Yes, he's obviously in the HOF, first ballot no question.
But what about Tom Brady? Should he be there? How about Randy Moss?
Yes, he's obviously in the HOF, first ballot no question.
But what about Tom Brady? Should he be there? How about Randy Moss?
There was some question as to whether Lawrence Taylor would get in given all his character issues. And that's not even getting into the baseball stuff. It's not a totally ridiculous question.
I think it is a ridiculous question. I mean seriously are we even asking if one of the best MLB of all time is a hall of famer? There are a few who are concerned with his obstruction of justice record but they are way too few to make a dent. First ballot, second ballot whatever, he's going into the hall.
If anything, I feel like the only argument here is if he is ONE of the best MLBs of all time or THE best. And yeah-- first ballot.
It is ridiculous because unlike baseball, NFL HOF has no qualification related to character. It is purely based on on-field performance. There is no question Ray Lewis is destined for HOF.
In baseball, a lot of the HoF voting isn't necessarily character, but whether or not the player cheated the integrity of the game. Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, Sosa, etc. all have been accused or admitted to taking PED's, where as that wasn't the case with LT or Ray Lewis. They both have character flaws, but they didn't cheat the game like the baseball players did (unless you consider smoking crack a PED in LT's case). If Ty Cobb can get it the HoF, most players with character flaws will be able to get in. As long as they don't violate the moral high ground from the purists, most people look the other way.
Exactly. With no character clause, character shouldn't matter. Fair or not, that's the rules. And as mentioned, even the character clause in baseball is only about baseball-related character issues not about general douchebaggery of the Ty Cobb type.
...anyone that says otherwise don't know what Lewis was charged for.
This is really starting to piss me off, I don't even care for Lewis like that - but he gets called a "murderer" when he was never charged as one. It was NEVER the crime.
He was charged with lying to the police - point blank, period.
Some people got killed, he knew details, he didn't "snitch" or give any information about it when he knew stuff about it. That's what he did or didn't do...plain and simple.
Is that wrong? YES. Is that murder? ABSOLUTELY NO.
This shouldn't even be a question and anyone that questions Lewis and the HOF is completely ignorant to what happened back in 2000 or 2001.
Newsflash, there are guys in the HOF with worst records than Lewis. Guys with DUIs, cocaine and drug violations, etc. Lewis may not be the saint the media portrays him today...but he's definitely not the thug so many of you want him to be.
Move on to someone who's actually doing shit to be questioned.
It's a matter of the court of public opinion, where signs point to Ray Lewis having - at the very minimum - a fairly significant role in the deaths of two people. Throw in the fact that he disposed of his suit from that night, took a plea deal based on him turning in two of his friends with him... Yeah, just a matter of connecting the dots.
it was weird that his plea was based off the testimony against his two friends...yet both were later aquitted.
He was indicted on murder and aggravated assault charges...
and not convicted on either? I mean its great that you, who was not in any way involved with the case and most likely never read the police reports or examined the crime scene or talked to witnesses has decided he is guilty but it means absolutely nothing.
When did I claim the man was guilty? Regardless of my feelings, am I not entitled to an opinion? Do you know what I have or have not read regarding the case?
I am truly sorry great ak47 I only hope you can forgive me.
i didn't say you weren't entitled to opinion, I said it doesn't matter and shouldn't impact whether he makes the nfl, and the comment was more directed to the op, hit reply to the wrong post but it's whatever.
...everyone kills people, murders people, steals from you, steals from me, whatever...
Yes. The HOF is for on field performance. (Pete Rose not withstanding)
In Pete Rose's case, one can make an arguement that his off field performance affected his on field performance
Ray Lewis will get into the HOF for one reason...
At the induction ceremony?
I feel like if the Lions played Baltimore regularly, I'd hate Ray Lewis. Since they don't, that is pretty awesome.
It has to be on field unless it is something that affects the game or its integrity. Otherwise, if we are just looking at a players potential criminal friends and lack of morals, there would only be n sucres into the NBA and NFL hall of fame every 10 years or so.
There would only be "inductees"
I like what your phone did there.
My phone must have learned that from my recent trips to South America from this board (aka Bolivia).
