The Pro Football Hall of Fame’s Senior Committee has chosen two recently deceased former greats as its senior
Courtesy of the Pro Football Hall of Fame
candidates for 2016 induction.
Dick Stanfel, who played guard for Washington and Detroit over a seven-year career in the 1950s, is getting his third look from the senior committee, his second in the last five years. He passed away in June at 87.
Former Raiders, Oilers and Saints QB Ken Stabler, who led Oakland to victory over Minnesota in Super Bowl 11 died in July. This is his first appearance in front of the senior committee. He died in July.
Stanfel was a five-time First Team All Pro and five-time Pro Bowl player. His candidacy seems to have suffered over the years due to his short career. In 2012, he was considered along with Jack Butler. Butler was selected for enshrinement. Stanfel is the last senior nominee who was not selected.
Stabler played for 15 seasons. He had some tremendous moments in a career marked also by inconsistency. He was a four-time Pro Bowler and a one-time First Team All-Pro.
Personally, I find these selections somewhat underwhelming. I need to study Stanfel a bit more. He was great while he played, but he had a very short run — and he’s had his case considered twice already by the senior committee since his modern-day eligibility expired. Stabler, to me, is a borderline Hall candidate and far from the biggest snub even on the team he is most closely identified with, the Raiders. I would not be upset by his inclusion, but Cliff Branch and Lester Hayes, to me, are more obvious omissions than the Snake. I’d have pushed for others – among my top candidates would be Chuck Howley, Johnny Robinson and Jim Tyrer – and I think I’d have argued for Ken Anderson before Ken Stabler.
In the years Zoneblitz has been writing on the Hall of Fame process, these two have been mentioned in posts and in comments as possible candidates but also not among the biggest snubs. What are your thoughts on their viability as candidates?
What do you think of Dick Stanfel and Ken Stabler as Senior Hall of Fame candidates?
- Stabler will make it, but Stanfel won't. (50%, 12 Votes)
- Stanfel will make it, but Stabler won't. (25%, 6 Votes)
- Great selections. Both will make it. (17%, 4 Votes)
- Less than stellar choices. Neither are worthy. (8%, 2 Votes)
Total Voters: 24
Loading ...
There’s a place for Stanfel in Canton. The fact he’s being nominated a third time tells me maybe people need to look into the committee to see what’s wrong.
Lester Hayes and Chuck Howley would’ve been much better nominees.
Howley has more than enough resume for the HOF and of course his SB MVP, while Hayes in 1980 was NFL DPOY including a season total of 18 INT’s with seven returned for TD’s to help the Raiders to a SB title.
In 1983, Hayes and Mike Haynes formed by most consensus the best CB tandem ever and their ability to shut down the other teams WR’s carried the Raiders to another SB title that season.
Howley was a superstar on those Cowboys’ teams of the 60’s and early 70s along with Bob Lilly, Bob Hayes and Mel Renfro; the latter three all in the HOF.
I had a feeling that Stabler was going to be nominated this year. That was why I started a thread earlier debating him and Kenny Anderson. I also feel like Andy and would have been more supportive of Hayes and maybe even Branch. Stanfel is tough for me because I have never seen him play even on film. I hope he gets in just to get some others nominated in the future.
Personally, I think (in order) that Cliff Branch, Dave Grayson, and Lester Hayes would have all been better Raiders choices for the HoF than Stabler.
And Ken Anderson is more HoF deserving than Stabler.
Re Dick Stanfel: he does have good postseason honors at 5/5/50s but he doesn’t grade out especially well at Ken Crippen’s film study site. Plus his short career clearly hurts him with the HoF voters. It’s hard not to see his nomination as a waste of a Senior slot, and his two nominations prior were clearly wasted. Several other candidates could have been offered up instead. One could do worse, but there are lots of better choices here, plus he has had two chances already.
Since he’s up yet again, though, I say get him in and off the table once and for all.
what do you think of these candidates Bachslunch
1. Lc Greenewood
2. Joe Klecko
3.Chuck Howley
4. Lester Hayes
5. Dave Grayson
6. Ken Anderson
7.Johnny Robinson
8.Otis Taylor
9. Cliff Branch
10. Drew Pearson
Rick Gosselin mentioned something about Ed Budde thoughts
As I said in the other thread (it fits better here):
They picked two guys who died recently. Obviously an emotional sentiment vote, but wasted. Their deaths mean there’s less rush now. It would have been better to select older guys who are still alive. It’s certainly a mistake to go with two posthumous nominations in the same year.
I’ll add that Chuck Howley is the most deserving senior era candidate not already in, and his omission becomes more glaring with every year. That a Super Bowl MVP with 5 AP first team All NFL selections and 6 Pro Bowls spread out over 7 accolade seasons (which easily could have been more) hasn’t even gotten a look as a finalist yet is a travesty. It’d be nice if Dallas actually had a representative on the HoF selection committee, someone who could make the case for its most deserving players both in public and to other members. Whatever Michigan transplant and Lions fan Rick Gosselin is doing, it’s not that.
Robert Ewing, what did Gosselin say about Ed Budde? Was this an interview?
http://www.talkoffamenetwork.com/state-your-case-ed-budde/
Look. There are a lot of guys who deserve to be in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. And I say, “great!!!” That is the way it should be. Better to leave deserving players waiting than to have less than deserving players getting in. Frankly, I don’t ever remember a player getting in this HOF who did not deserve it. Obviously, there is sentiment, politics, and other ridiculous personal stuff involved. But Stabler and Stanfel both belong. It is sad that they are deceased, but that does not diminish the honor. And I, for one, will never speak negatively about any player that gets in. Lets vote them in.
Ha Ha, I’m shocked that Gosselin, a Mich. State alumnus, did a feature write up arguing for a former Mich. State player, shocked I tell you. In fairness looking through that site he’s done blogs on numerous players, including a couple of Cowboys, but I’ve never seen him write anything like that for Chuck Howley, the Cowboy with the most realistic chance of induction. However, apparently last year readers of that site overwhelmingly voted for Howley as the Cowboy most deserving of induction.
http://www.talkoffamenetwork.com/cowboys-fans-howl-for-howley/
The piece (not credited to Gosselin) briefly mentions that Gosselin agrees, but that’s it. He certainly doesn’t seem to be doing anything about it. I only see him mention Howley in response to direct questions, and he does so with vague brevity.
And in reply to some posters, I do think we are entitled to our views and opinions regarding the senior candidate nominations and no disrespect is intended to the players or their families when we point out that although they are deserving (and come the discussions and voting on Feb 6th they deserve our support as the senior candidates), there are clearly more deserving candidates that should have been selected and this is the time to raise that debate.
I can’t vote on the poll. Stabler is not a great selection. I can’t say neither are worthy as I think Stanfel is worthy. This was a terrible job by the Senior Committee. It’s right up there with Curley Culp and Dave Robinson.
I should maybe have included a “these guys are worthy, but the committee could have picked several guys who deserve it more” option.
I see both getting elected. And they deserve it. Next year they should go with Kramer, Robinson, or Howley.
