Is Anyone Else Disappointed That Dent Did Not Get In Again

[chitownman]

I was most disappointed once again with the results of the Hall of Fame balloting for enshrinement and Richard Dent being excluded once again. Dent as well all know was a key piece of the puzzle in the '85 season that we went on to win Super Bowl XX and Dent name the game's MVP as well. Dent is just as deserving if not more so then Bruce Smith, Lee Roy Selmon and you could include Alan Page in that conversation. The statistics that they have come up with prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Dent is more than worthy however, the selection committee again fails to include one of the members of the Bears that has proven on the field that he earned and should be enshrined. I am always disappointed when players who deserve to be enshrined don't get in because it seems that members of the media or selection committee seem to have an ax to grind with Chicago and it players and the fans that love the team so much. I know there are players who do not deserve to be enshrined however, Dent's stats prove that he is seven years plus over due for his rightful place in Canton. Dent is also more deserving than two members of the 2010 class.

[madlithuanian]

Yes. I think it's complete BS that Tippet, Dean and now Randle are in before him.

 

He must have pissed off too many pansy writers somewhere back in the day...

 

So many folks have made a great case for him, it's just assinine he's not in.

 

I honestly feel there is some bias agasint that team from 1985. Only the obvious ones are in... Walter (who is the epitome of the HoF), Singletary (they couldn't hold him out), and Danimal (they kept him out for a while...)

 

 

 

I was most disappointed once again with the results of the Hall of Fame balloting for enshrinement and Richard Dent being excluded once again. Dent as well all know was a key piece of the puzzle in the '85 season that we went on to win Super Bowl XX and Dent name the game's MVP as well. Dent is just as deserving if not more so then Bruce Smith, Lee Roy Selmon and you could include Alan Page in that conversation. The statistics that they have come up with prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Dent is more than worthy however, the selection committee again fails to include one of the members of the Bears that has proven on the field that he earned and should be enshrined. I am always disappointed when players who deserve to be enshrined don't get in because it seems that members of the media or selection committee seem to have an ax to grind with Chicago and it players and the fans that love the team so much. I know there are players who do not deserve to be enshrined however, Dent's stats prove that he is seven years plus over due for his rightful place in Canton. Dent is also more deserving than two members of the 2010 class.

 

[nfoligno]

Just for the record, many here in Dallas have the same gripe about former members of the Dallas Great teams not yet in the all, both from the 70s and 90s.

 

I bet if you checked around, you would find many teams fans have similar opinions, that the HOF is biased against them.

 

Understand, I think it BS he is not in the hall, and believe he absolutely should be in. I simply am not sure it is an issue of bias.

 

I think it "may" be an issue of the HOF trying to to too quickly enshrine too many from one team. Not a team as a whole, but like the '85 bears or Steel Curtain Steelers, or Cowboys who dominated in the 90s.

 

For example, the Steelers dominated in the 70s. I believe 7 or 8 players eventually made it into the HOF, but several among that group needed quite some time before they made it. For quite a while, they had maybe 5 who were immediately inducted into the HOF, while others waited a long time before their names were added.

 

As great as the Cowboys were in the '90s, I believe only Aikman, Emmit and Irvin are in the HOF. I realize some are still playing, but trust me, many Cowgirl fans seem to get upset every week by the lack of Cowgirls being included. Similar, like the Steelers, Dallas was another team that dominated during the 70s, and yet there just are not that many names in the HOF.

 

So I think it is a combo of two things. One, the HOF may try to avoid too quickly putting too many players from one team (specific to a time period) into the HOF and two, the HOF knows we have the most players in the HOF, and if it is close in their minds, may give the edge to a team w/ fewer members in the HOF.

 

Look, I agree Dent should abso-freaking-lutely be in the HOF. Frankly, I believe there were several others on that teams who are HOF'ers. I just don't think it is some Chicago-hate-bias. Dent will get in. IMHO, so will a couple others when all is said and done.

 

Yes. I think it's complete BS that Tippet, Dean and now Randle are in before him.

 

He must have pissed off too many pansy writers somewhere back in the day...

 

So many folks have made a great case for him, it's just assinine he's not in.

 

I honestly feel there is some bias agasint that team from 1985. Only the obvious ones are in... Walter (who is the epitome of the HoF), Singletary (they couldn't hold him out), and Danimal (they kept him out for a while...)

 

[bowlingtwig]

Just for the record, many here in Dallas have the same gripe about former members of the Dallas Great teams not yet in the all, both from the 70s and 90s.

 

I bet if you checked around, you would find many teams fans have similar opinions, that the HOF is biased against them.

 

Understand, I think it BS he is not in the hall, and believe he absolutely should be in. I simply am not sure it is an issue of bias.

 

I think it "may" be an issue of the HOF trying to to too quickly enshrine too many from one team. Not a team as a whole, but like the '85 bears or Steel Curtain Steelers, or Cowboys who dominated in the 90s.

