Rumblings in the Pantheon

Andy Piascik
Posts: 155
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2014 11:32 pm

Rumblings in the Pantheon

Post by Andy Piascik »

Every so often I get nominations for the Hall of Very Good from someone who says they use the Rumblings in the Pantheon chapter from the book The Hidden Game of Football as a guide to making their nominations. That makes sense, as Bob Carroll, et al, made a noble attempt in that chapter. For people not familiar with the book, Bob (he told me once he was the one who did all the work on that chapter) charted several hundred players and awarded each of them points based on how many each was first team all-pro, consensus all-pro, second team all-pro, named to the Pro Bowl, etc. The idea was for it to be a guide to the credentials of each for the Hall of Fame.

It was an important undertaking. However, I strongly suggest that people consult a source like Turney and Hogrogian's splendid book on all-pros before rushing to any conclusions. For while extremely helpful, Bob's chapter is full of all kinds of errors. There was a tremendous amount of ground to cover so that maybe was to be expected but some of the errors are egregious and anyone consulting the chapter should be aware of that.

Some are simple errors of multiplication and/or addition. For example, the totals for Lenny Moore as Bob has them add up to 55, not 65 as listed.

Others are miscalculations of how many times a player was all-pro, consensus all-pro, etc. For example, Bob has Del Shofner as a consensus first team all-pro four times. In fact, Shofner was a consensus first teamer five times, as is easy to check (1958, 1959, 1961, 1962 and 1963). So the point total Bob awarded Shofner of 32 is wrong and should actually be 40, which changes where he ranks among wide receivers.

Bob also made mistakes in awarding too many points, sometimes way too many points as with Andy Russell. Bob has Russell as having been a consensus first team all-pro three times when in fact Russell was never a consensus first teamer. That changes his score and where he ranks on the chart dramatically (Bob has Russell with 48 points, I have him with 35). Ditto Lynn Swann, who was a consensus first teamer once, not three times as listed by Bob. That drops Swann's score dramatically from 24 as listed to, by my calculation, 18.

Then there are glaring omissions like Charlie Sanders not even being included on the tight ends chart. I have Sanders with the highest point total of all tight ends at the time the book was published so that's a pretty glaring oversight.

So, yes, the Rumblings in the Pantheon chapter can be helpful. But please, for your own benefit and the integrity of whatever work of your own you may use the charts for, double check first using Turney and Hogrogian (though I've spotted a few errors there as well) because otherwise it might lead to some avoidable embarrassment and the spreading of wrong information.
NWebster
Posts: 549
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 8:21 pm

Re: Rumblings in the Pantheon

Post by NWebster »

I remember breading that book in its first printing, when I was much younger mind you, and that chapter made a real difference to me. I used the logic to extend things further into marginal players. It still informs my belief - as a Steeler can - that LC Greenwood belongs nowhere near Canton. I think a new, accurate, redone version of the same would make a very interesting piece. Possibly coupled with a discussion of the merits and flaws of honors based evaluations of players.

I count that along with Dr.Z's Thinking Man's Guide as my #1 and #2 favorite books of all time and I'm not sure what order they are in!
sluggermatt15
Posts: 606
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2015 4:57 pm

Re: Rumblings in the Pantheon

Post by sluggermatt15 »

NWebster wrote:I remember breading that book in its first printing, when I was much younger mind you, and that chapter made a real difference to me. I used the logic to extend things further into marginal players. It still informs my belief - as a Steeler can - that LC Greenwood belongs nowhere near Canton. I think a new, accurate, redone version of the same would make a very interesting piece. Possibly coupled with a discussion of the merits and flaws of honors based evaluations of players.

I count that along with Dr.Z's Thinking Man's Guide as my #1 and #2 favorite books of all time and I'm not sure what order they are in!
It is interesting what a difference accurate information/data can present. I like to use my own personal research for HOVG candidates, whether it is statistics, videos, old games, interviews, etc. because I think it broadens perspectives and may settle the factual arguments. I encourage others to do so too. Ensuring the sources are reliable and legitimate can be a potential pitfall.
User avatar
TanksAndSpartans
Posts: 1153
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 1:05 am

Re: Rumblings in the Pantheon

Post by TanksAndSpartans »

Andy, I never read "The Hidden Game". Were the 20s or earlier considered? Since there was no ranking methodology explained in the article below, I always wondered what exactly was done. It just states: "They are ranked in order of All-Pro selections.(http://www.profootballresearchers.org/a ... 05-233.pdf)
Andy Piascik
Posts: 155
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2014 11:32 pm

Re: Rumblings in the Pantheon

Post by Andy Piascik »

Bob Carroll found some all-pro teams from as early as 1922. George Halas picked a team that was published in one of the Chicago papers that year and Guy Chamberlin did likewise. Then beginning in 1923 some papers began publishing teams based on polls of either coaches or writers, I think. They weren't consistent every year as I recall. One year it would be a poll while the next it would be a team picked by one writer. A paper would select a team for a few years, then miss a few years, then start up again. Not ideal obviously but they offer a little bit of a glimpse.

