Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Ranking This Year's HOF Finalists
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
nephillymike
Here's one man's opinion:

Name.................Retired.....Car AV......#AllPro....#ProBowl.....Comments
Tomlinson.............2011........157......... .3...............5.........5th all time rush Yds, 2nd rush TD's
Owens..................2010........165...........5...............6.........2nd all-time rec yds
Faneca.................2010.........148...........6...............9.........6 All Pros and snubbed last yr?
============================================================
Mawae.................2009.........154...........3...............8.........great creds, bypassed twice
Taylor...................2010.........160...........3...............6.........7th all-time in sacks, snubbed last yr.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The players above here are the 2017 Hall of Fame Class IMO.
In order of just missing
Warner.................2009..........113..........2...............4.........a HOF, but maybe next yr. only 4 PBs
Dawkins...............2011..........140..........4...............9.........no brainer, will wait a year.
There's a chance Warner and/or Dawkins sneak in over Mawae, Taylor, but I don't think so
Andersen..............2004..........94...........3...............7...........all-time points leader. Long wait
Lynch...................2007..........113........ 2................9...........will get in eventually
Bruce...................2009..........137.........0................4...........4th all-time rec yds, 0 AP hurts
Law......................2009..........113.........2................5...........53 ints, will get in soon
==============================================================
Not HOF careers IMO:
Davis, T.................2001...........78.........3.................3...........career too short, too long a wait
Boselli, T................2002...........70.........3.................5...........career too short
Jacoby..."..........."..1993..........103.........2.................4...........not HOF quality
Coryell...................".............................................................not HOF quality

There's my opinion on the class.

Anyone?
The Franchise
Mostly agree, Dawkins will have to wait a year.

On a side note, the baseball HoF really doesn't mean anything anymore. Besides completely lowering standards over the last couple of decades, you throw in the juicing era and this is what you get. Jeff freaking Bagwell, and Tim Raines - really?!
Rick
QUOTE (The Franchise @ Jan 28 2017, 12:38 PM) *
Mostly agree, Dawkins will have to wait a year.

On a side note, the baseball HoF really doesn't mean anything anymore. Besides completely lowering standards over the last couple of decades, you throw in the juicing era and this is what you get. Jeff freaking Bagwell, and Tim Raines - really?!

I never understood this attitude with the voters--Dawkins will have to wait a year. I mean, if the guy has the numbers/reputation, then they should get in. T.O. should have been in his first year of eligibility. This crap about making someone wait is just stupid.

Saying steroids means the baseball HoF also makes no sense. If you say that about baseball, then you HAVE to say it about football. Their testing has always been a joke and continues to be so. At least baseball--after making the mistake of allowing it--has gotten more strict but you'll never get rid of all of it.
The Franchise
QUOTE (Rick @ Jan 28 2017, 02:23 PM) *
Saying steroids means the baseball HoF also makes no sense. If you say that about baseball, then you HAVE to say it about football. Their testing has always been a joke and continues to be so. At least baseball--after making the mistake of allowing it--has gotten more strict but you'll never get rid of all of it.


As you say, football has always been a joke in that regard. You can separate the eras of the old NFL and the modern NFL, but generally speaking, the sport for over 40 years has involved large and fast men on steroids smashing into each other at full speed 50 times a game. Nobody cares.

Baseball is quite different. Important records that have been held for decades and are arguably national treasures have been surpassed by people who didn't have the talent to do it without PEDs. Even with Juice Bagwell's cheating, he doesn't have the numbers that should be necessary to be in the HoF. On top of that, standards have been lowered - Tim Raines was a great player and had a great career, but he has no business being in Cooperstowm. McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, and many others should never get in.

On a side note, I remember when the Mitchell Report came out and David Bell was on it. David fucking Bell, who was stealing money here and was the reason we got rid of Polanco. He batted under the Mendoza line his first year here, and averaged about 14 home runs per year in his career. And he was CHEATING.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Rick @ Jan 28 2017, 01:23 PM) *
I never understood this attitude with the voters--Dawkins will have to wait a year. I mean, if the guy has the numbers/reputation, then they should get in. T.O. should have been in his first year of eligibility. This crap about making someone wait is just stupid.

Saying steroids means the baseball HoF also makes no sense. If you say that about baseball, then you HAVE to say it about football. Their testing has always been a joke and continues to be so. At least baseball--after making the mistake of allowing it--has gotten more strict but you'll never get rid of all of it.

I agree with your concept but it is different in football.

I think They are limited to five current players per year, plus up to another three of contributors/veterans, for a max of eight. So on my list, I think there are 7 or 8 HOF players there. With only five spots, some have to wait.

