Worthy HOF thread? ... London Fletcher

FWIW teams do not track tackle totals. The NFL does it. Tackles became an official NFL stat in 2001 (IIRC). Teams do petition tackle totals from time to time but they are almost always turned down. I know the 49ers disputed Patrick Willis' total a few years back as the 49ers had him with about 40 more tackles on the season. The NFL turned it down and kept it as it was. Tackles in the NFL are not some inflated B.S. stat. At least not anymore.

As far as the sacks thing goes, as the PD's point to, Fletcher is a coverage LB for the most part and a great one at that. Problem is, that doesn't show up in the stats nearly as well and fans tend to vote for the guys who get sacks.

 

That happened to me once, where a coach and all the players I interviewed after the game were raving about a kid who had a "triple-double" of 25 points, 22 rebounds and 12 blocked shots (or numbers in that range, I forget the exact stats). There were only like 25 missed shots in the game, so they were essentially saying this kid corralled all but three of the missed shots.

As it happens, I keep track of those stats (including blocked shots) and I had the kid with 25 points, but eight fewer rebounds (still in double-digits) and only eight blocks. Still a hell of a game, but it wasn't a triple-double, no matter how much they wanted it to be.

 

These Hall of Fame threads always get better when the OP digs in his heels to counter the otherwise unanimous opinion of "nofuckingway."

 

I generally a tough sell for giving up my hypothetical vote. That said I would vote for Fletcher. I think he is/was vastly underrated and should have made a lot more Pro Bowls. When you have fans voting, I don't tend to give it a ton of weight in my decision making so actual Pro Bowl's don't matter to me a whole lot.

I do think that if Fletcher had played some where other than St. Louis and Buffalo he would have a lot more Pro Bowl's. He played in cities the general fan and national media don't pay much attention to. If he was with the Giants, Cowboys, Chicago ... etc. he would have gotten more exposure. As it was, all I can recall is the short mention of him and how it was amazing he could do it with how small he is.

 

I think you'd have a hard time finding any defensive coordinator anywhere who looked at the defenses London Fletcher played on and decided "whoa, we need to come up with a way to deal with that guy!" He is durable and he runs well, but he is not a game-turning presence. It reminds me of the outrage when Jimmy Johnson cut Jack Del Rio, who was his leading tackler the year before, and when asked about it Jimmy said something along the lines of "that's OK, we'll put someone else in there and that guy will be our leading tackler too." And that guy was.

 

Typed this reply as you were typing, LTL. I think we're on the same page ...

I always envision a Hall of Famer as a player who gives opposing coaches headaches while trying to figure out how to play against them.

I'd doubt any NFL coach has ever uttered the phrase, "We don't have an answer for London Fletcher ... what are we going to do?"

Good player who has had a nice, long, productive career? Definitely. But beyond that is a pretty big reach, IMO.

 

Yeah. I've always liked Fletcher and I do think he has wrung every last drop of talent out of his frame, which is always worthy of extra respect. He was good for what he was. Trying to compare him with the all-time otherworldly freaks just isn't the way to go, though.

 

Maybe teams are running at him and he's making tackles after a 5-7 yard gain. That's not something to be celebrated? A porous D-Line requiring LBs to make tackles that should have been made earlier doesn't mean a lot to me. Maybe he's repsonible for the TE or the back coming out of the backfield, and they are catching tons of short and medium passes, so he tackles them without preventing the catch.

His offense can't keep the ball so the defense is on the field 33 minutes+? This would lead to lots of tackles but not in a good way.