Predicitons for the Pro Football Hall of Fame Class of 2016

[oldecapecod11]

by bachslunch » Mon Aug 10, 2015 12:46 pm
"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."

You are right about Oh.
But, who of the Mexican League was of any note that DID NOT play MLB? Or the Venezuelan League; or the Puerto Rican League;
and even the silly Federal League.
The difference is that anyone outstanding enough to even be dreamed of as HoF-worthy had his chance in MLB and
like "Pedro" said to Jobu, "I no hit curve ball."

The initial Negro Leagues induction was a farce.
If you know exactly how it went down, then you know that to be true.
After an initial couple of days at a luxury resort, each member of the so-called committee went his and her separate way
having agreed each would select one person and that person was "in" - not subject to any vote or even review.
E.G. Effa's claim to fame was the number of players she slept with. Old Abe once traded her most recent paramour
for a pair of used sliding pads and a few bats. The lack of credibility of the "committee" was ever-so-pronounced
with the EXCLUSION of Buck O'Neil - to the positive amazement of anyone with a modicum of baseball savvy.

You overlooked the Girls. That was as fine a gesture that has ever been done in the annals of sports awards.

As for Hockey, you might be surprised.
Were not some of the Russian coaches and players inducted - and others whose fame began in Olympic play and continued
in the European Leagues.

Ahhh... Basketball... if Alan Shepard had attempted a foul shot instead of hitting a golf ball, he would be enshrined in Springfield. (Yeah! I know. It's free throw now.)

[Bryan]

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.

Which players, specifically, do you think have been kept out of the HOF due to anti-AAFC/AFL bias? Not accusatory, just asking. I think Mac Speedie is the only guy, because his best years came in the AAFC and he had a 'short' career. I think Johnny Robinson would be a fine addition to Canton, but I don't think his exclusion is due to any anti-AFL bias. He is kind of a borderline case and not really a glaring omission. Guys like Motley and Blanda had their best seasons in the AAFC or early AFL, and they both are enshrined.

I think the PFHOF has done a great job at recognizing players from the AAFC and AFL, in all honesty.

[oldecapecod11]

by Reaser » Mon Aug 10, 2015 1:29 pm
"...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..."

Modell's role in the popularity of the NFL on television was, indeed, minimal.
His resume is more in advertising and promotion than in television and is beyond dispute. There is no fan of Art Modell here
but neither is there any recall of severe overstatement regarding his television participation except that
he put TVs in the aisles of a super market chain as a promotional gimmick - and - it worked but was not football related.

There are eight names that deserve the credit for the popularity of football on television:
The Baltimore Colts and The New York Football Giants initially,
and later Roone Arledge, Howard Cosell, Frank Gifford, Don Maynard, and Monday Night Football on ABC.
(More about that in another thread...)

Art Modell owned a major league football team for forty-four - that's FORTY-FOUR - years.
Throughout that time, that franchise supported a couple thousand families at a tad more than minimum wage,
helped provide entertainment for millions of people, and survived the tumultuous times of the first real challenge
from a rival league. All during that time, it was his money at risk.

The fact that he also donated millions to numerous charities is so often overlooked - understated by many who,
as with Caesar, prefer the good be interred with his bones.

Anyone who supports thousands and entertains millions is certainly a credit to the field in which they compete and
entitled to the respect and fellowship of his brother competitors. Modell had that.

Nowhere was there any mention of his qualifications for any hall of fame -
although he would certainly be more deserving than some.

[Reaser]

Which players, specifically, do you think have been kept out of the HOF due to anti-AAFC/AFL bias? Not accusatory, just asking. I think Mac Speedie is the only guy, because his best years came in the AAFC and he had a 'short' career. I think Johnny Robinson would be a fine addition to Canton, but I don't think his exclusion is due to any anti-AFL bias. He is kind of a borderline case and not really a glaring omission.

re: AAFC. It's more about how they view the league itself - Ken Crippen has posted here in the past about how voters view the AAFC.

Not specific to any one player (obviously only 4 years of the AAFC and a lot of those players went to the NFL and dominated in the NFL - furthering the credibility of the 'Conference') ...

Definitely didn't say anti-AAFC bias, but when an AAFC player is considered the league itself is incorrectly viewed as "inferior".

re: Robinson. I disagree, I think he is a glaring omission. I think he's more of a HOF'er than over half of the last 15 (last two classes) inductees. For recent example.