Remember, murder charges against him were dismissed.
They were dismissed because he accepted a plea deal and testified against his friends. It's not like he was found not guilty.
And it's not like he was found guilty, either.
...probably a murderer, but not convicted of murder. I'm just glad he didn't inject EPO subcutaenously, because that would make him a really bad guy.
he was found even less guilty than being "not guilty." He was offered a plea because the case against him was so weak that it could not even be taken to trial, let alone prove it.
1) Weak case doesn't equal did not do it. I'm not saying he did though. We have the toughest burden of proof, evidentiary rules and constitutional protections of any country, rightfully so, and there are plenty of guilty people who are not charged because of these rules.
2) He must have at least obstructed justice (or done something illegal) because there is no defense attorney (especially not high priced ones) who would advise a client to take a plea to obstruction if they did absolutely nothing wrong and if the prosecution had absolutely no evidence of any crime. I can't imagine a defense attorney saying, "Ray, the prosecution has absolutely nothing on you, and we all know you didn't kill anyone, but let's go ahead and take an offer to obstruction of justice."
The problem still remains that someone was killed, and Ray Lewis obstructed a murder investigation, or at least pleaded guilty to obstruction instead of some other criminal act that he committed and that the prosecution had ample evidence of.
Lawyer here. You need to stop playing lawyer, because clearly you aren't one.
Of course people cop to pleas even if they didn't do it. Its the same reason companies settle lawsuits even when they think they aren't liable.
It's called -- RISK AVERSION.
It was better for Ray to cop a plea and serve minimal or no time in jail, than to risk going in front of a jury on murder charges. It's just not worth the risk, even if he felt he was innocent. The plea was extremely favorable -- I don't think he served time, did he? -- so take it and avoid a murder trial. When your life is on the line, you barter that small confession in exchange for getting a good night's sleep for months and months.
I'm a prosecutor, so I'm not playing lawyer.
For a lawyer, your reading comprehension sucks. Wow, I can use bold italics too to make myself sound smarter than someone.
In my scenario, the defense attorney says the prosecution has nothing on Ray at all. I personally do not know a single defense attorney worth his money who would plead his client out to anything if the prosecution had nothing. Also, despite the news of corrupt prosecutors (e.g. Duke lacrosse case), most of us live by our ethical duties not to charge people who we do not have probable cause to believe committed a crime (or to ask someone to plead guilty to a crime we do not believe they committed). I cannot imagine saying, "Your guy was at the scene of a crime, but we've got nothing on him. How about pleading to disorderly conduct or obstruction." First, that's unethical. Second, I would be laughed at by any defense attorney worth a damn.
My point is that clearly they had something on him, and he at least committed some crime. Of course, I understand what risk aversion is. Sometimes, we prosecutors use it to because we believe someone committed a felony but have victims and witnesses who are drug additcts or idiots, so rather than let that person walk, we offer a misdemeanor.
But feel free to challenge my credentials.
don't offer a murderer a misdemeanor just to "make something stick." You may offer 2nd degree or play some games with the sentence to get them to talk, but with murder you either have the goods or you don't. It is quite clear that they did not have the goods on Lewis.
Of course they had "something," but what they had came no where close to beyond a reasonable doubt of murder or they never would have given him a lifeboat.
But I agree with you. Nowhere did I say that you offer a murderer a misdemeanor to make it stick. I used the word felony...and there are a ton of felonies that are not as serious as a murder. I was just using the felony to misdemeanor plea bargain as an example of when a prosecutor makes a decision to avoid letting someone walk completely.
Also, I never said they had enough evidence of a murder on Ray Lewis, but they probably had enough evidence of some crime which is why he pleaded guilty to obstruction.
As I recall, the prosecutor came out and said there was no evidence Ray was involved in the murder and dropped the murder charges based on that.
BUT, he did lie to police investigating a murder, which is obstruction of justice, and they certainly had the evidence to make that stick. Lewis then agreed to the plea -- he admitted he lied to the police and told the court what he knew about that night. I think his lawyer made a big mistake downplaying the significance of what Lewis did. If I recall properly, he said it was something akin to a speeding ticket, or something similarly minor.