I am new to this place so I don’t know what is being referred to with respect to Dave Robinson and Curly Culp. All I can tell you is that I remember Dave Robinson and Curly Culp and both deserve to be in the HOF. Robinson was a key player on those tremendous GB teams and Curly Culp was the most dominant middle guard/defensive tackle during his years in the NFL. Culp was so great that he had to be double teamed on every play. In truth, there are no words to describe his greatness.
I disagree Randolph. There are many senior linebackers I’d have elected before Robinson. There are many others with better profiles than what Culp had. I thought both picks were underwhelming.
And next year it’s back to only one Senior nomination.
To expound on what Corey’s saying (and I agree with him), Robinson’s postseason honors profile is 3/3/60s, which is pretty underwhelming compared to other 60s-70s OLBs not in such as:
Chuck Howley: 5/6/none
Maxie Baughan: 5/9/none
Robert Brazile: 5/7/70s
Joe Fortunato: 3/5/50s
Larry Grantham: 5/5/allAFL
Bill Forester: 4/4/none
OLB remains an under-represented HoF position from the era, but absent a really splendid film study difference for him, it’s not clear why he jumped the line ahead of the rest into the HoF. There’s been speculation that his membership on the PFHoF’s Board of Directors gave him a push ahead, which wouldn’t be terribly fair.
If we’re inducting all these folks, I can see the argument — but it looks like these folks may be left out in the cold.
Likewise, Curley Culp has postseason honors of 1/5/none — again not especially distinguished. Especially when DEs like Gene Brito (4/5/none) and L.C. Greenwood (2/6/70s) aren’t in — not to mention at the time Claude Humphrey (5/6/none) had been refused once already as a Senior. Luckily, Humphrey got a second chance a year later and rightly made it in.
That’s not to say Culp and Robinson are chopped liver or something. But unless the HoF is going really deep in its membership, it’s hard to see them as premium snubs in immediate induction need. One can also ask this about Emmitt Thomas getting elected when his more accomplished teammate Johnny Robinson hasn’t had a chance in years.
Upon further research Hayes’s INT return for TD’s in 1980 was two and a third was called back because of penalty. It’s a shame if using stick-um has possibly tarnished his chances for the HOF like I’ve read, especially that they banned the substance after his 18 INT season. The Raiders have a WR in the HOF who used it his whole career when it was legal.
Lester Hayes was a great CB whether he was wearing stick-um or not!
As far as Howley goes, it’s just a mystery how not only he’s not in the HOF but hasn’t even been nominated once??
The Chuck Howley omission becomes even more glaring because the Cowboys, even with all their tradition, still don’t have a LB in the HOF. Charles Haley was a DE for the Cowboys and a OLB for the 49er’s.
Perhaps good point just out of curiosity how does chuck howley and lee roy jordan compare
Chuck Howley is the greatest LB of any spot in franchise history. Lee Roy Jordan is the greatest MLB in team history and a legitimate HoF candidate in his own right (still tied for 3rd among NFL LBs in career interceptions and was the franchise tackle leader until Darren Woodson broke the record), though it’s hardly worth even discussing him until Howley is finally inducted.
Good point rasputin
John McClain one of the 9 senior committee members mentioned in a video today for the Pro Football Hall of Fame that 16 finalists were considered. Does anyone have a list of who else was considered?
Rob that list is hard to come by since the HOF never releases it officially, in some past years members of the senior committee would mention names, including specific candidates considered or discussed, and more details leading to some reassembling of the list, but never the complete official one
I looked at the all decade team of the 50s and there are only 5 not in the hall of fame dick barwegan bobby Walston dick stanfel (2016 senior nominee) alan ameche joe Fortunato of those guys I think Fortunato has the best case also I’m not totally shocked about jerry kramer not getting the nod
Rasputin, the only Cowboys LB I can think of to rival Howley would be DeMarcus Ware. Any chance Ware is in Howley’s vicinity? Both are clear HoF-ers in my book.
All-decade teams often get it right from the 60s on, but there are some oddities with them. Joe Fortunato, for example, belongs on the 60s team if anywhere — all his postseason honors came in that decade (and he certainly is a much better choice than the 60s team head-scratcher that is Larry Morris). I think Fortunato has some level of HoF argument, if not before Howley, Baughan, Brazile, or Gradishar.
Bobby Walston has no business on this team ahead of Billy Howton and Billy Wilson. And it’s hard to know if Alan Ameche belongs, either — not sure if someone like Rick Casares might be a better fullback choice, haven’t looked too closely at that. Neither has a HoF argument that I can see.
Re Barwegen and Stanfel: both have short careers, which will likely doom their candidacies. Both have profiles of 5/4/50s, but Barwegen grades out better in film study at Crippen’s website between the two. I’ve cooled some on Stanfel for the HoF after seeing Crippen’s write-up, but at this point I’m hoping he gets in this time so they don’t waste his slot again. He won’t be the strongest guard in, but won’t be a total embarrassment either. But I’m frankly not that optimistic about his chances.
Of course Ware was an outside 3-4 LB/4-3 DE (edge rusher). In my opinion he’s in the same ballpark as Howley, but I think he’ll have an easier time getting to Canton because the media is understandably enamored with pass rushing. One could argue Howley was an even better player for Dallas than Ware was, but to clarify and keep things simple, I should say that Howley is the greatest 4-3 LB in team history, and the team has run the 4-3 for all but several years of its history.
this is probably my final post for a while I just wanted to say to those who have I argued with over the years I would like to extend the olive branch to those I have argued with
thank you for your time ill be back in a few months to reveal my 2016(2017 Induction) Senior Nominees
Robert, no problem. It wouldn’t be any fun around here if we all agreed on everything. Best wishes.
I don’t want to be off topic; but, what do you all feel about T-Sizzle(Terrell Suggs)? I think he has a good shot at getting in. 1/6/none is not strong, but he is deeper than that. How many have won RPOY and DPOY? Without looking it up I believe Brian Urlacher, Luke Kuechly, and couple others have. Those I mentioned will be in HOF(the way Luke is playing, hard to argue against it). Anyway, also Suggs has a ring. People use it all the time for every other player; why not use it for him as well. He is still playing at a high level too. Has had double digit sacks past 2 seasons. He is 3rd in postseason sacks for career, behind Bruce Smith and Willie McGinest(Postseason HOFer. underrated career in general and coming from a Jets fan) and ahead of Reggie White and Charles Haley.
For OLBs of the 00s and 10s, the strongest cases are for Derrick Brooks (6/11/00s) and Demarcus Ware (4/8/00s). Suggs (1/7/none) is in the second-tier group with John Abraham (3/4/none) and Lance Briggs (2/7/none). There in theory should be enough room for all of them, though I suspect the last three will wait a while or perhaps become Senior candidates down the road.
Suggs will get in. He will be remembered as the last holdover from a sometimes dominate Raven’s defense. Ray Lewis and Ed Reed are locks. Suggs will eventually get in. Hagata might as well. Plus, Suggs is a personality that is well known to football fans and the media. That never hurts.
