Gronkowski Retires

[Bob Gill]

Absolutely, Adam. For both Grange and Thorpe, their inclusion in the PFHoF was based on their importance to the game in general rather than their ability or accomplishments on the field.

That's a big overstatement. From 1915 to 1919 Thorpe was the best player in pro football, bar none. He led his team to the (unofficial) championship three years in a row, omitting the 1918 season when almost nobody played. That wasn't the case after the NFL was formed, but it's the PRO FOOTBALL Hall of Fame, and Thorpe was an automatic selection, as he should've been.

Grange was also an outstanding running back -- not in Thorpe's class as a player, but a genuine HOF candidate. Add in his importance to the league in a publicity sense and I'd say he belongs. Taken altogether, his case probably resembles Joe Namath's: Great player for a while, and you can't tell the history of the game without mentioning him prominently.

Not that I'm advocating either of them for Rupert's list of guys who changed the game. Their impact in that sense was mostly off the field, and I take it that's not what he's trying to measure.

[conace21]

Grange did make a pair of All Pro teams, but after the 1920's were over. He also had two big plays in Chicago's first two postseason games, with the TD catch from Nagurski against Portsmouth, and the gamesaving tackle of Dale Burnett on the last play against NY. Grange does seem to have had a HOF-worthy career, but his fame overshadowed his professional accomplishments.

Thorpe was the most obvious choice for the all-1910's team. I think he was still a very good player in the first few years of the NFL, but age, his lack of practice habits, and alcohol took their toll. Thorpe is worthy of the HOF based on his pre-20's accomplishments alone.

However, when using the arbitrary standard of a decade to encapsulate a player's career, neither Grange nor Thorpe belong on an all-20's Team. There were better players in that decade, even if they weren't as famous. Grange might well be a worthy selection for a mythical 1925-1934 team.

[JeffreyMiller]

Absolutely, Adam. For both Grange and Thorpe, their inclusion in the PFHoF was based on their importance to the game in general rather than their ability or accomplishments on the field.

That's a big overstatement. From 1915 to 1919 Thorpe was the best player in pro football, bar none. He led his team to the (unofficial) championship three years in a row, omitting the 1918 season when almost nobody played. That wasn't the case after the NFL was formed, but it's the PRO FOOTBALL Hall of Fame, and Thorpe was an automatic selection, as he should've been.

Grange was also an outstanding running back -- not in Thorpe's class as a player, but a genuine HOF candidate. Add in his importance to the league in a publicity sense and I'd say he belongs. Taken altogether, his case probably resembles Joe Namath's: Great player for a while, and you can't tell the history of the game without mentioning him prominently.

Not that I'm advocating either of them for Rupert's list of guys who changed the game. Their impact in that sense was mostly off the field, and I take it that's not what he's trying to measure.

True that Thorpe greatest years were pre-APFA and NFL, and even though I cannot speak for the voters of the charter PFHoF class, I am inclined to believe they were looking at NFL players primarily. Thorpe was an obvious choice for the charter class for much the same reason he was chosen as the league's first president ... his fame.

And while Grange had some shining moments, I don't think someone with a similar resume who played after, say, 1940, would be considered a HOFer.

But that's just my two cents ...

[TanksAndSpartans]

Great discussion around this! Until they change the name to the "NFL Hall of Fame", the 1920 cutoff will remain an arbitrary reason to exclude a player, in my opinion. But I agree, Thorpe being in the initial class is most likely something they got right for the wrong reasons. I think their cluelessness was confirmed by adding him to an All-decade team in a decade that his only All-Pro selection was basically a gift as he was past his prime that season and played for a team that was kind of a carnival attraction. Should Thorpe be on Rupert's list? I would say yes - even if my argument about him being Pop Warner's prototype for the tailback position, a position in a formation that would remain relevant for decades doesn't hold water, then my fall back position would be he was like a Nagurski, a big back who could run over and away from people and hit hard on defense. And similarly, a player other players like to talk about when telling their old "war stories".

