Punters in th HOF

C

COraider

Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
I happened to be tuned into ESPN Gameday on the radio this morning when John Clayton stopped by to talk about the voting. Apparently he has a vote - I did not know this. Anyway, he and Kiper got into an argument when Kiper expressed his dismay that Ray Guy is not in the HOF and did not make it this year either. Clayton said he would never vote for a punter and did not think a punter would ever make it because they only see the field 5 or 6 times per game.

I thought Kiper made some valid points about it being a travesty that a punter will never be in the HOF when it is a team sport and the special teams, punters included are critical to the success of the team. It was a little funny when Clayton asked if Kiper could name a punter taken in the 1st round and Kiper said that Ray Guy was. Kiper also argued that Guy should be in simply because he is the best to ever play his position and such a person should be in.
 
COraider said:
It was a little funny when Clayton asked if Kiper could name a punter taken in the 1st round and Kiper said that Ray Guy was.
Click to expand...

Thats fucked up cause it tells me Clayton didn't even read Guy's bio. And he's supposed to vote on whether guys make it into the hall of fame or not. Total bullshit.
 
Yeah, that's something like a burn there. Good on mel for busting that pencil necked geek.
 
Banter said:
Thats fucked up cause it tells me Clayton didn't even read Guy's bio. And he's supposed to vote on whether guys make it into the hall of fame or not. Total bullshit.
Click to expand...

Well that shouldn't be surprising given his statement that he didn't think any player who was a punter deserved to be in the HOF. So why would he read his bio?
 
Actually I'm not sure it was Clayton but another guy on that program that was burning punters. I think Clayton thought he should get in along with Kiper but the pother dude was firmly against it. I could be wrong but I think that is what happened.

In any event I think Guy is a long shot to get into the hall.
 
Ray Guy should be there, based on the fact that he's the best to ever play the position... but I did feel a glimmer of pride in reading Jerry Mac's blog the other day where he listed Cliff Branch as the #1 Raider that's being slighted by the Hall of Fame voters. Back when I used to write online articles for a fan site, I made the exact same observation. I love Ray Guy and Lester Hayes and Kenny Stabler... but Branch is the one who is really being jilted here. Based on Branch's statistics relative to his peers, his 3 Super Bowl rings, his 4 pro-bowl appearances, and the fact that contemporaries Swann and Stallworth were voted in, there is absolutely NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON to give Branch the Heisman on this one.

That is, of course, only speaking of those Raiders who currently even get consideration... and we know that there is a glaring ommission in that group. Anybody that says "voters have to look at what was done on the field and the impact on the game and not any other stuff" as a justification for putting guys like Lawrence Taylor and Michael Irvin into the Hall had better be leading the fucking charge for a "Jack Tatum belongs in the Hall of Fame" campaign or else they're all full of shit. If there's one Raider who deserves it more than Branch, it would be Tatum. The guy was one of the greatest players to ever play the game... but a freak accident and an outspoken, bitter man completely erases Tatum from the ballot?
 
TheNextStep said:
Ray Guy should be there, based on the fact that he's the best to ever play the position... but I did feel a glimmer of pride in reading Jerry Mac's blog the other day where he listed Cliff Branch as the #1 Raider that's being slighted by the Hall of Fame voters. Back when I used to write online articles for a fan site, I made the exact same observation. I love Ray Guy and Lester Hayes and Kenny Stabler... but Branch is the one who is really being jilted here. Based on Branch's statistics relative to his peers, his 3 Super Bowl rings, his 4 pro-bowl appearances, and the fact that contemporaries Swann and Stallworth were voted in, there is absolutely NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON to give Branch the Heisman on this one.

That is, of course, only speaking of those Raiders who currently even get consideration... and we know that there is a glaring ommission in that group. Anybody that says "voters have to look at what was done on the field and the impact on the game and not any other stuff" as a justification for putting guys like Lawrence Taylor and Michael Irvin into the Hall had better be leading the fucking charge for a "Jack Tatum belongs in the Hall of Fame" campaign or else they're all full of shit. If there's one Raider who deserves it more than Branch, it would be Tatum. The guy was one of the greatest players to ever play the game... but a freak accident and an outspoken, bitter man completely erases Tatum from the ballot?
Click to expand...

