Skip to content

Hall of Fame process still needs to be changed

Image (2) bill-parcells-mike-pereira-thumb-250x212-15285.jpg for post 78583 AP

Last year, the decision of the Hall of Fame voters to omit former Chiefs and Saints tackle Willie Roaf sparked a strong reaction from Jason Whitlock of FOXSports.com, which in turn sparked a somewhat-less-strong-but-still-potent reaction from PFT.

This year, the critics have remained largely silent after the voters dissed Bill Parcells and, once again, Cris Carter.

There could be several explanations for this.  First, there’s no national voice who felt compelled to wag a finger at the 44 voters regarding the failure to put Parcells and/or Carter into Canton.  Second, it’s inherently difficult — if not impossible — to point to one of the five fresh modern-era inductees and make a convincing case that he should have been left out in favor of Parcells and/or Carter.  Third, based on last year’s experience it’s now obvious to anyone paying attention to the process that some of the folks who have the keys to the Hall of Fame voting process neither want nor appreciate criticism, constructive or otherwise, with one voter resorting last year to hurling insults at Whitlock for daring to question things.

It’s not surprising that the voters will circle the wagons.  To many, having a Hall of Fame vote constitutes membership in an exclusive club to which too many of the voters attach an unwarranted amount of prestige.  To the average fan, the fact that a writer/broadcaster has a Hall of Fame vote is no big deal.  To some of the folks who have a vote, it’s viewed as an exclusive badge of honor, something that sets them apart from the zombie hoard of sportswriters who shuffled around the JW Marriott last week with ill-fitting jeans, outdated sneakers, and curmudgeonly dispositions.

Last year, I put together a list of 10 ways in which the process needs to change.  Given the knee-jerk conclusion that any suggestions for improvement constitute an ad hominem attack, the list remains fresh and relevant because a grand total of zero changes have been made.  In the wake of the Carter/Parcells snub, a couple of things need to be emphasized.

First, the panel desperately needs to be expanded.  As I said last night while discussing the issue with Peter King on NBC SportsTalk, the biases and prejudices of voters who likely didn’t support either Carter or Parcells because both men are largely perceived by the media as “jerks” (and they are) can become diluted by the inclusion of, say, coaches and players and — imagine this radical concept — people who already are in the Hall of Fame.

Sure, they’ll have their own biases and prejudices and likes and dislikes unrelated to whether the candidate should be Cantonized.  Still, the use of people from different perspectives and backgrounds will dilute the feelings that can infect one specific clique, especially when the time comes for politicking and/or horse trading.

Moreover, the current group of 44 voters includes some who have no business holding a vote.  (I won’t name names; here’s the list and you can draw your own conclusions.)  Either they don’t have enough experience covering football or they don’t spend enough time following the sport or they don’t have a sufficient appreciation of the historical context or they don’t understand the interplay between stats and impact on game planning or they simply don’t care enough about the process or they are unemployed/underemployed in the football media or they have lost their proverbial fastball or they are too easily manipulated and/or bullied by the strong personalities in the room, some of whom they’ll be relying on in the future (or, as the case may be, right now) to recommend or support them for jobs.

The obvious reaction to expanding the pool of voters is that it would make an already cumbersome day-before-the-Super-Bowl meeting even less practical to execute.  So why not get rid of the full-blown, face-to-face, day-before-the-Super-Bowl meeting?  Debates can be held by conference call or conducted by email, and votes can be submitted and tabulated electronically.

Also, while some discussions regarding inclusion into Canton involve apples-to-apples comparisons among men who played the same position, the process typically involves ferreting through a basket of apples, oranges, pears, bananas, grapefruits, kumquats, watermelons, and/or pomegranates.  The candidates need to be categorized for consideration by quarterbacks, skill position (running back/receiver/tight end), offensive linemen, defensive linemen, linebackers, defensive backs, specialists, coaches, and contributors.  Limits can be placed on each category; for some, a rotation could be used, with specialists considered every three years and coaches considered every other year, for example.

Regardless of how the sausage-making changes, the current procedure is leading too often to bad sausage.  While it may require an overhaul that many of the folks involved in the process have neither the time nor desire (nor selflessness) to engineer, the one great thing about the NFL that has yet to make its way to the Hall of Fame voting process is that burning desire to constantly strive for ways to improve.

This video is no longer available. Click here to watch more NBC Sports videos!
Permalink 100 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Top Stories
100 Responses to “Hall of Fame process still needs to be changed”
  1. joetoronto says: Feb 7, 2012 9:52 AM

    The process is as flawed as it could possibly be.

    It’s not good when you have these idiots, with personal vendettas against teams they hate, keeping deserving players out of Canton.

    But that’s exactly what’s going on.

  2. thatdudewiththemarauder says: Feb 7, 2012 9:53 AM

    Chris Carter never takes a day off does he?

  3. tooz72 says: Feb 7, 2012 9:55 AM

    you cant have sportswriters involved in the voting process..it should be ex-players and coaches..sportswriters think they have all the answers on how a player should have done or second guessing every coaching decision or every move a GM makes..i’d love to see some of these poindexters put on a uniform or call a defense or make player personnel moves..easy to hide behind your kb and criticize

  4. sj39 says: Feb 7, 2012 9:57 AM

    It’s a popularity contest voted on by sports writers with agenda’s. Some on the list simply have no business having this kind of power. Howard Balzer (The H Man) is just a know-it-all gas bag from the St. Louis area. No way should this clown be a HOF voter.

  5. dbellina says: Feb 7, 2012 9:57 AM

    Carter deserves to be in there.