If the seniors committee is not careful the future nominees could often be the “dead class”: Howley (79), Kramer (79), Meador (78), Robinson (76) just to name a few that we know are among the top candidates in recent years to be considered and thus close to selection. And yes I feel that the committee should take into account those still alive to experience the honor.
Agreed that Haloti Ngata has a decent chance to get in. He’s currently 3/5/10s? in a nine-year career. Assuming he plays another 3-4 years at full-season length even with no more honors achieved, that may be enough.
Suggs is going to get in at some point. What Suggs does at age 33, 34 and 35 could determine how long he’s going to wait to be inducted. I am mentioning this because Suggs has 109 sacks, but where he is going to end up in his generation of players in amount sacks is going to affect when he gets inducted. If Suggs gets additional honors, it would help his case also.
I agree the Haloti Ngata has a decent chance to get inducted right now, but he needs more post seasons honors to have a better chance to get in.
Paul, you’re right about the “dead class” issue. And for those still living, there could be an issue with dementia or other illnesses. The former happened with Gene Hickerson and to a lesser extent Mick Tingelhoff, neither of whom could even give acceptance speeches (and in the case of Hickerson, he may have been so mentally out of it that he never even knew what was happening). And Claude Humphrey is now diabetic, but was at least alive and able to enjoy the honor.
Am bringing this up because someone in another forum mentioned that Johnny Robinson is very ill as of now (not sure in what capacity, though).
My concern is will moving forward many deserving player will not be alive and increasingly the enshrinement event will be more and more a memorial of the senior players. Or if that trends occurs over time will the HOF senior committee then begin to pass over deserving candidates who have passed way in favor of living ones who can attend the event? Since so many top senior candidates are getting over the age of 75 time is quickly running out on their elections (and many other per 1970s seniors) while still able to experience the honor.
Is Nick Mangold also another eventual HOFer? He is arguably the best Center from 2006-present(not every season, but he played well-very good during his time in league). Jets have dominated the Center position in 1998-present. It’s kind of like Mike Webster and Dermontti Dawson with Steelers.
Nick Mangold has the best honors of the post-Mawae centers at 4/6 (can’t even begin to guess who’ll be all-decade at this position). Others possibilities with smaller numbers:
Jeff Saturday: 2/6
Maurkice Pouncey: 2/4
Ryan Kalil: 1/4
Mangold probably has the best HoF shot of the centers from this period, but he’ll probably wait a long time if he amasses no more honors.
I don’t about Nick Mangold being another Eventual HOFER at this point. He needs more higher postseason honors right now although I agree he’s the best center in the league. Nick is 31 and that is enough time to improve his post season honors
The best way to put is Nick’s 6/2 is it is similar to Olin Kreutz’s 6/1and Jay Hilegenberg’s 7/2. Jay hasn’t been in the top 25 yet for the Pro football hall of fame despite his 7 pro pro bowls and 2 first teame all pros. I think voters want centers have higher post season honors than the two centers I mentioned.
Well these nominees definitely came out of left field. Stanfel getting a 3rd chance as a senior candidate is a big risk by the senior committee, but they obviously believe in his credentials if they are pushing him again so soon. He’s definitely one of the best “what-if?” seniors to pick from as he was either a Pro Bowler or 1st-Team All-Pro 6 out of the 7 years of his short career. Considering the voters inducted Claude Humphrey a couple of years ago despite just recently getting voted down, I’d say it’s likely he gets in this time.
Stabler is even more surprising. Favre is clearly getting in right away, and the Hall has occasionally played the “one per position” card to explain why an otherwise worthy candidate loses out in the final tally. I would say his chances are less than Stanfel, as he had a pretty inconsistent career that mixed great (a Super Bowl, an MVP, 4 Pro Bowls, great winning percentage) and ugly (more career INT’s than TD’s, horrible 5-year stretch to end his career).
What makes these choices more surprising is the fact that there are few defensive players with voter momentum in the modern era vote. Outside of Kevin Greene, no defensive player looks like they have much of a chance at getting in this year, so I would have thought the senior committee would have pushed for that side of the ball to balance things out.
With all that said though, it’s easy to forget that when you compare these players against the other guys at their positions that could have been chosen, these were good picks. You could easily argue that Stanfel and Stabler are the 2nd most worthy senior players at their positions (G, QB) behind Jerry Kramer and Ken Anderson respectively. They wouldn’t have made my top 10 choices, but they weren’t off the board by any means. I think on their own, they both deserve induction even if I would have rather seen Howley and Robinson get nominations instead.
Well the seniors committees should not be looking at candidates in terms of position or even offense/defense, but rather the most qualified players on the ballot. So it should not be about electing a QB or G or that they players they selected were the best in the pool at their position, should be about who is the most deserving and within the current seniors pool there are a number of players more deserving than both Stanfel and Stabler. Do they both deserve to be in the HOF, sure I can see the case made for both of them, but not over others first – especially candidates in the discussion of top candidates in recent years, now yet again bypassed because two guys died in recent months.
Here is what Rick Gosselin thought on the 2 Senior Nominees who were selected “Let me start off by saying I think both Stabler and Stanfel belong in the Hall of Fame. But both have been in the room as finalists in the past. Their candidacies have been discussed. There are players whose cases have never been heard who deserve a chance to be a finalist to be considered for a bust. I lean toward candidates who have never been in the room– because they may never get in the room. They deserve better.” Gosselin was not in the room last week when the senior committee met.
This does indeed appear to be a case of a sympathy vote. I dislike the idea of someone getting honoured simply because they died, but realistically if the “death bump” is what the senior committee thought would get two previously turned down players over the top, that might explain their decision.
In terms of other guys that have been “in the room” before, I was surprised to discover that there were only 12 senior-eligible candidates that have been more than one-time finalists, though I might have missed some:
Jerry Kramer – 10
Bob Kuechenberg – 8
Charley Conerly – 7
L.C. Greenwood – 6
Johnny Robinson – 6
Lester Hayes – 4
Mac Speedie – 3
Marshall Goldberg – 2
Randy Gradishar – 2
Gene Lipscomb – 2
Duke Slater – 2
Stanfel and Stabler’s nominations may bode well for the future of these guys getting another shot in the near future.
Decided to come back early. Just curious how does conerly compare to other seniors at quarterback
Charlie Conerly doesn’t have much of a HoF case. He’s about equal to Ken Stabler and Joe Theismann in Kiran Rasaretnam’s period adjusted QB rankings, plus he has one championship win like they do. Other HoF QBs overlapping him in part or full include Van Brocklin, Waterfield, Graham, Tittle, Unitas, Starr, and Layne, and it’s not clear to me why Conerly should be in also. No idea why he was a finalist so many times.
I agree with bach s lunch On conerly just curious bach s did you read ken crippen s writeup on conerly it’s good
Yes, saw Conerly’s report at Crippen’s site. It’s actually mixed, and the aggregate score they give for him of 7.6 is not the best, at the same level as Mike Curtis.
