What is the worst kind of fan?

MVPs are not an on field accomplishment.

They aren’t handed out during or after games.

They come from an off vote that takes into account what happened on the field.

Touchdowns are an on field accomplishment.

See the difference? I bet you don’t because you simply don’t want to.

And no one said players can’t get credit for winning Championships. I never typed those words.

A championship is a team accomplishment though. Namath definitely played a role when his team won one...he played a sizable role considering he was the QB and leader.

But he isn’t elite because his team won a title. But you had to keep mentioning it because once you factor out things that either come by way of votes or team accomplishments....your argument dissolves and you look silly.

 

I’ll respond to the rest tomorrow.

Bourbon is calling my name.

 

It's been fun.

 

Cool picture bro.

 

Fine. Just list all the MVP winners that did it without being on the field....

^^^Your logic isn't flawed....It doesn't exist at all.

Right. You just said I couldn't point to Namath's championships in my effort to show how good of a QB he was.....lol! Very convenient.

Brilliant.

I could go for a Maker's Mark right now....

 

I only drink Bookers 120 proof.

 

he's my thing on namath...the hof is 6 rds of voting, not 1 like baseball. 6 rounds of voters had to think highly of namath to keep getting votes to stay on the ballot to move to the next round of voting. that is saying something. to make it means 6 rds of voters (how many are there i don't know) voted enough for namath to make it. that's quite an accomplishment. if it was baseball and he got 75.1 % of the vote, that means he got enough to get in, but wasn't on many ballots. football is different and namath made it through 6 rds of voting with enough votes each round. he must've done something quite well on the field to get through those voting rounds.

 

This is the thing that has me hung up... The main argument here is that he was put in by the media, more specifically, it is implied that the New York media put him there. Now, as much as he was the New York media darling, I would have to imagine he had his detractors outside of the City AND State of New York. The selection committee is made up of media members, but only one from each franchise city (if there are two franchises in a city, then there are two selectors from that city). At the time of his induction, there were two franchises, so the city of New York got two votes, which isn't nearly enough to enshrine a player. Besides the franchise city's rep, there are 16 at large voters from the national media.

ALL of the representatives are long standing media members that represent their specific franchise and speak on behalf of THEIR TEAM, therefore having a voice for the players represented on the ballot.

These aren't just yearly elected news men/women that the city sends to a yearly meeting, they are reporters that have covered the sport exclusively and a sounding voice or representation for THEIR OWN prospective inductees.

These representatives spend hours debating the finalists. The rounds are in differing magnitude of scrutiny, but our rep, who has been the Browns/Cleveland rep for 25 years, talks about the process a lot during the season of voter meetings. Modern-era nominees are made prior to the voting, a list that can exceed 100 names. The first 3 "rounds" are polls that narrows that field down to 25 names, at which point the subsequent rounds become more judicious in talking about each nomination and why they deserve it above others on the list of 25. The next vote narrows it down to 15, then 10, then eventually to 5 modern day nominations if and only if they receive 80% of the vote to be one of the final 5. THEN these 5 names are scrutinized on their merit to be there, not above and beyond the others, but whether they actually should be there, at which point a vote on each name is made with a yes, they think they should or a no, they don't believe they merit it yet. Each year arguments are made for and against and those arguments can be the reason that a player does or does not make it...then the process is repeated for non-player nominations, as well as pre modern-era nominations.

Believe me, if Joe Namath didn't deserve to be called elite among his peers, he wouldn't have gotten in specifically because he called out the other team before Super Bowl III. For his era, he held one of the highest yards per attempt averages ever over his productive years. Even during his injury riddled years, he was well above average for his time period. I already mentioned specifically he was the only player in NFL history to throw for 4,000 yards in the era before the league played 16 games.

Let's let this one lie, Joe Namath deserves all accolades of being a Hall of Fame Enshrinee and he was elite against his peers. Doesn't matter if if was unfortunately only a half a dozen years of eliteness due to injuries, he was elite. I don't have to be in my 60's to understand that he was elite either. If you are going to argue semantics that he wasn't elite his entire career, then yes, the HOF would be a desolate place as not many of the men enshrined there would probably be validated by your standards.

My question is, what makes YOUR opinion higher than the men/women who have put them there? They have been covering the sport professionally for the majority of the adult lives...you write on a message board, just like I do.

My gosh, you talk as if there were 50 random reporters smoking cigars in a room and because the New York media is so big, over half of them were from there and they just decided to put him in because they liked him.