  6. farvite says: Feb 7, 2012 9:58 AM

    Jerry.Kramer

  7. LoCoSu@%s says: Feb 7, 2012 9:58 AM

    Sportsriters. Bah! The average fan probably has a better appreciation of the players then the so called sportwriters.
    We need to know what each voter said – for and against each nominee to the HOF.
    Complete transparency will go a long way in assessing the merits of the voters and the reasoning behind including/excluding the HOF candidates.

    Till the process is fixed, the award should be called
    “The Sportwriters Nominees for football” – thats all it really is.

  8. krashie21 says: Feb 7, 2012 10:01 AM

    Peter King is the root of the problem with the HOF voting.

    He’s easily the most biased voter in the room considering he campaigns openly against teams he has vendettas against (Cowboys, Raiders, etc.), while conducting Academy Awards-esque campaigns for the teams he loves – Pack, Giants, Pats and Steelers.

    The process needs to feature a wide variety of people, not just media members because they’ve become all too powerful and are electing people that belong in the “Hall of Very Good” (see: Kennedy, Cortez).

    It’s media members like Peter King who keep out Drew Pearson, Ken Stabler, Jim Plunkett, Cliff Branch, etc. while putting in players like Lynn Swann and Joe Namath.

    The entire process needs to be completely reformed and remove people who were cut off in line for free buffets and who hold petty grudges against teams (see: King, Peter with the Raiders and Cowboys).

    Until you remove biased, media hacks like King, the process will be flawed and all time greats of the game like Parcells will be kept out for all the wrong reasons, while lesser lights like Lynn Swann make it in who do not belong.

  9. jessethegreat says: Feb 7, 2012 10:01 AM

    Don’t change it at all! As long as they keep hewhothinkshesthesecondcomingofChrist Carter away, the process is doing a good job.

  10. LoCoSu@%s says: Feb 7, 2012 10:02 AM

    I just looked at the list of voters and my reaction is – Wow!
    I dont know most of the voters, and the ones I do -
    Ira freaking Miller ? really??
    Bernie freaking Miklasz????
    Nancy Gay???????????????

    I’d recommend replacing most of these guys with the contributors to Bleacher Report. Even with those amateurs, you’d probably get a better representative class to the HOF.

    Just lost all respect for the process.

  11. 2sausage11 says: Feb 7, 2012 10:02 AM

    IF Chris Carter ever gets in the HOF they could use an Elmo doll and bronze that for a bust

  12. supermariojosh says: Feb 7, 2012 10:03 AM

    The process should probably be changed, yes. The good news is that the current process at least has prevented Cris Carter from getting in.

  13. bigjdve says: Feb 7, 2012 10:03 AM

    John Clayton, Len Shapiro, Peter King – how did they get votes.

    I don’t have a problem with Parcells and/or Carter not getting in. Parcells tarnished his legacy with the Patriot, Jets, Cowboys, and Dolphins. I am sorry but he wasn’t nearly as effective after he left the Giants. However he was more controversial.

    Carter was good and steady as a player, he did well even on not so good teams. However I personally never thought he distinguished himself anymore than some of the other receivers during his career. Plus, if you listen to him talk now, he was the greatest thing ever. He wasn’t even the best when he was playing.

    There are people that deserve to be there that aren’t there, and there are starting to be more and more players that shouldn’t be there are getting in.

    The HoF is supposed to be for the exceptions, not people that were just great. A lot of pros were great, but HoFs are supposed to be better than great.

    Do you really think that Andre Reed or Chris Carter were as good as Steve Largent, Lynn Swann, or Jerry Rice for that matter? I am sorry they weren’t/ aren’t in the same vicinity.

    Do you think that Parcells (as good as he was) is in the same camp as Chuck Knoll, Don Shula, Vince Lombardi, or Bill Walsh?

    Come on now, I agree with the thought of letting the HoF members getting a vote, that would be more fair then Sports Writers that use it as a popularity contest. We should also stick to higher standards.

    Toni Grossi – he still has a vote? How does that work, does he even cover a team anymore?

  14. wideright91 says: Feb 7, 2012 10:05 AM

    Not to take anything away from Cris Carter who is deserving, but Andre Reed was a far more complete receiver. He caught screens, the out, the post, he went deep as good as anyone, but more than anything, he was awesome over the middle and could run like a gazelle. He was also a terrific blocker in a run first offense that played outdoors.

    If Curtis Martin gets in, so should Andre. They are similar in their versatility and dependability.

  15. waggs12 says: Feb 7, 2012 10:05 AM

    Lots of Cris Carter haters on here. Doesn’t matter how you feel about him as an analyst, just look at his numbers. It’s a crime that he’s not in the HOF.

  16. hooks024 says: Feb 7, 2012 10:06 AM

    Sounds like someone wants to get a vote. Perhaps for his friend, mr rosenthal as well.

  17. sj39 says: Feb 7, 2012 10:18 AM

    LoCoSu@%s, I completely missed Miklasz, another local gas bag in ST. Louis. This guy’s holier than thou attitude is starting to make him unbearable to read or listen to and he is one of the top personalities around here. HOF voters indeed!

  18. nebster21 says: Feb 7, 2012 10:18 AM

    Cris Carter should have to wait the same amount of time as Art Monk if not longer.

  19. hoopiedoop says: Feb 7, 2012 10:19 AM

    I always thought the Hall was for “great” players. I’ve never thought of Doleman and Kennedy that way. Both very good. Doleman wasn’t even in the top 5 ends for his era.

