|
Post by hildebrand on Mar 21, 2021 7:32:37 GMT -5
WR Dunn-YES G Briggs-YES QB Delcorio-NO DT Cheuse-YES S Banks-YES
|
|
|
Post by Joel on Mar 21, 2021 7:35:48 GMT -5
If Banks gets in, how does Daniels not? Doesn’t make any reasonable sense 🤦♂️
|
|
|
Post by hildebrand on Mar 21, 2021 7:41:51 GMT -5
If Banks gets in, how does Daniels not? Doesn’t make any reasonable sense 🤦♂️ There are a lot of cases like this in these debates. I pushed the same story for Blake for years. Never really picked up any traction though.
|
|
|
Post by Joel on Mar 21, 2021 7:43:54 GMT -5
If Banks gets in, how does Daniels not? Doesn’t make any reasonable sense 🤦♂️ There are a lot of cases like this in these debates. I pushed the same story for Blake for years. Never really picked up any traction though. But Blake is clearly worse in every department to the guys that are in. Daniels is better than Banks. But neither of them are in the top 5 DB's that deserve to be in. Ludicrous. Some politics going on I reckon. Or unwillingness to look at obvious facts handed out.
|
|
|
Post by Nick on Mar 21, 2021 8:09:40 GMT -5
There are a lot of cases like this in these debates. I pushed the same story for Blake for years. Never really picked up any traction though. But Blake is clearly worse in every department to the guys that are in. Daniels is better than Banks. But neither of them are in the top 5 DB's that deserve to be in. Ludicrous. Some politics going on I reckon. Or unwillingness to look at obvious facts handed out. Just like the real HOF no doubt. I think Evan's post should of ended the DB debate. I see no counter arguments that hold water personally.
|
|
|
Post by rush27 on Mar 21, 2021 8:15:37 GMT -5
WR Dunn YES G Briggs YES S Banks YES QB Delcorio NO DT Cheuse NO
|
|
|
Post by Joel on Mar 21, 2021 8:18:11 GMT -5
So would people have voted yes for Daniels? And if no, why vote yes for Banks?
|
|
|
Post by hildebrand on Mar 21, 2021 8:21:10 GMT -5
There are a lot of cases like this in these debates. I pushed the same story for Blake for years. Never really picked up any traction though. But Blake is clearly worse in every department to the guys that are in. Daniels is better than Banks. But neither of them are in the top 5 DB's that deserve to be in. Ludicrous. Some politics going on I reckon. Or unwillingness to look at obvious facts handed out. Blake was better than Strong and Mack, and I still argue he is in line with Hayes, so he is in line with or better than some of the guys that are in. Is he on the level of Hoffman, Murray, and Kempthorne? No, but he's still in that second tier with the guys that are already in. Daniels might be in line with Banks. No way I would say he is definitively better than Banks. Maybe if Daniels had at least one 10+ PD season at CB or one 90+ tackles season at S or one all-league season in the second half of his career, then he'd have something to make him stand out. Banks played at virtually the same level for almost a decade, and that level was elite enough to see him rewarded at the end of a lot of seasons. This is why I think the Blake-Daniels comparison is apt. Both players had great first halves of their careers that looked like surefire HoF trajectories, but the second halves of their careers leave much to be desired. Maybe they both deserve to be in because they are in line with guys that are already in or maybe neither do because of their late career regressions. Hard to say.