Late reply to Rasputin’s post. Looks like he has posted a number of “State your case” entries at that site. And MSU alum or no, I think Ed Budde has a good HoF case at 3/7/allAFL. Re Chuck Howley, I very much hope he just hasn’t gotten around to posting a “Case” yet — which I hope is also true of Cliff Branch, Harold Jackson, Harold Carmichael, Walt Sweeney, Pete Retzlaff, Jerry Smith, Billy Howton, Billy Wilson, Lemar Parrish, Bobby Boyd, Dave Grayson, Robert Brazile, Joe Fortunato, Jimmy Patton, Gene Brito, Jerry Kramer (who he might also say has been in the room a lot before), the best of the super-seniors (Lavvie Dilweg, Al Wistert, Duke Slater, Verne Lewellen, Riley Matheson, Ox Emerson — though the HoF voters may have wrongly closed the door on that period), among others.
Rob, no one said Gosselin was “in the room” last week. That’s beside the point. The senior committee has met on plenty of occasions over the years and its 9 members have had countless hours of discussions with each other both formally and informally. Neither Howley’s snub nor Stanfel being nominated is a one year phenomenon. That one discussion in the room didn’t happen in a vacuum.
I do think it’s interesting that he indicated he thought others should have gotten the nod over these two guys. Hopefully he’s being truthful. Either way, saying that in public is a good thing. But I’m disappointed that in that same chat he had almost nothing to say about Howley, despite multiple direct questions about him, apart from stating that he’s “been discussed a few times” (the question asked if Howley and Harris had ever been senior finalists, and he said Harris has never been one). In that chat Gosselin also denied that there’s been an anti-Cowboys bias, despite all the evidence laid out here and elsewhere to the contrary, supporting his ludicrous claim with the insipid argument that Dallas currently has more HoFers than most NFL teams (as if the Cowboys having more busts in Canton than the Bengals or Titans means all is well).
bachslunch, to tie these comments together somewhat, one would think the Dallas representative would be stating Howley’s case. I don’t recall ever seeing him do it. That’s one of the things that bother me.
Steven Jackson. He is definitely a contender for HOF one day. His postseason honors not so good with 0/2 but his lifetime achievements are strong.
not so sure about the case for Steven Jackson as his 2/3 profile is not that strong. Plus from the post 2000 era the 10,000 yard rushing standard has been devalued as a HOF standard so likely a number of players from the group are not getting in the HOF, including those with similar profiles to Jackson such as Corey Dillon, Tiki Barber, Eddie George, Jamal Lewis and Ricky Watters.
Steven Jackson is an iffy case. The best way to put it is if Fred Taylor is inducted, Steven Jackson should be also. The other thing is look at how long it took Jerome Bettis to be inducted.
While Steven had good numbers for a Running back in his era, I think Frank Gore ends with having a better chance. Frank has less rushing yards right now, but he’s going to pass Steven Jackson.
I know its a little early but here are my 2017 senior finalists
1. Ken Anderson
2. Maxie Baughan
3. Cliff Branch
4. Robert Brazile
5. Ed Budde
6.Kenny Easley
7. Randy Gradishar
8. L.C. Greenewood
9.Cliff Harris
10. Lester Hayes
11. Winston Hill
12. Chuck Howley
13. Joe Klecko
14. Bob Kuechenberg
15. Tommy Nobis
16.Drew Pearson
17. Johnny Robinson
18. Donnie Shell
19. Jerry Smith
20. Otis Taylor
21. Jim Tyrer
22. Al Wistert
23. Gale Gillingham
24. Mac Speedie
25. Duke Slater
Thoughts
What happened to Ricky Watters is the fact the media held a grudge again him and only playing in 5 games in 2001 didn’t help matters.
What happened with Eddie George is the voters didn’t like his 3.6 yards per carry average. The titans were a running team and used him like Earl Campbell was used. That affected Eddie’s performance as his career went on.
Corey Dillon was affected by the fact played with the Bengals at a time when they were losers before going to the Patriots.
Jamal Lewis’s issue to me is an easy one and take away his 2,000 yard season. He had low touchdown numbers, and missing one season due to injury didn’t help matters. Jamal Lewis’s production with the Raven also went down in his final seasons there before going to the browns.
Robert what does it say about the HOF senior candidate selection process and 2016 candidates when your 2017 list looks almost mirror image of your 2015?
Career numbers (besides 10,000 yards) for Watters, George, Dillon and Lewis are all very weak and not comparable to current RBs in the HOF or those likely to get in over next several years (LT and EJ), I see little justification or need to add any of them, just like not adding Tiki Barber, Shaun Alexander and a few others in the 10,000 yard club. Likely see all decade team RBs from 2000s and 2010s and that may be it. The others all strike me as good to very good players and not HOFers. You can make plenty of excuses or reasons for those RBs and many other NFL players, but the bottom line is the HOF needs to be selective and restrictive to only the very best few players at a position from their era and not every player who had a few good seasons and not much else.
And it only took Bettis four years as a finalist to get in, and to this day still remains #5 all time in rushing yards and unlikely to be passed by any current player. All these other RBs pail in comparison to Bettis and likely none will ever see the HOF unless they buy a ticket.
Here is the list of candidates for the Contributor Category for the Class of 2016: Gil Brandt, Pat Bowlen, Art McNally, Art Modell, Jerry Jones, George Young, Eddie DeBartolo, Bucko Kilroy, Steve Sabol, Co Brocato and Paul Tagliabue.
Paul said, “Robert what does it say about the HOF senior candidate selection process and 2016 candidates when your 2017 list looks almost mirror image of your 2015?”
Great point.
I was thinking recently about posting about peoples guesses as to the 2016 contributor nominee since it is the next major HOF step (should be announced in mid October). No real surprises in the list, similar to what we know about the 2015 process. Since two GMs were selected for 2015 my guess for 2016 would be an owner and the one most recently on the HOF finalist list under the old rules (when contributors were part of the modern selections); Eddie De Bartolo. As I mentioned last year, likely the next 6 contributors, under the current voting numbers through to 2019 will all likely come from this list in some order since I doubt any new additions will advance beyond these. Others on this list that I see as strong contenders for 2016-2019 include Brandt, Young (previous finalist), Sabol, and Tagliabue (previous finalist).
I also forgot to put Bobby Beathard’s name so he is the 12th candidate.
The list is similar yes but I added a few more names for consideration I decided Gillingham instead of kramer I just don’t think they will consider kramer for the next 3-5 years. Bach s lunch you are correct I just don’t see conerly as a worthy nominee he is way down on my list of qb seniors . Rob just curious where did you get that list of contributors finalists.
Paul, I completely agree with your take on the contributors this year. I think they’ll go with an owner, and I think it will be DeBartolo. I mostly agree with your take on RB’s as well, as I don’t think there will be many inducted from the 2000’s or 2010’s. Too many guys with similar profiles, and few that had sustained success. The 90’s and early part of the decade were a breakout time for running backs with Smith, Sanders, Thomas, Faulk, Bettis and Martin already inducted, and Davis gaining momentum for an induction as well.