That was dumb. Obstructing justice, espeically in a murder case, is a pretty serious crime. Having said that, I think Lewis should be in the Hall of Fame. The prosecutors and the judge were fine with the plea and you can't deny his greatness on the field.
In my world, if you plead guilty to something then you don't get to argue later that you never did it. But it doesn't matter because Lewis specifically acknowledged that he lied to the police.
Before opening statements were made Judge Bonner ruled that a statement given to police by Ray Lewis after the incident, and now acknowledged to be false, could be introduced in evidence against him.
With your post, it's no wonder people hate lawyers.
First, don't treat someone like shit just because you think they do not have a law degree. Hope you feel like a big man every time you do that. Assuming I wasn't a lawyer, does telling me not to play lawyer really make you feel smarter or better about yourself? If so, congrats, I guess. There was a classy way to post what you did without being an ass about it.
Second, don't assume something about someone based on what they posted on a sports blog.
Good points. The douche bag tone is unbearable, though.
This little stream of posts is just fantastic. Every retort begins with some form of "you obviously know jack shit about law." This argument occurred at 1pm on a message board, about 90% of your audience has been to law school.
Devil's advocate: If it was so weak then why would Lewis accept a plea? He had plenty of money to pay the lawyers so its not a worry about legal fees. So, arguably, he must have had some worry that he could be found guilty. So, from there, the reasoning goes that he also must have been a little worried because he knew he did some wrong. Or that's the argument, anyway.
[Edit: Dutch is both a faster typist and smarter than me.]
Part of it is the publicity of going to trial. It would have been a drawn out process, with every little detail being covered from the court room steps. Not the kind of attention an NFL star wants. Sure he has the money to pay his lawyers, and from my (limited) understanding, he would have been acquitted, but why draw out the process of you can plead to a lesser deal?
I have to disagree with you hypothesis. If he did nothing wrong and had nothing to hide he would have wanted to publicly clear his name of any wrong doing. Think about what your saying here. Yeah, they have nothing on me but if I plead not guilty I will have to endure a trial where the prosecution provides absolutely no evidence and I come out looking like the innocent man I am....Or : Yeah, they have absolutely nothing on me, but I am going to plead guilty so I can get this over with, damn the negative publicity that comes with it and the fact I will always be considered a criminal.
If this had anything to do with publicity and he was innocent, he would have never pleaded guilty of anything just to get the process over with. That just makes no sense at all.
Russian Roulette nature of jury trials. Trials and pleas are a reflection of how much risk you want to take
You make a fair point. I would argue, however, that even if he plead not guilty and went to court and was acquitted, the his reputation would be forever tainted. The average person knows very little about the legal system. Combine that with a short memory, and most people would have thought that he still did commit murder, regardless of whether or not he was acquitted.
Guilty or not, it is a sad story for the bereaved...
to worry a little when you are arrested for murder, regardless of whether you did it or not, that pesky electric chair and all.
You plea because 1) you probably obstructed justice, and 2) you want murder charges to go away. The better question is, why would a plea be offered? From a murder investigation (a life felony) to obstruction of justice and probation? If the prosecution has the good for murder, they prosecute, they may plead someone down to murder 2 in exchange for testimony but not some time served bullshit. A plea to nothing-having-to-do-with-murder means nothing to do with the murder, possibly disposal of evidence after the fact.
Even though I have a JD, I would not assume I am smarter than anyone, except maybe Terrelle Pryor.
In fact, I probably am not as smart as you since I decided to enter a profession that is completely overcrowded.
Because they had him dead to rights on the obstruction charge. He lost nothing by pleading to that charge. The fact that his testimony did far more to hurt the prosecution than help shows that portraying the agreement as a "plea deal in exchange for testimony" was more of an ass-covering statement than one based in reality.
Ray Lewis should never have been charged with murder, and it certainly shouldn't have ever gone to trial.
"Oakley and Sweeting were acquitted of the charges in June 2000"
His friends were acquited. Also, what's the point of having a judicial system when charged = guilty in everyone's mind?
