The Pro Football Hall of Fame senior committee selected Seattle safety Kenny Easley as its nominee for
Courtesy of the Pro Football Hall of Fame
enshrinement in the class of 2017.
Easley was a ferocious hitter and among the best defensive players to not make the Hall so far – potentially even better than Ronnie Lott, according to some, including former Raiders TE Todd Christensen.
(Cowboys owner Jerry Jones and former NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue have also been named finalists as contributors.)
He amassed five Pro Bowls and three AP First-Team All Pro awards, according to Pro Football Reference, and he was first-team on the All-1980s team. He was the AFC Defensive Rookie of the Year in 1981, AFC Defensive Player of the Year in 1983 and NFL Defensive Player of the Year in 1984.
The problems? The biggest is that his career was cut short after seven seasons due to a damaged kidney. He also plays safety, where voters have created a logjam by enshrining them nearly as infrequently as they do punters and kickers.
In a vacuum, I love this pick – though it dates me, a bit. He’s the first likely senior enshrine I vividly remember watching in person. I was a young fan and I didn’t have the eye to make such judgments or comparisons at the time, but his name was constantly coming up. He was really, really good. He, as much as Terrell Davis, Sterling Sharpe and perhaps a handful of other players whose careers were shortened by injury, has a strong case for at least being considered for the Hall.
I’ve looked at Easley’s career a couple of times and not been able to believe that, despite his short career, his name never even really came up for discussion.
My only quibble with this pick is the continued neglect toward some of the older seniors who are eligible: the Chuck Howleys, Johnny Robinsons, Maxie Baughans, etc. who we discuss regularly on this site. But, while there are other guys I would have preferred to see right now, the Senior committee did do its job by finding a nominee who did not get a hearing during their 15 years of modern era enshrinement eligibility.
I am, at first glance, in favor of Easley making the Hall. He was the best of the best during his short tenure. And that is what the Hall is supposed to recognize.
The Senior Committee for the Hall of Fame nominated Kenny Easley for induction in 2017. That's ...
- Good. He deserves it, but older retired players deserve it more. (71%, 10 Votes)
- Fabulous. Great player who should have been in long ago. (14%, 2 Votes)
- Terrible. He didn't play long enough to warrant the Hall. (14%, 2 Votes)
Total Voters: 14
Loading ...
Bad pick, since he’s only recently into the senior pool, when there are several candidates who are equally or more deserving who have been waiting much longer. With such a short career Easley should be considered a borderline candidate anyway. I’d guess I’d lean toward voting for his induction, but aside from guys like Howley (who’s the most deserving senior player), Easley isn’t even the most deserving safety. Cliff Harris and Johnny Robinson were both better players (no, I’m not sure what “potentially” means but Easely wasn’t better than Lott) and have been waiting many years longer.
Although I feel several senior candidates who have been in the pool and discussed at length for years would have been better selections (Howley, Robinson, Kramer for example), Easley is certainly deserving and I see no reason why he would not be elected by the full committee when they meet the day before the Superbowl in early February. Of note is his selection to the 1980s all decade team, a designation that this current group of PFHOF Selection Committee members appears to greatly value given recent modern and senior candidates who have been elected, Perhaps that is a good indicator of future election of the various all decade team members not yet in the PFHOF (see Gosselin’s story in the DMN last week on that very topic)
Todd Christensen, who played against both, said Easley was better. I want to say even Lott indicated that at one time. I’m not saying he was or wasn’t – just saying I didn’t pull that out of my backside. And it is indicative of how highly thought of he was as a player. I don’t disagree that the longer-term guys might have deserved to have their shot sooner, but I don’t think this was a “bad” pick.
Rasputin: At some point, you need to view things from outside of your Dallas-based view point. I get it, you are a fan. You want your team’s former players to make the HOF. Harris and Howley are deserving. But Easley being the pick, instead of one of your guys, does not make this a “bad pick.” Presumably you are old enough to have watched Easley play. He is more than worthy. It should never have come to the Senior Committee to vote for him in the first place. He was a great player, who played during an underappreciated period in an underappreciated position. As the game has advanced, he looks even more qualified because of the way the safety position has evolved. A pick for Easley is not a pick against anyone else. It is simply a pick for him.
Much better pick than Stanfel, Culp, Robinson, Richter, LeBeau and Little – and in my view Howley, Robinson, and Kramer would all have been better picks compare any of those.
And although I think Howley, Robinson or Kramer would have been my preferred pick over Easley at least I can see the case the senior committee is making with his pick. It does make me increasingly start to wonder about the prospects for the many pre 1970s career senior candidates that they are quickly being passed over and forgotten for the 70s and 80s senior candidates now in the seniors pool and others soon to join them? Really hope that starting in 2020 PFHOF Board decides to return to 2 senior candidates (and one contributor, including coaches) slots.
