Deion Sanders bashes the Hall of Fame
coolstanley
Posts: 2,458 ✭✭✭✭✭
Deion Sanders blasted the Pro Football Hall of Fame for becoming a “free for all” by inducting too many undeserving players.
Saying the Hall of Fame “ain’t shit no more” in a podcast on Friday, Sanders also said he feels his bust doesn’t belong with the less deserving players, TMZ reported.
“The Hall of Fame ain’t the Hall of Fame no more,” Sanders said. “This thing is becoming a free for all. If you play good, no! It’s people that changed the game. That’s what the Hall of Fame is; a game changer.
“My jacket’s [Hall of Fame] gotta be a different color,” Sanders, 55, said. “There needs to be a starting 11. There needs to be an upper room.”
“My head don’t belong with some of these other heads that’s in the Hall of Fame.
As TMZ noted, Sanders, who was inducted in 2011, has belittled the Hall of Fame in the past. In 2020 he claimed the Hall was no longer “exclusive.”
“Everybody Tom, Dick and Harry, you’re a Hall of Famer, you’re a Hall of Famer, you’re a Hall of Famer. They let everybody in this thing now,” Sanders said. “It’s not exclusive anymore. And I don’t like it.”
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Comments
I agree with Neon Deion
Me too because Deion himself doesn't belong in because he wouldn't tackle.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
I agree with deion, but wow, what a bad look. how humble of him.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Who's in the NFL Hall that doesn't belong?
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Your right about his lack of tackling but please tell me what coverage DB in the HOF was better
Floyd Little
Mel Blount, Rod Woodson, Ronnie Lott to name a few.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Better hitters but not as versatile or better one on one in coverage
there was no better coverage DB than sanders. he took away half the secondary
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
gale sayers and lynn swan.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
If your going there then let's go with Joe Namath, Terrell Davis, Calvin Johnson....
Of course, I mean most of us know this
He was not better at coverage than Rod Woodson, so I disagree.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
This issue is much more relevant in regards to the baseball hof imho.
And RNRHOF.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
100% agree on Swann.
Disagree. No Steelers fans from the 70's would've traded Swann for any receiver. He was money in the post-season. A highlight show.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
swan had less than 350 career catches. a hall of fame career that does not make.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Named FIRST TEAM NFL All-decade team of the 70's.....If that's not HOF material, I dont know what is?
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
sayers played 68 NFL games. a great talent, but boy, he didn't play very much. only played one full season, had 2 seasons with over 200 carries, only played 10+ games 4 times and never averaged over 100 yards in a single season.
I don't see the koufax like dominance needed for a short career either. never won an MVP.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Agree. Also the RNRHOF should be re-named the music HOF because rock is only one of many genres represented there now.
If Gale Sayers had played for the Packers (or any real team with a real offensive line) he would be universally recognized as one of the greatest running backs, and possibly the greatest player, of all time. A Hall of Fame without Gale Sayers would be 100% entirely meaningless.
If Lynn Swann had played for the Bears nobody under 50 would have heard of him, and there is precisely a 0% chance that he would have been named to the all-decade team.
Sayers was lucky the HOF voters looked past his team; Swann was lucky that they didn't.
Except that you are ignoring the fact that Swann was a small guy(under 6 feet), who made himself into a great receiver with his dance workouts. That's called skill, not luck. Without him, the Steelers lose SB X.
At the time of his retirement from pro football, Swann, held five Super Bowl records, including career receptions, career receiving yards, career touchdown receptions, yards in a game, and the highest punt return average in a game. In 1991 he was named to the NFL's Super Bowl Silver Anniversary Team.
It also shows that at the time of his retirement, he was the Steelers career leader in receptions, receiving yards, and touchdown receptions. What it doesn't show is the tremendous impact those receptions and yards had.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Do you think Julian Edelman should be in the HOF?