I don't think that anyone believes that the judicial system is useless and that being charged equals guilt. On rare occasions the general public disagrees with a trial verdict (OJ trial) and feels as though the defendant actually committed a crime, despite being found not guilty.
I don't know whether or not Ray Lewis stabbed those men to death, but I am pretty sure he had some role those murders.
That being said, he's definitely going to be in the HOF
Without question. It's not the hall of really nice guys who played football. Not the murder charges were dropped and he paid his price for his involvement. Hate the man if you want, think of him as a murderer, blame the justice sytem if you want...none of that matters in regards to his hall of fame claim (imho).
Granted, I also think Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe should be in but that's just me.
Absolutely he should be in. Should the HoF kick LT out for all the stuff he's done?
By "off field problems" (plural, according to your post), are you referring to the murder in 2000? Obviously that's a massive issue, but he seems to have been a model player since then. Plus, the legal system did their thing and Lewis plead down to an obstruction of justice charge. I don't know that the HoF committee is really in a position to declare Lewis guilty of something that he was never actually found guilty of. (Preemptive "yes I know, 'not guilty' does not mean 'innocent'" response.)
You realize he was only guilty of obstruction of justice, right?
He's been arguably the best MLB in the league for over a decade. You could also argue no other player meant more to their team than he has. That said if I have to see one more ridiculous pregame display like he did last week I'll slap my imaginary girlfriend.
I would argue he hasn't been the best MLB in the league for a number of years, but your point is still basically true, and there's no way you can keep a guy that dominant out of the Hall.
I'm just going to parrot the popular opinion expressed here already: the HOF does not and should not have a morality clause except in instances when a player used immoral behavior as a way to get a distinct competitive advantage.
Unless... nope, can't think of anything.
If you are going to consider the murder charge, we also need to bring up some of the good things he has done since then. A few years back didn't he help a kid whose grandmother died (the exact details are excaping me). I'm just saying if you want to start with the off the field stuff, be sure to mention the positive stuff, too.
First ballot HOFer.
I know you're the Pope but I don't think helping a kid is penance for murder
yeah, but that kid was *real* annoying to be around, you know? It may not balance the scale completely, but it makes it a lot closer to equal.
He's done a ton of good for his community, from charity work to working with police departments in the area. Definitely a changed man from the time of the incident. If he was found guilty it would be another story obviously, but as is he's a first ballot HOFer without a doubt.
Where'd you get that hand grenade?
"I don't know!"
Ray Lewis should have been inducted into prison. He may have done some good things since the murders, but that doesn't change the fact that there are still two dead guys and families that never got justice.
It still amazes me how little press he has gotten for the murder charges in recent years. He was convicted of obstruction of justice, admitted to misleading the police the day following the murders, and the white suit he wore on the the night of the murders has never been found. Sorry you don't just throw out a suit unless something happened and you are getting rid of the evidence. He has been a relatively good citzen since, but is hardly the role model the media has been portraying him as.
I mean the best case scenario was that he was only present while his friends stabbed two people to death.
I hadn't heard.
He is definitely in. The media love is insane right now and will still be there when his time for a vote comes up. Plus, he is a pretty damn good football player.
I hate the obstruction of justice conviction, especially since it relates to a murder. Obstructing a murder is a bit worse than obstructing a misdemeanor investigation.
I will not cheer for him, but I agree with most that there should not be a morality clause unless it relates to a cheating. A morality clause would be too much of a slippery slope and would most likely not be applied evenly.
random sports radio topic call-in bait?
Considering everyone kills people, he's done no worse than you, me or anyone else. And on the field, I can't think of another middle linebacker this century that's been as good as him. Get his bust ready.
Plenty of other players are in the HOF who did bad things, Lawrence Taylor used cocaine during games. The off the field incident doesn't make Ray Lewis any less of a player.
Not sure you can equate cocaine use and murder unless you're going to say that by using cocaine he supported drug lords who murder people...
The point is no one is a saint, but that shouldn't take away what they accomplished on the field.
He didnt kill anyone and not only is he one of the greatest football players of all time but he's one of the greatest leaders in the history of team sports. Stop judging the guy over an accusation that proved to be false.