Hey, Justin, I didn’t realize Johnny Robinson played for Dallas. Or guys like Kramer, whom I also would have been fine with, or Sterling Sharpe, the modern era candidate I’ve spent the most time arguing for on this site. While you may be blinded by various prejudices don’t project your flaws onto others. I laid out logical arguments for why this was a bad pick. If I mentioned a couple of Dallas players in particular it’s because they have so many HoF worthy players who were shafted during the height of the anti-Cowboys bias in the 80s and 90s.. Clark Judge just described Easley as the only 80s All Decade defensive starter not yet in Canton. Well Harris played the same position, actually won two Super Bowls, and is the only member of the 70s first team All Decade defense not in Canton. Oh, and contemporary HoF S Larry Wilson said Harris was the best safety in his era, so he even had a similar endorsement. Since the 70s came before the 80s, it seems logical to induct the older player first, especially if he has a stronger resume. With senior slots reduced it’s more crucial than ever for the committee to nominate actual SENIORS while they’re still able to enjoy induction.
I said in my first post that I’d lean toward voting for Easley once he’s the nominee, but the order of nomination matters, and they senior committee really screwed that up.
Jerry Jones and former @NFL commish Paul Tagliabue selected as Contributor Finalists for PFHOF17
Are you serious? Jerry Jones? If you are going to pick a Dallas contributor why not Gil Brandt? Jerry Jones has presided over the most mediocre era in Cowboys history. Yeah, he’s done innovative good things from the business side, but there are negatives too.
Paul Tagliabue presided over the onset of the parity era, which I despise, so I wouldn’t vote for him, but I figure he’ll probably get in because the NFL has increased in popularity over the decades, and some people will attribute that to him for some reason rather than the sport itself.
Still, both are better picks than the corrupt DeBartolo. That pick was an embarrassment to the HoF.
The debate in the room over Jerry Jones will be interesting but the 3 SBs (and yes I know his role was not as important as Jimmy Johnson) and his significant contributions to NFL business are factors to also weight with his performance as “GM” since 2000. In terms of league business (marketing deals, expansion, TV contract, CBA with NFLPA, stadiums) he has been one of the most active league owners over the last 20 years. And I do not think he was the best selection as a contributor (and surprised an owner was selected in back to back years, when other GMs and scouts need to also be recognized) but he has a strong case.
What it also does is push the likely consideration of Gil Brandt as a contributor years down the road and also postpones the likelihood of Jimmy Johnson advancing far in the modern finalist list for several years at least as voters will be less interested in quickly advocating for other Cowboys soon (may have same impact on senior candidates Howley, Harris and Pearson).
Also interesting to hear Gosselin’s take not only because of his involvement as a member of the Dallas media, but I believe he was also a member of the committee that met in Canton today to select the contributor candidates. Was he a strong supporter and advocator today (especially over Gil Brandt?) and will he actually be the committee member to present Jones to the full committee at the selection meeting the day before the Superbowl? And of course he was in the room as a committee member when Tags was debated previously as a modern candidate so certainly knows what the contributors committee faces in making his case again.
the way i look at it is it opens the door for other safteys like cliff harris am i missing anyone
I agree that perhaps Easley will break open the door for Safeties that would include Johnny Robinson
And as I posted on another topic, appears clear to me that the members of the seniors committee and contributors committee care nothing about public or media preferences and are willing to take a stand with their selections and advocate in front of the full committee for these nominees, certainly they are not interested instead of what could be much easier nominations to advance who would be more acceptable to the full committee – a trend we have seen with many of these nominees in last several years, who clearly were not the favorites based on media and fan support.
Wouldn’t it be interesting to create the fan’s Alternative Football Hall of Fame and see what it would look like? A logical Hall of Fame created by the fans as an alternative to what currently exists. Analyze the list of Hall of Famers and strip out all of the dead wood. Start from scratch and reintroduce classes of Hall of Famers that make the grade. That means that benchmarks would have to be created. Why not compete with the NFL and The Hall of Fame on a yearly basis and let people decide which one is more acceptable? Isn’t that a better alternative to accepting decisions that are virtually rammed down your throat? Zoneblitz.com could even create the virtual Hall of Fame in their Hall of Fame section. Just an idea.