From the last two decades, I would honestly only consider LT, Edge, AP and likely Marshawn Lynch as hall of famers. If Frank Gore can pad his stats a bit, I think he may have a chance too. Steven Jackson is a definite no for me despite his rushing yard totals. If you consider that Corey Dillon can’t even get a preliminary nomination, why would Jackson? If there was a low-postseason award, but great counting stat candidate that I would push for at the position, I would go with Ottis Anderson. One place I like to look at when it comes to relative impact is where a player sits on certain all-time stat lists when they retire. Ottis Anderson retired at 8th on the all-time rushing list, and more than 2,000 yards ahead of anyone else that isn’t currently inducted. Fred Taylor is essentially the upper limit right now for the hall of very good RB’s, and he has about a dozen guys who played around the same time as him within 2,000 yards.
The one spot I disagree with you is on Ricky Watters. I think he represents the border of hall of fame to borderline hall of fame when it comes to running backs, and I would not at all lump him in with guys like Dillon, Barber, Lewis, etc. The only real blemish on his career is that he some how never made an All-Pro team. Overall though, he’s always stacked up favorably against other RB’s that are in the modern era vote. At least based on the analysis I’ve done, he grades out as below Faulk and Martin, but above Bettis, who last year I had ranked as the 5th best RB in the modern era vote. This year, the RB’s graded out as:
1. Edgerrin James
2. Roger Craig
3. Ricky Watters
4. Ottis Anderson
5. Terrell Davis
6. Shaun Alexander
7. Tiki Barber
8. James Brooks
9. Eddie George
10. Priest Holmes
I don’t know if I would put him in the hall of fame, but I think he may be considered by the senior committee one day. He also retired (and prematurely I might add) at 13th on the all-time rushing list, which was higher than any other non-HOFer at the time.
Bettis and Watters had very similar careers at the ten year mark and they overlapped from 1993-2001, Bettis made All Pro 1st team 2x, played 3 more years (including some quality seasons), one more 1,000 yard season, 13 more rushing TDs (91), plus the SB win. Ending up 5th all time in rushing is perhaps the one factor that voters took into account and he did not get there by stringing together a bunch of 300-400 yard seasons at the end (at age 32 in year 12 Bettis had a 941 yd, 13 TD season). Not sure what analysis or film study would result in Watters considered the better player but the numbers suggest otherwise. Perhaps Watters does deserve his current ranking of #3 in your listings of recent era RBs on the ballot, but once LT and EJ are elected I am not so sure any of the others get elected. Many quality RBss from the pre 1970 era have yet to make it out of the seniors pool. And once there the recent era RBs will also have to complete with many other position players from their era, including members of the 90s and 00s all decade teams from other positions, some better qualified then the RBs. I still see Watters and those below him on your list as good to very good, but not HOFers.
Found Rob’s list here:
http://nfltraderumors.co/nfl-notes-junior-galette-2016-h-o-f-class-cardinals-dolphins/
Cole posted that list on his Twitter feed yesterday, then quickly removed it because he stated “the HOF asked him to take it off”…interesting that HOF has no problem in publicly naming all the modern candidates, all the way through the 120+ name preliminary list to 25 semifinalists to 15 finalists to final 10 to those elected, but not the seniors or contributor finalists……. as far as I can tell so far for the 2016 senior candidates the list of those 15 finalists has yet been made public by anyone
Agreed that Edgerrin James, LaDanian Tomlinson, and Adrian Peterson (assuming he gets to 12,000 yards) are likely the only RB HoF locks. Not so sure about Lynch unless he gets up to 12K, and he has suggested he might retire early (and he only has 8,695 career yards thus far, which won’t be nearly enough). I don’t think we can even discuss Frank Gore or Steven Jackson as being HoF worthy unless they hit the 12K mark, either.
Regarding Watters vs. Bettis, it looks like an easy choice on the surface, because Bettis beats Watters in the key metrics: Rushing Yards, Rushing TD’s (although in total TD’s it’s much closer…94 for Bettis, 91 for Watters), All-Pros and Pro Bowls. The reason I’d place Watters ahead of him though is based on some of the finer details.
For starters, Watters beats Bettis in almost every rate stat including rushing yards per game, yards per rush, anything receiving-related and anything playoff-related. It goes without saying that Watters was a much better receiver, and a much better playoff performer (101.5 yards from scrimmage per game and 3.81 yards/carry vs. just 56.2 and 3.39 yards/carry for Bettis). In a sense, Watters produced a higher rate of offense than Bettis did, and was a more clutch performer in the playoffs. Unfortunately, Watters’ career was shorter, and the media showered Bettis with awards in every above average season he had aside from 2000, so his legacy goes down as a much better one on paper. Bettis was always going to make the Hall with his rushing yards total and his post-season awards, but I think his career is much closer to Watters’ than it was to Faulk’s or Martin’s.
It bugs me that a media grudge will keep Watters from even being in the conversation, while a media crush has overrated Bettis’ career like crazy.
I don’t necessarily think that Gore or Lynch’s chances will strictly come down to a rushing yard total. It’s more driven by the fact that they’ve been to 5 Pro Bowls apiece. Lynch has a good shot simply because he’s been the 2nd best RB of the decade so far. Even if the Hall goes light on RB’s for the two decades since the turn of the century, they’ll probably still induct at least 3-4 from each decade, because it’s a skill position. Gore’s chances are more stat driven because he’s had less of an elite peak, but he’s already cemented himself as one of the best compilers over the past 15 years. Since 2000, he has more rushing yards than anyone but LT and Steven Jackson, and he’s only about 300 yards behind Jackson.
Jamaal Charles and LeSean McCoy have a chance to get into the conversation with 2-3 more elite seasons as well. They both already have 2 first-team All-Pro nods, which is a good start.
Pretty easy for HOF voters to support the 5th all time rusher while dismissing the 22nd, media grudges or favorites are not the reason Bettis is in and Watters is out – it just makes for an easy convenient excuse to blame the media as to why Watters has not been elected.
Thank you for cherry-picking my argument, I guess I didn’t frame it correctly. The point I was trying to make was that Bettis immediately got consideration, while Watters hasn’t been considered despite producing similar rates of offense over their careers. My argument isn’t that Watters should be in, but if you are considering one, you should be considering the other.
The preceived media bias isn’t completely without merit, because all awards are media-driven, and aside from rushing yards, that is the major advantage Bettis has over Watters. He won the Rookie of Year (deservedly), the comeback player of the year award, and the man of the year award. Not saying he didn’t deserve the latter two, but those are extremely subjective awards that are part of his resume and likely his hall of fame case. His Pro Bowl seasons in 1994 (6th in rushing yards in the NFC, 3 TD’s), and 2004 (941 rushing yards, tied for 3rd in the AFC in TD’s with two other players who otherwise had much better stats in Dominick Williams and Willis McGahee) were totally undeserving, as was his 1996 first-team All-Pro nod (Terry Allen had almost yards, but 8 more rushing TD’s). His seasons outside his Pro Bowl years were average to below average, while Watters consistently produced above average, and sometimes elite seasons. He only finished with under 1,500 yards per scrimmage 3 times, his 1st two years and his final year.
