Former Bengal HOF snub

[*bfine32*]

Only 1 WR in the history of the NFL has more receiving yards than this former Bengal and only two have more TDs. Yet a RB with about 4,000 less career rushing yards than Dillon and a QB with about 5,000 less career passing yards than Boomer gets the nod.

[J24]

Championships matter, MVPs matter, Superbowl MVPs matter.

[Shake n Blake]

TO: Making him wait 1 year was petty. 2 years is pathetic.

Dillon: Not quite as deserving as TO, but yes he deserves to be in. So is the HOF based on career numbers or sheer dominance at the player's peak? TD's induction would indicate that it's the latter. If so, why is Dillon not in? No question he was more dominant than overrated Jerome Bettis, and he was actually a big contributor to his championship team...unlike Bettis, who just hung on for a ring.

Boomer: Probably the least deserving. Borderline guy IMO. What separates Warner from Boomer is that Warner not only won a SB (and participated in 3), he was the QB of what has gone down as one of the greatest offenses of all time. The Greatest Show on Turf. Maybe if Joe Cool doesn't lead that last drive, Boomer would be in. I think he would honestly.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

"Did any of them play for the Steelers? No? They played for the Bengals, you say? Then they need at least twice the stats." -HoF Voter, probably.



Also... Ken Anderson > Boomer.
Ken Riley also deserves to be in.

[t3r3e3]

(02-05-2017, 12:31 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: "Did any of them play for the Steelers? No? They played for the Bengals, you say? Then they need at least twice the stats."  -HoF Voter, probably.



Also... Ken Anderson > Boomer.
Ken Riley also deserves to be in.

Another year, another snub for Kenny Anderson and Ken Riley.  Both deserve a nod, both likely won't get one because they played for a small market team in flyover country before the age of cable tv and the Internet.  For that matter, Isaac Curtis deserves in as well.  Far better stats than the overrated duo of Swann and Stallworth.

[BengalFanInNJ]

I agree that championships matter, but they shouldn't. It awards single players and not a team.

The fact that Ken Anderson and Ken Riley aren't in the HoF makes me look at it like I look at the Pro-Bowl. Complete garbage.

[*bfine32*]

(02-05-2017, 12:31 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Also... Ken Anderson > Boomer.
Ken Riley also deserves to be in.

Well, I did try to compare them to folks that played in the same era at the same position. 

I compared Anderson to Stabler the year he got in. 

If anyone has been on this board any time at all, they know my stance on Riley

[*bfine32*]

(02-05-2017, 12:12 PM)BengalFanInNJ Wrote: The fact that Ken Anderson and Ken Riley aren't in the HoF makes me look at it like I look at the Pro-Bowl. Complete garbage.

To illustrate the point. Ken Riley was never named to a Pro-Bowl

[*Nately120*]

Bengals fans don't even like more than a handful of former Bengals players, so I don't get too surprised when the HOF overlooks them too.

[Wes Mantooth]

Kurt Warner getting in is a real head scratcher. For as good as he was at his peak, he was equally bad a stretch of those years. He was a volume passer, who was blessed to be in a Mike Martz offense that was 10 years ahead of its time, surrounded by Marshall Caulk, Isaac Bruce, and Tory Holt. Then he was paired with an in their prime Fitz and Boldin.

Simply put, he wasn't that good.

Terrelle Davis was a good running back on a great team, who had two great years. That's it.

These guys have no business getting in over TO.

[Goalpost]

TO is getting screwed. His stats are easily HOF worthy. Second behind only Rice in receiving yards. 5th overall among all players in total TDs.

[Jpoore]

any loudmouth diva like t.o. would have a hard time getting in.

[jfkbengals]

(02-05-2017, 01:34 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Kurt Warner getting in is a real head scratcher.  For as good as he was at his peak, he was equally bad a stretch of those years.  He was a volume passer, who was blessed to be in a Mike Martz offense that was 10 years ahead of its time, surrounded by Marshall Caulk, Isaac Bruce, and Tory Holt. Then he was paired with an in their prime Fitz and Boldin.

