Andy Piascik's Take on Seniors

[Ken Crippen]

Andy Piascik wrote his take on senior candidates for the Talk of Fame website:

https://www.si.com/nfl/talkoffame/nfl/p ... 63-seniors

[rewing84]

if were going pre 1960s seniors my top seniors would be Barwegen Wistert Emerson Dilweg Lewellen Rymkus

[Brian wolf]

In all likelihood, I see the Senior Committee either looking to vote in the remaining finalists from the Centennial Class Of 2020 or go heavy with flawed All Decade members but they need to really do their homework and be reasonable about a player's credentials and years for that decade, where many didnt play at least five seasons.

It would be great if the voters could look at the Mid-Decade teams created by Pro Football Journal for better reference but its going to be about team favoritism which historians and fans have frowned upon. Its like putting Sam Mills or Bryant Young into the HOF ... were they voted in based on accolades and merit or do to testimonial campaigns or team(Expansion Carolina team) representation ?

Hopefully Wistert, Lewellen, Dilweg, Benton, Barwegan, Emerson, Christensen, Brito, Smith, Banducci, Rymkus, Wilson, Taylor and other Pre-60s players will finally get recognized ...

[Zero26]

I'm happy the focus will finally be pre 1960s. That's where the vast majority of the HOF worthy players outside of the hall are IMO.


The baseball HOF is awful but their current set up with committes with specific mandates seems like something positive that can be copied. As the NFL enters it's second century and more and more of the games history escapes living memory I do believe that set up is the best way to go.

[Andy Piascik]

Zero26, did you read somewhere that the focus will be on pre-1960s players? Because I have not and there is no wording to that effect in the statement announcing the changes. Many of us hope some pre-1960s players will be among the finalists but there's no guarantee of that. Just think about all the dubious choices we've seen over the years.

I sure hope they don't focus on those left over from the Centennial Class. That's a perfect example of a job not very well done. I'm also not sure what looking at any mid-decade teams adds to the equation since they suffer from the same limitations as the all-decade teams. Both should be ignored.

I really don't understand what is so difficult about comparing the worthiness of a bunch of players by simply evaluating what they did over the course of their careers without mucking things up with this all-decade stuff. Otherwise, folks like Howard Mudd, Larry Morris, Boyd Dowler, Bobby Walston, John Anderson, Carl Banks, John David Crow and Joe Fortunato get miraculously transformed into viable HOF candidates. Or, worse, guys like Ken Stabler, Jim Covert, Harold Carmichael and Bryant Young actually get elected. Meanwhile, a whole slew of far superior candidates who didn't make an all-decade team remain on the outside looking in.

Do we really want yet another scenario where all-decade players like Harvey Martin or Dave Butz or Ben Coates or Frank Minnifield get elected over non-all decade players like Chuck Howley, Jim Ray Smith, Jimmy Patton and Randy Gradishar in part because of the arbitrariness of when they played?

[rewing84]

Andy: you did a good job of convincing me on three super seniors Jim Ray Smith Lou Rymkus and Dick Barwegen id be ok with all three of them what if hypothetically gradishar was mixed in with one of them would you be ok there

[Andy Piascik]

I like all four of those very much. If those four plus Dilweg, Wistert and maybe Howley get in in the next three years, that would be tremendous.

[rewing84]

im with you 100% andy

[Zero26]

Zero26, did you read somewhere that the focus will be on pre-1960s players? Because I have not and there is no wording to that effect in the statement announcing the changes. Many of us hope some pre-1960s players will be among the finalists but there's no guarantee of that. Just think about all the dubious choices we've seen over the years.

I sure hope they don't focus on those left over from the Centennial Class. That's a perfect example of a job not very well done. I'm also not sure what looking at any mid-decade teams adds to the equation since they suffer from the same limitations as the all-decade teams. Both should be ignored.

I really don't understand what is so difficult about comparing the worthiness of a bunch of players by simply evaluating what they did over the course of their careers without mucking things up with this all-decade stuff. Otherwise, folks like Howard Mudd, Larry Morris, Boyd Dowler, Bobby Walston, John Anderson, Carl Banks, John David Crow and Joe Fortunato get miraculously transformed into viable HOF candidates. Or, worse, guys like Ken Stabler, Jim Covert, Harold Carmichael and Bryant Young actually get elected. Meanwhile, a whole slew of far superior candidates who didn't make an all-decade team remain on the outside looking in.

Do we really want yet another scenario where all-decade players like Harvey Martin or Dave Butz or Ben Coates or Frank Minnifield get elected over non-all decade players like Chuck Howley, Jim Ray Smith, Jimmy Patton and Randy Gradishar in part because of the arbitrariness of when they played?

Didn't read anything specific about pre 1960. But if they are picking 12 senior semi finalists you're going to have to see some pre 1960 players get their case heard just by sheer numbers even if they aren't picked in a given year. The statement says "“Members of the Selection Committee have made it clear they wanted to get more Seniors ‘in the room’ for discussion,” said Jim Porter, President of the Pro Football Hall of Fame. “From those initial conversations, the team at the Hall of Fame overseeing the Selection Process worked with the Board to create a path for those committee discussions that could lead to possible enshrinement for more Seniors.”

Saw the focus on the 1970s as a product of scarcity more than overt bias. I think the majority of worthy candidates are pre 1960 or pre merger but even if they disagree with that opinion if they are looking at 12 every year it's hard to see them continuing to entirely ignore the earlier eras. Just look at the larger centennial mandate and how this got early era candidates looked at and in some cases inducted(Sprinkle for example). I also didn't agree with many of the individual centennial picks but it showed with a larger mandate they will go to eras they otherwise might not have. Whether or not those are the right decisions is another matter entirely.

I also share your centennial and all decade concerns. You would think the centennial nominees who got left out would be at the top of the fray given they were nominated last time. There are different senior voters every year, is there signifigant overlap with the centennial class voters?

[JuggernautJ]

The problem with this:
“Members of the Selection Committee have made it clear they wanted to get more Seniors ‘in the room’ for discussion,”
Is that many "Seniors" from before the 1960's have passed.
Even if you were 20-something in 1960 you'd be well into your 80's now... and not a lot of football players make it (healthy and cognizant) to that age.

For those eras with little or no representation among living players (I am guessing there's no one left who played in the 1920's or 30's?) the decision makers need to rely on informed sources...
Which is why an excellent article like Andy's is so important (or at least should be) to the selectors.