Well, Tom, I’ve decided that for me the tipping point would be if the “HoF” fails to induct Chuck Howley while he’s able to enjoy it. If that happens I’ll consider the Canton outfit permanently illegitimate and will root for it to be ended and/or replaced. One way to accomplish that might be your idea of setting up an alternative HoF based on some kind of transparent process and reasonable criteria. If it catches on over time, it may come to be viewed as more prestigious than the old one because it involves input from more people, especially fans, rather than some media hacks with political agendas cloistered away in a back room and routinely making indefensible decisions.
which combo for 2018 do you guys like better harris/ robinson howley/ gradishar brazile/hayes Kramer/ Howley
I think Easley’s nomination bodes well for a few groups of players in future:
1. Safeties: This is especially true for players on all-decade teams like Cliff Harris and Eddie Meador. When they decide to further address the position, I’d say the next player is likely to be one of those two or Johnny Robinson.
2. Players with short careers: Easley’s nomination coupled with Dick Stanfel’s induction and Terrell Davis’ imminent induction in the modern pool shows that the hall is more than willing to consider high peak, short career players. This might bode well for a future nomination of someone like Del Shofner (who played 11 years but had a lot of injury problems), Bobby Dillon or Dick Barwegen.
3. Recent Senior Pool Additions: The Hall really seems to be favouring guys who are more recent additions to the senior pool lately with Tinglehoff, Humphrey, Guy, and Stabler recently getting inducted as well. I’d say this helps the future chances of guys like Harris, Greenwood, Gradishar, Hayes, Kuechenberg, Brazile and maybe Ken Anderson.
4. Players on All-Decade Teams: For whatever reason, the hall seems fixated on these teams right now, so it’s likely that next year’s pair of nominees will include at least one player from these teams. Likely considerations include Kramer, Brazile, Hayes, Greenwood, Harris, Meador, Karras, Pearson and Shofner. Robinson, Tyrer and Grantham are probably the best options from the AFL team.
The best three options that don’t really get helped by the Easley nomination are Howley, Baughan and Jimmy Patton. Howley seems like the most likely of these three to get future consideration since he seems to be on the short list every year.
On a side note, I really wonder how the hall came to the decision to put Larry Morris (0 Pro Bowls, 1 second-team All-Pro) on the 60’s all-decade team over Maxie Baughan (NINE Pro Bowls in the decade). I mean, Howley’s exclusion is pretty inexcusable as well, but I can at least buy the argument that he really only hit his stride in 1965/1966. Baughan was elite for literally the entire decade, and didn’t get selected. Absolutely ridiculous!
That is the very point that I was trying to make about Maxie Baughan. I’m not even a Philadelphia Eagles fan. I should be promoting the likes of Dick Schafrath, Erich Barnes, and Michael Dean Perry – but I don’t because I believe in a hierarchy. First players should go first….period! Howley is a great choice but he’s a late bloomer over the likes of a Maxie Baughan. Rookie year he’s a starter and a Pro Bowl selection…..oh yeah I almost forgot – the Eagles won the World Championship in 1960. He was a starter on that team as a rookie!
Please explain the exclusion from the 60’s all-decade team – you can’t. It’s incompetency plain and simple and that’s why it’s unreliable. Pro Bowl does not give you that kind of bias.
Football Reference is a great source for information – because they actually do their homework. They have their own decade team selections and yes…. Larry Morris falls off that list and Maxie Baughan is added as a 1st team selection. So you have one organization that is better at being the stewards of the game than the other and the proof is in the research. What the fans got from the NFL / Hall of Fame this year so far is two middle fingers and a moon-shot!
I do not agree that Easley, Tags, and JJ are bad picks, they are all clearly good choices and all have strong likelihood of election, and their names have been in the mix of discussions over the years – my major issue is that there were better candidates that could have (and should have!)been selected this year.
A good choice but not the best choice. Robinson gets passed on again.
If you focus solely on his career – 4/5, All Decade, DPOY, I say yes to Easley.
Paul, that’s what I mean by “bad picks”, not necessarily that they don’t deserve it at some point (though I don’t think “Tags” does), but that there were far better choices available so they’re bad picks NOW, in this context.
Tom, again, I’m not sure why anyone would say Pro Bowls aren’t subjective. They’re handed out in an extremely subjective way.
Maxie Baughan is only 78 while Chuck Howley is 80, and Howley retired a year earlier. Some people forget that Howley started as a rookie for the Bears in 1958 when a bad leg injury apparently ended his career. I think he was pumping gas somewhere when Landry heard rumors he was thinking about trying to make a comeback and gave him a shot, the recent expansion Cowboys being desperate for decent players wherever they could find them. He probably should have started going to Pro Bowls earlier, but once he started getting the recognition he deserved no one really disputed it. His greatness was clear. Maxie Baughan only has two first team AP All Pro selections, and in my opinion a 5-2 advantage in first team All Pro selections trumps a 9-6 advantage in the looser Pro Bowl metric, especially since Howley’s accolades (Pro Bowls and first team All Pro selections) are spread out across 7 different accolade seasons. Add his Super Bowl MVP award and ring, and the fact that Howley has more interceptions and fumble recoveries, and I’d argue he has the stronger resume, in addition to being older and having waited longer. I do think Baughan would have been a lot better choice than Easley though.