Baseball is different. They have a certain percentage of the vote necessary to get in. It may be 75% ?. So a guy will get 70% one year, them 80% the next. They try to make the first ballot election more meaningful. I think your pint is more applicable to baseball.
Rick
QUOTE (The Franchise @ Jan 28 2017, 03:09 PM) *
As you say, football has always been a joke in that regard. You can separate the eras of the old NFL and the modern NFL, but generally speaking, the sport for over 40 years has involved large and fast men on steroids smashing into each other at full speed 50 times a game. Nobody cares.

Baseball is quite different. Important records that have been held for decades and are arguably national treasures have been surpassed by people who didn't have the talent to do it without PEDs. Even with Juice Bagwell's cheating, he doesn't have the numbers that should be necessary to be in the HoF. On top of that, standards have been lowered - Tim Raines was a great player and had a great career, but he has no business being in Cooperstowm. McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, and many others should never get in.

On a side note, I remember when the Mitchell Report came out and David Bell was on it. David fucking Bell, who was stealing money here and was the reason we got rid of Polanco. He batted under the Mendoza line his first year here, and averaged about 14 home runs per year in his career. And he was CHEATING.

While I understand what you're saying, you have to understand cheating has been a part of the fabric of baseball since they started. They're always trying to figure out a way to cheat the system. Steroids would just be the latest version of that and, let's keep in mind, it wasn't illegal in baseball when McGuire, etc. were doing it. So I don't believe it should be held against them. Why don't we hold the era of the live ball (just before the steroid era) against the guys who benefitted from a ball that jumped? Are we going to hold the fact that most of the newer ballparks are like hitting in a silo where just about anyone can hit it out?

I don't disagree baseball has sort of lost its way with the HoF. I've never been a, "Well, he's got the numbers so he should be in..." kinda guy. I always felt the Baseball HoF was something a little bit special taking into consideration the impact someone had on the game--not just with numbers. My test is whether someone who was maybe not a HUGE fan of baseball would recognize the name. Bagwell? He had the numbers but, unless you were a fairly-big fan during that era (or an Astros' fan), you might not even have ever heard about him. Ryne Sandberg would be another guy I put in that category. Now, if they BLEW the numbers away, I'd understand but...

I just don't buy holding steroids--during that period--against the guys. If they were banned in baseball during that period, I'd say absolutely. But ithey weren't.
Rick
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Jan 28 2017, 03:28 PM) *
I agree with your concept but it is different in football.

I think They are limited to five current players per year, plus up to another three of contributors/veterans, for a max of eight. So on my list, I think there are 7 or 8 HOF players there. With only five spots, some have to wait.

Baseball is different. They have a certain percentage of the vote necessary to get in. It may be 75% ?. So a guy will get 70% one year, them 80% the next. They try to make the first ballot election more meaningful. I think your pint is more applicable to baseball.

I understand it's different but, take T.O. as an example. HE had a MAJOR impact on the game--EVERYONE knew who he was--and he is 2nd all time in yards and I'm sure he's quite high on many other lists. What other players have been eligible that were BETTER at their respective position AND made the type of impact he did on the game? None. But, because he was a character that rubbed many wrong, they're going to make him, "pay," so to say. Childish and stupid, IMO.
nephillymike
QUOTE (Rick @ Jan 28 2017, 05:27 PM) *
I understand it's different but, take T.O. as an example. HE had a MAJOR impact on the game--EVERYONE knew who he was--and he is 2nd all time in yards and I'm sure he's quite high on many other lists. What other players have been eligible that were BETTER at their respective position AND made the type of impact he did on the game? None. But, because he was a character that rubbed many wrong, they're going to make him, "pay," so to say. Childish and stupid, IMO.

True, for TO, likely only a one year forced wait. Last year was his first.

He did have a major part in ruining that Eagles team, so I'm fine with the one year wait. His antics made us wait a year to get back to the playoffs.
The Franchise
QUOTE
Steroids would just be the latest version of that and, let's keep in mind, it wasn't illegal in baseball when McGuire, etc. were doing it. So I don't believe it should be held against them. Why don't we hold the era of the live ball (just before the steroid era) against the guys who benefitted from a ball that jumped? Are we going to hold the fact that most of the newer ballparks are like hitting in a silo where just about anyone can hit it out?


Baseball banned them in 1991, they only started testing for them in 2003. That's why there's a controversy.....

