Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... nging-nfl/

All-Pro team should change to reflect the changing NFL
Posted by Michael David Smith on January 3, 2015, 7:35 AM EST

It’s time for changes on the All-Pro team.
The Associated Press has released its annual All-Pro team, and although other organizations release their own All-Pro teams, the AP version is generally recognized as the “official” All-Pro team for the NFL. Unfortunately, that All-Pro team is flawed.
We’ve already noted the odd fact that the AP will not yet release the names of the 50 voters who put the All-Pro team together, and that some of the votes were highly questionable. But there’s a more fundamental flaw than that.
All-Pro teams have been put together for decades, and they haven’t changed to reflect the changes in the NFL. So when All-Pro voters fill out their ballots, they’re asked to name two wide receivers, two running backs, one tight end and one fullback. That’s ridiculous. In the 1940s, you would have seen two running backs and a fullback on the field together. Now, three wide receivers is the norm, and a fullback is a rarity. And yet All-Pro teams still select players like we’re in the 1940s. . .

FOR THE REST CLICK ON LINK.

___________________________________

Smith then spends a lot of time ripping on the John Kuhn pick . . .or any fullback, I guess. But this is nothing against him personally or Chase Stuart who also opines on this kind of thing, but they really don't have much of a sense of history.

First, he goes back to the "AP is considered "offical" kinard by writing "AP version is generally recognized as the “official” All-Pro team for the NFL" As has been shown there is no offical All-pro team but the Record and Fact Book has included the PFWA since 1970, and in 1970 and 1971 the Record and Fact book called the PFWA team the official one and the AP team was not included either year.

However, Mr. Smith doesn't seem to know, or if he knows does not say, that the fullback position was included only in the 1990s. Prior to that it was always two running backs, so the 1940s remark is a little odd. Also, he suggests that three wide receivers should be chosen. The NeA did that in 1990, I think (going by memory) and it didn't last long. The first All-Pro team to choose a nickle back was the NFL Films All-pro team of 1983, and Dr. Z did it a couple of years later.

Like Mike Florio, Smith dives into topics that he's not very well versed in (Florio has a really odd post about how the PFBHOF should reform it's voting).

Anyway, If a slot receiver and nickleback were added, fine by me . . .if a nickle rusher is added, fine by me, but when you look at all the All-Pro teams usually you get those on some of the teams. Heck, Pro Football Focus (I am not a big fan) broke ground by choosing full special teams, including coverage units and blocking units . ..

I wish we could get Smith and Florio and Chase Stuart and others to post here, or to join, while they may not agree with certain aspects, they would learn a lot. I learn new things almost every time I read this forum . ..

Chase Stuart posted at the old forum.

I don't think bloggers like the main ones at PFT would enjoy a forum like this. They have an ego, and the first time Florio posted that Ron Yary is in the HOF because of his play at Left Tackle and someone politely corrected him, he would likely take his ball and go home. He's one of the ones who cover the NFL that are too easily confused on the difference between writing about football and knowing football. Today, literally anyone with internet access can write about football. That doesn't magically make one an expert on what's happening on the field or give them any sort of real credentials when it comes to football knowledge.

For example, there's a PFHOF voter who's a great writer who has excellent articles and covers things that no one else covers, but when he talks x's and o's more often than not it's cringe worthy.

Changing gears, people who imply the AP All-Pro team is the official NFL All-Pro team are infuriating.

As for how All-Pro teams are put together, the problem for me is with who votes on the teams. Even more of an issue - and perhaps is leading to me placing too much blame on the voters themselves? - is that there is no standard or structure on how to vote or what position to vote a player at.

Shoot, the MVP award has no defining criteria, so it means something different to different people. In my opinion it should strictly be interchangeable with "Player of the Year" (then why not call it that? MVP works as a title though, as long as it's defined.) ... Either way, you see odd things with the voting numbers, players getting votes at RB and FB, other players getting votes at DT and DE, one voter refusing/forgetting to vote for a punter? and so on ...

JohnTurney wrote:Like Mike Florio, Smith dives into topics that he's not very well versed in (Florio has a really odd post about how the PFBHOF should reform it's voting).

I have a begrudging respect for Mike Florio. Like Stephen A. Smith of ESPN, Florio is a guy with really no background, no credentials, no connections, yet he has given his opinions a national platform. I remember when Pro Football Talk first started, it was like an NFL gossip column, constantly reporting far-fetched rumors as actual fact. PFT has tried to be more legitimate over the years, but its also given Florio more of a voice, which probably isn't a good thing.

I don't think Florio is any worse than, say, Mike Tanier of FootballOutsiders ("Why is Charley Taylor in the Hall of Fame?? He only had one 1000-yard season in his career!!"), but you'd like to see someone with Florio's lack of connections to the NFL's inner sanctum to at least have a modicum of intelligence on football issues...otherwise, what is Florio bringing to the table? He seemingly has a limited recall of pro football history, and his on-air comments are a bit too "off-the-cuff" for my taste. But I guess that is the age we currently live in.

As for the article itself, you could probably compare any number of All-Pros to a guy like Jordy Nelson or Philip Rivers and rhetorically ask "Were they more important than Nelson/Rivers?" I thought the fullback position was added so Mike Alstott could get his perfunctory All-Pro bonus money, much like the special teams position was added for Steve Tasker.

Reaser wrote:
Changing gears, people who imply the AP All-Pro team is the official NFL All-Pro team are infuriating.

As for how All-Pro teams are put together, the problem for me is with who votes on the teams. Even more of an issue - and perhaps is leading to me placing too much blame on the voters themselves? - is that there is no standard or structure on how to vote or what position to vote a player at.
. .

Also, not all the voters are doing the voting. You think Howie Long and Cris Collinsworth make all the choices? They have right-hand men who do tons of their work for them ... including filling out all or part of their all-pro ballots.

JohnTurney wrote:Also, not all the voters are doing the voting. You think Howie Long and Cris Collinsworth make all the choices? They have right-hand men who do tons of their work for them ... including filling out all or part of their all-pro ballots.

Similar to the coaches poll in college football, then.

Yes, now not all of them have someone else do it, but many do. Collinsworth, I'm told had certain guys he made sure got "his" vote but didn't do all if it, Now, I could have bad info, since it is second hand, but others, I am told, had the ballot to someone at Fox and they fill it out after making sure their boss gives input on the positions they watch most.

As for fullbacks, not sure what the impetus was to add a fullback in the 1990s, if it was Rathman or Moose Johnston, but it came from the voters, letting the AP know there should be recognized for lead blockers. About same time they added a second inside linebacker to kind of make a slot of ILBer in a 3-4, though many times two 4-3 LBers are the All-Pros.

However, problems like this are not new and it would be great if Smith and Stuart, who I understand are both great guys would look to the All-pro teams in the 1940s too see what they are like.

To some extent, you're tilting at windmills here. There's what's true and correct, and there's what's believed by the masses. Where the two differ, sometimes you need to just move on.

JohnTurney wrote:Yes, now not all of them have someone else do it, but many do. Collinsworth, I'm told had certain guys he made sure got "his" vote but didn't do all if it

I'm mildly surprised to read that. Collinsworth for years - including this year - has said on-air who he voted All-Pro (if the player was playing in the game), plus he bought a stake in PFF.

So I'de assume that the players he points out that he voted for during broadcasts he voted for himself, and if he was to go the route of not filling all of his ballot out I would think he would just merely plug-in the guys that PFF rates best at each position?

As opposed to a "I picked these guys, you fill in the rest" type operation. Seems like he would be one of the ones who would put some effort into it and for anything he wanted to "auto-fill" he would/could simply use the grading site he has a stake in.

Jeremy Crowhurst wrote:There's what's true and correct, and there's what's believed by the masses. Where the two differ, sometimes you need to just move on.

I can think of many societal issues where what was believed by the masses was incorrect and if those that promoted what was true and correct hadn't done so, society would be very different.

Now let's go all the way down to something not nearly as important - though of varying importance to some of us - with all-pros. If what's believed by the masses is incorrect, then shouldn't those that care about what's true and correct promote what's true and correct? Especially considering the forum we're at. There's people who care about correcting, documenting, promoting the true history of pro football, seems counterintuitive to suggest they need to move on when one of the purposes of the PFRA should/would be to inform the uninformed masses of what's true and correct. No?