I commented on the bizarre Larry Morris All Decade choice in my debate with Gosselin on the Talk of Fame site. I also pointed out how, since it’s obviously arbitrary and unfair to only judge players between zero ending years, given that the career peaks of many, including Howley, straddled decades, respected football historian John Turney and the people at Pro Football Journal have compiled “All Mid-Decade Teams”. They chose Chuck Howley as starting OLB on the 1965-75 team, alongside LBs Dick Butkus and Bobby Bell.
http://nflfootballjournal.blogspot.com/2016/05/1965-1975-all-mid-decade-teams.html
I hate these new senior rules. Too many deserving people with a slowed down rather than sped up process.
You don’t have to prove your point about Howley to me, I’m already 100% convinced. It would be a tragedy for him to pass away and not for him to enjoy his rightful honor. How about sticking them both in together next year? My contention is All-Pro status – have you ever looked at the premier QB’s already in the Hall and the number of All-Pro selections attached to their careers? On average it’s like
8(Pro Bowl) / 3( All-Pro). John Elway…..that’s John Elway never was selected first team All-Pro in his entire career. Doesn’t something seem a little odd that a caliber QB like John Elway could be dismissed by a All-Pro advocate? Joe Montana, arguably the greatest QB ever….was only a 3X All-Pro…..really?
My mistake, Elway was a 1X All-Pro in 1987. Someone should say something to Football Reference!
Yeah, but QBs are judged differently, more by stats and Super Bowl rings with accolades like Pro Bowls and All Pro selections weighing less. With positions like linemen you don’t really have equivalent stats to rely on so the accolades become more important. LBs only have a few more, but nothing like QBs.
How the Hall of Fame can help seniors like Cowboys’ Drew Pearson have a chance to get into Canton
interesting idea presented by Gosselin (who seems to have recently woken up on the senior candidate pool issue)
http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/dallas-cowboys/cowboys/2016/08/18/hall-fame-help-seniors-like-cowboys-drew-pearson-chance-get-canton-nfls-100th-anniversary
I still say Robinson first and everybody else, including Howley, second. Robinson proved in Super Bowl IV what he could do against NFL competition. It’s just that Yale Lary was established when Detroit drafted Robinson, who would become the AFL’s answer to Larry Wilson.
In the modern era, Pro Bowl is fan voting. In the days of 40-50 years ago, players earned it.
Howley proved what he could do in the NFL for his entire career, while Robinson spent most of his in a league of expansion teams, which undoubtedly inflated his accolades at least some.
Pro Bowl voting is currently a three part mix of players, coaches, and fans. The fans’ opinion is frankly as legitimate as the players’ opinions (it’s not like NFL players are typically rocket scientists or that diligent when filling out such ballots) . The problem isn’t that fans have input per se, it’s that instead of a one fan one vote model or at least some scientific representation of fan opinion the NFL has instead turned it into a click bait scam, even encouraging fans to vote for their “favorite players” as many times as they want. Fortunately this scam is only limited to one third of the vote, but I’d still agree that Pro Bowls probably meant more in the past. It’s not like they were the end all be all even back in the 60s and 70s though.
Here we ago again that the AFL was in the inferior league or that it inflated his numbers.
The AFL had elite talent with tons of Hall of Famers playing there. This is the Pro Football Hall of Fame, not the NFL Hall of Fame.
Not only did the Chiefs win AFL Championships and a Super Bowl with Robinson at the helm but he was a big reason for their successes.
I didn’t say Robinson didn’t belong in Canton, Corey. I think he’s one of the most deserving candidates. I just pointed out that his accolade numbers aren’t precisely comparable to someone who played his entire career in the NFL – apples and oranges. Of course the AFL was inferior for its first several years, and on average for old AFL teams even through the full merger in 1970, judging by regular season play against long time NFL teams. In 1960 the AFL was made up entirely of expansion teams. If you think it was just as good as the NFL all along then you have an extremely low opinion of the NFL.
I think it eventually became no joke. Not to mention Robinson was first team on the AFL’s all time team.
