Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

JohnH19 wrote:

JohnTurney wrote:

Bryan wrote: Don't worry, I brought it up in the Steve Young thread. Go big or go home, Mr. Turney.

LOL, I probably should go home. Not making much headway here

Looking forward to the QB list, John. Especially for your thoughts on Sir Francis who I feel should have clearly been first ballot.

I only commented on those who got in 1st try who, in my view, were debious. But Tarkenton, like Page should have been, IMO, first ballot. Tark was like Marino with more SB appearances. He was left out 1st try due to AFL-NFL rivalry B.S. by cruddy voters in the mid-1980s

JohnTurney wrote:Some people don't even like that designation, others I have read think there is something to it. I am in the latter group. I do think there are some players whose careers stand out among standouts. And those players should be rewarded with the extra designation of getting in right away.

Joe Schmidt, Night Train, Alan Page to name a few who should be considered top 4 in their positions who were not first-ballot for one reason or another.

I think the whole "First-ballot" thing is a Baseball argument. The sheer number of ballots in the Baseball HOF allows for voting anonymity, and the result is that you have voters leaving deserving players completely off their ballot because they aren't "First-ballot", or not voting for a deserving player because they turned them down for an interview 20 years ago. Some years, there are no players enshrined in Cooperstown. Look at this year's Baseball HOF class...you have Trevor Hoffman (who was slightly worse than Billy Wagner) getting in while Bonds/Clemens are shut out, which would be like Everson Walls making the cut this year while Ray Lewis is left off the list...you have Chipper Jones collecting an astounding 97.2% of the vote (more than Babe Ruth or Ted Williams) and Sammy Sosa getting 7.8% of the vote...I won't even go into the whole Jack Morris case...there is no logic to any of it. Simply put, a sports HOF is about recognizing the best players. Once you start getting away from that simplicity and adding complexity such as "First ballot", then its a slippery-slope to what the Baseball HOF has become.

I don't agree with the 'extra designation' of getting in right away. Its still the same process. The only 'extra designation' I can recall is when the NHL HOF put in Mario Lemieux when he announced his retirement. Looking at the Pro Football HOF, I don't really see much of a pattern to the "First ballot" designation. I honestly didn't know that Dan Fouts/Jim Kelly/Warren Moon were 1st ballot guys. I didn't know that Schmidt/Lane/Page weren't 1st ballot until I read your posting. Knowing this information now does not impact my thoughts on those players...I still consider Fouts/Kelly/Moon to be borderline HOFers, and I still consider Schmidt/Lane/Page to be amongst the very best at their position. The same thing kind of applies to this year's HOF class. I admittedly am likely in the minority thinking that Urlacher was a bonafide HOFer, but I had no problem with him being 1st ballot. The coincidental fact that Urlacher went in to the HOF with Ray Lewis does not have me thinking that Urlacher was the equal to Lewis...but in some sense they are because (IMO) they were both clear HOF players.

All in all, besides a few head-scratchers, I think the NFL does a much better job staying true to its purpose when compared to the MLB HOF, and I think one of the reasons for that is the absence of additional "First Ballot" criteria. I don't really understand the anti-Pro Football HOF sentiment expressed in this thread. I thought this year's class was very good, as they usually are.

Great thread -- enjoyed reading the thoughts here.

I think it's easy to get burned out on Hall of Fame discussion, though that hasn't happened in my case.

The frustration with fairness is a real and legitimate issue, and it affect both the Football and Baseball Halls. One of the things that will never make this issue ideal is the committee nature of selection by people who may or may not have:

-much understanding of what constitutes a Hall-worthy resume.

-may or may not be wedded to outdated thinking.

-any agreement on how strict the criteria should be, or in some cases, what they should be at all.

-who merits enshrinement from the Senior or Veterans or whatever-you-call-it old timers committees.

In some ways, given the old adage of the camel as a horse designed by committee should lend some hope. It really says the system isn't perfect, but it probably works better than we might expect. The PFHoF keeps pushing good folks in the door but the sink just keeps refilling. And the BBHoF has actually started to react to the idea that we really have a lot of great players on the docket and letting them fall to the Veteran's Committee isn't wise. Classes have been three and four deep since the debacle of no one being elected a few years ago, and rightly so; even Tim Raines made it in on his last try, and Edgar Martinez is on the cusp in his final go.

And regarding the fairness issue, I guess it's a lot to expect the various Halls to be any more fair than anything else in life. Some things in life are gotten right and others just aren't. Among lots of other interests, I greatly enjoy the arts, fine and popular, including film and including animated features. Movies like the "Toy Story" franchise, "The Lion King," and "Beauty and the Beast" are justifiably famous, and if there were an animated film Hall, they'd get in first ballot. But other terrific flicks like "Bolt," "Cat's Don't Dance," and "Watership Down" don't get their due -- they'd be the Johnny Robinsons and Chuck Howleys of the genre, am thinking, hoping to get the recognition they merit. It's a problem everywhere in life. Hard to accept, but so be it.

