Help with non-Bills hall of fame argument

[jester43]

I just saw the list of 25 semi-finalists for Canton.  It reminded me of a difference of opinion I had with a Steelers fan who happens to work in local media where I live.  I'm not going to say anything bad about the guy, because it's not his fault he was raised to like the Steelers.  I view it as sort of a disability.

 

Anyway, Tony Boselli and Alan Faneca are both on the semi-finalist list this again year.  Setting aside the tackle-vs-guard part of the argument, which one of these guys is more deserving (if either) of enshrinement?

 

I say Boselli, who was the most dominant player at his position for several seasons.  Remember how much trouble he gave Bruce Smith?  He was known around the league for being one of a tiny number of players with the ability to slow down #78.  He was just a truck.  

 

The Steelers fan I'm debating says it's Faneca.  He had a longer career with more All-Pro honors (due to the longevity, of course).  

 

Boselli had a shorter career because of injuries.  But at his best, I say he was far better.  I admit you have to respect 13 years of excellence, but Faneca was just never an indomitable as Tony Boselli.

 

Anyone have an opinion on this?  

[Kwai San]

16 minutes ago, jester43 said:

It reminded me of a difference of opinion I had with a Steelers fan who happens to work in local media where I live.  I'm not going to say anything bad about the guy, because it's not his fault he was raised to like the Steelers.  I view it as sort of a disability.

 

Anyone have an opinion on this?  

 

I feel like I can insert several team names into this sentence and still get the same chuckle I got when I read this - hell I didn't even make it past that and I replied to this.....some funeee stuff there.....good opinion!!

Edited November 24, 2020 by Kwai San

[H2o]

Richmond Webb used to do fairly well against Bruce also. He's not in the HOF either. If it were up to me, I'm leaving them both out. 

[The Jokeman]

1 hour ago, jester43 said:

I just saw the list of 25 semi-finalists for Canton.  It reminded me of a difference of opinion I had with a Steelers fan who happens to work in local media where I live.  I'm not going to say anything bad about the guy, because it's not his fault he was raised to like the Steelers.  I view it as sort of a disability.

 

Anyway, Tony Boselli and Alan Faneca are both on the semi-finalist list this again year.  Setting aside the tackle-vs-guard part of the argument, which one of these guys is more deserving (if either) of enshrinement?

 

I say Boselli, who was the most dominant player at his position for several seasons.  Remember how much trouble he gave Bruce Smith?  He was known around the league for being one of a tiny number of players with the ability to slow down #78.  He was just a truck.  

 

The Steelers fan I'm debating says it's Faneca.  He had a longer career with more All-Pro honors (due to the longevity, of course).  

 

Boselli had a shorter career because of injuries.  But at his best, I say he was far better.  I admit you have to respect 13 years of excellence, but Faneca was just never an indomitable as Tony Boselli.

 

Anyone have an opinion on this?  

Who was better Curtis Martin or Terrell Davis? I go with Curtis because he had a longer career of success despite Davis' better years are better than Curtis'. 

[jester43]

See I would go with Davis in that argument.  I'm not against lifetime achievement awards per se, but I can't agree with leaving out a dominant player whose career was cut short by injuries.  It's the Gale Sayers defense.  

9 minutes ago, The Jokeman said:

Who was better Curtis Martin or Terrell Davis? I go with Curtis because he had a longer career of success despite Davis' better years are better than Curtis'. 

 

[Nextmanup]

25 minutes ago, H2o said:

Richmond Webb used to do fairly well against Bruce also. He's not in the HOF either. If it were up to me, I'm leaving them both out. 

Richmond Webb SHUT DOWN Bruce on many occasions.

 

He was a great OL.

 

So was Keith Simms on that same Miami OL.

 

 

[4_kidd_4]

All those Lombardis. What a crippling disability that must be.

[34-78-83]

To me, both are worthy HOF'ers. It's not down to one or the either either, so that's convenient. With a gun to my head I'd choose Faneca because he was the best or top 2 in his position for a very long run.

