Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:52 pm Posts: 10620 Location: Chicago, IL Gender: Male
Just a philosophical difference I guess. I don't think that any kick returner deserves HOF consideration. If it was a player at any other position, he would be accused of being too one-dimensional.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:15 pm Posts: 25452 Location: Under my wing like Sanford & Son Gender: Male
See, I don't get that. He is miles and miles beyond any returner that has ever existed. He causes teams to shit bricks about punting and kicking off, the most routine plays in existence. And like I said, it is the Hall of Fame, even though no one treats it that way, and he is one of the most well-known players of this era of the NFL. As for the one-dimensional thing, is Randy Moss a HOF-er?
I'd love to hear your thoughts about Kurt Warner.
_________________ Now that god no longer exists, the desire for another world still remains.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:08 am Posts: 22978 Gender: Male
Orpheus wrote:
See, I don't get that. He is miles and miles beyond any returner that has ever existed. He causes teams to shit bricks about punting and kicking off, the most routine plays in existence. And like I said, it is the Hall of Fame, even though no one treats it that way, and he is one of the most well-known players of this era of the NFL.
I'd love to hear your thoughts about Kurt Warner.
He also only really had 4 good seasons. 3 More, and sure, but he hasn't done it long enough.
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:52 pm Posts: 10620 Location: Chicago, IL Gender: Male
Orpheus wrote:
See, I don't get that. He is miles and miles beyond any returner that has ever existed. He causes teams to shit bricks about punting and kicking off, the most routine plays in existence. And like I said, it is the Hall of Fame, even though no one treats it that way, and he is one of the most well-known players of this era of the NFL. As for the one-dimensional thing, is Randy Moss a HOF-er?
I'd love to hear your thoughts about Kurt Warner.
Well known really doesn't enter the equation for me. I just can't rationalize promoting someone for the HOF based on 26 plays. Is he good? You bet. But he also doesn't do it in a vacuum (he's run behind some pretty good special teamers in Chicago). Plus, are there any return men in the HOF? If not, why not?
Randy Moss wasn't really one-dimensional, so it's apples to oranges.
As for Kurt Warner: again, not a fair comparison because he's a quarterback.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:15 pm Posts: 25452 Location: Under my wing like Sanford & Son Gender: Male
That's a decent argument. His chances will also go down if Patrick Peterson turns out to be just as good. I just don't like the bias that the Hall has against not only KR/PRs but also DBs, for whatever reason.
_________________ Now that god no longer exists, the desire for another world still remains.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:15 pm Posts: 25452 Location: Under my wing like Sanford & Son Gender: Male
Chris_H_2 wrote:
Well known really doesn't enter the equation for me. I just can't rationalize promoting someone for the HOF based on 26 plays. Is he good? You bet. But he also doesn't do it in a vacuum (he's run behind some pretty good special teamers in Chicago). Plus, are there any return men in the HOF? If not, why not?
Randy Moss wasn't really one-dimensional, so it's apples to oranges.
As for Kurt Warner: again, not a fair comparison because he's a quarterback.
Moss wasn't basically one-dimensional? He essentially just ran go-routes/fades better than anyone else. I've never heard anyone call him a "complete" WR in any form or fashion.
I just think if you are an absolutely superlative player at your position, no matter what it is, you should at least be considered for the HoF. Would it do anything to hurt the integrity of the Hall if Hester is inducted? I don't think so.
_________________ Now that god no longer exists, the desire for another world still remains.
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:52 pm Posts: 10620 Location: Chicago, IL Gender: Male
Orpheus wrote:
Chris_H_2 wrote:
Well known really doesn't enter the equation for me. I just can't rationalize promoting someone for the HOF based on 26 plays. Is he good? You bet. But he also doesn't do it in a vacuum (he's run behind some pretty good special teamers in Chicago). Plus, are there any return men in the HOF? If not, why not?
Randy Moss wasn't really one-dimensional, so it's apples to oranges.
As for Kurt Warner: again, not a fair comparison because he's a quarterback.
Moss wasn't basically one-dimensional? He essentially just ran go-routes/fades better than anyone else. I've never heard anyone call him a "complete" WR in any form or fashion.
I just think if you are an absolutely superlative player at your position, no matter what it is, you should at least be considered for the HoF. Would it do anything to hurt the integrity of the Hall if Hester is inducted? I don't think so.
We'll have to agree to disagree on Moss. He's got numbers that are really second to only the best WR of all time. And he got those numbers by being more than one-dimensional.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:15 pm Posts: 25452 Location: Under my wing like Sanford & Son Gender: Male
Chris_H_2 wrote:
How about punters?
If you are absolutely the best/particularly notable, I have no problem with it. I think every position should be represented in some form. I'm not asking for a 100 special teams players to make it in, just the few that deserve it.
_________________ Now that god no longer exists, the desire for another world still remains.
_________________ "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." -- John Steinbeck
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
