Bryant Young HoF

[JohnTurney]

Well, John, your reply notwithstanding, the massive gulf between the experts of today and those who actually evaluated Young when he was playing remains.

And, sorry, your point about a "glut" doesn't apply in this case. .

Disagree strongly on both points. Not trying to change your mind
but I have the opposite view. And I am not trying to change your
mind either. It's just a difference of opinion based on
the same set of facts. I interpret them differently
and base it on the things discussed (testimonials, 13 ABL seasons
etc, all that matters to me)

[Andy Piascik]

Are you seriously denying there's a massive gulf between the experts of 2022 and the experts who evaluated Young at the time he was actually playing? It's all there in black and white in the historical record:

Sporting News all-pro team selected by insider experts: Young was first team all-pro exactly twice in 14 years and never second team;

Paul Zimmerman, maybe the most knowledgeable football writer who ever lived: Young first team all-pro exactly twice in 14 years and never second team;

The experts from 2022 you keep citing (paraphrasing): Young is the greatest DT of his time, one of the greatest DTs of all-time and an upper tier Hall of Famer.

Sorry, that's a massive gulf in anybody's book.

And it sounds like you're also saying the DTS of that era -- Kennedy, Randle, Perry, Sapp -- are a glut of greatness in the same way Lilly, Greene, Olsen, Page, Culp, etc. were a glut from 1969-74? Seriously? Those first four from the second group are arguably four of the five best DTs ever.

[Bryan]

Well, John, your reply notwithstanding, the massive gulf between the experts of today and those who actually evaluated Young when he was playing remains.

And, sorry, your point about a "glut" doesn't apply in this case. .

Disagree strongly on both points. Not trying to change your mind
but I have the opposite view. And I am not trying to change your
mind either. It's just a difference of opinion based on
the same set of facts. I interpret them differently
and base it on the things discussed (testimonials, 13 ABL seasons
etc, all that matters to me)

Sorry to step back in to this snake pit, but this is lunacy. That era of 1994-2004 was perhaps the weakest era in history when it comes to DTs. There wasn't a "glut" of DTs that precluded Bryant Young from earning his overdue recognition. You are free to have your own opinion of Bryant Young, but let's not rewrite history here. Young was competing against Luther Eliss and Leon Lett for conference recognition, not Alan Page & Bob Lilly. Young made the pro bowl in 2002 with 2 sacks and 7 TFLs...sounds pretty mediocre, but it was 2 more sacks and 4 more TFLs than Tim Bowens of the Dolphins got that year, and Bowens ended up making the pro bowl at DT as well!

[Ness]

Young getting in isn't the first controversial pick, and won't be the last. Honestly it shouldn't be that big of a deal. Isaac Bruce is in with only 4 Pro Bowls to his name, and never led the league in any major category. Andre Reed has "only" 7 Pro Bowls, but never won anything in addition to never leading the league in any major category. No All Decade Teams for either. Rickey Jackson and Harry Carson are the only linebackers with zero 1st Team All Pro selections in the HOF, and have zero All Decade Team appearances, although both were winners. Whatever.

All-decade teams are kind of a joke. I don't even pay attention to them. They carry zero weight with me.

Secondly, the Reed/Bruce comps are...odd. Andre Reed, statistically, is one of the top 15 WRs ever. Bruce has something like the 5th most receiving yards all time. By most metrics, they are at least "in the neighborhood" of other WR's in the HOF. Young, doesn't have that distinction. You could make the argument that Young is the least accomplished DT in the HOF. You can't do that with Reed or Bruce relative to other WR's.

The least accomplished HOF player is still a HOF player though. That distinction could be made about all positions in Canton. And Young does have nearly 90 sacks from the interior spot. Kennedy for instance can't say that. That's an accomplishment he doesn't have. And in regards to where I spotlighted Bruce and Reed, they retired with a lot of yards, but have zero first team All Pro selections, and no All Decade Team appearances. Same with Jackson and Carson as linebackers. You think the All Decade Team selections are a joke, and already that just dips into subjectivity in it of itself, because I do think they matter as much as some of the other big awards everyone usually references. Total yards for a receiver for instance I take with a grain of salt since that could easily fall into compilation territory. So that's another impasse for the both of us.

[Hail Casares]

The least accomplished HOF player is still a HOF player though.

He shouldn't be.

no All Decade Team appearances

Why do you keep citing this? These mean nothing.

I think it's weird that this Bryant Young "only player of the 90s all decade to to be in stuff" or even the mention of it is out there. Bryant was 2nd team. C. Bennett, Levon Kirkland, H. Nickerson, and Carnell Lake were 2nd team as well. What does it matter?

Andre Reed didn't make it behind people like Jerry Rice, Cris Carter, Tim Brown, and Michael Irvin. He made 7 PB's though(nearly 2x as many as Bryant)

Total yards for a receiver for instance I take with a grain of salt since that could easily fall into compilation territory.