I think Hogrogian did his work some years later and he really dedicated himself to scouring all kinds of microfilm covering years and years and found a few more but I'm not 100% sure whether those were from as early as the 1920s. You can check it out here:
http://www.profootballresearchers.com/m ... Season.pdf
User avatar
JeffreyMiller
Posts: 819
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 11:28 am
Location: Birthplace of Pop Warner

Re: Rumblings in the Pantheon

Post by JeffreyMiller »

What qualifies as an official All Pro team?

http://nflfootballjournal.blogspot.com/ ... 1.html?m=1
"Gentlemen, it is better to have died a small boy than to fumble this football."
Andy Piascik
Posts: 155
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2014 11:32 pm

Re: Rumblings in the Pantheon

Post by Andy Piascik »

None is official that I know of, though the AP's gets the most play. Each has to be judged on its merits over a period of time.

Bob Gill did a two part article for The CC evaluating the picks from the 1950s and 1960s by the Detroit News. It was interesting because, on the one hand, the News on a number of occasions selected guys who would soon become regular picks by the rest of the outlets a year before everybody else. On the other hand, they just as regularly picked guys who no one else did and who were questionable because they were never all-pro again. They also seemed to go overboard with Lions though, oddly, they were unimpressed by Yale Lary even when he was making the rest of the teams.
paulksandiego
Posts: 81
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2014 10:21 pm

Re: Rumblings in the Pantheon

Post by paulksandiego »

I believe Mr. Carroll was including all-AFC/NFC teams in his "consensus all pro" calculations.
JohnTurney
Posts: 2220
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2014 1:28 pm

Re: Rumblings in the Pantheon

Post by JohnTurney »

paulksandiego wrote:I believe Mr. Carroll was including all-AFC/NFC teams in his "consensus all pro" calculations.
Agreed. All-Conference teams are interesting in that they used to get some play (as with Carroll) but not the 1960s TSN All-Western Conference and All-Eastern Conference

I count them the same as a Pro Bowl, which is what they are. as Bob said "de facto All-Conference teams"

I have rough scoring method--again, very rough
10 = consensus All-pro
9.5 = First-team All-Pro
9 = Second-team All-Pro
8 = Pro Bowl, First-team All-Conference
7 = Second-team All-Conference and HIM All-Conference (UPI is only one who did this)
6 = A player who had a good year, but no honors, say, 1000 yards rushing, or just anything that said "good season" subjective
5 = average season, maybe a nickel back or designated rusher..but again subjective, a DPR had 10 sacks, maybe a "6"
4 = rarely use, but maybe a Pro Bowl season, cut in half with injury
3 = backup
2 = rarely used
1 = on roster, barely played like a QB with few snaps.

while not a "grade" it's just a score for one thing--honors...with stats in the middle..
but IMO does a fairer jon than AV (se Gary Larsen > Bob Lilly in 1969 as example)
Mine would be Lilly 10, Larsen 8

there could be subdivisions of higher scores 8.5, 7.5 for example, but it's a "thumbnail sketch" a term that used
to be in newspapers all the time.

As for Official, The HOF uses Total Football since it was dubbed the "OFFICIAL" Encyclopedia of the NFL

It adds in the NY Daily news which is a bit NYC-centric, but not too much

to me, majors = AP. UPI, NEA, PFWA , PFW, SN, but not all active at same time, in 1970 UPI when to "conference" SN began in 1980, prior to that they were
also All-Confernce, so for "All-Pro/All-NFL I exclude.
User avatar
TanksAndSpartans
Posts: 1153
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 1:05 am

Re: Rumblings in the Pantheon

Post by TanksAndSpartans »

Thanks Andy. I'll take a look once I dig up my login. That's what I was wondering though - whether any of the All-Pro teams found by Hogrogian for the 20s were discovered later and as a result not included.
Post Reply