Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

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.

Many Cowboy fans claim Hayes "changed the game" because zone defenses were allegedly invented in response to his speed. Of course, this overlooks the inconvenient truth that the Colts (and maybe others) were were playing zone defenses as early as the late 50s. I don't have the cite in front of me, but I'm pretty sure "The First Fifty Years" mentions the Colts playing zone defense in the 50s.

Generally used when someone wasn't clearly the best player and/or best at their position people tend to add these things on -- or if for some reason they feel the need to attempt to further validate a clear HOF level player.

It reminds me of the old Bettis v. TD debates on our forum. The TD crowd could list actual accomplishments and honors (MVP, OPOY, etc) and the Bettis crowd had to go the other route and listed things like "he put fear into the defense" and other such trifling 'accomplishments'. Both eventually got in so it doesn't matter as the same with over half of the players mentioned in the OP who will obviously get in eventually -- perhaps as soon as tomorrow for some.

I liked when Belichick said, "I really don't know what the criteria is for the HOF" this week which pretty much sums it all up. The HOF overall, who votes, who gets in, etc.

Left out of the above is the "rings" argument, which I was surprised -or at least seemed out of character, to me- when Bruce said that today. Talked about how he brought all his family to Minnesota because he's confident he'll go in tomorrow and when asked about the 'logjam' at WR and while essentially comparing himself to Moss and Owens, "I have a ring" was what his reasoning was on why he's sure he's getting in out of that WR group this year.

As said here, many times, "rings" are a team accomplishment. While not making a "rings" argument one thing I will say, other than it being the point of the sport -to win the championship- is that at least it's something tangible. Being a champion. As opposed to the ever growing collection of random and overused phrases assigned to just about anyone who was above-average or better.


I think changing the game, or doing something different, help with HOF induction, but aren't the whole enchilada. That's partly why we won't see players like Randall Cunningham and Michael Vick in Canton. Jerome Bettis had both the production and unique size, which inevitably resulted in the gold jacket. We'll never see another back at that size, fifth all time in yardage, and fourth all time in 100 yard games when they retire. More than 20 pounds heavier, and far slower than John Riggins.

Winning and rings must also be included when talking about HOF candidates, but it cannot completely lift a player like Darryl Johnston, who was only great at a very specific skill set. A borderline HOF player can use use success to help them over the top. Players like Henry Ellard, Brandon Marshall, Tony Romo, etc., just didn't help themselves enough in this area.

L.C. Greenwood wrote: Jerome Bettis had both the production and unique size, which inevitably resulted in the gold jacket. We'll never see another back at that size, fifth all time in yardage, and fourth all time in 100 yard games when they retire.

Why?

fgoodwin wrote:

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.

Many Cowboy fans claim Hayes "changed the game" because zone defenses were allegedly invented in response to his speed. Of course, this overlooks the inconvenient truth that the Colts (and maybe others) were were playing zone defenses as early as the late 50s. I don't have the cite in front of me, but I'm pretty sure "The First Fifty Years" mentions the Colts playing zone defense in the 50s.

Zone defenses in some form around far before Hayes played. According to TJ Troup the receiver that had zone coverage roll to his (the weak) side was Harlon Hill, then Shofner, then Hayes.

JohnTurney wrote:

fgoodwin wrote:

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.

Many Cowboy fans claim Hayes "changed the game" because zone defenses were allegedly invented in response to his speed. Of course, this overlooks the inconvenient truth that the Colts (and maybe others) were were playing zone defenses as early as the late 50s. I don't have the cite in front of me, but I'm pretty sure "The First Fifty Years" mentions the Colts playing zone defense in the 50s.

Zone defenses in some form around far before Hayes played. According to TJ Troup the receiver that had zone coverage roll to his (the weak) side was Harlon Hill, then Shofner, then Hayes.

Not to mention the fact that zone defenses were used almost exclusively by almost all AFL teams in the first couple of years that the league existed. There was much focus, understandably, on skill players that AFL receivers far outclassed the DBs.

L.C. Greenwood wrote:I think changing the game, or doing something different, help with HOF induction, but aren't the whole enchilada. That's partly why we won't see players like Randall Cunningham and Michael Vick in Canton. Jerome Bettis had both the production and unique size, which inevitably resulted in the gold jacket. We'll never see another back at that size, fifth all time in yardage, and fourth all time in 100 yard games when they retire. More than 20 pounds heavier, and far slower than John Riggins.

How many players were able to make the HOF simply because they did something different, or changed the game? I can't think of one. Cunningham and Vick changed the game, but in the case of Cunningham his career came up short of the HOF; I think if he had led the Vikings to a Super Bowl in 1998, he might merit HOVG consideration. Although he played many years, Cunningham played more than 12 games only five seasons in his career, he was often injured. As great as he was in 1998, leading the Vikings to a 15-1 record and an NFL record number of points scored in a season, he was benched in favor of Jeff George the following season and was released before the 2000 season. Cunningham when healthy was great, but that wasn't often enough to make him one of the all time greats. Vick was a very good running QB, perhaps the best pure runner of the running QB's since Tarkenton, but he lost two prime years of his career followed by spending a third full season on the bench in Philadelphia before he got a chance at a starting job again, and the stain of his personal issues tarnished his career. Michael Vick never lived up to his potential either.

