Bryant Young HoF

[Hail Casares]

Probably for the best. The "pros vs. joes" logic just really doesn't hold up any stronger than someone who never played or coached...but especially played at that level. I can't imagine going up to Schlereth, Tobek, Timmerman, Roaf (who is in the HOF) or whomever vouched for Young on that panel and essentially telling them their opinion is full of bunk and laughable because I watched so-n-so player on my TV screen or in the stands at best, and know better compared to you who actually was down there in the trenches going up against the likes of Sapp, Randle, Perry, let alone Young himself. That would be an interesting conversation. I'm sure it would go swell for the average online yahoo where the best flex in your arsenal is "but this sportswriter at the time said..."

That's not what is even being said here at this point. Turney is also simultaneously arguing that Bryant>Sapp because of these testimonials. I can provide long winded quotes from people like Faneca, Ogden, Brooks et al. that call Sapp "the best ever yada yada" which would then completely negate Turney's point. He knows that.


It's why he's chosen to not respond and ignore the point.

What if I reached out to the people I knew who played in the NFL at the same point in time and got 3 or 4 of them to say "Young was a good player, but not a HOF'er." Then where are we at? The faulty assumption is that there isn't opinion to the other side of the issue...which there is...as illustrated by Andy's points and comments earlier in the thread. IE, pointing out the AP teams Young wasn't named to that were voted on by these same players during Bryant's career.

[Andy Piascik]

I've posted here multiple times at some length and never once cited any "joes" as a source or in any way referenced anything by or about "joes." On the contrary, I have repeatedly mentioned that EXPERTS who evaluated Young AT THE TIME HE WAS PLAYING (as opposed to 20 years later) determined, based on how infrequently they included him on their all-pro teams (no more than twice in a 14-year career and that includes second team as well as first), that he was a good and an occasionally very good player but in no way, shape or form a Hall of Famer. We have to wonder how shocked, stunned and flabbergasted they are at Young's election to the HOF.

And there should be shock and disappointment that we now have in the HOF a guy who EXPERTS determined AT THE TIME HE WAS PLAYING was one of the four best DTs in the NFL exactly twice in 14 years. As I said earlier, the HOF better start looking around Canton for a whole bunch of land to buy because if that's the standard, then they're going to have to build a whole new big wing to accommodate all the guys on the outside looking in who were as good as or better than Young.

[Bryan]

Not to pour gasoline onto the fire, but I always confused Bryant Young with Junior Bryant when both guys were at Notre Dame. If Bryant Young were a HOFer, that never could have happened. j/k

[JuggernautJ]

I find it interesting that two such esteemed football historians (Messrs. Turney and Piascik) can come to two such different conclusions when reviewing the same facts. It shows (me) that history is open to interpretation and not always as black-and-white as we might wish.

Without taking sides (and while admitting I am not entirely impartial) I would like to point out that perspective can change our perceptions and appraisals of history over time. That's the way it should be (imo). We grow (and hopefully get wiser as we age) and as we do our understanding of a subject matures with us.

I think there is more than enough room for (at least) two diverse opinions on most subjects and that informed adults can state those views without belittling or antagonizing each other.

[Hail Casares]

Not to pour gasoline onto the fire, but I always confused Bryant Young with Junior Bryant when both guys were at Notre Dame. If Bryant Young were a HOFer, that never could have happened. j/k

Classy

[Andy Piascik]

That's a valid point, Jay, but I don't think it applies here. I certainly could be wrong but I think the experts I'm referencing who left Young off their all-pro teams for the vast majority of his career are different people than the ones John has mentioned who apparently convinced the HOF voters to elect him last week. In some ways, the situation is much worse if they are the same people. Think about it. If the same people who deemed Young not good enough to be all-pro in 12 of the 14 seasons he played are now telling us he's one of the greatest DTs who ever played, what does that say about their judgement 20 years ago? That would open up a whole can of worms: who else were they wrong about? If they underrated Young and a bunch of others years ago, are we now going to have an endure a steady stream of mea culpas and see a bunch of other players go into the HOF with similarly weak credentials?

Conversely, have a bunch of players already been elected to the HOF because those experts overrated them back in the day? If so, are any of them willing to own up to that? Are they now going to speak up on behalf of all of those who, like Young, they wrongly neglected at the time but who, like Young, they now regard as the greatest thing since Joe Greene?

If that's the case, then we need to get names and demand that these people stop deceiving us with bogus all-pro teams.

[JohnTurney]

I think there is more than enough room for (at least) two diverse opinions on most subjects and that informed adults can state those views without belittling or antagonizing each other.

