Makeup class of 17

[JWL]

Fair enough, and thanks for explaining.

Only one quibble. I'm not sure the folks who are doing this kind of analysis have an ax to grind. My guess is that they devised their systems in ways that make the most sense, and they just happen to show results with Anderson near the top of the heap. I have a suspicion that Anderson may have been better than many folks think, which is the purpose and beauty of approaches like this -- as I said elsewhere, he's definitely a stathead's darling, at least as far as regular season play is concerned. YMMV of course, depending on what one values in a QB.

In baseball, it has helped show how good players such as Bert Blyleven and Bobby Grich were, which fortunately was enough to get the former enshrined in the BBHoF.

My issue is that sometimes with those trying to show a guy belongs in the Hall of Fame based on stat studies, it ends up not being much film work or any film work at all.

To use one fictitious game as an example, let's suppose the two quarterbacks produced these stats in a 27-21 game-
QB of losing team- 22 of 29 for 199 yards, 2 TDs, 0 INTs
QB of winning team- 14 of 29 for 245 yards, 3 TDs, 2 INTs

The quarterback of the losing team, stats-wise, seems like Ken Anderson. The other quarterback seems more like Joe Namath or Bobby Layne. I bet film work would probably show the quarterback of the winning team was making tougher throws and probably looked better overall.

My point here is more interceptions are not always bad and a worse completion percentage is also not always bad.

I think we would all agree Anderson was pretty efficient and his completion percentage sparkled compared to his contemporaries. It just can't be all stats, though, as to why Anderson should be inducted. I have come across many old preview magazines from the 1970s and 1980s. Rarely, if ever, did I see Anderson rated in the top 5 quarterbacks. Maybe a couple times in the early 1980s it happened.

I try to take into consideration film, stats, comparison to contemporaries, testimonials, etc. Anderson falls a tad short for me.

I am with John Turney. I've sort of had it with the quarterbacks. I believe the ones who belong in are already in. If Ken Anderson remains the best quarterback not in, then that is fine. If he gets in, then there will be some replacement for him who we will be discussing left and right for a couple decades.

[rewing84]

Rick Gosselin's opinion: https://footballmaven.io/talkoffame/nfl ... L4eYMv6kg/

Thanks for posting.

Really, really liking 5 of Gosselin's 7: Dilweg, Emerson, Wistert, Pearson, and Harris. Not so sold on Banducci or Covert. Really glad to see Gosselin pushing for the first three in particular, and hope that translates into them getting priority. Good for him.

why are you against covert

[bachslunch]

I’m not sold on Jim Covert (2/2/80s) because his honors and career are very short, plus what I’ve seen written regarding his play in film study suggests he was a very good right tackle type of player. That says HotVG to me. I have no idea why he made the all-80s team instead of Jackie Slater or Mike Kenn, frankly.

With all that said, if Covert slips in as the price to pay to also get Dilweg, Emerson, Slater, Wistert, Harris, and Pearson in, I’m okay with it. Kind of like eating a helping of instant rice along with foie gras, filet mignon, fresh steamed asparagus, baked alaska, and fancy espresso — sure, it’s not the perfect meal, but you get so much of what you do want that you don’t mind it particularly.

[bachslunch]

Re Anderson, John and JWL make reasonable points. Agreed especially that QB is heavily represented in the HoF, with probably only RB being more overly so.

But here’s the issue for me. If Anderson were at the tail end of the HoFer QBs, I’d be lukewarm about his candidacy. But I don’t see him that way. For me, taking everything into account, he’s at worst about 2/3 down in the pecking order of QBs, certainly better than the bad-stat title winners like Bradshaw, Layne, Namath, and Stabler, and no worse than folks like Jurgensen, Tittle, Tarkenton, Fouts, Marino, Kelly, Griese, Moon, or Elway. And if he’s got that much company, I think leaving him out is a bad thing.

The problem with guys like Gabriel and Brodie (and Stabler, for that matter) is that their induction would (and in Stabler’s case, did) just extend the tail of what constitutes a HoF QB — which is why I’m not gung-ho on their candidacies. I see Anderson differently. I’d be fine with inducting Anderson and leaving it at that for older QBs.

