NFL Off Topic

[SPTO]

Re: NFL Off Topic

List of 1st ballot WRs/Flankers

Lance Alworth
Raymond Berry
Steve Largent
Jerry Rice
Paul Warfield

[Master Live 013]

Re: NFL Off Topic

Considering what we've known of the NFL HOF for YEARS, I really don't understand the issue with TO not being a "first ballot HOFer".

Personally I think the idea that the 1st ballot should mean something different is pretty stupid and hate people that vote with that in mind. However I'm fine with them only letting a certain number of people in each year, which would prevent quite a few HOF worthy players from getting in the years we think they should.

TO is going to get in the HOF... there is no question about it. But we already talked about how hard it is for WRs in general so there shouldn't be a surprise he's going to have to wait. And you can see what you want about only looking at on the field. But with people weighing the actual effect of a bad teammate, and they see arguably the most talented WR we've ever seen having average team success, it's not that hard to listen to Polian's pitch. The one SB he played in (and played great in) the Eagles reached with him rehabbing injury, so even his credit getting to that point should be capped. Considering how he left SF, PHI and DAL, one person could say his distractions, demands and behavior limited these teams from reaching the ultimate goal... someone else can say these were all great teams that could've won it all if TO didn't get himself run out of each situation. Either way, it's definitely enough to keep him from jumping other WRs already waiting to get in.

Has there ever been a WR 1st ballot HOFer?

Why?

10char

[SPTO]

Re: NFL Off Topic

Why?

10char

Do you want it to be like the basketball HOF where it seems even just "good" players make it. Talk about a HOF that takes inclusiveness to an extreme! I think the pro football HOF is a nice balance between the basketball and baseball Halls.

[redsox4evur]

Re: NFL Off Topic

Why?

10char

Because it's a HOF not a Hall of Very Good.

[wwharton]

Re: NFL Off Topic

I think you forgot somebody.



Edit:

Other first ballot WRs (on a quick look, I may have missed someone)

Lance Alworth
Raymond Berry
Paul Warfield
Steve Largent

Thanks for the list, and WOW, I had to go smack myself... of course I should've remembered Rice.

Why?

10char

SPTO pretty much summarized it, but it's way too easy for people to get caught up in the moment and/or mesmerized by stats (esp bad when we consider how different stats can be for different eras in the NFL). The HOF is supposed to be the elite of the elite, so capping it keeps it special, while also forcing people to give real thought over the years to those who get snubbed the previous year.

We can have discussions about who should be in that isn't yet, but it's very rare that we will talk about someone who made it and didn't deserve it. I'd rather it be that way.

[Master Live 013]

Re: NFL Off Topic

Do you want it to be like the basketball HOF where it seems even just "good" players make it. Talk about a HOF that takes inclusiveness to an extreme! I think the pro football HOF is a nice balance between the basketball and baseball Halls.

Talk about strawman, I said nothing about lowering standards or anything of the sort. I simply asked why was he in favor on limiting the number of possible (DESERVING) inductees in any given year.

Because it's a HOF not a Hall of Very Good.

Cute comment, I too don't want a Hall of Very Good. How does letting all worthy candidates on any given year into the HOF making it into the Hall of Very Good?

SPTO pretty much summarized it, but it's way too easy for people to get caught up in the moment and/or mesmerized by stats (esp bad when we consider how different stats can be for different eras in the NFL). The HOF is supposed to be the elite of the elite, so capping it keeps it special, while also forcing people to give real thought over the years to those who get snubbed the previous year.
We can have discussions about who should be in that isn't yet, but it's very rare that we will talk about someone who made it and didn't deserve it. I'd rather it be that way.

I reject that, I don't believe in creating artificial bottlenecks. You set elite standards and those who meet them should get in, whether that's 1, 4, 9 or none.

[wwharton]

Re: NFL Off Topic

I reject that, I don't believe in creating artificial bottlenecks. You set elite standards and those who meet them should get in, whether that's 1, 4, 9 or none.

What are "elite" standards? Even if we could quantify that, with the rate of rule changes, size, strength and speed of the athletes, and adjustments in general t the game, the standards still wouldn't hold up throughout time. So, in short, it's subjective.

I'm sure you've done this at some point... someone asks you to name your top 5 movies (or albums, books, whatever) and the task seems VERY easy until you realize how many hairs you have to split to limit it to just 5.

My point (in relation to the HOF) is it's easy to say so and so deserves to be in the HOF, but without a limit are you really keeping the HOF for the truly elite? I thin the basketball HOF is a great example for that exact reason. And just like it's easy for people to say someone like say Calvin Johnson is "definitely a hall of famer" I'd personally rather a REALLY strict process that keeps someone on his level that may be worth considering on the outside looking in, than a potential free for all. TO, I have no doubt will get in... he just has to wait, and I see nothing wrong with that.

Since the original discussion was about TO, I will say that if they didn't have a yearly limit and he didn't get in, I'd probably agree with the others that it doesn't make sense. I think that "1st ballot" value is what's artificial, and hate voters that purposely won't vote for someone bc of that.

[SPTO]

Re: NFL Off Topic

So apparently Johnny Manziel caused his girlfriend to lose hearing.

This article liberally quotes her affidavit

[Master Live 013]

Re: NFL Off Topic

What are "elite" standards? Even if we could quantify that, with the rate of rule changes, size, strength and speed of the athletes, and adjustments in general t the game, the standards still wouldn't hold up throughout time. So, in short, it's subjective.

I could ask you the same, you said that the "HOF is supposed to be the elite of the elite". What do you mean by elite?

Yes, they are subjective, and?

