Predicitons for the Pro Football Hall of Fame Class of 2016

[JWL]

There was an extensive thread on Stabler's HOF candidacy on the old forum. I think Stabler is a borderline worthy candidate, but his omission is not outrageous. And I sort of hate the idea that his candidacy gains momentum because of his death.
He's sort of the opposite of Gale Sayers. Instead of his career ending early, it started late. Stabler didn't become a starter until he was 27, so he had a short prime. His knee injuries and off the field lifestyle prevented him from remaining effective in his mid 30's.

I meant that if he retired right after the 1979 season he would be judged on basically seven years of action (1973-79) because he did not see much playing time during the first stage of his career. He would have been a short-career exception like Sayers or Dwight Stephenson.

[conace21]

There was an extensive thread on Stabler's HOF candidacy on the old forum. I think Stabler is a borderline worthy candidate, but his omission is not outrageous. And I sort of hate the idea that his candidacy gains momentum because of his death.
He's sort of the opposite of Gale Sayers. Instead of his career ending early, it started late. Stabler didn't become a starter until he was 27, so he had a short prime. His knee injuries and off the field lifestyle prevented him from remaining effective in his mid 30's.

I meant that if he retired right after the 1979 season he would be judged on basically seven years of action (1973-79) because he did not see much playing time during the first stage of his career. He would have been a short-career exception like Sayers or Dwight Stephenson.

I understand. I've wondered the same thing about Stabler myself. He may have had a much better HOF case of he had never played a game in the 1980's. I just meant that his short term case would have been different from most because the brevity of his career was due more to the late start than to a premature ending.

[JWL]

There was an extensive thread on Stabler's HOF candidacy on the old forum. I think Stabler is a borderline worthy candidate, but his omission is not outrageous. And I sort of hate the idea that his candidacy gains momentum because of his death.
He's sort of the opposite of Gale Sayers. Instead of his career ending early, it started late. Stabler didn't become a starter until he was 27, so he had a short prime. His knee injuries and off the field lifestyle prevented him from remaining effective in his mid 30's.

I meant that if he retired right after the 1979 season he would be judged on basically seven years of action (1973-79) because he did not see much playing time during the first stage of his career. He would have been a short-career exception like Sayers or Dwight Stephenson.

I understand. I've wondered the same thing about Stabler myself. He may have had a much better HOF case of he had never played a game in the 1980's. I just meant that his short term case would have been different from most because the brevity of his career was due more to the late start than to a premature ending.

Well, he had one of the strangest careers in the history of the league. It could be scheme and teammate related but it is amazing that Stabler's TD:INT ratio got worse after the 1978 rules changes that made passing easier.

[Reaser]

I meant that if he retired right after the 1979 season he would be judged on basically seven years of action ...

Agree 100% with what you're saying. I think that's one of the biggest flaws in how careers are judged - specifically for HOF purposes.

Like on the old forums one of the main arguments against Tingelhoff was that he didn't do anything (HOF level) for so long after his peak years. As if he played "too long". I couldn't' stand that argument. Especially considering that if he was a QB/WR (stat position) then the extra seasons played would have padded career stats - which somehow people judge players on (xth all-time in a stat, HOF'er!) so it would have been a positive playing those 'extra' seasons. A couple extra career TD's, or yards, etc ...

That's why I always argue that seasons played are not/shouldn't be a HOF 'stat', but everyone else - including the voters, seemingly - uses it as one ...
* - using the phrase "HOF seasons" for lack of a better one.

Have 5 HOF seasons in a 7 year career = Too short of a career (even though 7 years is twice the average career length?)

Have 5 HOF seasons in a 12 year career = Sweet spot, lock for the HOF.

Have 5 HOF seasons in a 17 year career = Too many bad or non-HOF seasons (unless it's offensive position with stats or defensive position with the always overrated sacks, then extra stats!)

When in reality the resumes are equal in this example, to me, and if I was 'forced' to pick one of the three, if anything 5 in 7 would - on paper - impress me more. Since in this context, I view seasons played as nothing more than chances/extra chances to do something. If you do the same thing another guy did in 7 seasons and it takes you 12, why is the latter the HOF'er? Though in general I view them all similar.

That's why it's weird for Easley/Sharpe, if they played a handful more years, even if they played at an average level (probably still, even if they were backups), they would be in the HOF because seasons played would be more for Easley (which is literally the ONLY thing missing from his individual HOF 'resume') and accumulated stats would be more for Sharpe.

While Jerome "never the best or really even close to the best at his position" Bettis is in largely (only?) because he played 13 years and accumulated stats.

Maybe just me though, but it doesn't add up.