  20. etronsman says: Feb 7, 2012 10:20 AM

    How in God’s green earth is Bob McGinn from the Milwaukee JS not a hall of fame voter?

  21. blackqbwhiterb says: Feb 7, 2012 10:22 AM

    Carter was a great player for many years. I think the evaluation should be, “Was he the best of his era?”, or at least close to it? Using that metric, I think Curtis Martin falls behind Emmitt Smith, Marshall Faulk, and probably is 3rd. Carter is behind Rice, and possibly Moss, Reed, T.O., and several others. His numbers may eclipse several already in, but Monk and Largent were the best at that time. Swann made plays like no one ever had-same with Gale Sayers. That’s my 2 cents…

  22. haileli says: Feb 7, 2012 10:28 AM

    I have never understood the voting process. What made Dawson a better candidate in 2012 that he was in 2011? The 5-year waiting period is a good idea. It lets voters cool off and allow rationality, rather than emotion, to rule the process. But if I guy wasn’t good enough for you the first time around, why is he good enough the 10th? I don’t want to hear about the competition. You are either good enough for the Hall, or you’re not. If you get 10 guys one year, fine. If it’s 0, also fine. That’s the way it should be.

    Also, journalists have no business deciding who gets in and who doesn’t. It should be a panel of well-respected former coaches and players.

  23. natigator says: Feb 7, 2012 10:32 AM

    @blackqbwhiterb – Martin is 3rd behind Emmitt & Marshall…..what about Barry Sanders?

  24. beedubyatoo says: Feb 7, 2012 10:37 AM

    etronsman says:
    Feb 7, 2012 10:20 AM
    How in God’s green earth is Bob McGinn from the Milwaukee JS not a hall of fame voter?
    ————————————

    I agree, McGinn is the best, most analytic NFL writer of this era. Instead, the voter is Cliff Christl, as the Packers’ voter. He retired 3 years ago and was a hack when he was employed. Is this an accurate, updated list?

  25. dadawg77 says: Feb 7, 2012 10:42 AM

    The biggest issue is a bias towards “””skilled””” positions on offence. This lack of love for the big uglies is the major reason why people complained Roaf and Dawson weren’t in before. Looking at the modern day numbers as of today there are 23 day QB, 29 HB/FB, 29 WE/TE and 37 day Oline, 31 DLine (mostly DE), 23 each for LB and DB in the Hall. This shows the current selection process has a strong bias towards QBs and to a lesser extent other Off “””skilled””” positions but then again this could be less reflective of a HOF voting positional bias than talent distributional bias towards offence “””skilled””” positions at lower levels of football. Whatever the reason, the skew in position members could be hurting players like Carter as Hall of Fame voters know that this exist thus maybe more reluctant voting for WR/RB at the HOF margin to let more non “””skilled””” players in.

    The best solution is crowd sourcing just not sure who the crowd should be. Given this positional bias already in the Hall, allowing people who are already hall of fame members may not be the best idea. Those players could easily be bias to favor players who play at their position, furthering entrenching this positional bias. Also if you looked at Baseball when the veteran committee was just Hall of Fame players, no on got it. Then again it may have worked as they had to change the process to let someone who belongs in the hall of the very good (see Ron Santo)

  26. freedomispopular says: Feb 7, 2012 10:42 AM

    Parcells – Belichick = mediocre

  27. bluepike says: Feb 7, 2012 10:42 AM

    Alex Karras is not in and O. J. Simpson hasn’t been kicked-out? Something is definitely wrong with the process.

  28. nolahxc says: Feb 7, 2012 10:42 AM

    The only thing that needs to change is to keep writers with completely warped and biased views like Peter King from voting.

  29. twitter:Chapman_Jamie says: Feb 7, 2012 10:43 AM

    Seems to be working fine for me. I think someone just wants a vote or wants to feel like they made an impact on the game. If you ask me, and you didn’t, no member of the media should get any say. Many of them have never even played the game outside of pop warner.

  30. swede700 says: Feb 7, 2012 10:43 AM

    Those of you who think Cris Carter should not be in the HOF because of his attitude as a media member are no better than the sportswriters that have kept him out. If you actually watched him play, there’s absolutely no question that he belongs. He had the best hands of any WR in the last 40 years and was also the best sideline navigator of them all as well. It is, in fact, a slap to the integrity of the process that he has not yet been voted in, yet Michael Irvin was, when Cris Carter was a better receiver.

  31. deadmanwalking47 says: Feb 7, 2012 10:44 AM

    Parcells should have made it,but i can name 5 wrs that deserve to get in before chris carter does! if he had not played with randy moss and been a reformed drunk/drug addict,his name would not even be in the conversation for HOF!

  32. realitypolice says: Feb 7, 2012 10:47 AM

    For the life of me, I cannot fathom why anyone cares about this.

    It’s a popularity contest that if you win you get a horribly ugly jacket and a bust in a museum. They don’t even get a discount at Denny’s.

    Why in the world would any accomplished player who had a great career and has millions of fans care what 44 cranky old geeks think of them?

    I mean, seriously, think about that. These guys bust their butts for fame and glory, reach the pinnacle of their profession, and then get all offended and feel like their legacy is tarnished because a handful of old fools didn’t vote for them?

    If I were Andre Reed (I single him out because I know him and his family well), I would announce that I would like to be removed from the ballot because my career stands on it’s own and doesn’t require validation from ANYBODY.

