Morten Andersen
Steve Atwater
Don Coryell
Terrell Davis
Tony Dungy-x
Alan Faneca*
Brett Farve*
Kevin Greene-x
Marvin Harrison-x
Joe Jacoby
Edgerrin James
John Lynch
Terrell Owens*
Orlando Pace-x
Kurt Warner-x
* First year eligible
-x In Final 10 last year
Senior finalists / Contributors (separate vote)
Eddie DeBartolo Jr
Ken Stabler
Dick Stanfel
I've never liked Brett Favre but if he's the reason Tony Dungy stays out - even for only one more year - than I'll have to revisit my stance. Because the other four guys with an X on that list get in.
I know the NFL system is just as dumb - in it's own way - as the MLB Hall, but I don't follow it all that well. Do I have any shot here or do the hallowed tribe led by Peter King make a point to try to induct at least one coach/owner/other non-player every year?
Andersen - Too good for too long. Likely the only kicker of my lifetime I would support for the HOF.
Faneca - Hard to value linemen quantitatively. For several years I *thought* he was the best lineman in the league but I can't really prove it with stats. Maybe Pace will go first but I'm pretty confident he's getting in quickly.
Favre
Pace
Warner - Have come around to his case. In a weird way the seemingly inevitable departure of the Rams from STL makes me more sympathetic to honoring those incredibly entertaining Greatest Show on Turf teams. It's a squishy argument but I like the standard of: could you tell the history of football without talking about this guy? One of the defining players of the league for several years and a unique story. He's in for me and I wasn't always on board.
Toughest to leave out is Coryell. Can you win three career playoff games, never reach a SB let alone win one, and be a HOF coach? I can't quite get there. At the same time, was he a better football mind than Dungy or Cowher, at least one of whom will likely get in someday? It sure seems so. Would vote no but would have no problem seeing him get picked.
I like the football HOF process. Less histrionics than baseball, I like the idea of each player having a designated advocate in the room, and I very rarely if ever think they honor an undeserving player. The timing of the process is good. The announcement is a nice side story during SB week and the induction fits well at the start of the following preseason. I think the whole thing basically works.
Toughest to leave out is Coryell. Can you win three career playoff games, never reach a SB let alone win one, and be a HOF coach? I can't quite get there. At the same time, was he a better football mind than Dungy or Cowher, at least one of whom will likely get in someday? It sure seems so. Would vote no but would have no problem seeing him get picked.
Coryell's coaching resume is the temporary carport of his candidacy; the historic house part is this "passing league" we watch every Sunday. Coryell's impact and influence on the game is huge.
He is 9th on the all time winning % list (but ahead of BB, slightly).
Among coaches with at least 8 playoff wins - there are 24 of them - Dungy ranks 23rd in playoff winning % (only Bud Grant at 10-12 was worse).
He has a phenomenal regular season winning %, but his postseason resume is pretty dismal. And he doesn't have a long track record. It is kind of like the baseball hall of fame to me - either you have to be historically great for a shorter period of time (like Koufax and Pedro), or you have to be consistently very very good for a long period of time and rack up the counting stats.
To me, Dungy did neither, which is why he shouldn't be there IMO.
He is 9th on the all time winning % list (but ahead of BB, slightly).
Among coaches with at least 8 playoff wins - there are 24 of them - Dungy ranks 23rd in playoff winning % (only Bud Grant at 10-12 was worse).
He has a phenomenal regular season winning %, but his postseason resume is pretty dismal. And he doesn't have a long track record. It is kind of like the baseball hall of fame to me - either you have to be historically great for a shorter period of time (like Koufax and Pedro), or you have to be consistently very very good for a long period of time and rack up the counting stats.
To me, Dungy did neither, which is why he shouldn't be there IMO.
I'll see if I can find the post but last year when Dungy and the hall discussion came up I looked for a historical comp for Dungy and the best I could find was George Seifiert. Their overall records stacked up well. No one is talking George for the hall of fame. Granted Dungy played in the league but his career as a player was not especially memorable.
All that being said I have no doubt that he gets in. They will cite some bullshit about his contributions to the media and the good of game working with the likes of Mike Vick and other players.
