Page 2 of 3

Re: Clark Shaughnessy

PostPosted: Sat Apr 11, 2020 7:11 pm
by sluggermatt15
I think it is inevitable there is always going to be inductees whom folks disagree with, right? Isn't that the case with the PF HOF? I've seen many threads and posts about players who shouldn't be in, but are. Much disagreement was expressed over the Senior class this year.

You can make a difference in who is elected.

Re: Clark Shaughnessy

PostPosted: Sat Apr 25, 2020 11:42 am
by Bryan
TanksAndSpartans wrote:Everything you guys said is true, but I had to vent a little - Abner Haynes was a dagger to me - he barely rushed for a yard after 28 which was the age Latone got started in the NFL.


I thought the reason we elected Abner Haynes was to make RememberTheAFL go away(?). Maybe I have the facts wrong, though.

Re: Abner Haynes

PostPosted: Sat Apr 25, 2020 7:34 pm
by JuggernautJ
As the guy who nominated (and wrote the HoVG bio for) Abner Haynes I guess I'd better come to his defense.
Haynes might not have been the best athlete in football (or even the early AFL) but he has a place in football lore.

Abner was the first big star in the AFL (according to my research), especially in Texas, where the fledgling Texans (AFL) were fighting for recognition. To stretch an analogy, he was the AFL's Red Grange, helping to popularize his league at the time it needed it most.

Which is not to say he was a slouch as a player.
Haynes was Rookie of the Year and Player of the Year and led the league in total yardage in the AFL's inaugural season.
He was also elected to the All-Time AFL team and had his number retired by the Chiefs. He was All-AFL four times.
Not to mention he has some great tales associated with him ("We'll kick to the wind" and "The life you save may be Abner Haynes'" immediately come to mind) that are a part of football history.

I'm not arguing that there aren't players who are perhaps more worthy to be in our Hall.
But I do feel Abner deserves a place there. It would be difficult to tell the history of the American Football League without mentioning Abner Haynes...

http://www.profootballresearchers.org/h ... -2019.html

I understand that it is very difficult to be an ardent proponent of one thing without being negative about it's supposed opposite. But I see no contradiction in wanting to acknowledge and support players from the early- (or pre-) NFL and doing the same for AFL (or any other worthy) players.
The two are not mutually exclusive.

If The Hall of Fame can include Jim Thorpe and Kurt Warner then I feel The Hall of (the) Very Good has room for both Peggy Parratt and Abner Haynes.

Re: Clark Shaughnessy

PostPosted: Sat Apr 25, 2020 9:28 pm
by TanksAndSpartans
Did they ask you to write the bio because you nominated him?

I shouldn't pick on particular players, that never really goes well. My main point is as a research organization, I'd like to see us continue to consider more of the tougher players to research for HOVG selection. I think it was that way originally, but interest has waned over the last 10 years. Its easy to go to PFR and check player cards when its time to vote, but I hope its remembered PFR is most useful starting with 1933 when statistics are present. When it comes to voting, the results remind me a lot of the HOF centennial class results which is why I spoke out.

Re: Clark Shaughnessy

PostPosted: Sat Apr 25, 2020 9:40 pm
by JuggernautJ
TanksAndSpartans wrote:Did they ask you to write the bio because you nominated him?

No. I joined the committee and part of "the job" is to write bios for the HoVG.
As I had nominated Abner I felt obliged to offer to do his.

TanksAndSpartans wrote:I shouldn't pick on particular players, that never really goes well. My main point is as a research organization, I'd like to see us consider more of the tougher players to research - its easy to go to go to youtube or PFR and research players from the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, etc. The early years are tougher. What I'm seeing is we have only slightly more interest (Ted Nesser was a great choice) in pre WWII than the HOF. I think we can do better.


I agree with all of that and very well said.

I'd only add that for most of the players in the 60's-90's many of us have to do no more research than to sort through our memories. That makes it even easier to vote for someone from that era over someone we've only barely heard of from a time long ago. Sadly.

Re: Clark Shaughnessy

PostPosted: Sun Apr 26, 2020 7:26 am
by Ken Crippen
TanksAndSpartans wrote:Did they ask you to write the bio because you nominated him?

I shouldn't pick on particular players, that never really goes well. My main point is as a research organization, I'd like to see us continue to consider more of the tougher players to research for HOVG selection. I think it was that way originally, but interest has waned over the last 10 years. Its easy to go to PFR and check player cards when its time to vote, but I hope its remembered PFR is most useful starting with 1933 when statistics are present. When it comes to voting, the results remind me a lot of the HOF centennial class results which is why I spoke out.


Just for the record, the first classes done by Bob Carroll were done by picking names out of a hat. The name of players that he liked were tossed in a hat and he picked out of the hat.

Re: Clark Shaughnessy

PostPosted: Sun Apr 26, 2020 10:43 am
by TanksAndSpartans
Ken Crippen wrote:
TanksAndSpartans wrote:Just for the record, the first classes done by Bob Carroll were done by picking names out of a hat. The name of players that he liked were tossed in a hat and he picked out of the hat.


That's funny - I wouldn't have guessed that. Maybe we should go back to that method. :)

Re: Clark Shaughnessy

PostPosted: Mon Apr 27, 2020 10:17 am
by Ken Crippen
TanksAndSpartans wrote:
Ken Crippen wrote:
TanksAndSpartans wrote:Just for the record, the first classes done by Bob Carroll were done by picking names out of a hat. The name of players that he liked were tossed in a hat and he picked out of the hat.


That's funny - I wouldn't have guessed that. Maybe we should go back to that method. :)


Be careful what you wish for, because it was solely one person picking names out of a hat of players he liked. If the person picking the names out of a hat was not knowledgeable or interested in early/pre-NFL, you will never get your preferred players.

Re: Clark Shaughnessy

PostPosted: Mon Apr 27, 2020 10:47 am
by JeffreyMiller
There is a certain on-line Hall of Fame that is run by one individual who acts as nominator, voter, selector, etc. He was a contributor here way back when but was often belligerent and finally left. Anyway, he felt only he himself was qualified enough to determine who belonged in this HOF. The basic idea of his HOF is a good one, but his judgment is suspect (at best). If a player has one 1,000-ayrd season, for example, he seemed to be worthy of induction and, according to this gentlemen, a victim of blacklisting from the PFHOF. It is hard to take it seriously ...

At least there is some democracy and guiding standards in place for the HOVG ...

Re: Clark Shaughnessy

PostPosted: Mon Apr 27, 2020 2:13 pm
by TanksAndSpartans
JeffreyMiller wrote:Be careful what you wish for, because it was solely one person picking names out of a hat of players he liked. If the person picking the names out of a hat was not knowledgeable or interested in early/pre-NFL, you will never get your preferred players.


I wasn't clear - I like the nomination process and the vetting by the committee. I'd prefer the hat to the third step, the voting.