  33. chocopoppy says: Feb 7, 2012 10:48 AM

    Another gripe I have is the obsession among the NFL media and HOF voters with “rings”. It seems there are too many players who are only considered “elite” (another ESPN vomit-inducing term) if they were on one of these teams — Pack, Steelers, Cowboys, Giants, Skins, Niners.

    Thank goodness we just witnessed the admission of Cortez Kennedy and Willie Roaf, in spite of the fact they didn’t play for “elite” teams. In general though, I doubt players like Dermontii Dawson, Michael Irvin, Richard Dent, Art Monk, etc. would get in if they spent their whole career in Cleveland, Detroit, or Cincinnati.

  34. peytonwantsaflag says: Feb 7, 2012 10:51 AM

    Bunk – there are legitimate reasons that both of them aren’t yet in. The fact that Carter’s a tremendous jerk isn’t effecting the outcome BUT it is giving us that despise him tremendous satisfaction.

  35. jcg23 says: Feb 7, 2012 10:54 AM

    Charles Haley has 5 Superbowl rings as a starter in each and didn’t make it. Why the Hell would Carter get in over him?

  36. jakek2 says: Feb 7, 2012 10:55 AM

    Cris Carter is to these voters as Susan Lucci is to emmy voters. Without the yearly Carter debate, nobody would know who these voters were. The minute people stop caring about whether Carter should go in, the voters will put him in. Bottom line….the system is broken.

  37. cliffordc05 says: Feb 7, 2012 11:00 AM

    There are always complaints about the HOF selection process, some deserved and some not so much. Roaf deserves to be a member but was his career so spectacular that he should have been a first ballot selection? Because a player or coach is not selected in a given year does not mean they will not ever get into the Hall. Parcells will certainly get in but I am pleased that he is not selected his first year. He did taint his legacy in his later years as an executive. He had a very distinguished career but it was not perfect nor was it revolutionary in the same manner as someone like Bill Walsh.

    I agree some changes should be made such as allowing a number of HOF members voring rights (perhaps the inductees from the past five years should each have a vote).

  38. scchamil says: Feb 7, 2012 11:01 AM

    Charles Haley has 5 Superbowl rings as a starter in each and didn’t make it. Why the Hell would Carter get in over him?
    ———————–
    He shouldn’t, but they should both be in by now right?

  39. footballnut2011 says: Feb 7, 2012 11:01 AM

    The HOF voting should be the players and the coaches.They can be honest and unbiased. How Irvin gets in and not CC is mind blowin’ just look at the stats!

  40. gtrdonald says: Feb 7, 2012 11:07 AM

    I think it’s a shame that Don Coryell still isn’t in the Hall of Fame! Look at what he did to influence the game!

  41. whodeyben says: Feb 7, 2012 11:12 AM

    4 voters from Sports Xchange? Seems wrong.

  42. footballnut2011 says: Feb 7, 2012 11:24 AM

    Can someone please explain how Joe Namath gets in and not Ken Anderson..Take a look at the career stats. Yes, Namath won the superbowl(I say the TEAM did). But as far as career namath had five maybe six good years while Anderson had ten or eleven great years. Anderson was a FAR more complete qb than namath ever was!

  43. terrellpryorstattooartist says: Feb 7, 2012 11:26 AM

    The fact the a couple jerkoffs from Cleveland are keeping art modell out of the hall of fame but al “sue the NFL multiple times” Davis is in there and was praised like christ after he died. Art did more for the league then half the guys in the hall. He’s the reason the NFL has tv contracts with major networks which last time I checked was the NFL’s main source of revenue is it not?

  44. steveoz49 says: Feb 7, 2012 11:28 AM

    “He had the best hands of any WR in the last 40 years ”

    This is a joke, right? Does the name Jerry Rice ring a bell?

  45. touchdownbrother says: Feb 7, 2012 11:33 AM

    The Hall of Fame is stupid.

  46. hushbrother says: Feb 7, 2012 11:33 AM

    This is the voters trying to show how knowledgeable about football they are by selecting a bunch of defensive players who don’t have gaudy statistics people can point to (with the exception of Martin) over the bigger “names” like Parcells, Carter and Bettis. No matter how ridiculous those selections are.

    And I thought baseball’s Hall of Fame selection process was screwy.

  47. nyfootballgiants says: Feb 7, 2012 11:40 AM

    Here’s the thing. When the Giants beat the Broncos in the SB, Parcells was interviewing with the Falcons for their HC job – even though he was under contract with the Giants.

    When the Giants beat the Bills in the SB, Parcells waited until Bellicick left for the Browns, and Coughlin left for BC before announcing just after the draft that he was retiring.

    Parcells then abandoned the Patriots for the Jets job.

    He then suddenly retired from the Jets job with no notice.

    Teams tended to be worse off when he left.

    He did win 2 SB’s – but he won both with Bellichick as his DC. He has not won one without Bellichick, but Bellichick did win 3 without him.

    Not so sure his not being elected to the hall is a surprise. He has alienated a lot of people.

  48. naygerkid says: Feb 7, 2012 11:44 AM

    Andre Reed gets no love yet again. Everyone hating on the Bills, typical.

  49. rogerbrad says: Feb 7, 2012 11:45 AM

    I’ve always thought the voters should change every two years and not be allowed back into the voting process for ten years.

  50. jokendave says: Feb 7, 2012 11:46 AM

    This list makes the HOF non creditable. Not to the people in it, but to the people voteing. The “Sports writers” should have no say in the voting process. They are obviously bought and paid for or do not understand the game as players themselves do. Players past and present should decide, not people who sit on the sidelines and SPIN stories to their benifit. A player should get in on this contribution, not wheather a writer likes him or not.