I'll see if I can find the post but last year when Dungy and the hall discussion came up I looked for a historical comp for Dungy and the best I could find was George Seifiert. Their overall records stacked up well. No one is talking George for the hall of fame. Granted Dungy played in the league but his career as a player was not especially memorable.
All that being said I have no doubt that he gets in. They will cite some bullshit about his contributions to the media and the good of game working with the likes of Mike Vick and other players.
Seifert was 114-62 regular season (.648) and 10-5 playoffs. He won not just one, but two Super Bowls.
Dungy was 139-69 regular season (.668) and 9-10 playoffs. He won one title.
And I will throw in a modern day comp - Mike Tomlin. 92-52 regular season (.639). 5-4 postseason. One title. I don't think anyone thinks Mike Tomlin is going into the Hall of Fame unless he at least wins another title.
Seifert was 114-62 regular season (.648) and 10-5 playoffs. He won not just one, but two Super Bowls.
Dungy was 139-69 regular season (.668) and 9-10 playoffs. He won one title.
And I will throw in a modern day comp - Mike Tomlin. 92-52 regular season (.639). 5-4 postseason. One title. I don't think anyone thinks Mike Tomlin is going into the Hall of Fame unless he at least wins another title.
I think the biggest knock about Dungy is what happened after he left and another coach took over largely the same team.
In Tampa, he definitely was a big part of turning the Bucs around from perennial joke to playoff team. Hhis last two years they lost in the wild card round. Gruden comes in and with largely the same cast of characters puts up a better record than Dungy ever did and wins the Super Bowl.
In Indy, he took over a team that had made the playoffs 2 of the previous 3 seasons and continued making the playoffs with them. After he left, the Colts continued making the playoffs without him and even made a Super Bowl the very season he left.
Two teams left, both went to the Super Bowl the year he departed. Does that sound remotely like the impact losing a hall of fame coach should have?
Yes, he did win one Super Bowl. But aside from that, his teams were known for being disappointments. They were regularly picked to go far in the playoffs and they regularly lost early to inferior teams.
He had one team stacked with defensive talent, one team stacked with offensive talent, and didn't show any particular ability to get the most out of either.
Even if they do vote Dungy into the hall there could be ways to keep him away from Canton. Such as holding the inductees speeches in sunlight or surrounding the Hall of Fame with garlic.
Here's a bit of fun. A little A vs B comparison of two coaches who coached at least a decade.
Coach A: .653 career winning percentage, .500 playoff winning percentage, 1 SB championship, made playoffs 80% of the time, 50% of playoff appearances were 1-and-done
Coach B: .668 career winning percentage, .474 playoff winning percentage, 1 SB championship, made playoffs 85% of the time, 55% of playoff appearances were 1-and-done
Coach A is Mike McCarthy under the worst case scenario where the Packers lose this weekend. The numbers look even better in McCarthy's favor if they win a playoff game or two this year.
Coach B is Dungy. Anyone think McCarthy is a HOF coach if he retires next month?
Here's a bit of fun. A little A vs B comparison of two coaches who coached at least a decade.
Coach A: .653 career winning percentage, .500 playoff winning percentage, 1 SB championship, made playoffs 80% of the time, 50% of playoff appearances were 1-and-done
Coach B: .668 career winning percentage, .474 playoff winning percentage, 1 SB championship, made playoffs 85% of the time, 55% of playoff appearances were 1-and-done
Coach A is Mike McCarthy under the worst case scenario where the Packers lose this weekend. The numbers look even better in McCarthy's favor if they win a playoff game or two this year.
Coach B is Dungy. Anyone think McCarthy is a HOF coach if he retires next month?
Dungy has a much stronger case than McCarthy would in several ways:
- Same Win %, but in three extra seasons.
- Dungy resurrected a moribund franchise in Tampa that had been the laughingstock of the league for decades, while McCarthy took over a marquee, well-run organization. Tampa had had 13 consecutive losing seasons when Dungy arrived.
- McCarthy has always had a HoF QB. Dungy did in Indy but not in Tampa, where his teams won despite mediocre-at-best QB play from Trent Dilfer, Shaun King, and Brad Johnson.
