PDA

View Full Version : Will Shields - HoF discussion


GoBroncos DownUnder
02-03-2013, 12:34 PM
Will Shields, one of the NFL's best Guards to ever play is passed up for Hall of Fame induction ...
He should have been a FIRST ballot inductee, this HoF voting crap needs to be FIXED, it's a wash with pompous, self promoting journalists, and they are ****ing this all up repeatedly!

Your thoughts??

That One Guy
02-03-2013, 02:44 PM
Will Shields, one of the NFL's best Guards to ever play is passed up for Hall of Fame induction ...
He should have been a FIRST ballot inductee, this HoF voting crap needs to be FIXED, it's a wash with pompous, self promoting journalists, and they are ****ing this all up repeatedly!

Your thoughts??

Guard=Salad

Even when they're the best, they're still a ****ing salad (or guard).

Agamemnon
02-03-2013, 03:10 PM
With all the great Broncos getting snubbed year after year I'm supposed to care about Will Shields, a former Chief? Get the **** out of here...

FearLanier
02-03-2013, 03:10 PM
Shields has 12 pro bowls, named to 2000's all decade team, Walter Payton man of the year award and never missed a game.

But he doesn't have a SB like Ogden or Allen so he gets a bad rap.

This logic should only apply to QB's IMO.

Agamemnon
02-03-2013, 03:16 PM
This logic should only apply to QB's IMO.

It shouldn't apply to anyone IMO. Certainly winning Super Bowls should factor in to the overall assessment, but not to the degree it currently does. Dan Marino is arguably the greatest pure passer in the history of the league but he never had a great team around him so he never won a Super Bowl. Meanwhile Montana was surrounded by HoFers and won four. Elway wouldn't have ever won a Super Bowl without the likes of Terrell Davis, Shannon Sharpe, and many other great players. Using Super Bowls or the lack thereof to assess someone's career, QB or otherwise, is patently retarded.

Oh and I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that Terry Bradshaw (a QB probably on par with Trent Dilfer) is in the HoF because he was on one of the most dominant teams of all-time. If this isn't a perfect example of why merely being on championship teams shouldn't get you in to the Hall, I don't know what is.

That One Guy
02-03-2013, 03:21 PM
It shouldn't apply to anyone IMO. Certainly winning Super Bowls should factor in to the overall assessment, but not to the degree it currently does. Dan Marino is arguably the greatest pure passer in the history of the league but he never had a great team around him so he never won a Super Bowl. Meanwhile Montana was surrounded by HoFers and won four. Elway wouldn't have ever won a Super Bowl without the likes of Terrell Davis, Shannon Sharpe, and many other great players. Using Super Bowls or the lack thereof to assess someone's career, QB or otherwise, is patently retarded.

I gotta agree. But I also agree noone should win merely for being on a winner and accumulating stats based on the teammates (I'm looking at you, Emmitt).

KipCorrington25
02-03-2013, 03:50 PM
He played for KC so his career was basically invisible. Never played in a big games and in a tiny, crappy market. The witness protection program sends guys to play for the Chiefs because they know they won't get noticed.

FearLanier
02-03-2013, 04:28 PM
He played for KC so his career was basically invisible. Never played in a big games and in a tiny, crappy market. The witness protection program sends guys to play for the Chiefs because they know they won't get noticed.

The Chiefs were one of the most recognized and popular teams in the 90's. They were also pretty popular under Dick Vermeil.

But we aren't on the east coast and nobody west of the Mississippi matters to them.

Willynowei
02-03-2013, 04:47 PM
Along with Willie Roaf, Will Shields anchored the greatest offensive line in NFL history, that's right you heard it here first. Mid 2000's line =

T- Willie Roaf
G - Brian Waters
C - Casey Wigman
G - Will Shields
T - John Tait

That line was so good it made Trent Green and Priest Holmes - two terrible players, look like All Pros and carried a team leading the league in scoring with Eddy Kennifag as their best wideout.

If that line played in Dallas, all 5 would be first ballot hall of famers.

