Discussion Board
Welcome Guest! You can login or register. Login or Register.

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
wpr  
#1 Posted : Sunday, August 6, 2017 6:12:13 PM(UTC)
Michael Rodney said:
Another Pro Football Hall of Fame class was announced on Saturday night Canton, so it's time for my annual early August rant. I wrote last year about LeRoy Butler not getting the respect he deserves from the voters. Well, thanks to former Bronco Terrell Davis' induction, this year's post will be about Sterling Sharpe. TheContinue Reading››

Continue Reading @ Michael Rodney


While I would love for Sterling to be in the Hall, 7 years isn't long enough to be included among the all time greats. I can't help it if someone else gets in after only 7 seasons. That doesn't make it right.
isocleas2  
#2 Posted : Sunday, August 6, 2017 7:50:46 PM(UTC)
On one hand I agree, 7 seasons is just too short of a sample size. On the other hand he was dominate with shit QBs, the couple years there was actually an offense to take some of the weight off his shoulders he was arguably the most dominate WR in the league.

Sharpe + Nick Collins both played HoF careers, they just lack a few more years of playing in the league to fatten up the resume.
sschind  
#3 Posted : Sunday, August 6, 2017 9:29:44 PM(UTC)
wpr said: Go to Quoted Post
While I would love for Sterling to be in the Hall, 7 years isn't long enough to be included among the all time greats. I can't help it if someone else gets in after only 7 seasons. That doesn't make it right.


I gotta agree with you WPR. He was dominant and if it were not for the injury I think he would be in already and we would be listing him as one of the top 5 WRs of all time. A great career unfortunately cut way to short and maybe a few years too short of the HOF.

One thing I hate as a fan is when teams need 6 yards for the first and they throw it 4-5 yards down the field. Sterling Sharpe was the only WR I recall watching where I actually didn't mind it so much. It was still frustrating but it seemed like he made the extra yard or two as often as not.

While I agree that 7 years is not long enough it is the new benchmark and because of that Megatron should be a shoe in. Voters can't say his career was too short now.
Zero2Cool  
#4 Posted : Monday, August 7, 2017 5:14:46 AM(UTC)
I still don't know how Gale Sayers got into the Hall of Fame. He played in less than 70 games and his statistics weren't anything special for his era. Terrell Davis at least topped 2,000 yards and won league MVP and pair of Super Bowls. Sterling Sharpe argument I would make is them two and Sharpe averaging over 100 receptions and 14 TD's his last three seasons in the NFL.

If you're going to let Sayers and Davis in, I don't see how you keep Sharpe out.

Which makes me wonder ... what constitutes a Hall of Fame career?
wpr  
#5 Posted : Monday, August 7, 2017 5:45:37 AM(UTC)
Zero2Cool said: Go to Quoted Post
I still don't know how Gale Sayers got into the Hall of Fame. He played in less than 70 games and his statistics weren't anything special for his era. Terrell Davis at least topped 2,000 yards and won league MVP and pair of Super Bowls. Sterling Sharpe argument I would make is them two and Sharpe averaging over 100 receptions and 14 TD's his last three seasons in the NFL.

If you're going to let Sayers and Davis in, I don't see how you keep Sharpe out.

Which makes me wonder ... what constitutes a Hall of Fame career?


I think all 3 belong in the Hall of the Pretty Damn Good. Of the 3 Sayers is the closest to making an argument for dominance in his time. He was All Pro 5 times in his 7 years. (Sharpe and Davis only 3 each.) I ignore Pro Bowl as it is a more flawed voting system.

Then again the NFL Hall seems to have a lower admittance requirement than the MLB.
Zero2Cool  
#6 Posted : Monday, August 7, 2017 6:49:10 AM(UTC)
wpr said: Go to Quoted Post
I think all 3 belong in the Hall of the Pretty Damn Good. Of the 3 Sayers is the closest to making an argument for dominance in his time. He was All Pro 5 times in his 7 years. (Sharpe and Davis only 3 each.) I ignore Pro Bowl as it is a more flawed voting system.

Then again the NFL Hall seems to have a lower admittance requirement than the MLB.


Sayers had a lot less competition during his time than both Sharpe and Davis. That explains the slim margin of more All Pro's. Ahman Green was more of a dominate force than Sayers.
Cheesey  
#7 Posted : Monday, August 7, 2017 9:53:51 AM(UTC)
Good point about Sayers, Zero.
Another thing that might play into this was the fact that Sharpe was a real jerk to the media.
So that MIGHT have some bearing.
PackFanWithTwins  
#8 Posted : Tuesday, August 8, 2017 6:58:29 AM(UTC)
No, he probably would have if he had been able to continue playing, but unfortunately he wasn't. If I look at the WR who played the same time as Sterling, which IMO would be his competition for the HOF I can't put his career above any of them and IMO there are only so many spots. Jerry Rice, Tim Brown, Cris Carter, Andre Reed, Art Monk, Michael Irving. The idea that he had shit QB's is beyond absurd also and that he was so much more dominate than all the other WR I listed is also false.