I didn’t say AFL accolades were irrelevant. I just pointed out that you can’t precisely equate them with NFL accolades. They were two different leagues.
i think it would be interesting if they would ever pick robinson and harris as a senior pair what would you think of that rasputin
I think that’d be a good selection. But at this point I’m not holding my breath waiting for any new Landry era players to get in as long as Gosselin is the Dallas rep. He’s still talking about Maxie Baughan instead of Chuck Howley, and the only Cowboy he seems interested in bringing up unprompted is Drew Pearson, who probably has the biggest odds against him of the three most deserving. I hope that’s not a sign he’s unserious about getting any of them in, and is just tossing out the Pearson mention from time to time as a bone to Cowboys fans in hopes of keeping them off his back.
jmo rasputin i would take howley over baughan and cliff branch over pearson
It’s hard to argue either Howley or Baughan. Both are very worthy.
As far as Pearson goes, give me Shofner, Howton and Branch over Pearson when it comes to Senior eligible receivers.
Like I just don’t see it. Yes, Easley deserves it, but how does he deserve it more than any other senior?
Johnny Robinson
Al Wistert
Chuck Howley
Del Shofner
Maxie Baughan
Robert Brazile
Randy Gradishar
Jerry Kramer
Bobby Dillon
Jimmy Patton
Billy Howton
Cliff Branch
Eddie Meador
Any one of these would’ve not only been an excellent choice but a better choice than Kenny Easley. If you want to talk DB, you could also argue Bobby Boyd and Donnie Shell.
The Senior Committee cannot and should not forget the older players..
im off the jerry kramer bandwagon can you guys blame me
Well, what’s the context? Do you deem him undeserving? Do you deem him less deserving than others?
im just on to other cadndidates who werent considered during the modern pool
Very deserving candidate. 4/5/80s is a worthy profile, and he reportedly looks excellent in film study. It would have been nice if they had gotten an older player up for this instead, but no question Easley is very qualified.
I hope they can go back to not changing it and doing two a year or even more. Why not do three seniors and five modern era? Too many deserving snubs, not fast enough to clear up the deep senior pool.
Or maybe we should reform who’s on the committee.
i like the idea of three senior nominees
Why not? Now that you can have up to eight per class, I say it’d be good to get rid of the logjam.
Another proposal is if you’re rotating on quantity, rotate on eras. For example, maybe focus one senior nominee from the ’70s and ’80s and another from the ’50s and ’60s the next time there are two senior slots. This could also help the logjam.
I have no problem with two seniors + one contributor year, but I do think that those selection committees need to be larger, rotate more members on and off, and perhaps add HOFers or long time team or league staff – not as majority but include in the mix. The small committees (9 same members) and only have 5 on a rotating annual basis elect the nomination is not large or diverse enough.
Gosselin posted on Talk of Fame advocating for Howley. Some familiar faces on here replied to his post.
Easley should be in the HOF, yes, but Howley and others are getting up there.
It’s about time.
nd probably too late for Howley as senior selection committee seems to be favoring all decade team members, an approach Gosselin is also pushing for. Gosselin has had plenty of chances over the years to advocate for Howley but has chosen not to. He is as much at fault for the senior candidate situation including Howley’s non-selection as anyone is. I do not hold out much hope for Howley in the future or that Gosselin will push for him.
Arguing for All Decade players is a worthy thing, but there are All Decade senior players who weren’t as good as Howley, either.
Not trying to get off topic. But, this WR logjam coming up is going to be so much more hectic than with Brown, Carter, and Reed . Ward, Moss, Owens, Fitzgerald, Wayne, Johnson, Johnson, Bruce, and Holt are in my book HOFers. When they get in is a mystery. How do you all think it will shape up? And does Tony Gonzalez get lumped in with the WRs or as a TE? I think he has a legit shot at 1st ballot enshrinement if viewed as a TE.
My guess is Tony Gonzalez will be 1st or 2nd ballot regardless of how he’s seen. Owens probably won’t get in this year — but very likely the next. Moss probably won’t wait more than two years after he’s eligible. Wayne, Bruce, Holt, Ward, and Calvin Johnson probably wait a really long time (Ward’s not a HoFer in my book). Andre Johnson and Fitzgerald probably get in after a couple years wait. Also wouldn’t count out Anquan Boldin just yet, depending on how he finishes up.
As presently constructed , Hines has had a better career than Boldin. Ward got 1000 receptions in run first offenses with Bettis, Parker, and Mendenhall. Also, yes Hines had Plaxico and Holmes, but they are no Fitzgerald, which Boldin had. Boldin didn’t have to be the main objective for defenses. Also, Ward was a stellar blocker, SB MVP,and 2x SB winner.
Again, it depends on where Boldin’s career ends up, and he had a productive year last year. He could of course implode at any point given his age, but we shall see.
