irvin, aikman and smith

HedCold · 02-05-2006, 09:16 AM

aikman made it to the hall this year, irvin didn't. eventually when smith is eligible he should obviously make it too.
i personally don't see why irvin shouldn't be in. i don't give a shit about his off the field crap.
so, anyone who thinks irvin shouldn't be in, please give a logical explanation why with stats backing it up compared to other players.

fbd · 02-05-2006, 04:04 PM

wide recieveres tend to be held to a really high standard to get in currently. not bothering to look up stats, but art monk was just as good as irvin back in the day, and he isnt in, either. same with andre reed. back in the day, just rings were enough to get swan and stallworth in (i know at least one of them had sub-par career numbers), but now they only want to let in carter, rice, and brown

The Sleeper · 02-05-2006, 04:19 PM

irvin had a better career than art monk. he should be in, i think monk just misses

fbd · 02-05-2006, 04:24 PM

i was more pointing out what i think the selectors logic is...i think irvin does deserve it

diceisgod · 02-05-2006, 04:40 PM

I don't think niggers should be allowed into the HoF. Obviously, those responsible for allowing people in agree with me.

The Sleeper · 02-05-2006, 04:45 PM

they only allow dead niggers

HedCold · 02-05-2006, 06:12 PM

i know he probably will because of key stats like 1000 career receptions, but i don't see why tim brown should definitly go in while irvin is a question mark. browns biggest year recieving wise was 1408 yards. his biggest season td wise was 11. other then that he was just very good for a while.

fbd · 02-05-2006, 07:10 PM

but he was very good for a very long while. longevity in football is one of the biggest reasons to get into the hall of fame. terrel davis dominated completely, but his stretch was too short. tim brown was the only good player on the raiders for most of his career, since they sucked for most of the 90s. gale sayers is the only hall of famer without a long career.