Owens choosing not to attend his Hall of Fame induction

[Reaser]

That's like saying no one should write criticism of a violin player unless they play the violin. I don't buy that argument, either.

Wouldn't it be more like you're saying; "Person who's never played the violin is an expert on how to play the violin and is the most qualified to vote on who are the best violin players ever"?

[Reaser]

I'm not about to knock Ken or his website, but I wasn't aware there was enough film footage available of Jerry Kramer to make the clear determination that he was not good in pass protection.

They're 'snapshots' based off the available film/games/highlights. So definitely not on reaching any 100% conclusions -- though can come to some conclusions of varying degree. It is always best to go off what you see, in my opinion, and if you can't see everything (the further you can back in history such as with Kramer/Packers in this example) then you take what you see with your own eyes and put it together with other information to come to your conclusion.

Similar for stats and why I find them even more meaningless in the modern era, because we can literally watch all the games. Stats only relevance to me is historically to fill-in the blanks when there's no available film to watch -- and I'd still rather read a descriptive article on the game from the time than trust stats without any context.

Either way, regardless if one agrees with the selection or not, being selected the best guard for the first 50 years was more than enough. Logic dictates he should have went in if not immediately then pretty quickly based on that alone.

[rhickok1109]

Don't agree. Kramer had to wait forever for several reasons, not least because his skill set was flawed (as Ken Crippen's film study site clearly demonstrates, he was not good in pass protection).

I'm not about to knock Ken or his website, but I wasn't aware there was enough film footage available of Jerry Kramer to make the clear determination that he was not good in pass protection. I know the 1961 NFL Championship game is available on video, along with highlights of Packer playoff games (1960, 1966 etc), but NFL/Blair Films really didn't get up and running until 1964 or so, and there is very little regular season game footage of the Packers available during the Lombardi era. Did his contemporaries make this comment about Kramer, that he wasn't good in pass protection? I'm not criticizing your comment, it is just that I have always heard the Packer line was always considered one of the half dozen finest in pro football history, and as a pro football videophile (especially with respect to 1930's thru 1960's) I wasn't aware there was enough video footage of the Packers available to reach such a solid conclusion.

It's really not accurate to say that "he was not good in pass protection." Ken gave him a rating of 8.0 as a run blocker and 7.7 as a pass blocker. 8.0 ranks as "exceptional" and HOF quality, while 7.5 is "very good to exceptional" and the top of the HOVG rating, so 7.7 is a pretty damn good score, I would say borderline HOF (though certainly that's subject to correction by Ken).
I think it's important to remember that the Packers had something like a 2:1 run-pass ratio under Lombardi, so run blocking was approximately twice as important as pass blocking.
I'm curious to know what else bachslunch includes among those "several reasons." Not a snark, I'm genuinely curious.

[bachslunch]

Ralph — here’s the link:

http://www.profootballresearchers.com/f ... f=8&t=4935

See the fourth post down, which is mine. Like I said, there’s kind of a unique “perfect storm” regarding Kramer’s until-recently failed HoF candidacy, at least to my thinking anyway.

And you’re right IMHO about the relative level of importance of pass protection to the Lombardi Packer game plan. They were a run heavy squad, and Kramer excelled in what the team needed most. But I can see why he waited so long to get in, too.

[Rupert Patrick]

I'm not about to knock Ken or his website, but I wasn't aware there was enough film footage available of Jerry Kramer to make the clear determination that he was not good in pass protection.

They're 'snapshots' based off the available film/games/highlights. So definitely not on reaching any 100% conclusions -- though can come to some conclusions of varying degree. It is always best to go off what you see, in my opinion, and if you can't see everything (the further you can back in history such as with Kramer/Packers in this example) then you take what you see with your own eyes and put it together with other information to come to your conclusion.

Similar for stats and why I find them even more meaningless in the modern era, because we can literally watch all the games. Stats only relevance to me is historically to fill-in the blanks when there's no available film to watch -- and I'd still rather read a descriptive article on the game from the time than trust stats without any context.

Either way, regardless if one agrees with the selection or not, being selected the best guard for the first 50 years was more than enough. Logic dictates he should have went in if not immediately then pretty quickly based on that alone.

