Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Why Isn't Chris Hanburger in the HOF? (MET)

4everaSkin

By 4everaSkin
in The Stadium

Recommended Posts

veteranskinsfan

veteranskinsfan

Posted
Posted

Hanburger is one of the best linebackers the Skins have ever had. He was tough and afraid of no one. He and London Fletcher could have played well together. Hanburger deserves entry into the Hall of Fame and Skins fans need to keep pushing his name especially to Peter King and to other media who cast votes for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark The Homer

Mark The Homer

Posted
Posted
I am not sure that Hanburger was HOF quality. He had a good nose for the ball but had horrible tackling skills. The LB that needs to be in the HOF is Tommy Nobis, Atlanta, Falcon.
How does a linebacker with "horrible tackling skills" make the pro bowl nine friggin' times? I don't understand how you can say that a LB from Atlanta with half as many pro bowls should be counted ahead of Chris Hanburger.

I'd love to hear your detailed argument putting Nobis ahead of Hanburger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Morneblade

Morneblade

Posted
Posted
Grimm not being in is more of a head scratcher.

Not really. As good as Russ was, Chris Hanburger not being in as as much of a travesty as Art Monk not being in.

9 Pro Bowls

8 times All Conference

4 times voted first team All Pro (2x 2nd team)

1972 Player of the Year

How Chris isnt in is beyond me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SonOfWashington

SonOfWashington

Posted
Posted
How does a linebacker with "horrible tackling skills" make the pro bowl nine friggin' times? I don't understand how you can say that a LB from Atlanta with half as many pro bowls should be counted ahead of Chris Hanburger.

I'd love to hear your detailed argument putting Nobis ahead of Hanburger.

Beats me.

Hanburger - 9 Pro Bowls, 4 first-team All-Pros, 14 seasons, 187 games

Nobis - 5 Pro Bowls, 1 first-team All Pros, 11 seasons, 133 games

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SnyderMustGo

SnyderMustGo

Posted
Posted
Hanburger deserves entry into the Hall of Fame and Skins fans need to keep pushing his name especially to Peter King and to other media who cast votes for it.

This is a bad idea.

When we made the case for Art Monk, the argument was made that Monk deserved to be in because of his career, and it was objectively wrong that he is not in there. For years, we fought it, and eventually some people finally changed their minds because it seemed like the argument must have merit given the great weight of support.

If we start to launch a campaign for every single Redskin we like, it diminishes the argument we made for Monk and it makes our future arguments look unmeritorious because to everyone else it will look like we are nothing but a bunch of Redskins fans who these guys in there because they were Redskins and not necessarily because they deserve it.

We undermine ourselves by starting another campaign.

Plus, its an insult to Monk and Green because everyone will start using the same arguments that "The Hall is meaningless without_____ in there." That's a slap in the face of Monk and Green and the rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark The Homer

Mark The Homer

Posted
Posted

I don't follow you.

There are a number of Redkins fans who seem to be against Chris Hanburger making it to the HOF. I don't understand this. "Hanburger" was a household word in the 70s.

What would you have us do as fans - sit on our hands?

Instead of dissing Chris Hanburburger in general, why don't you come up with specific reasons why his career was so inconsequential compared to HOF enshrinee or candidate X and Y and Z?

It's unbelievable to me that I have to type this post on this site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
str8jacket

str8jacket

Posted
Posted
Lynn swann= 4,662 yds. And 52 TDs

Gary Clark= 10,856 and 65 TDs

WTF !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think it's almost just as much as a travesty that Swann got in. Ok, he made a great catch or two, cool. But the yardage is just weak. And especially that Monk had to wait in line behind him to get in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
motorhead

motorhead

Posted
Posted
I think it's almost just as much as a travesty that Swann got in. Ok, he made a great catch or two, cool. But the yardage is just weak. And especially that Monk had to wait in line behind him to get in.

Stupid voters.:chair:

I had to do it again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SnyderMustGo

SnyderMustGo

Posted
Posted
What would you have us do as fans - sit on our hands?

Instead of dissing Chris Hanburburger in general, why don't you come up with specific reasons why his career was so inconsequential compared to HOF enshrinee or candidate X and Y and Z?

