Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Beattie Feathers

Gene Big Daddy Lipscomb

Clark Shaugnessy

Duke Slater

Mac Speedie

Ole Haugsrud

Tony Morabito

Charley Conerly

Marshall Goldberg

Jim Tyrer

Blanton Collier

Lee Roy Jordan

Lou Rymkus

LC Greenwood

Willie Gallimore

Ken Anderson

Donnie Shell

Randy Gradishar

Bob Kuechenberg

Jim Marshall

Paul Tagliabue

Don Coryell

Roger Craig

Lester Hayes

Ken Crippen wrote:

Rupert Patrick wrote:

bachslunch wrote:First reaction is that it’s going to be really tough to come up with 10 Contributors and 8 Coaches who are deserving for the preliminary group. Should be really easy to draw up a list of 20 deserving Seniors, though.

Anybody want to guess who will make up the preliminary group? Might take a crack at it later.

For Contributor, I think Steve Sabol is a slam dunk. Ed Sabol might have started NFL Films, but Steve Sabol was the always the heart (and for about 40 years, the face) of NFL Films.

You would think that Steve Sabol is a slam dunk, but I am not so sure. I have had a few HOF selectors tell me that since Ed Sabol is in, selectors may be hesitant to put in Steve for essentially doing the same thing as his father (and how much of it was Steve versus Ed?). Now, I do not agree with it, but that sentiment is out there among the people who actually have a say in who gets in.

I've always seen the Ed Sabol/Steve Sabol thing as similar to Art Rooney/Dan Rooney where the father set it up, and the son took what the father built and ran with it and took it to places the father never imagined it could possibly go. I don't think NFL Films would have evolved into what it became in it's prime, say, without the vision of Steve Sabol. I could be wrong, but I think once Steve learned the ropes of the business (by the early 1970's), Ed Sabol more or less took over the business side of NFL Films and Steve took over the creative end of the business. It sure seems that way from everything I have ever seen or read about the Sabols and the history of NFL Films. Even in Super Bowl XII, Steve Sabol was running around the Superdome with a camera, I don't remember Ed Sabol personally filming any football after Blair Pictures became NFL Films in 1964 or 1965. I would like to see somebody (not NFL Films, because it has to be somebody from the outside who can see the forest from the trees) do a in-depth documentary into the history of NFL Films to show it's genesis and evolution, how it became what it became.

bachslunch wrote:

BD Sullivan wrote:The HOF could truly destroy any credibility in this process by adding a "fan's vote" component to it. I don't expect that, but I certainly wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibility.

Agreed. I’m already less than thrilled with the possible membership of the Blue Ribbon Panel. Though there’s a way to include the public and make it meaningless — make the vote count for one candidate only and include it as one of 26 votes. It’ll be so diluted in the process that it essentially won’t count, but will give the illusion of meaningful participation.

Have to differ on this one. I don't think a fan vote would help at all. Some teams simply have more active fan bases and it would likely end up being like the Pro Bowl...with the tiebreaker factor heading the way. I think the Panel is fine, and even though it gives Riley a boost, it still would have to get past the senior committee and contributor committee guys who are (in theory) on the Panel. That coupled with Ozzie Newsome, Wolf, Polian, Accorsi, and other guest media members, they will do okay. As long as they try to keep it from beinga greedy "grab your share" thing where the "Portland Storm" voters pushed for Storm Players and the "Michigan Panthers" voter doesn't do the same. . .

One deserving Senior who might benefit from a slate that can’t miss being voted in would be Jim Tyrer.

Of course, if the slate is just controversial guys who won’t get in otherwise (Kraft, Tagliabue, Flores, Riley, Marshall, Tyrer, etc.), there’s a slim chance the whole thing could fail. Hopefully sanity will prevail.

bachslunch wrote:One deserving Senior who might benefit from a slate that can’t miss being voted in would be Jim Tyrer.

Of course, if the slate is just controversial guys who won’t get in otherwise (Kraft, Tagliabue, Flores, Riley, Marshall, Tyrer, etc.), there’s a slim chance the whole thing could fail. Hopefully sanity will prevail.

Agreed 1000%

rewing84 wrote:

bachslunch wrote:One deserving Senior who might benefit from a slate that can’t miss being voted in would be Jim Tyrer.

Of course, if the slate is just controversial guys who won’t get in otherwise (Kraft, Tagliabue, Flores, Riley, Marshall, Tyrer, etc.), there’s a slim chance the whole thing could fail. Hopefully sanity will prevail.

Agreed 1000%

I am sure you didn't mean Flores, Marshall et al. are controversial in the same way Tyrer or even Kraft are …

Tyrer is an interesting case. It could be argued that mental health played a role in his "crime," which would certainly differentiate it from, say, OJ Simpson's … still a hard row to hoe to get him in, I think.

JohnTurney wrote:https://footballmaven.io/talkoffame/nfl ... AMHnANVDQ/

It's interesting that there could be folks polarizing enough (like Tagliabue) who could sink the whole slate. It's certainly possible, though it would be a PR nightmare if it happened. Which is why the slate needs to be selected with at least some eye towards electability. Either that, or they change the process and just bypass the general committee altogether, though that's not going to happen.

Also interesting that the Blue Ribbon Committee will have several categories of members. Per the article John cited:

"the Hall of Fame said that its 15 nominees of seniors, contributors and coaches for 2020 would be chosen by a special “blue-ribbon committee” composed of Pro Football Hall-of-Fame voters, Hall of Famers themselves, media members, football historians and industry experts."

Hall of Famers and media members may or may not be especially biased in their approach. The HoF voters and historians may be more even-handed. No idea what "industry experts" means. Also not sure who they consider a "historian" here -- if it's what the BBHoF considers as such, not so much, sorry to say; maybe the folks here will be different.

It's interesting that there could be folks polarizing enough (like Tagliabue) who could sink the whole slate.

Why the method of electing the entire slate thumbs up or thumbs down on this all of a sudden? Why not consider each nominee on his own as its been done for decades. One "poison pill" candidate, whether it be Tagliabue, Riley, or whoever, could kill the whole thing. It seems like an expanded list of nominees would be less of a reason to vote for everyone as a package to minimize the likelihood of a PR nightmare happening with nobody getting elected. Why not nominate 10 seniors, and if 6-7 get in, fantastic.