Losing Sterling might have been the best thing for the Packers. It forced Favre to look for others to depend on in the receiving game.
Smokey  
#9 Posted : Tuesday, August 8, 2017 9:13:01 AM(UTC)
I have heard it said , that unless a player is already considered a HOF "Lock" , then his HOF consideration can heavily depend upon the nominating presentation and who speaks on their behalf . An influential respected presenter that makes an impressive case , can (and has) put a person as they say , "over the hump" in the final vote .

Sharp was a brilliant WR and while not a "Lock" , if he had a high powered presenter to make his case for him , perhaps then he just may have a better chance at the HOF . ThumpUp
Poppa San  
#10 Posted : Wednesday, August 9, 2017 4:41:13 PM(UTC)
Smokey said: Go to Quoted Post
I have heard it said , that unless a player is already considered a HOF "Lock" , then his HOF consideration can heavily depend upon the nominating presentation and who speaks on their behalf . An influential respected presenter that makes an impressive case , can (and has) put a person as they say , "over the hump" in the final vote .

Sharp was a brilliant WR and while not a "Lock" , if he had a high powered presenter to make his case for him , perhaps then he just may have a better chance at the HOF . ThumpUp
Yeah, that worked out pretty good for Jerry Kramer.  
Smokey  
#11 Posted : Wednesday, August 9, 2017 5:33:34 PM(UTC)
Poppa San said: Go to Quoted Post

Yeah, that worked out pretty good for Jerry Kramer.


I'm not sure who has spoken for Jerry Kramer in the past . IMO , he belongs in the Hall , but I don't get to vote . Sad
wpr  
#12 Posted : Wednesday, August 9, 2017 9:09:27 PM(UTC)
Smokey said: Go to Quoted Post
I'm not sure who has spoken for Jerry Kramer in the past . IMO , he belongs in the Hall , but I don't get to vote . Sad


Just about everybody from the 60's team has lobbied for Jerry. Certainly most of the teammates who are already in the Hall
Zero2Cool  
#13 Posted : Thursday, August 10, 2017 5:36:48 AM(UTC)
wpr said: Go to Quoted Post
Just about everybody from the 60's team has lobbied for Jerry. Certainly most of the teammates who are already in the Hall


I sometimes feel Jerry is being kept out BECAUSE all of the talk. Kind of feel the same about Colin Kaepernick too.

I sometimes wonder if there wasn't so much "OMG how can you NOT have Kramer in the HALL" talk, which btw comes off like the Hall voter people are stupid ... that Kramer would be voted in already.

I also firmly believe if there wasn't so much outcry of Kaepernick being a victim, that he would have been signed to back someone up already.

There are a lot of egos here and I don't think owners, general managers or hall voter people want to at all give the impression they were swayed by public voices. And want the sole voice for decisions to be their own.
wpr  
#14 Posted : Thursday, August 10, 2017 6:37:51 AM(UTC)
I think it's more of a case that voters feel there is enough representation from the teams of the 60s. There are 12 players and Lombardi in the Hall. Yes it was a great team but you can't put everyone in. This of course is a bit of a simplification of the issue.
isocleas2  
#15 Posted : Thursday, August 10, 2017 11:07:26 AM(UTC)
PackFanWithTwins said: Go to Quoted Post
No, he probably would have if he had been able to continue playing, but unfortunately he wasn't. If I look at the WR who played the same time as Sterling, which IMO would be his competition for the HOF I can't put his career above any of them and IMO there are only so many spots. Jerry Rice, Tim Brown, Cris Carter, Andre Reed, Art Monk, Michael Irving. The idea that he had shit QB's is beyond absurd also and that he was so much more dominate than all the other WR I listed is also false.

Losing Sterling might have been the best thing for the Packers. It forced Favre to look for others to depend on in the receiving game.


He had shit qbs, Don Majkowski was never anything more than an average qb who had one good season (27 td 20 ints is barely good).

Majkowski and the backups were shit qbs, and having a young Favre while better than what was before him was still rough sledding at times. Or do you not remember Holmgren almost benching him or the fans cheering wildly when he'd throw the ball away instead of another maddening interception? You could see the potential with Favre which is partly why Sharpe lead the league in TDs his last season and lead the league in receptions the two years before that (setting a record).

I've heard this fallacy before about how Favre losing his best offensive weapon was actually a good thing for him but for the life of me i'll never see how losing an all-pro receiver is ever a positive. Favre would have eventually learned how to spread the ball around the field and having a #1 receiver who could draw double coverage like Sharpe maybe would have made it even easier.
Zero2Cool  
#16 Posted : Thursday, August 10, 2017 12:19:48 PM(UTC)
isocleas2 said: Go to Quoted Post
I've heard this fallacy before about how Favre losing his best offensive weapon was actually a good thing for him but for the life of me i'll never see how losing an all-pro receiver is ever a positive. Favre would have eventually learned how to spread the ball around the field and having a #1 receiver who could draw double coverage like Sharpe maybe would have made it even easier.