Mark, I think you missed my point.

My point was not that we shouldn't support Hansburger or that he isn't worthy.

My point was that we should not start another campaign like there was for Monk because it undermines the credibility of the campaign for Monk. It makes it seem like the campaign for Monk was a campaign because he was a Redskins player, not because he was objectively deserving.

Look at it from a writer's perspective who initially opposed Monk: for years you get letters and see support for Monk. Initially you can write it off as just Redskins fans. But after years of support, you start to think "well maybe there is something to this other than fan homerism." Eventually you come around because of the weight of the support suggests that maybe there is a legitimate objective reason for the support. Well, if right after that, all of the sudden people start saying the same things about Hansburger. You probably go back to your initial view that this is all fan homerism.

Or, to put it another way, if your kid comes and ask you for money for X, you might say no right away because you think your kid is just being a want-monster. But if your kid starts talking about special and unique X is and how important X is, and your kid writes emails, etc. about how great X is, you may eventually say to yourself, "You know what? This must be something important because he usually just gives up after I say no. This thing must be different. Let me consider it." So you give in. Then as soon as you do, he starts making the same argument for Y and then Z. My guess is that you will feel like your were duped for giving in to X as you realize that all the "importance" talk just masked a want-monster.

Does that make sense? If someone asks me whether I think Hansburger should be in, I'd consider the question and probably wrestle with it. I understand that some may say yes, I wouldn't argue with them.

But I really think starting a "Hansburger campaign" to mirror the "Monk campaign" undermines the credibility of the Monk campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cuchip703

cuchip703

Posted
Posted

Hanburger should be in the Hall, and more than likely will get there through the veterans committee eventually. Tommy Nobis was a great player as well, not as good as Hanburger, imo, but he definitely merit's some Hall consideration as well. But he would be in line behind Hanburger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark The Homer

Mark The Homer

Posted
Posted
...I think you missed my point.

My point was not that we shouldn't support Hansburger or that he isn't worthy.

My point was that we should not start another campaign like there was for Monk because it undermines the credibility of the campaign for Monk. It makes it seem like the campaign for Monk was a campaign because he was a Redskins player, not because he was objectively deserving....

I think I understand what you're saying, but strategically, I don't follow you.

The Monk campaign is over. So do we rest on our laurels or do we move forward? What is the advantage of doing nothing?

...If someone asks me whether I think Hansburger should be in, I'd consider the question and probably wrestle with it.
I think that's the problem. You would wrestle with it. I wouldn't. I might if somebody could show me a list of players - from any team - who are more deserving. In fact, show me ONE guy who is more deserving.

Anybody...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
motorhead

motorhead

Posted
Posted
I think I understand what you're saying, but strategically, I don't follow you.

The Monk campaign is over. So do we rest on our laurels or do we move forward? What is the advantage of doing nothing?

I think that's the problem. You would wrestle with it. I wouldn't. I might if somebody could show me a list of players - from any team - who are more deserving. In fact, show me ONE guy who is more deserving.

Anybody...?

Great minds think alike!:thumbsup:

And while your at it show both Mark's why all the hogs aren't in!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skinsfan1311

Skinsfan1311

Posted
Posted
I think I understand what you're saying, but strategically, I don't follow you.

The Monk campaign is over. So do we rest on our laurels or do we move forward? What is the advantage of doing nothing?

I think that's the problem. You would wrestle with it. I wouldn't. I might if somebody could show me a list of players - from any team - who are more deserving. In fact, show me ONE guy who is more deserving.

Anybody...?

Why I don't think that letter-writing and e-mail campaigns sway too many voters, I do agree with your sentiment. Hanburger deserves to be in the Hall.

I don't understand the whole "undermine the credibility of the Monk campaign" thing. That doesn't wash. No matter how stupid that people think, (or know), that the HOF voters are, the stats don't lie.

Monk is in because of his play and stats justify his induction. While I do believe that the "campaign" may have helped somewhat, I think people are giving the campaign thing too much credit for the Monk getting voted in.

The bottom line is that he probably would've been elected anyway.

I can't wait for our next Canton trip! :wavetowel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...