GoBroncos DownUnder
02-03-2013, 04:56 PM
Along with Willie Roaf, Will Shields anchored the greatest offensive line in NFL history, that's right you heard it here first. Mid 2000's line =

T- Willie Roaf
G - Brian Waters
C - Casey Wigman
G - Will Shields
T - John Tait

That line was so good it made Trent Green and Priest Holmes - two terrible players, look like All Pros and carried a team leading the league in scoring with Eddy Kennifag as their best wideout.

If that line played in Dallas, all 5 would be first ballot hall of famers.
Oh, and Elvis Grbac!

Kaylore
02-03-2013, 05:28 PM
With all the great Broncos getting snubbed year after year I'm supposed to care about Will Shields, a former Chief? Get the **** out of here...

This.

gunns
02-03-2013, 07:14 PM
It shouldn't apply to anyone IMO. Certainly winning Super Bowls should factor in to the overall assessment, but not to the degree it currently does. Dan Marino is arguably the greatest pure passer in the history of the league but he never had a great team around him so he never won a Super Bowl. Meanwhile Montana was surrounded by HoFers and won four. Elway wouldn't have ever won a Super Bowl without the likes of Terrell Davis, Shannon Sharpe, and many other great players. Using Super Bowls or the lack thereof to assess someone's career, QB or otherwise, is patently retarded.

Oh and I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that Terry Bradshaw (a QB probably on par with Trent Dilfer) is in the HoF because he was on one of the most dominant teams of all-time. If this isn't a perfect example of why merely being on championship teams shouldn't get you in to the Hall, I don't know what is.

I agree with this. Except that Marino never had a great team. Maybe not great but he had better teams than Elway did for his first 3 SB's. Thank you, thank you for stating that about Bradshaw. The word overrated has his picture by it in the dictionary.

I agree that Shields should have gotten in. I don't believe the SB should be a deciding factor and I agree with who said those getting in by merely getting stats because of their teammates.....and longevity. I'm looking at you Bettis. But until they start recognizing Bronco players I'm not going to freak out over a Chief not getting in. I'm still doing that over Bronco players.

Agamemnon
02-03-2013, 08:09 PM
Along with Willie Roaf, Will Shields anchored the greatest offensive line in NFL history, that's right you heard it here first. Mid 2000's line =

T- Willie Roaf
G - Brian Waters
C - Casey Wigman
G - Will Shields
T - John Tait

That line was so good it made Trent Green and Priest Holmes - two terrible players, look like All Pros and carried a team leading the league in scoring with Eddy Kennifag as their best wideout.

If that line played in Dallas, all 5 would be first ballot hall of famers.

Greatest offensive line of all-time? Hilarious!

The greatest offensive line of all-time should have produced at least one playoff win don't you think? Just ask the late 90's Broncos o-line or the early to mid 90's Cowboys o-line.

Willynowei
02-03-2013, 08:12 PM
Greatest offensive line of all-time? Hilarious!

The greatest offensive line of all-time should have produced at least one playoff win don't you think? Just ask the late 90's Broncos o-line or the early to mid 90's Cowboys o-line.

Did you know there's 11 guys on the other side called defense and a qb, runningback and 4 other eligible recievers in football?

And O-lines aren't judged the same way as Quarterbacks genius, its rare that 5 players play on the same line for more than 1 year, nevermind the 10+ years that top QB's play.

Agamemnon
02-03-2013, 08:22 PM
Did you know there's 11 guys on the other side called defense and a qb, runningback and 4 other eligible recievers in football?

O-lines aren't judged the same way as Quarterbacks, dumbass, its rare that 5 players play on teh same line for more than 1 year, nevermind the 10+ years that top QB's play.

O-lines most certainly are judged like QBs, at least by those who have a clue. An o-line is arguably the most important aspect of a team, possibly even more important than QB (as a unit). Besides let's not pretend the Chiefs didn't have tons of talent elsewhere in the mid 2000's.

You made the statement that they were the greatest o-line of all-time, but there is zero evidence of that. No playoff wins. No 2000 yard rushers. Nothing.

Willynowei
02-03-2013, 09:55 PM
O-lines most certainly are judged like QBs, at least by those who have a clue. An o-line is arguably the most important aspect of a team, possibly even more important than QB (as a unit). Besides let's not pretend the Chiefs didn't have tons of talent elsewhere in the mid 2000's.

