Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

A couple of "inside the room" posts about Saturday's process:

http://www.talkoffamenetwork.com/an-ins ... s-decided/

http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2016/02/07/supe ... peter-king

Reaser wrote:
Still has nothing to do with the Rooney Rule.

... and I have thought Dungy interviewed for a handful of jobs before TB? Didn't he interview for the Packers job that Infante got and that was what, 1988?

He did, according to a January 25th, 2007, Bob Wolfley column in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

The column goes on to say that until that time, Dungy was one of only three black coaches "thought to have ever interviewed for a head coaching job in modern football."

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid= ... 1517&hl=en

Ronfitch wrote:He did, according to a January 25th, 2007, Bob Wolfley column in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Thanks, Ron.

I didn't know about Johnny Roland, either.

bachslunch wrote:http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2016/02/07/supe ... peter-king

So basically Peter King has an arbitrary "longevity" guideline that makes no logical sense, and he essentially voted for Dungy because he works with him ...

... and that's your Pro Football Hall of Fame, ladies and gentlemen.

Reaser wrote:

bachslunch wrote:http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2016/02/07/supe ... peter-king

So basically Peter King has an arbitrary "longevity" guideline that makes no logical sense, and he essentially voted for Dungy because he works with him ...

... and that's your Pro Football Hall of Fame, ladies and gentlemen.

Jason Whitlock slayed SI's business and politics columnist a few years back, on this subject.

It was such an effective slaying that King's weak defense (he barely tried) was so ineffective that the underlings who feed him information (too obtuse to know they're being taken advantage of, or intoxicated by the opportunity of fame-by-proxy, not sure which) tried to formulate a defense for him, just as ineffectively.

Shill for league business, nothing more.

Not a big HOF fan, said it before. Other people are, so not saying I'm right. Just saying.

But the whole process reminds me of what Mark Twain said about the jury system of justice: "We have a criminal jury system which is superior to any in the world; and its efficiency is only marred by the difficulty of finding twelve men every day who don't know anything and can't read."

Along those lines, so who is qualified to vote for the HOF? Repeating many of the sentiments already expressed in this thread....players? They vote for their friends. Coaches? They vote for their players. Sportswriters? Ok, some like Dr. Z know the sport. Most just know how to write sellable copy. And they are prone to holding personal grudges against players, as if players have a God-given mandate to speak with them. Historians? Too many personal agendas, ahem, visions. Straight stats? Misses the nuance.

So it's flawed.

But can it not be flawed? Probably no way around it. As the saying goes, it is what it is.

In my mind, things would be better if they could get a mix of people from different groups. Increased diversity of viewpoints would seem to be helpful to the process.

Teo wrote:Something about Stanfel that very few people have been saying even in his two previous Senior attempts it's his OL coach career of more that 30 seasons in the NFL. Although not all were successful (see his time with the Saints, when he was the HC in the final games of the 1-15 1980 season), his time with the Chicago Bears with Mike Ditka surely was. Walter Payton could stay healthy and break Jim Brown''s rushing record, and Neal Anderson could replace Payton adequality thanks in great part to Jimbo Covert, Mark Bortz, Jay Hilgenberg, Tom Thayer and Keith Van Horne, one of the most underrated offensive lines ever.

I think if Dick LeBeau is in (combining his playing and asssistant coaching resume), Dick Stanfel also should be in.

I agree with you, and am really not against accounting for the great assistant coaches in the HOF. My issues with that are 1) it hasn't really been the HOF standard up to this point (with the exception of LeBeau) and 2) it starts to get murky when you combine playing and coaching on one resume and then using that combined resume as a point of comparison. For instance, in Stanfel's case, he was a good OL coach but Howard Mudd was a great OL coach. Mudd was a very good OG (even made the 1960's All-Decade team...who knew?), but Stanfel was a great OG. How do you determine which guy is more deserving of Canton? Do we put in Richie Petibon for being a very good safety and a very good DC? Does Wade Phillips get in for strictly being a DC?

mwald wrote:Jason Whitlock slayed SI's business and politics columnist a few years back, on this subject.

It was such an effective slaying that King's weak defense (he barely tried) was so ineffective that the underlings who feed him information (too obtuse to know they're being taken advantage of, or intoxicated by the opportunity of fame-by-proxy, not sure which) tried to formulate a defense for him, just as ineffectively.

Shill for league business, nothing more.

I'll simply say that I'm very much not taken with any of Whitlock's work I've experienced and leave it at that.

bachslunch wrote:

mwald wrote:Jason Whitlock slayed SI's business and politics columnist a few years back, on this subject.

It was such an effective slaying that King's weak defense (he barely tried) was so ineffective that the underlings who feed him information (too obtuse to know they're being taken advantage of, or intoxicated by the opportunity of fame-by-proxy, not sure which) tried to formulate a defense for him, just as ineffectively.

Shill for league business, nothing more.

I'll simply say that I'm very much not taken with any of Whitlock's work I've experienced and leave it at that.

I'm quite taken with it. One of the best writers out there today.

Don't agree with everything he says, but he's an independent thinker and not just another guy playing follow the leader.