Quote:
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud
The difference between Franco Harris, Tony Dorsett, Marcus Allen and Tomlinson is that the former were transcendent players on Super Bowl winning teams.
The Hall of Fame should be about great players that either elevate or transcend and while Tomlinson was very, very good, IMO, he was neither able to elevate the play of his teammates nor transcend the game like a Barry Sanders or even Adrian Peterson (who has a long way to go to be HOF worthy, IMO).
Regardless of whether or not he gets in, I wouldn't vote for him.
That said, keeping a high profile on the NFL Network will certainly help him, as it did Cris Carter at ESPN.
|
Transcendent is the definition you're using, so why don't
you explain what makes it such.
Without the immaculate reception, Harris is not a transcendent player. Without a single incredible run against Washington, Allen isn't. Dorsett? Well he just isn't.
You're asking ThaVirus to explain what makes Tomlinson a transcendent player, meanwhile I see nothing to suggest that some of the guys you're holding up meet that test themselves. Franco didn't make his team better - the Steel Curtain did. And the Raiders weren't exactly hurting for success before Allen got there - they won the SB in 1980. Dorsett? During his best years, the Cowboys were largely also-rans. They won a SB with him as a rookie, sure - that's enough to offset the fact that Tomlinson was better than him at literally every conceivable measure of evaluating performance?
I think you're just calling guys that won rings 'transcendent' and in so doing you're doing a huge disservice to a guy like Tomlinson that simply outperformed pretty much every name you're offering.