Senior Nominees

[JWL]

Then don't buy it. Was simply passing along the reasoning used in the meeting. Couldn't care less if people believe it or not.

Interesting response.

Good of you to pass along the info, not sure why there would be a problem with me not buying 'their' reasoning - as it would seem a bit illogical to live in a fantasyland where they coincidentally took a hard look at Stabler and they were impressed with his (note: team sport) winning percentage, MVP and Super Bowl. As if those things magically mattered more this time around and were the reasons he was nominated. Common sense says there is one entirely predictable (see: numerous people predicted it) reason he was nominated and it had nothing to do with what has long been his 'resume'.

I agree with this. I don't believe for a second that Stabler just happened to excite a few voters this summer. I think it is because he recently died and they heard and read complaints (especially from the NFL stat nerd contingent) about why Stabler is not already inducted. Then they said, "Well, let's nominate him again, shut people up for the upcoming season and we will decide in February."

[JohnTurney]

Then don't buy it. Was simply passing along the reasoning used in the meeting. Couldn't care less if people believe it or not.

Interesting response.

Good of you to pass along the info, not sure why there would be a problem with me not buying 'their' reasoning - as it would seem a bit illogical to live in a fantasyland where they coincidentally took a hard look at Stabler and they were impressed with his (note: team sport) winning percentage, MVP and Super Bowl. As if those things magically mattered more this time around and were the reasons he was nominated. Common sense says there is one entirely predictable (see: numerous people predicted it) reason he was nominated and it had nothing to do with what has long been his 'resume'.

My point is maybe we should always be so quick to dump on things and the work product of pretty decent folks doing their level best. Now, are they perfect, no, but not sure any committee could be, and then it would depend on the makeup of the committee. We could take 5 people from this organization and come up with two choices that would be roundly criticized, but would that mean the choices are poor?

When they send in their ballots, the top 15 are listed. They listen to cases and have a disucssion, getting input from two NFL HOFers. then, they narrow it to 10,then to 5, then to 3 then to two. If your guy was eliminated in the round of 5 two three, you are still required to vote for your top 2 of the three. So, your choices are narrowed.

If the 5 from here were Reaser, Troup, JWL, Crippen and bachslunch (just 5 random names) and you each submitted a top 15, then had to narrow to 10, then to 5 to 3 to two, a similar thing could happen. Crippen likes Dilweg, and for good reasons. But would Dilwig lose out to a Greenwood or Shell or Howley or Anderson?

Votes take on their own dynamic sometimes. And because of such, I don't think terms such as "flimsy" are 100% fair. In my view the choices are not exciting to me, I think there are others I would have voted for, and I've named them, but guys like McClain, Borges, Pompei, etc. are very familiar with Stabler's career and covered the games first hand . . . so that at least have a litte gravitas, no?

[JWL]

I agree with John Turney's thoughts too. I agree it is not easy to pick the seniors mainly because none of the senior candidates are slam dunks. If they were they would have been elected on the first or second ballot many moons ago.

[bachslunch]

John, you're right about how committees work (or don't as the case may be). I've experienced this kind of thing the few times I was on one for something else. It doesn't change the quality of the result here, of course -- but it does happen. But it suggests an alternative approach should be tried.

FWIW, the Baseball Hall does a terrible job with their Veterans Committee and has done poorly since I can remember with it. They also do poorly with regular candidates too, which at least the PFHoF handles well.

[JohnTurney]

I agree with John Turney's thoughts too. I agree it is not easy to pick the seniors mainly because none of the senior candidates are slam dunks. If they were they would have been elected on the first or second ballot many moons ago.

Appreciate that. When I was 16, 17, 18 years old, I saw Dr. Z's All-pro teams and was sometimes upset because they didn't follow the AP, PFWA, NEA teams and was picking guys I never heard of. He also wrote about HOF selections in 1991, and he got on the committee, I think, in 1992, by then I was 28, 29, 30 years old and had a better understanding . . . and learn to respect his opinions more. Not that I agreed, but I had to admit, Z had been to games, interviewed players and coaches, he played in college and semi-pro and was worth respecting. As a fan and newbie researcher, there were (and are) still things I don't understand about the selections, but I realized at some point (after getting to know some HOF players and coaches) that any group of 5 or even 44 will has issues.

I've had HOFers say player A should be in, and other HOFers say player A isn't as good as player B . . . and that players rarely look at all-pro selections, they go by who was hard for them to cover, or block or tackle. Coaches had their views and Bill Walsh saw things differently than Chuck Noll. It became a more complex thing than I had first anticipated.

I wish there were a perfect process . . . but I cannot think of it. I'd be open to hear any suggestion of reform for the senior committee, but as I have suggested the process sometimes limits who they can vote for and different people have different criteria for who they consider a HOFer. And maybe in some cases it is flimsiness in a voter, but more often than not it is a difference of opinion between two solid people, one may be a writer on the committee and the other may be a fan or a member of PFRA, both are honest, well-informed, etc . . . and they come with different views.

[JWL]

I agree. Dying should not change your worthiness for consideration.