You made the statement that they were the greatest o-line of all-time, but there is zero evidence of that. No playoff wins. No 2000 yard rushers. Nothing.

That's exactly what i'm saying - they had ZERO talent elsewhere outside of Tony Gonzalez. Priest Holmes couldn't keep a starting job in Baltimore before Jamal Lewis even broke out, Trent Green is famous only for getting injured so Warner could play. The defense literally had ZERO talent, ZERO. Their first good defensive player - Jared Allen got drafted just before the team fell apart offensively.

That Chiefs O-line dominated every unit put up against it, including the Colts, as they put up 35 points against them, its not their fault if Trent Green misses a third down throw or Kennison drops them more often than he catches them.

And frankly, the way you judge is retarded and exactly how the media looks at things - from the lense of a casual fan. Its the same lense that makes the HOF a joke. Its the same lense that will put Eli Manning in the same light as his brother, whose 10 times the QB he is. Whole thing is a joke.

If you actually appreciate good football above all else, watching that line play, its obvious they were the best ever, you can see it in their footwork and physical mauling of everyone that went up against them, Trent had 10 yards of space and 10 seconds to throw, and that's not even an exaggeration.

DBroncos4life
02-03-2013, 11:10 PM
Guard=Salad

Even when they're the best, they're still a ****ing salad (or guard).

God you are a ****ing retard.

Bob's your Information Minister
02-03-2013, 11:12 PM
He's still a guard at the end of the day.

Archer81
02-03-2013, 11:52 PM
Apparently it pays to work for the NFL's network. Strahan was a better player than Sapp, hands down.

:Broncos:

extralife
02-04-2013, 01:05 AM
Meanwhile Montana was surrounded by HoFers and won four.

I'm so, so sick of this logic. Do you know who those hall of famers were surrounded by? Joe ****ing Montana. Look at his playoff resume.

Oh, and then there's the little matter of the first two super bowls. Lets look at the starting offense for your 1984 San Francisco 49ers:

Joe Montana, Roger Craig, Wendell Tyler, Freddie Solomon, Dwight Clark, Bubba Paris, John Ayers, Fred Quillan, Randy Cross, Keith Fahnhorst.

that team went 15-1 and had the number 2 offense in the NFL.

lets scroll through that list and pick out the hall of famers. I think I see...one? What was his name? Oh yeah: Joe ****ing Montana.

Roger Craig was boderline great, Clark and Solomon were fairly average, Tyler was a pretty good player, Randy Cross was a very good guard. That's not an offensive roster that's blowing anyone away. Give it to the Broncos and you'd call it pretty good. The 81 team was not any better. People remember Jerry Rice because he's Jerry Rice, but Montana won two super bowls without that guy.

Kaylore
02-04-2013, 07:14 AM
I'm so, so sick of this logic. Do you know who those hall of famers were surrounded by? Joe ****ing Montana. Look at his playoff resume.

Oh, and then there's the little matter of the first two super bowls. Lets look at the starting offense for your 1984 San Francisco 49ers:

Joe Montana, Roger Craig, Wendell Tyler, Freddie Solomon, Dwight Clark, Bubba Paris, John Ayers, Fred Quillan, Randy Cross, Keith Fahnhorst.

that team went 15-1 and had the number 2 offense in the NFL.

lets scroll through that list and pick out the hall of famers. I think I see...one? What was his name? Oh yeah: Joe ****ing Montana.

Roger Craig was boderline great, Clark and Solomon were fairly average, Tyler was a pretty good player, Randy Cross was a very good guard. That's not an offensive roster that's blowing anyone away. Give it to the Broncos and you'd call it pretty good. The 81 team was not any better. People remember Jerry Rice because he's Jerry Rice, but Montana won two super bowls without that guy.

Rep. This is a very good response. You can love Elway without trying to turn Joe into a crappy player. It took Joe Monana to give the Chiefs their only playoff win since the sixties. He should be one of the GOATs just for that alone. :~ohyah!:

Requiem
02-04-2013, 07:26 AM
God you are a ****ing retard.

