Congrats to the HOF Class of 2022

[Bryan]

Very well said, Hail Casares. I think Branch is a weak Hall of Famer whose election seems to have come about because the guy who ran the HOF up until recently was determined to get every single member of the all-1970s team in. In Mills's case, I think they justifiably gave some weight to his USFL accomplishments and that may have put him over the top.

I like Boselli but even his election comes with a question mark: he only played seven seasons that are really more like six (and only 3-4 of those at a really high level) because he only played three games in his final season. In e-mail exchanges I've had with several members of the Selection Committee about Dick Barwegan and Jim Ray Smith, two Seniors who are among the top five of the most deserving of enshrinement, the response was that the Committee said their careers were too short. Yet both played longer than Boselli and both have seriously better credentials.

The real mind-boggling one, like you said, is Young. Whoever the San Francisco voter is must have done a terrific sales job because there's nothing in Young's credentials that says Hall of Famer. I know John Turney supported him and, knowing John, I'm sure a lot of the reason was because he spent hours studying Young on film. But from what I'm told, HOF voters are disinclined to study film or to pay much attention to those who do.

The bottom line is that Young's election lowers the bar considerably. He goes in with exactly one consensus first team all-pro and four Pro Bowl selections. I don't know how many players there are on the outside looking in who have similar or better credentials but it must be at least 50 and probably more like 100. Included among them are all-time greats that we talk about all the time like Wistert, Dilweg, Barwegan, Gradishar, Jim Ray Smith, etc., whose resumes are off the charts compared to Young's.

Just think if we now begin to hear from supporters of every player whose credentials are the same as or better than Young's. The HOF would have to erect a whole new wing just to accommodate them all.

I agree with all of this. The class was really weak. One of the weakest I've ever seen.

Boselli was ok...a Dick Stanfel like selection.

I liked Sam Mills, but I'm not really on board with him being in the HOF, especially over guys like Gradishar and Zach Thomas. Someone mentioned Mills' USFL experience as being a tipping point...I guess that's possible, but the USFL had guys like John Corker getting 27 sacks in a season and Luther Bradley getting 5 INTs in a game.

Nothing to add about Bryant Young (is Jerry Sherk going in next year?).

Seymour didn't have a fantastic career.

Meh on Art McNally and Leroy Butler. Neither guy moved the needle for me. Butler was a nice player, but watching him play I never thought he was a HOFer.

I liked Vermiel getting in.

Cliff Branch has a lot of Drew Pearson similarities. Both on good teams, both on TV, both had worse careers than people think. Branch was in the playoffs every year, held the postseason receiving record, yet he really wasn't all that effective in the postseason. It helps that he caught TDs in two SB blowouts. Branch played in 22 postseason games, and caught TDs in 3 of them. He played in 183 regular season games and caught 67 TDs. It's really not all that impressive.

[Hail Casares]

Young might be one of the worst DT's in the HOF now(especially one that made it through via standard balloting.)

If you go by being a football player, Young > many of the HOF DTs, Sapp, Kennedy, others.

This is laughable. Bryant Young was a fine football player. Very good. A HOF'er? Absolutely not.

[Hail Casares]

Being surrounded by Chicago media the worst part has been the Devin Hester complaints. Hester was transcendent for two seasons, then a complete ghost/liability for two season, and had an amazing 2010..then fell off. He was a great player but for the "greatest to ever do it", he "only" has the total returns record. If Hester gets in are we willing to elect Cordarelle Patterson when he's eligible? (More PB's and AP's and Kickoff TDs). Josh Cribbs?(More kick off return TDs and played in all 4 phases on special teams) etc? Steve Tasker might be the greatest special teams player ever. Is he getting in? If your answer to these questions is "yes", ok, I don't have a gripe, but I feel like a lot of the Hester support wants him to be the ONLY guy in there.

You then also have to measure it on some continuum of impact and value. People were acting iffy on Curtis Martin and Bettis going in and those two combined for nearly 30,000 yards and 200 TD's. Hester accounted for 20 total TDs. At some point, value has to carry some weight. The "best to ever do it" argument runs into a wall as well at some point because was Hester a better return man than Urlacher was a linebacker? Sure. Is Urlacher the best LB ever? No. But Urlacher was CLEARLY more valuable and better as a football player than Hester was. If you're holding Hester up against Sam Mills..ok, maybe I bend there a bit..but even still..Mills in some sense/logic HAD to bring more value to to his team(s) than Hester did over the course of their careers.

Hester also one of the rare return guys that did it forever because he was completely incapable of playing another position.

Maybe I'm looking at this too much from a "value" perspective, but it's just a weird argument to me.

[Bryan]

If you go by being a football player, Young > many of the HOF DTs, Sapp, Kennedy, others.

Many look only at Pro Bowls and All-Pros, and even then only AP all-Pros.

Watch the film, listen to scouts.

