The HoF voting process

[Reaser]

If he views the whole thing as little more than a crap shoot, it makes it easier to understand why I view "expertise" in this area as an oxymoron.

That's projecting how a college player will do in the NFL. Different from grading how a NFL player did in the NFL - which in the context of voting for the HOF one wouldn't be projecting how a NFL player would fare at another level of football.

Strictly draft, I agree, to an extent (There is skill in picking players. Like a board game that's part skill, part luck/chance/roll of the dice. One doesn't eliminate the other from existing.) ... All the draft 'experts' that exist on the internet now are 'funny' to me. As said, largely a crapshoot but you read things like "can't miss" or "will be in the league for the next 10-15 years" and so on then the player amounts to nothing.

[Reaser]

Forgot to say that I would also eliminate the 'presentation' part of the process. All voters would be expected to already know the players that they would be voting on.

[mwald]

If he views the whole thing as little more than a crap shoot, it makes it easier to understand why I view "expertise" in this area as an oxymoron.

That's projecting how a college player will do in the NFL. Different from grading how a NFL player did in the NFL

Oh, I get that. But there's risk in involved in projecting something that hasn't happened--and reward. You're right or you're wrong.

Voting on what has already happened? Full of inherent biases, mostly statistical.

Find the latter exercise far more ripe for abuse or incompetence. A lot easier to hide there, too, which is why you have a boatload of backward looking "experts" and only a few people drafting NFL players. You actually have to demonstrate prowess to hold on to that job.

[Reaser]

Oh, I get that. But there's risk in involved in projecting something that hasn't happened--and reward. You're right or you're wrong.

Voting on what has already happened? Full of inherent biases, mostly statistical.

I think you're combining multiple of your viewpoints (individually of which I agree with in general. Especially stats, as you know.)

Lets use a prognosticator as the example: I'll listen to one who's had success, experience, knows what he's talking about, essentially "has done it", proven, etc.

Now if the specific topic is the past, historical, I want the same guy because he's had success, has experience, knows what he's talking about, "has done it", proven, etc ...

Replace prognosticator with GM. Plus I'm talking about genuine accomplished GM here, not some guy off the street with no football related credentials and a blog or something, ha.

[mwald]

Oh, I get that. But there's risk in involved in projecting something that hasn't happened--and reward. You're right or you're wrong.

Voting on what has already happened? Full of inherent biases, mostly statistical.

I think you're combining multiple of your viewpoints (individually of which I agree with in general. Especially stats, as you know.)

Lets use a prognosticator as the example: I'll listen to one who's had success, experience, knows what he's talking about, essentially "has done it", proven, etc.

Now if the specific topic is the past, historical, I want the same guy because he's had success, has experience, knows what he's talking about, "has done it", proven, etc ...

Replace prognosticator with GM. Plus I'm talking about genuine accomplished GM here, not some guy off the street with no football related credentials and a blog or something, ha.

Eh, maybe a little. But not really. Both involve player evaluation.

Regarding the HOF, I'd make it so any voter had to have been part of the NFL in some way, whether a player, coach, GM, scout, owner, whatever (and I've already listed why I think most of them are poor choices, but there's really no other option). I don't care how long you've watched the game, studied film, researched, or read, unless you were in the NFL, to quote Jim Mora, "you just don't know."

I liken it to the trumpet analogy JWL laid out a while back (think it was JWL, if it wasn't, beg your pardon). Unless you lived in that realm, you can't ever really know.

[Reaser]

Regarding the HOF, I'd make it so any voter had to have been part of the NFL in some way, whether a player, coach, GM, scout, owner, whatever

This would work. Obviously use "Pro Football" instead of "NFL" for obvious reasons.

I liken it to the trumpet analogy JWL laid out a while back (think it was JWL, if it wasn't, beg your pardon). Unless you lived in that realm, you can't ever really know.

It was JWL but his comment was about not needing to do something to have an opinion on it. The analogy and totality of his comment contradicts the rest of your post (needing to have been in the NFL to know.) Obviously not done purposely so putting that aside, yes, had to have been part of pro football in some way, makes sense to me. Certainly better than 100% never involved in pro football. My point in the thread mentioned was similar to yours: "unless you lived in that realm, you can't ever really know", exactly. Only difference is that I view football as football but there's definitely differences between the various levels of football. Pro/NFL being its own animal.

[JWL]

I don't care about the basketball hall of fame because some Russian lady was chosen over Reggie Miller or something like that. I am almost hoping for something similar to happen with the Pro Football Hall of Fame so I won't care about it anymore. Russian basketball lady would be similar to the Pro Football Hall of Fame inducting a guy for spectacular work as a Canadian Football League referee for 22 years.

(Yes, I do realize the basketball hall of fame is not the NBA hall of fame whereas the Pro Football Hall of Fame may as well be named the NFL Hall of Fame.)

[Gary Najman]

Reaser posted a pretty good idea yesterday afternoon. Then the post mysteriously disappeared.

"Players are biased" - and HOF voters are not? (see: King votes for Dungy, voter doesn't vote for player because player wasn't nice to him, voter votes for player from team he covers, voter votes for player because he's 'presenting' him, and numerous other reasons of bias) ...

I certainly agree. Peter King's answer many times on why he didn't vote for Art Monk was like this: "In those times I covered the Giants, and they told me when they were to play the Redskins that they had to focus on Gary Clark and Ricky Sanders, not in Monk", and then when he changed his opinion: "Now that Joe Gibbs is again coach of the Redskins, he told me that Art Monk could have retired with a lot more receptions, but they asked him also to block a lot like a tight end, so he was more valuable to the team".

[Rupert Patrick]

I would almost consider adding a couple retired game officials to the panel for their opinions about the Hall of Fame. After all, they're on the field, watching the players every play from a vantage point we could only dream of, focusing on coverages and line play. I imagine they would have some interesting observations about players of the past. Just a thought.

[Gary Najman]

Forgot to say that I would also eliminate the 'presentation' part of the process. All voters would be expected to already know the players that they would be voting on.

I second that. I believe it's the voters' responsability to know the most they can about the candidates for enshirinment. I believe it's neccessary to discuss them, as it does today, but not to "present" them.