[oldmanfan]

I’d go with Faneca.  More dominant at his position and for a longer time.

[GunnerBill]

I think Boselli should go in.

[First Round Bust]

compared to the other major sports, the NFL enshrines more candidates and this in on purpose and I am fine with the concept...however the flipside is that more members actually diminishes the concept of limiting it to greatness and thus includes the very good...my pocket argument is that both Steelers WRs from their super bowl era are in: Swann and Stallworth...really do both players playing the same position on the same team belong ?  Which one was better ?  Hard to say because they were both great, or was one great and the other very good, or were they both very good and they got the advantage of the super bowl hype and rings ?

[Beast]

Faneca a is very deserving. He was a human meat-grinder.

 

On a side note, Faneca now barely weighs over 200 pounds.
 

https://www.tmz.com/2014/02/04/alan-faneca-fat-guy-mentor-ex-teammates/

Edited November 24, 2020 by Beast

[Mr. WEO]

Boselli only played 7 seasons and only 3 of those were full seasons, his 7th was 3 games.

 

He doesn't belong for really what is 4 or 5 great years.  The last 3 (Roaf, Pace, Ogden) played at least a dozen years--and were better).

 

Being "dominant for several seasons" on an O-line ain't enough to get in to HOF.

[Augie]

5 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

I think Boselli should go in.

 

He’s certainly in on quality.  Quantity hurts him, but I’d lean yes. He was that good, but even when he played he was often hindered, as I recall. If he had a healthy 12 year career we might be comparing him to Munoz. 

[DrDawkinstein]

2 hours ago, First Round Bust said:

compared to the other major sports, the NFL enshrines more candidates and this in on purpose and I am fine with the concept...however the flipside is that more members actually diminishes the concept of limiting it to greatness and thus includes the very good...

 

Yeah, I'm looking at the list of 25 candidates, and it seems we're quickly getting to the Hall of Good. Some obvious choices in there (Manning), but a lot of stretches too.

 

Quote

my pocket argument is that both Steelers WRs from their super bowl era are in: Swann and Stallworth...really do both players playing the same position on the same team belong ?  Which one was better ?  Hard to say because they were both great, or was one great and the other very good, or were they both very good and they got the advantage of the super bowl hype and rings ?

 

Well, I'll say it again... It's the Hall of FAME, not Hall of Stats or Hall of Wins, or anything else. Just Fame.

 

I hear sports writers (who vote on this stuff) describe the qualifying process as "If you were telling a story of the history of the NFL, would you include this guy in your story when talking about that era?"

 

Super Bowl victories definitely help "good" players get in because they were part of something greater and gained the notoriety from it. And I'm fine with that. Since really all we're talking about here is another Marketing tool of the NFL (which itself is just a Billion dollar hype machine).

 

 

7 hours ago, jester43 said:

I just saw the list of 25 semi-finalists for Canton.  It reminded me of a difference of opinion I had with a Steelers fan who happens to work in local media where I live.  I'm not going to say anything bad about the guy, because it's not his fault he was raised to like the Steelers.  I view it as sort of a disability.

 

Anyway, Tony Boselli and Alan Faneca are both on the semi-finalist list this again year.  Setting aside the tackle-vs-guard part of the argument, which one of these guys is more deserving (if either) of enshrinement?

 

 

Neither, IMO. But I could go Faneca. 13 seasons, all at a high level, and a Super Bowl ring. If we had to put one of them in, I'd vote Faneca.

Edited November 25, 2020 by DrDawkinstein

[BarleyNY]

Faneca deserves it IMO.  Many more years and games at such a high level.  

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

Sorry can't help, not enough from Boselli, Faneca is more deserving.

[The Jokeman]

6 hours ago, Nextmanup said:

Richmond Webb SHUT DOWN Bruce on many occasions.

 

He was a great OL.

 

So was Keith Simms on that same Miami OL.

 

 

Bruce Armstrong had his moments against Smith too.