  51. uptowndan says: Feb 7, 2012 11:49 AM

    LoCoSu@%s says: who is Ira Miller and Nancy Gay? Ira Miller is a long time sportswriter from the Bay Area and was president of the football writers of America. Nancy Gay is from the Bay Area. I beleive that the writers from each area elect someone to be on the committee.

  52. vikingsprimetime says: Feb 7, 2012 11:50 AM

    Trying to get back at Peter King for calling out your website, eh?

  53. apm says: Feb 7, 2012 11:58 AM

    Hall of Fame voters should obviously only appear in public in wingtips and straw hats.

  54. hystoracle says: Feb 7, 2012 12:00 PM

    Only so many can go in to the HOF in a given year. Unfortunately someone will always get left out that is deserving. That doesn’t mean they will never have another opportunity. They do this EVERY year and there is a veterans committee to catch the guys who slip through the cracks.

    My biggest gripe with HOF voters in all sports is this idea of “first ballot HOF”. I here writers with votes say “he isn’t a first ballot HOFer.” I say WTF??? You are either a Hall of Fame player or you are not, period. FIrst, second thrid , fifteenth who cares? Your job isn’t to determine who should get in on what ballot rather who deserves to be in period. Once you are in the Hall of Fame no one cares which ballot you went in on. It is stupid, and a demonstration of the arrogant “God-like” powers these HOF voters/sportshacks think they wield.

  55. flakazoid says: Feb 7, 2012 12:01 PM

    –It shouldn’t be the writers cause they don’t know what they’re talking about…
    –It shouldn’t be players, because they are biased [anyone remember that debacle called 100 Greatest Players last year?]
    –It shouldn’t be the fans cause they’re biased and they don’t know what they’re talking about.
    –IT SHOULD BE THE COORDINATORS…cause they’re the only ones who know what they’re talking about…AND they watch the tape…all of it…over and over again… Nobody knows these players like the offensive & defensive coordinators.

  56. fritz1218 says: Feb 7, 2012 12:03 PM

    LoCoSu@%s says:
    Feb 7, 2012 9:58 AM

    Sportsriters. Bah! The average fan probably has a better appreciation of the players then the so called sportwriters.
    ____________________________________
    Yes, that should work. Look how well it works for the Pro Bowl.

  57. theeviltessmacher says: Feb 7, 2012 12:06 PM

    When Ray Guy was passed over for entry into the Hall, it should have been enough evidence for anyone who can think critically, that the process was irretrievably flawed, biased, and managed by idiots.

    Until Ray Guy gets into Canton, nobody who does will have any credibility or respect.

  58. gobronx says: Feb 7, 2012 12:12 PM

    Ray Guy?!?

    I believe the Hall of Fame is reserved for football players…

  59. gobronx says: Feb 7, 2012 12:14 PM

    Woops. I forgot we get sensored around here when we type in a certain journalist’s name.

    Since said journalist has already gone there with a fruit tirade, how about this?

    SOUR GRAPES.

  60. mmcdan133 says: Feb 7, 2012 12:17 PM

    Will Shields.

    14 seasons
    12 pro bowls
    6 time all nfl team
    2004 nfl man of the year
    missed ONE game his entire career

    That’s everything an nfl player could be, right? A beast on the field and a great human off of it? Oh wait, he didn’t play in Dallas or New York.

    But he has to wait because Chris Doleman and Cortez Kennedy waited. This is what’s wrong with the hall of fame.

    When Larry Allen gets in on the 1st ballot next year I’ll scream. He’ll deserve it, don’t get me wrong. But it’s market discrimination. They have the same resume.

  61. jimmymcnultysbottleofjameson says: Feb 7, 2012 12:18 PM

    See you next year in Canton, Jonathan Ogden. J.O.!!!!

  62. rgledz says: Feb 7, 2012 12:21 PM

    @bigjdve….

    You can’t be serious….I hope. For your information, Cris Carter is number 8 all time in receiving yards, Lynn Swann……..#196. Pretty close! Steve Largent…..#13. Carter, #4 all time in receptions, Swann, Largent. etc…….not even in the top 10. He retired as the number 2 receiver all time in TD’s, Receiving yards and receptions, so I would say that he was better than “just a good player”. The only receiver with better numbers than Cris Carter during his era was Jerry Rice……period. Carter -1,100 receptions, Swann – 336. Carter- 14,000 receiving yards, Swann – 5,400. Carter – 130 TD’s, Swann – 51…….cross those stats with anybody and get back to me. How can anybody, especially somebody like you with the ridiculous arguments that you brought up, argue that Cris Carter is not a HOFer. If he’s not a nice guy, who cares! If you don’t like him on ESPN, who cares!! He’s a HOF receiver and he should be in.

  63. vikesfansteve says: Feb 7, 2012 12:25 PM

    Reminds me of Anger Management when Jack Nicholson says: How does a Fat F*ck like Buddah have the balls to preach about self discipline?

    How does a fat slob like Peter King have the balls to judge athletic talent?

  64. flakazoid says: Feb 7, 2012 12:27 PM

    No one should be able to comment here until they get it into their thick heads that you can’t compare Swann & Carter, it was two entirely different games. Teams didn’t throw the ball a lot and you could beat the crap out receivers all over the field…hit them in the face with forearms…etc.

