[GigEmAgs]

So now Troy Aikman is in the Pro Football Hall of Fame, and about time. (of course, as a Cowboys fan, I'm a little biased). I understand that his year they filled all the available Hall of Fame slots, for the first time in a while. Who do you guys think should have gotten in, and didn't?

[Lefty Noob]

As a longtime Giants fan, I'm thrilled to see Harry Carson finally get in. I'm in the minority, but I truly believe that he was the best LB on that team during the 80s. Aikman, White, Madden, Wright and Moon were all deserving in my opinion, but I can't believe that Gary Zimmerman didn't make it. He is one of just 10 players to have ever been elected to two NFL All-Decade teams and definitely one of the best linemen of all time. I think he'll eventually make it, but the sooner the better. Same with Art Monk.

[EmpireWF]

Harry Carson should've been in the HOF many many moons ago. Wow, when you look at that Giants defense from the 80s, just wow. So many outstanding players. Whether Carson was the best LB on his own team, he was clearly one of the best in the game.

Now it's time for Art Monk, like Lefty said.

[bahoena]

As a Packer fan, it was good to see White make it, as we knew he would. And it's been a long time since the Pack has retired someone's #, which will happen again as soon as Farve steps aside.

Now, it's really hard to say any of these folks didn't deserve it, but I'm surprised GigEmAgs wasn't also pulling for Irvin. I'm not a fan of his, but in the end, I'll be surprised if he doesn't make it. I'm also a little bummed that Thurman Thomas didn't get a little more attention.

[GigEmAgs]

Regarding Mike Irvin...I gotta admit, he's a great player. But if it comes down to him, Aikman, or, say, Emmitt Smith, I'd have to say he'd come in third. Maybe I'm a little puritanical, but Mike was a big-time doper and he didn't try much to hide it. He also whined about how he was treated when he got caught. I don't know about Smith, but all that Aikman was really guilty of was a few pranks and tupping the occasional country music star. I'll have to go with squeaky clean over jaded and seamy every time. The bad apples just get away with so much, and it irks me to see that.

</soapbox>

In the end, he'll probably get in. His talent is just too much to ignore, to matter his shortcomings.

[ken77]

Yes, i was glad to see Harry Carson and especially Rayfield Wright get in. I didn't expect Michael Irvin to get in even though I though he should. I figured his off field problems might hurt him and apparently it has. I'm still at a loss why Art Monk isn't in there yet. Makes no sense to me.

[CityofBrotherlyShove]

Hey Aggie, I'm in Dallas too.

Not a Cowboys fan, though. Grew up in Philly and love to Iggles to death. I really hope the induction of Wright and Aikman means I can stop hearing about the "Cowboys Bias" that clearly does not exist.

[ThePundit]

The Hall of Fame should be for GREAT players - not very good ones. Monk was consistent as heck over a long period which allowed him to amass some impressive numbers. But he was NEVER a dominant receiver. I think he only made one Pro-Bowl in 20 years. What does that tell you?

[Lefty Noob]

Actually, he made three Pro Bowls in 16 seasons. Still not great by any means, but better than you make it sound.

Art Monk had five 1,000 seasons and retired as the all-time leader in career receptions. He was one of the first receivers to pull in 100 catches in a single season, and once caught a pass in 183 consecutive games.

And look at who some of his quarterbacks were during his playing days -- Jay Schroeder, Doug Williams, Stan Humphries and Mark Rypien weren't anything special. Shouldn't that have some bearing on things? Not to mention that he played during a primarily run-first era.

I don't see how you can't vote him in, even if his numbers aren't as big as some of today's receivers. It was a different game then.

[ThePundit]

Sorry I got the amount of Pro Bowls wrong. I'm not looking to knock Monk. He was an excellent player. But to me, The Hall of Fame is for GREAT players. Would you call Monk a "great" receiver? I wouldn't. But that's MY criteria. By the same token, I wouldn't put Bettis in either but he's going to make it. Because as good as he was, I personally don't think he was a GREAT player.

[Lefty Noob]

It all comes down to, as you said in the Bettis thread, consistency vs. short-term dominance. Do you reward a guy who is a top 10 player at his position for 10-12 straight years or a guy who is brilliant for 2-3 years and then fizzles out? How much should longevity factor into a Hall of Fame nomination? To tell you the truth, it's something I haven't even decided for sure one way or the other. Good thing I don't have a vote, eh?