Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

by bachslunch » Mon Aug 24, 2015 7:37 am

Re: "oldecapecod11 wrote:

"'Interference' by Dan Moldea states (maybe wrongly?) that Bell was an associate of mobster Frank Erickson early on. No question he later went out of his way to try and clean up the league of mob ties and gambling issues.
And while Mara probably didn't have mob ties, he was a (legal) bookmaker. Rooney likewise likely didn't have mob connections, but he bought the Steelers with money won scoring big at gambling. Not exactly granny bingo, for sure."

---

by bachslunch » Mon Aug 24, 2015 7:44 am

Re: "John Maxymuk wrote:

"True, but he was considered a close friend of Donald "Dice" Dawson (who also had ties to folks like Karras and Layne), and there were definite questions about just what that relationship entailed. Maybe not so different from Stabler and Nick Dudich? Maybe they were both just friends as well?
Last edited by bachslunch on Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:39 am, edited 1 time in total."

===

Let's correct the false statements.

"Interference" wrongly states that Bell was... thereby making the admission of what he later accomplished not needed.

Mara didn't have mob ties, he was a legal bookmaker. No parentheses needed.

Rooney didn't have mob connections... he simply bet large and won large.

And, re Dawson, Maybe very different from Stabler... and the statement falls to the curb.

Keep in mind: both noun and verb can be stretched to a point permitting one to say Hillary is an associate of Monica.
Moldea is a very successful compiler. He could be a big fan of statistics and manipulation.

He has never proven a theory.

And, every opinion is no more than 1/7,260,000,000th valid and that decreases by .0000000002 almost every second.

oldecapecod11 wrote:
Let's correct the false statements.

"Interference" wrongly states ...

Lot of libel suits filed against Moldea, were there?

Not too many that I recall.

Because, you know, rich people and organizations just love being slandered...

by mwald » Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:54 pm
"Lot of libel suits filed against Moldea, were there?.."

Philadelphia Society has never been known, nor should be expected, to feed on carrion (flesh unfit for food.)
Vultures - not Eagles - find it to their liking.
(Carrion defined so that some do not think it is a piece of luggage.)

Again: Mr. Moldea has never proven a theory.

I think we're getting off-track here. There's a wide sliding scale that involves the issue of gambling/point shaving/game throwing and the like, of which ties to mobsters only add a further layer of murk. Rooney is probably at the smallest end of the scale and Layne at the largest end. And Stabler lies somewhere in between.

My concern is whether the presence of all these folks in the HoF makes that concern pointless in considering Stabler's case (regardless of his level of involvement) -- even though it would be considered "on field" and a potential problem. The appearance of an issue can be important in something like this, too.

My feeling is that it's pointless being concerned about this, given the PFHoF's history of candidate induction. But I welcome others' thoughts here.

bachslunch wrote:True, but he was considered a close friend of Donald "Dice" Dawson

But Len Dawson wasn't a close friend of Donald Dawson, correct? Maybe I'm not understanding what you are getting at here.

Its like someone mentioning that Albert Einstein was a great physicist, and you reply with "True, but he was considered a Soviet sympathizer"...even though that claim was proven to be patently false years ago, and no new information has surfaced to make anyone think otherwise. Thats a terrible way to misconstrue history.

As for Stabler, I don't think he will be kept out of Canton because of alleged point shaving. If he's kept out of Canton, it will be because of 1978, 1980-1984. JMO.

I think the best case for Stabler is to look at his season-by-season passer rating compared to the league average (the Rate+ stat of PFR in the advanced passing grid). Stabler's 1976 season is off the charts, but he also had outstanding seasons in 1973 (63% comp) and 1974 (26 TD 12 INTs). He also had good seasons in 1977 & 1979, and was above average in 1975. The most interesting thing to me is that his alleged point-shaving season of 1978 still gets a Rate+ score of 96, meaning he was slightly worse than the league average (Rate+ of 100), but not anywhere near bad enough to eliminate him from HOF consideration. Stabler's subsequent years in Houston and New Orleans earned Rate+ scores of 94, 94, & 97. Again, slightly worse than league average but not really "bad". His first bad season was his 1983 season in New Orleans (Rate+ of 83), and then Stabler retired after a few appearances in 1984. Compared to his peers, Stabler really was a great QB from 1973-1979, and then was average until his last year as a starter in 1983. I don't think the stats really jive with the narrative of Stabler being an up-and-down QB who completely fizzled out in his waning Oakland days.

