Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

TanksAndSpartans wrote:I'm interested in what people think about Isbell too. I personally never liked he always seems to be grouped with the two super senior Packers who have stronger cases (Dilweg and Lewellen). 5 seasons is right on the edge for his era to me. Was it enough?

Though I like him, I'd say no to Isbell. Besides the fact that he played just five years, for the first three of them he was nothing special. His stats from 1938-40 look like Parker Hall's, not Baugh's or Luckman's. His last two seasons are quite different and clearly outstanding, but a) it's just two years, and b) he had the tremendous advantage (for his whole career, not just 1941-42) of throwing to the only guy in the NFL at the time who had the skills we associate with a modern receiver. So if you're comparing Isbell to the greats, I think you have to take that into account.

So I wouldn't vote for him, though he's certainly interesting. If he'd played two or three more years, then who knows? But he didn't.

Bob Gill wrote:

TanksAndSpartans wrote:I'm interested in what people think about Isbell too. I personally never liked he always seems to be grouped with the two super senior Packers who have stronger cases (Dilweg and Lewellen). 5 seasons is right on the edge for his era to me. Was it enough?

Though I like him, I'd say no to Isbell. Besides the fact that he played just five years, for the first three of them he was nothing special. His stats from 1938-40 look like Parker Hall's, not Baugh's or Luckman's. His last two seasons are quite different and clearly outstanding, but a) it's just two years, and b) he had the tremendous advantage (for his whole career, not just 1941-42) of throwing to the only guy in the NFL at the time who had the skills we associate with a modern receiver. So if you're comparing Isbell to the greats, I think you have to take that into account.

So I wouldn't vote for him, though he's certainly interesting. If he'd played two or three more years, then who knows? But he didn't.

100% agreed bob

Bob Gill wrote:

TanksAndSpartans wrote:I'm interested in what people think about Isbell too. I personally never liked he always seems to be grouped with the two super senior Packers who have stronger cases (Dilweg and Lewellen). 5 seasons is right on the edge for his era to me. Was it enough?

Though I like him, I'd say no to Isbell. Besides the fact that he played just five years, for the first three of them he was nothing special. His stats from 1938-40 look like Parker Hall's, not Baugh's or Luckman's. His last two seasons are quite different and clearly outstanding, but a) it's just two years, and b) he had the tremendous advantage (for his whole career, not just 1941-42) of throwing to the only guy in the NFL at the time who had the skills we associate with a modern receiver. So if you're comparing Isbell to the greats, I think you have to take that into account.

So I wouldn't vote for him, though he's certainly interesting. If he'd played two or three more years, then who knows? But he didn't.

I couldn't agree more, Bob.

Hey gang i appreciate the feedback on cecil isbell and Glenn Presnell a lot means everything to me, curious question is their any packers seniors we are overlooking

It seems All-Pro/Pro Bown selections may not matter anymore in every case
If Ken Riley gets in it's all about the stats.

But if Howley gets in, it will be on the strength of his "All-Pro resume"

Then if Klecko gets it is in between---he had decent honors but
not to the level of some others but his testimonials are strong and could be a reason
for him getting in, if indeed he does make it.

If these things happen----it's all over the map voters would have ignored All-Decade selections
but it seems for some guys it's stats, others testimonials, others All-pro selections.

If Gradishar, Keuchenberg, and Sharpe were possibly close--All of them had pretty good honors.

I don't know what will happen but it would be interesting if guys got in on separate critera

Thanks John! Appreciate the thoughts.

JohnTurney wrote:it's all over the map voters would have ignored All-Decade selections
but it seems for some guys it's stats, others testimonials, others All-pro selections.

Is the above a nice way of saying objectivity is out the window? Voting based on partisanship, feelings, emotion, or whatever?

TanksAndSpartans wrote:Thanks John! Appreciate the thoughts.

JohnTurney wrote:it's all over the map voters would have ignored All-Decade selections
but it seems for some guys it's stats, others testimonials, others All-pro selections.

Is the above a nice way of saying objectivity is out the window? Voting based on partisanship, feelings, emotion, or whatever?

Bengals fans sure had an influence if Riley gets in---I'd also say Jets have a strong lobby. And there are other cities/fan bases as well.
Some teams' fans don't care about seniors. never no much lobbying for Baughan or Meador. Rams fans want TOrry Holt--who IMO
was a second-chair WR and not a HOFer

JohnTurney wrote:Bengals fans sure had an influence if Riley gets in---I'd also say Jets have a strong lobby. And there are other cities/fan bases as well.
Some teams' fans don't care about seniors. never no much lobbying for Baughan or Meador. Rams fans want TOrry Holt--who IMO
was a second-chair WR and not a HOFer

I saw on another board this morning that Gradishar didn't get in. If true, a homerun is off the table.

If its Riley, Howley, and Klecko, that's not even a double for me. Looks more like 2/3 based on lobbying etc.

Hearing the same thing T&S ... Linebackers are cancelling each other but Gradishar ?
Maybe Nobis has a shot ...

HOWLEY ... YES !!!