Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

the senior committee does not want to be
bound by the "honors" system

nor did the Blue Ribbon Committee

None of us saw Emerson, Dilweg, Lewellen play
there is not much on Wistert, I've seen some... I mean it's 1940s
football, it's just . . . different

anyway we want them is as fans that care about history and one way
to assess that is the honors system or All-pros

Other parts, as we've discussed is longevity, testimonials, rings, intangibles, stats and so on

but with it seems those things can be just ignored when a many-time 2nd team All-Pro can
like Sprinkle can leapfrong firt-team All-pros, as an example

the senior committee is not committed to put the best players in in terms of
All-Pros, Player of the Years, like that---unless, of course, it is their guy

they don't look at the details, even when they do look at All-Pros

in the 1960s you have Pro Bowls in NFL and All-Star games in AFL, all lumped together
same with All-NFL and All-AFL, they are all now "All-Pro" which doubles the
amount of All-Pros that there were in the 1970s and beyond

Only All-pros were really 1967-69 and they were harder to make because they
picked from both leagues.

These voters don't seem to, by and large, get that.

SO, you see a Maxie Baughan 9 Pro Bowls and it looks better than 6 or 7
I guess, but when did they occur?

SO, I think we, or me, overthink these things because when there is one slot
the stakes are kind of high.

My view is Riley has an excellent chance, big push for Kelcko and Meador. Clearly could
be wrong . . . guessing Branch and Howley out (recent Raiders and Cowboys got in).
Gradishar in limbo likely not this year.

Again, that is my sense of things as I hear them from folks.

JohnTurney wrote:the senior committee does not want to be
bound by the "honors" system

nor did the Blue Ribbon Committee

None of us saw Emerson, Dilweg, Lewellen play
there is not much on Wistert, I've seen some... I mean it's 1940s
football, it's just . . . different

anyway we want them is as fans that care about history and one way
to assess that is the honors system or All-pros

Other parts, as we've discussed is longevity, testimonials, rings, intangibles, stats and so on [cut for brevity]

Said before, the dozen or so films/games I've seen of Wistert, he stands out as fairly clearly the best player on the field, which includes HOF'rs and bigger 'names' ... Combined with the rest of what we know, I'm not sure it gets more clear that someone should be in the PFHOF.

Emerson, Dilweg, believe film, that's not exactly great quality considering the obvious, of one-game each,

It doesn't matter to me much who is or isn't in, since I believe the bar has been so lowered that no matter if they put in some of these guys or not, it doesn't really "fix" anything in the overall picture. Though, when some are so clear (e.g. Wistert) I suppose it's better to see them get in than not.

Reaser wrote:

JohnTurney wrote:the senior committee does not want to be
bound by the "honors" system

nor did the Blue Ribbon Committee

None of us saw Emerson, Dilweg, Lewellen play
there is not much on Wistert, I've seen some... I mean it's 1940s
football, it's just . . . different

anyway we want them is as fans that care about history and one way
to assess that is the honors system or All-pros

Other parts, as we've discussed is longevity, testimonials, rings, intangibles, stats and so on [cut for brevity]

Said before, the dozen or so films/games I've seen of Wistert, he stands out as fairly clearly the best player on the field, which includes HOF'rs and bigger 'names' ... Combined with the rest of what we know, I'm not sure it gets more clear that someone should be in the PFHOF.

Emerson, Dilweg, believe film, that's not exactly great quality considering the obvious, of one-game each,

It doesn't matter to me much who is or isn't in, since I believe the bar has been so lowered that no matter if they put in some of these guys or not, it doesn't really "fix" anything in the overall picture. Though, when some are so clear (e.g. Wistert) I suppose it's better to see them get in than not.

Ill respectfully disagree on the bar lowered reaser

Everyone has their own criteria for their selections. However, I agree with you that there needs to be more context. Not just with honors, but stats, etc.

Also, let's hope that the centennial class was not the last shot for the older players.

When people were flabbergasted that Al Wistert wasnt elected in 2020, Ron Borgas on Talkoffamenetwork.com explained to commenters like me that a lot of voters werent sold on his play, despite All-Pro recognition, championships, helping Steven Van Buren become the all-time leading rusher, etc. Some thought he was too small or not overpowering enough but George Allen himself thought he was a great technician and tough defender. People like me, Bachslunch, Rasputin and others wondered what was going on in these voters minds, especially while Van Buren was racking up Championship game numbers. The process really is too subjective and team prejudiced like Turney believes.