by bachslunch » Tue Aug 25, 2015 8:38 am
"I think we're getting off-track here. There's a wide sliding scale that involves the issue of gambling/point shaving/game throwing and the like, of which ties to mobsters only add a further layer of murk. Rooney is probably at the smallest end of the scale and Layne at the largest end. And Stabler lies somewhere in between.
My concern is whether the presence of all these folks in the HoF makes that concern pointless in considering Stabler's case (regardless of his level of involvement) -- even though it would be considered "on field" and a potential problem. The appearance of an issue can be important in something like this, too.
My feeling is that it's pointless being concerned about this, given the PFHoF's history of candidate induction. But I welcome others' thoughts here."

Hear! Hear!
Just keep in mind it was you who muddied the water.
There is not a modicum of guilt proven nor admitted by Stabler nor the majority of those you unfairly targeted.
So...

by bachslunch » Sun Aug 23, 2015 7:32 am
"The biggest concern regarding Ken Stabler and the HoF for me revolves around questions on gambling, point shaving, and the like. But the more I delve into the history of other HoF members, there seem to be a number of enshrines with "issues," including several owners (Paul Hornung, Bobby Layne, Joe Schmidt, Len Dawson, Tim Mara, Charles Bidwill, Bert Bell, Art Rooney). I'm seriously thinking that ship has sailed for the PFHoF.
Without this issue, I'm pretty lukewarm on Stabler as is, but I can see a weak case for him -- and since they've already gone and nominated him, I'd be thinking "okay, just get him and Stanfel in already -- it's all the more reason Ken Anderson and Jerry Kramer should be in ASAP."
Not that this makes either a very good nominee, but maybe they both should be voted in. Not the best criteria, for sure, but what else can one do?"
---
Without the unfairly targeted, you state:
"The biggest concern regarding Ken Stabler and the HoF for me revolves around questions on gambling, point shaving, and the like.
Without this issue, I'm pretty lukewarm on Stabler as is, but I can see a weak case for him -- and since they've already gone and nominated him, I'd be thinking 'okay, just get him and Stanfel in already -- it's all the more reason Ken Anderson and Jerry Kramer should be in ASAP.'"

Stabler is - at the very best - a lukewarm candidate and the weakest part of any case for him is that there are far-better qualified candidates left behind. The same can be said for Stanfel.
Were it not for, a) the proximity of Stabler's death; and, b) the hoopla surrounding the Seau commentary, Ken Stabler might have never made it to any level of the "finals."

Which leads to:
"Not that this makes either a very good nominee, but maybe they both should be voted in. Not the best criteria, for sure, but what else can one do?"

If neither is a very good nominee, and neither has the best criteria, why lower the bar?
As for what else can be done, there are numerous possibilities and likely as many ideas as there are electors - just as each among this august body has his own idea.

Accepting that the level is becoming less and less than it should be, something will have to be done - and soon - otherwise the list of the better-qualified will grow every year. (We know that because we see that - every year.)
There will simply have to be a mass induction - a clean up, if you will, and what better way to start than by inducting all the qualified deceased in one "class." They could simply read the "Roll" and it would be done.
Maybe even call it something original like "The Dead Pool" and have Clint read the Roll.

Then they could concentrate on the living.
But... they are never going to catch up with the old timers if they continue one or two at a time.
So, a method will have to be devised for that.

The belief here is they will never catch up - and - they don't want to catch up. If they did, interest would wane.

On a somewhat humorous but interesting note... why not a Turing system?
At the start of each season, everyone - from raw rookie to wily old veteran - is a "candidate." Week by week, month by month, year by year, a large number fall by the wayside. The survivivors of each season are posted and eventually only the best are still standing.
Basically, that exists. It is just not tracked and announced.
If it was, it might be motivational for the player, interesting for the fan, and helpful for the electors who seem to be lost in the vast wasteland of "Who dat?"

Far-fetched" Yeah! but workable... and that system solved a matter far more important than some silly hall of fame.