If Boldin gets to 1,150 receptions he has a decent case. 1k receptions is not what it used to be. Yes Ward just has 1k but keep in mind what I said. He had good to great runners on his team. They ran it a ton and still got to quadruple digits in receptions. Also, Ward is 3rd in receptions in postseason history, behind Rice and Wayne.
It seems like we always do get off topic with this sort of thing.
As I said before on this cite, I’m a huge Anquan Boldin fan. With that caveat, it is almost impossible to differentiate between him and Ward. Ward has 4 pro bowls (pro football reference AV of 118). Boldin has 3 (AV of 113). Ward won two Super Bowls with 1 MVP. Boldin won one Super Bowl and probably should have been the MVP. Ward’s numbers were 11 targets, 5 receptions, 123 yards, 1 TD. But 40+ yards and the TD came on a fluke WR pass where Ward should have been open. Boldin’s numbers were 10 targets, 6 receptions, 104 yards, 1 TD. Boldin was also a beast the whole playoff run. Career numbers are solidly in Boldin’s favor except TDs: Ward: 1000 receptions, 12,083, 12.1 y/r, 85 tds; Boldin: 1012, 13,230, 13.1, 74 (with those numbers due to increase this season and maybe beyond). While Boldin’s numbers are somewhat helped by playing a more passer friendly offense than Ward, that is really only true for about three years. The rest of the time, Boldin played on either horrible Arizona teams or run-first Baltimore and San Francisco teams. Boldin did play with Fitzgerald, but if anything, that hurt his numbers not helped. When Boldin was a rookie (the year before Fitzgerald was drafted), he was a pro bowler who had 101 receptions for 1377 yards. For years, Boldin was the fastest player to a number of significant milestones, 5,000 yards, 6,000 yards, etc. Boldin is also a great blocker, even if he isn’t quite as good as Ward. In short, the two players are very comparable. I prefer Boldin over Ward, but it is a very close call.
Another receiver that should not be forgotten is Steve Smith. He has great numbers and will be helped by being the best player in Carolina history (although I guess it is likely that Newton and/or Kuechly while have surpassed him by the time he is eligible).
Tonight the @ProFootballHOF will announce the 94 modern-era nominees for the Class of 2017
Not all these 900+ reception WRs are getting into the PFHOF any time soon, guessing several will wait years perhaps to the point of ending up in the seniors pool. At some point the PFHOF voters will have to go beyond the numbers with this recent era of WRs beyond simply giving heavy weight to number of receptions, and perhaps more weight to all pros, all decade team members, pro bowls, playoff success and numbers and SBs. Just like the number of 10,000 yard rushers, chance some of these 900+ reception WRs never get it as new standard may be set.
Plus lets add Jason Witten who is closing in on 1,100 as a TE (and one who actually blocks!)
the complete list http://www.profootballhof.com/94-modern-era-nominees-for-the-hall-of-fame-class-of-2017-announced/
The fact that Daryl Johnston is on the ballot and not Corey Dillon , Priest Holmes, and Thomas Jones makes no sense.
No Fred Taylor either. Bizarre.
Warrick Dunn and Jamal Lewis also deserve a nomination. At least Stephen Davis has been omitted this time.
Still no Richmond Webb either, though glad to see Leslie O’Neal added to a very thin looking group of DL.
WR and DB are clearly the deepest group and the backlog will only continue to grow in future.
DB is too backed up. WRs will clear up, as they did with Carter, Reed, and Brown. HOF voters aren’t fans of DBs.
I’d say that DB and OL are the deepest groups, though WR is arguably the most top-heavy. The list is pretty much the same as last year, though it looks like the Redskins homer who kept nominating Gary Clark, Stephen Davis, Jeff Bostic, Mark May, Jon Jansen and Ken Harvey took a year off. None of those guys are on the ballot this year. I can’t figure out why the preliminary lists are always so light on DL and TE. Neither position is real deep, but surely there are at least 5 TE’s and 10 DL’s that deserve consideration. I know it’s fan-driven, but I believe there is a faction that adds significant players that don’t get nominated.
As a diehard Chiefs fan, I’m once again disappointed to see Neil Smith absent. Priest Holmes is extremely borderline, but should be on the list as well.
To me, the biggest omissions on the list are (in no particular order):
Boomer Esiason
Priest Holmes
Gary Clark
Ben Coates
Keith Jackson
Richmond Webb
Neil Smith
Michael Dean Perry
Pat Swilling
James Farrior (only because he’s a 1st time eligible)
Carnell Lake
Interesting question. What is Jason Peters’ HOF candidacy? I’m on the fence. Better than Ruben Brown’s, I’ll say that much. 2/8/10s? is hard to pass up, but Ruben is not even on ballot with a 0/9/none. Probably because he got named to the PB majority of the time via fan vote compared to actually earning them. Not to take away from Brown’s career. Still one of the best ever(easily top 65 linemen ever, but doesn’t mean HOFer).
