Merton Hanks, HOVG?

[Jeremy Crowhurst]

Again, sorry for the hand-wringing. But I'll take that over ignorance anyday

This is worth a separate reply.

People use these terms as a means of communication, a shorthand. It is not, generally, intended to be the start of an extended debate or conversation. "3/6/60's" gives you an encapsulation of the player's awards, and it is accurate enough to make whatever point one is trying to make. I assume that that's why everybody on this site uses it. Of course Total Football goes beyond that. It's an encyclopedia. That's what it's there for. Same thing with the Official Record and Fact Book. Their mandate is to be complete.

The media doesn't work that way. They're communicating a point, not writing a dissertation, and, it appears, they get their statistical info from PFR.

Total Football is awesome. It's also 19 years old, and been out of print for how long? That's not where people get their information, and nor is it even remotely useful in the 21st century.

Meaning is what people agree it is. You determine agreement by looking at how a term is used. And as I said, it's about communication. I understand the motives of the people on this site are a little different, and the people here to at least a limited extent march to the beat of a different drummer. "Communication" takes a back seat much of the time. That's fine. I fully support neurodiversity. But it's not ignorance to say, "I just don't need to split those kinds of hairs to make my point. I don't need to factor in the Dallas Morning News to the equation."

[bachslunch]

John, come on. Virtually every post on this site uses AP and AP only. If I cared, I could quote a hundred posts in a couple of minutes that list "2/6/70's" or whatever. The "2" is straight from PFR, and it's AP.

I have never seen anyone on this site argue, in any context, "Joe Bloggs should definitely be in the Hall of Fame. In addition to his three AP All Pro selections, he was three times first team PFWA, twice first team Sporting News, as well as three times each Sydney Morning Herald, Winnipeg Free Press, and Poukepsie Herald-Examiner All Pro".

I don't in any way mean to denigrate the work you've done on this topic. But there's what people do, and there's what they say they do. And what everybody does, on this site and elsewhere to the extent that it's in general use, is they use "All Pro" to mean "AP All Pro".

I’m one of the people who does the “2/6/70s” and likely the person who does so most often around here and elsewhere. I may or may not be the only person who does so, but that’s another issue. For me, those numbers mean:

1st team all pro award in any year by any organization tracked by the PFR site/
Pro bowl/
All decade team as named by the PFHoF

For the first of these, I never, ever (anymore, anyway) mean the first number to be AP only. I look at the listings at the PFR site down below and count them up, one count for every year some organization names the player a 1st team all pro. The only 1st team all pro selections I don’t count are Sporting News from before 1980 because they picked so many players that it was in effect an all conference squad equivalent; they haven’t done it this way for a while, though. When I first started doing this, I did count AP only, but through the good folks here, have rightly seen the error of that thinking.

Can’t speak for what other people do, or what the numbers stand for when others say this. It varies from person to person. But I for one am decidedly not a proponent of AP only, and my numbers reflect that.

[JohnTurney]

Again, sorry for the hand-wringing. But I'll take that over ignorance anyday

This is worth a separate reply.

People use these terms as a means of communication, a shorthand. It is not, generally, intended to be the start of an extended debate or conversation. "3/6/60's" gives you an encapsulation of the player's awards, and it is accurate enough to make whatever point one is trying to make. I assume that that's why everybody on this site uses it. Of course Total Football goes beyond that. It's an encyclopedia. That's what it's there for. Same thing with the Official Record and Fact Book. Their mandate is to be complete.

The media doesn't work that way. They're communicating a point, not writing a dissertation, and, it appears, they get their statistical info from PFR.

Total Football is awesome. It's also 19 years old, and been out of print for how long? That's not where people get their information, and nor is it even remotely useful in the 21st century.

Meaning is what people agree it is. You determine agreement by looking at how a term is used. And as I said, it's about communication. I understand the motives of the people on this site are a little different, and the people here to at least a limited extent march to the beat of a different drummer. "Communication" takes a back seat much of the time. That's fine. I fully support neurodiversity. But it's not ignorance to say, "I just don't need to split those kinds of hairs to make my point. I don't need to factor in the Dallas Morning News to the equation."

Total Football is out of print, but it's principles are still followed by the Hall of Fame. It uses the All-pro teams that were set forth in Total Football. So, it us very useful in the 21st century. Again, you make a poor assumption.