  65. handlethehandles says: Feb 7, 2012 12:29 PM

    Im lost, are people seriously trying to say CC shouldnt be in the HOF? Is micheal freaken irving in the HOF? my god, you have got to be kidding me… Name 2 qb’s CC had now name 2 rice or irving had… even moss had brady for a while…
    Also… I dont think Parcells was as good as Walsh,,, but Im not a voter… To me saying only 5 can get it is stupid, just put in who deserves to be in and the rest can be left. I always hate how these HOF committees hang on to 2 or 3 maybe candidates so that 20 years later they can pass on a CC to shove some who knows guy out there so we as fans can wonder how good the guy actually was.. how about you wait 5 years and you get 2 years of voting eligibility. No stringing people along no politicing just pick the HOF candidates you want reguardless of how many one year and how little the next…

  66. buffalomafia says: Feb 7, 2012 12:29 PM

    Andre Reed needs to get in the Hall with Carter!

  67. swede700 says: Feb 7, 2012 12:35 PM

    steveoz49: There’s a huge difference between best hands and best WR. Jerry Rice is clearly the best WR of all-time (and it’s not close either), but he didn’t have the best hands. That’s Cris Carter. There is a big distinction between the 2.

  68. steeelfann says: Feb 7, 2012 12:35 PM

    Parcells overrated. He never won a super bowl without LT on it. Coulda easily blown super bowl on the first round. Underachieved in Dallas. Did nothing for Miami at all. Very loud big personality, but not as great as a coach or front office man as he is built up to be. Just super quotable. Not necessarily hall of famer. Sorry.

    Cris Carter got cut from Philly. Hall of Famers do not get cut. Sorry, no excuses. You are in the Hall of Very Good.

    Swann was on team of fabulous running and they did not need to throw much with great defenses. Swann was rookie of year, great return man, super clutch and athletic with 4 rings. Super hands, fast and he and Stallworth were unstoppable.

    If Swann played on a team thowing constantly in a dome, he would have big numbers too. Put Carter on Steelers, he might be a tight end.

  69. sj39 says: Feb 7, 2012 12:40 PM

    I always have to laugh at the geniuses that make comments eluding to punters not being “real” football players. The guy (no pun intended) has to come in to the game because your offense has sputtered, has to try to kick your defense into a decent field position because of said offense failing to get a first down all the while hoping he doesn’t get killed because some big goof misses an assignment. Yeah, nice easy job.

  70. ihaterogergoodell says: Feb 7, 2012 12:40 PM

    Great post, Mike.

  71. geefan1 says: Feb 7, 2012 12:42 PM

    terrellpryorstattooartist says: Feb 7, 2012 11:26 AM

    The fact the a couple jerkoffs from Cleveland are keeping art modell out of the hall of fame but al “sue the NFL multiple times” Davis is in there and was praised like christ after he died. Art did more for the league then half the guys in the hall. He’s the reason the NFL has tv contracts with major networks which last time I checked was the NFL’s main source of revenue is it not?

    ————————

    It may be reasonable to debate whether Crazy Al belongs in the HOF, but Modell clearly does not.

    He ran one of the league’s most well-supported teams to the verge of bankruptcy, moved it to get a Hail Mary financial bailout, and then had to sell it anyway. In the multi-billion dollar world of the NFL, you’ve got to be a special kind of stupid to go broke.

    Financial solvency should be a minimum criteria for considerarion of an owner for the HOF.

  72. whyalwaysthehate says: Feb 7, 2012 12:43 PM

    No HOF for you Chris Carter.

    Not a winner, and a lot of garbage time yardage.

    Complainer, me-only player, and doesn’t represent the best of his time in the league.

    Rice is similar in character, but has the rings. You can argue if the SF QBs made him or he made them, but the results stand.

    Child, please not Chris Carter.

  73. sasquash20 says: Feb 7, 2012 12:52 PM

    When it comes to Carter I think he will get in and he should. But Tim Brown should be in before Carter and the numbers say this much. Brown had over 5,000 more all purpose yards. More receiving yards on about the same amount of catches as Carter. Carter had 8 straight seasons over a 1,000 receiving yards, Tim Brown had 9 straight seasons over a 1,000 yards. Carter has a edge in TDs but both have over a 100. A.Reed is another WR I think should be in, but only after Brown and Carter.

  74. canadian52niner says: Feb 7, 2012 12:55 PM

    What is with all the whining over Parcells??? He was a good, but not great coach and a good but not great executive.

    Where is the love for DeBartolo??? He was a revolutionary owner that in cooperation with Bill Walsh served as the model for how franchises should operate. He won 5 superbowls and was always a class act!!!

    Anyone who brings up the Louisiana gambling incident should do some research and then think about Michael Irvin and his cocaine history and then realize anything outside of football should not be considered!

  75. sj39 says: Feb 7, 2012 12:58 PM

    geefan1, since you know very little about league history can you at least google Al Davis and read his wiki page. You’ll learn a lot about how the league as we know it today was formed and what a massive role he played.

  76. nivekred says: Feb 7, 2012 1:06 PM

    Lynn Swann 4 Super Bowl Rings including an MVP of the Super Bowl. Chris Carter no Rings no MVP. Just saying!!!! But Chris should be in! Swann was in a non-passing era even with Bradshaw as QB.

  77. ernie ernie says: Feb 7, 2012 1:08 PM

    Carter had some of the best hands I’ve ever seen.

  78. dexterismyhero says: Feb 7, 2012 1:13 PM

    Take Lynn Swann out and put in Carter…

  79. cosmoman11 says: Feb 7, 2012 1:21 PM

    Cris wasn’t even the best Carter on the Vikings in the early 90′s. Go AC.

