The "How Good Was a Player" dilemma

[JohnTurney]

Looking a a HOF resume and then seeing more then usual amount
of film one someone can be odd.

Eddie Meador and Nolan Cromwell. In a small Hall world than some have, neither HOF. In Big Hall, Both are.
In my middle-sized Hall world I would vote for either one. But none of us have a say.

But, as a matter of analysis it's interesting because of the two
Meador has a better case - on paper.

But if anyone has ever seen them play, not compared to each other
but compared to their peers, I'd give Cromwell the edge.

If you compared them head-to-head, if you considered them the same
era and were throwing in Wood, Wilson, Cliff harris, Houston, Easley
Lott and so on it wouldn't be fair.

Cromwell was far superior and could do things Meador could never do.
IMO Cromwell the far better player.

While I think Meador is worthy of discussion but compared to my
priorities he would be behind a lot of guys--again, just my opinion.

If you were picking a team you'd take Cromwell over Meador
but because of an injury and also Rams policy of not starting rookies
unless you absolutely had to, Cromwell didn't start until year 3.
And he didn't get postseason honors after 1983. he was still a "blue"
safety in 85 and 86, but he was no longer what he was at his 1979-midseason 84 peak.

So, not advocating for either one...but interesting that the
better player was the weaker case.

[Brian wolf]

It seems like the most talented players start earlier in their careers, almost from the get-go while others slowly become great players. Many HOF players either have fast starts and flame-out, like Namath, or start very slow and catch fire like Stabler, though both had bad knee injuries to start their careers. Sometimes voters tend to look at HOF players more for their talent and ability rather than their ability to work hard, get better and play smarter with experience. Had Hines Ward been a more gifted athlete and receiver, he would have started probably his rookie season onward, like many talented players but he didnt have those gifts and had to be a more a self-made player who used every ounce of talent and opportunity to become a great player. Hopefully voters dont take these qualities in players for granted but they tend to over-rely on raw statistics of players rather than impact.

Meador might have had more impact than Cromwell simply because the Rams had less defensive talent beyond their front four ... with Cromwell's Rams, the talent was all over the defense ...

[JohnTurney]

It seems like the most talented players start earlier in their careers, almost from the get-go while others slowly become great players.

Meador might have had more impact than Cromwell simply because the Rams had less defensive talent beyond their front four ... with Cromwell's Rams, the talent was all over the defense ...

In general seems right. But in the Cromwell case it was two things, (1) they had a solid starter in Bill Simpson and (2) Rams didn't start rookies in that era unless
it was a disaster...and Knox didn't like to break up groups. Rich Saul was superior to Ken Iman in 1974 (prob 73,too) but they split time rather than Saul starting outright
because Knox wanted to keep the 5 guys together.

If there was some hole then yeah, a rookie would start and there wasn't one at safety. Also, in 1977 Cromwell wouldn't have beaten Simpson out anyway. In 1978?
Cromwell played a lot, but Simpson was still good, but in an open competition Cromwell would have stood a chance. The athleticism and talent level was a pretty stark
difference. But Rams put Cromwell as nickelback, and played various positions in the 5, 6-, and 7 DB packages...(sometimes corner, sometimes slot, sometimes safety)

In 1979 Cromwell was as good as he was in 80-82.

Meador, impact, talent beyond front four? Would have to think about that. 1960s Rams were older, but Pardee and Baughan were pretty good, Irv Cross and Clancy Williams were good...but they lacked at MLB and SS . . .

But you could be right, but by 1980 and for a few years he was Rams best defensive player, if not best player. Meador was never that. I see Meador as a very good player with a very good peak but not HOF. I see Cromwell as someone who also had very good career, not HOF, but who had a great peak.

[Brian wolf]

Youre right John but it also feels you would be fine with either player making the Hall or not.
From 1966-1986, the defenses probably deserved at least one more member make the Hall but who would it be ? Meador, Brown, Baughan, Robertson, Cromwell and Brooks have cases and I liked Reynolds as well but since the teams couldnt win a SB, could be a wait unless voters come around to Meador ...

[JohnTurney]

Youre right John but it also feels you would be fine with either player making the Hall or not.
From 1966-1986, the defenses probably deserved at least one more member make the Hall but who would it be ? Meador, Brown, Baughan, Robertson, Cromwell and Brooks have cases and I liked Reynolds as well but since the teams couldnt win a SB, could be a wait unless voters come around to Meador ...

Good question---goes to talent or how good they were vs the resume thing...no right answer
but leaving out whether they should be in Hall of Fame or not I would rank
those players on the list in order of how good I thought they were, big plays,
being solid, not making errors . . . and also accolades

1. Cromwell-was nest in NFl for a short time
2. Brooks-vast underrated, but some decent honors...super consistent a "rarely a bad game". Elite vs run, good, not great rusher.
3. Robertson (more honors but more mistakes, but also made a lot of big plays)
4. Meador/Baughan--how do you separate? Baugh a ring? Medor All_Decade? Call it a draw.
6. Brown, though maybe underselling him some... really great as a Lion.

But the ones with the "on paper" HOF cases would be Meador and Baughan and then Robertson . . . and that has to do with Pro Bowls.
In the 1960s both NFL and AFL had "Pro Bowls" and also "All-Pros" people here understand what that means, not sure
there is always an accounting of those when looking at the resume, i.e. more slots for guys in the 1960s than from 1970s on

[Brian wolf]

Good call ... I had forgotten that voters like Baughan as much as Meador and for now they will cancel each other out but we will see how the queue plays out these next two elections ... Many people believe its Sharpe Kooch and Gradishar but new seniors added to the semifinalist list could shake things up ?

[JohnTurney]

Many people believe its Sharpe Kooch and Gradishar but new seniors added to the semifinalist list could shake things up ?

those would be three good ones. I think Sharpe has best shot this year - just reading tea leaves, Gradishar gets passed over every year for 20 years so
qould not be surprised if somone leaps him...but hearing HOF may want senior committee to use a slot for a super senior . . . maybe not on paper
but maybe a nudge but push comes to shove the senior committee does not have to do that---the voters just vote and whoever is in the final 15 then
the cut to 10 then to five then to three---gets it . . . and it could be 3 guys who played in 80s and 90s.

but would like it IF the Hall encourages the committee to at least try to get some of the recency bias out of the mix. A little anyway

[sluggermatt15]

Good call ... I had forgotten that voters like Baughan as much as Meador and for now they will cancel each other out but we will see how the queue plays out these next two elections ... Many people believe its Sharpe Kooch and Gradishar but new seniors added to the semifinalist list could shake things up ?

It was finally nice to see Chuck Howley earn induction. I hope Larry Grantham and Gradishar are not far behind. Those guys should have been in years ago.

[JohnTurney]

It was finally nice to see Chuck Howley earn induction. I hope Larry Grantham and Gradishar are not far behind. Those guys should have been in years ago.

Long overdue. And RG and LG---agree.

[JohnTurney]

double post-sorry