State Your Case: Mick Tingelhoff

[oldecapecod11]

ARCHIVE

State Your Case: Mick Tingelhoff
Started by Ken Crippen, Aug 05 2014 07:23 AM

Page 1 of 2

33 replies to this topic

#1 Ken Crippen
Administrator
Posted 05 August 2014 - 07:23 AM
Here is a blog entry from senior selector Rick Gosselin:

http://www.talkoffam...ick-tingelhoff/

I know that Tingelhoff's name has come up here often, so I thought I would share.

#2 oldecapecod 11
PFRA Member
Posted 05 August 2014 - 08:00 AM
It is, indeed, a nice column.

What I find odd is that after telling of Tingelhoff's legend and adding supportive quotes, he does not state his intent to give the player his "15 minutes" in the discussion process.
Are these "selectors" not allowed to openly solicit support for a candidate - especially when they have the forum to do so, be it vast or tiny.
I think he might have said... I urge anyone who agrees that Mick deserves consideration to write to blank, blank, blank or to call their local sports desk and follow-up with a letter. Yes; only three of a hundred might do this but that is three more than are doing it now.
So, IMO, this selector is a good example of part of what is wrong with the process.
He writes his column to make some think he is a nice guy but he is afraid to stick his toe in the water.

#3 fgoodwin
Forum Visitors
Posted 05 August 2014 - 01:38 PM
oldecapecod 11, on 05 Aug 2014 - 08:00 AM, said:
It is, indeed, a nice column.
What I find odd is that after telling of Tingelhoff's legend and adding supportive quotes, he does not state his intent to give the player his "15 minutes" in the discussion process.
Are these "selectors" not allowed to openly solicit support for a candidate - especially when they have the forum to do so, be it vast or tiny.
I think he might have said... I urge anyone who agrees that Mick deserves consideration to write to blank, blank, blank or to call their local sports desk and follow-up with a letter. Yes; only three of a hundred might do this but that is three more than are doing it now.
So, IMO, this selector is a good example of part of what is wrong with the process.
He writes his column to make some think he is a nice guy but he is afraid to stick his toe in the water.

In goose's defense, he is a columnist for the Dallas Morning News.

Were he to bang the drum too loudly for a former Viking to be eshrined in the HOF, he risks the ire of local Cowboy fans who think Cliff Harris, Drew Pearson, Ed Jones, Chuck Howley, Harvey Martin, etc. should all be in the HOF already and are only being kept out by a perceived anti-Cowboys bias. Not that I believe there's such a bias, but that's what many local Cowboy fans believe, and goose might lose his readership if fans thought he was pumping a former Viking over former Cowboys.

Who is the media rep from Minnesota? Why aren't they pushing Tinglehoff?

#4 Ken Crippen
Administrator
Posted 05 August 2014 - 01:45 PM
fgoodwin, on 05 Aug 2014 - 1:38 PM, said:
Who is the media rep from Minnesota? Why aren't they pushing Tinglehoff?

Mark Craig, The Minneapolis Star-Tribune

#5 oldecapecod 11
PFRA Member
Posted 05 August 2014 - 02:03 PM
fgoodwin
Posted Today, 01:38 PM
"... In goose's defense, he is a columnist for the Dallas Morning News.
Were he to bang the drum too loudly for a former Viking to be eshrined in the HOF, he risks the ire of local Cowboy fans who think Cliff Harris, Drew Pearson, Ed Jones, Chuck Howley, Harvey Martin, etc. should all be in the HOF already and are only being kept out by a perceived anti-Cowboys bias. Not that I believe there's such a bias, but that's what many local Cowboy fans believe, and goose might lose his readership if fans thought he was pumping a former Viking over former Cowboys..."

And that is exactly what is part of the problem with the process.
Here is a man who cannot speak his mind or vote his heart because he is afraid of what his readers might think.
Ergo: He cannot and does not always vote for the best candidate but the candidate who will not cause the wheel to squeak.
That voids the fairness of the project and causes qualified candidates to be overlooked, if not ignored.
It's the system - not the man.

#6 smith03
Forum Visitors
Posted 05 August 2014 - 02:05 PM
mark craig is not on the senior committee, so would he have any say or pull in who the senior committee put forward besides informal?

craig has written a few articles in the past couple years about tingelhoff and the hall

#7 Ken Crippen
Administrator
Posted 05 August 2014 - 02:32 PM
smith03, on 05 Aug 2014 - 2:05 PM, said:
mark craig is not on the senior committee, so would he have any say or pull in who the senior committee put forward besides informal?

craig has written a few articles in the past couple years about tingelhoff and the hall

Nope. He can suggest a player, but that is it.