I know that appearing on the preliminary list of nominees for the PFHOF gives a player some level of recognition of their career and of course if you are not on that list to start with you will not advance to the 25 semi-finalists, but given that the majority of these players will never ever get into the PFHOF the appearance or non-appearance of certain players on this 90+ name list carries little interest for me. Especially debated the inclusion or exclusion of players with no chance to ever make the PFHOF. Although I understood that anyone could nominate any player or coach, and no venting or review of names was done at this stage (some years the list has been 120+) it is odd how some players are not listed, dropped or continue to appear, considering it is an open nomination process and at this stage anyone can nominate any player or coach??
I have Jason Peters with honors of 4/8/10s? which should be plenty enough to get him in. The only OT with better honors from this period is Joe Thomas at 6/9/10s? Both are getting in and I think deservedly so. Two problems with Ruben Brown’s HoF case: he has zero 1st team all pro selections, and 8 of his 9 pro bowl trips came when he was in the AFC which if memory serves had weaker guard depth at the time than the NFC. I don’t think he gets in, and that’s fine with me.
Adrian Peterson facing several months of recovery, we have seen the end of a PFHOF career (Class of 2022)
It will be interesting to see if Adrian Peterson tries coming back again — chances are he misses most if not all of 2016. He’s 31, which is not young for a RB but not ancient, either. He’s only 275 yards short of 12,000 lifetime, but he’s getting in the HoF regardless of whether he retires tomorrow or not. My guess is he comes back.
I agree bachslunch. Remember he tore his ACL and MCL. People thought that was the end for him. Then he rushed for 2nd most yards in a season. Not saying he’ll repeat that but it he does something close to that he might go down as best ever. Anyway, I think he is a first ballot HOFer. 5/7/likely 10s, with 3 rushing titles,Top 10 a total of 7x, league MVP, 2nd most yards in a season is a very strong resume.
Is it just me or is 2007 draft class shaping up to be one of the most top heavy classes ever?
Brad: “one of the most top heavy” yes (Patrick Willis, Darrel Revis, Calvin Johnson, Joe Thomas, and AP should all make the HOF in my opinion). But 2007 will never come close to 1983: Elway, Dickerson, Matthews, Kelly, Marino, D. Green, and Dent (all in the HOF and all in the 1st round except for Dent). But the draft also gave the NFL, Roger Craig, Albert Lewis, Karl Mecklenburg, Mark Clayton, Henry Ellard, and Chris Hinton (all at least Hall of Very Good guys). But there is more, including several personal favorites from the era, such as Anthony Carter, Darryl Talley, Charles Mann, and the underappreciated Tim Krumrie. 1983 was not just the year of the QB. It is a draft that will never be replicated.
Well Brad, it is a top heavy draft class, but I like the 1983 draft better, and I think the 2010 draft at this point, the potential to compare to the 1983 draft in terms of pro bowls.
The 2007 draft class for Tackles in terms of having Joe Thomas, Joe Staley and Marshal Yanda in the same draft unlike the 1989 draft. Joes Thomas, Revis, Adrian Peterson, and Willis are Hall of Fame Players. Calvin Johnson is Senior Committee player that is going to inducted. Yanda and Ryan Kalil are wait and see players in terms of the Hall of Fame since they could get more pro bowls and 1st team all pros yet. Marshawn Lynch just didn’t has a strong enough resume for Canton.
The 2010 NFL draft in 5 years could be look much stronger than the 2007 draft is from a potential hall of fame player standpoint. There is concerns for Gronkowski, and Pouncey long terms though. This was a great Safety, and defensive tackle draft. What makes the 2010 draft a great safety draft is take a look at Eric Berry, Earl Thomas, and Kam Chancellor. The Defensive tackle position in the 2010 draft also is very strong with Ndamukong Suh, Gerald McCoy, and Geno Atkins.
Right now Earl Thomas is on his way to canton like Rob Gronkowski is also. NaVorro Bowman right now has been on 4 first team all pro teams. and that is a sign of a player going to canton. Ndamukong Suh, Gerald McCoy, Eric Berry, Maurkice Pouncey, Geno Atkins, and Antonio Brown are players to keep an eye on in future years also,
I never said the deepest. I agree 83 was best overall. I’m talking the top 5 from each draft class, 2007 is without a doubt top 15-20 since beginning of the history of the draft. Revis is easily a top 5 corner ever in prime(my Jets bias says #1. people say Deion and Rod. They didn’t shut down WRs as deep as Revis with Calvin, Moss, TO, Chad Johnson, Andre Johnson, Steve Smith , Reggie Wayne, and others). AP top 5-6 RB in prime. Calvin top 15-20 WR, Patrick top 25 LB if not higher, Joe Thomas ,arguably best tackle since Anthony Munoz. Walter Jones has something to say, but Joe seems like he might be named AP this year for 7th time and make his 10th straight PB. Also he’s never missed a game, Walter missed 12. Not saying 12 is a lot. It’s not, but Joe is more durable.
