Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Haha ... I will admit, I love stirring the pot and love good debate. I wasnt trying to downplay Griese from the other post as much as boost an underrated Thompson, who played with one eye ! I think Griese was as graceful and smooth a QB, whether passing, scrambling or doing ball handling, as I have ever seen a QB for that time and deserves to make the HOF, though many people believe his stats were too pedestrian. Any QB would miss losing Warfield and Csonka. Griese might have also been the first to successfully draw penalties using his hard count cadence. A smart, tough QB ...

Thanks John ...

Eli may get in but he regressed so bad, it should take him awhile.
If he gets in, the noise for Plunkett and Simms will get considerably louder, much less Tommy Thompson who won two out of three championships. I believe Charlie Conerly should also be in the HOF but thats a post for another time after I read the fine views on that subject from this great association ...

Brian wolf wrote:Eli may get in but he regressed so bad, it should take him awhile.
If he gets in, the noise for Plunkett and Simms will get considerably louder, much less Tommy Thompson who won two out of three championships. I believe Charlie Conerly should also be in the HOF but thats a post for another time after I read the fine views on that subject from this great association ...

I think Tommy Thompson would be a better Hall of Fame choice than Jim Plunkett for sure, but I'm sorry to say I don't think there will be any "noise" for him at all. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if half of the Hall of Fame committee couldn't tell you who Thompson was.

Youre right Bob ...

Though I prefer winning QBs to spectacular throwers, the gifted passer/athletes will always fascinate voters of any generation. Conerly, Thompson, Plunkett and Simms might never reach the HOF but I will always admire their toughness, grit and ability to blend into the team concept.
We can admire throwers like Jurgensen, Hadl, Brodie, Moon, Fouts, Stafford and Rivers but their fan bases have to pretty frustrated in not winning more than they did but as we all know, luck, injuries and team chemistry/performance, factor as well.

Bob Gill wrote:

Brian wolf wrote:Eli may get in but he regressed so bad, it should take him awhile.
If he gets in, the noise for Plunkett and Simms will get considerably louder, much less Tommy Thompson who won two out of three championships. I believe Charlie Conerly should also be in the HOF but thats a post for another time after I read the fine views on that subject from this great association ...

I think Tommy Thompson would be a better Hall of Fame choice than Jim Plunkett for sure, but I'm sorry to say I don't think there will be any "noise" for him at all. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if half of the Hall of Fame committee couldn't tell you who Thompson was.

I'd take Connerly and Tommy over Plunkett and Phil, era adjusted they were simply better passers. And while all these were playing on talented teams the Eagles and Giants were more offense skewed - owing to their QB - than Plinketts Raiders and Simms Giants.

Bob Gill wrote:I think Tommy Thompson would be a better Hall of Fame choice than Jim Plunkett for sure, but I'm sorry to say I don't think there will be any "noise" for him at all. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if half of the Hall of Fame committee couldn't tell you who Thompson was.

Exactly, and you're probably being generous with half.

Looking at the number of pre-1950 players chosen for the HOVG in the past 10 years or so, it's hard not to conclude the same is true with the PFRA. To be fair though, the HOVG isn't the main purpose of the organization. Whereas with the HOF, choosing players kind of is.

TanksAndSpartans wrote:To be fair though, the HOVG isn't the main purpose of the organization. Whereas with the HOF, choosing players kind of is.

Plus, of course, there's a smaller pool of the "very best" (or supposed to be) than there is of "very good", especially when the latter includes the "very best" that get overlooked, too.

Reaser wrote:

TanksAndSpartans wrote:To be fair though, the HOVG isn't the main purpose of the organization. Whereas with the HOF, choosing players kind of is.

Plus, of course, there's a smaller pool of the "very best" (or supposed to be) than there is of "very good", especially when the latter includes the "very best" that get overlooked, too.

I agree with this. Because of the large pool, it’s possible to focus on post-war and still have excellent classes. I think Earl Morrall, Abner Haynes, Buddy Young I.e. players that I feel can’t be defended objectively are few and far between.

Back to the HOF, I think just choosing the top 10 posters on this board to be the centennial committee would have resulted in a more defendable class. If you’re that much of a Bears [insert team or even league like AFL] homer, you should have just recused yourself from the vote.

Bad game for Big Ben tonight but I believe he will be back next year. Will the Steelers allow it ?