#8 Ken Crippen
Administrator
Posted 05 August 2014 - 02:37 PM
oldecapecod 11, on 05 Aug 2014 - 2:03 PM, said:
Here is a man who cannot speak his mind or vote his heart because he is afraid of what his readers might think.

I agree with part and disagree with part of the statement. He can vote his heart and does. However, the Hall does not like you to talk too much about how you vote or why you vote a certain way. That is an issue with the Hall, not Gosselin. In my discussions with him, I always feel that he votes for who he feels are the best candidates regardless of team. I may not agree, but he is voting for who he feels is best.

#9 oldecapecod 11
PFRA Member
Posted 05 August 2014 - 03:07 PM
Ken Crippen
Posted Today, 02:37 PM
"... That is an issue with the Hall, not Gosselin..."

I think that is what I wrote? "It is the system - not the man."
His only issue might be when he faces himself each morning and has to know he sells his vote to keep his seat. That is not limited to hall of fame voting. It happens daily at almost every phase of every endeavor we know - and probably at a lot we don't know. Is there an answer? Who knows? Everyone here has his or her own idea. I have mine and it is probably as wrong as the rest.
I would say short terms - maybe four years (on the off years of the Presidential election.) I would also say disclosure - minutes provided for all to read. Those are just for starters. I would also revamp the hall so that it does not serve and bow to the NFL but to all of professional football - past, present, and future.
Extreme? Maybe, but so what. The War for American Independence was extreme and produced the greatest country of all.
Everyone wants to be us, want to borrow from us, wants to argue with us... but so what. Let them eat theirs hearts out.
Let's just try to fix the Canton facility.

#10 fgoodwin
Forum Visitors
Posted 05 August 2014 - 03:54 PM
Ken Crippen, on 05 Aug 2014 - 2:37 PM, said:

I agree with part and disagree with part of the statement. He can vote his heart and does. However, the Hall does not like you to talk too much about how you vote or why you vote a certain way. That is an issue with the Hall, not Gosselin. In my discussions with him, I always feel that he votes for who he feels are the best candidates regardless of team. I may not agree, but he is voting for who he feels is best.

Yes I'm sure goose votes for who he thinks is most qualified, regardless of team. I wasn't aware he was on the Seniors committee so it is his job not Mark Craig's to push the Senior candidates. And it's not like goose fears his readers. I've seen him take positions in print that were not Cowboys-friendly and seen his readers accuse him of being anti-Cowboy Of course, it not his job to be a fan.

#11 26554
Forum Visitors
Posted 06 August 2014 - 12:06 AM
I've seen some say that he's more pro-Lions (Gosselin grew up in Michigan) than pro-Cowboys. You do have Sanders and LeBeau as recent noms/inductees and Stanfel as a recent nom. But then you also have Wright and Hayes. I will say I don't think he's pushed as hard for Howley as he could/should've.

#12 Bryan
Forum Visitors
Posted 06 August 2014 - 09:03 AM
Getting back to Tingelhoff, I think its difficult to quantify his career. He started for 17 years, but all of his pro bowl/all-pro honors came in a condensed 6-year period (1964-1969). How much credit do you give Tingelhoff for his 1970-1978 years? I think Tingelhoff excelled in the 1960's NFL partly because defenses didn't use over/under sets, which allowed Tingelhoff a free run at the MLB, and also because there simply weren't that many great centers in the NFL during that time period (I think Bob DeMarco was Tingelhoff's top competition). Tingelhoff wasn't as effective after defenses started stacking a DT over center, and I think this question of "Could he handle a DT one-on-one?" is probably why Jim Langer is in the HOF and Tingelhoff isn't. Is that fair? I can't really say.

My point is that I think Tingelhoff is more of a "borderline" candidate than a "slam dunk". He was effective but not dominant. I think he would be a good choice for Canton, but I am not outraged at his omission.

#13 John Turney
PFRA Member
Posted 06 August 2014 - 05:05 PM
Bryan, on 06 Aug 2014 - 09:03 AM, said:
Getting back to Tingelhoff, I think its difficult to quantify his career. He started for 17 years, but all of his pro bowl/all-pro honors came in a condensed 6-year period (1964-1969). How much credit do you give Tingelhoff for his 1970-1978 years? I think Tingelhoff excelled in the 1960's NFL partly because defenses didn't use over/under sets, which allowed Tingelhoff a free run at the MLB, and also because there simply weren't that many great centers in the NFL during that time period (I think Bob DeMarco was Tingelhoff's top competition). Tingelhoff wasn't as effective after defenses started stacking a DT over center, and I think this question of "Could he handle a DT one-on-one?" is probably why Jim Langer is in the HOF and Tingelhoff isn't. Is that fair? I can't really say.