Looking at other drafts, 2006 is deep. In prime, they would field a good team. Jay Cutler at QB (not as bad of a career as people think), Vince Young at backup (PBer), MJD at RB, DeAngelo Williams at FB (even though used as a RB. For sake of fielding a team, best suited at FB), Reggie Bush would be a good back up RB. Addai, Maroney, and Washington all good in prime despite short careers. Marshall and Closton a very solid 1-2 at WR, Jennings and Holmes good backups. Vernon Davis a good TE, in prime Owen Daniels was decent to good. Marcedes Lewis was decent as well. Mangold, Evans, and D-Brick blocking for you, any QB wouldn’t mind that. Not too mention Brad Smith was a good utility player. He was a great wildcat QB, decent gunner, and good return man. I could go on to defense but would take a long time and it’s late. You get the picture. Special teams also would fill out nicely. Hester obvious return man (possible HOFer. His return TDs and prime play are hard look past). Stephen Gostkowski has an interesting resume as well. Deadly accurate in regular and postseason. 5x scoring leader, including last 4. As long as he’s on Pats and they have Brady he could get close to Blanda’s extra point record (he’s 32 and kickers play into their 40s).
The 1964 draft is hard to beat, with 11 HoFers and counting (counting Parcells; 10 player HoFers), and about twice that in eventual Pro Bowlers.
2011 draft was very, very good with JJ Watt, Cam Newton, Von Miller, Julio Jones, AJ Green, Patrick Peterson, Tyron Smith, Richard Sherman, Justin Houston and Mo Wilkerson.
1989 produced 4 HOFers in the top 5 with Steve Atwater potentially being the 5th HOFer from the 1st Rd.
This guy is only a 5’6″ 180 lbs RB with 20 rushing tds a 5 yds avg carry, 29 receiving tds, 7 punt return tds, 2 kickoff tds and at 33 yrs old is being named a starting RB again. He has been a special talent especially early in his career for sure. I suppose he would never be considered for the HOF. Some times I think the little guys should be given extra consideration for what they do in a game of size and brawn. Another diminutive RB (180 lbs) who already gets no consideration is James Brooks. He was a dynamite player for both the Bengals and Chargers. He should be in the HOF. Look at how most of these players today can’t even stay on the field now days. Other small guys deserving strong HOF consideration are Mark Duper and Mark Clayton. Never going to get it.
I remember Easley being a phenomenal athlete and star player but I rarely saw him play in Seattle a lot like Cortez Kennedy after him. Easley’s career ended much too early like a Sayers . He wouldn’t of been someone I’d pick over many other deserving. To me if you’re going to put Easley in the HOF than it’s hard to justify keeping Deron Cherry out and I thought he was on the fence and what about Lester Hayes.
No one is going to justify keeping Deron Cherry or Lester Hayes, out as both have their pros and cons in terms of elections, but appears at least when compared to those two his DPOY has elevated Easley above them. But Cherry and Hayes are in a deep pool of many other players, including all pro and all decade DBs, that equally or more so deserve the PFHOF.
Tony it is not the tall player PFHOF, as height is not the reason that is keeping Sproles, Duper and Clayton are out of the PFHOF, it is just at RB and WR big season and career numbers matter a lot (perhaps too much but that always has been the case, along with all pro, all decade teams, playoffs and SBs), and even though they perhaps overachieved given their height “limitations” that alone is not going to be enough to give them a strong case for the PFHOF.
If not for the other one likely one of the Mark Bros. would be in the HOF. Most likely Clayton but Duper was too good not to get close to equal time. They must be close to the most prolific WR tandem in history. I can’t think of another pair with their numbers. It’s a shame to hold each other against them. No I never thought Sproles was HOF good but he was darn good for the first couple years. I just thought his numbers would surprise a few people did me.
PS – Dan Marino threw a great ball but many times it was up to the WR’s to go get it and at 5’10” his receivers were acrobatic and I’ll always remember. Dan knows they made him look awful good. lol
Put Mark Duper and Mark Clayton together as one person and you’ve got a monster no doubt HoFer. Split apart, they’re two solid Hall of the Very Good types that are tough to distinguish from each other.