[Mark Vader]

Does anyone have a link to the entire list of semi-finalists?

[GunnerBill]

5 hours ago, Augie said:

 

He’s certainly in on quality.  Quantity hurts him, but I’d lean yes. He was that good, but even when he played he was often hindered, as I recall. If he had a healthy 12 year career we might be comparing him to Munoz. 

 

Once TD got in the argument to keep Boselli out was lost IMO.

[MJS]

6 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said:

Well, I'll say it again... It's the Hall of FAME, not Hall of Stats or Hall of Wins, or anything else. Just Fame.

 

I hear sports writers (who vote on this stuff) describe the qualifying process as "If you were telling a story of the history of the NFL, would you include this guy in your story when talking about that era?"

 

Super Bowl victories definitely help "good" players get in because they were part of something greater and gained the notoriety from it. And I'm fine with that. Since really all we're talking about here is another Marketing tool of the NFL (which itself is just a Billion dollar hype machine).

 

Well I think by that definition you'd have to put Steve Tasker in. He is known around the NFL as the best special teams player of all time (and almost all rankings I have ever looked at list him 1st, and more rarely 2nd). He changed the game in a few ways.

 

On Wikipedia it rightly says this: "He was the first player to establish himself as a star almost exclusively through special teams play without being either a kicker or a returner."

 

7 time pro bowler and 7 time all-pro. I feel like he has the accolades, an incredible story, uniqueness, and a lasting impact on the sport. So I do think he belongs and I hope he gets in some day.

 

I know there are a few bills fans here who don't agree. And honestly I think they are crazy. There's a reason he has been nominated so many times and has been a semi-finalist so many times.

Edited November 25, 2020 by MJS

[GunnerBill]

4 minutes ago, MJS said:

 

Well I think by that definition you'd have to put Steve Tasker in. He is known around the NFL as the best special teams player of all time (and almost all rankings I have ever looked at list him 1st, and more rarely 2nd). He changed the game in a few ways.

 

On Wikipedia is rightly says this: "He was the first player to establish himself as a star almost exclusively through special teams play without being either a kicker or a returner."

 

7 time pro bowler and 7 time all-pro. I feel like he has the accolades, an incredible story, uniqueness, and a lasting impact on the sport. So I do think he belongs and I hope he gets in some day.

 

I know there are a few bills fans here who don't agree. And honestly I think they are crazy. There's a reason he has been nominated so many times and has been a semi-finalist so many times.

 

I think Tasker should be in. For a while the NFL definitely had a bias against special teamers in the HOF but they have softened on that and so there is an argument for Tasker IMO.

[DrDawkinstein]

6 hours ago, MJS said:

 

Well I think by that definition you'd have to put Steve Tasker in. He is known around the NFL as the best special teams player of all time (and almost all rankings I have ever looked at list him 1st, and more rarely 2nd). He changed the game in a few ways.

 

On Wikipedia it rightly says this: "He was the first player to establish himself as a star almost exclusively through special teams play without being either a kicker or a returner."

 

7 time pro bowler and 7 time all-pro. I feel like he has the accolades, an incredible story, uniqueness, and a lasting impact on the sport. So I do think he belongs and I hope he gets in some day.

 

I know there are a few bills fans here who don't agree. And honestly I think they are crazy. There's a reason he has been nominated so many times and has been a semi-finalist so many times.

 

I agree with all this, and think Tasker should be in. When talking about the 90s NFL you have to talk a lot about the Bills, and when talking about the 90s Bills you gotta mention the guy who changed Special Teams around the league, and set such a standard they created a Pro Bowl position for him.

 

That last bit regarding the Pro Bowl expansion should get him in alone. He literally changed the way we watch the game, and the way top players are honored.

 

And with 4 Super Bowl appearances ("victories" was a bad word to use in my previous post), he should be a shoe-in. SHOULD be.

[Your Brown Eye]

I'll throw my hat in for Faneca over Boselli