I'm sorry that I find it a problem that a man who was once presumed responsible for the deaths of two people is revered so highly by popular culture. Don't forget that many murders go unsolved in the United States (the percentage varies widely from city to city) so just because his charges were dismissed doesn't mean he wasn't involved once you consider the suit and the lengths he went to protect himself. But I suppose these are asinine comments.
Did he find his white, bloody suit yet?
gave it to Lennay Kakua to have it dry cleaned. Hasn't been seen since.
This is quickly becoming worse than the MSU intergalactic meme
ND shame is still fair play, but you have to work a little harder at it
No. He's a stupid poo-poo face.
is in the Hall, Lewis was only convicted of obstruction of justice.
He's been the best linebacker of this generation. He's in.
I am kind of suprised at the sentiment around here. This is the same blog that routinley has a collective aneurysm over duis pot charges and ncaa violations. In my opinion all of these things pale in comparison to murder. In case you don't know what obstruction of justice means it means he intentionaly mislead police or destroyed evidence in the murder case.
Some of you say we should take LT out of the HOF if we keep Lewis out. I don't recall him ever being implicated in a murder. Lots of drug charges and such like but no murders.
Can a man change his life around? Yes, does it sound like Lewis has? Sure. But to act like the whole thing was no big deal and it shouldn't even be brought up when discussing his career is wrong.
Thank you good sir +1
But when we get into fits over small bags of pot, you're forgetting the context. If someone on Ohio's, ND's, or MSU's team gets into trouble, no matter what they did, it automatically ranks just under Stalin in terms of crimes against humanity. It's a scientific fact. If it has no effect on UM, then well, meh. Also science.
one of the rapists. There are probably enough players to have a wing for players who would be in jail if it were not for their adoring public and high-priced defense teams.
You are totally correct. This is why I sometimes have a hard time with sports. I love sports but I can't stand the fact that some athletes get away with things that anyone else would at the very least lose there job over or more likely go to jail.
I think it's celebrities in general not just athletes
I love LT (Giants fan here), but he was convicted of statutory rape a few years ago for having sex with an underage hooker. He said that she said she was 19, but no one will ever know if that was true, and there was some reason to believe that he had specifically sought out an underage girl.
Maybe the more interesting question here is whether these football players can use ECT as an excuse for things like this in the future.
He's a lock. He also epitomizes why I can't give two shits about professional football.
but I don't think he's ever been convicted of anything. So given that, he's one of the greatest MLB's of his era and one of the great team leaders too. Seems like he should get it pretty easy
He was involved in a crime - I think most us will agree to that. The argument is whether that will or should keep him out. Please pay attention.
The Hall of Fame would put him in right now if they could. He has a 100 percent chance of making the HoF.
This was even a debatable question.
Yes, hes a first ballot hall of famer. What pisses me off is how much attention he is getting but Tony Gonzolez has barely been a fly on the wall and is probably the test ever at his position and Ray Lewis is not. His damn mouth is what gets him on ESPN.
but the part about his mouth was right on the mark. I still think of his post game interview when he was blubbering and said "no one gave us any chance coming in here. No one thought we could achieve victory, but we did...blubber blubber blubber....victory is ours....blubbler blubber blubber..."
Honestly that was the biggest crock I have ever witnessed.
I don't see any way in which they avoid him getting in to the HOF. 13 pro bowls, won a super bowl (potentially a 2nd soon), super bowl MVP, 10x all-pro, only member of the 40 sack & 30 INT club. He's got the creds. Yes, there was the shady thing with the murder coverup, but OJ Simpson is still in the HOF, it isn't like they went and retroactively booted him out based on what he did, which was worse than Lewis' crime. It is for on-field performance only, and since he did it so well for so long, he's a lock to get in, regardless of my or anyone else's personal feelings on the subject of his character or lack therof.
This is like me asking do humans require oxygen, water and food to live?
a serious question?
Obviously a first ballot HOF inductee. One of the all time greats.
No different, in my mind, than asking if Kobe should be in the HOF. Had some off field issues, but certainly nothing that would affect his HOF status.
I would say there is a great deal of difference between a guy cheating on his wife and a guy involved in the murder of two people. Maybe I missed the sarcasm, but saying there's no difference between the two is one of the most ignorant things I have ever read on this blog (ignorant meaniing uneducated, not ignorant meanig rude).
