Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

JohnTurney wrote:Still hearing new HOF prez would like one of the 3 seniors to be
a "super senior" if you will, though don't think that is his term

I don't think he has the power to force it . . . so certainly no lock - last year
Cecil Isbell and Dilweg were on the Final 25.

My preference would be Dilweg over Isbell.

Nothing against Isbell . . . just think Dilweg or Lewellen rank above him among Packers.

Don't know where "divider" is for him---but I think Brito should get a better look anyway.
Been for him a long time...but he's never even mentioned.

Hearing it could be Graidshar--kind of a "it's his year" thing but have heard that before.
believe it when I see it.

Of course Sharpe a lot of momentum---

I just hope Porter can have enough influence committee to give more consideration to
the odler guys---my understanding is when he went to three his vision was to use
some of those slots for gusy of the 20s-50s or whatever time frame...not
just for guys in 60s-80s.

Agreed I'm a bigger fan of dilweg than isbell

I just can't get behind the idea of making special provisions to allow for more seniors to be inducted. IMO, they should earn it under their own merit. If the HOF selectors can't find the players who are most deserving, then that is on them. They need to do their homework better.

sluggermatt15 wrote:I just can't get behind the idea of making special provisions to allow for more seniors to be inducted. IMO, they should earn it under their own merit. If the HOF selectors can't find the players who are most deserving, then that is on them. They need to do their homework better.

Slugger I'm with you there 110% they should earn it not be handed it

sluggermatt15 wrote:I just can't get behind the idea of making special provisions to allow for more seniors to be inducted. IMO, they should earn it under their own merit. If the HOF selectors can't find the players who are most deserving, then that is on them. They need to do their homework better.

It is on them, but there has to be a remedy at this point. The handful of players whose names come up are deserving and "earned it". However, it's not the homework that is the issue
it is partisanship and recent that is the issue--the bias.

While there are some players we talk about that may be considered borderline ---and in that case your point is solid. But when you have 4-5-6 time All-Pros that have been overlooked again and again and you have voters who know the facts but go for recent players anyway there has to be solution.

In general, I get what you are saying. But, let's take one name, Wistert...how can he "earn" it when you have voters who get on the committee and first thing they do is push for
a guy they covered?

Sure, you are right, it is "on them" but in mean time they don't care that something is on them. They achieved their goal- getting "their guy" in.

The only other solution would be to have people who know about the pre-1950s era and the voters would never respect someone like that. Some might, but it is my opinion based on a couple of things, that any push for Wistert (Dilweg, Lewellen, Emmerson) it proably wouldn't make much of a difference--though I could be wrong.

Now, if the HOF - Porter, Horrigan ... thinl that there are some super seniors are being ignored for recent guys and it is done for the reason I suggested then holding
one slot of a super-senior is appropriate.

But, that's just me...all I know is it is being considered and it may or may not happen.

I have to say I am with John on this one (Sorry, Matt).

In addition to all of what he said (and to which I agree) I think it is important to remember we are an organization
which studies history and (in my opinion) we ought to be supportive of deserving players from the days of yore making
it into the Hall.
And, as John says, for many and various reasons that hasn't happened as isn't likely to happen without some form of
Senior committee correction.

One reason History is studied is that we may understand and redress errors of the past.
I'm all in favor of remedying some flagrant omissions with a temporary increase in the number of seniors
allowed in Canton.
Now, lets hope the buggers get it right this time!!

I wish we would set a better example, but we do the exact same thing with the HOVG. Year after year we put in players that we watched growing up. Stanley Morgan got in the first time he came up for example, but a deserving player from the '30s like George Christensen gets passed over year after year. Most of the super seniors we have are actually from the early days before there was a vote.

TanksAndSpartans wrote:I wish we would set a better example, but we do the exact same thing with the HOVG. Year after year we put in players that we watched growing up. Stanley Morgan got in the first time he came up for example, but a deserving player from the '30s like George Christensen gets passed over year after year. Most of the super seniors we have are actually from the early days before there was a vote.

It's not exactly the same with the HOVG. The HOVG committee does not choose who is inducted to the HOVG, rather it is the PFRA members. It is your peers who elect Stanley Morgan instead of George Christensen.

sluggermatt15 wrote:

TanksAndSpartans wrote:I wish we would set a better example, but we do the exact same thing with the HOVG. Year after year we put in players that we watched growing up. Stanley Morgan got in the first time he came up for example, but a deserving player from the '30s like George Christensen gets passed over year after year. Most of the super seniors we have are actually from the early days before there was a vote.

It's not exactly the same with the HOVG. The HOVG committee does not choose who is inducted to the HOVG, rather it is the PFRA members. It is your peers who elect Stanley Morgan instead of George Christensen.

Yep, that post wasn't intended for the committee at all - sorry if I implied that. I was directing it at all of us as voters - its just what the data shows we do. We'd have to dig up my old posts, but at one point a few years ago I found there was something like 12 straight years where Ted Nesser was the only pre-war player to get in.

Why? From some folks I've spoken to individually, they refuse to vote for players they never saw play. Perhaps HOF voters do the same thing? I think that's where the special committees come in - they can't just say "nope, never saw that player".

TanksAndSpartans wrote:

sluggermatt15 wrote:

TanksAndSpartans wrote:I wish we would set a better example, but we do the exact same thing with the HOVG. Year after year we put in players that we watched growing up. Stanley Morgan got in the first time he came up for example, but a deserving player from the '30s like George Christensen gets passed over year after year. Most of the super seniors we have are actually from the early days before there was a vote.

It's not exactly the same with the HOVG. The HOVG committee does not choose who is inducted to the HOVG, rather it is the PFRA members. It is your peers who elect Stanley Morgan instead of George Christensen.

Yep, that post wasn't intended for the committee at all - sorry if I implied that. I was directing it at all of us as voters - its just what the data shows we do. We'd have to dig up my old posts, but at one point a few years ago I found there was something like 12 straight years where Ted Nesser was the only pre-war player to get in.

Why? From some folks I've spoken to individually, they refuse to vote for players they never saw play. Perhaps HOF voters do the same thing? I think that's where the special committees come in - they can't just say "nope, never saw that player".

That is an example of what we see with the PFHOF, a great deal of bias.

Personally, I vote for the ten candidates every year who I feel were the strongest, whether I saw them play or not.

Theme for the week for Senior Selection Committee(With a shout-out to sluggermatt)

DO YOUR HOMEWORK BETTER !!

Hopefully, the semifinalist list is closer to 28 players than 24

Watch out for Albert Lewis ... with shutdown corner credentials, great special teams play and fresh in voters minds ... could make the finalist list