Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Retro Rider wrote: Mike Florio's take 

Sal Paolantonio's quote is very interesting in terms of final three.

Florio's take is about par for the course. His article dovetails into the Deion's "Upper Room". I guess if they didn't get in
when they were supposed to there is no way they can be worthy now.

https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootba ... for-canton
There’s no shame in not making it to the Hall of Fame. The shame comes from diluting the honor by making it into the Hall of the Very Good. It’s why Deion Sanders has complained about the lower bar that has emerged for Canton, and why he wants an “upper room” that should consist only of the best of the best.

Mike Florio's take shows little regard for the history of the game. Parker isn't the made-for-tv candidate that he wanted. I certainly hope his opinion is in the minority with respect to those who'll be doing the voting.

Good call RR ... Florio has his opinion, thats fine but you cant just write off past eligibles because HOF voting started in the 60s instead of earlier. The Lions of the 50s are similar to the Patriots in the 2010s, you wouldnt dismiss Belichick, why Parker, though quitting on teams has definitely held him back.

Good to hear about Buddy Parker! It is about time the selectors saw the light!

sluggermatt15 wrote:Good to hear about Buddy Parker! It is about time the selectors saw the light!

I don't think it will derail, but more that one voter (all it takes is 10) has brought up the fact that parker resigned (quit--to use a harsher term)
in August ... each for a different reason but both over frustration.

I think he'll get his 80% but it is just something to be mindful of ... he won't get 50 of 50 votes ... but just need 40 and there probably won't
be 11 who fall for that

Its a good point John, but also different back in the day with Layne, Brown true field generals on the field. Still, not much time to replace him but with how cheap Rooney was, not sure about whoever owned Detroit, they wanted a coach within anyway like Wilson ... cant remember who took over for Pittsburgh? Austin from outside?

Brian wolf wrote:Its a good point John, but also different back in the day with Layne, Brown true field generals on the field. Still, not much time to replace him but with how cheap Rooney was, not sure about whoever owned Detroit, they wanted a coach within anyway like Wilson ... cant remember who took over for Pittsburgh? Austin from outside?

First it was Mike Nixon then Austin

Thanks Robert ... was Nixon from within the staff?

Brian wolf wrote:Its a good point John, but also different back in the day with Layne, Brown true field generals on the field. Still, not much time to replace him but with how cheap Rooney was, not sure about whoever owned Detroit, they wanted a coach within anyway like Wilson ... cant remember who took over for Pittsburgh? Austin from outside?

I understand your view but that's not the take of the naysayers. People with opposite view will latch on to something if they think it is significant. I only bring it up because it's an issue, not to debate the point. As someone who was in favor of Parker it's much of an issue in my mind but all of us are outsiders and what I think does not matter. But skewed info can sometimes hurt. Hopefully not in this case, in fact, I don't think it is near enough

Will put it this way. When he is presented to the full committee the question of his "quitting" (not my term) on two teams and leaving them in a lurch very close to the start of the season will be asked. The Lions recovered that year very well. The Steelers? Who knows if they did better or worse without him...

Brian wolf wrote:Thanks Robert ... was Nixon from within the staff?

Yes he was an assistant from 61-64