Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

but good choices

Here's a link to a good post on Pearson: http://nflfootballjournal.blogspot.com/ ... -post.html

Nothing against Pearson but this is bad news. I can name ten senior players who are more deserving without even trying very hard.

When the decision was made to go back to just one senior candidate per year, the pressure was on for them to really pick the best candidates. This is a terrible start.

Andy Piascik wrote:Nothing against Pearson but this is bad news. I can name ten senior players who are more deserving without even trying very hard.

When the decision was made to go back to just one senior candidate per year, the pressure was on for them to really pick the best candidates. This is a terrible start.

Not even the most deserving Cowboy in my mind which is Chuck Howley 5 All-Pros to 3 and big game performance, well . . . .

Andy, I agree. Which is why I'd love to know who Pearson was up against. And who votes on them? it seems quite ironic to me that Pearson is a finalist because last year there was a large outcry for the 100th anniversary of the NFL when he wasn't chosen.

Nine members of the HOF Selection Committee make up the Senior Committee and they're the ones who vote. Generally they're the most senior members of the Selection Committee. I don't know if they rotate them or if somebody, once selected, can remain on the Senior Committee for as long as they continue to actively cover the NFL. Nor do I know how a new member is determined once an opening becomes available, whether the whole Selection Committee has an election or what. The nine are listed at the HOF website along with their media affiliation.

Crippen or Turney or anyone who knows better can correct me if I'm wrong but as I understand it, the nine Senior Committee members have a series of votes over a period of weeks/months to pare down from the dozens of candidates they start off with. By the time they meet each August to make their final choice(s), they're presumably down to a manageable number like 5 or 10. Advisors are brought in at this point: Hall of Fame players or coaches who are invited to offer their opinion about one or maybe more of the finalists, presumably only ones they played with or against. I would think they prioritize opposing players rather than teammates. Dick LeBeau was an advisor this time. There's discussion about the merits of the finalists and then they vote.

Unless one of the voters does so off the record, I think there's an unstated policy against releasing the names of the finalists. Or it may be explicit.

Flores is 44th all-time in regular season victories. I see him as the Eli Manning of coaches. If both get in it is because of the two Super Bowl championships and not for the aggregate mediocrity of the rest of their careers. Like others here have expressed- ehh. I'm losing interest in the Hall of Fame with each passing year.

Andy Piascik wrote:Nine members of the HOF Selection Committee make up the Senior Committee and they're the ones who vote. Generally they're the most senior members of the Selection Committee. I don't know if they rotate them or if somebody, once selected, can remain on the Senior Committee for as long as they continue to actively cover the NFL. Nor do I know how a new member is determined once an opening becomes available, whether the whole Selection Committee has an election or what. The nine are listed at the HOF website along with their media affiliation.

Crippen or Turney or anyone who knows better can correct me if I'm wrong but as I understand it, the nine Senior Committee members have a series of votes over a period of weeks/months to pare down from the dozens of candidates they start off with. By the time they meet each August to make their final choice(s), they're presumably down to a manageable number like 5 or 10. Advisors are brought in at this point: Hall of Fame players or coaches who are invited to offer their opinion about one or maybe more of the finalists, presumably only ones they played with or against. I would think they prioritize opposing players rather than teammates. Dick LeBeau was an advisor this time. There's discussion about the merits of the finalists and then they vote.

Unless one of the voters does so off the record, I think there's an unstated policy against releasing the names of the finalists. Or it may be explicit.

The nine senior selectors whittle down the list of people to the top 10. This year, it was a top 12. At that point, five of the nine members (rotating basis) take the top 10 and come up with the nominee.

The original list of nominees (usually over 100) is sent to the committee around the beginning of June. The selectors have until the end of July to name their top players. The votes are tabulated and about a week before the final meeting, the selectors get the top 10. The five selectors meet, talk with advisors provided by the HOF, then open debates on each candidate. They keep going until they have their nominee. The top10 is not to be released to the public.

NWebster wrote:
Not even the most deserving Cowboy in my mind which is Chuck Howley 5 All-Pros to 3 and big game performance, well . . . .

Would agree---but it could have been worse based on the final 12. Kunz and Riley getting a lot of support. Kunz can see. Riley is a guy
some like because he has a lot of picks and got close because his coach (Le Beau) was in the room--then again, to counter my own point
Gil Brandt was in room, too/

But Riley checks the "stat" box very well. But is light in terms of honors and testimonials and scouts ranking. Anyeone can go through
and look at Joel Buchsbaum's stuff and others---it's not like he's ever a top-rated CB

PSI has him low--not near as high as Parrish, Hayes, Wright, etc. George Allen has him as a "6" in 1976 when he has like 12-15 Cbs higher---including Lemar Parrish (9) and others

So, my opinion is that when you have just 4 slots in 4 years, putting in a 'one-checked box" guy in over guys who have 3-4 "checked boxes" (yes, subjective
and different for each person) it would have been bad and I cannot prove it but it almost happened.

Do they really need to put forth a "senior" coach every year? There are more than enough coaches already in the HOF. This exercise would be useful if they kept it to assistant coaches...Howard Mudd, Phil Bengston, etc. If you are just going down the list and mindlessly selecting multiple-title winning coaches, then why even bother with a committee? Win two titles, automatically enshrined. You wouldn't even have to wait for the coach to retire, just start chiseling out Shanahan's bust moments after the Broncos whomp the Falcons.

I'm guessing Flores' HOF plaque will say "effectively stewarded immensely talented Raiders team to two Super Bowl titles". Is that good enough to be enshrined? Maybe to some, but I wouldn't have put Flores in. Lost in the postseason to Richard Todd, Dave Krieg, Tony Eason. I would rather have seen Parker or Coryell get in.

Pearson is borderline to me. Simply wasn't as good as Swann, but you can make an argument for him.

EDITED DUE TO MY BLATANT IDIOCY