Maybe you disagree, that's fine---but man, the worst? Maybe on of the best

The "eye test" Hall of Fame is an interesting concept. Guys who had a fairly long career, didn't accumulate great honors or counting stats, but were still HOF-caliber players. I think Jim Langer got in based on the eye test, same with Leroy Kelly. Rickey Jackson, too. I assume that is how Curley Culp got in recently. I think in some respects that type of enshrinement is healthy for the HOF...you don't want a carbon copy HOF of LBs/DEs who simply were pass rushers or DBs who simply got a lot of INTs. The Bryant Young enshrinement doesn't add up to me, but I agree in it's theory.

One "eye test" guy I'd put forward is Wilber Marshall. If aliens came to earth and challenged humankind to a football game that would decide the fate of the world, would you choose Sam Mills over Wilber Marshall for that game? Of course not. Marshall simply did his job and had no weakness. The guy was a beast, but he didn't accumulate sacks and rack up honors. I think Marshall was better than many of the LBs in Canton. JMO.

[DukeSlater]

How is Jim Ray Smith more worthy of being in Canton than Tony Boselli? Both made the same amount of Pro Bowls; Boselli was considered the best tackle in the league for about three years; he made first team All-Pro three times (I think all were consensus); and was All-Decade.

[Andy Piascik]

We’ve had numerous discussions here about the all-decade teams that you apparently missed where it was pointed out by many that, because a lot of players picked to all-decade were mistakes including some that are quite farcical, the all-decade teams are highly suspect. More on point, it’s ludicrous to give HOF weight to an all-decade selection because of the arbitrariness of it. Smith had three great years in the 1950s and three great years in the 1960s, more great years than contemporary guards Stanfel, Kramer, Hickerson and Stan Jones. Yet the great years of all those players essentially came in one decade, thus they made an all-decade team while Smith didn’t. All four are in the HOF and he isn’t.

Consider this hypothetical: Player A is first team all-pro in 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992. Player B, playing the same position, is first team all-pro in 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1986. Everything else, for argument’s sake, is equal. Player B is picked to the all-1980s team. Player A is not picked to either the 1980s or 1990s teams. Player B and his supporters harp no end on his all-1980s honors as one of the big reasons why he should be in the HOF. Player A has no all-decade honors on his resume, though he is clearly more deserving of the HOF. Based on what we’ve seen in recent years, there’s a very good chance the HOF would elect B and not A based on this all-decade garbage.

As I’ve said, all-decade teams are nice decorative discussion topics; they should have no bearing on the HOF whatsoever. Each player should be evaluated solely on the totality of what they did in their careers.

Besides them being equal in Pro Bowls, Smith, by my count, has a 6-4 advantage in all-conference selections. He was named first team to at least one major all-pro team five times (three times unanimous), also more than Boselli.

Smith is someone I’ve studied extensively on film. Conclusions based on film are admittedly subjective, I don’t claim to be an expert by any means and I only watched Boselli on TV, never on film, but what I saw from viewing many of Smith’s games was the best guard play of that era. I haven’t watched as much film of Stanfel, Kramer, Jones or Hickerson but did watch some for comparison’s sake, in all cases watching at least a few games of all four during their best years, and Smith stood out as better than all four.

Kramer and Hickerson are both known as great pulling guards (and both were) and Smith was better at it than both based on what I’ve seen. One big difference is that Kramer, Lombardi and many others have written about the famed Packer Sweep so that it has ever since been a part of football lore. That’s great as far as football lore goes but it’s unfortunate if it has hurt Smith’s chances for the HOF by highlighting Kramer to such a greater degree.

I haven’t yet seen any of these games on film but I’ve been told by a number of Browns of that era about how Smith dominated Ernie Stautner in a series of Cleveland-Pittsburgh games. I've been told the same thing about him against Eugene Lipscomb in the 1959 Browns-Colts game, though I have never watched that game on film, either. Granted this is testimony from teammates but “dominated Ernie Stautner” isn’t something you hear every day no matter who’s talking.

Boselli is in and that’s great. With new information, I might change my mind. Based on what I know right now, Smith was/is more deserving.

[Hail Casares]

One "eye test" guy I'd put forward is Wilber Marshall. If aliens came to earth and challenged humankind to a football game that would decide the fate of the world, would you choose Sam Mills over Wilber Marshall for that game? Of course not. Marshall simply did his job and had no weakness. The guy was a beast, but he didn't accumulate sacks and rack up honors. I think Marshall was better than many of the LBs in Canton. JMO.

What did Mark Schlereth have to say about him?

[Andy Piascik]

Probably that Smith wasn't that good when Schlereth did or didn't play against him in three regular season games/two regular season games/one regular season game/first quarter of a preseason game/sat in on game planning meetings.

[DukeSlater]

Joe Piascik, I am well aware of the scenarios re: the All-Decade teams. John Anderson says hello!

Did I only mention All-Decade re: Boselli? I believe I posted about his All-Pro selections, Pro Bowls, and him being the best tackle in the league for about three years. Obviously, you missed that.

[Andy Piascik]

Hey DukeMoron, great hearing from you again. Maybe you should learn to read. I specifically addressed the all-pro point and mentioned that Smith was named more times. I additionally pointed out that he was also all-conference more times than Boselli.

If I'm typing too fast for you to keep up, don't be embarrassed; just say so. Nobody will hold your lack of comprehension against you. And I was sure to keep this post nice and short so you shouldn't have so much trouble.