Meanwhile: Ken Easley, Maxie Baughan - or - Baughan, Johnny Robinson, Ken Anderson, Jerry Kramer, Chuck Howley
(in descending order)

Ahem!
by bachslunch » Wed Aug 19, 2015 4:45 pm
"...Meanwhile they've wasted two senior slots on Stanfel and may waste a third. Ridiculous.
They've got the regular candidates down pat, but the Seniors continue to be a problem."

Bryan wrote:

bachslunch wrote:True, but he was considered a close friend of Donald "Dice" Dawson

But Len Dawson wasn't a close friend of Donald Dawson, correct? Maybe I'm not understanding what you are getting at here.

Its like someone mentioning that Albert Einstein was a great physicist, and you reply with "True, but he was considered a Soviet sympathizer"...even though that claim was proven to be patently false years ago, and no new information has surfaced to make anyone think otherwise. Thats a terrible way to misconstrue history.

Fair enough, "close friend" may be a mischaracterization.

There's this book by Robert Grey Reynolds out titled "The mafia, football gambling, and Len Dawson." Link to it here:

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-maf ... 0044373433

The blurb from the author reads:

"Len Dawson was a Pro Bowl quarterback for the Kansas City Chiefs in the 1960s and 1970s. He led the American Football League team when it won the World Championship of pro football in 1970. A family man, he resided with his wife and two children in a luxurious home in suburban Kansas City. He was often injured as a player. My e-book suggests a link between injured athletes and their vulnerability to be targeted by gambling bookies. Another quarterback known to associate with underworld figures was Bobby Layne. Layne was a carouser and an associate of gamblers. He suffered a broken ankle which ended his season in 1957. Dawson's left knee was a chronic problem. He was advised by a team of physicians to have surgery on the medial ligament of his knee. Dawson's phone number was found among the possessions of Donald "Dice" Dawson (no relation) when he was arrested in Birmingham, Michigan in 1970. The FBI confiscated more than $400,000 from "Dice". Len Dawson also knew "Jimmy the Greek" Snyder and various individuals in the Kansas City Mafia."

Maybe it's all hooey.

bachslunch wrote:Fair enough, "close friend" may be a mischaracterization.

What evidence do you have that it "may" be a mischaracterization, as opposed to completely erroneous?

bachslunch wrote:
The blurb from the author reads:

"Len Dawson was a Pro Bowl quarterback for the Kansas City Chiefs in the 1960s and 1970s. He led the American Football League team when it won the World Championship of pro football in 1970. A family man, he resided with his wife and two children in a luxurious home in suburban Kansas City. He was often injured as a player. My e-book suggests a link between injured athletes and their vulnerability to be targeted by gambling bookies.

Dawson was hardly ever injured as a player. The only time he missed a game between 1962-1972 was the 1969 season...a season in which he and the Chiefs won the Super Bowl.

Bryan wrote:

bachslunch wrote:Fair enough, "close friend" may be a mischaracterization.

What evidence do you have that it "may" be a mischaracterization, as opposed to completely erroneous?

bachslunch wrote:
The blurb from the author reads:

"Len Dawson was a Pro Bowl quarterback for the Kansas City Chiefs in the 1960s and 1970s. He led the American Football League team when it won the World Championship of pro football in 1970. A family man, he resided with his wife and two children in a luxurious home in suburban Kansas City. He was often injured as a player. My e-book suggests a link between injured athletes and their vulnerability to be targeted by gambling bookies.

Dawson was hardly ever injured as a player. The only time he missed a game between 1962-1972 was the 1969 season...a season in which he and the Chiefs won the Super Bowl.

The fact that he couldn't get his book published through a reputable publishing house tends to put it in the line of self-publishing, whereby standards are negligible at best.

BD Sullivan wrote: The fact that he couldn't get his book published through a reputable publishing house tends to put it in the line of self-publishing, whereby standards are negligible at best.

With all due respect, things have changed. There are excellent self-published books out there, and some old guard publishers have been left with egg on their face when a self-published book they didn't think had chance ends up being of quality, and sells.

While some people don't have standards, it comes down to the individual. John Maxymuk's recent self-published book on the Packers is one example of an excellent book with high standards by the author.