If we are talking about post season being part of the HOF discussion
When my point is that Swann couldn't have sniffed a Super Bowl on a different team, your defense consisting of his Super Bowl accomplishments obviously misses the mark. Put Swann on a bad team and he goes to no Super Bowls, he has no Super Bowl records, and nobody under 50 would even know his name. He would not be in the HOF and he would not be on the all-decade team. Them's facts. And if your argument is that every receiver who at one time was his team's career leader in receiving categories belongs in the HOF, we're gonna need a much bigger building to house the additional 100 or so receivers.
Put Gale Sayers behind a good offensive line on a good team, and he wins NFL championships and Super Bowls, and he would be on everyone's GOAT list. Sayers was so great he got in the HOF despite his terrible team, but he was in a different talent universe than Lynn Swann.
Not a good look nor a smart move to say stuff like that about your peers. It would make for an awkward situation when or if he goes back to Canton. Leave that stuff to folks like us or radio/tv talking heads...
Erik
Gale Sayers was drafted by the Bears of the NFL and the Chiefs of the AFL in 1965.
He should have signed with the Chiefs, Dawson at QB and Sayers at RB would have been amazing.
And the Chiefs were building an all time great defense at that time also.
Oh what could have been.
In the course of every human endeavor since the dawn of time the risk of human error has always been a factor. Including but not limited to field goals, 4th down attempts, or multiple paragraph ramblings on a sports forum authored by someone who shall remain anonymous.
Good thing Deion didn’t make the baseball HoF. Those inductions would piss him off something good.
Dismantling the Pro Football HOF is an option...If someone in the Hall is going to bash the Hall... be careful in what you say or write. Eliminating the Hall may just be a viable option especially if it has out lived it's usefulness. Given the the lack of respect given to the past and that there seems to be minimal interest in simply understanding how the game progressed to what it is today, the nuclear option seems to satisfy those that only appreciate the moment... as it it their moment not to be confused with what is really important.
Maybe a more rational approach might be to revisit who have been defining players that made the game... added to the progression of the game... instead of relying on stats that really tell a story of stats instead of something larger than life that simply must be seen to be appreciated. Something that stats simply are unable to capture. But game films that capture the moment that exist should illustrate that some players made an impact and setting a trend to be emulated more so than others.
The talent that those who have been inducted into the HOF possess is not equal. Some worked harder than others to reach success recognized by the induction. There was a value placed on sportsmanship... and being that person-larger than life- that often oozed a sense of respect for other players- which today, seems be part of the past. And that is the part of the problem that makes for a dialog as to how we got to this point in time. In this instance... how one can be so critical of something such as the Pro Football HOF as so many players dream to gain the acknowledgment and recognition that their career would be worthy of such an honor... and yet only few achieve that dream.
Sayers is in
Swann is in... Its about the catches you make that make a difference in the outcome of a game... not the total number of catches that make an interesting statistic that at the end of the day simply is that... a statistic
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Would've, could've, should've. If Swann benefited from playing on a great team, then you can say the same thing about every other great player who played on great teams. The fact is, it was him and him alone that made all those spectacular acrobatic catches. I never saw him once drop a pass. Howard Cosell said he was the best receiver in the game in the late 70's.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
I can, and I do, because ignoring that leads to absurd conclusions. And I tried looking up the league-wide stats for "spectacular acrobatic catches" but I couldn't find them; can you point me to where the record shows that Swann made more of those than other WRs? Because if you never once saw Swann drop a pass then you obviously didn't watch him play all that often, and since the Steelers were on TV constantly you had to have missed watching every other receiver, too. But once I see the spectacular acrobatic catch stats for the whole league I'll be in a position to speak intelligently on that issue.
I"ll say again, without fear of contradiction: Swann is in the HOF because, and only because, he played on a great team. I have made a CU career out of denouncing MLB HOF voters for electing people for reasons completely removed from the player's actual talent, but the NFL HOF is actually worse in that respect.
I picked the year at random from the Steelers four SB seasons; I assume it's representative, but if it's not then sue me.