Favre said losing Sharpe forced him to go through reads more instead of slinging it at Sharpe regardless of how well he was covered. It made Favre a better QB by spreading the ball around which kept defenses from locking just one guy down. Even in double coverage, Favre was told, throw it to Sharpe.

Cheesey  
#17 Posted : Friday, August 11, 2017 11:45:37 AM(UTC)
Kramer SHOULD be in the HOF. So what if there are a lot of Packers from the 60's already in?
That shouldn't matter one bit.
If he earned it (which I think he did) he should be in, reguardless if there are many of his team mates in there too.
Just my 2 cents.
wpr  
#18 Posted : Friday, August 11, 2017 2:58:51 PM(UTC)
Cheesey said: Go to Quoted Post
Kramer SHOULD be in the HOF. So what if there are a lot of Packers from the 60's already in?
That shouldn't matter one bit.
If he earned it (which I think he did) he should be in, reguardless if there are many of his team mates in there too.
Just my 2 cents.


Hey cheesey, I am not saying he doesn't belong. If he does and he's not there the question becomes- why?

Either he belongs or he doesn't.

The only thing I can think of is the powers that be don't want any more Lombardi players.
Rss Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error

Fan Shout
Smokey (7h) : Yes, Insurance Agents do well . You must feel so superior .
rabidgopher04 (7h) : Fenway is electric. Great place to watch baseball. I've been a couple times.
wpr (9h) : A few have it already. Most have to save it to do things.
wpr (9h) : Yes Smokey, life takes money to do anything.
Smokey (13h) : IF THEY HAVE THE MONEY !
wpr (15h) : It is a must for everyone.
Zero2Cool (23h) : I gotta hit that place sometime. Red Sox fan. Hell as a Baseball fan you gotta see Fenway.
wpr (16-Aug) : Flew into Boston today. Took in a game at Fenway with my son.
Smokey (15-Aug) : JOIN PACKERSHOME , A GREAT PLACE TO POST !
beast (12-Aug) : Fairly good news on all the injuries other than having the concussions, but glad it wasn't worse.
buckeyepackfan (11-Aug) : stupid Zeke!!!
Zero2Cool (11-Aug) : De'Angelo Yancey said when he saw Malachi Dupre this afternoon "it was like he never even got hit."
DarkaneRules (11-Aug) : Trubisky lit it up last night. he was throwing darts, especially on the run. impressive
DarkaneRules (11-Aug) : evans had a good game otherwise but refs were rusty
DarkaneRules (11-Aug) : wish there wasn't such an obvious block in the back on the punt td
Tezzy (10-Aug) : Go Pack Go!
buckeyepackfan (10-Aug) : Will The Rivers run deep tonight? Only time will tell!?
Smokey (9-Aug) : GB vs Philly , "Chat" will be "Open" .
Porforis (9-Aug) : Shh... Kids these days like cookies...
Smokey (9-Aug) : and Polls !
Porforis (8-Aug) : We have cookies.
Smokey (7-Aug) : COME JOIN OUR FORUM !
Smokey (7-Aug) : JOIN NOW , JOIN TODAY !
Zero2Cool (7-Aug) : Davon House sits out of the Packers’ Monday practice with a hamstring injury
DarkaneRules (7-Aug) : House not in pads today. Hope to hear "we're just being cautious with him" later
Cheesey (7-Aug) : Good time to get th FG misses in, when it doesn't count.
Smokey (6-Aug) : M. Crosby , will be ok
DarkaneRules (6-Aug) : 6 missed field goals. that will be your headline because media
Smokey (6-Aug) : now I have
Smokey (6-Aug) : Have not seen Jamal Williams (RB) .
DarkaneRules (6-Aug) : it's not a game but this punter looks legit
Smokey (6-Aug) : yes
DarkaneRules (6-Aug) : http://www.tmj4.com/sports/green-bay-packers/green-bay-packers-family-night-2017
Smokey (6-Aug) : yes it sucks
DarkaneRules (6-Aug) : still waiting for something to show up on the stream
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2017 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
SEAHAWKS
Sunday, Sep 17 @ 7:30 PM
at Falcons
Sunday, Sep 24 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Oct 8 @ 3:25 PM
at Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 15 @ 12:00 PM
at Vikings
Sunday, Oct 22 @ 12:00 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 AM
- BYE -
Monday, Nov 6 @ 7:30 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
at Bears
Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
RAVENS
Sunday, Nov 26 @ 7:30 PM
at Steelers
Sunday, Dec 3 @ 12:00 PM
BUCCANEERS
Sunday, Dec 10 @ 12:00 PM
at Browns
Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
at Panthers
Saturday, Dec 23 @ 7:30 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Dec 31 @ 12:00 PM
at Lions
Think About It
Think About It
Recent Topics
1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

12h / Green Bay Packers Talk / gbguy20

13h / Green Bay Packers Talk / uffda udfa

22h / Green Bay Packers Talk / DarkaneRules

23h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

15-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / yooperfan

15-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

13-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / rabidgopher04

13-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / steveishere

11-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

10-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / DarkaneRules

10-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

10-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / DarkaneRules

Headlines