This is purely subjective, but Watters also had the unfortunate circumstance of missing his rookie season with injuries. Had he been considered a rookie in his first season, he would’ve easily won ROTY in 1992 when Carl Pickens some how won with just over 300 receiving yards! I know that it’s the rushing yards, and that’s the glamour stat, but there’s more to being a running back than running the ball. Bettis and Watters produced essentially the same all-purpose yards over their careers. I think Bettis had 300 more yards than Watters, and it took him an extra 3 years. Bettis didn’t do anything significantly better than Watters did, but Watters did some things MUCH better than Bettis did.
It’s not an official stat, but Pro Football Reference has an “Approximate Value” stat that is supposed to be an indicator of how well a player played each season, and they use the sum of each season to show players that had similar careers on each player’s profile.
These are the “similar” players for Bettis: Corey Dillon, Calvin Hill, Floyd Little, Freeman McNeil, Larry Csonka, Frank Gore, Bill Brown, John Williams, Ottis Anderson, John Riggins
These are the “similar” plaers for Watters: Tiki Barber, Tony Dorsett, Eric Dickerson, Curtis Martin, Fred Taylor, Barry Sanders, Thurman Thomas, Adrian Peterson, Eddie George, Franco Harris
This isn’t obviously a be-all stat, but it’s telling that Watters is mixed in with much better company. The stat also tends to favour players that have longer careers, but that apparently didn’t help Bettis either.
I think Watters is right on the edge of being worthy, but I think Bettis should have been right there with him as a borderline candidate that took awhile to get in. That is all I am trying to say.
Sorry, made a typo. Terry Allen actually had ten more TD’s than Bettis in 1996
I understand the point you are making and many are very valid, but your analysis is beyond what the majority of voters are considering and the 5th all time rusher with a SB win and pretty solid career awards is going to get “quick” consideration. Perhaps Watters deserves a level of consideration that lands him in the semifinalist list of 25, but really serious consideration only begins when they get to the final 15 and thus in the room discussed by the full HOF committee of voters, and I am not sure given the mix and depth of candidates at all positions that Watters has been good enough to merit that distinction.
I agree completely. I think the only chance that Watters has is if Davis and James get inducted within the next 4-5 years. LT is obviously getting in immediately, and Craig only has 3 more years before he hits the senior pool. I don’t think I’d take Watters over any of those 4, so he would need a huge push to happen at the end of his candidacy…something I don’t see happening.
When/If Davis is inducted, you would have all 4 members of the 1990’s all-decade team, plus 3 guys that had their careers overlap a lot with Watters (Faulk, Bettis, Martin) in the hall. Watters would be next up from that time period, and I’d take him over anybody that’s coming up to be eligible aside from Tomlinson, but it all depends on whether they would want to put in another back from that era. Even in an era of amazing RB play, seven is quite a few already. He would enter the senior committee very close to the top of the RB list, so I would say that that’s his best shot.
Shifting gears to the Contributor finalists, not sure how keen I am on the new names. Jerry Jones strikes me as being just as qualified as DeBartolo, Bowlen, and Modell (and Robert Kraft for that matter) — it’s just that I’m hard-pressed to understand the HoF case for any of them. I don’t know enough about C. O. Brocato to know whether he’s the best possible scout candidate out there (or whether there should even be one in the Hall), not to mention what special qualifications he has. Bucko Kilroy is a hybrid candidate a lot like Dick LeBeau: Hall of the Very Good player, an innovator boost (zone blitz inventor for LeBeau, established scouting combine for Kilroy) a post-playing career with several highs and lows (coach for LeBeau, executive and scout for Kilroy) — and I guess if you like LeBeau in the Hall, Kilroy’s not an unreasonable choice. Kind of lukewarm about LeBeau, though.
I am for Bobby Beathard.
Second For Bobby Beathard I will also add that if they ever consider asst coaches as contributiors one name crosses my mind Jim Hanifan
If they ever get around to considering assistant coaches, would think Clark Shaughnessy, Bill Arnsparger, Buddy Ryan, and Richie Petitbon would be especially strong candidates. Petitbon also had a Hall of the Very Good career as a safety, and he’s arguably a better combo candidate than Dick LeBeau.
How do you all feel about Adam Vinatieri and the HOF? If you asked me in 2009 I would say probably not until Senior Nominee. He has done very well ever since. He was named first team AP this past season. He deserves to get in on Modern Day Ballot.
Adam averages 7.3 points per game. Morten Andersen 6.5 ppg. Morten will get in, but this shows Adam puts up points as good as any(as far as pure kickers). Morten averages a solid 7 ppg in playoffs while Adam nearly 8 ppg with 7.8 ppg.
I like using FG pct adjusted for era when determining HoF fitness for kickers, and at least as of a few years ago, Lou Groza, Jan Stenerud, Nick Lowery, Gary Anderson, and Morton Andersen were top five in this category with a notable gulf below them. Adam Vinatieri might have moved closer to this grouping, but I don’t know for sure. Vinatieri is currently 4th all time in scoring and only a few points shy of passing Jason Hanson into 3rd place, which won’t hurt his argument any, though he’s got a ways to go to catch Anderson and Andersen. Am still thinking he’s at best the 6th best kicking candidate all time nowadays, and I’d like to see Andersen (likely) and Anderson and Lowery (not likely) elected first. But that won’t likely happen.
Regarding the non-owner Contributor holdovers, I’m all for Steve Sabol, Gil Brandt, George Young, Bobby Beathard, and Art McNally. Lukewarm on Paul Tagliabue.
With only one pure modern era K in the HOF I would not hold out much hope for any kickers, Morton Anderson has at least advanced into final 15, so he is on the path but appears at least a few more years before he is even elected, then could be some time before we see another.
I agree with you bach s lunch On the contributors I’m in favor of bobby bethard as the nominee
I wonder if drafting Ryan Leaf will negatively impact the case for Bethard (especially in these first years of the contributors category)? And I know every GM, Director of Personal, and Scout makes their share of bad picks – Wolf and Polian certainly did – but Leaf over Manning at the 1st pick of the draft is perhaps the worse draft decision EVER made. Not saying he never gets in HOF but perhaps comes after other deserving people on the ballot.
Also not so sure what owners bring to the game but seems that the HOF contributors committee is also looking to recognize those owners with multiple SB wins with Bowlen, Jones, and DeBartolo. Bowlen and Modell also played important roles in NFL business including network and labor deals. But DeBartolo is the most recent to appear on the modern candidate list (3x finalist), thus appears that there is a level of support for him among the voters, hence my thinking he ends up as the 2016 contributor nominee.
As to kickers, with only one modern pure kicker in the HOF, I foresee besides Morton Anderson (2x finalist), a long wait for any others as it appears they are not as valued by the HOF voters compared to regular position players. As the team of the 2000s Vinatieri would appear to have a “leg up” on other kickers for future election, but look for a long wait.
