Centennial Hall of Fame Class

Post Reply
Andy Piascik
Posts: 155
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2014 11:32 pm

Centennial Hall of Fame Class

Post by Andy Piascik »

A week has passed since the announcement and maybe everything that needs to be said has been said. But since the Hall of Fame is one of the most popular topics on this forum and maybe THE most popular, here’s two more cents.

Excellent: Karras, Slater, Speedie
Good But Could Have Been Better: Dillon, Harris, Shell
Not-So-Good: Hill
Inexplicably Bad: Carmichael, Covert, Sprinkle

Slater: I went back and looked at his honors and they’re better than I remember. He made at least one first team all-pro team in five seasons and second team in a sixth. So while I’ve heard, “His honors are a little light but that’s likely because he missed some he should have gotten because of racism, so let’s put him in” I don’t agree. I do agree he very likely missed some honors because of racism but disagree his honors are light.

Karras: Many of us figure his gambling suspension has hurt him all these years and I think it did. I wonder if his angry departure from the game after being cut in training camp in 1971 was also a factor. Joe Schmidt was a long-time teammate who played right behind him and thus the perfect kind of guy who might have pushed for him for the HOF. However, Schmidt was also his head coach in 1971 and Karras was especially pissed at him as I remember it. Not saying Schmidt badmouthed him; not at all. But he may not have advocated for him the way he might have otherwise.

Speedie: No secret I’m a big supporter. I was very surprised when he got elected, especially after the first three they announced were Hill, Covert and Carmichael. Had you told me the night before that only three pre-1955 candidates would make it and that one of them would be Sprinkle, I would have said no way Speedie gets in.

Dillon, Harris and Shell: If Dilweg, Emerson, Gradishar and Wistert had gotten in along with Karras, Slater and Speedie, and Dillon, Harris and Shell were the final three, I’d be delighted. But putting Dillon, Harris and Shell in and leaving Dilweg, Emerson, Gradishar and Wistert out leaves a sour taste.

All-Decade teams: Somehow, the Forum and the PFRA should combat the ridiculous idea that every single player who made an all-decade team has to be in the HOF. Once upon a time, I remember hearing it in regards to Jack Butler: He’s one of only x-number of guys from the 1950s team who’s not in the HOF. Okay. But the fact he made the 1950s doesn’t in and of itself mean he belongs in the HOF. Making an all-decade team is one bit of evidence in his favor. Now make the rest of your case.

Much of the noise in recent years that will now grow ever louder concerns Drew Pearson. Since the HOF selectors seem unduly obsessed with all-decade teams, we need to highlight that that’s just ONE piece of evidence. We also need to point out that lots of mistakes were made: Covert, Sprinkle, Butler, Carl Banks, Bobby Walston, Howard Mudd, Bednarik at center instead of LB in the 1950s, Jim Parker at guard in the 1950s.
User avatar
Bryan
Posts: 2509
Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2014 8:37 am

Re: Centennial Hall of Fame Class

Post by Bryan »

Andy Piascik wrote:Excellent: Karras, Slater, Speedie
Good But Could Have Been Better: Dillon, Harris, Shell
Not-So-Good: Hill
Inexplicably Bad: Carmichael, Covert, Sprinkle
I was working on nearly the exact same thread topic...great/very good minds must think alike.

I agree with your ratings, although I think Sprinkle might warrant his own 'inexplicable' category...on some level, I can understand/justify the Carmichael and Covert selections. If you made a list of deserving defensive players not in the HOF, deserving linemen not in the HOF, even deserving DEs (Gene Brito?), you'd come up with several names before Sprinkle's.

I think the selections were very unexpected. First off, Chuck Howley not being included in the finalist list is a major oversight. I would have liked to have seen Mike Kenn, too, but that's just me. Second, the guys who I thought were slam dunks (Wistert, Dilweg, Gradishar) didn't get in, while guys who I liked but thought might not make it actually were selected (Karras, Slater, Speedie).

The safeties all had their white knights...Turney has talked up Shell, Dr. Z thought a lot of Cliff Harris, and TJ Troup was big on Dillon. I think the overall dearth of safeties in the HOF makes their selections understandable. I'm not sure if I would have picked Dillon, but I am fine with the other two.

I think my frustration is that it seemed like some selections were inspired, yet at the same time some of the selections were nonsense based on who else was also on the exact same list. Hill and Covert over Wistert? Sprinkle over Dilweg? Carmichael over Branch/Pearson? All three safeties considered better defensive players than Randy Gradishar? I would love to have heard those arguments, and what evidence was used to push those guys over their counterparts.
User avatar
TanksAndSpartans
Posts: 1153
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 1:05 am

Re: Centennial Hall of Fame Class

Post by TanksAndSpartans »

Definitely agree with Andy on the All-Decade teams being just one piece of evidence. And going beyond that, at least the first All-Decade team isn’t even very good. They seemed to have back-filled it with coaches. The fact that Dilweg still made it actually makes it more impressive to me.

Andy’s list looks good to me - I probably wouldn’t bother giving Hill his own category and rather just group him with the bad choices and I’m maybe willing to soften my position on Covert given the testimonials, but I would still argue he definitely could have waited for the regular process to resume. Way too many players from the television era to justify the idea of having a big senior class to induct overlooked players in my opinion. That's the disappointing part to me - from my pre-war list it was really only Slater, but I actually don't think Ts were as under-represented as Es and Gs, so I had Youngstrom and Dilweg higher. 10 seems like a lot, but it didn't turn out to be.

Do we know how this worked? Were they in a room like a jury where maybe the foreman could have bullied two candidates in (thinking of Sprinle and Covert)? Or did they just cast a ballot and go home?
Last edited by TanksAndSpartans on Thu Jan 23, 2020 3:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.
ChrisBabcock
Posts: 1725
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:36 pm
Location: Tonawanda, NY

Re: Centennial Hall of Fame Class

Post by ChrisBabcock »

I'm in agreement that the Carmichael choice is bizarre. I wouldn't have him in my Hall but I get the point. What IS totally inexcusable is him leapfrogging Pearson and Branch. :(
Gary Najman
Posts: 1429
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2014 1:24 pm
Location: Mexico City, Mexico

Re: Centennial Hall of Fame Class

Post by Gary Najman »

Carmichael had two (lesser, I think) things in his favor: he had the record for the most consecutive games with a catch (in the 70s that was quite an accomplishment), and at the time of his retirement he was tied (with Don Maynard and Tommy McDonald) for second place for most seasons with at least 7 receiving TDs (Don Hutson had 9 such seasons).
Post Reply