Former Jets, Pats RB Martin headlines Hall's Class of 2012

[Joemailman]

In my opinion, a Hall of Fame should always have room for a guy who did his job so well for so long that when he was done very few exceeded his career performance, even if at any one time there may have been someone better during a single season. A Hall of fame isn't just about flash.

Perhaps a HOF should really be more exclusive than most are, and you should have had to be the best at your time and have played long enough to impact career records. Maybe guys like Martin and Bradshaw don't belong there because they were never the best at their positions and Sterling Sharpe should never get in and Gale Sayers, Leroy Kelly and Floyd Little should not have because they just did not play well enough for long enough to impact career records. (Personally, I never thought Leroy Kelly belonged in the Hall of Fame, and I wasn't much more enthusiastic about Floyd Little getting in.)

Of course, then maybe Jim Taylor should not be in the HOF either, because Jim Brown was flat out better than Taylor, and they played at the same time.

The argument could be made that in 1961 and 1962 Taylor was as good as Brown. Not in talent maybe, but in production. Same thing with Sharpe being as good or better than Rice a couple of years. I'd say both Taylor and Sharpe had that combo of being the best at sometime in their careers as well as enough career excellence to qualify.

[pbmax]

In my opinion, a Hall of Fame should always have room for a guy who did his job so well for so long that when he was done very few exceeded his career performance, even if at any one time there may have been someone better during a single season. A Hall of fame isn't just about flash.

Perhaps a HOF should really be more exclusive than most are, and you should have had to be the best at your time and have played long enough to impact career records. Maybe guys like Martin and Bradshaw don't belong there because they were never the best at their positions and Sterling Sharpe should never get in and Gale Sayers, Leroy Kelly and Floyd Little should not have because they just did not play well enough for long enough to impact career records. (Personally, I never thought Leroy Kelly belonged in the Hall of Fame, and I wasn't much more enthusiastic about Floyd Little getting in.)

Of course, then maybe Jim Taylor should not be in the HOF either, because Jim Brown was flat out better than Taylor, and they played at the same time.

In baseball HOF debates, I prefer the measurements that take into account era, so you know how they stacked up to their peers. While such data is far more sparse in football, I would not have an objection to both Brown and Taylor in the HOF if both were head and shoulders above their running back peers. And from reputation alone,that would seem to be the case with a short exception for Sayers.

[Smeefers]

no, a player shouldn't have to be best at position, that's just a matter of chance.

I think player must have some wow factor, a guy who stands out week to week, like Mathews, Rodgers & Woodson, and plays at inspired level for 3 seasons. A long career is a plus. I'm not ready to put Clay Mathews in hall, but he does have that man-among-boys effect.

I'd DEFINITELY put Sterling Sharpe in hall because he was spectacular, even tho career length limited stats.

Gayle Sayers got into the Hall on a short career. Was Sterling that good? Cause that's what it takes.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Gayle Sayers got into the Hall on a short career. Was Sterling that good? Cause that's what it takes.

I thought Sterling Sharpe was on a par with Jerry Rice.

[Patler]

The argument could be made that in 1961 and 1962 Taylor was as good as Brown. Not in talent maybe, but in production. Same thing with Sharpe being as good or better than Rice a couple of years. I'd say both Taylor and Sharpe had that combo of being the best at sometime in their careers as well as enough career excellence to qualify.

Brown was the better back. Not really even that close. I remember at the time just wishing he were a Packer. He was something else to watch. Fifty years later, I still think he is the best running back I have ever seen.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Walter Payton was the best football player ever, and he sired a son that made it to NFL.

edit: "ever" is time that I saw NFL on TV. Before that doesn't count for shit.

[Patler]

... and he sired a son that made it to NFL.

Not uncommon at all.

[Fritz]

Well, you have to be careful about simple longevity. I don't think Chad Clifton is a HOF left tackle, for example.