Ray Lewis kills people
Without a doubt. I know he has an iffy past, but he is the true leader of that team and he works so hard and gets his team motivated because all he wants to do is win. I know some people won't agree with me, but when he becomes a coach somewhere, I would want my kid to play for him in a heartbeat.
So these abilities absolve his potential involvement in a murder?
None of us know what he did, so I'm not going to act like I do. The criminal justice system did what they thought was right with him, and he paid his price. What I do know is that he has been an active and positive influence in his community ever since. I believe that people can rehabilitate themselves, and that he's a positive example of that. I think his legacy is one of reform, not that famous people might get away with murder.
Exactly this. He was involved in one incident 13 years ago and was cleared of charges. Since then there has not been one negative incident involving Ray Lewis. He is a big part of the Baltimore community and does a hell of a lot for them. People can change and he seems like he's definitely done that and more. I bet all of his teammates would back him up if anyone said something negative about him.
I'd be worried my kid would up and disappear similar to that white suit....
is as far from a Boy Scout league as possible.
Give him credit for his stats and leadership of a dominating D for 15+ years.
Without a doubt he is in on the first ballot. He dominated from day one, and he will retire when he is still playing at a really high level. Ray is one of the greatest ever to play LB or defense for that matter, and it will be interesting to see what happens to Baltmore if Ed Reed joins him in retirement post super bowl. Ed is another all time great, but it is remarkable how Ozzie Newsome has built up the offense so well.
Why is this even a question. It is not the MLB hall of fame he is trying to get into. Where that is the elite of the elite.
It amazes me how his great personality and leadership skills have made it almost taboo for anyone to even talk about his past. There are a lot of missing pieces in that case, and Ray Lewis is a big chunk of the missing story. You cannot deny that, no matter how you feel about him.
Anyways he'll get in. He's one of the greatest players of all time and he deserves it. I don't have a problem with that. But I do have a problem with how the media has put him on a pedestal as some great humanitarian and role model. That, he is not.
No question, first ballot HOF. Guy has played linebacker at a high level for 17 years. You can't keep him out for pleading to obstruction of justice. Ask someone in Baltimore about all the philanthropy the guy does.
Ask the family members of the victims if they care about his philanthropy. It's great he does good deeds but does that erase everything from his past not to be mentioned?
ray lewis jokes never get old. just like the two people he killed.
Obviously good-doing doesn't erase or undo the past, but Ray Lewis--by all appearances--has reformed himself and become a great team player, community member, and maybe even a role model.
The HOF is not (nor should it be) a referendum on a man's past. If Ray Lewis had committed murder on the football field, done steroids, or some other "evil" that gave him an advantage or compromised the integrity of the game, I'd say his admission to the HOF might be questionable. But off-the-field issues from more than a decade-and-a-half ago shouldn't keep someone out of the Hall, even if he did some really bad stuff.
But no matter what we think, he will be inducted, and almost certainly as a first ballot member. He's one of the best LBs of all-time.
So your argument is as long as a athlete is great at what he does and there is no douubt that Lewis is great. That the athlete can do whatever they want and as long as they do enough good deads later it wont matter.
It just frustrates me at times. Watching through my schooling and work normal non famous people dealing with the consiquences of there mistakes for the rest of there lives no matter how reformed they are and some people because they can tackle or throw a ball or act whatever just seem to get a pass.
I know I know lifes not fair nor will it ever be
No, that's not my argument. My argument is that a player's misdeeds that are unrelated to his football career should not keep him out of the HOF. If Michael Vick had come back to the NFL, played at or near MVP level for 10 years and won three superbowls, he would deserve consideration for the Hall.
FACT: Ray Lewis is a HOF football player, and his football career is deserving of HOF recognition.
FACT: Ray Lewis has done some terrible things in his life.
I'm not saying Ray Lewis should get a free pass. I'm not saying the guy is innocent or that he deserves your respect or admiration. I'm not saying I would trust him, or that I want him as my friend. I'm saying he's a Hall of Fame football player, and that's what the Hall of Fame is all about. It's not an award for off-the-field character, nor should it be. And if you look at some of the other guys that have gotten into the HOF, they are not exactly model citizens.
