|
Post by Joel on Jul 21, 2021 7:50:13 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’m with you… I think if anyone was ever gonna make it, they would. Banks, Blake and so on, shouldn’t make it. They are gatekeepers, but aren’t good enough, or else they would have attained 6/7 yes votes. My issue with those two getting in is that it will allow so many others in. Who then becomes the next step in gatekeeper. Best to keep these guys as that and not HOF imo
|
|
|
Post by hildebrand on Jul 21, 2021 11:52:40 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. I can try to get "years on ballot" numbers for all the players you listed at the top of this thread tonight. I figure you could add a year to the numbers every year when you update the list and bring in new names. It should be relatively easy to maintain once started.
|
|
|
Post by Nick on Jul 21, 2021 12:00:21 GMT -5
Okay, let me throw a poll up later and see what direction the majority want to take this. I will hang back and act as a tie breaker vote as I am easy.
|
|
|
Post by hildebrand on Jul 21, 2021 12:08:38 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’m with you… I think if anyone was ever gonna make it, they would. Banks, Blake and so on, shouldn’t make it. They are gatekeepers, but aren’t good enough, or else they would have attained 6/7 yes votes. My issue with those two getting in is that it will allow so many others in. Who then becomes the next step in gatekeeper. Best to keep these guys as that and not HOF imo This is part of why I think we need a years on the ballot limit. Delcorio, Banks, and Blake seem to be the standard for "just short." We try to come up with specific statistical arguments for these guys and other nit-pick arguments for other players, but these specific arguments to make a player seem better don't really seem to go anywhere. It's also possible that having a player get closer to the end of their run on the ballot could make voters want to push them forward just so the player doesn't get permanently left out. Either way, I think having a deadline for players to be inducted will allow us to have some players that can act as confirmed benchmarks that, in order to get in the HoF, the next nominees will need to be considered better than players X, Y, and Z.
|
|
|
Post by hildebrand on Jul 21, 2021 17:08:06 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. Here's the years on ballot numbers for the players listed at the top of the thread. I didn't really look through to see if there were other names that should be added. QB Hartman (2nd year) QB Delcorio (6th year) WR Lane (2nd year) DE Blake (10th year) DE Hancock (7th year) LB Connell (7th year) CB McWilliams (4th year) S Banks (17th year) S Gibson (23rd year) S McAllister (5th year) CB Newhart (16th year) S Pryor (24th year) CB Claiborne (23rd year) S Gonzalez (1st year) LB Plyler (1st year) T Eisner (1st year)
|
|