Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Gosselin and others have been listing senior candidates and it seems many are the "All-Decade" guys, which is fine, but it does not seem like they are looking closely.

First, the All-Decade teams for the 1920s-1950s were all selected in 1969 or 1970. Second, there are some things are are problematic, both before and after that, Earl Campbell played 2 years in the 1970s and was 2nd team All-1970s. Third, that brings up the distinction between 1st and 2nd team which can be important.

Take Ed Sprinkle. Yes, he was All-1940s. But he was ALl-Pro (2nd, I think) just one time in the 1940s and that was 1949. He was more of a 1945-55 guy. He did play in the 1940s but was he really a worthy All-Decade?

That's just a quick example.

Also, there are other sources for All-Decade teams, other books and publications and many of them seem much better than the official HOF picks.

I take it that All-Decade guys are going to get priority if we are to trust the articles available...but it sure seems like that should be one tool in the toolbox, I hope it's not the whole toolbox

I get the same impression, based on comments from Gosselin and Baker. The focus will be getting all-decade players in. Positives and negatives, but it is better than nothing.

Ken Crippen wrote:I get the same impression, based on comments from Gosselin and Baker. The focus will be getting all-decade players in. Positives and negatives, but it is better than nothing.

I think with the extra slots it's hard for them to miss the mark too much, so that is a positive. Take Cliff Harris, qualified for sure, has the credentials, but is he the best senior safety out there? If they are just going to tally All-Pros and Pro Bowls then give extra credit for rings and then maybe give a demerit or two for something...then they are really just mailing it in. But, as you said, it's better to use the benchmarks than to have them just go by testimonials where we get these "he changed the game" myths or the "cannot write the hisoty of pro football without him" things or whatever these sayings are.

My preference is to use all available resources, but 90% of voters don't have the time to do that. So, if we get a few pre-WWII guys I will be pleased and whoever the modern guys are, if they are the ones I would pick, well, then at least 5-6 are out of the way and my preferences will eventually get it.

But, we will see, I am still a bit skeptical that things will not get ramrodded by the lobbying going on.

JohnTurney wrote:

Ken Crippen wrote:I get the same impression, based on comments from Gosselin and Baker. The focus will be getting all-decade players in. Positives and negatives, but it is better than nothing.

I think with the extra slots it's hard for them to miss the mark too much, so that is a positive. Take Cliff Harris, qualified for sure, has the credentials, but is he the best senior safety out there? If they are just going to tally All-Pros and Pro Bowls then give extra credit for rings and then maybe give a demerit or two for something...then they are really just mailing it in. But, as you said, it's better to use the benchmarks than to have them just go by testimonials where we get these "he changed the game" myths or the "cannot write the hisoty of pro football without him" things or whatever these sayings are.

My preference is to use all available resources, but 90% of voters don't have the time to do that. So, if we get a few pre-WWII guys I will be pleased and whoever the modern guys are, if they are the ones I would pick, well, then at least 5-6 are out of the way and my preferences will eventually get it.

But, we will see, I am still a bit skeptical that things will not get ramrodded by the lobbying going on.

The problem they are going to face is that if they have pretty much ignored the seniors in the past, it does not give them a lot of time to do adequate research to find the best candidates. As you said, they may just mail it in (pick just all-decade players) or cave to the loudest lobbying groups. Only time will tell.

Agreed that the All-Decade teams are flawed to varying degrees. What I like about this, though, is that it is likely to advance the cases of several worthy folks. Gosselin listed Dilweg, Emerson, Wistert, Harris, and Pearson among those who should be considered, and that’s a pretty terrific and deserving bunch. I’d be fine if they all got in.

FWIW, Cliff Harris would be my top safety snub. I’ve got Jimmy Patton, Bobby Dillon, Eddie Meador, Deron Cherry, Nolan Cromwell, Donnie Shell, and Joey Browner following in that order. Dave Grayson sits between Patton and Dillon for me, though he also played a good bit at CB. YMMV, of course.