 

I stand corrected, after I belly-hooed about the selection committee above, I went and looked it up.. At the time Joe was selected, there weren't 16 at large voters, there was only 1. Only a representative from each franchise city...there were 29 voters at the time, but only 28 voters at the meeting, I don't know who the one that wasn't there was, and he didn't get in the first ballot. His application was obviously scrutinized, otherwise, he would have just been handed the keys to the Hall. He actually made it all the way to the finalist stage, at that time 6 were made finalists. In the "yes" or "no" portion, he did not receive the needed 23 votes, thus the other 5 were enshrined and he had to wait his turn the following year.

 

I don’t ever remember typing the words that he was “put in by the media”.

Nor was that my main argument.

Not sure who is better at making up arguments that don’t exist or putting words in other posters mouths they didn’t type between TD and Irish...it’s awfully close though.

What I said was the HOF is pretty subjective. Bias and off field things can play a role. And yes Namath’s popularity was mentioned...it was never the main argument though.

I guess when you can’t properly debate the next step is to just make shit up though.

 

Case in point.

I don’t recall stating my opinion meant more than those that vote for the HOF. So why ask this meaningless question.

I also don’t see how that means I can‘t express my opinion on this board.

By that logic no one on this board should be allowed to talk about sports at all.

Perhaps you can intelligently explain that to me. But I will admit my expectations are low here....because you won’t be able to do anything other than argue something I didn’t say or twist my words to be something else you want them to me....as per usual.

 

fuck off with the insults BWNW...not in the mood. Personal insults are not a valid excuse for calling yourself a debater.

I have given valid arguments for his on the field results that you have not even talked about, you just call me out as someone not worthy of talking to. You say things and when they are interpreted a certain way, you claim "I never said that"... Well, you rarely say anything. You insinuate things so that you can later claim people are misinterpreting your words. Good luck in your life, I'm done reading your unbiased insults that have nothing to do with the conversation.

I am not going to go through every fucking post in this thread, but the media was brought up several times by more than one poster. Questioning the integrity of the panel that puts those men in the Hall is most definitely a subject worth discussing.

 

Nothing in my post was an insult.

It was a very factual observation of your “debate” tactics.

Every time we interact it’s filled with me having to time and time again tell you to stop twisting my words and arguing things I didn’t say.

Because it’s the only way you can ever make yourself right in an argument.

 

I did mention the media.

You turned that into being the “main argument”. Your exact words. Only....it wasn’t the main argument.

Now you cry about not being in the mood for being called out. Sorry you have menstual cramps. Take a midol.

 

You have stated several times that you question his validity of being a HOFer... So, when his being in the HOF being an argument from a poster in being elite, you most definitely are stating that your opinion is higher than those that put him there in the first place in claiming it isn't a valid reason for the argument at hand of whether he is elite or not. The question is NOT meaningless, it is a factor to your argument.

I've never said you couldn't, where does it state THAT in any of my posts? You call out people for making shit up and mincing words, but you do it all the time.

I'll not go any lower than I already have... when you don't have anything intelligent to add to a post written by someone else, you simply degrade them in the hopes it makes you look like a big man.. Cyber space does a lot for a guys ego, these boards make you feel good about yourself, so in reality, I'm glad you have them for self importance. The real world makes a man and I am happy with my place in that world. So please, feel free to exude all the bullshit you want about me and towards me...from now on though, when you take it to that place, KNOW, that is why you will no longer get a response from me.

 

Well, then what exactly was your argument? You said he didn't stand up to his peers, yet you never used any examples of HOW he didn't add up..I did give examples of how he not only stood up to them, but exceeded them in some ways and you shrug them off, eventually leading to the off field reasons and the media as the ultimate reason for his being in the Hall. Reading everything you wrote in this thread, I don't know how anyone would deduce any other ending.

 

You’ve questioned Saquan Barkley winning ROY over Baker Mayfield.

Is your opinion higher than those that vote for ROY?


Arguing something and giving your opinion on it isn’t saying your opinion is better. It’s simply giving your opinion.

You over sensitive twat.

 

If you could state in 4 paragraphs or less your argument, I would be shocked, because you posted a lot in this thread without saying much at all...

 

You’ve told me 10 times in the past you were done responding to me.

You’re far too sensitive and bitchy to call yourself a real man.

 

It’s Chicago style arguing