Sorry, but they screwed the pooch

[bachslunch]

If Goose means what he says --"all 20 are HOFers, it's a matter of when"

Then the 2-1-2-1-2-1-2 thing starts in 2021 so (I think we're on 2)
over next 3 years 5 of these guys should get in

And besides, seems rumors are true that this was all
a setup to get Tagliabue in without having to face the full
committee

Honestly, it almost seems as if the committee purposely picked the 10 worst options available with an eye towards how difficult it would be to enshrine them via subsequent Senior nominations. Of course if that were uniformly the case, Cecil Isbell and Tommy Nobis would have been enshrined instead of Duke Slater and Cliff Harris. Seriously, I can't think of any other rationale for this group. But seven of the snubs were the best available options: Dilweg, Wistert, Lewellen, Emerson, Gradishar, Branch, Pearson.

I sincerely hope Gosselin means what he suggests in getting all these guys enshrined. Of course, there's no guarantee for any of them, and he could be just saying what he thinks people who feel screwed over want to hear. Who knows?

Also, was wondering if they're going to return to the 2-1-2-1-2-1 format. Two seniors and one coach/contributor would make more sense. Or maybe we haven't inducted every non-HoF owner except Ralph Hay yet?

[boknows34]

What is everyone’s revised list of Top 20 Seniors still waiting to be selected?

Or perhaps a breakdown by position?

[bachslunch]

What is everyone’s revised list of Top 20 Seniors still waiting to be selected?

Or perhaps a breakdown by position?

I have a list of 75 ranked as an older post in this subforum. But I'm not going to be able to scratch off nearly as many as I had hoped. Assuming I bother at this point -- hardly seems worth it.

[JWL]

What is everyone’s revised list of Top 20 Seniors still waiting to be selected?

Or perhaps a breakdown by position?

I have a list of 75 ranked as an older post in this subforum. But I'm not going to be able to scratch off nearly as many as I had hoped. Assuming I bother at this point -- hardly seems worth it.

It is still worth it. I like reading your comments. Maybe we have to write to voters.

[bachslunch]

One thing I did not find heartening was this post from Clark Judge over at the Talk of Fame website:

"The problem with overlooking most of these guys from the pre-modern era is that this is their LAST chance. I mean it. This was supposed to be their opportunity to be recognized. Instead, we have modern-era seniors who have a much better shot at going in during the coming years than these guys. Sad."

I sincerely hope he's wrong, but I have a very bad feeling he isn't.

[Gary Najman]

I'm very sad for Dilweg, Lewellen and Wistert. BUt I am very dissapointed that they could not get Art McNally in. He's still alive (hopefully he will be 95 years old later this year) and it's a travesty that the PFHOF doesn't have any official enshrined. I went to the Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto last year and I was amazed that they had many officials enshribned (also the Baseball and Basketball Hall of Fames have enshrined officials). I think David Baker will be enshrined before anty referee, and Roger Goodell has more chance to be inducted than Dilweg.

[sheajets]

With Covert and Sprinkle, how much could this have been Halas family influence behind the scenes (plus maybe Chicago area media hyping them up). Neither of them I see as Hall of Famers and both somehow make it

Covert played 6 full seasons. 1987 and 1988 he played 9 games. 2x Pro Bowler. 2 time all pro. That's good. That's not enough for the Hall of Fame.

[rebelx24]

Still an appallingly low number of enshrinees from the league’s first three decades. I think they need to have a special series of classes where they focus on old timers as senior nominees, like they did for the contributors the last few years. Or, perhaps they need a subcommittee devoted to that era, like they have for the Baseball HOF, which would produce a nominee every few years. Hell, maybe the seniors committee needs to start voting players in themselves, similar to Cooperstown’s process. I’m not sure current writers are all that qualified to make pronouncements on those guys from way back.

Dilweg, Lewellen, Emerson, and Wistert, as well as a number of others like Riley Matheson, Ken Kavanaugh, Jim Benton, and Bruno Banducci, all deserve more discussion than they’ve received to this point. Seems like the hall really needed to get more of these guys in within its first two decades of existence, and the fact that they didn’t represented a real failure.

[TanksAndSpartans]

Dilweg, Lewellen, Emerson, and Wistert, as well as a number of others like Riley Matheson, Ken Kavanaugh, Jim Benton, and Bruno Banducci, all deserve more discussion than they’ve received to this point. Seems like the hall really needed to get more of these guys in within its first two decades of existence, and the fact that they didn’t represented a real failure.

I would take it even further - the HOF isn't a branch of the NFL - no reason 1920 has to be a starting point - Neft's encyclopedia lists 1892. No reason not to discuss Ted Nesser for example. My guess is right now a subset of the committee may have an interest in the history of the game, but it isn't enough - seems like the majority is voting for players they saw at best and at worst there's some influence peddling going on. Anyone have a link to the committee? Is there overlap between this year and the annual senior committee voters? Regardless, I think the right committee could be assembled. The college football HOF has lots of historic players - its not impossible.

[Reaser]

I had low expectations, as always, and somehow they managed to do worse than I thought was possible.

I had Wistert as the best football player on the list. So that's probably most egregious, to me. Though, not about one player. The list had some clear choices, some coin-flip/borderline possibilities and some not-HOF'ers and for the most part they took from the latter two groups in lieu of the first group. Asinine, really.