Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

From the current AFL thread:

JuggernautJ wrote:

Reaser wrote:

Bob Gill wrote:The only one I'd vote for on the original list of five is Robinson. I'd vote for Tyrer too, if he ever made it into the pool for consideration.

I'm with Bob. Robinson clear #1, Tyrer is "HOF" level but we all know why that won't happen.

Considering what we now know about football related head trauma and how it affects the brain, and considering the modern approach to mental health is the "ban" on Jim Tyrer still valid?

I would think, considering what we now know and how we address same in the modern day his HoF worthiness should be re- considered (based only on how well he played football).

He was obviously very ill at the end of his life...

Should Jim Tyrer be reconsidered for the HoF based on what we now know about football related head injuries and how we now address mental health issues?

Should Jim Tyrer be reconsidered for the HoF based on what we now know about football related head injuries and how we now address mental health issues?

Absolutely. Even if it was somehow proven that CTE or something similar did NOT have anything to do with the events at the end of his life, he should still be considered. The HOF should celebrate the players' careers, and anything that happened after their careers shouldn't add or subtract from their worthiness.

Staying with what I said in the other thread ...

I think the HOF "should be" for the best players, Tyrer was certainly one of them. I think he's worthy regardless of what happened away from the field - which that stuff isn't supposed to matter anyways but seemingly does, in this case.

So he should be - and have been all this time - considered regardless of whether or not one believes that playing football leads to head trauma that leads to people committing various crimes.

Regardless of whether CTE could ever be proven in his case, the fact that the NFL has taken mountains of heat over the past few years related to domestic violence won't make him a popular guy to select.

Selectors constantly say that off-the-field issues cannot play a part in the HOF selection process. They emphasize that when people bring up Ray Lewis. To be consistent, they have to ignore everything that happened off the field with Tyrer, as well. They still might not think he is a HOFer, but you cannot be selective in how you treat candidates.

As I posted in a parallel thread, the HoF voters seemingly had no problem voting in both Eddie DeBartolo and Ken Stabler this past year. It's only the latest example of a consistent pattern to accept the PFHoF's statement that character issues (on or off field, it seems) don't matter -- and as long as they're consistent, I'm fine with it. It does make the snubs of folks like Tyrer, Billy Howton, and Alex Karras problematic though.

I'd be careful comparing Stabler to Tyrer, but I get what you are saying. However, I would say that with the spotlight on domestic abuse, it wouldn't look good for the PFHoF to welcome someone with Tyrer's history ... that just would not be good politics.