|
Post by rush27 on Jul 21, 2021 2:00:35 GMT -5
QB Delcorio - YES CB McWilliams - YES DE Blake - YES DE Hancock -YES CB Newhart - NO WR Johnson - NO WR Lane - NO S Banks - YES
|
|
|
Post by ManWithNoName on Jul 21, 2021 4:54:30 GMT -5
QB Delcorio - 4/7 CB McWilliams - 6/7 DE Blake - 4/7 DE Hancock - 2/7 CB Newhart - 3/7 WR Johnson - 1/7 WR Lane - 1/7 S Banks - 4/7
McWilliams makes it, the Chargers 1st Hall of Famer I think?
|
|
|
Post by Joel on Jul 21, 2021 5:02:00 GMT -5
Another year, another rejection for Banks and Blake…
|
|
|
Post by rush27 on Jul 21, 2021 5:21:32 GMT -5
Another year, another rejection for Banks and Blake… And you can reject them again next year when I put them forward again
|
|
|
Post by Joel on Jul 21, 2021 5:26:29 GMT -5
Another year, another rejection for Banks and Blake… And you can reject them again next year when I put them forward again Issue is, once those two are in, a whole raft of DBs and DEs need to get in. It’s the bridgewater effect. By all means, push them forward, but I’m 100% confident in saying myself, Evan and Nick will always say no. Just become Groundhog Day.
|
|
|
Post by ezlee2 on Jul 21, 2021 5:26:52 GMT -5
QB Delcorio - 4/7 CB McWilliams - 6/7 DE Blake - 4/7 DE Hancock - 2/7 CB Newhart - 3/7 WR Johnson - 1/7 WR Lane - 1/7 S Banks - 4/7 McWilliams makes it, the Chargers 1st Hall of Famer AS VOTED BY THE GMs I think?
Don't forget that the league has and ALWAYS will acknowledge the in game Hall of Fame. We speak of the infallibility of the game, but this process is not much better IMO as biases and bully pulpits rule this process and the criteria is inconsistent and constantly changing. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad we have it here, but truth is this has and always will be one slip away from falling off the face of the earth. I've seen it multiple times over the leagues. That is why this HOF will always have the "as voted by the GMs" added.
|
|
|
Post by Nick on Jul 21, 2021 5:38:35 GMT -5
I would just like to go on record as saying I don't recognise the in game HOF at all. I don't even look at it as I know how flawed the in game algorithm is. So I guess opinions vary.
|
|
|
Post by ezlee2 on Jul 21, 2021 5:57:57 GMT -5
Unless this system gets a massive overhaul with clear criteria it's not much better. Far too many inconsistencies and what is important has changed multiple times. There has to be a better way to have something with more merit.
Just my take, but I think the in-game is less flawed than the biases and inconsistencies we have seen with this process as well. The "as voted by the GMs is an honor as they're determined by GMs, but to not recognize the in-game HOF would be a mistake as well.
|
|
|
Post by Nick on Jul 21, 2021 6:13:23 GMT -5
I imagine the real NFL is prone to human emotions on its selector panel. A computer based system has potential to be better perhaps, but the weightings on the current AI system is way out of whack.
Once we can all say no to our own players I think we can improve this current selection process. Its getting better on the hype side but I still feel own player emotions are causing issues in some instances.
Whether someone wants to buy in to this process or the AI process is surely individual choice. I feel good about the choices we have made as a group to date. We have the door closed appropriately I think and I have no problem with any guys who have made it.
|
|
|
Post by ezlee2 on Jul 21, 2021 6:49:02 GMT -5
Any HOF that does not include Hartman and Delcorio is a joke IMO. From the onset, we were told that QBR was king. Those are two of only 5 players with a QBR over 100. Both have Yet Puzz is in? Delcorio and Hartman both were victims of hanging on too long as backups, but why should that negate what they did when they were starters?
My question is what exactly is important? Until there are clear consistent criteria this HOF does not have the merit it should have.
I know you're going to say this is because Delcorio was my player, but I would advocate for ANY player in the same situation. At the end of the day this is your baby so I respect your position, but I don't have to agree on it. Nor do I need to shut my mouth about it. Someone needs to take up for these 0's and 1's and if means I can't speak about them because I'm this committee I'll gladly step down and advocate for those that are overlooked or punished because of biases and inconsistencies with the process.
|
|
|
Post by Nick on Jul 21, 2021 6:56:37 GMT -5
Every selector chooses what they believe is important. There is no set criteria.
Hartman and Delcorio have holes in their overall package. I wouldn't say I would never vote for them, or the DE Blake. They are bubble guys. Banks is dead to me. If Delcorio has Hartman's rings or Hartman Delcorio's raw totals they would get in. But they are both somewhat danaged goods for me. Puzz at the time was so far out there in yardage terms and carried a team. Hartman and Delcorio had teams carry them at least somewhat.
The whole point is 7 minds enter the process with 7 sets of criteria. 5 out of 7 gets a player in. Nobody gets to dictate to anyone else what does or doesn't make someone a HOFer. Seems fair to me.
|
|
|
Post by ezlee2 on Jul 21, 2021 7:02:37 GMT -5
Sorry, when you have 5 players with that distinction it has to be a differentiator. I don't give a shit about rings at this point as you yourself said they were not all that important earlier. At the end of the day, you and I will never see eye to eye on this. We didn't out the gate and I feel even stronger as time passes on. Honestly, at this point, I am going to bow out of the process as I don't want to spend my time on something I can't get behind. Nothing personal and I'm not mad. I'm just not going to invest any more time or energy into it.
Please don't take this as my attempt to strong-arm you and or anyone else. I just don't see value in it for me and I've cut out a lot of things that either frustrate me or are a waste of time. I'm grateful for the effort. I just think my energy and efforts and be channeled a different way moving forward.
|
|
|
Post by hildebrand on Jul 21, 2021 7:32:25 GMT -5
Basically all that's happened is we've established the gatekeepers to the Hall. Guys like Delcorio, Blake, and Banks are all right there, but for one reason or another they don't get the final push despite years on the ballot. We may be tired of talking about these guys, but there's a reason they're the gatekeepers: they're still the best available.
Personally I'd like to see these guys get in, but I also think a limit as to how long they're eligible might keep things from getting stale. A limit of 10 years after retirement would take some of these guys off the ballot in a few seasons and can free up some conversation for more freshly retired players. Also, a 10 year limit would remove some of the players some people still talk about even though they've never been considered good enough for a final 5.
|
|
|
Post by Nick on Jul 21, 2021 7:46:19 GMT -5
I understand, I know you have a lot on. I still believe in it as we have a good sized panel and everyone has their own opinion. If you change your mind you are always welcome to jump back in.
|
|
|
Post by Nick on Jul 21, 2021 7:47:47 GMT -5
Basically all that's happened is we've established the gatekeepers to the Hall. Guys like Delcorio, Blake, and Banks are all right there, but for one reason or another they don't get the final push despite years on the ballot. We may be tired of talking about these guys, but there's a reason they're the gatekeepers: they're still the best available. Personally I'd like to see these guys get in, but I also think a limit as to how long they're eligible might keep things from getting stale. A limit of 10 years after retirement would take some of these guys off the ballot in a few seasons and can free up some conversation for more freshly retired players. Also, a 10 year limit would remove some of the players some people still talk about even though they've never been considered good enough for a final 5. I can get behind if you or someone else lists out who isn't eligible before the process.
|
|