Everyone tries to get ahead of the other team, but only a select group of players were juicing, which, as mentioned, was banned by baseball. I honestly don't understand how you can defend this at all. Stealing signs (legal as long as not done by electronic devices) will get you drilled.

As for different eras, that's why standards for numbers change. You don't need to win 300 games anymore as a pitcher, because that's an unrealistic expectation in this era. I tend to think of HoF worthy as meaning you were a dominant player in your era, at your position. You can say Bagwell was one of the best first basemen of the 90's, but he was never near being the most dominant power hitter. He led the league in RBIs once, never in home runs, and had 4 All-Star selections. He also benefited from the last 6 years of his career being played in a stadium with an almost little league distance to the left field fence. Ryan Howard will never get in, but for 5 years he was the 2nd most feared power hitters in baseball behind Pujols. In the juicing/hr era, all that and Bagwell's 449 homers aren't good enough for me.

Sandberg was clearly the best 2nd baseman in baseball for almost his whole career, being an All-Star and Gold Glove winner almost every year he played. 2nd Base is also notably thin in the HoF, as it's traditionally played by guys who aren't going to put up sexy power numbers. Only Sandberg, Biggio, and Alomar are in from the last 3 decades (not counting Mazeroski's late entry).



Rick
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Jan 28 2017, 06:40 PM) *
True, for TO, likely only a one year forced wait. Last year was his first.

He did have a major part in ruining that Eagles team, so I'm fine with the one year wait. His antics made us wait a year to get back to the playoffs.

I'm sorry but I still don't understand how people felt he ruined the Eagles. He, almost single-handedly, brought us our first SB win but there is such animosity for him because he was a character. Other than that, he is exactly what Philly fans want--someone who plays, plays hard and performs at a high level. Oh, and, he never did banned substances and took care of his body so he could play at a high level. He immediately made this team better and it was worse after he left.

The media--and the fans--blew the drama way out of proportion.

Either way, he deserves to get in as soon as he was eligible but, because of this unwritten rule, he doesn't get in right away.

This is the sort of thing I'm talking about. Whether you liked the guy--or hated him--he is absolutely a HoF guy. So why does he have to wait? Because he pissed off the media? Good for him.
Rick
QUOTE (The Franchise @ Jan 28 2017, 08:34 PM) *
Baseball banned them in 1991, they only started testing for them in 2003. That's why there's a controversy.....

Exactly, banning and not testing makes no sense. No way to know who was--or wasn't--using. And, by all accounts, a LOT of guys were using, which means, for the most part, they were all on an even playing field.


QUOTE (The Franchise @ Jan 28 2017, 08:34 PM) *
As for different eras, that's why standards for numbers change. You don't need to win 300 games anymore as a pitcher, because that's an unrealistic expectation in this era. I tend to think of HoF worthy as meaning you were a dominant player in your era, at your position. You can say Bagwell was one of the best first basemen of the 90's, but he was never near being the most dominant power hitter. He led the league in RBIs once, never in home runs, and had 4 All-Star selections. He also benefited from the last 6 years of his career being played in a stadium with an almost little league distance to the left field fence. Ryan Howard will never get in, but for 5 years he was the 2nd most feared power hitters in baseball behind Pujols. In the juicing/hr era, all that and Bagwell's 449 homers aren't good enough for me.

I understand that, my point is, I don't believe it should be just about numbers. I get it, baseball is all about numbers but it's also about the characters who play. I always felt that should have some part in HoF voting. Just because someone hits 500 homers, while an amazing feat of longevity and playing at a high level for a very long time, I don't believe everyone should get in just because of that....especially since stadiums in the past 20 years have gotten easier to hit it out.

QUOTE (The Franchise @ Jan 28 2017, 08:34 PM) *
Sandberg was clearly the best 2nd baseman in baseball for almost his whole career, being an All-Star and Gold Glove winner almost every year he played. 2nd Base is also notably thin in the HoF, as it's traditionally played by guys who aren't going to put up sexy power numbers. Only Sandberg, Biggio, and Alomar are in from the last 3 decades (not counting Mazeroski's late entry).

No question Sandberg was very good but I just never thought of him as a HoF player. I also realize the people like offense (specifically) power numbers. But, again, I always felt the HoF was more about the history than just the numbers.

I also realize much of it has to do with helping keep the fans interested. How many players from the Royals, for instance, are in the HoF vs a more universally-popular team such as the Dodgers? I believe they look to put players in from these other less-popular teams to keep fan interest. Now, they've got to have the numbers, they're not going to just put in just anyone from one of those teams but, if one should play at a higher level for a while, I believe there is consideration for them while they may not be considered were they have played for a bigger-name team.

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.