|
|
|
Post by Joel on Mar 21, 2021 8:27:27 GMT -5
But Blake is clearly worse in every department to the guys that are in. Daniels is better than Banks. But neither of them are in the top 5 DB's that deserve to be in. Ludicrous. Some politics going on I reckon. Or unwillingness to look at obvious facts handed out. Daniels might be in line with Banks. No way I would say he is definitively better than Banks. Maybe if Daniels had at least one 10+ PD season at CB or one 90+ tackles season at S or one all-league season in the second half of his career, then he'd have something to make him stand out. Banks played at virtually the same level for almost a decade, and that level was elite enough to see him rewarded at the end of a lot of seasons. This is why I think the Blake-Daniels comparison is apt. Both players had great first halves of their careers that looked like surefire HoF trajectories, but the second halves of their careers leave much to be desired. Maybe they both deserve to be in because they are in line with guys that are already in or maybe neither do because of their late career regressions. Hard to say. He has back 2 back 138 tackle seasons at S, and in 2030, while playing CB had 11 PD's... Daniels in year 10 still had 6 ints. So this idea of him falling off is wrong too. Banks had solid, back 2 back tackling years. But Daniels did something that wont ever be repeated by a DB with those 138 tackle B2B years. And FWIW, Evan's post has made me believe even Daniels isnt worthy
|
|
|
Post by hildebrand on Mar 21, 2021 8:39:32 GMT -5
But Blake is clearly worse in every department to the guys that are in. Daniels is better than Banks. But neither of them are in the top 5 DB's that deserve to be in. Ludicrous. Some politics going on I reckon. Or unwillingness to look at obvious facts handed out. Just like the real HOF no doubt. I think Evan's post should of ended the DB debate. I see no counter arguments that hold water personally. My problem with Evan's post is just an extension of the issue with how PD% is calculated. Every player in Evan's group A played less than 6000 pass plays while every player in group B played more than 6000 pass plays. If we give the group A players another season or so at the end of their careers to make up the play count, will their PD% and other stats take a hit because of the added volume? Will they no longer look as impressive if they rack up another one or two 50+ catch seasons? I just wish we knew what the exact formula was for PD%, so we could make direct comparisons between players instead of trying to come up with new ways to compare these players to see if there really is that much of a difference between them.
|
|
|
Post by Nick on Mar 21, 2021 9:57:25 GMT -5
Dunn - Yes Briggs - Yes Banks - No Choose - No Delcorio - No
|
|
|
Post by ManWithNoName on Mar 21, 2021 11:10:54 GMT -5
WR Dunn YES G Briggs YES S Banks NO QB Delcorio NO DT Cheuse NO
|
|
|
Post by ManWithNoName on Mar 21, 2021 11:56:25 GMT -5
Just like the real HOF no doubt. I think Evan's post should of ended the DB debate. I see no counter arguments that hold water personally. My problem with Evan's post is just an extension of the issue with how PD% is calculated. Every player in Evan's group A played less than 6000 pass plays while every player in group B played more than 6000 pass plays. If we give the group A players another season or so at the end of their careers to make up the play count, will their PD% and other stats take a hit because of the added volume? Will they no longer look as impressive if they rack up another one or two 50+ catch seasons? I just wish we knew what the exact formula was for PD%, so we could make direct comparisons between players instead of trying to come up with new ways to compare these players to see if there really is that much of a difference between them. Banks maybe clips 80 PD% if you take out his last couple of seasons which was only a handful of snaps, but like you said Banks played at basically the same level his entire career. His career PD% is pretty indicative of how he played in his prime. As for the players I mentioned playing less than 6000 snaps, I can't really imagine another 500-1000 (whatever it takes to reach 6000) snaps having a big difference. They would need some horrifically bad seasons to close the gaps. And Gibson probably was over 6000 if we take into account the 3 seasons prior to 2015. Claiborne too with 4 seasons prior to 2015. Pryor also had a season erased bringing him basically a year short of 6000 and he only had one sub 80 PD% his whole career so, again, I'm not sure it changes anything.
|
|
|
Post by Nick on Mar 22, 2021 15:23:42 GMT -5
Just Rob to vote. But it looks like we have our result.
|
|
|
Post by Joel on Mar 22, 2021 15:30:16 GMT -5
I would like to bring up a Hof proposal, and I have already mentioned it to Nick, but its a group effort.
I was thinking we should implement two rules: 1.If you have made it to the final 5, and get rejected, you cant be in the process next season. Cool down time. 2. if you have had 5 rejections (as a whole vote), on 5 different final 5 votes, you should be removed from the Hof field.
My thinking towards this is that it is tiresome having to talk about the same guys over and over, and the likes of Banks and Cheuse have been rejected on multiple occasions now. I am almost certain Banks is around that 10 times mark. By continuing to talk about these guys, that will make the final 5, and always get a no, we arent looking at others in depth more. Evan brought up 3-4 guys that imo are possibly worthy, but we never talk about them.
|
|