Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

bachslunch wrote: 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.

Elliott Harrison, the historian in residence at the NFL Network?

JeffreyMiller wrote:[

Elliott Harrison, the historian in residence at the NFL Network?

yes, and Joel Bussert, Joe Horrigan and one former president of the PFRA and Peter Schrader ( ) as an alternate

IMO Chris Wesseling >Elliott Harrison

JohnTurney wrote:

JeffreyMiller wrote:[

Elliott Harrison, the historian in residence at the NFL Network?

yes, and Joel Bussert, Joe Horrigan and one former president of the PFRA and Peter Schrader ( ) as an alternate

IMO Chris Wesseling >Elliott Harrison

Schrader?

Ken Crippen wrote:
Schrader?

Peter Schrager--my bad

ChrisBabcock wrote:

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.

Agreed, but the more I think about the Makeup Class, the more I'm trending down on it. Initially I thought it was a great idea to get some old-time players into the HOF, but if you really look at it I think you see that the HOF has done a great job at enshrining deserving players. I was reading a Turney historic OLB breakdown of HOF candidates, and Hickok said something like "great article, but I'm not really up in arms about any of these OLBs not being in the HOF".

That's kind of how I feel about a majority of these makeup candidates. I have my personal favorites of Chuck Howley, Mac Speedie & Don Coryell, but I can see why they aren't in the HOF. They have holes in their resumes. Looking at rewing's listing of former finalists who aren't in, Gradishar, Speedie and Slater are the only ones IMO who even have an argument of being 'snubbed'. Most of the people on that list shouldn't have even been finalists in the first place, IMO.

There just aren't that many "Benny Friedman's" left; guys who really were 'overlooked' for whatever reason. It seems like now we are rehashing Drew Pearson arguments and reinventing Ken Riley and so forth. I think the best "Makeup Class" candidates are the pre-1950's guys...Dilweg, Wistert, Slater, Lewellen. Yet it seems like these are the guys who continue to be ignored. JMO

Bryan wrote: There just aren't that many "Benny Friedman's" left; guys who really were 'overlooked' for whatever reason. It seems like now we are rehashing Drew Pearson arguments and reinventing Ken Riley and so forth. I think the best "Makeup Class" candidates are the pre-1950's guys...Dilweg, Wistert, Slater, Lewellen. Yet it seems like these are the guys who continue to be ignored. JMO

I agree with this. The remaining "Benny Friedmans" are pre-50s guys in my opinion as well - I would say mostly 10s and 20s plus Emerson and Wistert, but that doesn't seem to be the direction the makeup class is going although it looks like Slater has a chance. It's a 100 year anniversary, so I would grab players from 100 years ago plus/minus ten years or so. Making an all-decade team is one accolade that looks good on a resume, but sorry if this offends anyone, kind of a lazy way to vote especially if its just an excuse to grab recent players (players some folks were alive to watch play). I even read a really cynical opinion just the other day from someone who attended the recent induction ceremony that there isn't much interest in senior candidates because they don't generate merchandise sales. Hopefully, that's not true. I'm not against Drew Pearson or whoever getting in, but there is a normal/annual senior process for that already.

JohnTurney wrote:

Ken Crippen wrote:
Schrader?

Peter Schrager--my bad

No worries. I knew who you meant. I was just baffled at the selection. My bad on the lack of properly communicating that thought.