Guards are like brussel sprouts.

gyldenlove
02-04-2013, 07:26 AM
Some positions are just not valued right. We saw it with Shannon Sharpe who set the standard for tight ends and still had to wait to get in, now Will Shields who set the marker for offensive guards and Ray Guy who will probably not get in until he qualifies as one of the 2 old time candidates.

SimonFletcher73
02-04-2013, 07:32 AM
This is going to be a long offseason.

Tombstone RJ
02-04-2013, 07:42 AM
Will Shields, one of the NFL's best Guards to ever play is passed up for Hall of Fame induction ...
He should have been a FIRST ballot inductee, this HoF voting crap needs to be FIXED, it's a wash with pompous, self promoting journalists, and they are ****ing this all up repeatedly!

Your thoughts??

Gotta agree. What is the HoF about? It's about the best players to ever play the game on the professional level, get acknowledged for how great they played the game. period.

You can't win games without guards, sorry. Sure it's not as glamorous as other positions but all the oline positions are there for a reason.

Rohirrim
02-04-2013, 07:43 AM
I hear there is a Chief's board. Maybe somebody over there will give a ****.

Tombstone RJ
02-04-2013, 07:47 AM
Some positions are just not valued right. We saw it with Shannon Sharpe who set the standard for tight ends and still had to wait to get in, now Will Shields who set the marker for offensive guards and Ray Guy who will probably not get in until he qualifies as one of the 2 old time candidates.

I agree. What the HoF people do, because they are idiots, is ignore a great player like Shields while at the same time elevating mediocre player because of the position they played or the team they played on. This simple does not make sense.

I'd rather have more oline guys in the HoF because, yah know, THEY DESERVE IT, rather than have a bunch of questionable players in the HoF because they played on good teams or they played a more glamorous position.

That One Guy
02-04-2013, 07:59 AM
Part of the problem with the perception of guards is that it sometimes feels like you just plug in a mountain of a man and call the position filled. LTs that can't move go there and that drops the prestige a bit as well. What qualifications exist for guard that makes that a goal for someone to strive for? You could be strong as they come but if you're athletic as well, you'll be an RT or, if you're very athletic, maybe a LT.

So how many good-great tackles would've been all-pro guards if they'd been moved inside? Instead, they had some athleticism so they got bumped outside. For example, see Albert in KC who everyone gushed over as a guard but he's been a solid LT instead.

It's kinda like the special teams of the OL. If you were better, you'd be playing elsewhere.

Rohirrim
02-04-2013, 08:03 AM
The interesting question I have about the Chiefs is, will they trade for Alex Smith, or Matt Flynn, or keep their picks and draft a QB? Or will Reid just go with Cassel? If there's one guy who knows you have to have a QB in this league, it's Andy Reid. The question is, where will he go? I'm assuming Reid will stick with the WCO. He has the running game for it already built in with Charles at RB. I don't see him going to a spread. Bowe is more of a slant receiver so he fits better into the WCO, if they can resign him. The only question is, where will Reid go for the QB? I won't be surprised if he takes Barkley. There are two Matt Barkley's; Matt coached by Carroll, and Matt coached by Kiffin. Reid might just think the Carroll coached version of Barkley is just right for what he wants to do in KC.

ColoradoDarin
02-04-2013, 08:04 AM
First, the biggest problem with the hof is that is voted on by sportswriters. Aka the Peter Kings.

Second. I don't get why they have to limit it to 5 (+2) each year. Whoever deserves to get in, should get in.

Tombstone RJ
02-04-2013, 08:06 AM
Part of the problem with the perception of guards is that it sometimes feels like you just plug in a mountain of a man and call the position filled. LTs that can't move go there and that drops the prestige a bit as well. What qualifications exist for guard that makes that a goal for someone to strive for? You could be strong as they come but if you're athletic as well, you'll be an RT or, if you're very athletic, maybe a LT.

So how many good-great tackles would've been all-pro guards if they'd been moved inside? Instead, they had some athleticism so they got bumped outside. For example, see Albert in KC who everyone gushed over as a guard but he's been a solid LT instead.

It's kinda like the special teams of the OL. If you were better, you'd be playing elsewhere.

