dh86 Posted February 6, 2006 Report Posted February 6, 2006 Terrell Davis-in like 50 years Jamal Anderson-no Randall Cunningham-in a few years maybe Eric Allen-no Carnell Lake-no Bruce Matthews-yes Ricky Watters-no Tony Boselli-no
Vern Gagne Posted February 6, 2006 Report Posted February 6, 2006 Hate to keep harping on Cunningham, but what makes him a HOFamer or even HOF worthy?
Guest Posted February 6, 2006 Report Posted February 6, 2006 He innovated the QB position and paved the way for so many star (albeit, quite shitty) QB's after him. In my mind, he would be in the Hall of Very Good, not the Hall of Fame. But I'm not a voter.
Guest Princess Leena Posted February 6, 2006 Report Posted February 6, 2006 It sucks Thurman didn't get in 1st year. I think he should have been put in over Carson, and maybe even Aikman, but I understand. Now, next year, put him in with Andre, and all is well.
sfaJack Posted February 6, 2006 Report Posted February 6, 2006 Unitas was overrated. Not as overrated as Namath.
2GOLD Posted February 6, 2006 Report Posted February 6, 2006 Hate to keep harping on Cunningham, but what makes him a HOFamer or even HOF worthy? He could punt the ball really awesome. That's all I got.
snuffbox Posted February 6, 2006 Report Posted February 6, 2006 Unitas was overrated. Explain, please.
Guest Princess Leena Posted February 6, 2006 Report Posted February 6, 2006 Terrell Davis Jamal Anderson Randall Cunningham Eric Allen Carnell Lake Bruce Matthews Ricky Watters Tony Boselli No on every one of them, except Bruce Matthews should go in a couple years... and Eric Allen is borderline. Five better picks for 2007 off the top of my head: Thurman Thomas, Michael Irvin, Andre Reed, Art Monk and Derrick Thomas.
the pinjockey Posted February 6, 2006 Report Posted February 6, 2006 Cunningham is a shame. He had HOF talent, but he got no coaching at all in Philly. Buddy Ryan's classic "go make 5 plays and let the defense win the game" gameplan. I'd go Matthews in a lock and as a homer pick Eric Allen. Am I going to get yelled at for saying Watters has a much better case for the hall than Jerome Bettis?
Guest Princess Leena Posted February 6, 2006 Report Posted February 6, 2006 Am I going to get yelled at for saying Watters has a much better case for the hall than Jerome Bettis? No. Ricky was the better overall back when he was healthy with SF and Philly. Although, I'm sure most of the media are saying Bettis is a lock because he's a Top 5 all-time rusher!!... but Bettis was never amongst the best backs in the league, and never an important part of a SB team.
Vern Gagne Posted February 7, 2006 Report Posted February 7, 2006 Unitas was overrated. Explain, please. First overrated doesn't mean. I think he was a bad QB. He didn't have a great compleltion percentage (which may have been the norm in those days) he also had too many interceptions for my liking. I'll agree with Leena and pinjockey about Ricky Watters.
Lt. Al Giardello Posted February 7, 2006 Report Posted February 7, 2006 Watters maybe more talented then Bettis was, but Bettis accomplished more then Watters which is what you need to get in the hall of fame. If you go by talented then Terrell Davis is a 1st ballot hall of famer without question. So no Watters does not get in before Bettis.
therealworldschampion Posted February 7, 2006 Report Posted February 7, 2006 Cunningham is a shame. He had HOF talent, but he got no coaching at all in Philly. Buddy Ryan's classic "go make 5 plays and let the defense win the game" gameplan. I'd go Matthews in a lock and as a homer pick Eric Allen. Am I going to get yelled at for saying Watters has a much better case for the hall than Jerome Bettis? "For who? For what?" Sorry, just had to add that...