According to the State of Georgia, the only involvement Ray Lewis had in the incident you refer to was obstructing justice.
I couldn't agree more. He's arguably the best linebacker to ever play and he does amazing things for his community. No brainer 1st ballot.
I would never cast a vote for Ray Lewis. I'm surprised how many people here would.
He plead Guilty to a lesser charge , but in the same right why did he pay off two families if he was not guilty of the two men being stabbed to death ... his two friends were both aquitted.
Besides all that I believe Ray Lewis is a First Ballott Hall of Famer .
He plead Guilty to a lesser charge , but in the same right why did he pay off two families if he was not guilty of the two men being stabbed to death ... his two friends were both aquitted.
Besides all that I believe Ray Lewis is a First Ballott Hall of Famer .
Im sorry but this is one of the stupidest questions I've ever seen asked on here--Ray Lewis will be (and should be) a nearly unanimous 1st ballot Hall of Famer. He is in the conversation for best linebacker ever.
Maybe it is being debated because some people think there should be more to whether someone gets into the ahll of fame than just their stats. I'm not saying I agree or disagree because honestly, I couldn't care less who gets into hall of fames, but I can certainly see why some people would expect the criteria to be more than just a great player for getting in. There are lots of great players who never get into hall of fames for one reason or another and I would say being linked to the murder of two people would be as good a place to draw a line as any.
Again, I could not care less about the pro football hall of fame or who gets in it, but I can certainly see why some people would be a little apprehensive about throwing Ray Lewis in simply based on his play. I can see why some people would want hall of famers to be a little more than just that.
Best MLB of all time.
Totally definitely absolutely killed two people with a knife (alledgedly).
Definitely a Hall of Famer.
OJ is in that bitch.
He gets in because of his on-the-field performance, no questions asked. If we spent any time looking into the HOF for major sports, we'd all realize that a large number of these guys have skeletons in their closets or marks on their record that, taken in a vaccuum, would seemingly preclude them from being invited over for dinner. But the HOF isn't for nice guys; it is for great players. And Lewis is one of them. That said, if everyone could cut back a bit on "Ray Lewis is a great guy because he amps people up and talks about God all the time", that would be super. He's a great MLB, but he's also a pretty big hypocrite.
If they have one murderer in there in OJ, why not another? The more the merrier!
The Football Hall of Fame is based on performance on the field. And from that perspective he is one of the all time greats and a first ballot guarateed.. The Morality Hall of Fame deals with off field and and as a whole how this person is morally. He might not make the cut here.
He's very obviously a first ballot hall of famer and arguably the greatest middle linebacker of all time.
Some would argue the greatest defensive player of all time, period. I would be in that camp and I loathe him and the Ravens. Of course he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. I think anyone who thinks otherwise is nuts.
No need for me to say more
What past? Black high-profile athlete? Our culture has shaped black males as hyper-sexualized and uber-violent. That is everyone's problem with Ray Lewis. They think he is a murderer with 6 kids from 4 different women. The man is loved and respected by his teammates, coaches, ownership, and rival players. He plays his ass off as the best player at his position in his generation and probably the generation before that as well. The two men charged with the murder were acquitted. Ray Lewis pled down to obstruction in a risk-aversion maneuver. He does have multiple children with multiple women, but it is not as if he is neglecting those kids. Some people say that many children is irresponsible. He has a job that more than allows him to provide for his children. I don't see people bagging on the Duggars for building an "Army of Soldiers for God". Probably would if they were black though. Get over your racist views of Ray Lewis. See him as a man and not the demon he can be portrayed as. Might serve you well.
The race card. Sweet.
What a joke.
My points hold credence. I simply think many of the views about Ray Lewis are racist. Pick me up some Bolivian coffee!
You seem like one of "those guys" that try to find racism in everything.
Whether be ridiculous things like in cartoons or commercials or sports blogs.