So, without knowing you undercut your own point, which is kind of what I expected.

When you say, "the media" who? And where does PFR get their data? From Total Football and then they took the same principles for their All-Pros. They even added Pro Football Focus.

Now, the only thing that shows "AP only" is in the profiles where they use a "+" to denote AP All-Pro.

So, you admit you get the AP only philosophy from Pro Football Reference. Now ask where they get the power to decide "AP Only". The answer is because ignorant lazy media use it as their "source".

I would expect better from people on a PFRA site who should have some understanding of history and how these things work. Essentially you are defending the lowest common denominator among writers because the HFO voters don't get their honors from an "AP only" philosophy.

Bottom line: Pro Football Reference is wrong on this. Just like they are wrong on so many things, like starting lineups. While I appreciate and use their site, who are they so say forced fumbles start in 1993 or that Merlin Olsen was a right defensive tackle from 1973-76 or that Coy Bacon wore #79 in 1968 or that the only All-Pro team is the AP team. None of those things are true.

[JohnTurney]

John, come on. Virtually every post on this site uses AP and AP only. If I cared, I could quote a hundred posts in a couple of minutes that list "2/6/70's" or whatever. The "2" is straight from PFR, and it's AP.

I have never seen anyone on this site argue, in any context, "Joe Bloggs should definitely be in the Hall of Fame. In addition to his three AP All Pro selections, he was three times first team PFWA, twice first team Sporting News, as well as three times each Sydney Morning Herald, Winnipeg Free Press, and Poukepsie Herald-Examiner All Pro".

I don't in any way mean to denigrate the work you've done on this topic. But there's what people do, and there's what they say they do. And what everybody does, on this site and elsewhere to the extent that it's in general use, is they use "All Pro" to mean "AP All Pro".

I do not believe "Virtually every post on this site uses AP and AP only". I don't think, "on this site and elsewhere to the extent that it's in general use, is they use "All Pro" to mean "AP All Pro""

I think there are a lot of people in media, Bleacher Report and newer sites that do take an AP only approach. They are, of course, free to do it. But it does not reflect well on them, when I see it, I just accept it as millennial ignorance. They just don't know better, If they were educated on it, my guess is they would accept a wider approach.

This comment is quite snarky, "Sydney Morning Herald, Winnipeg Free Press, and Poukepsie Herald-Examiner All Pro"" and is a red herring. Again it may just be a case of . . .well, I don't know what.

But any FAIR review of my comments would know that the major All-pro teams like AP, PFWA, SN, NEA, UPI have more gravitas than Dr. Z, Gordon Forbes, Buffalo News, etc. Even though there is insight that can be gained by looking at the picks of the most experienced writers who have the best connections. But no one I know suggests they should be in the Record and Fact Book or in the NFL CBA. So waving "Sydney Morning Herald" around lacks seriousness.

Finally, what I wanted to know from you is some document, statement, anything that says the "AP only" approach is the proper approach.

You may disagree but I listed a handful of things that back up a non-AP only approach. All you gave is your opinion that "everybody does it, here and on the Internet". Well, if so, then there must be some documentation. I am not even sure PFR says why they chose AP only. My guess is that it was the most widespread team and when you search Google (back when PFR was starting they likely searched Netscape, Yahoo or used Explorer) it came up easily.

The PFWA and SN teams came out around the Super Bowl, and there, those major writers would get it. The AP team came out first and was released the widest. But that does NOT make it the best or the "only"

Finally, I know you are a good guy, I didn't mean to attack you, and I don't take offense and I am not trying to convert you to my way of thinking. Just defending why I think, for the sake of history, that the AP only theory should be resisted if possible

[JohnTurney]

Here is 1991's ILBers. (Also note 2 ILBer for AP)

Spielman was All-Pro, but didn't make Pro Bowl.
Mills, however, got higher overall honors in a highly competitive season.

[Retro Rider]

Despite the occasional hand-wringing to the contrary on this site and others, "All Pro" means Associated Press, and anything other than AP should have an asterisk.

And Earl Morrall was the NFL's consensus All Pro QB in 1972 ... which is totally false. AP only offers only a partial view of NFL history.

[JohnTurney]

Despite the occasional hand-wringing to the contrary on this site and others, "All Pro" means Associated Press, and anything other than AP should have an asterisk.

And Earl Morrall was the NFL's consensus All Pro QB in 1972 ... which is totally false.