Another consideration is position. Probably offensive lineman really should be judged more on longevity, despite my example above, because there's only so much flash-and-dash to be had out of the left guard position, for example.

On the other hand, a running back might be "workmanlike" (even Vince Workman-like) and not be close to the HOF.

[Patler]

Well, you have to be careful about simple longevity. I don't think Chad Clifton is a HOF left tackle, for example.

Another consideration is position. Probably offensive lineman really should be judged more on longevity, despite my example above, because there's only so much flash-and-dash to be had out of the left guard position, for example.

On the other hand, a running back might be "workmanlike" (even Vince Workman-like) and not be close to the HOF.

I don't think anyone has suggested that "simple longevity" should get anyone into the HOF.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I don't think anyone has suggested that "simple longevity" should get anyone into the HOF.

no, but I think somebody suggested "ignore actual performance, just go on whether or not you remember the guy's name."

[Guiness]

It's the accumulators you have to be careful of - there are two poster children for that, one in the hall, one out. The guy who's out ranks 7th all time in passing yards and 8th all time in TDs - Vinny Testaverde. Who's in? Art Monk, and I'm not sure how he did it. A lot of guys ahead of him who aren't in the hall, although most played after him.

[Joemailman]

It's the accumulators you have to be careful of - there are two poster children for that, one in the hall, one out. The guy who's out ranks 7th all time in passing yards and 8th all time in TDs - Vinny Testaverde. Who's in? Art Monk, and I'm not sure how he did it. A lot of guys ahead of him who aren't in the hall, although most played after him.

Vinny was never really considered one of the top QB's. Really only had 2 very good years. Compiled stats strictly through longevity. Monk made it, but it took him 13 years. Not sure he should have made it. He may have been helped by the fact that he won 3 Super Bowls and played for one of the high-profile teams of that time.

[Cheesehead Craig]

There was a NY writer who is on the HOF voting committee on KFAN last night. He was talking a bit about the voting process. He said that Carter, Reed and Brown were all in the final 10 candidates for the HOF but none made the top 5. He feels that it's very hard to get more than 1 person from a position in the HOF in a given season. The problem with these 3 is that they all have their supporters but given each of them can have a solid case to make it in, they are preventing each other from getting in as the votes are too split up.

One thing they all need to worry about is if they aren't in within the next few years, then Moss and TO get eligibility and that's going to muck it up even more.

I wish I could remember the guy's name who said this. It was an interesting insider take on the situation with the WRs. He also said that during deliberations that the off the field stuff is not brought up at all. Only their production and actions on the field. Just thought I'd pass this on.

[pbmax]

I suspect the group of similar players is the problem with WR. They need to get over the idea that they cannot vote for more than one player from a group his contemporaries at a time.

I think from the outside looking in, personalities look to play a role, but while that is convenient to explain Parcells or Carter, it doesn't explain Brown or Reed. Football writers also tend to be for less grandiose and self-important than old baseball writers.

[Bretsky]

Haley was fortunate to play on two very good franchises at just the right times, when they were the darlings of the league and media. As a result very good players on those teams, like Haley, were portrayed as truly dominating players, which they weren't. Haley played from 1986 to 1999, Kevin Greene from 1985 to 1999. Kevin Greene was a dominating player for most of that time. Haley had a few flashy years, some very good years and a couple when people were wondering where he went. Until Kevin Greene gets in, voters shouldn't give Haley a second thought..

Haley just played DE while Green was mainly at OLB, right ? If so an OLB often racks up more sacks. I remember Haley being dominant; I read about how coaches feared his impact and game planned how to contain him with doubleteams. He was an absolute jerk....won't deny that. He may have tunred it on and off. But IMO he was dominant.

I always liked Keven Greene the player. But he really didn't scare me that much. When I thnk of dominating OLB's I think Derrick Thomas and Lawrence Taylor. Talent wise I think Green is a strong notch below them.

Is Haley a strong notch below some of the recent DL who have been inducted ?