Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

my understanding is that Stabler's winning percentage as NFL starter was key thing . . . and the MVP and Super Bowl. Stats were ignored.

JohnTurney wrote:my understanding is that Stabler's winning percentage as NFL starter was key thing . . . and the MVP and Super Bowl. Stats were ignored.

Well, no surprise there.

The worst thing about Stanfel for a third time is that it suggests there aren't any more good senior candidates, when in fact that's far from true.

Ken Crippen wrote:I agree. Dying should not change your worthiness for consideration.

I also agree. Not a fan of the Hall of Fame or players' impact to begin with, but if a person is deemed worthy of being there it seems very backwards to wait until the person is no longer around to enjoy the honor before recognizing him.

Ken Crippen wrote:

Reaser wrote:Stabler seemed predictable. Stanfel is a surprise, didn't think they would choose him, again.

Agreed. Stanfel was one of our reports. We didn't really see anything worthy of him being nominated again. I have talked to some of the selectors and they didn't feel strongly about Stanfel, either. Not sure where this came from.

Maybe from the same folks who got Marshall Goldberg nominated a second time?

Ken Crippen wrote:

JohnTurney wrote:but what seems odd is that with he and Stabler passing away, both may have been brought to forefront . .. and not sure that's the way to look at things.

I agree. Dying should not change your worthiness for consideration.

That was the attitude many obviously had with respect to Art Modell a few years back. His death was seen as a boost to his chances, yet when they looked at his mediocre tenure as owner of the Browns--not even counting The Move--he was sent packing. Nothing had changed from his previous Finalist selection.

Yes, the process certainly needs major improvement.

Those issues aside, Stanfel, in my opinion, should have gotten in when he was last nominated a few years ago. At least the selectors have a chance to acknowledge their previous mistake and do him justice, and I sure hope that they do. It happened for Claude Humphrey, so maybe it will happen for Stanfel, too. Anything to indicate that he might get in this time, or will he be screwed again (sad to say, but it seems as though his passing might have improved his chances)?

bachslunch wrote:Well, no surprise there.

The worst thing about Stanfel for a third time is that it suggests there aren't any more good senior candidates, when in fact that's far from true.

Little tough to 'buy' any said reasoning for Stabler's nomination when it was so predictable - there is only the ONE completely obvious reason.

... and exactly on Stanfel, though it more suggests that they don't know any more good senior candidates.

On the earlier comment that they have it down pat on the regular candidates, I disagree with that but that's for another discussion at another time.

Reaser wrote:

bachslunch wrote:Well, no surprise there.

The worst thing about Stanfel for a third time is that it suggests there aren't any more good senior candidates, when in fact that's far from true.

Little tough to 'buy' any said reasoning for Stabler's nomination when it was so predictable - there is only the ONE completely obvious reason.

... and exactly on Stanfel, though it more suggests that they don't know any more good senior candidates.

On the earlier comment that they have it down pat on the regular candidates, I disagree with that but that's for another discussion at another time.

Then don't buy it. Was simply passing along the reasoning used in the meeting. Couldn't care less if people believe it or not. But sometimes I find it a bit, well, presumpuous that we, as researchers always know better. Maybe the voters are not buying us?

JohnTurney wrote:Then don't buy it. Was simply passing along the reasoning used in the meeting. Couldn't care less if people believe it or not.

Interesting response.

Good of you to pass along the info, not sure why there would be a problem with me not buying 'their' reasoning - as it would seem a bit illogical to live in a fantasyland where they coincidentally took a hard look at Stabler and they were impressed with his (note: team sport) winning percentage, MVP and Super Bowl. As if those things magically mattered more this time around and were the reasons he was nominated. Common sense says there is one entirely predictable (see: numerous people predicted it) reason he was nominated and it had nothing to do with what has long been his 'resume'.

I agree. Dying should not change your worthiness for consideration.

Also also agree. Extremely wholeheartedly. It's as if they're saying... "Well, the poor guy's passed away now. We better honor his legacy the right way now and finally give him the HOF induction he deserves." If they're going to be oblivious to superseniors (pre-1950 Wistert, Slater, Dilweg, etc.) why retread someone who's been voted down twice?