Found Clark Judge's "State your case" for Pat Bowlen:
http://www.talkoffamenetwork.com/state- ... ch-canton/
Interesting that he was almost nominated last time. Also had no idea he did so much committee work, which for me was his major HoF argument stumbling block.
Am actually much more inclined to support his candidacy given this. Thoughts?
Pat Bowlen: HoF, a reassessment?
Re: Pat Bowlen: HoF, a reassessment?
I'm not really a big fan of recent/current owners going into the HOF. Bowlen was definitely a good owner, but I feel like they have to do something to transcend the basic ownership duties. I don't really care about committee work because its so nebulous, and I think Charlie Brown (cartoon character or ex-Redskin WR) could have negotiated lucrative NFL TV contracts in the 1990's. Bowlen bought his way in to owning an established team in an established league...I'm more inclined to go with an older owner like Ralph Wilson who at least had some financial uncertainty.
I wasn't really for Eddie DeBartolo, but I was fine with him getting in because he set the tone for running a first-class organization, and his teams usually won. I was very against Jerry Jones getting in...nothing personal against him, I just didn't understand where the 'excellence' came from. Yet both guys got in, so my HOF forecasting skills aren't the best, and its highly possible that Pat Bowlen gets into Canton as well.
I wasn't really for Eddie DeBartolo, but I was fine with him getting in because he set the tone for running a first-class organization, and his teams usually won. I was very against Jerry Jones getting in...nothing personal against him, I just didn't understand where the 'excellence' came from. Yet both guys got in, so my HOF forecasting skills aren't the best, and its highly possible that Pat Bowlen gets into Canton as well.
-
Gary Najman
- Posts: 1442
- Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 1:24 pm
- Location: Mexico City, Mexico
Re: Pat Bowlen: HoF, a reassessment?
I agree 100%, I think it's time other contributors not owners, even GM (like former referee/supervisor of officials Art McNally or NFL Films' Steve Sabol) enter the Hall.Bryan wrote: I don't really care about committee work because its so nebulous, and I think Charlie Brown (cartoon character or ex-Redskin WR) could have negotiated lucrative NFL TV contracts in the 1990's. Bowlen bought his way in to owning an established team in an established league...
-
JohnTurney
- Posts: 2292
- Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2014 1:28 pm
I am dubious of some of the stuff going on.
https://www.google.com/search?q=bowlen+ ... me+broncos
The Denver media and the Denver Broncos organization is greedy in the HOF department. Just my opinion but they and the Vikings are the most greedy, though there are others.
By greedy I mean they act as though the HOF is a special thing just for "their guys". No matter how many of their "guys" get in, it's never enough.
The Vikings were truly shorted when Krause, Eller, Yary, and Tingelhoff were on the outside looking in. Clearly, the 4 SB losses were keeping them out in the 1980s when they were all eligible for the first time and say the 10 years after. However, as committee changed and as Vikings did good research on those players they all got in. But it's not enough. Jim Marshall has to now be the cause célèbre.
Although every serious football fan knows of his consecutive game streak it's still used as the key thing in his career, that and his 29 fumble recoveries. However, very serious football fans, like the ones in the PFRA, know that for a few years at the end, Marshall started games and Mark Mullaney played much of them in order to keep the streak alive.
Now, with Bowlen it seems the entire Denver media (see link) is on this push. However, they do it without much regard to Randy Gradishar. Years ago there was a group of people doing the same thing for Gradishar (pushing) and they went to the Broncos organization for help. Right to the top. To Bowlen and his people. They are verbally supportive but said, in essence 'We like Randy, but we support "our guys" — guys who played for us since 1984, like Mecklenberg, Steve Atwater, Terrell Davis'.
Great, you have a guy who was a Defensive Player of the Year, and all the other things he has going for him and they won't use their influence to push him because he didn't play for you when you were an owner.
To me, the Broncos organization ought to be glad they got Terrell Davis in. As was discussed here, he's in on the Gale Sayers-type exception. He was a high peak player who was cut down by injuries. But the very second he gets in, it's full steam ahead for Bowlen.