No doubt the Leaf selection was a howler on Beathard’s part, but his being Director of Player Personnel for the early ’70s Dolphins, GM for the ‘Skins during their ’80s-90s glory days, and GM for the Chargers team that went to that franchise’s only Super Bowl should be plenty enough to offset that issue. George Young’s otherwise HoF level GM career for the Giants in the ’70s-80s (he was named Executive of the Year five times) took a negative turn during the ’90s when the team made some poor first round picks and coaching hires under his watch. And Gil Brandt’s mostly stellar run with the Cowboys contains some poor years by that team during his first few and last few years. I don’t think any of their HoF arguments are hurt too badly by the negatives on their resume.
Since Brandt’s “first few” years were when the Cowboys were an expansion team, I don’t think those “poor” seasons should count against him one whit. As for the last few, that’s a drop in the bucket compared to 20 consecutive winning seasons. Frankly they even righted the ship near the end. Landry’s 3 losing seasons (which might not have happened without the franchise QB getting injured; check out the strong 1986 start) were partly the result of some draft misses a few years earlier (which were exposed when they lost Danny White). On the field results are often a lagging indicator of bad drafts. But in the final years they improved, adding guys like Michael Irvin, Ken Norton, Chad Hennings, Kelvin Martin, Kevin Gogan, and Nate Newton through the draft or signings.
No question I think Gil Brandt is a HoF-er. My point was that every GM/player personnel type has a few blemishes — but that’s safely outweighed by positive accomplishments for the best candidates. And that’s true of Beathard, Brandt, and Young, all of whom I think unquestionably belong in the Hall. Perfection isn’t possible here.
Perfection is not possible for any HOFer, but I once heard a description of HOF debates where the focus was on reasons not to elect someone, in other words looking for and focusing on the negative(s). My point about Beathard was only that such a high profile and significant mistake (perhaps biggest in history of the draft) may delay his election over others also deserving on the ballot in this only second year of the contributors process – is he really the 3rd best candidate? And after two GM types for 2015 will the contributors committee members shift to another type of candidate – owner?
Paul: Beathard did not pick Leaf over Manning. Manning went number one to the Colts and the Chargers took Leaf at number two. Now, if San Diego had the number one pick, would they have taken Leaf over Manning? Hard to say for certain, but all indications are that Beathard and the Chargers really liked Leaf. So it is possible, but far from a certainty. And for the record, it would be ironic if Polian picking Manning got him in the HOF and Beathard taking Leaf kept him out. As a long time Skins fan, I’m pulling for Beathard, but Brandt, Sabol, or McNally would be great picks as well. My hope is that the contributors category shies away from owners (who are fairly well represented in the hall) and focuses on those that have never really had a shot in the past like referees, GMs, scouts, etc.
I do not believe that picking Leaf is going to keep Beathard out of the HOF, just thinking it may delay his election while others just as deserving get considered. As this point this is just the second year for the contributors process, others may be selected first including a mix beyond GMs who were both the first two contributors elected this year.
Just announced…Eddie DeBartolo is the 2016 Contributors nominee
Not surprising I thought they would go this route
same here given he was a finalist already from 2012-2014.
Good choice. Like Paul said, he was a finalist already. This will help Bobby Beathard a lot. Eddie was an obvious pick. He should get elected this time. This will open up next year’s two spots for Bobby to be 1 of them.
Wow, that’s disappointing. DeBartolo, Stabler, and Stanfel. I guess it could be worse (Marshall Goldberg, Jim Plunkett, C.O. Brocato as a tandem comes to mind), but that’s pretty bad.
Not surprised about DeBartolo. He was one of the few contributors that was trending upward in the voting process before they added the contributors slot. He seems like an easy induction.
The committees seem focused on getting some guys in this year that have been discussed a few times before. I don’t think that’s a bad thing as long as they don’t get voted down. The faster they get some of the usual suspects in, the quicker they can move on to others that haven’t been considered before. At least with the seniors committee, the upcoming 8-10 years don’t look particularly strong for incoming candidates. They should be able to relieve some backlog in the meantime.
The contributors are a different story, but this beats the old process of the same 4-5 guys getting bumped out at the semifinalist cut every year. At least some progress is being made.
We posted a brief story on DeBartolo if you want to take the contributor thoughts over there. https://www.zoneblitz.com/2015/09/02/debartolo-earns-hall-fame-finalist-status-contributor/
Re: Beathard – I think just about every other GM in the league would have taken Leaf second that season. I can’t remember there being anyone else in discussion – just Leaf and Manning. So hard to penalize him too harshly for it when the only reason the GM of the third or fourth team didn’t take the hit is they got lucky by missing the spot by a pick.
According to John Turney of PFRA “cannot say exactly but you can figure it out . . . the two who were closest, after Stanfel and Stable were
a short-career guy, played in the secondary of a Pacific Northwest team and
a linebacker who was consensus all pro a lot who played in a Texas oil town.” He also said this ” an african american player from the nfl’s early era was considered but not too high
and a linebacker was played for an orange team was in top 10″
“a linebacker who was consensus all pro a lot who played in a Texas oil town.”
Is he talking about Brazile? Great player, but he was only first team All Pro 2 times. Maybe the odds are against it but hopefully he’s talking about Howley, who’s far more deserving. Team name pun aside, technically Dallas is an oil town.
My understanding is that Dallas is indeed an oil town, plus Howley was a “consensus” all pro (am assuming that means when multiple groups chose you) more often, though Brazile was too on several occasions. Both were actually named first team all pro by some organization five times (Howley is 5/6/none, Brazile is 5/7/70s). No question both are highly deserving. And for sure any of the players hinted at would have been great choices, better than those who actually were finalists.
Yeah, I was referring to AP first team All Pro selections, but it’s true that there are other outfits out there and sometimes they go with different people. Since it’s hidden in those numbers I should also point out that Howley’s 5 AP 1st team selections and 6 Pro Bowls were spread out over 7 different seasons. He didn’t make All Decade presumably because his career peak straddled two decades, but he was Super Bowl MVP. Chuck’s superior credentials combined with Brazile not retiring until the 80s means I’d be very disappointed if they weren’t discussing Howley.
Sounds like Easley, Howley and Gradishar to me. I’m glad to hear Easley is getting some love. Ronnie Lott went on record saying that Easley was a better player than him, which is quite high praise!
He’s definitely one of the best “short, but fantastic career” candidates in the senior pool. He seems to be a pretty forgotten name though, and maybe that’s why he slid through his modern era candidacy without making it through to the semifinalist list. The Hall at some point needs to address the fact that they haven’t inducted a pure safety since Paul Krause in 1998, or a guy that spent the majority of his career at safety since Ronnie Lott in 2000. I don’t know if Easley would be a better choice than guys like Johnny Robinson, Eddie Meador or Cliff Harris, but they have to start somewhere.
Agreed that Easley would be a terrific choice from the safety pool, though so would Johnny Robinson, Cliff Harris, Eddie Meador, Jimmy Patton, Bobby Dillon, or Donnie Shell. At this point, I’ll just be happy if they take someone worthy from this list. And the safety backlog is only going to get bigger over the next two years when Deron Cherry and Joey Browner presumably join this group. Electing Easley would also be great news for other short-career worthies like Sterling Sharpe and Tony Boselli.
