[Easy 6]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Randle was unquestionably the better player, but you have to remember that HOF voters don't actually use things like logic when making the majority of their decisions. Is Lynn Swann a HOF player? **** no. It's far more about creating compelling narratives than actually judging the merits of the player.

Sapp was better in the minds of writers, voters, and the lay fan because he was a cornerstone player on a Super Bowl winning defense.

Furthermore, Randle was every bit as colorful as Sapp, but he never cultivated the relationship with the media in the same way that Sapp did.

It's a sad but true commentary that the people whose jobs require them to inform us about sports figures are often the most deluded and ignorant. Given that, you can't help but have situations like this.

Everything here.