the pinjockey Posted February 7, 2006 Report Posted February 7, 2006 Watters maybe more talented then Bettis was, but Bettis accomplished more then Watters which is what you need to get in the hall of fame. The only thing he accomplished was being around longer than Watters (13 seasons to 10). Bettis played 48 more games than Watters and only had 220 more yards from scrimmage and 3 TDs in his career. The TDs are especially skewed in Watters favor, IMO, since he is that close and Bettis has been a glorified goal line back the last few years. Watters was in the top 10 in rushing TDs, yards from scrimmage and total TDs more often than Bettis and was in the top 10 in rushing yards the same amount as Bettis (5 times each). Playoff numbers (for the clutch/crunch time arguement): Bettis: 708 yards and 9 TDs in 13 games (43 yards, 0 TDs in SB appearance) Watters: 1117 total yards and 12 TDs in 11 games (108 total yards, 3 TDs in SB appearance) Again, the only accomplishment Bettis has is longevity which should be commended. But the HOF should be for greatness, not length of existence.
Vern Gagne Posted February 7, 2006 Report Posted February 7, 2006 Great breakdown Pin. Bettis just doesn't scream HOF. He just never did anything but gain a ton of yards, and score TD's. It's not the Baseball HOF, where stats are pretty much determines whether you get in.
Vern Gagne Posted February 7, 2006 Report Posted February 7, 2006 Unitas was overrated. Not as overrated as Namath. Namath's beyond overrated. Five better picks for 2007 off the top of my head: Thurman Thomas, Michael Irvin, Andre Reed, Art Monk and Derrick Thomas. Looks like Thomas and Irvin will make it. Along with Mathews, a likely veterans choice, and maybe another canidate. I don't think any of the three you named will make it next year.
naiwf Posted February 7, 2006 Report Posted February 7, 2006 I just wanted to say that it's nice to see some people that understand Bettis, much like Art Monk is simply a compiler, but Jerome will get in because he gives the voters warm, fuzzy feelings inside.
dh86 Posted February 7, 2006 Report Posted February 7, 2006 I just wanted to say that it's nice to see some people that understand Bettis, much like Art Monk is simply a compiler, but Jerome will get in because he gives the voters warm, fuzzy feelings inside. 1 big diff was that Art Monk was number 1 in receptions when he retired...Bettis isnt the all time leader in anything..counts for something...right?
naiwf Posted February 7, 2006 Report Posted February 7, 2006 I just wanted to say that it's nice to see some people that understand Bettis, much like Art Monk is simply a compiler, but Jerome will get in because he gives the voters warm, fuzzy feelings inside. 1 big diff was that Art Monk was number 1 in receptions when he retired...Bettis isnt the all time leader in anything..counts for something...right? Rushing | Receiving | +----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+ | Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD | +----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+ | 1980 was | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 58 797 13.7 3 | | 1981 was | 16 | 1 -5 -5.0 0 | 56 894 16.0 6 | | 1982 was | 9 | 7 21 3.0 0 | 35 447 12.8 1 | | 1983 was | 12 | 3 -19 -6.3 0 | 47 746 15.9 5 | | 1984 was | 16 | 2 18 9.0 0 | 106 1372 12.9 7 | | 1985 was | 15 | 7 51 7.3 0 | 91 1226 13.5 2 | | 1986 was | 16 | 4 27 6.8 0 | 73 1068 14.6 4 | | 1987 was | 9 | 6 63 10.5 0 | 38 483 12.7 