[rewing84]

Re Anderson, John and JWL make reasonable points. Agreed especially that QB is heavily represented in the HoF, with probably only RB being more overly so.

But here’s the issue for me. If Anderson were at the tail end of the HoFer QBs, I’d be lukewarm about his candidacy. But I don’t see him that way. For me, taking everything into account, he’s at worst about 2/3 down in the pecking order of QBs, certainly better than the bad-stat title winners like Bradshaw, Layne, Namath, and Stabler, and no worse than folks like Jurgensen, Tittle, Tarkenton, Fouts, Marino, Kelly, Griese, Moon, or Elway. And if he’s got that much company, I think leaving him out is a bad thing.

The problem with guys like Gabriel and Brodie (and Stabler, for that matter) is that their induction would (and in Stabler’s case, did) just extend the tail of what constitutes a HoF QB — which is why I’m not gung-ho on their candidacies. I see Anderson differently. I’d be fine with inducting Anderson and leaving it at that for older QBs.

agreed on both of your points about covert and anderson which o linemen would you rather see than covert

[TanksAndSpartans]

WWII ...

Roster building was completely different. Wasn't 'normal' NFL seasons -- or college seasons for that matter. Players who were drafted and would have started playing in the NFL were in the military. Many instead signed with an AAFC team when the war ended. Remember, Spec Sanders and Frankie Albert were both 1st round picks in the NFL in 1942 and neither played in the NFL until 1950. Otto Graham was a 1st round NFL pick in 1944 and John Yonakor was a 1st round pick in 1945 and neither played in the NFL until 1950. Glenn Dobbs was a 1st round pick in 1943, Angelo Bertelli was the 1st overall pick in 1944, Billy Hillenbrand was a 1st round pick in 1944, and all played in the AAFC but none ever played in the NFL (and not because they weren't good enough; Dobbs was AAFC MVP and Hillenbrand was a solid football player.) Elroy Hirsch was a 1st round pick in the NFL in 1945 and spent his first 3 seasons in the AAFC before joining the Rams in 1949. There wasn't just one [normal] rookie class available to the AAFC. And yes, 'rookies', 44 of the 60 who played in the 1946 College All-Star game chose the AAFC, including Graham, Hirsch, etc. They beat and shutout the defending NFL champion Rams, for the record.

There was also other leagues. The Pacific Coast League had talent, many players ended up in the AAFC. Plus of course all the service teams. Then guys who played in the NFL pre-war and post-war signed with the AAFC. Not guys who were cut from the NFL and/or weren't good enough for the NFL. Plus of course players like Bill Willis and Marion Motley weren't exactly going to play in the NFL, obviously. Even the the 1940 NFL MVP and 1944 NFL MVP were both in the AAFC in 1946. Bruiser Kinard also was in the AAFC from the beginning. It really was wide-open for AAFC teams to get quality players (including some of the best in pro football history) prior to 1946 kickoff.

From Andy Piascik's book on the Browns: Not counting 1950 rookies (who obviously couldn't have played in the AAFC), in 1950 40% of the players in the NFL were former AAFC players. And of the 5 teams with winning records in the NFL in 1950 (Browns, Rams, Giants, Bears and Yanks) 52% of the players on their rosters were former AAFC players.

I'd add that you also have to look at percentage. In 1949 there was 7 AAFC teams and 10 NFL teams, had there been a full merger and a 17-team league there would still be 10 teams of NFL players so to expect 50/50 split obviously wouldn't make sense because there was more NFL teams. As it was, 3 AAFC (4 counting Yanks), 10 NFL (9 counting Yanks) to end up with the amount of former AAFC players in the NFL in 1950 actually is a significant point in favor of the quality of the leagues being somewhere around equal.

This was a really good read - it gets into the exact things I was looking for to be convinced - WW2, 40% of all players, 52% of players on winning teams. I'll give it some more thought and maybe put an AAFC book on my reading list which keeps getting more backlogged.

