Owens choosing not to attend his Hall of Fame induction

[L.C. Greenwood]

I really liked his Beattie Feathers article. Are you sure that isn't taken out of context?

It was actually a conversation Tanier had with PFRA members in an old thread, but, alas, the original thread was lost in the conversion. The thread was typical FO, with Tanier asking "Why is Paul Warfield in the HOF? His stats aren't any good". When people would give reasons/responses, Tanier would 'disagree' and keep going back to his statistical argument, making the whole exercise rather pointless. Yes, Warfield's statistics at first glance are not impressive, but there is more to the story. Anyways, Tanier was scarred by this experience and wrote several snarky columns in it's aftermath, such as:

"Criticizing Warfield in any way is about the worst thing a football historian can ever do. I once compared a more contemporary receiver – it may have been Michael Irvin – on a message board devoted to pro football history, and was promptly pummeled into submission with a barrage of pish-poshes. No one can ever be compared to Paul Warfield. It should be noted that this particular site was the stomping ground for some spectacularly anti-stat thinkers, so Warfield was a patron saint to them: the receiver too amazing to do anything banal like catch passes."

I'm not saying that Tanier is a poor writer, I'm just saying that people who don't really understand the history of the NFL may have trouble when they base their opinion solely on statistics.

Couldn't agree more about your last statement, but I'm afraid we have a growing number of fans who sincerely believe statistics are the only way to evaluate players, past and present. It's an outgrowth of the baseball sabermetric movement, and I would love to ask Tanier if he ever bothered to watch the old video of Paul Warfield, or listen to how he was regarded around the league. There's a mentality by some that you don't have to watch football in order to understand the sport, numbers provide all the answers, and I think that's a foolish approach.

Getting back to Warfield, he's another pre-1978 receiver limited by the rules of his era. He was a rare combination of speed, jumping ability, body control, open field running ability, and a truly great route runner. The type of player who was able to combine physical gifts and the small details of playing the position. And I don't recall Warfield ever complaining about the lack of opportunities a player of his caliber usually receives. If he had played under today's rules, and a less run-oriented team(like Miami), Warfield's numbers would have been astronomical.

[SixtiesFan]

I really liked his Beattie Feathers article. Are you sure that isn't taken out of context?

It was actually a conversation Tanier had with PFRA members in an old thread, but, alas, the original thread was lost in the conversion. The thread was typical FO, with Tanier asking "Why is Paul Warfield in the HOF? His stats aren't any good". When people would give reasons/responses, Tanier would 'disagree' and keep going back to his statistical argument, making the whole exercise rather pointless. Yes, Warfield's statistics at first glance are not impressive, but there is more to the story. Anyways, Tanier was scarred by this experience and wrote several snarky columns in it's aftermath, such as:

"Criticizing Warfield in any way is about the worst thing a football historian can ever do. I once compared a more contemporary receiver – it may have been Michael Irvin – on a message board devoted to pro football history, and was promptly pummeled into submission with a barrage of pish-poshes. No one can ever be compared to Paul Warfield. It should be noted that this particular site was the stomping ground for some spectacularly anti-stat thinkers, so Warfield was a patron saint to them: the receiver too amazing to do anything banal like catch passes."

I'm not saying that Tanier is a poor writer, I'm just saying that people who don't really understand the history of the NFL may have trouble when they base their opinion solely on statistics.

Couldn't agree more about your last statement, but I'm afraid we have a growing number of fans who sincerely believe statistics are the only way to evaluate players, past and present. It's an outgrowth of the baseball sabermetric movement, and I would love to ask Tanier if he ever bothered to watch the old video of Paul Warfield, or listen to how he was regarded around the league. There's a mentality by some that you don't have to watch football in order to understand the sport, numbers provide all the answers, and I think that's a foolish approach.

Getting back to Warfield, he's another pre-1978 receiver limited by the rules of his era. He was a rare combination of speed, jumping ability, body control, open field running ability, and a truly great route runner. The type of player who was able to combine physical gifts and the small details of playing the position. And I don't recall Warfield ever complaining about the lack of opportunities a player of his caliber usually receives. If he had played under today's rules, and a less run-oriented team(like Miami), Warfield's numbers would have been astronomical.

During his playing days, Paul Warfield was considered a HOF level player. That's the way he seemed to me as someone who followed pro football at the time.

[Rupert Patrick]

Couldn't agree more about your last statement, but I'm afraid we have a growing number of fans who sincerely believe statistics are the only way to evaluate players, past and present. It's an outgrowth of the baseball sabermetric movement, and I would love to ask Tanier if he ever bothered to watch the old video of Paul Warfield, or listen to how he was regarded around the league. There's a mentality by some that you don't have to watch football in order to understand the sport, numbers provide all the answers, and I think that's a foolish approach.

