Is anyone surprised w/ the 2007 NFL HOF Senior nominees?

gregm13

I didn't know anything about Gene Hickerson...it's amazing that he helped block for 3 HOF running backs...he seems a lock based on that fact and that he was an all pro 6 or 7 times. I'm not too sure about Charlie Sanders....he was one of the best tight ends of the 70's...but do his career stats put him in the hall of fame.

On a different note, I just realized that I have a PSA 9 Charlie Sanders rc and just bought a PSA 8 Gene Hickerson rc for $28 dlvd!!! I'm rooting for them both to be elected.

Regards,

Greg M.

shagrotn77

Sanders' numbers do not seem HOF worthy to me. What is his rookie? '72 Topps?

gregm13

<< <i>Sanders' numbers do not seem HOF worthy to me. What is his rookie? '72 Topps? >>



1971 Topps...

Fabfrank

I was a bit surprised too. It almost seems like they pulled the names from a hat

JasP24

I picked up a PSA 8 1966 Philly Gene Hickerson and a PSA 8 1971 Topps Charlie Sanders as soon as I heard they were the 2 selections. Its a fairly weak year, and I imagine both will be inducted.

Here's the list of the final 17 Senior candidates prior to them picking the final 2:

Final 17 Senior Candidates 2007 HOF.

Mick Tingelhoff
Chuck Howley
Gene Hickerson
Claude Humphrey
Cliff Harris
Dave Robinson
Otis Taylor
Charlie Sanders
L.C. Greenwood
Floyd Little
Bob Hayes
Pat Fischer
Charlie Conerly
Billy Wilson
Lee Roy Jordan
Tommy Nobis
Jim Marshall

Of that list, I thought Humphrey and Cliff Harris would be the selections. Eventually I think both of those guys will get in. Hickerson and Tinglehoff are both Offensive Linemen I think are worthy of HOF induction. Their careers are very similar in stature, and in the past, I think they were cancelling each other out. I'm glad one of them finally got the nod. I suspect Tinglehoff won't be far behind. Tinglehoff went to 6 Pro Bowls, was a 6 time all-pro selection as a Center and played in 4 Super Bowls with the Vikings...Hickerson was a Guard who also went to 6 Pro Bowls, 5 All-Pro selections and 2 NFL Championship games with the Browns. Of course his biggest claim to fame was being the pulling Guard for Jim Brown, Leroy Kelly and Bobby Mitchell....

If I had to rate the Top 10 TE's of All-Time Sanders definitely makes the list. During a period when TE's didn't catch alot of passes, Sanders was a 7 time Pro Bowler and 2 time All-Pro selection. And that's at a position where only ONE player each year is selected as a First Team All-Pro. If you campare his stats to Casper and Jackie Smith who are already HOFers that played during his years, he compares favorably. The knock is that there are only 6 TEs in the HOF. Its a tough position to get recognized because they only catch passes half the time, and the rest of the time they block..Well, as long as your name isn't Shannon Sharpe or Tony Gonzalez...lol...He was one of, if not the best TE in the league from 1968-1975...

Will that be enough to get elected? Probably...Should it be enough? Debatable..TE's are tough to grade...

Jason

seinbigd

Problems off the field aside, Bob Hayes should be in the Hall of Fame.

JasP24

I agree on Bob Hayes, he should have got in a couple of years back when he was a Senior Finalist. The fact that he didn't probably means he never will. I was actually surprised to see him make the final 17 senior list. It says that there are still voters in his corner, so maybe his HOF chances aren't compeltely dashed...

I don't understand how Johnny Robinson and Chris Hanburger aren't at LEAST in the final 17...Both of these guys were DOMINANT players, and dominant players belong in the HOF....

Jason

gregm13

<< <i>I picked up a PSA 8 1966 Philly Gene Hickerson and a PSA 8 1971 Topps Charlie Sanders as soon as I heard they were the 2 selections. Its a fairly weak year, and I imagine both will be inducted.

Here's the list of the final 17 Senior candidates prior to them picking the final 2:

Final 17 Senior Candidates 2007 HOF.

