Sterling Sharpe - Hall of Fame Finalist

[Fried Chicken]

Will need to get 80% of the 50 voters to vote for him, or be the leading voter getter of the 5 Senior finalists. A maximum of 3 can be inducted from the Senior Group, so he’ll need to be among the top 3 if more than 3 reach the 80%.

He and Mike Holmgren are the two most likely. Really hope get gets that 80% and gets his spot in the Pro Football Hall of Fame! He deserves it, and it would be nice to have a Gamecock in there. Would be cool for him to enter alongside his former coach, who is also worthy as well.

 

[NYC_Gamecock]

Sterling Sharpe deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. Period. Time to correct this injustice.

 

[Forkcock]

Put the man in.

 

[HuntinAces]

Sterling Sharpe deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. Period. Time to correct this injustice.

Absolutely

 

[Fried Chicken]

Sterling Sharpe deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. Period. Time to correct this injustice.

This is certainly a big step. He won’t get many more shots at it. Really hope we get to see him inducted in August!

 

[18IsTheMan]

I dunno. He only played 7 years in the pros. He was great in his brief career, but that's just an awfully short time to make someone a HOFer. You'd be putting him in on the basis of 3-4 years of play.

The pros have gone off the rails with letting in unworthy players. MLB has gone totally wonky, letting in guys who were just really good, and in some cases, just good.

WOULD Sterling have been a HOFer if he played a full career? Undoubtedly. HOF, though, is (theoretically) an elite club, intended only for the very best of the best of the best who have ever played the game at the highest level.

 

[Uscg1984]

I dunno. He only played 7 years in the pros. He was great in his brief career, but that's just an awfully short time to make someone a HOFer. You'd be putting him in on the basis of 3-4 years of play.

The pros have gone off the rails with letting in unworthy players. MLB has gone totally wonky, letting in guys who were just really good, and in some cases, just good.

WOULD Sterling have been a HOFer if he played a full career? Undoubtedly. HOF, though, is (theoretically) an elite club, intended only for the very best of the best of the best who have ever played the game at the highest level.

But let's suppose a guy played 10 years in the league and was a 3-time all-pro, 5-time pro-bowler, 3-time NFL receptions leader, two-time NFL receiving TD leader, led the league in receiving yards for one year, and broke the NFL single season receptions record _twice_. Would there be any serious doubt that guy would make the HOF? So, if a guy can do all of that in 7 years instead of 10, should he be punished because he didn't have 3 mediocre years to go along with his his other spectacular ones?

 

[18IsTheMan]

But let's suppose a guy played 10 years in the league and was a 3-time all-pro, 5-time pro-bowler, 3-time NFL receptions leader, two-time NFL receiving TD leader, led the league in receiving yards for one year, and broke the NFL single season receptions record _twice_. Would there be any serious doubt that guy would make the HOF? So, if a guy can do all of that in 7 years instead of 10, should he be punished because he didn't have 3 mediocre years to go along with his his other spectacular ones?

I still don't think those stats warrant HOF consideration. The inclusion criteria have just gotten to broad.

Now, if the argument is that Sharpe should make it using the current criteria, then sure. But I'm opposed to the overly broad criteria.

 

[Uscg1984]

The inclusion criteria have just gotten to broad.

Now, if the argument is that Sharpe should make it using the current criteria, then sure. But I'm opposed to the overly broad criteria.

I won't argue about the merits of the criteria, but is there actually any stated "criteria?" Has there ever been? I'm asking because I don't know, but I've always thought it was more of a subjective kind of "totality of the circumstances" criteria. I've never known there to be a "if this happens, you're in" or "if this doesn't happen, you're out" type of thing.

What does the sliding scale look like between longevity of achievement and scale of achievement? In the extreme example, how would one measure two players against each other when one puts up really solid numbers for 15 years in the league while another puts up ungodly numbers for 3 years? Obviously, I have more questions than answers, but I do think there are different ways to look at what "achievement" means.

 

[Fried Chicken]

I dunno. He only played 7 years in the pros. He was great in his brief career, but that's just an awfully short time to make someone a HOFer. You'd be putting him in on the basis of 3-4 years of play.

The pros have gone off the rails with letting in unworthy players. MLB has gone totally wonky, letting in guys who were just really good, and in some cases, just good.

WOULD Sterling have been a HOFer if he played a full career? Undoubtedly. HOF, though, is (theoretically) an elite club, intended only for the very best of the best of the best who have ever played the game at the highest level.

Gruden talked about those 7 years an said they were 7 years of dominance. Pointed out guys with longer careers (Gale Sayers) years wise but in less games that have made the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

Sterling’s short career caused him to get overlooked, but he was great when he played. Not good..great. 2nd best WR in the league behind the greatest of all time. He’s worthy.