Tom Brady’s Hall of Fame résumé isn’t just first-ballot worthy - it’s bulletproof. But that hasn’t stopped some voices in sports media from raising concerns about whether the recent cold shoulder given to Bill Belichick and Robert Kraft could signal a troubling trend. Could the unthinkable actually happen - could Brady be next?
That’s the question Stephen A. Smith posed on First Take, and while it might sound outrageous on the surface, it’s rooted in a real sense of disbelief over recent Hall of Fame decisions.
Belichick, a six-time Super Bowl-winning head coach, was left out. Kraft, the longtime owner who helped architect the Patriots dynasty, has now been passed over 13 years in a row.
These aren’t fringe candidates - they’re central figures in one of the most dominant eras in NFL history. So naturally, Smith’s reaction was fiery.
“If you can’t have Tom Brady up in there as a first-ballot Hall of Famer,” Smith said, “the credibility of the institution that is the Hall of Fame goes right out the freaking window.”
It’s hard to argue with the logic. Brady’s career is a mountain of accolades: seven Super Bowl rings, five Super Bowl MVPs, three league MVPs, and a legacy that spans two decades of dominance.
He’s not just a lock - he’s the lock. But Smith’s point wasn’t just about Brady’s credentials.
It was about the precedent being set. If Belichick and Kraft can be denied, what’s stopping the Hall from moving the goalposts again?
“There is no athlete in any sport on the planet,” Smith added, “in America or the world over, that would tell you Tom Brady ain’t a first-ballot Hall of Famer.”
But not everyone sees it that way. NFL analyst Ron Parker took a very different stance during an appearance on *The Stephen A.
Smith Show*. For Parker, it’s not just about stats and rings - it’s about integrity.
And that’s where he draws a hard line.
“Where is the punishment?” Parker asked. “Shouldn’t there be some integrity, honesty in the Hall of Fame?”
He pointed to other controversial omissions in sports history - Pete Rose, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens - and argued that Belichick and Brady belong in the same category. In Parker’s view, the shadow of Spygate and Deflategate still looms too large to ignore.
“Tom Brady is best described as Lance Armstrong without the bicycle,” Parker said. “They cheated.
Bill Belichick and Tom Brady are connected at the hip. This is what should happen.”
That’s a bold comparison - and one that’s sure to spark debate among fans and analysts alike. Armstrong’s fall from grace came after a wide-reaching doping scandal that erased years of cycling dominance.
Brady’s controversies, while significant in the NFL world, haven’t come close to that level of fallout. But Parker’s point is clear: if the Hall of Fame is truly about honoring the game’s most honest and impactful figures, then questions of ethics should weigh just as heavily as win totals.
And then there’s Kraft - the man who signed the checks and helped build the empire. Thirteen years of waiting, and still no bust in Canton.
That alone has raised eyebrows, especially when you consider the role he played in shaping the modern Patriots dynasty. If the Hall is about legacy, how do you leave out the man who oversaw the most successful two-decade run in NFL history?
At the heart of all this is a simple question: What is the Hall of Fame supposed to represent? Is it a museum of greatness, a shrine to the best to ever do it? Or is it also a moral compass, holding the game’s biggest names accountable for how they achieved that greatness?
For now, Tom Brady’s place in Canton still feels inevitable. But the recent snubs of Belichick and Kraft have introduced just enough doubt to make people wonder.
And if Brady - the most decorated player in NFL history - were to be denied? As Smith put it, “You might as well burn down the building.”
One thing’s for sure: the Hall of Fame conversation isn’t just about football anymore. It’s about legacy, integrity, and where the line is drawn between achievement and accountability. And as the debate continues, the football world will be watching - closely.