Will Shields - HoF discussion

[Rohirrim]

I hear there is a Chief's board. Maybe somebody over there will give a ****.

[Tombstone RJ]

Originally Posted by gyldenlove

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by That One Guy

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]

Originally Posted by ColoradoDarin

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]

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ

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]

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ

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]

Originally Posted by That One Guy

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]

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ

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]

Originally Posted by ColoradoDarin

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ

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]

Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ

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]

Originally Posted by That One Guy

... 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 (1993–2006)

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!

[That One Guy]

Originally Posted by GoBroncos DownUnder

So, how bout this:
Career history
Kansas City Chiefs (1993–2006)

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!

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

[NUB]

Originally Posted by Willynowei

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]

Originally Posted by GoBroncos DownUnder

So, how bout this:
Career history
Kansas City Chiefs (1993–2006)

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!

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.

[gyldenlove]

Originally Posted by That One Guy

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]

Originally Posted by gyldenlove

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]

Originally Posted by Requiem

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.

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

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by That One Guy

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Requiem

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 b****.