6 | | 1988 was | 16 | 7 46 6.6 0 | 72 946 13.1 5 | | 1989 was | 16 | 3 8 2.7 0 | 86 1186 13.8 8 | | 1990 was | 16 | 7 59 8.4 0 | 68 770 11.3 5 | | 1991 was | 16 | 9 19 2.1 0 | 71 1049 14.8 8 | | 1992 was | 16 | 6 45 7.5 0 | 46 644 14.0 3 | | 1993 was | 16 | 1 -1 -1.0 0 | 41 398 9.7 2 | | 1994 nyj | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 46 581 12.6 3 | | 1995 phi | 3 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 6 114 19.0 0 | +----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+ | TOTAL | 224 | 63 332 5.3 0 | 940 12721 13.5 68 In his whole career Monk only 3 seasons of 80+ receptions (106, 91 & 86), 5 seasons of over 1000 yards (1371, 1226, 1186, 1068 & 1049). He never had more than 8 TDs in a season, only made the Pro Bowl 3 times ('84-86). His career YPC was a lousy 13.5 and he scored a tepid 68 TDs. Rushing | Receiving | +----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+ | Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD | +----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+ | 1984 nwe | 14 | 2 -11 -5.5 0 | 11 164 14.9 1 | | 1985 nwe | 16 | 7 27 3.9 1 | 39 670 17.2 7 | | 1986 nwe | 14 | 4 80 20.0 0 | 43 737 17.1 6 | | 1987 nwe | 12 | 9 52 5.8 0 | 31 467 15.1 5 | | 1988 nwe | 15 | 6 12 2.0 0 | 33 490 14.8 5 | | 1989 nwe | 11 | 2 15 7.5 0 | 29 537 18.5 3 | | 1990 nwe | 16 | 2 -4 -2.0 0 | 54 856 15.9 4 | | 1991 nwe | 16 | 2 11 5.5 0 | 68 1014 14.9 3 | | 1992 nwe | 15 | 1 6 6.0 0 | 55 791 14.4 4 | | 1993 mia | 16 | 3 -4 -1.3 0 | 64 1010 15.8 5 | | 1994 mia | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 73 1270 17.4 7 | | 1995 mia | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 62 910 14.7 8 | | 1996 phi | 16 | 1 -4 -4.0 0 | 88 1195 13.6 11 | | 1997 phi | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 86 1316 15.3 6 | | 1998 phi | 16 | 3 46 15.3 0 | 48 556 11.6 2 | | 1999 was | 16 | 0 0 0.0 0 | 26 254 9.8 2 | | 2000 was | 14 | 2 16 8.0 0 | 41 548 13.4 5 | +----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+ | TOTAL | 255 | 44 242 5.5 1 | 851 12785 15.0 84 That's Irving Fryar's career. In his career he has 2 seasons of 80+ receptions to Monk's 3, equalled his 5 seasons of over 1000 yards. Had 2 seasons with at least 8 TDs just like Monk, but he made the Pro Bowl 5 times to Monk's 3. His career YPC was a full yard and a half higher and he scored 17 more TDs. He also had 64 more yards than Monk on almost 90 less catches. No one would call Fryar a Hall of Famer and his numbers are as good as or superior to Monk's in basically every category. Possession receivers don't belong in the Hall.
Guest Princess Leena Posted February 7, 2006 Report Posted February 7, 2006 The difference with Monk is that he won 2 SB's with a winning franchise, and the Pats were dreadful for most of those years. Stuff which I think people too much importance in for HoF consideration, but it's a factor. Looks like Thomas and Irvin will make it. Along with Mathews, a likely veterans choice, and maybe another canidate. I don't think any of the three you named will make it next year. Probably. I think it's likely Thurman Thomas, Derrick Thomas, Irvin and Matthews get in. If one gets screwed, it would probably be Thurman, though.
dh86 Posted February 7, 2006 Report Posted February 7, 2006 Monk won 3 rings with a different QB and RB each time...and no one in history had more catches when he retired..its flat out foolish to compare him to Irving Fryar...if Monk doesnt get in...wtf is the hall of fame for?