Ron Borges ... sorry.

Brian wolf wrote:When people were flabbergasted that Al Wistert wasnt elected in 2020, Ron Borgas on Talkoffamenetwork.com explained to commenters like me that a lot of voters werent sold on his play, despite All-Pro recognition, championships, helping Steven Van Buren become the all-time leading rusher, etc. Some thought he was too small or not overpowering enough but George Allen himself thought he was a great technician and tough defender. People like me, Bachslunch, Rasputin and others wondered what was going on in these voters minds, especially while Van Buren was racking up Championship game numbers. The process really is too subjective and team prejudiced like Turney believes.

" lot of voters werent sold on his play"

And I've seen him, and he looked okay, a lot of cut blocks but again it was just *different* then.
So, how can they just discount what George Allen said .. . and THEN somehow elevate Sprinkle on some quote by Halas?

I traced that quote and thought I am not sure, I think it got conflated with an earlier quote about Hewitt. Or it is also possible
he said Hewitt was the best pass rusher he'd ever seen and then said the same thing about Sprinkle.

But the Sprinkle quote came from the early 1970s where I found it, I may exist earlier, but I could never find it about Sprinke
in the 40s or 1950s... so in my mind there is a possibility it was not about Sprinkle . . . but cannot prove it

Anyway, so, I have seen a lot of full games of Sprinkle in his prime. And he's okay, he's good. But no better than Brito, not as good
as Katcavage, or even Willy. Jack Zilly and he looked about the same to me

So, if voters were not "sold on Wistert's ability" how did they get sold on "Sprinkles"?

How did this ability to judge---and from what film source did they use, only Chris Willis would have done that kind of work
from those people on the committee, maybe there were others, but other than clips they would have to have to really
look to get a sense of full games from these two (ust using them as an example).

How did this "ability to judge" override the ability to udge the sportswriters of the time? Those sportswriters would ask coaches
:How'd ya get the boys to fight?" "Boy that Spinkle looked tough out there, Papa Bear". and then they'd get a quote.

Same with Wistert, then at the end of the year they would fill about ballots for All-pro . . . and for whatever reason
Wistert was often First-team All-pro on the more maor teams and Sprinkle was not usually First-team All-pro
even in the 1950s when defensive units were separated

So, to me, this reflects my view that they are not really committed to putting the best players in based on what has
been standards kind of laid out by Bob Carroll in "The Hidden Game" Someting that maybe is 25% honros systen, 25% stats. s5% tesimonials,
25% ringfs ---or some mix of those 33-33-33% of fewer categories, differnt for differnt voters

What I think is 33-50% chance it's Riley tomorrow night.

I may have misquoted Ron on saying alot of voters rather than some, and if youre reading Ron Borges - I apologize but either way, its still kind of hard to believe that their was any dissent over a two-way performer and All-Pro like Wistert.

I just shake my head at times when I hear comments from some of the voters.

At this point, Wistert would greatly benefit from an organized, professional, and consistent marketing campaign aimed at educating the public and persuading selectors. You have to get family, his alma mater, the Eagles, and a PR firm together and sell his credentials just like you were selling anything else. I've personally seen it work with a couple old-timers who got into Cooperstown---the family or some dedicated fans hiring a firm, which then uses its media contacts to dust off his name and contributions to the game. It doesn't have to be in-your-face...just low-key, uncomplicated but informed, and pretty much unrelenting w/o being obnoxious. Keep it simple---4 or 5 reasons he belongs, and keep hitting those points in articles, podcasts, social media, interviews, letters, etc. Somebody doing a book would be a big boost. Could even be a 120-page self-published thing, just so it's edited and laid out in a professional manner. Something that would describe his life, career, and accomplishments and could be handed out as needed. Grass-roots campaigns of all kinds often succeed. Just gotta be creative and keep at it.

The big question is who's got the time, energy, and money to start something like this and keep it rolling, sometimes for years and years and with no guarantee of success? As Sonny & Cher sang, "It ain't me, babe." But maybe someone else out in PFRA land likes a challenge?