How does London Fletcher look in film study?

[bachslunch]

The discussion on the Senior nominees over at Football Perspective has taken an interesting turn regarding the Canton worthiness of London Fletcher. Here's the link:

http://www.footballperspective.com/robe ... /#comments

I've never been convinced that he has a HoF case: profile of 0/4/none, no 2nd team selections until two late in his career. He has always struck me as having the same type of long but not Hall-worthy career as Jim Marshall (0/2/none), Ken Riley (1/0/none), and Clay Matthews (1/4/none). Fellow over there named Brad Oremland, who has usually struck me as pretty knowledgeable unlike many such posters, feels otherwise. I have problems with his argument which I've spelled out in detail, but it does bring up an interesting question. How good was Fletcher?

Has anyone done film study on Fletcher? Is there really a strong argument for him when looking at him this way?

Many thanks for any insights folks may have.

[JeffreyMiller]

I haven't watched film on the guy, but he played a few years here in Buffalo saw I had the chance to see him live several times. A good solid player who was never spectacular. Leader on Bills defense that underachieved. Durable. Nice long career. HOF worthy? No. Even HOVG is iffy. I think your comparisons are right on the mark.

[Reaser]

I liked Fletcher. He probably should have had more honors (Pro Bowl selections) and what happened was that for a time he was so overlooked/underrated that after the fact he became overrated. Which of course happens both ways. Good players get overrated to great and people have to go so far in the other direction to balance things out ("he sucks!") that they eventually become underrated or vice-versa. Fletcher was the latter. Have to go so far in that direction to give him his due that all of a sudden people have him in the PFHOF.

[Shipley]

By the end of his seven or so years with the Redskins, he looked like he was playing on roller skates, but the first four or five years he performed at a high level and provided leadership in the locker room. He was one of those rare Redskins free-agent pick-ups who actually worked out overall. They kept him around two years too long. Definitely not HOF or even HOVG in my view.

[NWebster]

He just wasn't stout in the middle, I never made a concerted effort to study him specifically, for a reason, but he was more a wrap and drag down tackler than a take on with leverage guy. I'd compare - at the same size - both Sam Mills and Zach Thomas favorably to him (and the awards reflect as such). He wasn't great in coverage either though he held up well as he aged, strangely he didn't seem to lose a step until very late in DC, but seemed to loose any pop or power that he ever had. He also had team inflated tackle numbers at every stop of his career, don't believe anything over 10 / game on him in any season. Almost no tackles for loss. He was a serviceable guy on pretty suspect defenses. I like him personally, seemed like a good team and locker room guy, but probably a notch below even Clay Matthews II and Jim Marshall - I'd have him outside looking in on HOVG.