[Bryan]

That's why I always argue that seasons played are not/shouldn't be a HOF 'stat', but everyone else - including the voters, seemingly - uses it as one ...
* - using the phrase "HOF seasons" for lack of a better one.

Have 5 HOF seasons in a 7 year career = Too short of a career (even though 7 years is twice the average career length?)

Have 5 HOF seasons in a 12 year career = Sweet spot, lock for the HOF.

Have 5 HOF seasons in a 17 year career = Too many bad or non-HOF seasons (unless it's offensive position with stats or defensive position with the always overrated sacks, then extra stats!)

When in reality the resumes are equal in this example, to me, and if I was 'forced' to pick one of the three, if anything 5 in 7 would - on paper - impress me more. Since in this context, I view seasons played as nothing more than chances/extra chances to do something. If you do the same thing another guy did in 7 seasons and it takes you 12, why is the latter the HOF'er? Though in general I view them all similar.

That's why it's weird for Easley/Sharpe, if they played a handful more years, even if they played at an average level (probably still, even if they were backups), they would be in the HOF because seasons played would be more for Easley (which is literally the ONLY thing missing from his individual HOF 'resume') and accumulated stats would be more for Sharpe.

While Jerome "never the best or really even close to the best at his position" Bettis is in largely (only?) because he played 13 years and accumulated stats.

Maybe just me though, but it doesn't add up.

I think one of the problems is that the Pro Football HOF has yet to decide if it wants to be a "Big Hall" (let most of the good players in) or a "Small Hall" (keep it exclusive, only the elite players get in). If its a Big Hall, then a guy like Stabler gets in. If its a Small Hall, then Stabler is a HOVG case. I think in general the HOF leans towards being a Big Hall, but it seems like countless hours are spent arguing the merits of guys like Bob Hayes and Ken Stabler. Maybe thats just the nature of the beast.

As for "optimal career length", it seems like the only consistent pattern is the high peak/'short' career guys like Gradishar/Sharpe/Easley don't get any discussion. Although its statistically impossible, it would be interesting if football had something like baseball's "wins above replacement" metric. A guy producing on an above-average level for 10 seasons would equate with a guy producing at an elite level for 3 seasons, for example, or at least there would be some rationale behind HOF decisions for borderline cases.

[oldecapecod11]

Cooperstown is years ahead of Canton in the areas of system and organization.
But... that is because it is a true Hall of Fame of a Sport.

Canton is nothing more than a one league showplace and, until they recognize the stars of other leagues - and their accomplishments,
it will never be anything but an elegant display of nfl lore and memorabilia.

The issue of tenure is clearly established at Cooperstown. A player needs to be rostered ten years. Period!

If the nfl wants to settle that matter, they simply notify Canton and a qualifying tenure is established. Then there is no question.
Whatever the length - 5, 7, 10 years - that's it. A player qualifies or he does not.

Meanwhile...

by Reaser » Mon Aug 10, 2015 12:40 am
"... While Jerome "never the best or really even close to the best at his position" Bettis is in largely (only?) because he played 13 years and accumulated stats..."

He is "in" because he played for one of the storied franchises - run by a family that usually gets what it wants due to the respect it has earned
within the league and far beyond - internationally, as a matter of fact.
Rooney - and Mara and Halas and even both the Wilsons have a legacy that today's ownership can only dream of achieving.
Morabito came close and Bidwill had it for a while. Marshall had it until his stupidity regarding race ruined his legacy.
Modell deserves it but too many close-minded morons think someone should run a business for their benefit and not the owner's. Sad!
The only one on the horizon was Kraft but he has destroyed his own image.

[bachslunch]

Well, he had one of the strangest careers in the history of the league. It could be scheme and teammate related but it is amazing that Stabler's TD:INT ratio got worse after the 1978 rules changes that made passing easier.

Dr. Z wrote an article for SI several years ago where he said this about Stabler (can't call up the original article online for some reason):

"In his prime, while it lasted, he was very accurate. Then he became consistently inaccurate. His teammates wondered why. That’s as far as I’ll take this one. A few years ago, the person presenting him at the enshrinement meeting mentioned how he had “always been cooperative with the media.” My hand shot up as if it were on a spring, and I reminded this ninny about how the Snake invited Bob Padecky of the Sacramento Bee down to the Redneck Riviera to do some offseason interviewing. And when Padecky showed up, all of a sudden Kenny’s buddies on the Mobile PD found some drugs that had been planted in the writer’s car, and off he went to the joint. For a night. Then he was released with no charges filed. Yeah, Kenny will make it. After I’m morto."