  80. steveoz49 says: Feb 7, 2012 1:21 PM

    Chris Carter better hands than Jerry Rice?????? Chris Carter was known for his sideline catches, sure, i’ll give you that. While Chris was making sideline catches, Jerry was running slant routes and making catches between LB’s…

    Jerry’s Hands > EVERYONE else

    You can’t have “good” hands and have all of his records… that’s why he’s the G.O.A.T.

  81. dexterismyhero says: Feb 7, 2012 1:23 PM

    @bigjdve says:Feb 7, 2012 10:03 AM
    Do you really think that Andre Reed or Chris Carter were as good as Steve Largent, Lynn Swann, or Jerry Rice for that matter? I am sorry they weren’t/ aren’t in the same vicinity.
    =================================
    Not as good as Jerry Rice, but every bit as good as Swann or Largent. Just because he may not have been a good person during that time is not a reason to not let him in.
    Hell, Swann only had 336 career receptions.

  82. geauxjay says: Feb 7, 2012 1:25 PM

    Give me a break on Parcells. The guy runs his mouth that he “buys the groceries,” but he would have ZERO Super Bowl victories if he wouldn’t have INHERITED Lawrence Taylor, Phil Simms, and Harry Carson.

    Definiton of a “hypocrite.”

  83. geauxjay says: Feb 7, 2012 1:27 PM

    By the way, do you think it’s a coincidence that the two people who are being whined about the most work for ESPN or have worked for ESPN?

    It’s a shame that Andre Reed can’t get a TV job.

  84. melikefootball says: Feb 7, 2012 1:33 PM

    What is it with CC ,there are many players that deserve consideration just as much. CC always is beating his chest and has his brothers on ESPN jump up and down for him, so he should be in. Just because he has a podium to speak from does not make him souls sayer he needs in now. Many have been passed over or even forgotten that deserve just as much consideration.

  85. melikefootball says: Feb 7, 2012 1:36 PM

    Don’t you just love how guys like Jason Whitlock, because they have the camera in front of them know everything. The media is half the problem with a lot of things in sports people don’t care for. Where did he come from anyhow???

  86. nyjalleffingday says: Feb 7, 2012 1:46 PM

    @footballnut2011

    He is in primarily for his contributions to the game of football, sort of like Sabol, in a way. Namath was the first 4k yard passer ever, he did it in a totally different era, helped revolutionize the game with his style on and off the field, and as the face of the New York Jets franchise and basically the AFL itself, he led the Jets to a victory in one of the most important, if not the most important Super Bowl of all time. He did all this, mind you, after getting a timetable of around 6 years to play from the Jets medical staff after being drafted, because of how awful his knees were. When you say “Why is Joe Namath in the Hall of Fame, look at his stats!” you immediately identify yourself as someone who has no appreciation and/or knowledge of the game that you love today.

  87. rufustfireflyjr says: Feb 7, 2012 1:51 PM

    steeelfann says:
    Feb 7, 2012 12:35 PM

    “Cris Carter got cut from Philly. Hall of Famers do not get cut.”

    First of all, Carter got cut for his prodigious use of recreational drugs, not because he couldn’t play. Second, Johnny Unitas got cut (by your beloved Steelers, no less), then went on to a HOF career with the Colts. Maybe Cris carter will make it, maybe not. But let’s get our facts straight before we hit “submit.”

  88. chitownjeff says: Feb 7, 2012 1:52 PM

    Parcells overrated. He never won a super bowl without LT on it. Coulda easily blown super bowl on the first round. Underachieved in Dallas. Did nothing for Miami at all. Very loud big personality, but not as great as a coach or front office man as he is built up to be. Just super quotable. Not necessarily hall of famer. Sorry.

    Cris Carter got cut from Philly. Hall of Famers do not get cut. Sorry, no excuses. You are in the Hall of Very Good.

    Swann was on team of fabulous running and they did not need to throw much with great defenses. Swann was rookie of year, great return man, super clutch and athletic with 4 rings. Super hands, fast and he and Stallworth were unstoppable.

    If Swann played on a team thowing constantly in a dome, he would have big numbers too. Put Carter on Steelers, he might be a tight end.

    Did you.. or are you old enough to have actually seen Lynn play? Lynn made big plays.. but John Stallworth was the better receiver.. tougher.. better hands.. consistent performer.. made thebig third down catches that win games.. That was CC excelled at.. he was cut because they wanted to wake him up from his Coke problem. Dallas did same with Hollywood but he didn’t get it.
    Bellicheck hasn’t won a superbowl without Brady.. that is as stupid as your.. Parcells never won a superbowl without LT comment. Noll never won a SB without Bradshaw.. however if you knew anything you’d know that Bradshaw was instrumental in the last three super bowls.. the first notsomuch..

  89. august589 says: Feb 7, 2012 1:59 PM

    Can someone please explain how Joe Namath gets in and not Ken Anderson..

    —————————————————

    Sure, I’ll explain it. Namath brought credibility to the American Football League in the mid-1960s like no one else could have. If Namath signs with the Cardinals instead of the Jets in 1965, I submit that there may have been no merger between the NFL and AFL, no Super Bowl, and fewer professional football teams in this nation. Namath attracted fans to AFL stadiums, he was talked about constantly, and he had “it.” In other words, he was the Tim Tebow of his day (though a better passer coming out of college).

    Remember, it’s called the Hall of FAME, not the Hall of Statistics.