I also agree. Not a fan of the Hall of Fame or players' impact to begin with...

I find myself less interested in the Hall of Fame each year but the discussions on this board and others are good. I didn't watch much of the football inducton speeches this year. I actually watched more of the baseball speeches.

[bachslunch]

I can only speak to the way I'd change things, but I can't think it would be acceptable to the Hall. Since this is a historian-based issue, the committee should be made up of a small group of actual football historians instead of sportswriters. They might even need to be voted on by the historians instead of the general HoF committee that selects the regular candidates. But I can't see the Hall going for it, not to mention the ruckus the current selectors might put up if they can't continue on as in past.

[Reaser]

Context. "Flimsy" was with regards to one of the now two possible outcomes. If they now vote Stanfel in after just (not just two decades ago) voting no - in a straight up yes/no vote.

If they vote against him again, not flimsy, it's consistent - as I said. The problem then becomes that he was nominated again at the expense of someone else.

Pretty straightforward view.

[JoeZagorski]

This is probably going to seem in bad taste, but I don't think that Stabler would be one of the nominees had he not died recently. The senior committee felt that they wanted to right a supposed wrong by putting him up there. Keep in mind that Stabler had some great years, but he also had some bad years. The famous football writer Paul Zimmerman once said that he would never vote for Stabler, mainly because of the poor or mediocre years that Stabler had, especially with the Saints and the Oilers. Personally, I feel that there are much more deserving seniors who should have been nominated (i.e. Mike Curtis, Johnny Robinson, Harvey Martin, etc.).

Joe Zagorski

[Rupert Patrick]

This is probably going to seem in bad taste, but I don't think that Stabler would be one of the nominees had he not died recently. The senior committee felt that they wanted to right a supposed wrong by putting him up there. Keep in mind that Stabler had some great years, but he also had some bad years. The famous football writer Paul Zimmerman once said that he would never vote for Stabler, mainly because of the poor or mediocre years that Stabler had, especially with the Saints and the Oilers. Personally, I feel that there are much more deserving seniors who should have been nominated (i.e. Mike Curtis, Johnny Robinson, Harvey Martin, etc.).

Joe Zagorski

Stabler dropped out of the public eye pretty quickly after he left the NFL, although he did broadcasting on some NFL games for a couple years, and he did Alabama football games for a long time, and unless you lived in that part of the country, you rarely saw much of him. I've always thought of him more of a HOVG type than a Hall of Famer, but I do think his death has caused fans and sportswriters to revisit his career, and remember how good he really was, even though his peak was very short. I think he will get inducted, but I hate to go down this road, but I believe if it had been Ken Anderson who suddenly died last month, he would have been the Seniors Nominee. I think if it's a guy who is on the bubble of the Hall of Fame, regardless of the sport, and he dies suddenly, there is a rush to right a wrong and induct him. Among those Senior QB's waiting to get into the HOF, I think Anderson is the most deserving candidate (he should already be in, in my opinion) but I would put Stabler right behind him. I don't know that I would vote for Stabler for the Hall of Fame, but I think you could make an strong case for him.

Here is the HOF case I would make for Stabler:

- Led the Raiders to five straight AFC Championship games including a victory in Super Bowl XI
- Led the NFL twice in Completion Percentage, twice in TD passes, and in 1976 led in Passer Rating.
- Went 5-2 against the Steelers from 1973-77 (not counting the 1973 game when he left early in the second quarter with a knee injury and the game was scoreless). The two games he lost to Pittsburgh were the 1974 and 1975 AFC Championship games, in both years the Steelers went on to win the Super Bowl.
- 50-11-1 record as a starter for Raiders from 1973-77.
- Consensus 1974 NFL MVP
- Four Pro Bowls, only one All-Pro, which is not shabby when you keep in mind he was competing with Griese, Anderson, Bradshaw, Bert Jones etc.

The rest of his career was (statistically speaking) rather mediocre. Despite the fact he was having an awful season in 1980 (13-28 TD-INT ratio), his veteran leadership along with Earl Campbell helped the Oilers and they still managed to go 11-5, although they lost in the Wild Card round to the Raiders. I think he brought something to the Oilers that it was missing with Pastorini, but the problem was Stabler was a couple years past his prime, but his mind was still sharp and he was as wily a competitor as ever.

Even in 1983, he was in the midst of another terrible season statistically (9-18 TD-INT ratio) but his veteran leadership along with George Rogers led a group of overachieving Saints within a last second FG of their first winning season and first trip to the playoffs, and at that point in his career I bet I could have outrun Stabler in a 40-yard dash. I don't think the Saints would have finished within two games of the Rams for the Wild Card spot if Dave Wilson had been the QB the entire season. The team needed a veteran who knew how to win, and even though he had nothing left in the tank, Stabler showed them how to be better than they had any right to be.

Having made his case, more of less, I have to revise my thoughts of him. I would rather see Ken Anderson go into the HOF before him, but I don't think it will water down the Hall's standards to have Stabler in there. He was 27 before he got his chance to start, and by the time he turned 32 he was pretty much washed up, but in between those years, he was arguably the best in the game. I hope he goes in this year.