Mick Tingelhoff
Chuck Howley
Gene Hickerson
Claude Humphrey
Cliff Harris
Dave Robinson
Otis Taylor
Charlie Sanders
L.C. Greenwood
Floyd Little
Bob Hayes
Pat Fischer
Charlie Conerly
Billy Wilson
Lee Roy Jordan
Tommy Nobis
Jim Marshall

Of that list, I thought Humphrey and Cliff Harris would be the selections. Eventually I think both of those guys will get in. Hickerson and Tinglehoff are both Offensive Linemen I think are worthy of HOF induction. Their careers are very similar in stature, and in the past, I think they were cancelling each other out. I'm glad one of them finally got the nod. I suspect Tinglehoff won't be far behind. Tinglehoff went to 6 Pro Bowls, was a 6 time all-pro selection as a Center and played in 4 Super Bowls with the Vikings...Hickerson was a Guard who also went to 6 Pro Bowls, 5 All-Pro selections and 2 NFL Championship games with the Browns. Of course his biggest claim to fame was being the pulling Guard for Jim Brown, Leroy Kelly and Bobby Mitchell....

If I had to rate the Top 10 TE's of All-Time Sanders definitely makes the list. During a period when TE's didn't catch alot of passes, Sanders was a 7 time Pro Bowler and 2 time All-Pro selection. And that's at a position where only ONE player each year is selected as a First Team All-Pro. If you campare his stats to Casper and Jackie Smith who are already HOFers that played during his years, he compares favorably. The knock is that there are only 6 TEs in the HOF. Its a tough position to get recognized because they only catch passes half the time, and the rest of the time they block..Well, as long as your name isn't Shannon Sharpe or Tony Gonzalez...lol...He was one of, if not the best TE in the league from 1968-1975...

Will that be enough to get elected? Probably...Should it be enough? Debatable..TE's are tough to grade...

Jason >>



Jason,

Thanks for posting the list of final candidates. I couldn't find it. What's surprising is there was only 1 old timer on the list - Conerley. I've heard of other players from the early days (Duke Slater, Mac Speedie, Gene Lipscomb, Rams Coach in late 40's early 50's...can't remember his name ect..) being discussed but don't seem to make the Senior Committe list (even though many were finalists in prior years).

Regards,

Greg M.

JasP24

Of the 17, I think 8 are HOF worthy. And if I had to rank them using my own personal opinion, it would look something like this:

1- Cliff Harris
2- Claude Humphrey
3- Chuck Howley
4- Gene Hickerson
5- Mick Tingelhoff
6- Tommy Nobis
7- Bob Hayes
8- Charlie Sanders
9- Pat Fischer
10-Billy Wilson
11-LeRoy Jordan
12-LC Greenwood
13-Charlie Conerly
14-Otis Taylor
15-Dave Robinson
16-Jim Marshall
17-Floyd Little

If I had to put Hanburger and Robinson on that list they would fall #2 and #4....

Jason

RonBurgundy

It's all a fraud until Art Monk is elected to the HOF.


Stay classy,


Ron

JasP24

<< <i>It's all a fraud until Art Monk is elected to the HOF.


Stay classy,


Ron >>



No way Monk deserves to be in over Michael Irvin or even Andre Reed. Just because a guy plays long enough to collect 900 catches doesn't make him a HOFer. Jim Marshall is guy who is similar to Monk. Both played in a couple of Super Bowls, both played a LONG time, but neither was DOMINANT or FEARED during their time in the league. Monk played 16 years, went to 3 Pro Bowls and was a first team All-Pro ONCE. And it's not like they only pick one WR every year, they pick two. So he was a top 2 WR ONCE. Marshall played 20 years and went to 2 Pro Bowls and was never selected as a first team All-Pro. So he was never one of the top 2 DE's in the league. Like Monk, he was just a good player for a long time and like Monk isn't in the HOF.

Monk might get in one day, but to me, there is a long line in front of him of more worthy candidates. Add Cris carter to that list in 2008.

Just my opinion of course,
Jason

digicat

How does Football HoF voting work? I know how it works in baseball, but it seems that football works differently.

JasP24

<< <i>How does Football HoF voting work? I know how it works in baseball, but it seems that football works differently. >>



Here ya go:

Pro Football HOF Selection Process

digicat

So, do Football nominees time out after a certain number of years? I notice that Chuck Foreman was on the 2006 preliminary nominee list, and his first year of eligibility was 20 years ago.

