Worthy HOF thread? ... London Fletcher

[Cubbiebum]

He's all but clinched leading the league in tackles in this his 14th season. He's one of the ultimate very good but never elite guys. He's kind of like a football's Craig Biggio to me.

He's got almost 1,800 career tackles, 35 sacks and 18 interceptions. Going against him is the fact that he has only made two Pro Bowls.

I would compare him to someone like Junior Seau. Fletcher is just behind him in total tackles, Fletcher has 22 less sacks, they are equal in interceptions but Fletcher smokes him in overall coverage which is represented by a 73-23 pass deflection advantage and Fletcher has played in 45 less games.

To me he is in. Was he ever the best, no. He was very good for a very long time and should be one of the guys who gets in for his cumulative career. Very under-appreciated to me. One of the best coverage MLB's of this generation to me. Coverage doesn't get you the pub that sacks do though.

 

[LongTimeListener]

London Fletcher:Junior Seau::Adam Sandler:Paul Newman

 

[Bubbler]

Nice player. Not a Hall of Famer.

 

[93Devil]

Two Pro Bowls? Sorry.

Very underrated player who spent his career under s ****ty owner, but no HOF.

 

[heyabbott]

He is no Chris Hamburger. Or Carl Banks

 

[cyclingwriter]

Nice guy, good player. Not a Hall of Famer. Not even on the list of top 10 lbs who are not in the Hall. In no particular order Sam Mills, Dave Robinson, Andy Russell, Chuck Howley, Tommy Nobis, Robert Brazile, Jessie Tuggle, Cornelius Bennett, Daryl Talley, Brad Van Pelt, Randy Gradishar, Karl Mecklenburg, Mike Curtis, Tom Jackson, Jerry Robinson and probably a bunch of guys I am not even thinking about. Actually two more: Chris Spielman and George Webster, who both got injured in their primes and never recovered.

 

[Azrael]

This is in football, right?

 

[playthrough]

I can't get too excited about tackle numbers. They're nothing to sneeze at, but they can also be a function of bad teammates and bad defenses that can't get off the field.

Either way, if you need them to make your HOF argument, then it's a "no" already.

 

[KYSportsWriter]

This is in football, right?

How many pro athletes you know named London Fletcher?

 

[The Big Ragu]

Love London Fletcher.

He is not a Hall of Famer.

 

[bigpern23]

35 sacks? They're not the only stat that matter, but that's two seasons for Lawrence Taylor, nevermind a career.

And the Pro Bowl is just not that hard to get into. They take 10 per year (plus inevitably some can't play, so figure it's probably more 12 or 13). If you don't make the Pro Bowl more than twice, you aren't an HOF-level linebacker.

I really like the guy, too, but I don't think he's close to worthy.

 

[Pancamo]

Fletcher is good but doesn't belong in the Hall but you can't look at his sacks and compare it it LT. Two different positions with totally different responsibilities.

 

[outofplace]

I can't get too excited about tackle numbers. They're nothing to sneeze at, but they can also be a function of bad teammates and bad defenses that can't get off the field.

Either way, if you need them to make your HOF argument, then it's a "no" already.

Exactly. Don't teams keep their own numbers for tackles? Makes it a bit hard to trust, too.

By the logic of this argument for Fletcher, Ryan Clark should have gone to the Pro Bowl This year ahead of Troy Polamalu. It's Clark who leads the Steelers in tackles.

 

[JC]

Really? My god, good player hall of famer? Now that's a joke.

 

[Raiders]

When Fletcher was with the Rams, if I recall, ESPN The Magazine once wrote in its season preview: "If he's still starting at midseason, we'll buy you a car."

Or something to that effect. Anyway, it turned out that Fletcher was, but the mag didn't. Dirty lying bastards.

 

[Huggy]

I can't get too excited about tackle numbers. They're nothing to sneeze at, but they can also be a function of bad teammates and bad defenses that can't get off the field.

Either way, if you need them to make your HOF argument, then it's a "no" already.

Exactly. Don't teams keep their own numbers for tackles? Makes it a bit hard to trust, too.

By the logic of this argument for Fletcher, Ryan Clark should have gone to the Pro Bowl This year ahead of Troy Polamalu. It's Clark who leads the Steelers in tackles.

Indeed. Dr. Z always maintained that tackle numbers could never be trusted when measuring a player for Pro Bowl status. He kept his own and said they often differed wildly from what the teams produced.

 

[cyclingwriter]

I can't get too excited about tackle numbers. They're nothing to sneeze at, but they can also be a function of bad teammates and bad defenses that can't get off the field.

Either way, if you need them to make your HOF argument, then it's a "no" already.

Exactly. Don't teams keep their own numbers for tackles? Makes it a bit hard to trust, too.

By the logic of this argument for Fletcher, Ryan Clark should have gone to the Pro Bowl This year ahead of Troy Polamalu. It's Clark who leads the Steelers in tackles.

Indeed. Dr. Z always maintained that tackle numbers could never be trusted when measuring a player for Pro Bowl status. He kept his own and said they often differed wildly from what the teams produced.

Tackle stats never match up at any level. The coaches give a lot of guys credit for assists that really were piling on. According to numbers I used for a story years ago, the average NFL team would have to run about 120 plays per game to justify tackle numbers.

 

[Flying Headbutt]

I'm no where near a Redskins fan, but London Fletcher is way underrated by a lot of people here. I'm not saying he is HOF-worthy, but I'm not ready to dismiss it out of hand. Even today, most teams aren't getting as much production at the MLB spot as the Redskins are out of that old man.

 

[Moderator1]

We need spnited to remind us it is not the Hall of Very Good for a Long Time.
He's very good and has been for a long time. He's not great. I never for one second thought about him and the Hall.

As for tackling stats, yeah. Wow. A school in my old coverage area was known for wildly inflated tackle stats. I mean, 4-5 players every game with 15 or more. So a visiting SID did some math. He came up with 69 plays where there could be an actual tackle (none for going out of bounds, touchdowns, fair catches, etc.) And the host team credited its players with 62 unassisted tackles. That left seven tackles where there could be assists - and they had something like 70 assists. So that's 10 per play. EVERYONE had a hand in it, or so it seemed.

In our over-stat-ed world, tackles are a joke. I'm sure a sabermatician somewhere has come up with a formula for TABIP - tackles on balls in play, taking into account wind, artificial turf and other various and sundry factors.

But you don't need a tackle number to know Fletcher is a very good player. Just not a Hall of Famer.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

I can't get too excited about tackle numbers. They're nothing to sneeze at, but they can also be a function of bad teammates and bad defenses that can't get off the field.

Either way, if you need them to make your HOF argument, then it's a "no" already.

Perfectly stated.