My point is that I think Tingelhoff is more of a "borderline" candidate than a "slam dunk". He was effective but not dominant. I think he would be a good choice for Canton, but I am not outraged at his omission.

The NFL used overs and unders a lot more than previously understood. I think Coach TJ will back me up on this. I don't know the percentage, but it was reasonably high on run downs. The AFL did it at a higher percentage, due to a couple of AFL coaches really liked the Okie front, Buffalo used it a lot in mid-1960s. Anyway, not trying to be argumentative, but I bought DrZ's descriptions until I saw more and more film and saw lots of NFL teams, in fact, all of them using odd-man fronts, some even on passing downs.

I don't know if it means much, but in the days when All-Pro teams picked from both NFL and AFL, call it 1967-69 (then from 1970 on) it wasn't a slam-dunk that Otto would be 1st team, Tingelhoff on a couple of occasions beat him out. So it wasn't like, Jim Otto and then who else. Some voters (whether writers, coaches, or players) though Tingelhoff was the best center in the game.

As Goose mention, from 1962-66 (Van Brocklin years) Only Browns ran the ball more for more yards and a higher average). And When Tarkenton returned to Minny in 1972, from 1972-78 Vikings threw for more yards than anyone (I think more TDs, too) and had the second highest rated passing game, that kind of thing.

I think the question is: Did Mick get a bad rap in the Super Bowls? In Super Bowl IV, it was said that Culp whipped him. Watching the film, they didn't face each other that often. When KC was in the over, Buchanon was over the center, not Culp far more often than not. I think it's accurate to say Fernandez got better of Tingelhoff. I think ALL of the Steelers whipped ALL of the Vikings. In 76 I didn't notice anyone really getting the better of anyone from the center and NT spot, but could be wrong.

#14 coach tj troup
PFRA Member
Posted 06 August 2014 - 09:51 PM
....ok my viking friends...which of course includes the distinguished evan bass & john horn.....my case for mick. was he the best at cutting off the middle linebacker and sustaining the block during the 60's? yes! that is one of the main reasons the vikings chose to run the ball. could he make the fold or cross block in which the center cuts off the d-tackle in the gap, and the guard blocks the m-backer....yes, his quickness and ability to sustain the block are crisp and effective, but not overpowering. a big nose tackle gave him problems, and guess what....fernandez, culp etc were a problem for many. do we overlook this fact....no! does his superlatives rank ahead of his one negative? overlooked for mick but in watching film this week of him in '73 was how quick he was in his 12th year when he was uncovered and helped his teammates as a pass blocker. mick also was excellent when a defense foolishly attempted to send a backer in the a-gap on the blitz. just put me in the room with the committee with film....the result would be a cure for insomnia or an education for those voters. ok, am getting off my soapbox.

#15 JohnMaxymuk
PFRA Member
Posted 06 August 2014 - 10:43 PM
Coach, how similar was Mick to Jim ringo?

#16 Reaser
PFRA Member
Posted 06 August 2014 - 10:57 PM
coach tj troup, on 06 Aug 2014 - 9:51 PM, said:
a big nose tackle gave him problems, and guess what....fernandez, culp etc were a problem for many. do we overlook this fact....no! does his superlatives rank ahead of his one negative?
In '71 the Colts moved Bubba Smith around against the Vikings and Tingelhoff struggled with him for the handful of plays he was lined up over him.

... but that's Bubba F. Smith, which kind of goes to your point, Culp AND Buchanan in SB4, Fernandez was no slouch, Greene, etc ... yes, he struggled with these guys, and in terms of the Super Bowl, struggled at untimely times. Though on the Super Bowl I say that's only 2 of 4, I don't think he was 'bad' against the Steelers, Greene definitely beat him bad once but it was nothing like the Chiefs or Dolphins games ... regardless, it's important to recognize the negative in his game but I don't think it takes him as a HOF level player down to borderline or worse though, he's still above the HOF line, for me.