Getting back to Warfield, he's another pre-1978 receiver limited by the rules of his era. He was a rare combination of speed, jumping ability, body control, open field running ability, and a truly great route runner. The type of player who was able to combine physical gifts and the small details of playing the position. And I don't recall Warfield ever complaining about the lack of opportunities a player of his caliber usually receives. If he had played under today's rules, and a less run-oriented team(like Miami), Warfield's numbers would have been astronomical.

During his playing days, Paul Warfield was considered a HOF level player. That's the way he seemed to me as someone who followed pro football at the time.

I didn't start watching and following football until 1972, but from all the film I've seen on Warfield, I felt he was one of the great deep threat receivers of all time. He played against a lot of great cornerbacks every Sunday and took the best licks they had to offer and always managed to get to the pass and hold onto it.

He would have put up even better stats (if that is possible) had he wound up in the AFL, in Oakland or with Namath in New York. Another point in his favor is that he spent his NFL career (except for the return to Cleveland) playing for two really, really good teams, where he was the go-to guy on teams with strong running attacks. In the case of the Dolphins, it was the strongest running attack the NFL has ever seen. Playing with HOF running backs Jim Brown, Leroy Kelly, Larry Csonka surely kept the number of passes to him down, but that has to be taken into account when considering his career.

Then, there is the 20.1 career YPC. Jerry Rice's highest YPC in a season is 20.4 in 1988; he exceeded Warfield's career average one time, but his YPC was lowered due to the system he was playing in. There have only been six men in pro football history to have a YPC of 20 or higher with at least 200 career receptions, two of them are in the HOF - Warfield at 20.1 and Bob Hayes at 20.0. Warfield was a great total package, and a very deserving HOFer.

[JKelly]

Going back to my post I was asked to explain what I thought needed tweeking.

One thing that makes me laugh is the description of the process by the HOF on their website. From my understanding the "discussion" about the candidate is more of a sales pitch but I may be arguing over symantics.

The election of senior candidates to me without actual HOF members voting doesn't really make sense. Take Mr. Kramer personally I do not care either way if he is on or not but if he wasn't good enough the first time why is he suddenly good enough now? So the writers who covered him as a player didn't feel he deserved the honor but now the current group does? Did they all go en mass to NFL Films and watch every available game he played in? Wouldn't a yes vote by Bob Lilly have more weight than some writer who never saw him play live? Even if you don't let them vote at least poll the current HOF members that careers overlapped Mr. Kramer's to get an informed opinion.

The idea that only a specific number of players can be voted in which leads to possible situations like well we already voted in 3 WRs we can't put in a 4th. So even if the 4th receiver has a better career lets vote in this RB because we reached our quota? C'mon tell me that never happened..........please.

Are there any actual game officials that have been elected to the HOF?

Just a few thoughts

[rhickok1109]

Ralph — here’s the link:

http://www.profootballresearchers.com/f ... f=8&t=4935

See the fourth post down, which is mine. Like I said, there’s kind of a unique “perfect storm” regarding Kramer’s until-recently failed HoF candidacy, at least to my thinking anyway.

And you’re right IMHO about the relative level of importance of pass protection to the Lombardi Packer game plan. They were a run heavy squad, and Kramer excelled in what the team needed most. But I can see why he waited so long to get in, too.

Okay, thanks for that. I don't remember that thread at all but I can't imagine how I could have missed it!

[JeffreyMiller]

Going back to my post I was asked to explain what I thought needed tweeking.

Take Mr. Kramer personally I do not care either way if he is on or not but if he wasn't good enough the first time why is he suddenly good enough now?

By that logic, anyone in the Seniors category wouldn't make it in. Hey, if they weren't good enough then … Benny Friedman, outta there! Robert Brazille, get lost! Johnny Robinson, don't even think about it!

[Jay Z]

Going back to my post I was asked to explain what I thought needed tweeking.

One thing that makes me laugh is the description of the process by the HOF on their website. From my understanding the "discussion" about the candidate is more of a sales pitch but I may be arguing over symantics.

The election of senior candidates to me without actual HOF members voting doesn't really make sense. Take Mr. Kramer personally I do not care either way if he is on or not but if he wasn't good enough the first time why is he suddenly good enough now? So the writers who covered him as a player didn't feel he deserved the honor but now the current group does? Did they all go en mass to NFL Films and watch every available game he played in? Wouldn't a yes vote by Bob Lilly have more weight than some writer who never saw him play live? Even if you don't let them vote at least poll the current HOF members that careers overlapped Mr. Kramer's to get an informed opinion.

