Your 2017 hall of Fame class

[chf]

VF2K2

All you have to know about Easley is summed up in what Ronnie Lott has to say about him.

Did he play long enough? Nope. Sadly that wasn't even his fault.

 

[Ricky Roma]

Yet another year in which defense gets neglected when it comes to the NFL HOF. 1 defensive player goes in, another has to go the veterans road (although he should've been a slam dunk in the first place) and 3 offensive players. It seems pretty clear to me that these voters going through the process start and stop with numbers, given the lack of stats generated by defensive players....do they even watch these players?

In this regard, I've got nothing against the offensive players going in or if they're already in. However, if they reflect the standards of the HOF, then that place cannot exclude guys like Chuck Howley, Johnny Robinson, Randy Gradishar, Robert Brazile, Louis Wright, Greg Lloyd, Jim Marshall, Deron Cherry, Joey Browner, Brian Dawkins, Lemar Parrish, Steve Atwater, and so on and so on....

Yeah, there are offensive snubs, but there is no doubt the Hall slants heavily towards that side of the ball when it comes to enshrinees.

 

[VikingFan2k2]

VF2K2

All you have to know about Easley is summed up in what Ronnie Lott has to say about him.

Did he play long enough? Nope. Sadly that wasn't even his fault.

“I would tell you I look up to Kenny. When I look at Kenny and I look at myself, the only thing that separates us is Kenny didn’t get a chance to do it as long. That’s the only thing.”

Is that the quote you were looking for?

I can appreciate that, I really can, but I can't give HOF to a guy who played 7 seasons. That is such a short career and it wasn't his fault, but Bo Jackson would have been there too, it doesn't mean I'd vote him in the HOF.

 

[Battlelyon]

Player (yrs) Tackles Sacks FF-FR INT

Brian Dawkins (16) 1131 26 37-16 37
Rodney Harrison (15) 1198 30.5 16-6 34
John Lynch (15) 1051 13 16-8 26
Troy Polamalu (12) 771 12 14-7 32
Ed Reed (13) 644 6 11-10 64

O yeah, Dawkins is the only player to have 25 FF, 25 INTs and 25 sacks. Clearly - as evident from the stats - he was an all-round player, just as dangerous in the box, blitzing as in coverage, where all the others were clearly more one dimensional.

Look at these stats, and it is clear that Dawkins ought to be the first of those to get in the HOF. I would not be surprised he will be the last.

And no offense, but Anderson getting in over a player like Dawkins (or TO) is questionable at best...

As long as you are not saying Dawkins was better than Ed Reed

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

I have no problem with Warner getting in. I always thought he was on the bubble and either way was fine for me. He was the best QB in the game for those years in St. Louis and frankly, pulled the Cards out of the gutter at the end of his career. For more than just the one year too. We have to remember as well that both teams he led to SB's had really crappy defenses.
The Roger Craig thing is interesting, imo. He probably suffers from being in the wrong place at the wrong time. A lot of people probably credit more of his success to Walsh and the system and he was overshadowed by some of the greatest players of all time which will always work against a player.
The T.O. thing is one that baffles me. Don't get me wrong, I despise the guy as a player and as a person but he is deserving of being in the H.O.F. based on his play alone. He deserves it as much as many who are already in.

 

[DutchBird]

As long as you are not saying Dawkins was better than Ed Reed

Well,

as Dawkins' numbers in tackles, forced fumbles, fumble recoveries and sacks completely blow Reed's numbers out of the water, I would say Dawkins actually was the better safety. Being a safety is about more than INT's alone (something which seems to be often forgotten).

O yeah, and Dawkins, in combination with JJ's schemes, was one who lead the transformation of the safety position into what it is today.

 

[SU Nittany Tide]

Player (yrs) Tackles Sacks FF-FR INT

Brian Dawkins (16) 1131 26 37-16 37
Rodney Harrison (15) 1198 30.5 16-6 34
John Lynch (15) 1051 13 16-8 26
Troy Polamalu (12) 771 12 14-7 32
Ed Reed (13) 644 6 11-10 64

O yeah, Dawkins is the only player to have 25 FF, 25 INTs and 25 sacks. Clearly - as evident from the stats - he was an all-round player, just as dangerous in the box, blitzing as in coverage, where all the others were clearly more one dimensional.

Look at these stats, and it is clear that Dawkins ought to be the first of those to get in the HOF. I would not be surprised he will be the last.

And no offense, but Anderson getting in over a player like Dawkins (or TO) is questionable at best...