For me, when a guy like Mike Giddings has Bryant Young "blue" 10 times...it means something. A lot, in fact. When he has Sapp very low in his last 5 years or so, it means something. And while people are pretty hot and in belittling mode, nuance sometimes matters. The case that was used for Young included the Pro Bowls and APs and also stats. Also how good the 49ers run defense was in the 1990s-early 2000s. (NFL best over a long time). It included testimonials that spoke not about how good, but how great Young was. It included the Proscout stuff and the consistently, only 4 pro bowls but 6 others seasons as alternate. While we don't count alternates, it is noteworthy . . .

Young was a player's player. These testimonials are no joke and they matter, when done in fair way, when they are Olmen talking about Dlinemen. But Young just did the things to get success 89.5 sacks (Sapp 96.5) while not playing a 3-tech, he had to play shade/nose when it was overshift to the TE left or undershift whe TE was right.

Sapp was always on the weak side, away from TE, trying to secure the 1-on-1, but formation. It didn't always happen, but anyway, anyone who thinks Sapp was better based on honors is simply saying they like the sacks...fair or unfair, sacks often determine All-Pro. Not always, but with Sapp and Randle, that was the deal. Both were not run players,

Young > Sapp and it is the people who know saying it.

[Hail Casares]

For me, when a guy like Mike Giddings has Bryant Young "blue" 10 times...it means something. A lot, in fact. When he has Sapp very low in his last 5 years or so, it means something. And while people are pretty hot and in belittling mode, nuance sometimes matters. The case that was used for Young included the Pro Bowls and APs and also stats. Also how good the 49ers run defense was in the 1990s-early 2000s. (NFL best over a long time). It included testimonials that spoke not about how good, but how great Young was. It included the Proscout stuff and the consistently, only 4 pro bowls but 6 others seasons as alternate. While we don't count alternates, it is noteworthy . . .

Young was a player's player. These testimonials are no joke and they matter, when done in fair way, when they are Olmen talking about Dlinemen. But Young just did the things to get success 89.5 sacks (Sapp 96.5) while not playing a 3-tech, he had to play shade/nose when it was overshift to the TE left or undershift whe TE was right.

It didn't always happen, but anyway, anyone who thinks Sapp was better based on honors is simply saying they like the sacks...fair or unfair, sacks often determine All-Pro. Not always, but with Sapp and Randle, that was the deal. Both were not run players,

Young > Sapp and it is the people who know saying it.

1. You said earlier that Young got in based on "testimonials and the old eye test"(Direct quote). Now you say above the case that was used for him was PB's, AP(singular), and stats...with testimonials simply being an add on. Which is it? You disparage Sapp's AP, PB's, whatever then pump up Bryant Youngs. Are AP's valid or not(somewhat playing off what Andy said above).

2. To the first bolded. That's not the case. Were Ogden, Faneca, Derrick Brooks(and others) just worried about sacks with their comments on Sapp?

3. To the second bolded, do Ogden, Faneca, and Brooks not know what they are talking about when they say Sapp>Young? Why are they less valuable of an opinion than Mark Schlereth and Adam Timmerman?

4. Also, you above claim that John Randle and Warren Sapp were not run defender players. Mark Schlereth says otherwise. Would you like the quote? So do we now NOT believe Schlereth on the Randle/Sapp point but believe him on the Young point? How many more of these can we find?

[JohnTurney]

Would you like the quote?

Sure. Would love to see all the quotes you are talking about...so I can see them unfiltered. Provide them and will comment on them.

[Hail Casares]

Would you like the quote?

Sure. Would love to see all the quotes you are talking about...so I can see them unfiltered. Provide them and will comment on them.

Schlereth on Sapp:
"You name a way a guy can beat you, and he can beat you that way. Speed, quickness, power. He's the complete package."

On Randle
"Great leverage. Has outstanding speed, quickness and strength. It's hard to play against someone like Randle, who can do everything.."

These are from some ESPN blub stuff he did prior to 2001.

Complete package, can do everything...yet..you say they couldn't.

Bryant Young was also listed in those blurbs.

and frankly, I don't need or care about your comments. I won't be reading them as you've ignored every other question asked of you above and from Andy.

My point is you're selectively and with bias choosing what quotes you use about guys and what sources say. You'll ignore them about Sapp, Randle, et al. Use them to your liking on Young, even if they are from the same person, and then also ignore OTHER people (Ogden, Faneca, Brooks etc) when it comes to their opinion on players(Sapp vs the field).