As far as changing the game, the Gogolak brothers changed the game, but they are not in the HOF. Jan Stenerud was the first kicker to have great success kicking soccer-style, and at his peak from 1967-1970, he was the greatest kicker who ever lived and he deserved to be the first soccer-style kicker to go into the HOF.

Devin Hester was more successful at anybody at returning punts and kickoffs for touchdowns, but I studied many of his returns and all of his touchdowns to see if there was something he was doing differently that made him better, and I couldn't find it. He just saw the hole open up and hit it and he was gone, and he was better at doing it than everybody else. He didn't change the game, he didn't do anything different, he didn't change the strategy of the opposing team other than they would punt it out of bounds or try to punt it away from him, he didn't have a style that others could emulate, but he just had a knack for seeing things develop a second or two ahead of time that you can't teach, and that's what made him better than everybody else.

As for Bettis, we'll see others of his size. He was bigger and slower than Riggo, but Riggins was big and had speed (he was a high school track champion), but both of them were impossible to bring down once they got a head of steam going. Bettis was a controversial Hall of Fame choice in this forum, but he had eight 1,000-yard seasons. Emmitt Smith leads with 11 1,000-yard seasons, followed by Sanders, Payton and Curtis Martin with 10 each. Frank Gore has nine, and those with eight include Franco Harris, LaDainian Tomlinson, Thurman Thomas, Tony Dorsett, Steven Jackson and Bettis. All are either HOF or likely (I think Gore is likely at this point) and Jackson is probably HOVG. Jackson was only in four postseason games, Bettis was in 14, and scored nine touchdowns in those games. Do I think Bettis was a first ballot Hall of Famer? No, he was not Jim Brown or Jerry Rice or Reggie White, but he was deserving of the Hall of Fame, and after Franco Harris the second greatest running back in Steelers history, although Le'Veon Bell is closing in on that title if he sticks around much longer. If I had third-and-one or fourth-and-one, and could choose any running back in pro football history to get that first down, I would choose Riggins first and Bettis second.

JWL wrote:

L.C. Greenwood wrote: Jerome Bettis had both the production and unique size, which inevitably resulted in the gold jacket. We'll never see another back at that size, fifth all time in yardage, and fourth all time in 100 yard games when they retire.

Why?

Because the big backs tend to have a short shelf life anyway, and to see a roughly 250 pound back dish out and absorb that kind of punishment for so long is amazing. Plus, the game has changed substantially since Bettis entered the NFL in the mid 90s.

Does Sid Luckman count? Though he didn't devise the modern T formation, he was the first great T quarterback.

L.C. Greenwood wrote:

JWL wrote:

L.C. Greenwood wrote: Jerome Bettis had both the production and unique size, which inevitably resulted in the gold jacket. We'll never see another back at that size, fifth all time in yardage, and fourth all time in 100 yard games when they retire.

Why?

Because the big backs tend to have a short shelf life anyway, and to see a roughly 250 pound back dish out and absorb that kind of punishment for so long is amazing. Plus, the game has changed substantially since Bettis entered the NFL in the mid 90s.

We often hear about advances in medicine and science. I don't see how a fat guy couldn't last longer in the future than ones have in the past.

I fail to see why Bettis being a porker is something that amounts to a feather in his cap.

Does it matter that Drew Brees is short for a quarterback? Will a guy like Peter King give Brees bonus points when the committee has to decide how quickly he makes it into the Hall of Fame?

It is something for us to talk about if it is some silly type of list exercise. "Let's make a list of the fattest players of all time." "Oh, NFL Network is doing a top ten show on the most medium-sized best quarterbacks of all time. I'm setting my DVR."

Why should size matter when determining if a player was great enough for Hall induction?

Because the big backs tend to have a short shelf life anyway, and to see a roughly 250 pound back dish out and absorb that kind of punishment for so long is amazing. Plus, the game has changed substantially since Bettis entered the NFL in the mid 90s.[/quote]

We often hear about advances in medicine and science. I don't see how a fat guy couldn't last longer in the future than ones have in the past.

I fail to see why Bettis being a porker is something that amounts to a feather in his cap.

Does it matter that Drew Brees is short for a quarterback? Will a guy like Peter King give Brees bonus points when the committee has to decide how quickly he makes it into the Hall of Fame?

It is something for us to talk about if it is some silly type of list exercise. "Let's make a list of the fattest players of all time." "Oh, NFL Network is doing a top ten show on the most medium-sized best quarterbacks of all time. I'm setting my DVR."

Why should size matter when determining if a player was great enough for Hall induction?[/quote]




It will take more than medicine and science to produce another unique back like Jerome Bettis. Other huge backs could only sustain a high level for a limited time before the inevitable wear and tear caught up to them. Bettis was truly an outlier, and to have only three backs with more than his 61 career 100 yard games at the time of his retirement is a great achievement. Without speed, Bettis could not rip off those chunks of yardage other HOF RBs did on a regular basis. It's like asking Steve Largent to take the top off a defense, that wasn't his game. What Bettis did excel at, was wearing down defenses, and that was a big factor in the success of those Steelers teams.

And the era of ball control is virtually gone in today's NFL, where the rules have been engineered to help the passing game. The style of play which involved imposing your physical will over the opponent is virtually extinct. Teams can move the ball faster and easier with the pass today, and they are also helped by the player safety rules.

Excelling at a high level while not having the prototype characteristics of other players should absolutely be included in the portfolio of a HOF candidate.