- Joined
- May 8, 2002
- Posts
- 1,195,228
- Reaction score
- 59
You must be registered for see images attach
PALO ALTO, CA - JANUARY 20: Roger Craig #33 of the San Francisco 49ers celebrates against the Miami Dolphins in Super Bowl XIX on January 20, 1985 at Stanford Stadium in Palo Alto, California. The 49ers won the Super Bowl 38-16. (Photo by Focus on Sport/Getty Images) | Getty Images
Torry Holt has been eligible for the Hall of Fame for the last 12 years and he’s been a finalist for the last 7, but on Thursday the former Rams All-Pro was kept out by voters once again. The reason for this by voters could be as simple as “we are only allowed to vote for a small number of eligible players,” which in this case included former 49ers fullback Roger Craig.
And therein lies the problem.
Roger Craig retired after the 1993 season. Many of today’s NFL fans never watched Roger Craig play football. That does not mean that Craig is unworthy of being in the Hall of Fame, but it does expose one of the major flaws in the Hall of Fame process that nobody talks about:
If somebody is worthy of being in the “prestigious” Hall of Fame, should it EVER take 32 years from retirement to induction to make it so?
Shouldn’t being in the Hall of Fame be something that is undeniable? In the way that Drew Brees, Larry Fitzgerald, and Luke Kuechly all felt “undeniable” when it was announced that they are Hall of Famers this year, shortly after they became eligible, should the Hall of Fame continue to snub great nominees for late nominees?
I will say it again: Maybe Roger Craig IS worthy of being in the Hall of Fame. I’m sure that many of you reading this sentence right now think you’re disagreeing with the premise of the article by saying, “No, I watched Roger Craig. He’s a great football player and belongs in the Hall of Fame.”
Okay, great. That’s fine. (Many of you also don’t think Craig is worthy.)
Just stop letting it take 32 years to reach the Hall of Fame if you’re worthy of the Hall of Fame. Now because Craig had to go through 27 years of eligibility to reach the Hall of Fame as a “senior” finalist, it means that others like Holt might also have to wait 30 years.
Make it make sense.
Roger Craig retired when he was 33-years-old. Today he’s 65-years-old.
Torry Holt — who by all accounts has a stronger case for the Hall of Fame than Craig — retired when he was 33-years-old. Is Canton going to make him wait until he’s in his mid-60s (he’s 49 now) before allowing him to make a speech? How many of his Rams coaches from his playing days will still be alive when he’s elected? How about his elder family members? How about the fans who rooted for Holt in the 2000s?
I KNOW: Holt wasn’t snubbed directly because of Craig
It’s not as though they were vying for the same spot. Craig was a senior nominee.
But as long as the Hall of Fame limits the number of people who get in every year and restricts the voting process to short lists for voters, you will continue to have former players like Craig being honored instead of Holt, not to mention that a six-time Super Bowl champion head coach and six-time Super Bowl champion owner were both also kept out of the Hall of Fame this year.
And by the time Holt does get elected, it could feel as much “Why him and why now?” as it feels to see Craig get elected over three decades after he stopped playing. Almost four decades after his one elite season as Offensive Player of the Year.
Let’s not forget that voters claimed they didn’t vote for Bill Belichick because they wanted to vote for LC Greenwood while he was still eligible. Does anyone else care if LC Greenwood gets into the Hall of Fame now? I’m not saying Greenwood is unworthy. I’m saying that if he was undeniable, we wouldn’t be having these debates about him FIFTY YEARS after he was an All-Pro.
We’d be having them…when Roger Craig was still in the NFL.
Torry Holt was once undeniable. The longer he waits, the easier it is for voters to say he wasn’t.
Continue reading...