Of course total yards is a "compilation stat". Reed, during his peak was pretty much a lock for 1,000 yards and 6 TDs. He did that for a decade. Pretty good.

[JohnTurney]

That era of 1994-2004 was perhaps the weakest era in history when it comes to DTs. !

Lots of excellent DTs in that era and I'd call it late1980s to early 2000s, many just were cut short by injury
or tailed off, or didn't sustain things, great one year off the next.

My view is different. There was a diverse group of players in the interior, only a few sustained it.

Given how the game was being played, the transition from
3-4 to 4-3. I get that a few people don't like it, but that does not mean they are 100%
right. There are measurements in addition to, not in replacement of, post-season honors.

[JohnTurney]

So that's another impasse for the both of us.

That is it is nothing more than a difference of opinion by several people who study this. Shouldn't have ever
been nasty, it's just differing views.

[Reaser]

Sorry to step back in to this snake pit, but this is lunacy. That era of 1994-2004 was perhaps the weakest era in history when it comes to DTs. There wasn't a "glut" of DTs that precluded Bryant Young from earning his overdue recognition. You are free to have your own opinion of Bryant Young, but let's not rewrite history here. Young was competing against Luther Eliss and Leon Lett for conference recognition, not Alan Page & Bob Lilly. Young made the pro bowl in 2002 with 2 sacks and 7 TFLs...sounds pretty mediocre, but it was 2 more sacks and 4 more TFLs than Tim Bowens of the Dolphins got that year, and Bowens ended up making the pro bowl at DT as well!

This is probably the most accurate take on the era, in this thread. There was tons of average to above-average guys (names), guys that popped up for a good season or three, but very little great in the era. Which kept the named players going on recognition. Plus a lot of different responsibilities, roles and different types of bodies. Huge NT that clogged things up, some surprisingly athletic; players that just went after the QB (was going to call them the Freeney's of DT's but they didn't go that far in liability against the run as the 'future HOFer'); and people that were solid against both; and guys good against the run, etc., but nowhere near HOF level, or at least I never thought of majority of them as HOF, except we all know their names and they stuck around as "names" for a long time because of the era.

Also makes me think of Chester McGlockton, who would have very similar honors (All-pro/conf/Pro Bowl) to Bryant Young. Not counting the 2nd-team all-decade, of course, because no one that knows what's going on counts all-decade, for numerous reasons.

Raiders version of McGlockton especially was good but -and not a stat guy so don't care to look it up but feel free to correct me if I'm off, doubt I am- he definitely played less seasons and games but I'd bet has at least double-digit more "stuffs" than Young, on the flip side has a lot less sacks but could get to the passer, better getting into passing lanes and disrupting the passing game, tipped balls and so on and for sure forced/caused/contributed to more turnovers/was better at getting the ball back for his offense than Young. Again, while playing in less games, his totals/or per season avg. on everything [meaningful stat wise] sans sacks would be higher. Yet, I've never seen anyone hype him up for the HOF. Unless I missed it? Though, could ask Mark Schlereth since he actually did play against McGlockton.

Regardless, I've long thought the HOF was messed up anyway so don't get too worked up about it, and have no real feelings one way or the other on Young's case because of that, but that era of DT's definitely leans more towards a weaker era than one of the strongest/stacked/glut of talent eras of all-time.

[JohnTurney]

Are you seriously denying there's a massive gulf between the experts of 2022 and the experts who evaluated Young at the time he was actually playing?

Sorry, that's a massive gulf in anybody's book.

Yes, and not in my mind. Maybe yours and others.

But I think those who get honors should be in HOF, those who didn;t get honored as much--need to have
their careers looked it if, for example, Joel Buchbaum's sourced had Young a top 2-3 DT you can
check PFW's stuff.


So, to me, there is a place for BY in HOF.

But at the time, people thought far more highly of BY than you show, and using
just ALl-Pro teams are not the only way to check things.

6 blue, 7 red by PSI---it means little to you, but it means a lot to me and that was
done at the time, without bias, and without checking All-pro teams...

That is remarkable... rare...and something Randle and Sapp didn't achieve.

I get it, you disagree and that's fine, your opinion is respected by me and
I think yours and anyone's is as legit as mine.

[Ness]

He shouldn't be.

Yes, in your opinion. You've made that clear.

Why do you keep citing this? These mean nothing.

Because you don't make the rules? I'm not obligated to share to the same hierarchy of value when it comes to accolades for players. It's subjective for every spectator.

Of course total yards is a "compilation stat". Reed, during his peak was pretty much a lock for 1,000 yards and 6 TDs. He did that for a decade. Pretty good.

Not really. He only crossed 1K and 6 touchdowns 4 times in 16 years.