Second point on Howley, Tyrer, etc
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2020 8:59 am
Posted omn this recently---but there is a disconnect in All-pros teams for the 1960s (and from 1946-49) in terms
of All-Pro versus All-NFL and All-AFL. (and All-Pro vs All-NFL and All-AAFC)
They have all been used interchangeably by most of us but they really are not. And again, with just 3 slots left
in next 3 years it begs the question---how can one compare Howley's honors with Gradishars or Jim Tyrers (or Sweeney or others)?
From 1970 on All-Pro was from 26 teams, then 28 and so on.
1960-69 it was most 10 AFL and 14 NFL, then the expansions.
In 1967, Murray Olderman picked the first kind of "major" All-pro team, and in
1968 the PFWA and PFW did it and then in 1969 most organizations finally did it
So, from 1967-69 one can cage it decently.
But from 1960-65 it becomes harder.
Who would have been "All-Pro" center in 1965--Otto? Tingelhoff. As it stands we have 2 "All-pro" consensus centers and four guards and so on.
Howley was "All-Pro" in 1969 but not 1967 or 1968--he was All-NFL. he lost out to Bell and Webster for the most part.
So, is that something the voters will consider when comparing to Gradishar or other LBers--(or any position)
My experience is most voters, even the sharper one cannot fathom this kind of detail . . .only recenlty did
some of them learn that there were votes total available for the 1970 and 1980 All-Decade teams
(sidebar)
There were 25 voters for the 1970s all decade team. 35 votes went for the 4 on the team with Harold Carmichael having 2
menaing there were 15 votes for 15 different receivers---Cliff Branch undoubtedly was one of those. If one voter picked
Branch (or Harold Jackson who likely had one vote--or others, Gray? Rashad? Curtis? Burrough? etc) then Carmichael is out.
In someone on the BRC said "you know, Carmichael got benched in 1975 for a couple of games---is that what a HOfer does?
Get benched in his prime?" that might have made a difference--for Branch perhaps or Jackson or others
(sidebar over)
Anyway, this audience is the only one who gets this kind of sepcific detail, we all know in teh 1960s and in teh late-1940s the honors were
"doubled"
Same thing for Zach Thomas. From mid-1980s-2012 or so there were 2 "ILBers" in the AP All-Pro team as opposed to one on the SN and PFWA.
It made sense in the 1980s to early 1990s when the league was mostly a 3-4 league but in 1990s to more recently it was more of a 4-3, though in mid
2000s team mvoed back and forth---
Anyway---Thomas, in all five of his AP All-Pro seasons, was the second-leading vote-getter---which is why he never made the PFWA or SN (players &execs)
All-Pro teams. So, in a real way, ILBers from 1985-2010 (guessing on years, too lazy to look up) got an advantage. And Thomas was the one who
got the biggest benefit.
So, to me, his "5 All-Pros" are not as solid as someone who made 5 All-pros in an era where they was just one MLBN picked, for the most part (a few exceptions)
Again, what is really the point of this is there are voters who have little to no idea the nuance of these things. And with so few slots one must
use all available data in my view.
So, all of this is more or less a rant--because there is no solution... but some times a 5 time All-pro at MLB from teh 1990-2000s is not "more decorated" than
a 3- or 4-time All-Pro from the 1970s-80s
And in the 60s and late-1940s---some "All-Pro" honors were more like All-Conference teams rather than "All-Pro"
of All-Pro versus All-NFL and All-AFL. (and All-Pro vs All-NFL and All-AAFC)
They have all been used interchangeably by most of us but they really are not. And again, with just 3 slots left
in next 3 years it begs the question---how can one compare Howley's honors with Gradishars or Jim Tyrers (or Sweeney or others)?
From 1970 on All-Pro was from 26 teams, then 28 and so on.
1960-69 it was most 10 AFL and 14 NFL, then the expansions.
In 1967, Murray Olderman picked the first kind of "major" All-pro team, and in
1968 the PFWA and PFW did it and then in 1969 most organizations finally did it
So, from 1967-69 one can cage it decently.
But from 1960-65 it becomes harder.
Who would have been "All-Pro" center in 1965--Otto? Tingelhoff. As it stands we have 2 "All-pro" consensus centers and four guards and so on.
Howley was "All-Pro" in 1969 but not 1967 or 1968--he was All-NFL. he lost out to Bell and Webster for the most part.
So, is that something the voters will consider when comparing to Gradishar or other LBers--(or any position)
My experience is most voters, even the sharper one cannot fathom this kind of detail . . .only recenlty did
some of them learn that there were votes total available for the 1970 and 1980 All-Decade teams
(sidebar)
There were 25 voters for the 1970s all decade team. 35 votes went for the 4 on the team with Harold Carmichael having 2
menaing there were 15 votes for 15 different receivers---Cliff Branch undoubtedly was one of those. If one voter picked
Branch (or Harold Jackson who likely had one vote--or others, Gray? Rashad? Curtis? Burrough? etc) then Carmichael is out.
In someone on the BRC said "you know, Carmichael got benched in 1975 for a couple of games---is that what a HOfer does?
Get benched in his prime?" that might have made a difference--for Branch perhaps or Jackson or others
(sidebar over)
Anyway, this audience is the only one who gets this kind of sepcific detail, we all know in teh 1960s and in teh late-1940s the honors were
"doubled"
Same thing for Zach Thomas. From mid-1980s-2012 or so there were 2 "ILBers" in the AP All-Pro team as opposed to one on the SN and PFWA.
It made sense in the 1980s to early 1990s when the league was mostly a 3-4 league but in 1990s to more recently it was more of a 4-3, though in mid
2000s team mvoed back and forth---
Anyway---Thomas, in all five of his AP All-Pro seasons, was the second-leading vote-getter---which is why he never made the PFWA or SN (players &execs)
All-Pro teams. So, in a real way, ILBers from 1985-2010 (guessing on years, too lazy to look up) got an advantage. And Thomas was the one who
got the biggest benefit.
So, to me, his "5 All-Pros" are not as solid as someone who made 5 All-pros in an era where they was just one MLBN picked, for the most part (a few exceptions)
Again, what is really the point of this is there are voters who have little to no idea the nuance of these things. And with so few slots one must
use all available data in my view.
So, all of this is more or less a rant--because there is no solution... but some times a 5 time All-pro at MLB from teh 1990-2000s is not "more decorated" than
a 3- or 4-time All-Pro from the 1970s-80s
And in the 60s and late-1940s---some "All-Pro" honors were more like All-Conference teams rather than "All-Pro"