I think that "1st ballot" value is what's artificial, and hate voters that purposely won't vote for someone bc of that.

You say this.

TO, I have no doubt will get in... he just has to wait, and I see nothing wrong with that.

And you say this.

My thought process is simple: Is TO a Hall of Farmer? If the answer is yes then he should be in, and according to you on the 1st ballot since you "hate voters that purposely won't vote for someone bc of that" meaning, I presume, people who don't vote for players on the 1st ballot because they like to differentiate between 1st ballot, 2nd ballot HOFer etc.

I'm sure you've done this at some point... someone asks you to name your top 5 movies (or albums, books, whatever) and the task seems VERY easy until you realize how many hairs you have to split to limit it to just 5.
My point (in relation to the HOF) is it's easy to say so and so deserves to be in the HOF, but without a limit are you really keeping the HOF for the truly elite? I thin the basketball HOF is a great example for that exact reason. And just like it's easy for people to say someone like say Calvin Johnson is "definitely a hall of famer" I'd personally rather a REALLY strict process that keeps someone on his level that may be worth considering on the outside looking in, than a potential free for all.

We just disagree with regard to this. I don't see the need for limits for the maximum number of players that may be elected on any given year. Seems like a case of existential angst in which if there wasn't anything holding back the Hall of Fame selection committee (in this case a max. limit) they might not be able to restrain themselves, uphold their usual high standards and will start selecting an unlimited number of players just because they can. That seems more like a lack of trust for the writers selecting the players. If the writers are solid, there should be no problem and if they aren't then they shouldn't be making these decisions in the first place.

Leaving a worthy candidate out is unjust to the player.

[Master Live 013]

Re: NFL Off Topic

And the fact that the Committee's current ground rules do "stipulate that between four and eight new members will be selected each year" is even worse. That would suggest the committee might elect an unworthy player(s) just to fulfill a yearly quota.

[redsox4evur]

Re: NFL Off Topic

And the fact that the Committee's current ground rules do "stipulate that between four and eight new members will be selected each year" is even worse. That would suggest the committee might elect an unworthy player(s) just to fulfill a yearly quota.

That's what I was getting with my point about HOF and Hall of Very Good.

[wwharton]

Re: NFL Off Topic

I could ask you the same, you said that the "HOF is supposed to be the elite of the elite". What do you mean by elite?

Yes, they are subjective, and?





You say this.



And you say this.

My thought process is simple: Is TO a Hall of Farmer? If the answer is yes then he should be in, and according to you on the 1st ballot since you "hate voters that purposely won't vote for someone bc of that" meaning, I presume, people who don't vote for players on the 1st ballot because they like to differentiate between 1st ballot, 2nd ballot HOFer etc.



We just disagree with regard to this. I don't see the need for limits for the maximum number of players that may be elected on any given year. Seems like a case of existential angst in which if there wasn't anything holding back the Hall of Fame selection committee (in this case a max. limit) they might not be able to restrain themselves, uphold their usual high standards and will start selecting an unlimited number of players just because they can. That seems more like a lack of trust for the writers selecting the players. If the writers are solid, there should be no problem and if they aren't then they shouldn't be making these decisions in the first place.

Leaving a worthy candidate out is unjust to the player.

Not sure how to respond or if you're actually asking me or just making a statement.

As for "What is Elite" it can change... maybe in a decade, maybe in a year, hard to tell. People play in different eras and eras are defined by the ebb and flow of the league so you can't write down a set of criteria of what elite is (which was my point).

As for TO, I personally think he's a HOFer. But if I had all the knowledge needed to make the decision and then had to pick my "top 5 movies" to stick with the metaphor, who knows when he actually makes the list above others I'd deem more worthy. That is exactly why I'm fine with the process of limiting on a yearly basis. But me giving my opinion on TO or any other player holds no weight in a real discussion about getting into the HOF. I doubt any of us here have enough knowledge about all the players before him and others up for consideration to really make that call... unless we're opening the flood gates (and then I still doubt any of us are qualified but a lot more people would be in).

I don't trust the writers... that's true for any of these HOFs. I have a problem with the voters for all of them. I like that the NFL has a fail safe built into the system.

And the fact that the Committee's current ground rules do "stipulate that between four and eight new members will be selected each year" is even worse. That would suggest the committee might elect an unworthy player(s) just to fulfill a yearly quota.

I think this is also a fail safe in case they decide to get on their high horse at any point. With the back log of seemingly quality players waiting to get in, I don't see this rule every becoming an issue in terms of talent... but on the surface, I agree with your thoughts on it.

[dickey1331]

Re: NFL Off Topic

I'm with you on that, but if those cops did instigate it then I feel no sympathy for them. Guess we'll have to wait and see what the whole story was.

In this case it doesn't really matter who instigated the fight. If you beat someone up that bad you're in the wrong. Is it that hard to act like a 27 year old and walk away?

[p_rushing]

Re: NFL Off Topic

From the article with the witness, the cops either got their bottle before the players got theirs, or the cops got the players bottle. The players then grabbed the bottle.

Nothing to start a fight over, just take it up with the server and you probably get it free or discounted because you're famous.

I don't think there are cameras inside, this is a members only place so they probably don't have them inside, only outside. There is video of the 4 being kicked out.

Sent from my Venue 8 7840 using Tapatalk

[steelerfan]

Re: NFL Off Topic

So apparently Johnny Manziel caused his girlfriend to lose hearing.

This article liberally quotes her affidavit

Dude is out of control.

When he was drafted I figured he would snort himself out of the league in a few years. Now I have to consider that he may off himself before that happens.

Affluenza is going to destroy this guy. Hopefully he doesn't take anyone else out in the process. Disgusting.