Point is that football is still a team sport and you can't win without all the players so go ahead and recognize the great players, regardless of if they played on QB or LG. There is absolutely no denying that QBs and RBs and other more recognized positions will get acknowledged and put into the HoF and I agree with that. My argument is that you don't keep out a truly great player simply because he played a less glamorous position in order to prop up a questionable player becaus he played on a good team or in a big media market.

The numbers will always favore the glamorous players and rightly so, it's fun to watch thos positions. However, the HoF is about the best players regardless of which position they played. It's about the best players on a team sport. And I'll continue to say that no team would win a single game, let alone a champion ship without two guys on the oline playing guards.

Tombstone RJ
02-04-2013, 08:09 AM
First, the biggest problem with the hof is that is voted on by sportswriters. Aka the Peter Kings.

Second. I don't get why they have to limit it to 5 (+2) each year. Whoever deserves to get in, should get in.

I'll go one better. They shouldn't put any players in if they don't deserve it. That is, some years they may have zero candidates nominated to the HoF because none of them are deserving.

That One Guy
02-04-2013, 08:11 AM
Point is that football is still a team sport and you can't win without all the players so go ahead and recognize the great players, regardless of if they played on QB or LG. There is absolutely no denying that QBs and RBs and other more recognized positions will get acknowledged and put into the HoF and I agree with that. My argument is that you don't keep out a truly great player simply because he played a less glamorous position in order to prop up a questionable player becaus he played on a good team or in a big media market.

The numbers will always favore the glamorous players and rightly so, it's fun to watch thos positions. However, the HoF is about the best players regardless of which position they played. It's about the best players on a team sport. And I'll continue to say that no team would win a single game, let alone a champion ship without two guys on the oline playing guards.

I don't argue a thing you say. I'm merely commenting on the perception. Guards don't have a lot of individual duties and they have guys there to help if anything goes awry. Tackles take much more responsibility and get more notoriety in the process. It just comes with the territory.

I have no issues with Shields getting into the HOF but the fact is that if QBs, RBs, etc are the main course, guards are a throw in appetizer that noone's gonna remember afterward.

ColoradoDarin
02-04-2013, 08:14 AM
I'll go one better. They shouldn't put any players in if they don't deserve it. That is, some years they may have zero candidates nominated to the HoF because none of them are deserving.

Yeah, I'm fine with that too.

Tombstone RJ
02-04-2013, 08:20 AM
I don't argue a thing you say. I'm merely commenting on the perception. Guards don't have a lot of individual duties and they have guys there to help if anything goes awry. Tackles take much more responsibility and get more notoriety in the process. It just comes with the territory.

I have no issues with Shields getting into the HOF but the fact is that if QBs, RBs, etc are the main course, guards are a throw in appetizer that noone's gonna remember afterward.


I know what you are trying to say and I've already said that the more glamorous positions will always be acknowledged first and rightly so. My point still stands--its a team sport and no team wins without guards and because it's a team sport you can't ignore guards simply because they aren't glamorous, especially when a guy goes to the probowl 12 times and is elected to an all decade team.

Furthermore you shouldn't put mediocre players in the HoF, at the expense of players like Shields, simply because they did NOT play the guard position. Because that's really what you are saying.

GoBroncos DownUnder
02-04-2013, 08:21 AM
Gotta agree. What is the HoF about? It's about the best players to ever play the game on the professional level, get acknowledged for how great they played the game. period.

You can't win games without guards, sorry. Sure it's not as glamorous as other positions but all the oline positions are there for a reason.
Thanks for reading my post and realising I'm only using Will Shields to illustrate my point!

Ray Guy, Art Monk, Shannon Sharpe and Will Shields - ALL retired as the BEST to play their position, there is NOT a single "knock" against their records on field or their character off the field. (Fell free to correct me if anyone "knows something")
And yet, a bunch of pen pushing douchebags see it fit to "kick around" the careers and achievements of such phenomenal players!
If a guy is HoF calibre, set records, is a great MAN, ... vote him ****ing IN, first ballot (period)


I watched Art Monk's HoF speech live and got a tear in my eye when the fans there showed their disgust (at the system) and admiration (for Monk) via a SIX MINUTE standing ovation, it's still on of the greatest things I have ever seen.
But the tragedy in this - "My dad passed away a few years ago. He would have loved to have been here. He loved watching me play."
While these voters were screwing around for years, with who they induct and how teach class "looks", they screwed Art Monk out of something important.

