Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Everybody’s shilling hard for the local guy? Sheesh, no surprise there. I hope the selection committee has the stomach to resist all the hype and pressure they’re getting. Looks like silly season has settled in for the time being. And unfortunately, the recent induction of Jerry Kramer has only enhanced the idea that a big pushy campaign works.

As for specifics:

-John, thanks for the correction on Taylor. I have a lot of respect for your film study observations (as well as folks like Coach Troupe and Ken Crippen), and appreciate the feedback. Also am liking the recent comparison articles over at your website. The one on Klecko vs. Gastineau, for example, is really informative. I’ve always thought Gastineau is getting short shrift here, and you make a good case for them being pretty much equal. Especially interesting to see that the negative reputation for Gastineau’s run support ability doesn’t bear out under scrutiny. Personally, I think both can wait a bit, as they just dropped to the Senior pool and there are more pressing cases to consider:

http://nflfootballjournal.blogspot.com/ ... lecko.html

-The notion of pushing Tom Jackson over Randy Gradishar (4/7/none) surprises me. My understanding is that Jackson was likely better than his thin honors (2/3/none) suggest, but there’s no way I’d pick him over Gradishar. Of course if you ask a Broncos homer, they’ll just say put them both in. And add Dennis Smith and Rod Smith and every other HoVG level Bronco, too, while you’re at it. That goes just as strongly for Bill Thompson (3/3/none), who wasn’t even on my radar screen — and still isn’t now that I’ve looked. Urgh.

-John, I really like your piece on Riley vs. Lemar Parrish. I’ve always thought it ridiculous that Riley keeps getting pushed for the Hall by know-nothings and special interests over Parrish, and your write-up compellingly reinforces this. Parrish wins pretty handily on that comparison when you look with any care here, with the 3/8/none vs. 1/0/none honors just the start. The on-field case for Riley pretty much hinges on lifetime interceptions and little else. Plus off-field, Riley was far more of a “model citizen” and stayed on good terms with Bengals management, not so much for Parrish; given that there’s no character clause, this shouldn’t matter, for starters:

http://nflfootballjournal.blogspot.com/ ... tials.html

-John, interesting about Baughan. I’ve heard conflicting things about his play, that for example he was more a smart player than a physically gifted one. No question the 9 pro bowls are an important factor in his case.

-agree that if one is going to pick a Steeler, it should probably be Greenwood over Russell. The latter is way, way down on the list for me, not even in my top 75 as of now. But I think there are more pressing priorities.

So anyway, the ideal wish list 15 for me would be (without regular candidates):

Dilweg
Slater
Lewellen
Emerson
Wistert
Speedie
Howley
Baughan
Howton
Shofner

McNally
Sabol
Young

Parker
Shaughnessy

But that’s not especially realistic, is it. So my hope given which way the wind seems to be blowing, would be:

Dilweg
Slater
Wistert
Baughan
Howley
Branch
Pearson
Gradishar
Karras
Shofner

McNally
Sabol
Young

Coryell
Shaughnessy

That would be ideal and at least halfway realistic. However, I suspect we’ll end up with:

Slater
Wistert
Baughan
Harris
Riley
Karras
Klecko
Gradishar
Branch
Pearson

Rosenbloom
McNally
Kilroy

Coryell
Flores

Not ideal, and neither Flores nor Riley should get into Canton without a ticket. But there’ll be enough good choices to make it a worthwhile exercise. Sad to say, I fear both Dilweg and Howley will get shafted, though I hope they don’t. We’ll find out.

which bengal would you rather have bachs anderson or parrish because im partial to both

Rupert Patrick wrote:

JohnTurney wrote:Ron Wolf is trying to dominate the discussion of who the 10 "senior candidates" should be in mostly "his guys"

The HOF is having conference calls with HOFers to get input and it's nothing but homerism.

Floyd Little is pushing Bill Thompson

Emmitt Thomas is pushing Otis Taylor (saying Otis made him into a HOFer)

Jack Ham is pushing for Andy Russell

John Madden is pushing for Cliff Branch

Larry Little is pushing for Tom Jackson (at least he's not a teammate)

Philly writers are pushing for Maxie Baughan

New York guys pushing Klecko.

Collinsworth pushing HARD for Ken Riley (high rank PSI = 31st. Maybe not even red---never close to blue) Mike Brown Bengals leaning on Cincy writers to get Riley in (Lemar Parrish far more "blue")

Otis Taylor made Emmitt Thomas a HOFer?!? I don't see how an offensive player made a defensive player a Hall of Famer. It's like saying Roger Staubach made Randy White a Hall of Famer. Roger Staubach didn't make Randy White a Hall of Famer; Randy White made Randy White a Hall of Famer.

As a Steelers fan even I think Russell is a solid HOVG type. I think LC Greenwood would seem the logical choice if they are going to induct one last Steeler from the 70's. Andy was a good player but his career didn't really line up with the Steelers dynasty; if he had come along about five years later his career would have lined up perfectly and he would have been in his prime in the mid-70's and he would be in the HOF. With that being said, he played an important role on the 1972-76 Steelers teams as the veteran defensive leader.

I wouldn't have a problem with Cliff Branch in the Hall of Fame, but I think Drew Pearson would be a better choice as WR's from the 70's go.

Tom Jackson is a guy who I'm surprised hasn't been mentioned more for the HOF, based on the combination of playing career and his broadcasting career. But if you're going to elect a guy of this type, Pat Summerall would be a much better choice, I think.

With the NY writers pushing for Klecko, he is probably a certainty to get in.

