Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

I'm very late to the party,

1- Dilweg
2- Wistert
3- Emerson

4- Lewellen




5- Brito

adding conace21

Dilweg 12
Wistert 10
Emerson 10
Lewellen 9


Christensen 3
Barwegan 3
Brito 3
Benton 2
Latone 2


guys with 1
Benton
Jim Ray Smith
Kopcha
Dunn
Rymkus
Isbell
Farkas
Towler

Looks like it's fairly set--4 guys "truly" supported

a second set--somewhat supported...of course small sample, but in my view I expected
about this---there are 4 candidates plus maybe 5-10 more that are okay, but
not blindingly missing...

Dilweg 12
Wistert 10
Emerson 10
Lewellen 9


Christensen 3
Barwegan 3
Brito 3
Benton 2
Latone 2

Howton and Patton probably deserve to be on this list as well but their careers were going on when the HOF opened. Al Nesser might be a good representative of his pre-NFL family of player-coaches and Stackstater is another possibility.

Brian wolf wrote:Al Nesser might be a good representative of his pre-NFL family of player-coaches and Stackstater is another possibility.

The thing with Al Nesser is that he was not the best of the Nesser's. However, he would be the only one that would be considered, because he played the most in the NFL.

We have Al and Ted in the HOVG. It has me wondering why one or both aren't in the HOF. Not necessarily for their play, but their contributions to early days of pro football.

sluggermatt15 wrote:We have Al and Ted in the HOVG. It has me wondering why one or both aren't in the HOF. Not necessarily for their play, but their contributions to early days of pro football.

In my opinion, Ted was the better of the two, but would not complain if Al got recognition. However, neither are going to get a sniff at the HOF. I do not see the selectors spending any time doing pre-NFL stuff. We have a tough enough time getting them to look at anyone prior to 1970 as it is.

With the support that Christensen gets, it seems inevitable that he at least makes the HOVG this year but we shall see. Unlike last year, I will support more super-senior nominees myself, at least pre-1960.

Ken Crippen wrote:

sluggermatt15 wrote:We have Al and Ted in the HOVG. It has me wondering why one or both aren't in the HOF. Not necessarily for their play, but their contributions to early days of pro football.

In my opinion, Ted was the better of the two, but would not complain if Al got recognition. However, neither are going to get a sniff at the HOF. I do not see the selectors spending any time doing pre-NFL stuff. We have a tough enough time getting them to look at anyone prior to 1970 as it is.

I think at least part of the problem is time. 1970 is over 50 years ago. Maybe to the selectors before then is way too long ago. On the topic of pre-NFL days, that is roughly 100 years ago, and I agree that the selectors no longer acknowledge its existence.

sluggermatt15 wrote:

Ken Crippen wrote:

sluggermatt15 wrote:We have Al and Ted in the HOVG. It has me wondering why one or both aren't in the HOF. Not necessarily for their play, but their contributions to early days of pro football.

In my opinion, Ted was the better of the two, but would not complain if Al got recognition. However, neither are going to get a sniff at the HOF. I do not see the selectors spending any time doing pre-NFL stuff. We have a tough enough time getting them to look at anyone prior to 1970 as it is.

I think at least part of the problem is time. 1970 is over 50 years ago. Maybe to the selectors before then is way too long ago. On the topic of pre-NFL days, that is roughly 100 years ago, and I agree that the selectors no longer acknowledge its existence.

Selectors are naturally going to favor people they covered or watched as they were growing up. Older selectors are retiring and you are going to get younger selectors in place. The problem will naturally get worse.