GDM67

<< <i>How does Football HoF voting work? >>

Peter King says "No" and you don't get in.

I don't want to start a fight over Art Monk, but when you retire with the most career receptions, the season record for most catches (since surpassed) and you have three rings, you're in. Period.

Being in before Irvin wouldn't be an issue if Monk had already been elected, as he should have been. They weren't direct contemporaries, although their careers overlapped. At this juncture, positing a competition between them to see who gets in first based on a side-by-side comparison of their stats is artificial.

gregm13

<< <i>So, do Football nominees time out after a certain number of years? I notice that Chuck Foreman was on the 2006 preliminary nominee list, and his first year of eligibility was 20 years ago. >>



I believe you have 25 years of eligibility to be elected as part of the regular process. After 25 years, you can only be nominated through the senior committee (There are 2 senior committee nominees, who automatically are in the final nominee pool).

Regards,

Greg M.

JasP24

<< <i>

<< <i>How does Football HoF voting work? >>

Peter King says "No" and you don't get in.

I don't want to start a fight over Art Monk, but when you retire with the most career receptions, the season record for most catches (since surpassed) and you have three rings, you're in. Period.

Being in before Irvin wouldn't be an issue if Monk had already been elected, as he should have been. They weren't direct contemporaries, although their careers overlapped. At this juncture, positing a competition between them to see who gets in first based on a side-by-side comparison of their stats is artificial. >>



Without a side-by-side comparison to any other WRs, this is what I see when I look at Monk:

--Monk played 16 years, went to 3 Pro Bowls and was a first team All-Pro ONCE--

He wasn't even the most feared or dominant WR on his own team (Gary Clark typically drew more double team coverage). Yes he got TWO rings, not 3, but was never a Super Bowl MVP, so was he truly a factor in winning their championships? In 2 of his 3 Super Bowls played, he had exactly ONE CATCH in each game. His only good SB performance was vs. Buffalso when he caught 7 for 113. He never scored a TD in any of his Super Bowl appearances, and only scored 68 in his entire career, never more than 8 in a season.

With all this said, I think he is still HOF material, strictly based on the fact that he retired as the all-time receptions leader. Problem is, he needed to get in quickly. The longer he waits, he is just going to have more WRs come up that were better. Irvin and Reed are 2 of them. Carter and Rice are 2 more. I'd give him a 60% chance of getting in down the road. Subtract 10% for every year that goes by...

PSARich

Remember that Charlie Sanders was a great tight end at a time when the position was more noted for blocking than receiving. John Mackey was the standard of that that time and Sanders was right behind him. Plus Charlie threw one of the great blocks in NFL history against Minnesota. Not a lot of tight ends make the HOF so maybe Charlie will be considered strongly.

RonBurgundy

I won't argue Irvin, but as far as comparing Monk to Carter or Reed is concerned, Monk has very worthy numbers against the two, plus he has rings - three to be exact - and they have zero.

And no, I am not a Redskins fan.



Stay classy,


Ron

gregmo32

I think a very fair comparison can be made between Monk and Stallworth. You have to remember (much like when people get fixated on how many championships basketball players have won - Jordan and Magic and Bird won all of them...) that Jerry Rice was one of the two All Pro picks every year, leaving only one other receiver to be AllPRo for most of a decade.

Stallworth caught 537 passes for 8,723 yards and 63 touchdowns, all Steelers team records. A veteran of six AFC championship games and all four Steelers Super Bowl triumphs, Stallworth was named All-Pro in 1979 and All-AFC in 1979 and 1984. He also played in four Pro Bowls following the 1979, 1982, 1983 and 1984 seasons.

Monk was a great reciever in a different era, and was always on great teams who were well rounded run vs. pass and shared his catches with other good receivers and still ended up with the most catches up to that point in history. Not that "stats" tell the whole story anyway, but that is hard to argue with.

GDM67

<< <i>He wasn't even the most feared or dominant WR on his own team (Gary Clark typically drew more double team coverage). >>

So is Gary HOF worthy? King makes the same argument, and I don't buy it from him, either. Was Charlie Joiner ever the "most feared" receiver on his teams? Usually that was either Isaac Curtis or Wes Chandler or John Jefferson. Was Fred Biletnikoff the "most feared" guy on his team? That was Cliff Branch.