Brian Dawkins (16) 2 2 1 1 2 - 8
Rodney Harrison (15) 1 1 2.5 5 3 - 12.5
John Lynch (15) 3 3 2.5 3 5 - 16.5
Troy Polamalu (12) 4 4 4 4 4 - 20
Ed Reed (13) 5 5 5 2 1 - 18

He is pretty easily the best all around of these five. I'm surprised Rodney Harrison was second in this method given all the Reed and Polamalu talk.

 

[Battlelyon]

Well,

as Dawkins' numbers in tackles, forced fumbles, fumble recoveries and sacks completely blow Reed's numbers out of the water, I would say Dawkins actually was the better safety. Being a safety is about more than INT's alone (something which seems to be often forgotten).

O yeah, and Dawkins, in combination with JJ's schemes, was one who lead the transformation of the safety position into what it is today.

Let's not talk about being postseason clutchness, Reed has been one of the best defensive postseason playmaker. Much better than Dawkins in that retrospect.

 

[chf]

“I would tell you I look up to Kenny. When I look at Kenny and I look at myself, the only thing that separates us is Kenny didn’t get a chance to do it as long. That’s the only thing.”

Is that the quote you were looking for?

I can appreciate that, I really can, but I can't give HOF to a guy who played 7 seasons. That is such a short career and it wasn't his fault, but Bo Jackson would have been there too, it doesn't mean I'd vote him in the HOF.

<shrug> That's why it took him so long to get into the HOF. If he'd played another 3 years, he'd have gotten in right away. I'm not saying that your point isn't valid, obviously a LOT of other people had the same pov up till now.

He WAS a generational talent. If not for his kidneys being fucked BY the Seahawks medical staff, he'd have continued to play at a high level (barring injury obviously)

I'm not being a Seahawks homer here. Curt Warner had the talent to be great too, but his career was absolutely too short to be HOF worthy.

 

[Chewbaccer]

TD over Craig?

Uh, yeah, obviously, and there's really no debate. TD>>>Craig.

 

[Chewbaccer]

Ever heard of Olandis Gary?

And I am not saying Davis wasn't good. But he is more of a Tim Lincecum than a Sandy Koufax.

During TD's peak years, he was the best RB in the NFL.

And Gale Sayers being in the HOF kinda took away any argument for TD not making it.

 

[Sharkonabicycle]

Agree - Tomlinson = Obvious choice is obvious. Never got a ring but that IMO is one of the stupidest arguments ever since one player can't make a team in NFL (22 starters, most of any American sport). Dominated his position, Alexander set the TD rushing record in a WCO with the best OLine of the 00s and Tomlinson said, "Nope." the following year. Easy choice is easy.

Agree - Mortenson = Obvious choice is obvious. I'll put Vinatieri as the all time best given he's nearly tied FGM of Mortenson with 4 less years played, was clutch in playoffs, and has a better %, but denying Mortenson would be uncalled for. One of the best kickers of all time. Kind of like a better version of Jamie Moyer in MLB...

Agree - Taylor = 6th all time sack leader and I believe leader all time in defensive touchdowns by a non-DB. Taylor was a great player...

Agree (conditional) - Easley = Yay! Obviously a great safety, SOMEWHAT questionable on HOF IMO BUT...
Agree (conditional) - Davis = If you're putting Davis in, you gotta put Easley in. Both were DOMINANT and had their careers cut short (still both played enough to pile up a worthy case).

Neutral - Warner = I'm on the fence here. Warner was great, but the man had probably the best collective weapons of all time to get the job done. He went from Holt/Bruce/Faulk to Boldin/Fitz/Breaston, lol. Sure you could argue that Warner was the reason but outside of Holt those guys were getting the job done well before Warner arrived. A few AMAZING seasons but then some riddled by injury, some non existent seasons due to injury. Meh? Not sure I'm sold on this one. The ring + 'greatest show' got him in IMO. I get he was clutch post season as well, still on fence.

Disagree (conditional) - Jones = Oh boy here comes the dislikes from Cowboys fans. IMO no owner should get in the hall of fame for the NFL. I get other sports do it, but whatever, I just don't like it. This isn't a shot at Jerry Jones or the Cowboys, I just think it's stupid owners can get in. Most of them fell into a ton of money from their ancestors' oil or daddy's success (looking at you York) and did what they were supposed to do... win? I'm more impressed with *HOMER ALERT* a Paul Allen who made his own money and revolutionized the computing world and then proceeded to take a small market team and turn that into a Super Bowl. Should Paul Allen get in the HOF? Absolutely not, see above. HENCE CONDITIONAL (calm down Cowboys fans).

The OTHER Cowboy, at least part time, (Terrell Owens) should've gotten in.