In 1978, the Steelers went 14-2 and won the SB. During the regular season they scored 356 points, which is very good. The Jets went 8-8, didn't go to the playoffs, but outscored the Steelers 359-356. How many HOFers did the Steelers have on their offense? How about the Jets? Other than a whole lot of HOF plaques, there wasn't much difference between the offenses of those two teams, but boy oh boy were their defenses different. The Steelers allowed 195 points - best in the league - and the Jets allowed 364, almost twice as many.
Don't get me wrong, the Steelers had a very nice offense in the late 70's, and there may even have been a HOFer or two, although definitely not at QB or WR. The Steelers won championships because their defense was amazing. Lots of deserving HOFers on that side of the ball.
Lots of deserving HOFers on the offensive side of the ball as well.
From those teams..Offense - 5. Defense- 5
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Great point.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Welp, you completely missed my point, or you're just pretending you did because it was too obvious to actually miss.
Compared to league averages, the Steelers defense was much, much better than the Steelers offense. That is, the degree to which their record was better than .500 was attributable much more to their defense than to their offense. I won't argue that they do in fact have 5 HOFers on each side of the ball, but I was addressing DESERVING HOFers, and 5 HOFers for that offense is comical. I don't know if the correct number of deserving HOFers is 0, 1 or 2, but I know it is definitely not 5. Right off the top you can lop off Bradshaw and Swann and get down to 3 and then address the ones who were at least arguably HOF level.
Bradshaw, Swan, Stallworth, Harris and Webster all belong in the NFL HOF and their individual talent shouldn't be held against them just because they all played together. I doubt that any of the five would have been the same player on any other team, but again, how can that be held against what they actually accomplished?? As good as the Steelers defenses were during that era a team still has to score points or they won't win, don't hold that against those players. I'm not a stat guy. What I know is that the Steelers of the mid-late 1970's played well as a team.
I'm fine with guys like Swann getting into the hall of fame, in my opinion the hall of fame shouldn't just be about stats, it should also be about what a player meant to his team's success, what he did for the game.
According to pro football reference...
1981 Offense #8 Defense #11
1980 Offense #10 Defense #15
1979 Offense #1. Defense #5
1978 Offense #5 Defense #1
1977 Offense #7 Defense #17
1976 Offense # 5 Defense #1
1975 Offense #5 Defense #2
Some years the Offense was better than the defense. Out of those years listed the Steelers offense was ranked in the top 5 in four of those years and #1 in 1979.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
I love when people make statements in Sports Talk and when a counter point is made they chose to ignore rather than follow up, it's a time tested and proven trait here lol
I really am stumped to find out what Tony Boselli did for the game though
Do you think Julian Edelman should be in the HOF?
I don't know if Edelman should be in the HOF or not but he's one of the toughest players I've watched play in the past 20 years, especially given his size. How often did he attack forward after a catch and sacrifice his body for the team?? The Patriots definitely were better because he was playing for them.
He was better than Swan imo
@perkdog said: He was better than Swan imo
Don't take offense, but as a Patriot booster I wouldn't expect you to think anyone is better than their core players. That's all about fan bias, but back to the comparison. Swan vs. Edelman cuts right to the different era comparisons. Swan played during a time when teams tended to run and passed more downfield, Edelman played on a team which tended to pass shorter and only ran when they needed to. Those are generalizations, but you should get my point. Past that, Edelman seemed to be a target on shorter routes and Swan on deeper routes so it's hard to make a direct comparison between the two players or the two teams.
Give the HOF some time, I think they'll induct Edelman before either of us sees 2030.
Honestly I agree with your entire post
I don't see Edelman getting in. Zero pro bowls and never led the league in anything.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
@coolstanley said: I don't see Edelman getting in. Zero pro bowls and never led the league in anything.
Given his body of work during a time when the NFL has moved heavily to become a "passing league" I think he has earned serious consideration. His problem with voters will be that there are many, many outstanding players whose stats look better than his. The counter to "Zero pro bowls and never led the league in anything" will of course be the three rings he has.