Art Monk was a possession receiver. In most ways, he played more like a tight end who lined up wide.

<< <i>Yes he got TWO rings, not 3, but was never a Super Bowl MVP, so was he truly a factor in winning their championships? >>

He was a member of the team that beat Miami in SB 17. He didn't play down the stretch due to a broken leg, but I assure you that he owns three Super Bowl rings.

<< <i>With all this said, I think he is still HOF material, strictly based on the fact that he retired as the all-time receptions leader. Problem is, he needed to get in quickly. The longer he waits, he is just going to have more WRs come up that were better. Irvin and Reed are 2 of them. Carter and Rice are 2 more. I'd give him a 60% chance of getting in down the road. Subtract 10% for every year that goes by... >>

I fail to see why other receivers with bigger stats who came along later somehow diminish his career. You're judged on your era. 100+ catch seasons are commonplace now. When he tallied more than 100 in '84, they were not.

I've also never bought the idea that numbers acquired via longevity are somehow less impressive, in this sport or in Baseball (I've argued against that notion as it applies to Phil Niekro and Don Sutton, as well as the other living 280+ game winners still excluded from the HOF.)

And to address the topic, yes, Charlie Sanders should be in the HOF. So should Jerry Smith, but I ain't holding my breath for that to happen.

gregmo32

Off the topic... Is Ray Guy still eligible or has his time come and gone?

JasP24

John Stallworth and Charlie Joiner are 2 of the weaker WRs in the HOF. I think an argument could be made against both of those guys being elected. But they got in, as Monk might as well, but very borderline selections. So since they were elected, the HOF voters should but in all the WRs in that belong in that class of WR? Stallworth is already in, the debate is SHOULD Art Monk be in? I say he probably does belong, but not before Irvin or Reed or Carter next year.

As far as Monk goes, he played on TWO Super Bowl winning teams and one losing team. He got his third ring while on IR. He only caught more than one pass in ONE Super Bowl, so lets not overplay his "3 rings"..He was a major contributor for only one of them.

Here are the First Team All-Pro WR selections during Monk's tenure 1980-1995:

1980-John Jefferson, James Lofton, Charlie Joiner
1981-James Lofton, Alfred Jenkins
1982-Wes Chandler, Dwight Clark
1983-Roy Green, Mike Quick, James Lofton
1984-Roy Green, Art Monk, James Lofton
1985-Steve Largent, Louis Lipps, Mike Quick
1986-Jerry Rice, Al Toon
1987-Jerry Rice, Gary Clark, Steve Largent
1988-Jerry Rice, Henry Ellard
1989-Jerry Rice, Sterling Sharpe
1990-Jerry Rice, Andre Rison
1991-Michael Irvin, Haywood Jeffries
1992-Jerry Rice, Sterling Sharpe
1993-Jerry Rice, Sterling Sharpe
1994-Jerry Rice, Cris Carter
1995-Jerry Rice, Herman Moore

So which WRs were more dominant DURING Art Monk's years based on being selected as THE BEST in the NFL? Jerry Rice-9, James Lofton-4, Sterling Sharpe-3, Steve Largent-2, Mike Quick-2, Roy Green-2...These are the player Art Monk was being compared to during his years, and ALL of these guys listed had more dominant seasons than Art Monk's ONE...

I think its safe to say Monk was NOT a dominant player. He wasn't a 'big game' performer, nor was he feared by DBs around the league...Which means, if he is HOF worthy, its because of his reception record that he gained by playing for 16 years. If he hadn't retired as the All-Time Receptions leader, there wouldn'teven be an argument for him...

Again, i think eventually he will probably get in..Much like Stallworth who waited quite awhile to get in...Irvin, Reed and Carter are all more deserving...All were better players on the field and both Carter and Reed both ended up with more receptions..Irvin was far more dominant and consistently drew double coverage and would have easily surpassed Art Monk's totals had he alsoplayed for 16 years..,

I guess Im just from the school of thought that doesnt reward a guy just because he played for 20 years. HOF is about the BEST players, and for me I define that as a player who was head and shoulders above his peers and was a dominant player at his position. I'd rather see Terrell Davis or Tony Boselli go in before Monk. They had injury shortened careers, but were the best in the game for a 3-5 year stretch. Monk was just good for a long time..

