It absolutely should be about what a player has done on the field...I'd wager that Marshall had a preponderance of good/great days over bad...even DiMaggio struck out...it has never been about a perfect score has it? Watters and TO were jerks and jerks have a harder time getting in than perceived decent folks, so it is not always about on field performance is it? Glad you have the vote and I do not.
Lester Hayes, Sterling Sharpe, Roger Craig, and Dick Schafrath who opened a ton of holes for Jim Brown are the names that jump out at me...Marshall is known more for running the wrong way but was a terrific edge rusher, as was LC Greenwood. I know little else about the play of the elder nominees, but these guys deserve serious consideration. I for one would pound the table for Hayes and Craig.
Marshall also had a tough day in Super Bowl XI when Art Shell shut him out, no tackles, assists, nada. And the Raiders ran right at him. Great guy, damned good player but the HOF isn't the Hall of Damned good. Lester is long overdue. Craig was a good player and even better person. He will get it. That said, compare his production to that of Ricky Watters, who has only two years left as a Modern-Era player. He had attitude and wasn't a media darling and played for three teams so nobody is "owning" him in terms of advocacy. But if this is supposed to be about what a player does "on the field" then it is hard to stand on the table for Roger and ignore Watters. Similar to, but not as extreme, as people (with short memories) liked Randy Moss and not TO -- they had almost identicle careers. Conveniently forgotten was that Randy quit ON THE FIELD. ("Randy plays on Randy time")...while TO signed a waiver to play in a Super Bowl with a broken leg and played his ass off. To me, selective memories are used to validate misconceptions.
It absolutely should be about what a player has done on the field...I'd wager that Marshall had a preponderance of good/great days over bad...even DiMaggio struck out...it has never been about a perfect score has it? Watters and TO were jerks and jerks have a harder time getting in than perceived decent folks, so it is not always about on field performance is it? Glad you have the vote and I do not.
Me too
Lester Hayes, Sterling Sharpe, Roger Craig, and Dick Schafrath who opened a ton of holes for Jim Brown are the names that jump out at me...Marshall is known more for running the wrong way but was a terrific edge rusher, as was LC Greenwood. I know little else about the play of the elder nominees, but these guys deserve serious consideration. I for one would pound the table for Hayes and Craig.
Marshall also had a tough day in Super Bowl XI when Art Shell shut him out, no tackles, assists, nada. And the Raiders ran right at him. Great guy, damned good player but the HOF isn't the Hall of Damned good. Lester is long overdue. Craig was a good player and even better person. He will get it. That said, compare his production to that of Ricky Watters, who has only two years left as a Modern-Era player. He had attitude and wasn't a media darling and played for three teams so nobody is "owning" him in terms of advocacy. But if this is supposed to be about what a player does "on the field" then it is hard to stand on the table for Roger and ignore Watters. Similar to, but not as extreme, as people (with short memories) liked Randy Moss and not TO -- they had almost identicle careers. Conveniently forgotten was that Randy quit ON THE FIELD. ("Randy plays on Randy time")...while TO signed a waiver to play in a Super Bowl with a broken leg and played his ass off. To me, selective memories are used to validate misconceptions.