GoBroncos DownUnder
02-04-2013, 08:33 AM
First, the biggest problem with the hof is that is voted on by sportswriters. Aka the Peter Kings.

Second. I don't get why they have to limit it to 5 (+2) each year. Whoever deserves to get in, should get in.

I have a solution.
You guys ever hear about the "night before" hi jinx that all the inductees get up to with this year's "new guys"?!? There is CLEARLY a large body of players who love and appreciate that their achievements have got them inducted to the Hall, ... their passion and pride needs to be put to use!

Combine each inducted class, giving them the same voting rights as the 32 clowns who are already voting.
NOBODY is more proud and more protective of Hall Of Fame induction than the players who are already inducted, let them have a voice and try to "right" all this **** that's currently wrong!

Tombstone RJ
02-04-2013, 08:47 AM
I agree that the sportswriters doing all the voting is an absolute joke. Here's how the voting should be divided up and then computed to get players in based on percentages:

1. Sportswriters
2. Players & former players (guys who have played a minimum of 10 years)
3. HoF members
4. Coaches & fomer coaches (a minimum of 10 years in the NFL)

Once the votes are tallied, you then have your current inductees.

GoBroncos DownUnder
02-04-2013, 09:07 AM
I agree that the sportswriters doing all the voting is an absolute joke. Here's how the voting should be divided up and then computed to get players in based on percentages:

1. Sportswriters
2. Players & former players (guys who have played a minimum of 10 years)
3. HoF members
4. Coaches & fomer coaches (a minimum of 10 years in the NFL)

Once the votes are tallied, you then have your current inductees.
Eventually, I think we'd all like to see the sportswriters role reduced, considering the atrocious job they are doing at the moment!
I think you're stretching your voting field too far by allowing people with 10+ years to vote - maybe in the future, but for now you're going to have WAY too many people voting on this.
Start with a 2/5 year trial of allowing HoF members to vote, then go from there! ;)

That One Guy
02-04-2013, 11:21 AM
I know what you are trying to say and I've already said that the more glamorous positions will always be acknowledged first and rightly so. My point still stands--its a team sport and no team wins without guards and because it's a team sport you can't ignore guards simply because they aren't glamorous, especially when a guy goes to the probowl 12 times and is elected to an all decade team.

Furthermore you shouldn't put mediocre players in the HoF, at the expense of players like Shields, simply because they did NOT play the guard position. Because that's really what you are saying.

I didn't realize that's what I was saying but you are right. I think a very good QB is harder to find and more valuable than a great or elite guard. I think the guard would have to really really stand out to get to HOF status. I don't know what the requirement would be but I don't believe "best at his position for multiple years" should necessarily be an automatic ticket.

GoBroncos DownUnder
02-04-2013, 12:17 PM
... I think the guard would have to really really stand out to get to HOF status.

So, how bout this:
Career history
Kansas City Chiefs (19932006)

Career highlights and awards
- 12 Pro Bowl (1995-2006)
- 8 All-Pro (1997, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006)
- Ed Block Courage Award (2005)
- Walter Payton Man of the Year (2003)

Career NFL statistics as of 2006
Games played/started 224/223
Fumbles recovered 9

Sure seems more legitimate as a HoF inductee than Michael Irvin! http://www.stonewylde.com/smilies/puke.gif

That One Guy
02-04-2013, 12:28 PM
So, how bout this:
Career history
Kansas City Chiefs (19932006)

Career highlights and awards
- 12 Pro Bowl (1995-2006)
- 8 All-Pro (1997, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006)
- Ed Block Courage Award (2005)
- Walter Payton Man of the Year (2003)

Career NFL statistics as of 2006
Games played/started 224/223
Fumbles recovered 9

Sure seems more legitimate as a HoF inductee than Michael Irvin! http://www.stonewylde.com/smilies/puke.gif

Just curious, is the pro bowl voting a joke or not? It seems to be dependent upon the argument being pursued.