GDM67

I don't see that as a zero sum choice. I think each is a valid path to election, myself.

gregmo32

I am not sure how I got in the position of being the Art Monk apologist, but I think his longevity is being ovestated. I know it is apples and oranges, but nobody says "Jeez, Hank Aaron played 24 years" because he was at the top of the list when he quit. I remember when Steve Largent was the all time leader, and Charlie Joiner was the all time leader, and so on... It is obvious that Monk was not as good as Jerry Rice or Chris Carter or Randy Moss or Marvin Harrison, but Franco Harris was not as good as Jim Brown, and Dan Fouts was not as good as Johnny Unitas etc. You don't have to better or even as good as every HOFer to get in. I know that JASP24 is saying essentially the same thing as me- the guy will probably get in and probably deserves it, but not without some deliberation. Not all HOFers are created equal and since it seems that the process can last decades in football then it seems that every deserving candidate will get in. Of course, there are very good players who just don't make the cut, and that can be debated for hours upon hours...Ahhhh, the fun of sports....

gregmo32

Now, back to Ray Guy. Did he just seem like a HOFer because of that hang-time meter they used to reel out when he was going to punt or what?

GDM67

He's the same for Punters as Fingers was for Closers: the one man who caused everybody to notice the position. For my money, he's a HOFer.

Nice analogy with Franco and Fouts, by the way.

sixdart

For conversation, what are the odds of Sterling Sharpe getting in someday? Imagine his career numbers (with Favre) had not had to retire (due to injury). He was often double and triple teamed as the only offensive threat that GB had.

I agree with Terrell Davis. The Gale Sayers entry opens debate for players injured early in the careers (while dominant).

JasP24

I agree with the Fouts-Franco analogy. Players who are already in the HOF are in the HOF. They were compared with other candidates when they were a finalist, just as Monk is going to be compared with other finalists when his name is in the mix. Unfortunately, he's not a LOCK HOFer, or he would have been in already. Now he is GOING to be compared to other finalists..Its a selection process, the voters HAVE TO compare players in order to formulate the selections. That means Monk will be compared with Irvin and Reed this year..Cris Carter next year, etc, etc...Personally, I just think Irvin, Reed and Carter are all more deserving than Monk. They were just more dominant...Watch their game films, watch their highlights...

I even think Ray Guy is more deserving than Monk. He was the greatest Punter of all-time, he was as dominanat as a Punter could be..He had it all, hang time, accuracy inside the 20..Madden has touted how big a difference Guy made for the Raiders when it came to field position. If the voters ever let a Punter in, Ray Guy will be first in line. Guy has 5 more years of eligibility before becaome a Senior candidate.

I think Sharpe was also more dominant than Monk, but he didn't play quite long enough. During his 7 seasons, he was one of the best in the league..But anytime you have a guy with les than 10 years, its hard to compare him with other players at his position that played 10-12 years and ammassed much larger stats. He he been able to play even 3 more years, I think he would likely be in already, or at least very, very close. All these WRs are cancelling each other out in the voting process, because so many people think differently on who was better. I doubt Sharpe ever gets in, but for my money he was a better player on the field than Monk, Irvin or Reed.

gregmo32

I think that may be the primary difference between the Pro Football and other HOF's. Isn't there a rule that somebody must be voted in each year, and not more than a certain number must be voted in each year? Baseball, of course, has no such rule. It is possible to have no one get in ina a given year, as it should be. But this fact I think is the reason JASP24's argument "against" Monk is relevent. I am starting to get it...

JasP24

Yep, minimum of 3, maximum of 6 every year...Typically 2 of those will be Senior Candidates. Last year was a prime example..Thurman Thomas SHOULD have been in, but missed the final cut to 6 because the class was so strong. Reggie White, Troy Aikman and Warren Moon were all first ballot guys.

