Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 96
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    34,960
    Quote Originally Posted by koldjerky View Post
    I also think playoff stats shouldnít be weighed nearly as much as regular season stats.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I disagree wholeheartedly. Why on earth would a player playing well or poorly in playoff games mean LESS than in regular season games? Theyíre all real games that they actually play in. And playoff games are literally an easy to filter sample size of the most significant ones.

    I canít see any logic whatsoever in not at least treating how a player performs on the field in a playoff game the same as when he steps on the field for a regular season game.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,669
    Quote Originally Posted by Oakmont_4 View Post
    Iíd agree heís better. And has a better case but mostly due to longevity. He really only had 1 elite season. The rest of his numbers were compilation numbers and he gets a ton of gas because he was on a dominant team and played in 3 Super Bowls.
    Are we suppose to penalize Monk but not Edelman for playing on a SB team?
    Monk also had a better peak. He was an all pro something Edelman never accomplished.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    34,960
    Quote Originally Posted by Oakmont_4 View Post
    Of course he is. And I have no issue with him being there. But him being there is one of many examples of players who are in the HOF for reasons outside of statistics. Yes he has some numbers that are relevant to him being there. But I think we can both admit his numbers are not the reason heís in
    Namath won multiple postseason honors including MVP I believe. He was an elite player at his position for his era which is main reason for his HOF. ďFor his eraĒ is why heís not in GOAT discussions though.

    Generally most HOFers have 2 things: dominant/elite peak level of play and longevity. Edelman has neither. Heís never been elite for his position and he basically had a 5.5 year career as a contributing receiver.

    There are definitely ďintangibleĒ factors. If he was better across his peak (even if still short of elite) or his peak lasted a full decade like Hines Ward for example, then I think maybe intangibles push him in. Ward is actually a perfect example because he basically had twice as long a career as Edelman. If Ward had as many all time memorable moments to go with his long career Iíd probably say he should be in or at least on fence. But Edelmans career doesnít warrant that discussion at all really. No peak or longevity... gotta give me SOMETHING there

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    5,577
    Quote Originally Posted by mariner4life View Post
    Are we suppose to penalize Monk but not Edelman for playing on a SB team?
    Monk also had a better peak. He was an all pro something Edelman never accomplished.
    No not at all. My entire point is there are a number of players in the HOF that donít have the prototypical HOF numbers. BUT they did things that no other player has done or have some extreme historical significance. I think Edelman does have historical significance for his era despite his numbers.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    5,577
    Quote Originally Posted by hugepatsfan View Post
    Namath won multiple postseason honors including MVP I believe. He was an elite player at his position for his era which is main reason for his HOF. ďFor his eraĒ is why heís not in GOAT discussions though.

    Generally most HOFers have 2 things: dominant/elite peak level of play and longevity. Edelman has neither. Heís never been elite for his position and he basically had a 5.5 year career as a contributing receiver.

    There are definitely ďintangibleĒ factors. If he was better across his peak (even if still short of elite) or his peak lasted a full decade like Hines Ward for example, then I think maybe intangibles push him in. Ward is actually a perfect example because he basically had twice as long a career as Edelman. If Ward had as many all time memorable moments to go with his long career Iíd probably say he should be in or at least on fence. But Edelmans career doesnít warrant that discussion at all really. No peak or longevity... gotta give me SOMETHING there
    I donít really agree here. I think there are a TON of guys who had long careers and piled up numbers due to longevity but really did nothing of note in their careers. What is so special about that. Hines Ward is a good example of that. Phillip Rivers is a good example of that. Both great players, but I donít think either did anything special other than play for a long period of time. Not saying thatís nothing, but I think there are a lot of these types throughout history which makes them a bit of a commodity in this HOF discussion. And I donít think thatís what the HOF is about.

    As I mentioned previously I think the HOF is more of a museum of the NFL. It tells the NFLís story and history. And yes all the truly elite are apart of that. But thereís also some that werenít truly elite but did very special and notable things in their careers that people remember. Theyíre iconic moments. And I think thatís more about what the HOF is about than players who played for a long time and piled stats

  6. #36
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    [emoji288]
    Posts
    20,878
    Quote Originally Posted by Oakmont_4 View Post
    Of course he is. And I have no issue with him being there. But him being there is one of many examples of players who are in the HOF for reasons outside of statistics. Yes he has some numbers that are relevant to him being there. But I think we can both admit his numbers are not the reason heís in
    Namath is considered to be the best AFL QB, or at least one of the two best along with Len Dawson.

