can prove or disprove those statements made by others about his innovations. I have no idea why his obit and other statements claim that he was awarded the Pete Rozelle Award and yes the fact that he personally as a producer and directer won numerous awards given in the top if his field by his peers (Emmys) is meaningful, or perhaps we should stop making any use of number of pro bowls for players? Someday his case will be made by a presenter in front of the HOF voters when a compelling case can be made and then it will be up to the voters to make a rationale decision to elect him. Such debates are especially hard to make for any contributor since they were not player and do not have the benefit of on the field numbers and awards to support their cases. There is room in any HOF for contributors, I just wish that there election was kept separate from the players elections.
No it didn’t, or you wouldn’t have to vaguely rely on such a link. Pro Bowls wouldn’t be that meaningful either if they were distributed among a pool of 6-8 players over the course of 20-30 years. Again, I predict whoever produces and/or directs NFL Films programming will continue to win Emmys at a routine clip. Having monopolistic access to NFL footage that others are prohibited from boosts one’s chances even more.
Let me put it this way, Paul. Please list, in your own words, significant innovations that you know came specifically from Steve Sabol:
Steve Sabol Innovations
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Add more if necessary. It’s hardly an unfair question, since people are already punching this guy’s ticket to Canton despite knowing very little about him.
Um By my count rasputin 0
sideline microphones
highlight montages
The NFL Films Yearbook series
super-slo-mo in game films
video breaking down key or historical games and plays
Steve Sabol is credited with these innovations and won numerous awards as director/producer of films that made use of these techniques, not because he had access to NFL game film, but because he changed how the game was portrayed.
1. “sideline microphones” – Ed Sabol era, any proof Steve was personally responsible?
2. “highlight montages” – Ed Sabol era, any proof Steve was personally responsible?
3. “The NFL Films Yearbook series” – Seriously? A show is an innovation? Regardless, that started in the Ed Sabol era too.
4. “super-slo-mo” in game films – Ed Sabol era, any proof Steve was personally responsible for that style?
5. “video breaking down key or historical games and plays” – nope, guys had been doing that since long before NFL Films came along.
Are there any innovations that took place after Steve took over NFL Films and/or that came before but we know we can specifically credit to Steve? It’s always seemed to me that NFL Films’ glory era was under Ed’s management.
“Um By my count rasputin 0”
Robert Ewing, are you…
A. Giving your estimate of Steve Sabol’s innovations.
B. For some reason estimating the Canton worthy innovations to the NFL from a random message board poster you don’t even know.
C. Giving a ballpark estimate of your IQ.
?
Regardless of intention, your statement could accurately accomplish more than one of the above.
He was personally awarded multiple Emmys and other professional awards due to the fact that he was credited with these innovations as director and/or producer of the films tbat used these innovations. Again there are numerous testimonies from those within NFL Films and pro football that Steve was responsible for these innovations.
Ed was credited for creating NFL films but many people including those at NFL films note that Steve as the cameraman, director and producer deveoped these innovations. Since there are so many people inside the game have credited Steve for those important innovations why would you or I know better? As with any contibutor how can anyone like us assess their contributions without relying on testimonies?
Read this..
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/19/sports/football/steve-sabol-creative-force-behind-nfl-films-dies-at-69.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
“Although his father, Ed, founded NFL Films, Steve Sabol — the producer, writer, director and cameraman — created the images and sounds it became famous for: a kicked football floating end-over-end or a pigskin bullet spiraling in slow motion; a row of bruised and dirtied gladiators hunkering on the sideline; the crunch of bodies brawling at the line of scrimmage or colliding in the open field. ”
“Ed was the president until 1987, when Steve, who had the titles of creative director and co-founder, succeeded him. ”
“I may have started it, but he has been the engineer behind it,” Ed Sabol said of his son in a 2008 interview. “He comes up with these great ideas and is a great student of the game.”
“Of the sports Emmy Awards won by NFL Films, 107, including two this year, Steve Sabol was cited on more than a third. ”
“NFL Films was not the first company to make game films, but its innovations are widely considered to have elevated the genre. Mr. Sabol put more cameras on the field than others had and used them to provide new perspectives. One, called the mole, was a hand-held camera that roamed the sideline in search of spectacular close-ups. He used different speeds in different cameras. ”
“Steve Sabol’s many awards included a lifetime achievement Emmy. “
Paul is it possible they might induct sapp with brooks in 2014
as for rasputin you got it all wrong i do think sabol does belong and i am annoyed with the dallas jokes
Brooks has a great chance in 2014 as the best of the 2014 1st year candidates. Sapp may continue to have a challenge depending on those not elected in 2013 as the 2013 finalist list will be deep in quality.
paul i agree totally the thing that is hurting sapp this year is the fact strahan is on the ballot
and even if Strahan is elected in 2013 there good still be some very good players not elected in 2013 against whom Sapp will need to compete against in 2014
Robert Ewing, you failed to point out anything I was “wrong” about.
Paul, so you only have a couple of vague comments regarding alleged “innovations”. Got it. What I’ve been looking for are testimonials about SPECIFIC original innovations. As for Emmys, I’m not sure why you’re repeating yourself. I have no respect for Emmys to begin with, and pointing out that Steve was only awarded around a third of those given to NFL Films is hardly impressive. A guy who inherited the NFL’s in house PR machine, complete with monopolistic access to exclusive footage, and runs it for decades probably should have won more given the limited field of competition on the “Sports” category. I understand that you disagree, but since I’m not disputing that he received the Emmys you don’t need to keep repeating yourself.
Oh, and I’d prefer sources from before Steve’s death. Not just because the obits are rehashing unreliable info from each other, but because vague praise is understandably effusive in those situations. I’m talking about something from…say….a decade ago that says something like “Steve convinced his father that doing X would be a good idea.” I’m sure stuff like that happened, and if we get a concrete list of specific contributions then we can examine it and discuss how Canton worthy it is.
Every link I have provided include testimonials about specific original innovations for which Steve Sabol is created for (including by his father), after your request I even listed them. The link I provided from the New York Times was not an obit but a feature article including quotes by Ed from a 2008 interview where he stated that Steve was the innovator in NFL Films (he was their creative director). And I am providing more then vague comments, but numerous testimonies from those within NFL Films and pro football about his accomplishments. In addition to individually receiving numerous Emmys because of the work he did he also received a lifetime Emmy (top career award in his profession) how many other people within sports and pro football have that award, any other NFL Films staff? I keep repeating the Emmys because they are one of his qualifications for which you have dismissed as awards to NFL Films only or that any President of NFL Films would win, while ignoring his Emmys are for his innovations. He may have had the film but again look at his innovations they include how he directed NFL Films to capture the games and then how they were edited, directed and produced. NFL Film created a product and innovations led by Steve that no other professional sport was able to match. We already have a list of specific contributions, that many people for years have acknowledged (again his awards and testimonies date back throughout his career, a call for his election to the HOF also goes back years). In 2006 Steve Sabol was on the preliminary list of HOF nominees indicating support for his election predates his death.
I understand the issue with assessing contributors and weighing their cases against players and coaches, but among the list of contributors for the HOF, he is a deserving candidate who someday should have his case made in front of the HOF voters as a member of the final 15. I know you may not agree, but my only only aim here was to make his case not to get into another endless unproductive debate with you when you clearly are more interested in dismissing all that I state and supporting evidence without even giving it consideration. I have had stated my case and done with further posts on this matter.
No, all of your links are posthumous, and simply rehash the same vague stuff, as I’ve shown. What significant innovations are listed are carefully attributed to “NFL Films”, and all happen to date to the Ed Sabol era. Elsewhere Steve is vaguely praised as the “creative force” behind the company, including in the segments from the 2008 interview, but that’s still more general than what I clearly said I was looking for. The generous, vague 2008 quote from his father aside, your so called “testimonials” are the effusive praise one expects for the recently departed, and are equally vague. You pointing out that someone nominated him for Canton in 2006 indicates you’re misunderstanding what I’ve been saying. I never denied that some people have always supported his HoF induction. As the head of NFL Films, and a boss who chose to put himself front and center (while carrying the “Sabol” name to boot), Sabol became famous to NFL fans. I wouldn’t be surprised in the least if he’s inducted, especially with his case now bolstered by the sympathy vote. I didn’t even deny that there may be a legitimate, fact based case for his induction. I just haven’t seen it yet. I wanted sources written before Steve’s death to avoid that obligatory effusive praise I mentioned before and establish specific accomplishments we could then focus on. Unfortunately so far you’ve failed to even link to an article that wasn’t written in the wake of Steve’s death.
I addressed the 5 specific “innovations” you listed, and pointed out that each of them were vaguely attributed to “NFL Films”, not necessarily Steve himself (at least not in anything you’ve linked to so far), and at least one or two of them are dubious as innovations. That’s not dismissing for the sake of dismissing. I pointed out flaws and explained how that short list failed to meet my explicit criteria.
As for Emmys, your sources don’t even agree on how many he won. One says “40” while another says “35”. It doesn’t really matter since any chief director/producer associated with NFL Films will receive plenty of Emmys over a multi-decade career. What you keep leaving out of your ceaseless repetitions is that these are SPORTS EMMYS. They’re not even held the same night as the regular Emmys. How much competition do the documentaries of NFL Films really have, especially given football’s prominent role as the #1 sport? How fair is it to have to compete with an in house pr firm with monopolistic access to exclusive footage? Why do you conflate Emmys with “innovations”? The only specific contributions firmly attributed to Steve in anything you’ve posted are the poem “Autumn Wind” and the show Hard Knocks, neither really Canton worthy innovations. I’m sure others exist, but finding them might require more than a quick of google of posthumous articles that you may or may not have read carefully, and that you demonstrably took at face value earlier even when some quick research showed they were incorrect. That his obituaries falsely attributed Ed’s Rozelle award to Steve only underscores everything I’ve been saying about the need to go earlier and not treat the Sabol’s like one person, as many confused people basically are.
No, I gave everything you said due consideration. It seems like you wanted to argue for the sake of arguing.
I didn’t ask you to make a case for Sabol. I didn’t even want to have this discussion, but you insisted, so I said I’d be willing to listen if someone made a compelling, fact based argument on his behalf. I still am, if anyone ever does. I clearly laid out what I’m looking for. It’s actually very reasonable when we’re talking HoF induction.
There is only one person in this debate looking to argue for the sake of arguing and it not me – I am done.
That you even posted that after already claiming to be “done” earlier indicates that’s not true. As for me, my clear, reasonable criteria remains.
who would be a better senior nominee joe klecko or curley culp
joe klecko most definitely but also curley culp is not a bad choice either