We already know from the limited information that linked out in recent senior selections that both Howley and Gradishar were finalists (and some indication that Howley was perhaps in the top 5), if in fact Easley was a top candidate for 2016 that would be a surprise and yet another indication of a player suddenly jumping into serious consideration – which I would argue certainly happened with Stabler in 2016 and perhaps Stanfel. Which brings be to my main issue regarding these selections: a rotating panel of just 5 committee members each year is too few people to make such a decision and the result is great variation from year to year with the results of voters down from the final 15 (selected via mail in vote of all 9 committee members) to top 5 and those selected. The result is no consistency and all too often serious year to year candidates getting pushed aside for the more recent “player of need” to get elected – with recent death apparently now one of the deciding criteria.
Also looks like HOF again uses its power and influence to silence the senior committee members from talking about the selection process, including candidates considered, which extends to the lack of information this year getting out to outside groups like PFRA. The lack of transparency around senior and contributor selections is a real issue and confusing to me since the results of votes down from 125+ to 25 to 15 to 10 candidates for the modern candidates are public with names. What gives about that?
Paul, my working hypothesis is that the HOF does not publicize the senior candidates because they do not want to give those individuals (and their families) false hope. For the modern era guys, they are something like 90% assured of getting elected once they make it to the final 15 more than once. Therefore, it is really only a matter of waiting their turn (and if you eliminate the contributors, the % is actually much higher). For the senior candidates, it is a much harder process, and as a result, I suspect that there are several guys who get discussed over multiple years but never make “into the room the day before the Super Bowl.” Just a thought. Interested in other people’s thoughts as well.
However same could be said for the 120+ preliminary and even the 25 semi-finalists, many of those players never get elected. The senior candidates process is harder because there are only 1 or 2 slots a year and the moderns have 5, but both initial pools start off pretty deep and dozens of modern candidates also never get elected. But when many people, including on occasion actual HOF voters and committee members question the process and outcome for the seniors selection process, more openness would help address those concerns.
With 6 slots over four year period under current rules “several guys who get discussed over multiple years” should be elected- and if we saw the list of final 15 and final 10 we would know who they are and who was moving “up the list”, just like we see with the moderns. The issue is with only 9 committee members, then only 5 voting on the selection, why would those several guys not be elected within a few years when there are enough slots available? I could understand better if Stanfel and Stabler were 1st year eligible seniors and on their merits alone deserved to jump to the top of the list, but as far as I can tell only two valid reasons have been suggested for selecting them “they have been the room before (as finalists) so voters are familiar with them and debate such be easier” and because they died. Yet other HOF voters have suggested that seniors should be those candidates who have never had their case presented to the full committee and deserve a chance to be considered because staying in the seniors pool is denying them that opportunity. But then again without knowing the votes and the candidates we have no idea as to the reasoning and process by which they were selected as the most deserving candidates.
Justin, it’s possible that you are correct about the false hope hypothesis. I know that sometime in the late 1990’s, the Hockey Hall of Fame stopped naming their finalist lists. It’s always been just a rumour, but the story goes that one of the candidates that was a multiple-time finalist complained that the process was embarrassing for players that kept getting passed over, and requested that only the inductees got named. The popular rumour is that it was Rogie Vachon, who still has not been elected and remains one of the best goalies not yet inducted.
As for the rotation of the voters, I think it keeps things fresh and is a good process. The other halls that have a senior vote or senior nominees (baseball and basketball as examples) do so with a smaller committee than the modern vote. The reality is that the difference between many of the quality senior candidates is quite small, and often much less pronounced than even the best and worst candidates on the modern-era finalist lists. For the most part, every candidate that goes more than 20 years without getting inducted has a significant enough weakness on their resume that keeps them out like a short career or a lack of post-season awards, so it makes sense that opinions would vary widely on the best guys to consider. There are certainly guys like Howley, Kramer and Robinson that seem like no-brainers, and it appears they keep getting considered year after year. But for every guy like these three there are 10 guys with a Tommy Nobis/Lemar Parrish/Dick Barwegen-type of resume.
With so little to separate candidates and a few dozen reasonable candidates to choose from, it’s definitely possible that something as middling as “he just died” becomes the tipping point of the decision.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Brazile rasputin brazile was a 5x all pro and a 7 time pro bowler but yes i do think howley should go in sooner than later given his age easley and shell im all for for the longest time i was a greenwood supporter but now im leaning toward shell looking back the last 5-6 years my favorite senior inductees have been hanburger butler tingelhoff who have been yours
I know, but just to be clear Brazile was only first team AP All Pro twice. Some people treat every All Pro picking media outfit equally but many observers don’t. Because of that, posters should probably add some sort of clarification if they’re citing non AP first team All Pro selections, not necessarily because everyone needs to agree with the assumption that AP selections are worth more, but just to avoid confusion since those are by far the most frequently cited.
I used to go on the assumption that AP all-pro teams were the most meaningful as well, but the folks at the pfraforum (I think rightly) challenged me to rethink that idea. In fact, the only reason for doing so I could see was the fact that pro football reference’s website elevates AP for unknown reasons — and they have been heavily criticized for it. As an example, the old NEA teams were reportedly selected with significant player input and in some circles more highly regarded than AP. So for some time now I’ve considered all such teams on equal footing, with the exception of Sporting News up until ca. 1980 which chooses a lot more players making it at the level of all-conference. I invite all who believe AP is necessarily superior to actively question that notion.
If I were going to rank Chuck Howley and Robert Brazile relative to each other, I’d choose the former, but it’s close.
Just to reiterate, I’m not saying AP selections are worth more, only that many observers do, so people should probably mention which All Pros they’re talking about. That said, there is some advantage to drawing the line somewhere since there have been many media outfits that published All Pro teams over the years. I’d guess the AP gets elevated because it’s by far the most prominent media institution to do these teams, ubiquitous in general news coverage and even picking state high school rankings, and therefore its selections receive the most coverage. Every paper in the country runs AP articles, and of course the AP has also played a huge role in college football rankings for several decades.
Johnny Robinson deserves in period! I suppose he won’t get a look again until he dies like Stabler. For the record Johnny’s nephew says his health is good.
On another topic did anyone see the 12-14 MNF pre-game spot talking about WR’s and their gloves? It’s a travesty that the NFL lets them get such an aid to catching. The players say they don’t even have to think about catching the ball. It allows anyone off the street to catch one handed off the street with almost zero effort. It’s totally skewing the record book. And seeing the advantage even makes me wonder about Jerry Rice’s greatness although I know the gloves were nothing like today’s. They might as well allow stick’em but why when you have something better. They should outlaw these gloves immediately. It makes the “Brady Football” thing look like a total farce and I’m no Pats fan. I don’t know how far this quality of glove goes back but the HOF really needs to step up with getting the older WR’s in before they consider the likes of T.O. IMO. A lot of today’s WR’s just look better but aren’t IMO. They have so much help from the NFL it’s crazy.
All said I’m a realist and know the current NFL is ONLY about the money. They do very little for the good of the game unless it hits their pocket book. :)