Not advocating for any specific AFL player(s) (outside of Robinson) but I do wonder if some of the all-time AFL players if they had NFL attached to their careers instead of "he played in the AFL", that they wouldn't at least be in the conversation - especically considering, as you said, that the HOF is more about including the good players instead of being exclusive to the great. There's "good" AFL players that are never in the conversation. Is that because they played in the AFL? I don't know.

I don't know if or even think that there's some great anti-AFL bias, specifically. I just 'think' about how they view the league. That's why I said 'some' regarding the AFL, different from the AAFC where I've read from trusted sources - and have been told directly - that the AAFC is viewed as 'inferior' and if not inferior/a negative, it's closer to a wash/not considered than as if the AAFC "counts" for anything.

[26554]

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.

Still mad about SB XL, huh?

As far as the "HoF voters love the Steelers" stuff goes, I'll ask what I always do when this comes up. If that's the case, then -

1. Why did Swann and Stallworth wait so long?

2. Why are L.C. Greenwood and Donnie Shell still not in?

3. Why did Bettis have to wait until his fourth try to get in?

4. Why did Dermontti Dawson, who I would think even the most ardent anti-Steelers person would have to concede was a 'no brainer' HoF choice wait until his third try?

5. Why did Jack Butler, who a number of people here campaigned for for years, wait so long?

[oldecapecod11]

by Reaser » Mon Aug 10, 2015 3:21 pm

Bryan wrote:
Which players, specifically, do you think have been kept out of the HOF due to anti-AAFC/AFL bias? Not accusatory, just asking. I think Mac Speedie is the only guy, because his best years came in the AAFC and he had a 'short' career. I think Johnny Robinson would be a fine addition to Canton, but I don't think his exclusion is due to any anti-AFL bias. He is kind of a borderline case and not really a glaring omission.

"... re: Robinson. I disagree, I think he is a glaring omission. I think he's more of a HOF'er than over half of the last 15 (last two classes) inductees. For recent example.

Not advocating for any specific AFL player(s) (outside of Robinson) but I do wonder if some of the all-time AFL players if they had NFL attached to their careers instead of "he played in the AFL", that they wouldn't at least be in the conversation - especically considering, as you said, that the HOF is more about including the good players instead of being exclusive to the great. There's "good" AFL players that are never in the conversation. Is that because they played in the AFL? I don't know..."

---

Robinson is more than a glaring omission. He is an intentional and glaring omission.
Remember, the electors serve one master and they do so with head bowed and knee bent.
Remember also, except for the orange-striped officials' shirts, ALL of the AFL innovations were adopted by the NFL.
The ONLY NFL innovation was alignment.

Here is a short list compiled by Ange Conoglio at his below-referenced web site.
As he says, he could name many more.

Ange used to post here and was a valued contributor in the eyes of more than one but he was shouted out, his facts were removed
when they disagreed with the established chain of demand and showed people to be wrong.
He lost a child early this year - an adult son - and, in the exchange of condolences and thanks, an effort was made to get him to return.
He eventually stopped writing and it was and is our loss.

These include, but are not limited to Johnny Robinson, who has better statistics and more championships than some other defensive backs of his era who have been enshrined - Robinson should have been inducted in 1977, as soon as he was eligible; Abner Haynes (All-time AFL all-purpose yards), Gino Cappelletti (All-time AFL scoring), John Hadl, half of that tremendous aerial attack with Alworth, Lionel Taylor (first receiver in Professional Football history to catch 100 passes in a season), Charlie Hennigan (first to break Taylor's record, held many Professional Football receiving records for 35 years after his retirement), and Daryle Lamonica (2nd-best to Otto Graham in won-lost percentage). I could name many more who have been excluded because they played in the wrong league.

http://remembertheafl.com/

[Reaser]

Still mad about SB XL, huh?

As far as the "HoF voters love the Steelers" stuff goes ...

That's the type of comment I'd expect to see on PFT or an ESPN comment section ... but to answer your question, no, I'm fine.

I don't see where anyone said "HOF voters love the Steelers" so I'm not sure why that is quoted? Though I did post a tidbit about how when I looked it up years back that HOF voters collectively had more ties to Pittsburgh than any other professional football city/area.