- A significant strategic innovation. Dungy was largely responsible (along with Monte Kiffin and Jimmy Johnson) for adapting the traditional 4-3 Cover-2 into the Tampa 2 that became a dominant defensive system for ~15 years. Obviously the 4-3 under front and Cover 2 had been around a long time but combining a) one-gap line principles, b) converting safeties and linebackers into undersized linebackers and defensive ends, respectively, and focusing on speed rather than power in the front 7 c) converting the Cover-2 to a sort of hybrid Cover-3 by having a weakside or middle linebacker cover the deep middle zone (possible b/c of the use of faster players) and d) emphasizing pass defense at the expense of run defense, were all important innovations, especially in conjunction with each other -- some or all of these had been around for a while (especially at the college level, or the 70s Steelers under Bud Carson) but the combination of them all was new and significant.
I think Dungy's case is borderline, but he was an excellent coach and he has a good case. A vote for him isn't some kind of travesty.
This is silly. All this shows is that he had put in place good players and effective systems. The 1989 49ers cruised to the Super Bowl the year after Bill Walsh retired. That doesn't mean Walsh was overrated -- it meant he had created such a powerful system and developed such good players that any decent coach could execute it.
I understand why the "class" will be Farve, Terrell Davis, Tony Dungy, Kurt Warner, and Orlando Pace or Alan Faneca. That's an undeniably sexy group for the NFL (Network), featuring the biggest commercial actor on the network (Farve), two analysts (Davis and Warner), a third high-profile analyst for another network (Dungy), and the obligatory offensive lineman (Pace or Faneca).
I'm surprised Atwater even made the finalists again, given his concussion-giving history. Gosh I loved watching that guy play. He was one of the last great enforcer safeties and so key to the great Broncos teams of the 90s. Jacoby, Pace, and Faneca were all great OL, the only reason for Jacoby over Faneca is time on the ballot.
Seifert was 114-62 regular season (.648) and 10-5 playoffs. He won not just one, but two Super Bowls.
Dungy was 139-69 regular season (.668) and 9-10 playoffs. He won one title.
And I will throw in a modern day comp - Mike Tomlin. 92-52 regular season (.639). 5-4 postseason. One title. I don't think anyone thinks Mike Tomlin is going into the Hall of Fame unless he at least wins another title.
From this list, I think Atwater, Coryell, Dungy, Faneca, Favre, Harrison, Jacoby, Owens, Pace, and Warner all have strong cases. Getting that down to five is really difficult. I'd vote for:
Favre
Harrison
Owens
Pace
Faneca
Picking among the linemen is especially difficult. They should probably all be in, but there aren't enough slots.
All time stats for receivers are completely worthless. Art Monk and Steve Largent were all-time great WRs who retired as the all-time leaders in receptions. They are now 18th and 29th, respectively, on the all-time list. This is the leaderboard in 1990 and 1994, respectively. In 20 years, the entire statistical basis of the position has been obliterated as it has become even more of a passing league.
It is inevitable that Owens will get into the Hall of Fame, because unlike baseball, football actually sees theirs as having an accent on fame and doesn't care about off-field stuff. And Owens was undoubtedly one of the most famous players in the NFL. There are at least 5 and maybe 10 guys (contemporaries) I'd rather have on my roster.
I think they'll all eventually get in. That "legends" part of the ballot seems designed to catch anything the committee misses. Jacoby is probably going to have to wait for that mechanism.
Pace and Faneca are "first-ballot" choices and one (both?) isn't going to make it because of the need for the NFL Network to enshrine Warner. For Warner to get in before Pace would be a crime, so it's probably Faneca missing the cut.
Dungy getting in would make me think less of the NFL Hall of Fame in a similar way that Andre Dawson did in baseball. Neither would probably be their sports worst, but neither deserve to be in either. No one thought of Dungy as a Hall of Fame coach while he was coaching, and I'm not even sure he was a top 3 coach in the league at any point in his career. He didn't innovate. He doesn't have a ton of career longevity. If he doesn't coach one of the best quarterbacks ever for almost a decade of his prime is this even a serious discussion?
If, knowing what you now know, who do you hire Dungy over in the early 2000s? I'd have a hard time taking him over Reid, Marty, Cowher, Coughlin. I guess he's around where I'd put Shanahan and Fisher? I'd have to seriously think about who I'd want between Dungy and John Fox. That says a lot.