I agree Kramer should have went in from the HOF voters; he certainly shouldn't have been first ballot but maybe 5-8 years. Kramer has always been the voice of the 60's Packers, the player from that team that has always been interviewed most often about the history of that team, the guy who remembers all the stories. Every great team seems to have one of those guys, an Art Donovan or Rocky Bleier or Frank Gifford, or Staubach, who generally stay in the public eye. There is also the 50th anniversary NFL team thing, plus the five NFL Championship rings plus two Super Bowl rings and all his other honors and awards and playing for the Packers and being part of the Packers sweep.

As a stat guy, I am all about context. You always must adjust for context.

BTW regarding Kramer, I've always been frustrated by the lack of stats for offensive linemen.

[Bryan]

Leave the voting up to an institution like Pro Football Focus or Pro Football Outsiders that actually track simply what is done on the field, and actually work with NFL coaches. You won't have the problem of a bunch of old guys' personal feelings getting in the way of giving someone they've rightfully earned.

As bachslunch mentioned, I don't see how using an institution like PFF or Football Outsiders would eliminate bias. Also, Football Outsiders in particular has shown a complete inability to grasp historical context (I recently saw an NFLN Top10 show where Mike Tanier is astonished to learn that Dan Reeves played in the NFL...the same Mike Tanier who wanted Paul Warfield kicked out of Canton because he never had a 1000-yard season), so I wouldn't really want that 'groupthink' entity determining who gets into the HOF.

Furthermore, as Reaser mentioned, the film for contemporary players is readily available to everyone. I don't need Aaron Schatz and Football Outsiders "reverse engineering" what I saw actually happened on the football field, and then informing me prior to the 2017 season that the Dolphins offense will not experience a dropoff with Tannehill's injury because, according to DVOA, Jay Cutler has consistently been a top-10 QB over the years (Miami's offense fell from 17th to 28th, passer rating went from 95.5 to 78.7).

I don't think you can take personal opinion/bias out of the HOF voting process, but I don't think you'd want to do that anyways. You just want enough qualified voices in the room to come up with the most accurate consensus. I think the Pro Football HOF is much better than the Baseball HOF in terms of recognizing its best players...even from a pure statistical standpoint. MLB's top statistical batters and pitchers (Bonds, Clemens, Rose, etc.) are still waiting to get in.

[Rupert Patrick]

MLB's top statistical batters and pitchers (Bonds, Clemens, Rose, etc.) are still waiting to get in.

There are different situations concerning those three, in one way or another they all broke the rules, written or unwritten. Rose breaking the most important rule in baseball (which is posted in every single clubhouse in organized baseball), although it apparently happened when he was a manager, and Bonds and Clemens for bulking up their bodies when it was unnecessary in that they had passed the bus test as future Hall of Fame players. It cheapened the statistics in the late 90's and into the 2000's when players were juicing up and gaining an unfair advantage. Bonds and Clemens and Rose would have been first ballot Hall of Famers had they not did what they did.

[TanksAndSpartans]

the same Mike Tanier who wanted Paul Warfield kicked out of Canton because he never had a 1000-yard season

I really liked his Beattie Feathers article. Are you sure that isn't taken out of context?

[Bryan]

I really liked his Beattie Feathers article. Are you sure that isn't taken out of context?

It was actually a conversation Tanier had with PFRA members in an old thread, but, alas, the original thread was lost in the conversion. The thread was typical FO, with Tanier asking "Why is Paul Warfield in the HOF? His stats aren't any good". When people would give reasons/responses, Tanier would 'disagree' and keep going back to his statistical argument, making the whole exercise rather pointless. Yes, Warfield's statistics at first glance are not impressive, but there is more to the story. Anyways, Tanier was scarred by this experience and wrote several snarky columns in it's aftermath, such as:

"Criticizing Warfield in any way is about the worst thing a football historian can ever do. I once compared a more contemporary receiver – it may have been Michael Irvin – on a message board devoted to pro football history, and was promptly pummeled into submission with a barrage of pish-poshes. No one can ever be compared to Paul Warfield. It should be noted that this particular site was the stomping ground for some spectacularly anti-stat thinkers, so Warfield was a patron saint to them: the receiver too amazing to do anything banal like catch passes."

I'm not saying that Tanier is a poor writer, I'm just saying that people who don't really understand the history of the NFL may have trouble when they base their opinion solely on statistics.

[TanksAndSpartans]

Thanks Bryan - I appreciate the context. Definitely something I've been running into - folks I thought had an appreciation for history, historical players, etc. and it turns out maybe they do, but from their own perspective.