01-14-2009, 06:29 PM
What's interesting about this debate is trying conceptualize the era in which they played versus what have been used to seeing now. It isn't an easy thing to do. History reevaluates eras and sometimes we find out we were wrong. I don't think it's ever as cut and dry "as if think this group of players are in, therefor, this person should be in." I'm kind of glad Rice got in because he now sets a standard for a reevaluation of that era. Perhaps people we'll discover that we've been wrong about some of these debated players.
Perhaps the time frame needs to be tweaked a little. Maybe the window needs to be expanded or contracted. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing a person become eligible a few years earlier and have the person be eligible for voting indefinitely. That means I'd, also, like the 5% minimum previous vote requirement increased greatly.
Perhaps the time frame needs to be tweaked a little. Maybe the window needs to be expanded or contracted. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing a person become eligible a few years earlier and have the person be eligible for voting indefinitely. That means I'd, also, like the 5% minimum previous vote requirement increased greatly.
If Angelo had picked McClellin, I would have been expecting to hear by training camp that kid has stage 4 cancer, is actually 5'2" 142 lbs, is a chick who played in a 7 - 0 defensive scheme who only rotated in on downs which were 3 and 34 yds + so is not expecting to play a down in the NFL until the sex change is complete and she puts on another 100 lbs. + but this is Emery's first pick so he'll get a pass with a bit of questioning. - 1060Ivy