Now, as far as this "committee" stuff they talk about. Can someone explain why that is the stuff of Hall of Fame? Owners of products maximizing their business is a good thing, it's their right and due diligence. But what does it have to do with football greatness? And if these things are so great then why did Modell get rejected so many times. Word was he was a major cog in the television and maybe other committees?
How can voters gage this greatness in committee work? Why is one owner likely going to get in (Bowlen) and others out (Modell, Carrol Rosenbloom, etc) out?
I think the committee crap is just fluff and cover used to justify putting in owners.
George Young, Beathard, Wolf, Polian. Those I get. It's football.
Of course, I could be wrong.
The Denver media and the Denver Broncos organization is greedy in the HOF department. Just my opinion but they and the Vikings are the most greedy, though there are others.
By greedy I mean they act as though the HOF is a special thing just for "their guys". No matter how many of their "guys" get in, it's never enough.
The Vikings were truly shorted when Krause, Eller, Yary, and Tingelhoff were on the outside looking in. Clearly, the 4 SB losses were keeping them out in the 1980s when they were all eligible for the first time and say the 10 years after. However, as committee changed and as Vikings did good research on those players they all got in. But it's not enough. Jim Marshall has to now be the cause célèbre.
Although every serious football fan knows of his consecutive game streak it's still used as the key thing in his career, that and his 29 fumble recoveries. However, very serious football fans, like the ones in the PFRA, know that for a few years at the end, Marshall started games and Mark Mullaney played much of them in order to keep the streak alive.
Now, with Bowlen it seems the entire Denver media (see link) is on this push. However, they do it without much regard to Randy Gradishar. Years ago there was a group of people doing the same thing for Gradishar (pushing) and they went to the Broncos organization for help. Right to the top. To Bowlen and his people. They are verbally supportive but said, in essence 'We like Randy, but we support "our guys" — guys who played for us since 1984, like Mecklenberg, Steve Atwater, Terrell Davis'.
Great, you have a guy who was a Defensive Player of the Year, and all the other things he has going for him and they won't use their influence to push him because he didn't play for you when you were an owner.
To me, the Broncos organization ought to be glad they got Terrell Davis in. As was discussed here, he's in on the Gale Sayers-type exception. He was a high peak player who was cut down by injuries. But the very second he gets in, it's full steam ahead for Bowlen.
Now, as far as this "committee" stuff they talk about. Can someone explain why that is the stuff of Hall of Fame? Owners of products maximizing their business is a good thing, it's their right and due diligence. But what does it have to do with football greatness? And if these things are so great then why did Modell get rejected so many times. Word was he was a major cog in the television and maybe other committees?
How can voters gage this greatness in committee work? Why is one owner likely going to get in (Bowlen) and others out (Modell, Carrol Rosenbloom, etc) out?
I think the committee crap is just fluff and cover used to justify putting in owners.
George Young, Beathard, Wolf, Polian. Those I get. It's football.
Of course, I could be wrong.
Re: Pat Bowlen: HoF, a reassessment?
Exactly. I've argued that here before in regards to other owners - such as Modell's "committee work". It's always over-hyped.Bryan wrote:I don't really care about committee work because its so nebulous, and I think Charlie Brown (cartoon character or ex-Redskin WR) could have negotiated lucrative NFL TV contracts in the 1990's.
It's practically in the same category as giving Goodell credit for "growing the league/profits" when Snoopy (cartoon character or the Snoopy Bowl Trophy the Jets-Giants preseason winner got) could have been running the league this entire time and it'd be where it is now - or likely even in a better position.
-
bachslunch
- Posts: 824
- Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2014 7:09 am
Re: Pat Bowlen: HoF, a reassessment?
Thanks for the feedback. Some thoughts:
-agree that folks like Bobby Beathard, George Young, Gil Brandt, Art McNally, and Steve Sabol deserve priority over any of the owner candidates, and getting them in should be first priority.
-no question the "committee work" argument can be, and probably is, abused. But for me at least, a deserving HoF owner should have more than winning on their resume. And there's no question for me that something like George Halas’s and George Preston Marshall's 1930's rules changes fall into the committee work category, probably the most deserving example. The big question is what constitutes value in this regard.