For 2007, My guess as the only "locks" to go in this year are the 2 Senior guys plus Bruce Matthews and Thurman Thomas. After those 4 its a crap shoot. Monk has as good a shot as anyone else, and I expect he will again be a finalist. We could see Irvin AND Monk go in this year..Derrick Thomas is another strong candidate who has been very close the last couple of years. He looks to be the best defensive player of the 2007 candidates, so I think that is going to help him alot.

If I were voting it would be Matthews, Thurman, Irvin and Derrick Thomas plus the 2 senior candidates...

Jason

gregmo32

Ok, another topic. (Sorry to get off on on tangents here, but this seems as good a place as any to get going on on HOF topics). How does the "Pro Football HOF" handle players from other leagues who also played in the NFL? For example, Doug Flutie. Definite CFL HOFer, but what about the Pro Football HOF? I know that with basketball, they include everybody, sometimes to the point of apparent dilution.

JasP24

<< <i>Ok, another topic. (Sorry to get off on on tangents here, but this seems as good a place as any to get going on on HOF topics). How does the "Pro Football HOF" handle players from other leagues who also played in the NFL? For example, Doug Flutie. Definite CFL HOFer, but what about the Pro Football HOF? I know that with basketball, they include everybody, sometimes to the point of apparent dilution. >>



The Pro Football HOF is really the NFL HOF. Any stats a guy gains in the USFL or CFL are looked at as "minor league". While yes they are professional leagues, I think its pretty obvious that those were/are lesser entities than the NFL...They are sorta like what Triple AAA baseball is to the Major Leagues..Any GREAT CFL player gets pulled to the NFL to compete on the highest level.

Even AFL players, who eventually merged into the NFL don't get the same "street cred" as NFL players from the same timeframe. Guys like Johnny Robinson, Walt Sweeny, Jim Tyrer, all great players but their years in the AFL are looked at as they played against lesser competition.

Rightly or wrongly, that's just how it goes..The NFL is the big boy in town, and if a guy couldn't be the BEST in the ultimate pro league, the voters look at that negatively.

Jason

SKINSFAN

Jason i think politics has just as much to do with it then anything.

If you ask 100 sports writers about Monk they will all tell you the same thing ,He belongs in but just does not have the personalaty they want ,not a media guy ,did not like to give interviews ect.

I have met Art a few times at shows and once at a mall and have asked him about him being turned down by the hall and has said he has heard the above comments above many times and agrees with them. But feels that his numbers speak for themself.

To give you a idea of what type of person he is at a show 1 time i saw the guy and his young son in front of me ask him to put his carrer cathes number on his newly signed ball

MONK WOULD ONLY DO SO IF THE GUY COULD TELL HIM HOW MANY THAT WAS.

He was not rude at all just a little co--cky , And that as the type of attitude he always had with reporters ,exspecialy those not from the DC area.

And Monk is not alone when it comes to guys who have been passed over that seem to not have the best repore with the media ,When there numbers are good enough to get them in but there someone else that is close maybe a little better or even a little worse i must agree that it all comes down to politics

JasP24

<< <i>Jason i think politics has just as much to do with it then anything. >>



I agree 100%...Very political, but if Monk was a lock and stock HOFer, politics wouldn't hold him back..Just ask Lawrence Taylor..For guys on that are borderline HOF material, the politics can and will come into play...Micheal Irvin is catching the same wrath because of his off the field antics..

The reason Monk was even brought up here was the comment--" It's all a fraud until Art Monk is elected to the HOF."

Which to me is way overstating the situation. Monk was not and will never be considered a Jerry Rice, Emmitt Smith, John Elway type HOFer...If he were, and STILL wasn't getting elected, then yeah that would be a big issue...But ultimately, when you judge what he did on the football field, he's a borderline HOFer..Much like John Stallworth, Charlie Joiner and Tommy McDonald at his same position...They are all in, but none were locks..They just so happen to come up in a year that they looked strong vs. the competition...In McDonalds case, he got in as a Senior candidate which could happen to Monk if he doesnt make it in soon.

I don't want to give the impression that I am rooting against Monk..I own his PSA 10 1981 RC and it would look nice in my HOF set. But based on his merits and the comparisons between fellow 2007 HOF candidates Andre Reed and Micheal Irvin, I don't think he is more deserving than those 2 guys. They were simply better players at the same position..How do you put Monk in over them???The voters are obviously having the same concerns..