Dallas will argue he has 3 rings because he had the GOAT QB on his team
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Something like that. First, and very importantly lest it be lost in this discussion, football is a team game and it is literally impossible to determine which players get how much credit when a team's offense or defense are great. You do the best you can, recognizing that in the end you're just guessing.
That said, I found this interesting. The ten most similar players to Julian Edelman per football-reference:
Darrell Jackson
Al Toon
T.J. Houshmandzadeh
Dwight Clark
Lynn Swann
Terance Mathis
Carl Pickens
Greg Jennings
Jake Reed
Chris Burford
Now you could try to explain why Lynn Swann is the only HOFer in this group, and why Edelman deserves to be while the others don't, but you'd embarrass yourself and make me feel really uncomfortable so I hope you don't. Obviously, Swann is in the HOF because he had the best teammates of the group, and Edelman's sole differentiator is that he, too, had better teammates than everyone in the group except Swann. Two names, among many, not on that list are Harold Jackson and Henry Ellard. They're not on the list of Edelman comparables because they were much better than Edelman (and Swann). But they had worse teammates, they have no "rings", and so they don't get to be HOFers. For a real eye-opener, put the stats of Lynn Swann and Del Shofner side by side. First, HUGE kudos to anyone who has heard of Shofner. Second, I dare you - no, I double dog dare you - to explain to me why Lynn Swann deserves to be in the HOF and Del Shofner doesn't.
The advantage that NFL players get in HOF voting for being surrounded by great players is staggering, and it pains me that something so blindingly obvious can be missed by people who ostensibly understand football. But if you are evaluating a football player's talent and the word "rings" so much as crosses your mind, then you do not understand football. That's just a fact, and my apologies to anyone who is being forced to face that fact for the first time; I'm sure it stings.
We all have our opinions. It just seems to me that whenever someone belittles another's accomplishments by saying... 'it was his teammates and not him the reason for his success" it's disrespectful to that person.
Lynn Swann is in the HOF because he made the ALL-DECADE team for what HE did on the field. Not because of what his teammates did. Fans will always remember Swann mostly for his big plays during the post-season. He is a true HOFer.
It is also my opinion that comparing Edelman to a receiver who played 40 years ago when there were different rules, is not a very good comparison.
Terry Bradshaw was AMAZING!!
Ignore list -Basebal21
Not everyone on an all-decade team is in the HOF, and Lynn Swann made the all-decade team for the same reason he got in the HOF, otherwise Harold Jackson would be there instead.
Try taking everything out of your argument for Swann that doesn't depend on what other people thought, and just leave in what he actually did.
From there, try taking out, or at least minimizing, what his offensive teammates did, and completely removing what his defensive teammates did.
What you're left with, should you choose to try, will be an argument for the greatness of Lynn Swann, which will be almost entirely unrelated to what you have argued so far. But it would be an argument worth hearing.
And with respect to Del Shofner - I'd never heard of him, either - that he played 60 years ago when throwing and completing passes was far harder is admittedly unfair to Shofner, and that may harm the comparison. But I'm willing to pretend that it wasn't harder for Shofner to put up the same numbers as Swann, just for the sake of discussion. I'm also willing to pretend that Shofner didn't also play defensive back and handle the punting duties (if we don't, no reasonable argument could possibly be made that Swann was a better player). So let's just pretend that all these things that hurt Shofner in the comparison don't exist, and compare him straight up to Swann solely as receivers. OK?
And not just you - anyone. Anyone want to take up the Swann-Hofner comparison? Anyone? Anyone?
Edelman, such an easy no. When Amendola, Hogan, Welker, Brown can do and have done your job on any given Sunday you're not a HOF. It could have even been Cole Beasley and nothing would have changed for the Patriots.
Based on my eye test, I'm not sure exactly what player in the 70s could have replaced what Bradshaw and Swann did specifically for the Steelers game plan. They needed those 2 players to run their offense and I'm pretty sure Chuck Noll was happy with both of them. Why over analyze? 2+2 = 4.