Predicitons for the Pro Football Hall of Fame Class of 2016

[JWL]

Although not as exciting or as good (when looking at peak performance) as guys like Joe Namath and Paul Hornung and Gale Sayers, Bettis satisfies the "fame" part of Hall of Fame. The museum needs inductees every year. It exists partly to make money I think. So guys like Bettis will get inducted.

[bachslunch]

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.

Agreed with this. Robinson strikes me as worthy. I have gone back and forth on Lionel Taylor, but am on the fence with him. I don't see a case for the rest.

I do think some old AFL-ers not mentioned above do belong in. Currently, I'm in favor of Walt Sweeney, Ed Budde, Jim Tyrer, Houston Antwine, Larry Grantham, and Dave Grayson. I go back and forth on Lionel Taylor, Art Powell, Tom Sestak, Winston Hill, Jerry Mays, and Earl Faison as well.

[Bryan]

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.

So HOF voters view the AFL and AAFC as being inferior, yet when you look at what the HOF voters actually "do" (vote on players/coaches/owners), both the AFL and AAFC have great representation in the HOF and you personally cannot cite specific instances of AFL/AAFC inferiority having an impact on the voting. I'm not disagreeing with anything you say, I just don't see how its really affecting the bottom line.

I remember years ago I had a conversation with HOF voter Cliff Christl (don't know if he's still a voter), and he said he didn't think Steve Largent was a HOFer. I like Christl's work and greatly respect his opinion, but I thought he was way off base with his thoughts on Largent. But, Christl was just one vote in the process, and Largent was inducted into Canton.

I would be very happy if Johnny Robinson is inducted into the HOF in the near-future. Probably won't be as happy if Abner Haynes or Charley Hennigan get in.

[bachslunch]

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.

You may be right -- I don't know for sure. Two thoughts:

-if that's correct, Dr. Z is fibbing about Stabler throwing games, the Padecky incident, or both. Maybe, for example, he dislikes Stabler so much re Padecky that he's making misleading suggestions about throwing games to get back at him. But that's pretty head-scratching for someone who comes across (to me anyway) as a straight-shooter. Maybe I'm wrong?

-it's entirely possible to win a libel case while still being guilty of the thing you're being accused of. One example is Liberace winning a libel case against the Daily Mirror, which outed him (in pretty distasteful terms, too) as a homosexual. Liberace was indeed gay, but won the case anyway, even lying on the stand about the issue. No idea if that applies to Stabler or not, but it can be tough to get a source on the record to testify against a mobster in public.

[Reaser]

... when you look at what the HOF voters actually "do" (vote on players/coaches/owners), both the AFL and AAFC have great representation in the HOF and you personally cannot cite specific instances of AFL/AAFC inferiority having an impact on the voting. I'm not disagreeing with anything you say, I just don't see how its really affecting the bottom line

Speedie. The 'view' of the AAFC the voters have was specific when discussing (in the recent past) Speedie. So that's one, I'd say it has at least a partial impact for him, though obviously other reasons - one of which you mentioned in this thread already. Again, to be clear, not really about one player for me, it's just a football knowledge issue - but to cite a player, Speedie.

Affecting the bottom line. When is the last time an AAFC player was inducted? The league was only around four seasons so it's a small sample size and even smaller when you're talking about an "AAFC player" (one who played more of their career in the AAFC than NFL and/or did more of their 'work' in the AAFC than NFL) ... Like you used Motley as an example, good one, but he was inducted in what? 1968? I get the point about what the voters "do", but those were different voters (I'm assuming) doing different things. What they did then and how they view the AAFC now can be completely different things.

the Padecky incident

Has what to do with Stabler as a player? Was my point.

[bachslunch]

the Padecky incident

Has what to do with Stabler as a player? Was my point.

That doesn't since it's a character issue off-field, but the game throwing allusion would be different if true. The two were together in the excerpt I found, so I posted the whole thing here. I guess the question is whether the former insinuation is part of a vendetta or not.

[Reaser]

That doesn't since it's a character issue off-field, but the game throwing allusion would be different if true. The two were together in the excerpt I found, so I posted the whole thing here. I guess the question is whether the former insinuation is part of a vendetta or not.

Okay. I was talking about the off-field issue.

I think it's obvious it's part of the vendetta. Though whether the insinuation is true or not is a different subject, but it reads - and has always read - like 3 sentences shoved in to setup the real story he wanted to tell - and real reason he's against Stabler for the HOF - the Padecky story.

Which is why, to quote myself earlier, "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."

[SixtiesFan]

That doesn't since it's a character issue off-field, but the game throwing allusion would be different if true. The two were together in the excerpt I found, so I posted the whole thing here. I guess the question is whether the former insinuation is part of a vendetta or not.

Okay. I was talking about the off-field issue.

I think it's obvious it's part of the vendetta. Though whether the insinuation is true or not is a different subject, but it reads - and has always read - like 3 sentences shoved in to setup the real story he wanted to tell - and real reason he's against Stabler for the HOF - the Padecky story.

Which is why, to quote myself earlier, "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."

I once read a column by a HOF voter who wrote "all that counts is what a player did on the field." He implied that was the criteria and that "character" didn't matter.

[bachslunch]

I think it's obvious it's part of the vendetta. Though whether the insinuation is true or not is a different subject, but it reads - and has always read - like 3 sentences shoved in to setup the real story he wanted to tell - and real reason he's against Stabler for the HOF - the Padecky story.

Which is why, to quote myself earlier, "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."

I see your point, but can it be both? If it's in fact true, would think that throwing games should indeed matter when making a HoF case since it's "on field" and affects game integrity. And I'd sure like to know what (if anything) Dr. Z actually knew about it.

Unless this doesn't matter -- and with a HoF containing Bobby Layne (reputed to have shaved points/thrown games), Paul Hornung (bet on NFL games and suspended for it for a year), and Tim Mara (made his living as a legal bookmaker), maybe it doesn't.

[Reaser]

I see your point, but can it be both? If it's in fact true, would think that throwing games should indeed matter when making a HoF case since it's "on field" and affects game integrity.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong but if throwing games was the big reason you would think that would be being shouted from the rooftops. That's a pretty serious accusation. Not a couple throwaway lines before telling a story about something that has nothing to do with football - on the field.

I don't know if it's true or not, but I would need a lot more to use it against him. More so, I need it from a source that doesn't have a personal vendetta based on something off the field. The point was/is the source, not whether games were thrown or not. It's not coming from an unbiased source (that's not a shot at Dr. Z's integrity or anything either, but he has a very clear vendetta), in the example you used. That's basically all I'm trying to point out.