naiwf Posted February 7, 2006 Report Posted February 7, 2006 Monk in the Postseason Year Opp Result | RSH YD TD | REC YD TD ---------------------+-----------------+----------------- 1983 ram W,51-7 | 0 0 0 | 4 60 2 1983 sfo W,24-21 | 0 0 0 | 3 35 0 *1983 rai L,9-38 | 0 0 0 | 1 26 0 1984 chi L,19-23 | 0 0 0 | 10 122 0 1986 ram W,19-7 | 0 0 0 | 5 34 0 1986 chi W,27-13 | 0 0 0 | 5 81 2 1986 nyg L,0-17 | 0 0 0 | 8 126 0 *1987 den W,42-10 | 0 0 0 | 1 40 0 1990 phi W,20-6 | 0 0 0 | 2 44 1 1990 sfo L,10-28 | 1 9 0 | 10 163 1 1991 atl W,24-7 | 1 -2 0 | 3 45 0 1991 det W,41-10 | 0 0 0 | 5 94 1 *1991 buf W,37-24 | 0 0 0 | 7 113 0 1992 min W,24-7 | 3 7 0 | 3 35 0 1992 sfo L,13-20 | 1 3 0 | 2 44 0 ---------------------+-----------------+----------------- TOTAL | 6 17 0 | 69 1062 7 3 of his 4 100 yard games ended up in losses. During his 3 Super Bowl games he totalled 9 rec, 179 yds and 0 TDs and that's with one game accounting for 7 & 113. The guy is not a Hall of Famer. If only he was a media darling like Bettis. Seasons among the league's top 10 Receptions: 1984-1, 1985-2, 1988-9t, 1989-3t Receiving yards: 1984-4, 1985-3, 1989-10 Receiving TDs: 1991-9t Monk was only a possession receiver as you can see. He only won two rings not three, and the Hall of Fame is for legendary players, not guys who have a mediocre career but extend it to 13-17 seasons. If Randy Moss retired today he'd have better numbers than Monk in half of the time.
Lt. Al Giardello Posted February 7, 2006 Report Posted February 7, 2006 Irvin I still think should of gotten in this year. He was a HUGE part in Akiman's sucess.
Guest Princess Leena Posted February 7, 2006 Report Posted February 7, 2006 Irvin should have went in last year when there was room for a 3rd & 4th more current player... this year was tough. And the stupid asshole just keeps ruining his chances.
snuffbox Posted February 7, 2006 Report Posted February 7, 2006 I hate the Cowboys, and particularly Michael Irvin...and would have been violently ill to see him go in together with Troy Aikman. Nonetheless, he deserves to be in the HoF...and not in a few years when his numbers will somehow look mysteriously better over time.
Vern Gagne Posted February 7, 2006 Report Posted February 7, 2006 The difference with Monk is that he won 2 SB's with a winning franchise, and the Pats were dreadful for most of those years. Stuff which I think people too much importance in for HoF consideration, but it's a factor. Looks like Thomas and Irvin will make it. Along with Mathews, a likely veterans choice, and maybe another canidate. I don't think any of the three you named will make it next year. Probably. I think it's likely Thurman Thomas, Derrick Thomas, Irvin and Matthews get in. If one gets screwed, it would probably be Thurman, though. John Clayton who is a voter, said Thomas was the last man out, and had the old system been in place(veterans selections, not counting toward the maximum six selections). Than he likely would of gotten in. Also the problem many voters have with DT is they consider him one dimensional.
Guest Princess Leena Posted February 7, 2006 Report Posted February 7, 2006 DT was very one-dimensional... but, there wasn't many better pass rushers than him. If it wasn't for his untimely death, he would have been up there with Reggie White in amount of sacks.
The Czech Republic Posted February 7, 2006 Report Posted February 7, 2006 John Clayton who is a voter, said Thomas was the last man out, and had the old system been in place(veterans selections, not counting toward the maximum six selections). Than he likely would of gotten in. Also the problem many voters have with DT is they consider him one dimensional. , They're fuckin' awesome. EDIT: Upon further examination, you have more problems than a comma deficit. Would of? Than/then? Are you a third-grader? I'm going to end up employed by people in this vein, and it upsets me greatly.
naiwf Posted February 7, 2006 Report Posted February 7, 2006 It's amazing that those very same voters won't consider the Bus one dimensional when he's due to make it into Canton.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now