To be "that guy" and goad me into an argument. Racism is alive and well in our society and I was only stating my opinion that most of the hatred towards Ray Lewis stems from deep seeded, often sub-conscious racism. I do not find racism in everything, I just call 'em like I see 'em, and I fully believe that a majority of Ray Lewis hate stems from racism.
As far as I have scene you are the only person to bring up race or his kids. I have no problem whith his race. What I have a problem with is the idolizing of a man who was at the very least involved with covering up a murder.
*This was a reply to Hank Hill not sure why it didn'y post under his.*
you typed "scene."
The guy that was killed was not a real person. Ray Lewis obviously concocted the whole story to further his chances of being inducted into the hall of fame.
But I don't see why this is even a matter of discussion. I have no idea what happened that night. Whether it was him who stabbed them, or his friends, or anyone else or if they stabbed them out of self defense. There are too many questions and nothing close to enough evidence for me to jump to any conclusions of who did what. I agree with the people saying we are too quick to throw out the (possible) bad but by the same token many of those same people are quick to dismiss the good that he's done for numerous people and at least that we are certain on what he's done. I don't know how you begin to try and weigh those scales and determine if someone is good enough of a person to qualify for the Hall of Fame. As far as I'm aware it is based upon your on the field performance, and that metric alone. When people compare MLBs he is the bar that they are measured against. That is Hall of Fame in my mind.
If he makes it, London Fletcher should be in as well, very similar numbers.
based on name recognition, but there's some truth to that if you just look at the numbers. I can never figure out the Hall of Fame balloting. Seems like a lot of deserving players are denied for years (ie. Art Monk among others).
Numbers aren't the only consideration. I'm not saying London Fletcher doesn't deserve HOF consideration, but he has not impacted the game the same way Ray Lewis has.
I don't really care if he makes it into the hall of fame. I just know that his induction speech will be how he always is when he is in front of a camera.
They think he is a bad football player?
is labelling him as a murderer. Murderers, even rich ones, aren't able to strike plea deals and then testify against two people and expect those two to not turn against him. Georgia is a death penalty state. I don't care how close I am with someone, I'm not getting fried if I know someone else did the crime.
If he did it, those friends would've started singing like Mike Vicks' friends.
The Pro Football Hall of Fame's induction criteria specificially states that off-field activities not be considered when voting on inductees.
So yes, he should.
As to whether the criteria should be what it is.....I am a baseball fan above all other pro sports. I loathe what the baseball hall has become, and how it is up to voters to suppose whether or not players used PED's etc.
The difference is that baseball's potential HOF players were cheating at the game.
If Ray Lewis were caught cheating in football, I would not support him as a Hall-of-Famer.
Agreed. Cheating in the sport is not an "off the field" issue at all, as it shouldn't be. Issues that have nothing to do with how good an athlete is at their sport should not have any bearing on whether or not they are hall of fame calibre.
Yes he is a HOFer. Now for a real question, How do you think the publicity from the murder accusation effected his career? Do you think he would have had the "Ray Ray" persona with out the publicity? I believe it gave him an edge. He was a bad man before this but once it happened people were like let's watch Ray to see if he kills someone. I also believe he upped his game to prove everyone that said he was just a thug wrong.
Stop. The. Idiocy.
Also, can there be a higher point threshold for starting threads?
I'm confused . . .
Yes, Ray Lewis should be in the Hall of Fame. I guess I'm confused, because that question is about the same as the above . . . patently obvious that he will be in the HOF.
I think Lewis should have gotten some jail time, but his debt to society has been paid in full, according to the law. I don't think he should get hired for a cushy studio job when he is finished, but I think the Hall of Fame in any sport should only be about what the person did on the field.
Using today's "standards," Ty Cobb probably doesn't make it, nor does Rogers Hornsby, who used to get himself ejected from games on purpose to make it to the racetrack on time. Would Mickey Mantle be allowed in with his well-documented alcohol problem if the election was held today?
Most Hall of Fame elections are held by writers who never played, but are looking for excuses to deny entry to many of those who did play and played well.
Alright how about a thought experiment. If a football player is the best player of all time but near the end of his career is found guilty for murder and sentenced to life in prison. Should he be allowed into the hall of fame? By the rules he would be inducted but the question is should the player be inducted?