Ken Riley is a good choice if they want to induct a Bengal, but I would choose Anderson over him.

where are you on lemar parrish

rewing84 wrote:which bengal would you rather have bachs anderson or parrish because im partial to both

I’m fine with either, since I think both belong. I guess if we’re talking “rather,” I’d choose Parrish only because I think he’ll have the harder time getting in. My guess is that Anderson will get elected sometime down the line, and not as sure Parrish will. But I’d like to see both enshrined.

as would i also

bachslunch wrote:
-John, interesting about Baughan. I’ve heard conflicting things about his play, that for example he was more a smart player than a physically gifted one. No question the 9 pro bowls are an important factor in his case.

DOn't know if Merlin was right or not. I asked Deacon about it and he deflected, more like "not matter who the LBers were, they would have been helped by our front fout" like if ti was Butkus, Bobby Bell and Jack Ham, still they would have benefitted from the Fearsome Foursome. He didn't say that, I am projecting what I thought he meant...so he didn't say did didn't think the LBers were bad---and Merlin said "not very good" and it was kind of in conparisom to Packers or Cowboys or 49ers who had pretty good athletes.

Pardee was never fast, Pottios was slow as could be, Baughan---he was smart, called the signals. So Allen loved him and must have liked all of them he traded for them twice, and brought Pardee out of retirement...

so maybe Allen simply thought more of them than Olsen.

From what I saw Baughan was good, he made some plays...but he was not a super athlete even for that era. If he got in, I'd have no problem, but if he got in over Howley, I'd be disappointed.

John, saw your QB comparison article:

http://nflfootballjournal.blogspot.com/ ... r-hof.html

Interesting to see how you drew conclusions, essentially having Ken Anderson equal to John Brodie, Roman Gabriel, Phil Simms, and Joe Theismann. I can see the thinking you used behind it and it carries a clear logic to it, for sure.

The reason I have Anderson higher than the rest is based on stats adjusted for era in two systems. Anderson is the best of these by far in Kiran Rasaretnam’s approach, with best 4/7/10 of 3/3/5. Gabriel is 21/17/15, Brodie is 35/23/16, Theismann is 25/34/30, and Simms is 60/42/33:

http://newqbrating.blogspot.com/2010/04 ... VvetB.dpuf

He’s also the best non-HoF QB in Chase Stuart’s approach, ranking 10th all time there, with Brodie not far back at 18th. Gabriel is 28th, Theismann is 51st, and Simms is 82nd:

http://www.footballperspective.com/the- ... -rankings/

It’s also the reason I have Brodie and Gabriel interchangeably in second place but notably back of Anderson.

Not that one is necessarily wrong and the other right (there could be assumptions in either Stuart’s or Rasaretnam’s approach one might have issues with, for example), but at least that’s the thinking from my end.

bachslunch wrote:J

He’s also the best non-HoF QB in Chase Stuart’s approach, ranking 10th all time there, with Brodie not far back at 18th. Gabriel is 28th, Theismann is 51st, and Simms is 82nd:

http://www.footballperspective.com/the- ... -rankings/

I've seen Chase's work but to me, it's really just another way of presenting passer rating. Seeing Ken Anderson 10th All-time just makes me question it a little bit. But, to each his own. Maybe I go too much by what I remember having seen them and what people said/wrote at the time. I just don't remember the "Ken Anderson is a HOFer talk" on telecasts or pregames shows. Same with Gabriel, Brodie, etc.

Much of this push for QBs has a revisionist history feel...but the main thing is there may be 20-30 players that I think had better overall careers than any of the QBs. But I could be wrong

bachslunch wrote:
The reason I have Anderson higher than the rest is based on stats adjusted for era in two systems. Anderson is the best of these by far in Kiran Rasaretnam’s approach, with best 4/7/10 of 3/3/5. Gabriel is 21/17/15, Brodie is 35/23/16, Theismann is 25/34/30, and Simms is 60/42/33:

http://newqbrating.blogspot.com/2010/04 ... VvetB.dpuf

.

Seeing Layne 50th behind DeBerg is kind of a buzzkill to me. I am sure the metric works out that way but if that happens then how credible is it for Ken Anderson to be 3rd all-time? Or Marino ranked one behind Gabriel?

I've see other metrics published over the years and Ken Anderson does well in them. I think it stems from his 4-5 excellent years. And the more you weight things towards those and away from the so-so years he will be helped. I just never remember being worried about facing Anderson the way you would worry about Staubach or Fouts or even Stabler.
(Though Stabler is borderline IMO, too)

So if Ken Anderson gets in, good for him, but it will be a statnik thing that gets him in. He was maybe the first guy to get coached to the statistic, the passer rating cam out in 1973, before that it was not a factor. Did Walsh's offense cater to scoring well? High completion percentage boosts yards per gain a bit and the main thing is avoiding picks...

contrived?

And this "My basic method for evaluating a player's performance in a given year is to look at his CMTI, and then, based on the mean and standard deviation for that given year, relate his performance to that of his peers. Since the aggregate accumulation of these measures over the past 78 years looks very much like a normal (bell-shaped) curve, we can use the bell-curve to convert these measures to percentile ranks, giving a numerical value ranging from 1 to 99 for each of these performances. The sum of a given quarterback's 4 best such performances are then used as my C4 calculation, and the sum of his 7 best performances are my C7 calculation. Obviously, then the maximum possible value for C4 is 99 * 4 = 396, and, commensurately, the maximum C7 value is 99 * 7 = 693. As I mentioned earlier, I've also calculated a C10 value for those players with an exceptionally long career. Obviously, if we did this for every year a player qualified, one could create a career C score for each player."

WTF?

I really hope CMTI does not get Anderson into the Hall. I hope it's his overall skill set, yes, plenty of stats, but not not CMTI