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

[Upnorth]

So as usual Patler has won me oer to the Curtis Martin side. Anyone rb with 4 years over 1450 yards with longevity to boot belongs in. The Haley debate does bring up one very interesting question I have never seen a good response to. How can Kevin Greene not be in the HOF??? Yes he played on a dominant defence, but he is one of the reasons it was so dominant. It like saying Ed Reed is not as good as he looks because Ray Lewis is on the D with him.

[pbmax]

Greene had five seasons with an AV (Approximate Value as measured by Pro Football Reference) above ten (and one season of 9). That is a tick above Haley and Greene was effective for longer. I have no problem with Haley waiting for Greene.

Though comparing both to Doleman, it might be a long wait for both.

[Cheesehead Craig]

I thought Martin was a no-brainer to get in. Completely agree on the Haley/Greene argument with Patler as well.

[Smidgeon]

Ya, ignore actual performance, just go on whether or not you remember the guy's name, and make no effort to recall why you remember his name. Sounds like good criteria to pick HOF members.

Kevin Greene and Charles Haley played at the same time. They played basically the same game. Green outplayed Haley by a lot (165 sacks to 100 sacks). Greene can't seem to get in, and you think Haley should?

So why isn't Greene in? What's the argument?

[Smeefers]

So why isn't Greene in? What's the argument?

From what I understand, the reason greene isn't in is because he was a journey man. He never stuck with one team, so never got a large fan base behind him with is sort of needed for the hall. If nobody is lobbying for you to get in, it's much more difficult to get in.

Of course, this is all just recycled garbage I've read and heard over the years that very well could be wrong.

[Cheesehead Craig]

It's wierd, it seems like guys who are good enough to have real long careers are penalized if they don't have those 4-5 spectacular seasons. Look at Carter and Brown. Two HOF guys in my book but just cannot seem to get in. Shouldn't the fact that you were able to play the game for 12+ seasons mean something as much as the stats?

[Harlan Huckleby]

It's wierd, it seems like guys who are good enough to have real long careers are penalized if they don't have those 4-5 spectacular seasons.

In my opinion, guys who have good, long careers should not be in the hall of fame at all. The hall should only be for players who have spectacular seasons.

[pbmax]

In my opinion, guys who have good, long careers should not be in the hall of fame at all. The hall should only be for players who have spectacular seasons.

Brown is good enough based on immediate impact on both offense and special teams. Carter satisfies you spectacular season with season records for catches and TDs.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I definitely think Carter should be in hof.


If I were emperor, I'd go into both baseball and football HOF's and throw half the guys out. Maybe give the busts to family members if they claim them within 48 hrs - I do have a heart.

[pbmax]

I definitely think Carter should be in hof.


If I were emperor, I'd go into both baseball and football HOF's and throw half the guys out. Maybe give the busts to family members if they claim them within 48 hrs - I do have a heart.

I blame Phil Rizzuto.

[Smeefers]

In my opinion, guys who have good, long careers should not be in the hall of fame at all. The hall should only be for players who have spectacular seasons.

Well, if we're going to go with random reasons to keep people out of the HOF, then I think we should toss out any left handed people and red heads. They're creepy and really people anyways.

[Joemailman]

I can see Harlan's point. Maybe the question that should be asked is: Was this player at any point in his career considered to be as good or better than anyone at his position?

[Patler]

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.

[Harlan Huckleby]

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.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Well, if we're going to go with random reasons to keep people out of the HOF, then I think we should toss out any left handed people and red heads. They're creepy and really people anyways.

I certainly agree with oppression of red heads, but a subjective evaluation is not random.