I'm usually the one who winds up bringing up Graham in my circles, but I always put an asterisk on the first 4 titles, not that I know anyone who would challenge me if I said 7 titles starting in '46, but I feel guilty not to, like I would be misleading them not to also explain the existence of the alternate league. So I guess I don't have to add that asterisk anymore? May take some getting used to

[JohnTurney]

In baseball, it has helped show how good players such as Bert Blyleven and Bobby Grich were, which fortunately was enough to get the former enshrined in the BBHoF.

But, according to a very fine book on defensive baseball, Baseball Wizardry I think it's called, the guy tries to come up with metrics that rate defensive players and he uses huis own method but also discusses the 5-6 other methods out there.

I am no baseball guy, I watched a lot when I was younger, but not so much after the guys I was interested were out of MLB. This guy writes that Johnny Bench is probably the best overall catcher, but does not list him in his top 10 in his metric and adds that NONE of the metrics that anyone has come up with rate Bench "very high" I am guessing that is top 10.

However, if you read the literature of the day, also the commentators... they said Bench was one of the best, if not the best. Sure, Jim Sundberg or Yeager or Bob Boone were also good... but to have a metric that leaves Bench out, well, it defies the eye and ear test.

Do I know who the best fielding catchers were? No. Not even close. Was Bench? I don't know. But id lots of people think he was the best? Yes. Do metrics show that? No.

The author does mention the intimidation factor, the fact that when he was in his prime he wasn't challenged and that no one bunted on him, he was too good and those "lack of defensive chances" may skew the metric.

And the guy does a good job of showing Brooks Robinson was great, but likely didn't deserve all 16 GGs..and I can but that, not one (according to Proscout) is always dominant...he maybe deserved 9-10 or so which is pretty awesome..

anyway, when a metric shows Ken Anderson all time and I think I know a little, my eye test just takes over. And I was into normalizing stats over eras, I have spreadsheets full of it, and there is some value, but even in mine, it shows Anderson had 4-5 excellent years and the rest...just okay.

3rd or 10th all time? I just have to pass on that kind of metric.

[rewing84]

would you least agree john that anderson peetered out between 83-86

[Andy Piascik]

This has been a really fun discussion to follow. If I'm not mistaken, the previous discussion about the strength of the AAFC relative to the NFL that Tanks and Spartans referred to some posts ago was a lot of us going head to head with Clark Heins, Reaser's old friend (where oh where did poor Clarkie go?).

Although like others I fear this special election will be made up mostly of guys from the 1970s, I'm trying to remain hopeful that some combination of Wistert, Dilweg, Slater and Speedie (and maybe Emerson) make it. The other AAFC player I wish would get a look but who I don't think has a chance is Dick Barwegan. Like Speedie, he packed a lot of honors into a short-ish career. When I interviewed the late Dick Stanfel, he said Barwegan was considered the gold standard of guards when Stanfel broke in.

Regarding Speedie, I don't know exactly how to factor this is in but it seems that his losing four potential seasons to World War 2 military service should be considered in his Hall-worthiness. Lots of guys lost time to the war (and others lost a lot more) but I can't think of another elite player who spent over four years in the service. Whenever Speedie's name comes up regarding the HOF, him jumping to Canada invariably gets mentioned, the gist sort of being, "Well, if he had just stayed and played at a high level for another season or two, he would have been elected a long time ago." The fact that he didn't play his first game until well past his 26th birthday because of the war kind of gets left out of the story.

I also mention this because there are a few Hall of Famers from that time -- George McAfee, Ace Parker and Charlie Trippi, for example -- whose time lost to the military appears to have been factored into their getting elected. As supremely talented as all three were, if you just examine what they actually did and disregard the time they lost, none really had a HOF career. Bob Carroll made this point in the superb chapter he wrote about the HOF in The Hidden Game of Football. His conclusion was that electing them was exactly the right thing to do because of the unique circumstances and I wish there was a way to impress this point on the voters regarding Speedie (and Barwegan).

Most folks here have likely read the fact sheets for the four "super seniors" posted elsewhere at this site. The members of the Hall of Very Good Committee did a really good job on them, especially in coming up with new angles beyond the basics like how many times a guy was all-pro. For anyone who hasn't seen them here's the link: http://www.profootballresearchers.com/h ... y-good.htm.

[rewing84]

Andy which of wistert or Slater do you like better