I'd argue that all of them except Lofton, Largent and Monk are contemporaries of Owens, although you may have a different definition. Then, depending on how poisonous you think Owens was (I'm not taking a position on this, but people feel very strongly about it) then I think you could take 10 of these other 16 WRs (i.e., not Gonzalez) easily.
The NFL has done everything it can to make everyone forget about concussions and honoring a player whose job description was, in part, "give concussions" with a HOF nomination is surprising.
Most of Atwater's highlight reel is now rated X and will never be shown on NFL Network. But it was all over every copy of JACKED UP and other "Greatest Hits" collections.
Rice, Moss, Brown, CrazySteve Smith, Fitzgerald, Holt, and Wayne for sure. With Ward, Mason, and Reed completing the ten I'd "maybe" prefer on my roster.
Every single of one of those guys is a better teammate, a better blocker, gave a better effort week-in-and-week-out, and were just as, if not more, productive.
Aside from the - compared to this group - average numbers (which we've covered), what is your case for Owens as a Hall of Famer, and deserving of first ballot enshrinement?
All time stats for receivers are completely worthless. Art Monk and Steve Largent were all-time great WRs who retired as the all-time leaders in receptions. They are now 18th and 29th, respectively, on the all-time list. This is the leaderboard in 1990 and 1994, respectively. In 20 years, the entire statistical basis of the position has been obliterated as it has become even more of a passing league.
It is inevitable that Owens will get into the Hall of Fame, because unlike baseball, football actually sees theirs as having an accent on fame and doesn't care about off-field stuff. And Owens was undoubtedly one of the most famous players in the NFL. There are at least 5 and maybe 10 guys (contemporaries) I'd rather have on my roster.
Owens was a selfish jerk, but he was also a legitimately great player. He was first-team all-pro five times in an era with a lot of great receivers in their primes, including Moss, Harrison, Jimmy Smith, Steve Smith, Isaac Bruce, Torry Holt, Hines Ward, Eric Moulds, Chad Johnson, among others. And he was an especially devastating red zone guy, as his TD totals show (which is where he really stands out from most of his contemporaries). I would have Owens second only to Moss among that group, and clearly on the in line. For WRs who peaked in that era (say, 1998-2007), I'd probably put in Moss, Owens, Harrison, and Steve Smith and leave everyone else out.
Rice, Moss, Brown, CrazySteve Smith, Fitzgerald, Holt, and Wayne for sure. With Ward, Aside from the - compared to this group - average numbers (which we've covered), what is your case for Owens as a Hall of Famer, and deserving of first ballot enshrinement?
Despite your insistence that they don't matter, the numbers are a pretty strong case in and of themselves. The fact that he was a prototype "big receiver" before guys like Calvin Johnson and Brandon Marshall came along. His performance against the Patriots in the Superbowl. And the 5 first team all-pro selections are a pretty good benefit, as well.
Sure but you did so begrudgingly and in a dick way as to how he'll eventually get in, so it's not like you are treating him as one of the receiving greats of his era. Which he is. So that statement is just a tad disingenuous.
Take this for what it is - an unsubstantiated anecdote from a random guy on the Internet - but I once sat in a meeting in which a HOF QB said he'd rather go 0-16 than have Owens in his huddle. And this was a guy who played alongside more than his share of titanic egos. I think there's something to the idea that TO was more trouble than even his enormous talent was worth. I think it's a fair piece of his HOF discussion.
Take this for what it is - an unsubstantiated anecdote from a random guy on the Internet - but I once sat in a meeting in which a HOF QB said he'd rather go 0-16 than have Owens in his huddle. And this was a guy who played alongside more than his share of titanic egos. I think there's something to the idea that TO was more trouble than even his enormous talent was worth. I think it's a fair piece of his HOF discussion.
Owens' teams were fairly successful; he played for 8 playoff teams. With the obvious exception of 2005, it's not like he was such a cancer that you couldn't win with him. And you could make similar complaints about Moss's Oakland years, but I don't think that will or should keep Moss out of the HoF.
Hi! It looks like you are not logged in. SoSH has a bunch of content only available to users who have registered so we suggest creating one.
If you are seeing this because of a supposed issue using the site, all site outage notices will be posted to our official Twitter account at
SoSH on Twitter.
Thanks!