  90. movementarians says: Feb 7, 2012 2:08 PM

    Wow. I can’t believe he is chastising someone for using the ad hominem logical fallacy (attack on character) or any other logical fallacy? That seems a bit hypocritical for a web site that commonly posts editorial style articles, with emotionally manipulative headlines, to mislead the reader into forming an opinion before even reading the article. Try writing more than 2 articles in a row where you aren’t taking someone’s comments out of context and then you can criticize people for coming across as “over the top.”

  91. sdelmonte says: Feb 7, 2012 2:22 PM

    That list isn’t that bad. I see a fair number of reporters I respect, and a fair number who represent the Internet and not stodgy old print publications. At the very least, it’s a better group of voters than those who pick baseball’s HoFers. And as far as I can tell, there is no sign of the bizarre reasoning that is keeping Jeff Bagwell out of that hall because there is a chance he used steroids. (Not that anyone in football gets worked up about that the way they do in baseball.) And it’s still easier to get in for football than baseball. When was the last time five baseball players went in the same year?

    That said, more transparency is needed. It would do the football hall a lot of good if more voters explained their votes. I also think that the voting process is cumbersome and would be better replaced with the straight “one vote, 75% vote of yes gets in” of baseball.

    Ideally, sportwriters shouldn’t be the only judges. There are bias and conflict of interest issues. But the same would be said of any other process. The system could be better, but it’s not that bad this way.

  92. rgledz says: Feb 7, 2012 2:36 PM

    @ Steelfan….

    Steelfan says. “Cris Carter got cut from Philly. Hall of Famers do not get cut. Sorry, no excuses. You are in the Hall of Very Good”…….

    I have a giant hole for your theory. Johnny Unitas, cut by the Steelers in 1955. You knew that though, right big Steelers fan? Got any excuses for me now smart guy? Peyton Manning is more than likely going to be cut next month………are you going to tell me that he’s not a HOFer? I’m done wasting my time on you.

  93. Deb says: Feb 7, 2012 2:37 PM

    Mike, you have to name names. I’m not in a position to know which of these voters lacks experience, historical context, or has an ax to grind. As Whitlock said last year, you have a powerful voice now–use it. I frequently disagree with you, but that’s okay. What’s the point of having a platform like this if you only make safe statements? Give ‘em heck!

    It’s obscene that these decisions are made solely by a handful of pompous reporters who can exclude some of the greatest in the game because they didn’t kiss up to the media. And if voters can’t fit the deserving people into the class … expand the class. You’ve got some great ideas. It’s time the NFL started listening to the FANS.

  94. Deb says: Feb 7, 2012 2:45 PM

    @krashie21 …

    Joe Namath and Lynn Swann … lesser lights? That’s absurd. The game has never had a brighter light than Joe Namath. The Hall of Fame is not about comparing the statistics of someone who played in the 20s or the 60s or the 70s to someone on your fantasy team in 2011. It’s about the IMPACT a player had on the game during the time he played. Player eligibility should only be about what that individual meant to the game in his time. If you don’t understand what Joe Namath and Lynn Swann meant to the game in their time … please put down the game controller and try studying NFL history.

  95. Deb says: Feb 7, 2012 2:51 PM

    @bluepike …

    O.J. Simpson was one of the greatest and most influential running backs ever to play the game. Even if he’d been convicted of those murders, there’s no reason for him to be removed from the Hall of Fame. His performance on the football field wasn’t altered by crimes he committed 15 years after he retired from the sport. Do you intend to remove Lawrence Taylor as well following his recent conviction, which also occurred long after his retirement? They earned their achievements on the field. That has nothing to do with what happened years later.

    Alex Karras admitted placing bets on NFL games while playing in the league. That’s why he’s not in the Hall of Fame.

  96. LoCoSu@%s says: Feb 7, 2012 2:51 PM

    uptowndan says:
    Feb 7, 2012 11:49 AM
    LoCoSu@%s says: who is Ira Miller and Nancy Gay? Ira Miller is a long time sportswriter from the Bay Area and was president of the football writers of America. Nancy Gay is from the Bay Area. I beleive that the writers from each area elect someone to be on the committee.

    ———————–

    I am very much aware who Ira Miller (the curmudgeon) and Nancy Gay are.
    There are far better candidates in the Bay Area to represent HOF voters than those two.

    On the positive side – at least Lowell Cohn is not a voter.

  97. therealsmiley says: Feb 7, 2012 2:59 PM

    Bill Parcells great? Ehhhh…he was a good coach. Great? Naaaaaa. Hail!

  98. jwag777 says: Feb 7, 2012 5:16 PM

    Requiring a MINIMUM number of entrants each year is a joke. Guaranteed to water down the quality of the membership. And let’s get Ray Guy in there for Pete’s same! Definitely needs revamping….

  99. dailynorseman says: Feb 7, 2012 11:29 PM

    @Deb

    “Alex Karras admitted placing bets on NFL games while playing in the league. That’s why he’s not in the Hall of Fame.”

    With all due respect, so did Paul Hornung. And he IS in the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

    Want to know the difference? Look at what teams Karras and Hornung played for. There’s your difference.

  100. Deb says: Feb 8, 2012 4:59 PM

    @dailynorseman …

    Actually, the difference is a little broader than that. Yes, it certainly helped to have Lombardi lobbying for Hornung for years. But Hornung was also a much more significant figure in the history of the game than Karras. And Karras was belligerent when they were caught. That certainly didn’t help his case.

    I’m not sure how I feel about them getting into the hall because they didn’t bet on their own games. But I’m very sure no one has the right to remove deserving players like Simpson from the hall for things they did long after they retired. What players do after they stop playing has nothing to do with their football achievements.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!