 

For example, the Steelers dominated in the 70s. I believe 7 or 8 players eventually made it into the HOF, but several among that group needed quite some time before they made it. For quite a while, they had maybe 5 who were immediately inducted into the HOF, while others waited a long time before their names were added.

 

As great as the Cowboys were in the '90s, I believe only Aikman, Emmit and Irvin are in the HOF. I realize some are still playing, but trust me, many Cowgirl fans seem to get upset every week by the lack of Cowgirls being included. Similar, like the Steelers, Dallas was another team that dominated during the 70s, and yet there just are not that many names in the HOF.

 

So I think it is a combo of two things. One, the HOF may try to avoid too quickly putting too many players from one team (specific to a time period) into the HOF and two, the HOF knows we have the most players in the HOF, and if it is close in their minds, may give the edge to a team w/ fewer members in the HOF.

 

Look, I agree Dent should abso-freaking-lutely be in the HOF. Frankly, I believe there were several others on that teams who are HOF'ers. I just don't think it is some Chicago-hate-bias. Dent will get in. IMHO, so will a couple others when all is said and done.

Your right, he will eventually get in. The hall committee usually is against voting players in on the 1st try, which have given Dent the upper hand but when 2 of the 1st timers are Rice and Smith you just can't deny them. Rice and Smith were 2 of the best to ever play the game regardless of what position they played. Dent will get in, know one should have to worry about that. Most experts believe that he will get in within the next couple of years. Once a player gets in all will remember him as a HOF, they just don't care of how long it took someone to get in. Look at how long Floyd Little had 2 wait to get in. He waited 30 years and he was a great RB but most people don't realize it because he was part of the old AFL prior to the merger. But that doesn't discount what he was able to accomplish. The only thing that I hope is that such a deserving candidate like Dent still be with us to accept the award.

[nfoligno]

Interesting article talking about HOF snubs, including Dent, but also talking about Andre Reed and Charles Haley, among others.

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writ...fame/index.html

 

 

I was most disappointed once again with the results of the Hall of Fame balloting for enshrinement and Richard Dent being excluded once again. Dent as well all know was a key piece of the puzzle in the '85 season that we went on to win Super Bowl XX and Dent name the game's MVP as well. Dent is just as deserving if not more so then Bruce Smith, Lee Roy Selmon and you could include Alan Page in that conversation. The statistics that they have come up with prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Dent is more than worthy however, the selection committee again fails to include one of the members of the Bears that has proven on the field that he earned and should be enshrined. I am always disappointed when players who deserve to be enshrined don't get in because it seems that members of the media or selection committee seem to have an ax to grind with Chicago and it players and the fans that love the team so much. I know there are players who do not deserve to be enshrined however, Dent's stats prove that he is seven years plus over due for his rightful place in Canton. Dent is also more deserving than two members of the 2010 class.

 

[madlithuanian]

Yeah, but who cares what Dallas and Steelers fan think?

 

Just for the record, many here in Dallas have the same gripe about former members of the Dallas Great teams not yet in the all, both from the 70s and 90s.

 

I bet if you checked around, you would find many teams fans have similar opinions, that the HOF is biased against them.

 

Understand, I think it BS he is not in the hall, and believe he absolutely should be in. I simply am not sure it is an issue of bias.

 

I think it "may" be an issue of the HOF trying to to too quickly enshrine too many from one team. Not a team as a whole, but like the '85 bears or Steel Curtain Steelers, or Cowboys who dominated in the 90s.

 

For example, the Steelers dominated in the 70s. I believe 7 or 8 players eventually made it into the HOF, but several among that group needed quite some time before they made it. For quite a while, they had maybe 5 who were immediately inducted into the HOF, while others waited a long time before their names were added.

 

As great as the Cowboys were in the '90s, I believe only Aikman, Emmit and Irvin are in the HOF. I realize some are still playing, but trust me, many Cowgirl fans seem to get upset every week by the lack of Cowgirls being included. Similar, like the Steelers, Dallas was another team that dominated during the 70s, and yet there just are not that many names in the HOF.

 

So I think it is a combo of two things. One, the HOF may try to avoid too quickly putting too many players from one team (specific to a time period) into the HOF and two, the HOF knows we have the most players in the HOF, and if it is close in their minds, may give the edge to a team w/ fewer members in the HOF.

 

Look, I agree Dent should abso-freaking-lutely be in the HOF. Frankly, I believe there were several others on that teams who are HOF'ers. I just don't think it is some Chicago-hate-bias. Dent will get in. IMHO, so will a couple others when all is said and done.

 

[balta1701-A]

IMO, part of the problem is that in the NFL, if you count coaches, assistant coaches, kickers, kick returners, broadcasters, owners, management guys, there are probably 25+ legitimate positions that are being filled, sometimes by legends, and the NFL HOF only inducts 6/7 guys per year. There are just more guys you look at who dominate a position for 8+ years who you think "This guy is probably a HOFer" than there are slots for them to get in.