NUB
02-04-2013, 12:54 PM
Along with Willie Roaf, Will Shields anchored the greatest offensive line in NFL history, that's right you heard it here first. Mid 2000's line =

T- Willie Roaf
G - Brian Waters
C - Casey Wigman
G - Will Shields
T - John Tait

That line was so good it made Trent Green and Priest Holmes - two terrible players, look like All Pros and carried a team leading the league in scoring with Eddy Kennifag as their best wideout.

If that line played in Dallas, all 5 would be first ballot hall of famers.

Ballsy argument, but a legitimate one. That line was punishing everybody everywhere. It looked like someone was blowing open defenses with a mack truck at times. Shields is a Chief, but he totally got snubbed here.

Requiem
02-04-2013, 12:57 PM
So, how bout this:
Career history
Kansas City Chiefs (19932006)

Career highlights and awards
- 12 Pro Bowl (1995-2006)
- 8 All-Pro (1997, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006)
- Ed Block Courage Award (2005)
- Walter Payton Man of the Year (2003)

Career NFL statistics as of 2006
Games played/started 224/223
Fumbles recovered 9

Sure seems more legitimate as a HoF inductee than Michael Irvin! http://www.stonewylde.com/smilies/puke.gif

One of the greatest to ever play, but surely That One Guy is right in saying he didn't deserve it because guards are like salad. Hilarious!

gyldenlove
02-04-2013, 02:22 PM
Just curious, is the pro bowl voting a joke or not? It seems to be dependent upon the argument being pursued.

Pro bowls are generally a poor indicator - look at Jeff Saturday going this year even though he got benched the last half of the season because he was so bad. All-pro nominations on the other hand are an excellent indicator and 8 is just beastly.

Shields was more than anything the glue that held that power house Chiefs line together and even the most die hard Bronco fan will have to admit that it was the most dominant offensive line for a few years with Shields, Tait, Waters and Roaf. Roaf was good, but Shields was great - much like the Hutchinson and Walter Jones pair in the last years in Seattle.

That One Guy
02-04-2013, 02:33 PM
Pro bowls are generally a poor indicator - look at Jeff Saturday going this year even though he got benched the last half of the season because he was so bad. All-pro nominations on the other hand are an excellent indicator and 8 is just beastly.

Shields was more than anything the glue that held that power house Chiefs line together and even the most die hard Bronco fan will have to admit that it was the most dominant offensive line for a few years with Shields, Tait, Waters and Roaf. Roaf was good, but Shields was great - much like the Hutchinson and Walter Jones pair in the last years in Seattle.

I agree with this post entirely. I just don't like when everyone seems to unanimously hate the pro bowl process but still cite it as having some legitimacy. All pros are legitimate honors.

Shields, Hutch, and Foneco were all three decently known players but that, again, speaks to the nature of the guard. The truly elite are decently known while even punters and kickers are probably more recognizable names.

That One Guy
02-04-2013, 02:33 PM
One of the greatest to ever play, but surely That One Guy is right in saying he didn't deserve it because guards are like salad. Hilarious!

Keep trying. I know better than to give you ammo to go cry like a bitch to the mods.

Requiem
02-04-2013, 03:54 PM
Keep trying. I know better than to give you ammo to go cry like a b**** to the mods.

You are doing a good job of showing how much of a trainwreck you are going around calling me the "b" word in every thread. Evolve beyond a twelve year old mind state and you might grow as a person.

extralife
02-04-2013, 04:16 PM
Shields will get in. They were never going to put three offensive linemen in the hall in one year, which made him the odd man out both this year and last. I think he has a very strong chance next year, with only one first year guy as a lock (Marvin Harrison) and another as a strong contender (Derrick Brooks).

My guess is next year's class is Harrison, Strahan, Shields, Haley, Aeneas Williams, with Derrick Brooks having to wait one year.

That One Guy
02-04-2013, 04:25 PM
You are doing a good job of showing how much of a trainwreck you are going around calling me the "b" word in every thread. Evolve beyond a twelve year old mind state and you might grow as a person.

As if you're worth it, you little bitch.

Requiem
02-04-2013, 04:37 PM
As if you're worth it, you little b****.


http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/I+can+count+to+potato_4cd3c2_3697474.jpg