2014 Semifinalists for the Hall of Fame

[DJ's left nut]

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.

[ThaVirus]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

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.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Transcendent is the definition you're using, so why don't you explain what makes it such.

I think that both you and ThaVirus aren't old enough to either know or remember that the NFL used to be a "Run First" league. Every defense was geared to stop the run and every offense needed a transcendent running back to succeed.

Harris, Dorsett, Earl Campbell, Eric Dickerson and Marcus Allen thrived in a league that was primarily designed to stop them from running and gaining yardage. Marcus Allen's Super Bowl run, where he reversed direction, was simply beautiful and amazing to watch, as was his ability to get into the endzone.

Marshall Faulk, IMO, is a borderline Hall of Famer, but he didn't enjoy the relaxed passing rules, which opened up the running game, during the majority of his career.

Tomlinson, on the other hand, did enjoy the relaxed rules. And it's become increasingly clear that teams can find excellent running backs in round three or later (or even undrafted) whereas in the 70's and 80's, those guys were first round picks.

The Chiefs failed mainly in the 70's and 80's because they never found a running back (outside of Joe Delaney, who perished after a single season). And while Okoye was drafted in 1986, it wasn't until 1989 that he was a significant part of the offense, which still didn't stop the Chiefs from taking Harvey Williams in the first round of the 1991 draft and Greg "The Real Deal" Hill a few years later in 1994.

Running backs were at a premium. Today, not so much.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I think that both you and ThaVirus aren't old enough to either know or remember that the NFL used to be a "Run First" league. Every defense was geared to stop the run and every offense needed a transcendent running back to succeed.

Harris, Dorsett, Earl Campbell, Eric Dickerson and Marcus Allen thrived in a league that was primarily designed to stop them from running and gaining yardage. Marcus Allen's Super Bowl run, where he reversed direction, was simply beautiful and amazing to watch, as was his ability to get into the endzone.

Marshall Faulk, IMO, is a borderline Hall of Famer, but he didn't enjoy the relaxed passing rules, which opened up the running game, during the majority of his career.

Tomlinson, on the other hand, did enjoy the relaxed rules. And it's become increasingly clear that teams can find excellent running backs in round three or later (or even undrafted) whereas in the 70's and 80's, those guys were first round picks.

The Chiefs failed mainly in the 70's and 80's because they never found a running back (outside of Joe Delaney, who perished after a single season). And while Okoye was drafted in 1986, it wasn't until 1989 that he was a significant part of the offense, which still didn't stop the Chiefs from taking Harvey Williams in the first round and Greg "The Real Deal" Hill a few years later.

Running backs were at a premium. Today, not so much.

I presume, then, that given the relaxed passing rules, it should be damn near impossible for WRs to make the HOF now?

And I believe I've had this conversation with you before once and simply don't buy the premise. Yes, defenses used to be geared more to stopping the run. They also used to be built around defensive tackles that weighed 260 lbs; defensive ends that weighed 250.

Buck Buchanan was by nearly any measure the most dominant defensive tackle of the era; the guy was 6'7'' and weighted 270 lbs. That's lighter than Tamba Hali. Hell, he just barely outweighs Justin Houston and he has 4 inches in height on the guy.

And he was huge for his time.

Moreover, while defenses were built to stop the run, offenses were built to help it. WRs were oftentimes glorified TEs. TEs were little more than extra tackles. Single back sets? Pft - I'm not even sure they'd been invented yet.

Disregarding modern RBs ignores any of the factors that have served to make the job a hell of a lot more difficult for them as well.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

I presume, then, that given the relaxed passing rules, it should be damn near impossible for WRs to make the HOF now?

Yes, I believe so. That's why there's been a logjam at WR the past few years which, IMO, only continue. I'm shocked that Cris Carter got in before Andre Reed. If Art Monk is in, why not Reed? Because he never won a Super Bowl, like Monk?

And if Reed isn't in and Marvin Harrison isn't in, how in the world do you put in Tim Brown, who never played in a Super Bowl? Is Randy Moss a Hall of Famer? I don't know. That would be a tough call for me.

I think the only legitimate Hall of Fame wide receiver in the past decade is Calvin Johnson. Regardless of the QB or the team's record, the man has produced amazing statistics along with amazing body control. But other than him, I can't see anyone else in the Hall of Fame.

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

And I believe I've had this conversation with you before once and simply don't buy the premise. Yes, defenses used to be geared more to stopping the run. They also used to be built around defensive tackles that weighed 260 lbs; defensive ends that weighed 250.

Buck Buchanan was by nearly any measure the most dominant defensive tackle of the era; the guy was 6'7'' and weighted 270 lbs. That's lighter than Tamba Hali. Hell, he just barely outweight Justin Houston and he has 4 inches in height on the guy.

And he was huge for his time.

Moreover, while defenses were built to stop the run, offenses were built to help it. WRs were oftentimes glorified TEs. TEs were little more than extra tackles. Single back sets? Pft - I'm not even sure they'd been invented yet.

Disregarding modern RBs ignores any of the factors that have served to make the job a hell of a lot more difficult for them as well.

Players can only play who they play. Rules on the other hand, effect the game tremendously.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Players can only play who they play. Rules on the other hand, effect the game tremendously.

Players can only play under the rules of their time. And the attributes of the players involved effect the game tremendously as well. I don't think there's even an argument to be made that strength and conditioning has had a greater impact on the game than the rules changes have.

And as to LDT vs. Sanders - that's fine. I now my position isn't going to be the more common one there and there are great arguments to be made to the contrary. I just believe the fact that the discussion can be had at all says that Sanders should be a HoFer.

[Deberg_1990]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

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.

There are lot of old time players i personally dont feel belong in the Hall just based on stats alone. Joe Namath, Lynn Swann to name a couple.

But these guys were crucial to old time NFL lore and helped make the league to where its at today. Thats why they are in more than anything really. Relative to the era they played in....their stats were good, but compared to today, its a joke. Its a different league now. But they made big time plays in big games, thus transcending.