    He was 2x AFL MVP, 4x All-AFL (comparable to All-Pro), 4x AFL All-Star (comparable to Pro Bowl), and 1965 AFL ROTY.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    64,171
    Quote Originally Posted by Oakmont_4 View Post
    I donít really agree here. I think there are a TON of guys who had long careers and piled up numbers due to longevity but really did nothing of note in their careers. What is so special about that. Hines Ward is a good example of that. Phillip Rivers is a good example of that. Both great players, but I donít think either did anything special other than play for a long period of time. Not saying thatís nothing, but I think there are a lot of these types throughout history which makes them a bit of a commodity in this HOF discussion. And I donít think thatís what the HOF is about.

    As I mentioned previously I think the HOF is more of a museum of the NFL. It tells the NFLís story and history. And yes all the truly elite are apart of that. But thereís also some that werenít truly elite but did very special and notable things in their careers that people remember. Theyíre iconic moments. And I think thatís more about what the HOF is about than players who played for a long time and piled stats
    Letís put this opinion to the test:
    Frank Gore. HOF?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    13,448
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    Letís put this opinion to the test:
    Frank Gore. HOF?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Nope.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    5,577
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    Letís put this opinion to the test:
    Frank Gore. HOF?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I would say no

    City of Champions

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,669
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    Letís put this opinion to the test:
    Frank Gore. HOF?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I would put him in but just barely IMO.
    He wasnít special but his career has to be respected.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    [emoji288]
    Posts
    20,878
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    Letís put this opinion to the test:
    Frank Gore. HOF?
    I'd say let's have a look in 20 years if he's the last of his kind. (Bell cow RB with a long career.)

    The threshold for HOF RBs will probably go down after Adrian Peterson. Who's even left after him? Marshawn Lynch? LeSean McCoy?

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Bethlehem
    Posts
    42,686
    Quote Originally Posted by hugepatsfan View Post
    I disagree wholeheartedly. Why on earth would a player playing well or poorly in playoff games mean LESS than in regular season games? Theyíre all real games that they actually play in. And playoff games are literally an easy to filter sample size of the most significant ones.

    I canít see any logic whatsoever in not at least treating how a player performs on the field in a playoff game the same as when he steps on the field for a regular season game.
    I meant more when comparing to other players.

    But also, youíre putting a guy in based off opportunity dependent on other players. Edelman has 19 playoff games. If it wasnít for those 19 games we wouldnít even be considering him for the HOF.

    TJ Houshmanszadeh played 9 more regular season games than Edelman had 4000 more yards, 8 more TDs, 7 more receptions. He had 3 playoff games. 2 were at the end of his career.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack of Blades View Post
    I don't consider Brand New indie. I consider them ****ing awesome and don't belong to a genre.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    34,960
    Quote Originally Posted by koldjerky View Post
    I meant more when comparing to other players.

    But also, youíre putting a guy in based off opportunity dependent on other players. Edelman has 19 playoff games. If it wasnít for those 19 games we wouldnít even be considering him for the HOF.

    TJ Houshmanszadeh played 9 more regular season games than Edelman had 4000 more yards, 8 more TDs, 7 more receptions. He had 3 playoff games. 2 were at the end of his career.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Giving credit/blame for how many playoff games you play is different than giving credit (or taking away standing) for how players play in those playoff games. If guys play well in playoff games of course that should help their standing/rank/legacy/whatever. If anything I feel like playing well in a playoff game should do MORE for what you think of a player than how they perform in a regular season game. Iím not saying give a player sole credit for being in more playoff games, but they absolutely get credit if they play well in them.

    TJís career prime run is absolutely comparable to Edelmans. Again, I donít think heís a HOFer. Iím just saying that if he had that kind of peak for twice as long a span, like Hines Ward for example, Iíd probably be open to slipping him in. But he just doesnít have the longevity for me to even warrant the discussion.

    I do get that not every player gets the opportunity to play in those big games. But honestly, life isnít fair always. The player fortunate to get those opportunities then get the chance to either play great or shrink. The opportunity itself is dependent on others but you still gotta give them credit for what they do or donít do with it IMO.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    5,577
    Quote Originally Posted by QB_Eagles View Post
    I'd say let's have a look in 20 years if he's the last of his kind. (Bell cow RB with a long career.)

    The threshold for HOF RBs will probably go down after Adrian Peterson. Who's even left after him? Marshawn Lynch? LeSean McCoy?
    Itís not like thereís a minimum of inductees at a position have to be met. X number of RBs having to make it isnít a thing.

    Gore - no
    Peterson - absolutely
    Lynch - yes
    McCoy - no

    Less RBs will start making it than historically they did. But more TEs will make than they historically did

    City of Champions

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    117,548
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    Letís put this opinion to the test:
    Frank Gore. HOF?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    when did we stop giving a **** about longevity esp when it comes to the worst position to play in the sport? Yes... Yes by alot.

    Sure he doesnt have the sexy moves like a barry but come on the dude was still beasting outside of the last 3 years and he is still doing his thing and better than a ton of RBs.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •