Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

JohnTurney wrote:http://nflfootballjournal.blogspot.com/ ... sults.html

I can usually just tune out Mike Florio when he talks about current NFL issues. I view him as a guy who has built his career on surfing the internet and proclaiming himself an "NFL Insider" (which I find admirable in a certain respect), but his idiotic Hall of Fame columns have become an annual event. They start out with some mischaracterization of a previous enshrinee's qualifications...followed by Florio's "insider take" on what was being said in the committee room 20-25 years ago...then the mischaracterization is compared to a current alleged snub...followed by additional Florio "inside information" on what was said in the committee room this year. Much like all of Jason Whitlock's Hall of Fame complaints, its a surface-level fluff piece that doesn't really analyze the players themselves. Instead, its "the selection committee liked this guy, and hated this other guy, and that's that", with the irony being neither Florio nor Whitlock have any first-hand knowledge about what the selection committee said.

The Florio article about Swann is priceless. Its almost a carbon copy of the regular mindless Mike Tanier piece where Tim Brown/Andre Reed/random 1990's WR should get a bust in Canton because Paul Warfield never had a 1000-yard season. Florio says Swann is 222nd on the all-time receiving list, while Calvin Johnson is 27th...and then the article ends.

Bryan wrote:

JohnTurney wrote:http://nflfootballjournal.blogspot.com/ ... sults.html

I can usually just tune out Mike Florio when he talks about current NFL issues. I view him as a guy who has built his career on surfing the internet and proclaiming himself an "NFL Insider" (which I find admirable in a certain respect), but his idiotic Hall of Fame columns have become an annual event. They start out with some mischaracterization of a previous enshrinee's qualifications...followed by Florio's "insider take" on what was being said in the committee room 20-25 years ago...then the mischaracterization is compared to a current alleged snub...followed by additional Florio "inside information" on what was said in the committee room this year. Much like all of Jason Whitlock's Hall of Fame complaints, its a surface-level fluff piece that doesn't really analyze the players themselves. Instead, its "the selection committee liked this guy, and hated this other guy, and that's that", with the irony being neither Florio nor Whitlock have any first-hand knowledge about what the selection committee said.

The Florio article about Swann is priceless. Its almost a carbon copy of the regular mindless Mike Tanier piece where Tim Brown/Andre Reed/random 1990's WR should get a bust in Canton because Paul Warfield never had a 1000-yard season. Florio says Swann is 222nd on the all-time receiving list, while Calvin Johnson is 27th...and then the article ends.

Post this on the comments section on my blog---see if it gets back to Florio.

Bryan put it really well. All I've read from both Florio and Whitlock on the HoF strikes me as ill informed and marginally researched. They also strike me as folks who very much wish they were voters, but given their apparent lack of knowledge and/or judgement, I think they would do poorly in this role.

bachslunch wrote:Bryan put it really well.

Yes, he did.

Someone should ask Florio if Swann was a split end or flanker (x or z) see if he even knows.

bachslunch wrote: They also strike me as folks who very much wish they were voters, but given their apparent lack of knowledge and/or judgement, I think they would do poorly in this role.

As Keith Jackson would say, "Whoa Nelly!" Possibly the funniest comment ever posted on this forum.

"...who very much wish they were voters" ? Of who do you speak? This forum consists of a few members who spend 98 percent of their time posting HOF related dialogue - acting as though they actually have some say in the matter - and we're criticizing someone else for wishing they were a voter? Wow. If that isn't proof this discussion has gone way past the point of reality or self-awareness, I don't know what is.

And...lack of knowledge? Knowledge? Knowledge? ("Playoffs? Playoffs?") Since when does opining or memorizing facts constitute knowledge?

mwald wrote:"...who very much wish they were voters" ? Of who do you speak? This forum consists of a few members who spend 98 percent of their time posting HOF related dialogue - acting as though they actually have some say in the matter - and we're criticizing someone else for wishing they were a voter? Wow. If that isn't proof this discussion has gone way past the point of reality or self-awareness, I don't know what is.

This.

Bryan wrote:

mwald wrote:"...who very much wish they were voters" ? Of who do you speak? This forum consists of a few members who spend 98 percent of their time posting HOF related dialogue - acting as though they actually have some say in the matter - and we're criticizing someone else for wishing they were a voter? Wow. If that isn't proof this discussion has gone way past the point of reality or self-awareness, I don't know what is.

This.

Good morning, Bryan. Can I get you a cup of coffee?

(btw, that's Reaser's line)

It took Swann 14 times to get voted in, and there were multiple years where he was passed over, where only four people were inducted -- where the committee said "we're going to induct nobody rather than him". I think it's pretty fair to conclude that there is some legitimate debate about his worthiness for induction.

That said, it would be refreshing if Florio could come up with at least SOMETHING new on the topic.

Jeremy Crowhurst wrote:It took Swann 14 times to get voted in, and there were multiple years where he was passed over, where only four people were inducted -- where the committee said "we're going to induct nobody rather than him". I think it's pretty fair to conclude that there is some legitimate debate about his worthiness for induction.

That said, it would be refreshing if Florio could come up with at least SOMETHING new on the topic.

correct, reasonable people can disagree on Swann, IMO no one is right or wrong. But Florio is saying since Swann opined on Megatron that opens up Swann for new scrutiny.

Okay, if Florio is going to say that writers talking behind closed doors disrespects Owens then doesn't Florio open himself up for scrutiny when he, himself, has disrespected players, viz-a-viz turd watch and so on? And isn't he also disrespecting Swann publically?

He seems to think the things said about Owens (and I am sure there were negative things to say about Swann) are bad form or out of bounds, but his surmise on Swann's candidacy is fair game?

That's what it seems like to me.