Is it just me, or is total tackles somewhat irrelevant concerning HOF consideration? It seems to me a high tackle number indicates an inability to get off the field. Of course it may be the fault of the other 10 defenders but I'd love to have the ability to see tackle percentage.

If one LB averages 10 tackles a game and another one averages just 8, does that automatically mean the more prolific tackler is the better player? What if the 10 tackle LB plays on a bad defense that's on the field 85 plays a game and the other LB is only on the field for 60?

That might be a good suggestion for the game as a whole! :)

Thats the reason why everywhere but in this league i cant get a lot of tackles by an individual player. Most i can have is about 70ish and thats rare

I think you are somewhat correct in that many players with high tackle numbers play on bad teams. Conversely, just because they played on bad teams doesn't mean they're not a HOF player. Total snaps would be a measure of a player's durability, which is certainly part of their value.

MFN does give us missed tackles, so we could add a percentage to the stats on the HOF ballot player profile. Are we sure that tackle percentage would be a more accurate measuring stick of a player's overall ability? It's an interesting discussion, for sure.

(Tackle ÷ missed tackles) × snaps = efficiency.
The only error margin with this is if a player played a lot of snaps on special teams. (Lot less tackles by snaps i think)

Done = https://usflwfl.myfootballnow.com/community/5/5548?page=1#33349