[rhickok1109]

by Reaser » Mon Aug 10, 2015 3:21 pm

Bryan wrote:
Which players, specifically, do you think have been kept out of the HOF due to anti-AAFC/AFL bias? Not accusatory, just asking. I think Mac Speedie is the only guy, because his best years came in the AAFC and he had a 'short' career. I think Johnny Robinson would be a fine addition to Canton, but I don't think his exclusion is due to any anti-AFL bias. He is kind of a borderline case and not really a glaring omission.

"... re: Robinson. I disagree, I think he is a glaring omission. I think he's more of a HOF'er than over half of the last 15 (last two classes) inductees. For recent example.

Not advocating for any specific AFL player(s) (outside of Robinson) but I do wonder if some of the all-time AFL players if they had NFL attached to their careers instead of "he played in the AFL", that they wouldn't at least be in the conversation - especically considering, as you said, that the HOF is more about including the good players instead of being exclusive to the great. There's "good" AFL players that are never in the conversation. Is that because they played in the AFL? I don't know..."

---

Robinson is more than a glaring omission. He is an intentional and glaring omission.
Remember, the electors serve one master and they do so with head bowed and knee bent.
Remember also, except for the orange-striped officials' shirts, ALL of the AFL innovations were adopted by the NFL.
The ONLY NFL innovation was alignment.

Here is a short list compiled by Ange Conoglio at his below-referenced web site.
As he says, he could name many more.

Ange used to post here and was a valued contributor in the eyes of more than one but he was shouted out, his facts were removed
when they disagreed with the established chain of demand and showed people to be wrong.
He lost a child early this year - an adult son - and, in the exchange of condolences and thanks, an effort was made to get him to return.
He eventually stopped writing and it was and is our loss.

These include, but are not limited to Johnny Robinson, who has better statistics and more championships than some other defensive backs of his era who have been enshrined - Robinson should have been inducted in 1977, as soon as he was eligible; Abner Haynes (All-time AFL all-purpose yards), Gino Cappelletti (All-time AFL scoring), John Hadl, half of that tremendous aerial attack with Alworth, Lionel Taylor (first receiver in Professional Football history to catch 100 passes in a season), Charlie Hennigan (first to break Taylor's record, held many Professional Football receiving records for 35 years after his retirement), and Daryle Lamonica (2nd-best to Otto Graham in won-lost percentage). I could name many more who have been excluded because they played in the wrong league.

http://remembertheafl.com/

Robinson is maybe HOF-worthy, maybe not. I don't think the others are.

[26554]

Still mad about SB XL, huh?

As far as the "HoF voters love the Steelers" stuff goes ...

That's the type of comment I'd expect to see on PFT or an ESPN comment section ... but to answer your question, no, I'm fine.

I don't see where anyone said "HOF voters love the Steelers" so I'm not sure why that is quoted? Though I did post a tidbit about how when I looked it up years back that HOF voters collectively had more ties to Pittsburgh than any other professional football city/area.

It was a joke, Matt. Lighten up. I do, however, think it's ridiculous to say that Bettis was "nowhere close" to a HoFer (at least I'm assuming that's an extension of "never close to the best back in the league"). We're talking about someone who's sixth all-time in rushing with Adrian Peterson the only one currently with a remote shot at catching him.

I read the stuff about the number of voters with Pittsburgh ties + what OCC posted about the Rooneys getting their way as "the voters love the Steelers". If I was wrong on that, my apologies.

[Reaser]

I do, however, think it's ridiculous to say that Bettis was "nowhere close" to a HoFer (at least I'm assuming that's an extension of "never close to the best back in the league"). We're talking about someone who's sixth all-time in rushing with Adrian Peterson the only one currently with a remote shot at catching him.

Like I said, he's largely 'in' because of accumulated stats (sixth all-time in rushing obviously doesn't equal 6th best RB all-time, not that you are saying that.)

Either way, he's in, so it's not something I'm overly concerned with. He's just the most recent example for me to use. I personally wouldn't have put him in the HOF, but I prefer players who were at a minimum the best at their own position when they played, or at least legitimately second best for a period of time. Rather those type of players, the best players, go in before we get down to players who were under that subjective bar. If it was my choice players under that bar wouldn't go in at all, but that's not what the HOF does so, oh well.

re: Pittsburgh, can only speak for myself. It was just additional information / semi-interesting 'find' when I put minimal effort into looking it up. I will add that the results did not surprise me, at all, but that doesn't mean I think Lambert and Blount should be taken out of the HOF (to name two of my favorites) ...