Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

BD Sullivan wrote:

bachslunch wrote:Sad to say, no shortage of Denver partisanship has reared its ugly head on this issue. This article is from a local sportscaster with a definite collusion bias:

http://www.9news.com/sports/bowlen-snub ... /467346083

Which is nothing compared to the appallingly partisan and conspiracy-theory laced article found here:

https://www.milehighreport.com/2017/8/2 ... pat-bowlen

The PFHoF is definitely better than a passing interest to me, but jeez, get a life and a little perspective already. Unreal.

I thought the first article was absurd--until I read the second, which moved it into the ridiculous category.

The first somehow blames Washington's mediocre ALL-TIME record on Beathard--as if Marshall's bigotry had nothing to do with it. Both also ignore the fact that Beathard also ran things in Miami prior to the Skins and had gotten his start with the Chiefs during the 1960's.

Yet the second's absurd fanboy love letter to "Mr. B" is an absolute joke, somehow making the case that the TV contracts before Bowlen got involved were a pittance. Also, I thought Kraft was responsible for the labor peace and it's not like Bowlen invented the concept of Sunday night football. As far as the success of the Broncos, Bowlen's biggest asset is that he wasn't a meddling owner--I think the players and coaches had a LITTLE bit to do with that run. Finally since when are the "facts" that "the way he ran his franchise like a family and the relentless desire to always be No. 1 'in everything' the basis for any HOF candidacy.

nicefellow31 wrote:Also what makes Pat Bowlen a better candidate than the late Redskins owner Jack Kent Cooke?

ChrisBabcock wrote:Regarding that talkoffame article...

...becomes the sixth nominee since the category was established in 2014 and the third former general manager.

Ron Wolf and Bill Polian, members of the inaugural contributor class in 2015, are the two other GMs.

Not to be nitpicky but are they forgetting about Jim Finks?

bachslunch wrote:

BD Sullivan wrote:

bachslunch wrote:Sad to say, no shortage of Denver partisanship has reared its ugly head on this issue. This article is from a local sportscaster with a definite collusion bias:

http://www.9news.com/sports/bowlen-snub ... /467346083

Which is nothing compared to the appallingly partisan and conspiracy-theory laced article found here:

https://www.milehighreport.com/2017/8/2 ... pat-bowlen

The PFHoF is definitely better than a passing interest to me, but jeez, get a life and a little perspective already. Unreal.

I thought the first article was absurd--until I read the second, which moved it into the ridiculous category.

The first somehow blames Washington's mediocre ALL-TIME record on Beathard--as if Marshall's bigotry had nothing to do with it. Both also ignore the fact that Beathard also ran things in Miami prior to the Skins and had gotten his start with the Chiefs during the 1960's.

Yet the second's absurd fanboy love letter to "Mr. B" is an absolute joke, somehow making the case that the TV contracts before Bowlen got involved were a pittance. Also, I thought Kraft was responsible for the labor peace and it's not like Bowlen invented the concept of Sunday night football. As far as the success of the Broncos, Bowlen's biggest asset is that he wasn't a meddling owner--I think the players and coaches had a LITTLE bit to do with that run. Finally since when are the "facts" that "the way he ran his franchise like a family and the relentless desire to always be No. 1 'in everything' the basis for any HOF candidacy.

Found a more detailed Mile High Report article which supposedly lays out the case for the TV contract argument:

https://www.milehighreport.com/2017/8/1 ... -dominance

and Sunday Night Football:

https://www.milehighreport.com/2017/8/7 ... t-football

and generally:

https://www.milehighreport.com/2017/8/6 ... ll-of-fame

Problem is, his sources are Broncos staff, and that has the potential to be just a wee bit biased. And wasn't supposed bias Ian St Clair's whole problem with Beathard and Casserly? Sheeh, no hypocrisy there....

I think there's some likelihood that Bowlen did contribute committee work value, and for me that matters in a HoF case. But it's all so lost in partisan overstatement of this kind that

-it's hard to know where the truth ends and hype begins.

-it's really hard to muster sympathy for Bowlen's HoF case given such a ham-fisted approach.