PFRA is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the history of professional football. Formed in 1979, PFRA members include many of the game's foremost historians and writers.
https://mail.profootballresearchers.org/forum/
https://mail.profootballresearchers.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4714
It's been claimed that before Bob Hayes there was no such thing as a long pass to a wide receiver.bachslunch wrote:John, agreed that the voters are sometimes gullible and easily swayed by an argument that on the surface looks plausible but falls apart with scrutiny. I’m convinced this was afoot with the elections of Fred Dean, Eddie DeBartolo, and Bob Hayes, for three.
Revolutionizing the game would lead to more than 4 all pro selections, 4 top 10 defenses, 3 playoff wins, and 0 Super Bowl wins in 13 seasons.JohnTurney wrote:“Brian Urlacher should be a first-ballot Hall of Famer,” Rodgers said, per Brad Biggs of the Chicago Tribune. “He is one of my favorites if not my favorite player … because he is hyper-competitive. He is a tough human and he does it the right way. He plays with a lot of passion, lot of grit and a lot of class. I always enjoyed our battles."
The duo faced off numerous times during Urlacher's career and Rodgers knows that the Bears legend helped changed the game.
“What he did at the middle linebacker position revolutionized the game," he said, per Biggs. "Before him there hadn’t been a 6-4 guy that could run down the middle like that and run sideline to sideline and take the middle of the field away in their Tampa-2 scheme and come up and hit and tackle and run and sack and blitz and intercept. To me, it shouldn’t be a difficult decision for those voters to put him in the first opportunity they can.”
___________________________
Okay, so if Urlacher revolutionized the game by being a " a 6-4 guy that could run down the middle like that and run sideline to sideline and take the middle of the field away in their Tampa-2 scheme and come up and hit and tackle and run and sack and blitz and intercept." should we have seen teams drafting tall MLBers to play in this new revolutionary way?
Total crap. And this, I am told, was a big selling point for Urlacher. To me the disgrace is that other writers fall for it. To revolutionize a game, that is a tall order, pretty heady stuff. Shouldn't there be evidence, proof of the changes brought about by the so-called revolutionary player?
I have been told that. Don't know if it was the "selling point" the tipping point or not. Pompei has articles posted, but there is a paywall and I don't feel like doing the free week to see them because I may forget to cancel. Supposedly he goes through the play-by-play. So there could be other things in his mind that made more of a differenceElkman8102 wrote:Revolutionizing the game would lead to more than 4 all pro selections, 4 top 10 defenses, 3 playoff wins, and 0 Super Bowl wins in 13 seasons.JohnTurney wrote:“Brian Urlacher should be a first-ballot Hall of Famer,” Rodgers said, per Brad Biggs of the Chicago Tribune. “He is one of my favorites if not my favorite player … because he is hyper-competitive. He is a tough human and he does it the right way. He plays with a lot of passion, lot of grit and a lot of class. I always enjoyed our battles."
The duo faced off numerous times during Urlacher's career and Rodgers knows that the Bears legend helped changed the game.
“What he did at the middle linebacker position revolutionized the game," he said, per Biggs. "Before him there hadn’t been a 6-4 guy that could run down the middle like that and run sideline to sideline and take the middle of the field away in their Tampa-2 scheme and come up and hit and tackle and run and sack and blitz and intercept. To me, it shouldn’t be a difficult decision for those voters to put him in the first opportunity they can.”
___________________________
Okay, so if Urlacher revolutionized the game by being a " a 6-4 guy that could run down the middle like that and run sideline to sideline and take the middle of the field away in their Tampa-2 scheme and come up and hit and tackle and run and sack and blitz and intercept." should we have seen teams drafting tall MLBers to play in this new revolutionary way?
Total crap. And this, I am told, was a big selling point for Urlacher. To me the disgrace is that other writers fall for it. To revolutionize a game, that is a tall order, pretty heady stuff. Shouldn't there be evidence, proof of the changes brought about by the so-called revolutionary player?
I am embarrassed if this is the argument that has skewed the inner circle 1st Ballot MLB/ILB.
This one slays me because the association isn't even correct. The rule change was put forth as some part of a vague 'player safety' agenda, it had nothing to do with Hester.JohnTurney wrote:"Hester also changed the game with the NFL instilling the "Hester Rule" on kickoffs. The NFL changed the kickoff to the 25-yard line to help promote more touchbacks, ultimately limiting Hester's ability to take over games as a return man.
I agree that "innovation" is hard to define or assess, but what coaches have actually ridden the 'innovation' label into the HOF?Reaser wrote:I guess the other labels are "innovation" for coaches which always lacks the context and purpose of innovation
Off the top of my head, I thought of Sid Gillman, but I get what you are saying - most of them are there for winning.Bryan wrote:I agree that "innovation" is hard to define or assess, but what coaches have actually ridden the 'innovation' label into the HOF?Reaser wrote:I guess the other labels are "innovation" for coaches which always lacks the context and purpose of innovation
I think guys like Gillman, Hank Stram, George Allen perhaps were aided by some type of "innovator" argument, but I don't know what was discussed in the voting room when they were up for enshrinement. I've read that it was actually Walt Kiesling who was the mastermind behind the 5-2 Eagle, and that Greasy Neale simply went along with Kiesling's idea. I'm not sure of the validity, but at least it would be one thing that could explain Kiesling's enshrinement. I'm always for Don Coryell making the HOF, and my argument would almost entirely consist of vague "innovation", but he would be the exception. Perhaps Clark Shaughnessy would be a true "innovator" selection if he made the HOF, but I think he's been considered and dismissed already. To me, its an interesting topic that is worth discussing, because so much of winning games is dependent on the players (Chuck Noll said "Coaches coach, players win"), yet that is what is used to judge a coach's impact on the game.TanksAndSpartans wrote:Off the top of my head, I thought of Sid Gillman, but I get what you are saying - most of them are there for winning.
It definitely hasn't helped Buddy Parker (the originator of the two-minute offense) any.Bryan wrote:I agree that "innovation" is hard to define or assess, but what coaches have actually ridden the 'innovation' label into the HOF?
I was listing phrases used to make arguments for people NOT in the HOF, for or against.Bryan wrote:I agree that "innovation" is hard to define or assess, but what coaches have actually ridden the 'innovation' label into the HOF?Reaser wrote:I guess the other labels are "innovation" for coaches which always lacks the context and purpose of innovation