Correct, the AP, that year was the outlier. Joe Namath was the consensus All-Pro in 1972.

Also, Bill Stanfill was one AP DE but he didn't even make 2nd team on PFWA or NEA. Jack Gregory was the Consensus All-Pro, along with Humphrey

[Retro Rider]

And Earl Morrall was the NFL's consensus All Pro QB in 1972 ... which is totally false.

Correct, the AP, that year was the outlier. Joe Namath was the consensus All-Pro in 1972.

On PFR's 1972 All Pro page they have Namath listed at the top with the most All Pro QB selections but in the Appearances on Leaderboards, Awards, and Honors section of Namath's bio page they don't even credit him as being a First Team All Pro for that season. That's one aspect of the PFR site that just makes me shake my head.

[Bryan]

Virtually every post on this site uses AP and AP only. If I cared, I could quote a hundred posts in a couple of minutes that list "2/6/70's" or whatever. The "2" is straight from PFR, and it's AP.

I have never seen anyone on this site argue, in any context, "Joe Bloggs should definitely be in the Hall of Fame. In addition to his three AP All Pro selections, he was three times first team PFWA, twice first team Sporting News, as well as three times each Sydney Morning Herald, Winnipeg Free Press, and Poukepsie Herald-Examiner All Pro".

By the same token, I have never seen anyone on this site argue, in any context, "we should ignore all All-Pro selections that aren't AP" (other than your post in this thread, of course).

I thought it was the opposite. Years ago when PFR was becoming popular, PFRA lobbied them to include the All-Pro selections of entities other than AP. The result is the detailed "All-Pro Teams" listing on the individual player's page under "Appearances on Leaderboards, Awards and Honors". I believe PFRA helped supply PFR with the other All-Pro Teams information, too.

Its not that difficult of a concept; it just requires a little analysis. A 2nd team All Pro mention is not the same as a 1st team All Pro mention, a 1st team all-conference All Pro mention is not the same as being a consensus 1st team All Pro. I'm not trying to sound condescending by pointing out such obvious facts, but it is the root of the matter and you seem to be missing the point.

Lets look at Merton Hanks...Wikipedia lists him as 4X All-Pro, but in 5 seconds we can click on Hanks' PFR page, scroll down, and see his actual All Pro selections. Hanks was consensus 1st team All-Pro one time, in 1995. His only other 1st team All-Pro mention was in 1994 from SN. He has other 2nd team All-Pro and 1st team/2nd All-Conference selections, but that is not the same as 1st team All-Pro. So, while Wikipedia is factually correct in listing Hanks as a 4X All-Pro, in my opinion (key point) Hanks is really only a 1X All-Pro because 1995 was his only consensus selection. "AP only" is not a factor in the analysis.

[Reaser]

My first post many many years ago on old PFRA forums was a complaint about 'everyone' using AP-only and essentially was testing if I had finally found a place that knew what I was talking about. Thankfully, many here were on the same page.

Also was one, possibly even the primary one who over a couple years would -politely, as always- ask bachs what was going on with the x/x/xx 'profile' -- getting at using AP-only wasn't the way to go.

Jeremy is correct about the perception, though. Especially outside of the PFRA. Not in the literal sense that "everyone [else]" uses AP-only, but that by and large essentially 'everyone else' uses AP-only and/or AP is the official NFL awards and all-pro team. I wouldn't defend writers or media, and obviously not those part of the AP that like to claim it's the "official" all-pro team, and many even list it as official when they individually share it (if the search here worked better I would give examples of the numerous times in the past when I used to list the writers/media who claimed the AP was the "official" all-pro team and awards). The general football loving public only knows of the AP awards, the scroll/"bottom line" on pretty much every sports channel only will list who won the AP awards and who was AP all-pro, most football sites use AP-only, most commenters across the internet only know/use AP-only, and so on.

Of course, the NFL Honors using the AP Awards strengthened all that, not that it was any different beforehand but just made it more 'official' to those that already think/thought they were 'official', but showing awards shows doesn't make them the singular 'official' awards, for example NFL Network broadcasts the 101's every year and that doesn't make those awards the NFL's "official" AFC/NFC OPOY/DPOY/Coaches of the Year.

Regardless, definitely for myself but also for the PFRA or any researchers/historians, I've always thought this was something important to make people aware of.