The first four sentences of this excerpt is likely a reference to allegations that Stabler was linked to a New Jersey gambling figure and may have thrown games later in his career. Stabler won a libel lawsuit against the NY Times and NBC for this allegation in the early 80s:

http://www.nytimes.com/1982/08/28/sport ... 13925.html

but Dr. Z's article dates from after that time.

If it's true, that's a serious black eye against Stabler's candidacy. And it's one of the reservations I have about Stabler for the HoF -- I'd like to know where the truth is here.

[bachslunch]

There was an extensive thread on Stabler's HOF candidacy on the old forum. I think Stabler is a borderline worthy candidate, but his omission is not outrageous. And I sort of hate the idea that his candidacy gains momentum because of his death.
He's sort of the opposite of Gale Sayers. Instead of his career ending early, it started late. Stabler didn't become a starter until he was 27, so he had a short prime. His knee injuries and off the field lifestyle prevented him from remaining effective in his mid 30's.

I meant that if he retired right after the 1979 season he would be judged on basically seven years of action (1973-79) because he did not see much playing time during the first stage of his career. He would have been a short-career exception like Sayers or Dwight Stephenson.

One concern I have about Stabler is his adjusted passer stats. Kiran Rasaretnam for example has him at 32nd in "best 4," 38th in "best 7, and 26th in "best 10." See:

http://newqbrating.blogspot.com/2010/04 ... VvetB.dpuf

Add his one Super Bowl win and that puts him about equal to Joe Theismann and Charlie Conerly, who nobody's beating the doors down to get in.

But perhaps because of constant, long-standing Raider lobbying, his HoF fitness almost seems like a "given" -- and a not-too-carefully examined one, as for Ray Guy (who probably belongs in but is overrated), ex-'Skin Joe Jacoby (who may or may not belong in), and ex-Vike Jim Marshall (who definitely doesn't belong in). I'm not so sure in Stabler's case, and I'm still on the fence with him.

[bachslunch]

Cooperstown is years ahead of Canton in the areas of system and organization.
But... that is because it is a true Hall of Fame of a Sport.

Canton is nothing more than a one league showplace and, until they recognize the stars of other leagues - and their accomplishments,
it will never be anything but an elegant display of nfl lore and memorabilia.

The issue of tenure is clearly established at Cooperstown. A player needs to be rostered ten years. Period!

If the nfl wants to settle that matter, they simply notify Canton and a qualifying tenure is established. Then there is no question.
Whatever the length - 5, 7, 10 years - that's it. A player qualifies or he does not.

Not sure I agree. With the exception of the various Negro Leagues, the BBHoF has not inducted stars from other leagues who did not earn their way in via playing in US Major League Baseball, such as Sadaharu Oh or folks who played their careers solely in places like the Mexican League. The PFHoF of course doesn't do this, and the Hockey Hall pretty much hasn't as well. The Basketball Hall however has done this to some extent.

[Reaser]

Split the difference. The PFHOF recognizes other leagues in terms of displays and such, but when it comes to selection of players it seems some AFL doesn't get the credit and worse - since it was an equal to or better league - the AAFC gets no credit and it's either viewed as a negative for playing in an 'inferior' (nice football knowledge HOF voters) league or it's a wash, not a negative but not a positive either, just ignored.

Things like arena football and Canada, those sports have their own HOF's so it's always weird when people say CFL or Arena players should be in the HOF. The PFHOF is for the sport of American Football at the Professional level. The CFL nor Arena football play the sport of "American Football", obviously. Though I enjoy watching both leagues.

Other topics:

Dr. Z's vendetta against Stabler should not be considered as part of the latter's candidacy. I like Dr. Z like most people but that's a personal thing, not an unbiased take on Stabler the football player.

Agree with OCC on his section on owners - except for Modell. Modell is a disgrace to the sport of football (my personal opinion of him), and furthermore, his 'resume' is largely based on television. Which is severely overstated, people act like he invented television itself, put the NFL on TV himself, produced, shot and announced the games himself and the NFL only got popular on TV because of him. None of that is true, he played a partial role in the history of the NFL on TV, not nearly anything or enough of anything to make him a HOF'er.

As for Pittsburgh HOF'ers. Years ago - so I don't know what the numbers would be now, but I'm sure similar - I 'researched' the voters out of personal curiosity to see where they were from, their favorite teams and what teams they covered. There was a disproportionate number of voters with ties to the Steelers. Either grew up a Steelers fan as a kid, were Steelers fans as adults, were on the Steelers beat, covered the Steelers to start their 'career', all their favorite players were Steelers, etc ... I believe it was 7 or 8 of the voters or 15-20% of the voters had direct or former ties to the Steelers in terms of covering them directly or Pittsburgh being their favorite team. For whatever that is worth.