Talk of Fame's Senior Draft

[sluggermatt15]

Michael Dean Perry and Steve Tasker

Perry and Tasker couldn't be in the HOVG, at least if I've got my years lined up correctly. Both of them last played in 1997, so they just entered the Senior pool. They won't be eligible for the HOVG until either this current year, or next year

Correct. Anyone who played in 1997 is not yet eligible for the HOVG in 2022.

[Brian wolf]

Robert, I would go with Schafrath, Smith, Rymkus, Matthews and Gregory but its very close on Perry and Collins as well ...

[Brian wolf]

Persuasive argument on the latest Talkoffamenetwork article, Andy. Hopefully Rick Gosselin and other older voters will take some of the advice and worry more about All-Pro selections rather than flawed All-Decade selections ...

[rewing84]

Im sorry im going to have to disagree with andy and brian on this one

[JohnTurney]

Persuasive argument on the latest Talkoffamenetwork article, Andy. Hopefully Rick Gosselin and other older voters will take some of the advice and worry more about All-Pro selections rather than flawed All-Decade selections ...

I think Gosselin does----I think he concentrates on First-team All-Decades (he has the first- and second-teams going back to the 1950s) but anyway, Andy makes some good points, but I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. It, to me, is only one data point among many---stats, honors, testimonials, rings, intangibles, etc. . . it is part of the "honors" category.

But obviously, voters don't always think like we do . . . personally All-pros is higher on the pecking order than All-Decade, but All-decade does mean *something* just not *too much* and voters have their own idea of what "too much", *too little* weight is put upon it.

Honestly, it likely comes down to if a voter's guy was All-decade, he emphasizes it. If the player wasn't on it, he wouldn't bring it up in the discussion. He'd ignore if for his guy.

[sluggermatt15]

I think All-Decade means something, but I do not place an emphasis on it. All-pro selections, to me, has far greater weight.

[Ken Crippen]

I think All-Decade means something, but I do not place an emphasis on it. All-pro selections, to me, has far greater weight.

As John mentioned, there are one part of a larger conversation that involves many different items. You do not throw them out completely. Are there flaws in them? Yup. There are also flaws in Pro Bowls and early All-Pros. Do we throw them out too? No. Look at everything in context.

[Andy Piascik]

I believe we should throw them out. Not only are they not helpful, they're harmful. They elevate completely undeserving guys to HOF discussions and they downgrade players who did not make an all-decade team and are far more deserving of the HOF than many who are already in as well as many all-decade players who are not in. Among them are Randy Gradishar, Jim Ray Smith, Chuck Howley, Jimmy Patton, Dick Schafrath, Karl Mecklenburg, Ken Gray, Lemar Parrish, Lou Rymkus, Gene Brito, John Niland, Michael Dean Perry, Duane Putnam, Leon Gray and Cornell Green. There are others.

On the flip side, there are Hall of Famers who are undeserving or borderline at best who made an all-decade team. Based on what we know about the voting, it's very likely their supporters emphasized their all-decade status when the votes were taken. Among them are Jim Covert, Drew Pearson, Russ Grimm, Paul Hornung, Bryant Young, Jack Butler, Art Monk, Ray Nitschke, Harold Carmichael, Ken Stabler, Ed Sprinkle, Dave Robinson, Lynn Swann, Ray Guy and Tony Boselli. There are certainly others.

Then there are all-decade players who are not in the HOF and should not ever be, yet based on the logic expressed above as well as by some HOF voters, they are automatically in the discussion. Among them are Howard Mudd, Shaun Alexander, Gaynell Tinsley, Cornelius Bennett, Bill Lee, Lorenzo Neal, Whizzer White, Dave Butz, Frank Cope, Hardy Nickerson, Baby Ray, Tony Richardson, Larry Morris, Frank Minnifield, Boyd Dowler, Bill Osmanski, Joe Fortunato, Bobby Boyd, George Svendsen, Vic Sears, Roger Craig, Lester Hayes, Joe Jacoby, Bobby Walston, Bill Fralic, Levon Kirkland, Carl Banks, Mark Stepnoski, Jamal Lewis, Gary Collins, Darren Sproles, Ben Coates, Marshawn Lynch, Dick Anderson, Jack Ferrante, La’Roi Glover, Harvey Martin, John Anderson, John David Crow, Jim Benton, Al Blozis and Keith Millard. That's a long list and it's not even comprehensive.

As I said in a recent article at the Talk of Fame blog, the idea that those listed in paragraph 3 should get more attention than those in paragraph 1 is ridiculous, completely unfair and a travesty of any sense of HOF justice. The fact that ALL of those in paragraph 2 are enshrined while ALL of those in paragraph 1 remain on the outside looking in is also ridiculous, completely unfair and a travesty of any sense of HOF justice. That combination of those from paragraph 1 and those from paragraph 2 is evidence enough of how messed up allowing all-decade teams into the discussion is. Let's not do any more damage by electing any more unworthy candidates simply because they made an all-decade team.

Rather than bromides about how all-decade teams are one of the things that should be considered when weighing various candidates, maybe mention in as concrete a way as possible how all-decade teams help the HOF process by naming some names or citing examples.

[Brian wolf]

Respectfully, I disagree with some of the players you listed in your third paragraph ...

I believe players like Nickerson, Boyd, Craig, Hayes, Jacoby, Sproles, Lynch, Dick Anderson, Martin and Benton have deserving cases. With 120 career TDs including postseason, Alexander has a good case as well, though many of them, including the ones I didnt mention, could wait along time for election.

[Andy Piascik]

That's fine, Brian, but I was hoping we wouldn't digress into discussing the merits or lack thereof of any of the players I mentioned but instead discuss all-decade teams.