I do not think Shields is a first ballot hall of famer. I think however that he is a hall of famer unlike his teammate. BTW how does a guy get selected to so many pro bowls in a row without being on a consistent winner? Shields is kind of like the Barry Sanders of offensive lineman. Really talented but couldn't win the big game. And anyone who does not consider winning no matter what the position as part of the criteria for being great is drinking the media kool-aid.
I don't think any switches should be made. I think the hall of fame is too exclusive and not consistent enough in its standards. That's just my opinion.And if you read any of my earlier posts you would know how I feel about Gastineau. Basically; I would put Tony Mandarich in Canton before I would put Gastineau in. As for the guys you keep talking about, you have your opinion and I respect that, but the hall of fame agrees with me on Joiner, Largent, and Dierdorf, and probably on Roaf as well.So, are you saying that you think Steve Young shouldn't be in the hall of fame? Because in my opinion he absolutely deserves it, but the way you talk about the trading of Montana kind of makes me think you don't think that highly of the guy.I don't agree with removing players from the hall of fame, even if they didn't deserve to be inducted in the first place, it's cruel and unfair. But if I had to choose 5 players to kick out, here would be my five: Barry Sanders, Deion Sanders, Charlie Sanders, John Mackey, Leroy Kelly. It's just a coincidence that 3 of them share a surname.Anyways, back to my argument for Joiner and Larget: Jerry Rice, Michael Irvin, and Art Monk played in the post-rule change eras. Does that mean they're not hall of famers. And for your information Joiner was the #1 receiver on the Oilers, Bengals, and Chargers for a whole bunch of years, Kellen Winslow, John Jefferson, and later Wes Chandler got all the press but Joiner had the most receptions.