The idea that only a specific number of players can be voted in which leads to possible situations like well we already voted in 3 WRs we can't put in a 4th. So even if the 4th receiver has a better career lets vote in this RB because we reached our quota? C'mon tell me that never happened..........please.

Are there any actual game officials that have been elected to the HOF?

Just a few thoughts

I prefer PFHOF, and most other halls, to what baseball does. PFHOF elects a certain number of players a year. So does Hall Of Very Good. Make your case, someone is going in, my guy or your guy is going in. With baseball you get that big hall/small hall argument for forever and a day. That argument is never going to be resolved. Draw the line somewhere and make your cases.

[Bryan]

One thing that makes me laugh is the description of the process by the HOF on their website. From my understanding the "discussion" about the candidate is more of a sales pitch but I may be arguing over symantics.

What else would it be? Should they have discussions about players whom no one in the voting body feels is a HOFer?

The election of senior candidates to me without actual HOF members voting doesn't really make sense. Take Mr. Kramer personally I do not care either way if he is on or not but if he wasn't good enough the first time why is he suddenly good enough now? So the writers who covered him as a player didn't feel he deserved the honor but now the current group does? Did they all go en mass to NFL Films and watch every available game he played in? Wouldn't a yes vote by Bob Lilly have more weight than some writer who never saw him play live? Even if you don't let them vote at least poll the current HOF members that careers overlapped Mr. Kramer's to get an informed opinion.

I get what you are saying, but I think that kind of defeats the whole purpose of the Senior Candidate. I think the Senior Candidate process is an admission by the HOF that the regular process isn't perfect, and the Senior Candidate can be used to fix mistakes. I think it is necessary for football because there are so many players and only so many "Finalists" in a given year, a guy like Chuck Howley might not ever really get discussed for the HOF in the regular process. Its different in baseball, where everyone is voted on and a guy like Alan Trammell hovers around 20% for 15 straight years, then magically makes Cooperstown as a Veterans Committee selection. But I understand your comment about Kramer, because he was a Finalist numerous times as well as a Senior Candidate in the past.

I don't like the idea of actual HOF members voting. Baseball did that (perhaps they even still do), and guys like Joe Morgan would automatically vote 'no' and nobody ever got in. The Senior Candidate process in football has 9 voters...letting all the HOF members vote would make those 9 votes essentially meaningless. The actual voters can get Bob Lilly's opinion of Jerry Kramer, they don't need to get Lawrence Taylor's yes/no vote on Jerry Kramer.

The idea that only a specific number of players can be voted in which leads to possible situations like well we already voted in 3 WRs we can't put in a 4th. So even if the 4th receiver has a better career lets vote in this RB because we reached our quota? C'mon tell me that never happened..........please.

That doesn't even make sense. How would having class size limits increase the likelihood of an undeserving RB getting in?

Are there any actual game officials that have been elected to the HOF?

Does Hugh "Shorty" Ray count?

[Ness]

But it's up to sports writers who never played or coached lol.

That's like saying no one should write criticism of a violin player unless they play the violin. I don't buy that argument, either.

And why would I be inclined to listen to someone critique the violin if they've never played? That doesn't make sense. Whether they like it or not is different. But to sit there and say this person is playing wrong or well because of X, Y, Z reason, as if it's factual, when they've never played or been involved with at least scientifically categorizing music in any way is dumb to me. The writers voting for the HOF have opinions that hold as much weight as someone at a local bar. These guys aren't tracking every player, on every snap, and comparing their performance to their peers of the time. They're just going by their "gut", which is a horrible precedent that's been set.

[Ness]

Don't agree. Kramer had to wait forever for several reasons, not least because his skill set was flawed (as Ken Crippen's film study site clearly demonstrates, he was not good in pass protection).

I'm not about to knock Ken or his website, but I wasn't aware there was enough film footage available of Jerry Kramer to make the clear determination that he was not good in pass protection. I know the 1961 NFL Championship game is available on video, along with highlights of Packer playoff games (1960, 1966 etc), but NFL/Blair Films really didn't get up and running until 1964 or so, and there is very little regular season game footage of the Packers available during the Lombardi era. Did his contemporaries make this comment about Kramer, that he wasn't good in pass protection? I'm not criticizing your comment, it is just that I have always heard the Packer line was always considered one of the half dozen finest in pro football history, and as a pro football videophile (especially with respect to 1930's thru 1960's) I wasn't aware there was enough video footage of the Packers available to reach such a solid conclusion.

Not only that, but how did he compare to his peers at the time? Unless there is footage for the majority of games of every team that played during that era that Krammer did readily available, then it's already a slippery slope when trying to critique. Especially when the consensus is already out there that he was a HOF worthy player.