The references to the Hall of Fame in this article are confined to the Pro Football Hall of Fame.
The Top 5 Worst Arguments against Hall of Fame induction
5. They didn’t play long enough/they were compilers.
While these may seem like two separate arguments, they are based on the same premise; that there is certain window in which a player must be dominant for them to be a Hall of Famer. In simpler terms, it’s used as an excuse in many cases to simply dismiss cases without actually examining them. For example, the argument most often used against Terrell Davis, who was the best runningback in the NFL when he played, is that he didn’t play long enough, while someone like Jerome Bettis or Curtis Martin will often be tagged with the compiler label because of their long careers, but were never considered “great.” I do agree that certain players can fall into these categories, like Priest Holmes or Keenan McCardell, however they’re used way too loosely and without any understanding of the context in which those players played. For example, Gale Sayers played a very short period of time, but was so dominant in the time he played that he made the Hall of Fame in spite of playing 7 years (and combining for less than 100 rushing yards and 0 touchdowns in the last two). Also, there’s Jerry Rice, who was long since surpassed for the title of best receiver in the league when he retired, could’ve have been considered a compiler since he continued searching for a job even when it was evident that he just didn’t have it anymore. Really the biggest issue I have with this is that it’s completely arbitrary as to how long constitute too short or too long. Some players who play 15 or 16 years are considered ironmen, while others are merely considered compilers. It’s a ridiculous and obvious excuse to exercise bias against certain players.
