Michael Irvin, Andre Reed, and Art Monk are all on the ballot this year. Who gets in this year, who gets in eventually, and who doesn't deserve it? Why or Why not? Here's a link to a website that houses career stats for NFL players for anyone curious :

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/wrindex.htm

These aren't mutually exclusive, so if you feel they all deserve to get in eventually, that's cool. Before I give my opinions I'm curious how others feel. I'll also freely admit to being a die hard redskins fan and extremely biased in Art Monk's favor.

Drade

Art Monk -Yes
Andre Reed - Yes

Both of these guys are possibly the two most underrated WR's. EVER.

Michael Irvin - No, unless pounds of crack smoked and hookers [censored] is a stat that makes you hall worthy.

D

I agree with Droqqa. I know alot of people dont agree with this, but I think the person has to be considered as well as their stats. Because of that, I dont think Irvin deserves to get in, ever.

Yeah that Dallas offensive line deserves ALOT of credit for all three of those guys numbers.

I dont think super bowl rings should be much of a factor at all. The Hall of Fame is more about individual accomplishments, not team accomplishments.

Swann and Stallworth had pretty good numbers considering that nobody threw very much back then. Did you know that Bradshaw had exactly 1 300 yard passing game in his career?

Its not all about raw stats.

Super Bowl wins matter for a QB and no other position. The fact that Irvin was lucky enough to be on the Cowboys with a great QB like Aikman does not make him more or less hall worthy. In fact, I give more credit to those receivers with great stats, but sub-par QB's.

D

I agree that the former coaches and players should get a vote. Maybe all Hall of Fame members, but to say thats its about who sucks up is a bit of a stretch.

I dont think sportswriters are sitting around waiting to be bought lunch by former players before they decide.

And by the way, Stallworth had alot more catches, more yards and more TDs than Swann did.

Swann only played in 115 games which is about 8 years worth (14 games per year). You'll never get a guy into the Hall nowadays who only played 8 years.

Ice, you are right that Super Bowl rings shouldn't matter, but they do. How else do you explain Bob Griese getting in the hall? His numbers suck (well, like he did). I mean, the guy did a great job of handing the ball off to Csonka, Kiick, and Morris, but that's about it.

Irvin was a tool, but he was definitely a dominating, game-changing receiver. Monk retired with more catches than anyone IIRC, although a lot of those came in the 'smurf' years when defensive contact was severely limited. All I remember about Andre Reed was how he looked like a scared little girl during the Bills-Giants Super Bowl after taking a couple of hits from LT, Carl Banks, and the rest of the Giants D. I also think Reed's numbers are partially inflated due to the offense that he played under (as I think about all SF 49ers of the Bill Walsh era).

In other words, I'd go with Monk definitely, Irvin probably, Reed, probably not.

I would vote for Harry Carson, Lester Hayes, and Ray Guy in a second, as well as the obvious Reggie White. Probably for Aikman as well, but I don't think he should be considered such a shoe in.

Richard Dent for me, but there's quite some field this year.