Simply put, he wasn't that good.

Terrelle Davis was a good running back on a great team, who had two great years. That's it.

These guys have no business getting in over TO.

Yet Warner led two separate franchises to the Super Bowl, three appearances in all.

And TD's bad years were all due to injury forcing an early end to a career, ala Gale Sayers (note that I am not comparing him to Sayers, just that it was a career shortened by injury).

Owens will get in, but there is no reason he should get into the hall any quicker than Chris Carter or Tim Brown did.  Had Carter or Brown entered the NFL in '96 I question if Owens would be ahead of either of them statistically.  He didn't have 1000 yards until his third season and his reliability was questionable before he finally held onto that ball for the win against Green Bay.  While he was a great player, he benefited from the game rules making it easier for the receiver during his career.  It was his longevity, more than anything else, that helped him the most.  That is not his fault, but I honestly feel his place in the record books will only last because players are paid so much now that they can choose to walk away early to protect their bodies.

Just my $.02, of course...

[Shake n Blake]

(02-05-2017, 01:34 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Kurt Warner getting in is a real head scratcher.  For as good as he was at his peak, he was equally bad a stretch of those years.  He was a volume passer, who was blessed to be in a Mike Martz offense that was 10 years ahead of its time, surrounded by Marshall Caulk, Isaac Bruce, and Tory Holt. Then he was paired with an in their prime Fitz and Boldin.

Simply put, he wasn't that good.

Terrelle Davis was a good running back on a great team, who had two great years. That's it.

These guys have no business getting in over TO.

Gotta disagree buddy. Warner was an extremely efficient passer. The lean years in the middle were at least partially due to injury and a poor fit in NY. Look at how guys like Matt Leinart, Derek Anderson, etc performed in AZ with those all world WRs. The Cards were irrelevant after Warner left and didn't become relevant again until they hired Arians and got Carson.

Kurt was just a victim of teams not believing in him, but every time he got a chance, he lit it up. 

[*Awful Llama*]

(02-05-2017, 12:12 PM)BengalFanInNJ Wrote: I agree that championships matter, but they shouldn't. It awards single players and not a team.

The fact that Ken Anderson and Ken Riley aren't in the HoF makes me look at it like I look at the Pro-Bowl. Complete garbage.

Agree 100%.  Nothing more than a SB popularity contest.  The place can burn to the ground for all I care.

[xxlt]

(02-05-2017, 12:31 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Also... Ken Anderson > Boomer.
Ken Riley also deserves to be in.

Spot on.

[guyofthetiger]

Where's the popcorn?

[Nicomo Cosca]

(02-05-2017, 02:50 PM)Jpoore Wrote: any loudmouth diva like t.o. would have a hard time getting in.

Yet there's murderers, rapists, and drug addicts in the HoF. 

He deserves to be in. 

[Millhouse]

I am fine with Warner because he was a two-time MVP, took two different teams to the SB, winning won and almost winning the other. And his rag-to-riches story is a part of it as well. Plus I have always been a fan of him going back to that first Show on Turf year.

Dillon should be in there over Davis for the simple fact he was a better rb in his career. If Davis didnt have a dominant run blocking line with their zone scheme, he would have been just another dime a dozen back imo, though a good one.

TO should be in there period.

In regards to Kenny, only reason he should go is because of others already in there from the same era or prior. Otherwise he didnt do enough beyond the one MVP season which he went to the Super Bowl to merit him going, just my opinion tho.

[jfkbengals]

(02-05-2017, 06:53 PM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: Yet there's murderers, rapists, and drug addicts in the HoF. 

He deserves to be in. 

There's an obvious name of an individual who was tried as a murdered and found not guilty thanks to the incompetence and admitted racial bias of the LAPD.  The Hall discussed at the time whether he should be stripped of the title.  But you use the plural there.  Who else?