Have been wrestling with how best to order potentially HoF deserving owners, and where to draw the cutoff line. Given what I've been able to figure out, the ordering would likely be this:
Ralph Hay
Robert Kraft
Art Modell
Pat Bowlen
Bud Adams
Jack Kent Cooke
Clint Murchison
Carrol Rosenbloom
I originally had Bowlen in the Cooke/Murchison area, but can potentially see the argument to move him up. Had never seen any reasonable argument for him before other than winning a few titles.
The in-out line could be drawn anywhere depending on how big-hall or small-hall you see things. Someone posted here back a while ago that the only deserving owners would be Halas, Marshall, Al Davis, and Lamar Hunt. Very small-hall, but defensible. Problem is, there are several owners in the HoF now, and highly defensible choices beyond these four, such as Dan Reeves, Dan Rooney, and Tim Mara. At present, I'd probably draw the line between Adams and Cooke, but am open to good arguments that say otherwise.
-agree that folks like Bobby Beathard, George Young, Gil Brandt, Art McNally, and Steve Sabol deserve priority over any of the owner candidates, and getting them in should be first priority.
-no question the "committee work" argument can be, and probably is, abused. But for me at least, a deserving HoF owner should have more than winning on their resume. And there's no question for me that something like George Halas’s and George Preston Marshall's 1930's rules changes fall into the committee work category, probably the most deserving example. The big question is what constitutes value in this regard.
Have been wrestling with how best to order potentially HoF deserving owners, and where to draw the cutoff line. Given what I've been able to figure out, the ordering would likely be this:
Ralph Hay
Robert Kraft
Art Modell
Pat Bowlen
Bud Adams
Jack Kent Cooke
Clint Murchison
Carrol Rosenbloom
I originally had Bowlen in the Cooke/Murchison area, but can potentially see the argument to move him up. Had never seen any reasonable argument for him before other than winning a few titles.
The in-out line could be drawn anywhere depending on how big-hall or small-hall you see things. Someone posted here back a while ago that the only deserving owners would be Halas, Marshall, Al Davis, and Lamar Hunt. Very small-hall, but defensible. Problem is, there are several owners in the HoF now, and highly defensible choices beyond these four, such as Dan Reeves, Dan Rooney, and Tim Mara. At present, I'd probably draw the line between Adams and Cooke, but am open to good arguments that say otherwise.
Re: Pat Bowlen: HoF, a reassessment?
I think Beathard's work with putting together the 1982-83 Redskins is the greatest singular 'GM/personnel' achievement in NFL history.bachslunch wrote:-agree that folks like Bobby Beathard, George Young, Gil Brandt, Art McNally, and Steve Sabol deserve priority over any of the owner candidates, and getting them in should be first priority.
He inherited a team that traded away most of its draft choices (thanks, George!), hired a rookie head coach, yet found a way to get production from an assortment of 'odds and ends' players. Art Monk and Mark May were the only two Washington 1st round picks on that 1982 roster. They had a span of regular/postseason games where they went 31-3, with two of the losses being by 1 point.
I would definitely be in favor of putting Beathard in the HOF, especially over Bowlen.
-
BD Sullivan
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 1:30 pm
Re: Pat Bowlen: HoF, a reassessment?
Besides The Move, Modell's main reason for being on the outside is his outright mediocrity as an owner. Yes, he hired Blanton Collier--because he couldn't stand Paul Brown--yet many of the Browns' players that helped continue the team's success (or the coaches that instructed and scouts that drafted them) in the mid to late 60's were chosen by/traded for by Brown. Once that ran dry, there's nothing memorable about his tenure.
From 1970-95, the Browns' regular season record was the epitome of mediocrity: 194-195-3. Their run of success under Schottenheimer (which ended with Modell forcing him out) sputtered along for another year until completely collapsing in 1990. Modell does have the distinction of having fired BOTH Paul Brown and Bill Belichick and was incompetent enough that even after getting his sweetheart deal in Baltimore, he still had to sell the the team four years later.
From 1970-95, the Browns' regular season record was the epitome of mediocrity: 194-195-3. Their run of success under Schottenheimer (which ended with Modell forcing him out) sputtered along for another year until completely collapsing in 1990. Modell does have the distinction of having fired BOTH Paul Brown and Bill Belichick and was incompetent enough that even after getting his sweetheart deal in Baltimore, he still had to sell the the team four years later.