Bingo. Tatum won't ever get a sniff, and he definitely deserves it.
 
The Branch to the Hall is interesting BUt as was pointed out, guys like Andre Reed and Art Monk have had to wait in line while other people who supposedly deserved to get in were voted in. I dunno...sounds like bullshit to me.
 
CrossBones said:
The Branch to the Hall is interesting BUt as was pointed out, guys like Andre Reed and Art Monk have had to wait in line while other people who supposedly deserved to get in were voted in. I dunno...sounds like bullshit to me.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but Branch HAS been waiting... for far too long. And, what's worse, the newer generation of "great" receivers are starting to become eligible. Your Michael Irvins. Your Jerry Rices. Your Tim Browns. Your Cris Carters. Then you've got the school of thought that you mentioned which says that Reed and Monk will have to get in after "waiting" for however long the arbitrary "waiting period" is. All of those guys are going to be much fresher on the minds of the voters, thus further pushing Cliff back in the rotation... and that's bullshit when you look at what the guy did. I'm not saying that he should have gone first ballot... but he sure as hell should have followed hot on the heels of Stallworth and BOTH Branch and Stallworth should have long preceded Swann. At this point, Branch is overdue for the Hall... and yet the Hall voters don't even seem to think that he merits more than a cursory glance.
 
That's exactly what scares me about the whole HOF selection process. Branch is getting left in the dust because the other receivers that are becoming eligible are fresher in the minds of the voters. It absolutely sucks.

As for Ray Guy it's a big problem. Of course, as Kiper pointed out yesterday, special teams are a third of the equation and yet people are pulling this "he's not on the field enough" card with respect punters. It's just fucked up.
 
I just think there's too much of an anti- Raider sentiment among sportswriters and that will never change. I mean look at all those nitwits from ESPN who consistently bash us.

I think they should form a veterans comittee from the get go, which is made up of players and coaches from the eras these guys played in, and let them be the ones who ultimately decides, not a sportswriter from a rival city.
 
Can anyone tell me why the likes of John Clayton are voting on who gets into the Pro Football Hall of Fame?

What the fuck?
 
For the same reason that they started allowing "fan votes" for the pro-bowl, thus making it largely meaningless.

That is to say, "For no good apparent reason."
 
No shit TNS.

Just think about this for a second... knuckleheads employed by ESPN, guys like Clayton and that Woody dude from Around the Horn :rolleyes: ... my God, what do these clowns have to do with professional football imortality?

Why are they deciding something so important for the sport?

I suppose next season Salisbury and Stu will be getting their credentials as offical voters for the HOF too....

What a joke!
 
CrossBones said:
Actually I'm not sure it was Clayton but another guy on that program that was burning punters. I think Clayton thought he should get in along with Kiper but the pother dude was firmly against it. I could be wrong but I think that is what happened.

In any event I think Guy is a long shot to get into the hall.
Click to expand...

Kiper took on two guys. First Clayton and then the other guy (Sibel?). Anyway, what caught my ear about Clayton was he flat out said he would probably never vote for a punter, period. That's just wrong, whether Guy desrves to get in or not (and he does) for a voter to say he would never vote for a punter is wrong.
 
OK that sounds about right. I didn't realize Goofy Clayton actually said that. What a stupid thing to say.
 
Madturk said:
I just think there's too much of an anti- Raider sentiment among sportswriters and that will never change. I mean look at all those nitwits from ESPN who consistently bash us.
Click to expand...

This is absolutely true. Paul Zimmerman, who has a vote, once told me, "It's hard to get a Raider in the Hall of Fame."
 
Peter King also came out and stated he didn't vote for Guy. So thats 2 big name columnists (King and Clayton) that are against Guy.
 
Banter said:
Peter King also came out and stated he didn't vote for Guy. So thats 2 big name columnists (King and Clayton) that are against Guy.
Click to expand...


Surprise surprise. Not Peter King :rolleyes:
 
I'd be interested to know if Peter King and the rest of the voters agree with Clayton that no punter (Whether it's Guy or somebody else) ever deserves to be in the HOF because they don't see the field enough, and don't impact the game. I think that's a load of garbage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top