Drew Pearson ranks sixth for me at WR but 27th overall, and I’d be fine if he made it in. Again, YMMV.

Thoughts on boyd dowler?

Ken Crippen wrote: The problem they are going to face is that if they have pretty much ignored the seniors in the past, it does not give them a lot of time to do adequate research to find the best candidates. As you said, they may just mail it in (pick just all-decade players) or cave to the loudest lobbying groups. Only time will tell.

Does the PFRA really have no role to play in the decision making?
I'm just a nobody but several of "us" are respected members of the football historians community (if such a thing exists).
Without dropping names there are opinions here who matter and are influential.

Is there nothing we can do to help ensure the Hall of Fame makes the right choices here?
If the folks making these calls are in need of "adequate research" isn't that kind of right up our alley?

If... "The PFRA officially supports four candidates for induction into the Pro Football Hall of Fame: Lavvie Dilweg, Duke Slater, Mac Speedie, and Al Wistert" what are we/can we do to try and make that happen?

I'm not suggesting battering down the doors to The Hall or telling people their decisions are uninformed.
I'm wondering if there's a way we can constructively guide the decision makers to more educated choices.

I feel like we have a responsibility to help make sure this comes out right.

JuggernautJ wrote:

Ken Crippen wrote: The problem they are going to face is that if they have pretty much ignored the seniors in the past, it does not give them a lot of time to do adequate research to find the best candidates. As you said, they may just mail it in (pick just all-decade players) or cave to the loudest lobbying groups. Only time will tell.

Does the PFRA really have no role to play in the decision making?
I'm just a nobody but several of "us" are respected members of the football historians community (if such a thing exists).
Without dropping names there are opinions here who matter and are influential.

Is there nothing we can do to help ensure the Hall of Fame makes the right choices here?
If the folks making these calls are in need of "adequate research" isn't that kind of right up our alley?

If... "The PFRA officially supports four candidates for induction into the Pro Football Hall of Fame: Lavvie Dilweg, Duke Slater, Mac Speedie, and Al Wistert" what are we/can we do to try and make that happen?

I'm not suggesting battering down the doors to The Hall or telling people their decisions are uninformed.
I'm wondering if there's a way we can constructively guide the decision makers to more educated choices.

I feel like we have a responsibility to help make sure this comes out right.

agreed 100%

rewing84 wrote:Thoughts on boyd dowler?

I have to say no. They are taking that 50th Anniversary team runner=up spot a long way. By "they" I mean his son who posts a lot on Facebook.

JuggernautJ wrote:

Ken Crippen wrote: The problem they are going to face is that if they have pretty much ignored the seniors in the past, it does not give them a lot of time to do adequate research to find the best candidates. As you said, they may just mail it in (pick just all-decade players) or cave to the loudest lobbying groups. Only time will tell.

Does the PFRA really have no role to play in the decision making?
I'm just a nobody but several of "us" are respected members of the football historians community (if such a thing exists).
Without dropping names there are opinions here who matter and are influential.

Is there nothing we can do to help ensure the Hall of Fame makes the right choices here?
If the folks making these calls are in need of "adequate research" isn't that kind of right up our alley?

If... "The PFRA officially supports four candidates for induction into the Pro Football Hall of Fame: Lavvie Dilweg, Duke Slater, Mac Speedie, and Al Wistert" what are we/can we do to try and make that happen?

I'm not suggesting battering down the doors to The Hall or telling people their decisions are uninformed.
I'm wondering if there's a way we can constructively guide the decision makers to more educated choices.

I feel like we have a responsibility to help make sure this comes out right.

I work directly with the selectors to talk about players and give opinions. They also reach out to me for opinions, so I help guide them in any way I can. The Hall of Fame has referred me to people. I know that John does the same.

However, there are a lot of selectors who are not even interested in hearing opinions or other research.