I FINALLY found something that I can post about. Apparently, the next NFL Hall of Fame class will be announced this weekend. Now that I live in Dallas, all I've heard about all week is Michael Irvin. This is the 3rd year that he is eligible and everyone around here is expecting him to get the bid. Why? Because "he's the best receiver not in the Hall of Fame right now." That's the lamest rationale I've ever heard. OK, say he gets in, then is the next best receiver after him automatically in? There's always going to be a "next best not in the Hall" out there. What good is a Hall of Fame if everybody gets in? I guess I just don't get it.
This brings me to the next question - should off-the-field incidents make a difference? It should not make a difference, depending of course on the offense. Should we let murderers in the Hall because they had great stats? Obviously not. Should Pete Rose be in the baseball HOF? Absolutely. My problem with this is when borderline HOF players still get in with multiple incidents. Irvin was charged multiple times with possession of cocaine and crack. On the field, he was great for a few years, mostly because he had Aikman and Emmitt Smith on the team. The Cowboys would have won those titles without Irvin, I have no doubt about that. There's no way he belongs in the Hall. He's no Jerry Rice, or even Marvin Harrison, for that matter.
I don't have a legitimate laundry list of off the field things that should keep players out. But how about just concentrating on only letting the great players in? Performance enhancing drugs should definitely keep you out (McGwire & Bonds), but Pete Rose was one of the greatest baseball players of all time and gambled that his team would win. I don't think this should keep Charlie Hustle out. Irvin was a good receiver that is a complete tool of a commentator and smoked crack. Let's do everyone a favor and leave him out. ESPN is definitely not helping his cause by putting him on national TV every week so he can make a complete ass of himself.
To recap: McGwire out, Bonds out, Rose in, Irvin out. We should go ahead and prepare our busts for the bloggers Hall of Fame. I want mine to be made of cheese.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I agree. I can't stand Michael Irvin. I could have been an All Pro on that team when everyone was concentrating on Emmit Smith. Plus, Aikman was one of the most accurate quarterbacks that I've ever seen. Playmaker? Right. What a crock.
I want my bust to be made of chocolate. Not the real expensive chocolate, but that hollow stuff like they make Easter bunnies out of.
I think all Halls of Fame are jokes at this point. Why on earth should a guy like Eddie Murray or Jim Rice or Jeff Bagwell be considered? When you think of all-time greats, do these guys seriously come to mind? Rafael Palmeiro is another good example. Seriously, it's like they're all becoming the "Hall of Pretty Good Players."
To be eligible for the Hall, you need to have been one of the top guys at your position for an extended period of time. And you have to be GREAT rather than just pretty good over a long period of time. 30 homers every year for 20 years is a great career, but that doesn't make you an all time great. It just makes me sick to see borderline All-Star/All-Pros alongside all time greats like Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb, John Elway and Jerry Rice.
Well, Irvin's getting in anyway. Apparently, I didn't post quick enough for the hall voters to read. Oh well, better luck next time...
Post a Comment