1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

2016 Pro Football Hall of Fame Ballot

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Della9250, Sep 16, 2015.

  1. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    Again with the name-calling to try to cover for the weakness in your argument.

    Based on your initial statement about Stallworth's statistics, you clearly don't understand how much the game has changed, at least not in terms of properly evaluating receivers. His statistics were not "ordinary" for a receiver whose playing career began in 1974.

    The comparison with Shell is certainly subjective, but Stallworth was clearly deserving if you understand the game then and now. I'm glad I was able to give you the help with that, which you clearly need.
     
  2. 3_Octave_Fart

    3_Octave_Fart Well-Known Member

    If you understood championship football and team defense, especially in the 1970s, you would know what Shell meant to those teams.
    I disagree with you on Stallworth- there is no point belaboring it with someone like you.
     
  3. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    I'm not discounting Shell. I simply understand how good Stallworth was, which you clearly do not. You just got your ass handed to you on the statistical argument and you know it. The rest is you hiding behind personal digs, subjective arguments and vague generalities.

    I understand exactly what Shell meant to the two Super Bowl defenses for which he started, and the very solid ones in the early '80s. The argument against him is that there are already too many Steelers from those teams in the Hall of Fame, which I already said I agree is bullshit.

    My issue was with you claiming that Stallworth wasn't worthy because you think his statistics were ordinary, even though they were much better than Swann's and by the standards of that time, they were not at all ordinary.
     
  4. 3_Octave_Fart

    3_Octave_Fart Well-Known Member

    What do you expect from Peter King, at this point.
    Can we both not agree he is a horse's ass of the top order?
    There are nine dudes from the Steelers dynasty in the Hall of Fame.
    Shell would mark 10, and the late L.C. Greenwood has a case to be made.
    Greenwood was a six-time finalist so he is going to have to wait even longer for Peter and his colleagues to get their shit together.

    I am not addressing the rest of the garbage in your post about Stallworth.
    This is simply my new way of tolerating you.
     
  5. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    Running away from a point when you've lost is not new for you, fart. You are clearly wrong. Stallworth's career statistics look ordinary by today's standards, but they were not ordinary for his era. You either did not know that or forgot. It really is that simple.

    I certainly don't oppose the argument that Shell belongs. I think Greenwood might have an even better case, but yes, we can agree regarding King, especially the argument against Shell.
     
  6. 3_Octave_Fart

    3_Octave_Fart Well-Known Member

    He doesn't, though.
    All these guys know are counting stats.
    Why do you think they are so obsessed with receivers?
    And sacks were not even an official stat until 1982, so they don't know what to do with Greenwood.

    You need to understand that very few care to seriously rebut you any longer on this forum. And it isn't about winning and losing- everyone loses when you're involved in an argument.
     
  7. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    Actually, it is you who usually loses when involved in an argument with me, just as you lost this one. You lost the argument, so you attack the poster. You made a flawed point regarding Stallworth and even you know it by now.
     
  8. Mr. Sunshine

    Mr. Sunshine Well-Known Member

    Swann doesn't belong in the Hall either.
     
  9. DanOregon

    DanOregon Well-Known Member

    An interesting question - which players would be in the HOF if their team(s) won the SB - which wouldn't if their teams lost?
     
  10. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    Swann doesn't even get close if he has no rings instead of four.

    That said, winning championships should make a difference.
     
  11. cyclingwriter2

    cyclingwriter2 Well-Known Member

    If Ken Anderson had a ring he would have gotten in years ago.

    Fred Dean is likely in the hall because the committee believed more 49ers needed to be in there. Not saying he wasn't a good choice, but he would not be in there if he had stayed a charger.

    There are several Dolphins from the 1970s, who are in because of being on the 72 team. Griese and Langer. That is odd to me because there are better Dolphins from that team not in the Hall. Anderson, Scott, keutchenberg.

    Bill Bergey is a forgotten mlb that I think should have made the hall, but not before Tommy Nobis. I think if either had gotten a ring they've would have been in by now.
     
  12. cyclingwriter2

    cyclingwriter2 Well-Known Member

    Andy Russell has a case as well, which if all three got in would put 12 Steelers from the 1970s in the Hall. It doesn't look like that will happen because the Committee seems to have come to a vox populi that there are too many Steelers in Canton. It's not just King. I remember just after Stallworth getting in, hearing stuff like "Roy Gerela needs to be thinking about what his bust will look like." Again, it's nonsense that a team needs to have a cap on players in the Hall. A lot of bad teams have a bizarre number of Hall of Famers. A case in point is the 72-73 Cardinals. By my reckoning, that team, which went 8-18-2, had Jackie Smith, Larry Wilson, Dan Dierdorf, Roger Wehrli and Don Maynard. The mediocre Vikings of he 1990s have Carter, Moon, Randle, Zimmerman, McDaniel, and Doleman.

    However, back to the thing that irks meets about the Steelers cap. Two other teams with a lot of Hall of Famers have had more players added since then. The 1960s Green Bay Packers have seen David Robinson added to its ranks, which gives that team 12 players: Starr, Hornung, Taylor, Kramer, Gregg, Davis, Jordan, Nitschke, Adderley, Wood, Tunnell and now Robinson. Yes, Tunnell, would have gone in as a Giant, but he started in two title games (winning one in Green Bay).

    The other is the 1970s Raiders, whose fans have wined for years that the NFL was anti-Raider/anti-Al Davis and there weren't enough Raiders in the Hall. With Stabler going in, that team now has 11 players as well: Stabler, Blanda, Biletnikoff, Caspar, Shell, Boomer Brown, Otto, Upshaw, Hendricks, Larry Brown and Ray Guy. Oh wait, 12, Ron Mix ended his career there. And yes, Mix was going into the Hall without being a Raider, and maybe Boomer Brown. Otto's best years were in the 1960s, and Blanda was Blanda. Still, 12 guys from one team. A team that won one Super Bowl, and ended most years getting beat by the Steelers in the playoffs. In addition, Stabler, Brown and Guy have all gotten into the hall since people began complaining about too many Steelers.

    There are also 12 Cowboys from the 1970s in there, but a lot of them are players who were at the end of the line -- Alworth, Gregg, Adderley, Jackie Smith!, Ditka -- who had made their cases before being Cowboys.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2016
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page