I find it all fascinating because of the history, the evolving dynamics, the evaluation and changing of criteria. Maybe I'm easy to please, who knows?

Bryan wrote:
I don't agree with the 'extra designation' of getting in right away. Its still the same process. .

Well, it is sure learning that way for me. I still think is should be a "thing" but others have their own views. And with the names you mention getting in right away and the Page, Schmidt, etc. not getting in, there is a pretty good track record of errors.

This has been a topic among a small number of people, face it, there are not that many people who follow the HOF process

http://www.talkoffamenetwork.com/voters ... lls-queue/

But that is why I have been curious to see what people think. The term "first ballot" was used a lot by writers when they wrote about various players this year, so it seems like an apt subject.

Anyway, beginning this year, I am beginning to think the designation doesn't mean much in historical terms. In terms of the process is does mean the player has broad-based support and that usually means fewer flaws in the resume, if any. But, it could also mean you were a great QB (Fouts/Young/Kelly/Moon) with some flaws in the "resume".

But, it could also mean you were a great QB (Fouts/Young/Kelly/Moon) with some flaws in the "resume".

Entertaining discussion so far. The above could also mean... "Had flaws in their resume but didn't have much 'competition' for votes the year he became first ballot and therefore sailed right in". Case in point, Kelly. When he got elected I was actually shocked he got in on the first try. But if memory serves me right, he didn't have much competition for votes at the QB position. How many other decent QBs retired around 1996-ish? Fast forward to this year, we have 2 LBs... one a slam dunk first ballot and another a lot of us are rather surprised he got in first ballot.... but enough voters thought highly enough of Urlacher. So be it. Suppose he fell short this year, and gets in next or the year after that is it because he somehow accomplished more to add to his resume? When its all said and done, both guys are “in”. I guess I fall into the “either he is or he isn’t” camp. Do the voters actually withhold their “yes” votes for a few years because they don’t feel a guy is first ballot and want to make him wait? (I don’t know, I’m actually asking.)

ChrisBabcock wrote: is or he isn’t” camp. Do the voters actually withhold their “yes” votes for a few years because they don’t feel a guy is first ballot and want to make him wait? (I don’t know, I’m actually asking.)

They used to, I don't know now. All I know is they write about it. Dan Pompei was avid about BU getting in right away. So at least to him, this year, it mattered.

JohnTurney wrote:They used to, I don't know now. All I know is they write about it. Dan Pompei was avid about BU getting in right away. So at least to him, this year, it mattered.

He's also a Chicago based writer. No wonder it mattered to him. Could be written off to provincial thinking, am guessing.

bachslunch wrote:

JohnTurney wrote:They used to, I don't know now. All I know is they write about it. Dan Pompei was avid about BU getting in right away. So at least to him, this year, it mattered.

He's also a Chicago based writer. No wonder it mattered to him. Could be written off to provincial thinking, am guessing.

He was the presenter and a personal friend, I think. So yeah, that was certainly his motive. I guess I thought everyone knew who he was, but yeah. My point was it matters to him when it is close to home. I don't know if it matters to him for other players

JohnTurney wrote:

bachslunch wrote:

JohnTurney wrote:They used to, I don't know now. All I know is they write about it. Dan Pompei was avid about BU getting in right away. So at least to him, this year, it mattered.

He's also a Chicago based writer. No wonder it mattered to him. Could be written off to provincial thinking, am guessing.

He was the presenter and a personal friend, I think. So yeah, that was certainly his motive. I guess I thought everyone knew who he was, but yeah. My point was it matters to him when it is close to home. I don't know if it matters to him for other players

A sportswriter should never be a personal friend to an active player. That's one of the big problems with Ron Borges, aside from his being a plagiarist. He was and is a good buddy of Drew Bledsoe and he's carried a grudge against Belichick and Brady ever since Bledsoe didn't get his starting job back after returning from his injury. If he's still a voter when Brady and/or Belichick are due for HOF consideration, Borges might be the only voter who ever argued against a candidate from the team he covered.

rhickok1109 wrote: A sportswriter should never be a personal friend to an active player. That's one of the big problems with Ron Borges, aside from his being a plagiarist. He was and is a good buddy of Drew Bledsoe and he's carried a grudge against Belichick and Brady ever since Bledsoe didn't get his starting job back after returning from his injury. If he's still a voter when Brady and/or Belichick are due for HOF consideration, Borges might be the only voter who ever argued against a candidate from the team he covered.

I know he's pushing hard for Ty Law. I heard that he has an anti-Patriot bias... but even if he's there, not sure he could vote against B & B, but I get your point and voters who are too close should recuse themselves, but they likely never would. A snowball would have a better chance in Hell.