As far as Grange's career, I was thinking something similar, does he still get in if you move it to the 40s or 50s? Maybe as a Doak Walker type candidate, I would say yes, he did win a couple unofficial rushing titles, made a game clenching play in a championship game, etc. What I disagree with is stuff like putting him in the NFL top 100 group, kind of lazy research in my opinion. Even without the injury, I don't see the evidence in the pre-injury newspaper accounts that he was a Gale Sayers type. A lot of backs look like Gale Sayers in college. Grange himself has been quoted recognizing the difference in competition level.

[JWL]

I don't think a generations of kids said, "Look at that Tarkenton. He does something nobody ever thought of before. I want to be a great quarterback too.
Tomorrow at recess I am going to do this scrambling thing and run around all crazy like and then throw a pass to a receiver."

I don't know about "generations" but I know of one kid who grew up in New York City who idolized Fran and copied his style.
I played with and against him for twenty years and I couldn't tell you which was more exhausting, chasing him or blocking for him.

The problem is I don't see it as changing the game. Legions of quarterbacks after Tarkenton did not start scrambling because the game was suddenly changed because of him. No, those who could scramble, scrambled. Those would could not scramble, did not scramble.

I must be defining the phrase in a very literal sense and everybody else is using it in a more figurative way. Maybe the only players who actually changed the game were those who caused the league to alter a rule such as Mel Blount or Deacon Jones or Night Train Lane (were clothesline tackles eradicated because of Lane?). Maybe you also can point to Roy Williams for the horse collar tackle rule, although many players besides Williams were guilty. The helmet removal penalty was put in place because of Emmitt Smith and/or Keyshawn Johnson.

I think the competition committee and the coaches have been the real game changers.

As for Gronkowski, I believe he was a great player, maybe unique, and was not a game changer at all.

[sheajets]

He was great when healthy, but he wasn't healthy often. That 9 year career looks even smaller because of that.

And even when healthy he only had 90+ catches once.

Likable, larger than life persona. Playoff and Super Bowl success. But that comes with playing on New England. They won Super Bowls before him. If he never played in NE they would find some other method that I am sure of

Witten, Sharpe, Gates, Gonzalez, peak Graham. I'd all take those over Gronkowski. Gronkowski is in the 2nd tier. Albeit at the very top of the 2nd tier

[JuggernautJ]

I don't think a generations of kids said, "Look at that Tarkenton. He does something nobody ever thought of before. I want to be a great quarterback too.
Tomorrow at recess I am going to do this scrambling thing and run around all crazy like and then throw a pass to a receiver."

I don't know about "generations" but I know of one kid who grew up in New York City who idolized Fran and copied his style.
I played with and against him for twenty years and I couldn't tell you which was more exhausting, chasing him or blocking for him.

The problem is I don't see it as changing the game....

Neither do I.
I was simply sharing a Fran-related anecdote.

Regarding Thorpe and Grange, the folks who elected them to the inaugural class in the HoF were a lot closer to their playing days than we were. And maybe a few of the electors knew a bit about the game. I am more than comfortable with the inclusion of Grange and Thorpe in Canton.

[sheajets]

I've always wondered, what does "change the game" actually mean? Is it that he was so good that teams were turning over stones everywhere to find the next one. Is it that he changed the way rules were enforced? Is it that he changed the definition of his position. He did things at his position thought exceedingly rare or impossible (Vick, Taylor) so that offenses or defenses had to do things they never did before to defend. Often times guys that were just so head an shoulders above his peers it seemed like they were from the from the future

Plenty of guys changed the game without being great players. Plenty of great players never changed the game. They were bolts out of the blue but had no impact on the natural evolution of the game

[JWL]

I was simply sharing a Fran-related anecdote.

Okay. Yeah, on that I agree. Many kids and even sometimes adults would try to emulate the pros.

[JuggernautJ]

I was simply sharing a Fran-related anecdote.

Okay. Yeah, on that I agree. Many kids and even sometimes adults would try to emulate the pros.

Just for completeness, this was a sandlot/semi-pro QB who played for over twenty years and won substantially more than half of the leagues he played in. Les had a lot of success "emulating" Fran's style.