#17 John Turney
PFRA Member
Posted 06 August 2014 - 11:02 PM
Reaser, on 06 Aug 2014 - 10:57 PM, said:
In '71 the Colts moved Bubba Smith around against the Vikings and Tingelhoff struggled with him for the handful of plays he was lined up over him.

... but that's Bubba F. Smith, which kind of goes to your point, Culp AND Buchanan in SB4, Fernandez was no slouch, Greene, etc ... yes, he struggled with these guys, and in terms of the Super Bowl, struggled at untimely times. Though on the Super Bowl I say that's only 2 of 4, I don't think he was 'bad' against the Steelers, Greene definitely beat him bad once but it was nothing like the Chiefs or Dolphins games ... regardless, it's important to recognize the negative in his game but I don't think it takes him as a HOF level player down to borderline or worse though, he's still above the HOF line, for me.
Part of that 71 Colts thing began in 1970 with Billy Newsome being such a good rusher, they'd play him at LDE and move Bubba to LDT and Roy Hilton would stay on the left. It was pretty effective pass rush package, akin to what Giants did in 2007. (and others)

#18 Reaser
PFRA Member
Posted 06 August 2014 - 11:05 PM
John Turney, on 06 Aug 2014 - 11:02 PM, said:
Part of that 71 Colts thing began in 1970 with Billy Newsome being such a good rusher, they'd play him at LDE and move Bubba to LDT and Roy Hilton would stay on the left. It was pretty effective pass rush package, akin to what Giants did in 2007. (and others)
In the aforementioned Vikings game Bubba was at RDT. Not making a HOF case here but a 'bonus' for Bubba for having success all over the DL.

#19 John Turney
PFRA Member
Posted 06 August 2014 - 11:14 PM
Reaser, on 06 Aug 2014 - 11:05 PM, said:
In the aforementioned Vikings game Bubba was at RDT. Not making a HOF case here but a 'bonus' for Bubba for having success all over the DL.
My bad then, I will stand corrected. My memory was of in 1970 and Newsome started hot, got hurt, but then got back into rotation, in 1971, now I will have to look at the couple of game I have . . . I simply remember there being 3 DEs on field . . . so thanks for forrection.

#20 Reaser
PFRA Member
Posted 06 August 2014 - 11:20 PM
John Turney, on 06 Aug 2014 - 11:14 PM, said:
My bad then, I will stand corrected. My memory was of in 1970 and Newsome started hot, got hurt, but then got back into rotation, in 1971, now I will have to look at the couple of game I have . . . I simply remember there being 3 DEs on field . . . so thanks for forrection.
Ya, testing my short-term memory, ha. I literally watched the game on Monday.

It was; 81, 76, 78 ...
Newsome, Miller, Smith ...

So basically Newsome and Miller shifted one spot left and Bubba went from LDE to over Tingelhoff.

Miller was injured in the 1st Qtr and Bailey came in. That's when Bubba was at LDT and Newsome moved out to LDE.

Page 1 of 2
oldecapecod 11

[oldecapecod11]

State Your Case: Mick Tingelhoff
Started by Ken Crippen, Aug 05 2014 07:23 AM

Page 2 of 2

33 replies to this topic

#21 John Turney
PFRA Member
Posted 06 August 2014 - 11:33 PM
And it makes sense, in 1971 Billy Ray Smith was gone . . . so RDT would be open in 1971 for stunts like that. , my bet is that the TE was on the offensive right and it was an overshift.

#22 Reaser
PFRA Member
Posted 06 August 2014 - 11:37 PM
John Turney, on 06 Aug 2014 - 11:33 PM, said:
my bet is that the TE was on the offensive right and it was an overshift.
Exactly.

#23 JohnH19
Pro Bowler
Posted 06 August 2014 - 11:49 PM
Bryan, on 06 Aug 2014 - 09:03 AM, said:
Getting back to Tingelhoff, I think its difficult to quantify his career. He started for 17 years, but all of his pro bowl/all-pro honors came in a condensed 6-year period (1964-1969).

I don't think it's so difficult to quantify Tingelhoff's career. You did a pretty good job above. Don't most players' pro bowl/all-pro honors come in a condensed period? Is six years really a condensed period for a professional athlete or does it just seem condensed because he played for 17 years. Would you argue that he was inconsistent if he made all-pro five times in a 10 year period?

He didn't just start for 17 years, he started every game for 17 years (!) for what evolved from a second year expansion team to a force in the league for his last 11 years. I won't repeat everything Gosselin said or what's already been posted here but Mick's exclusion is one of the glaring omissions in Canton.

Here's an article on centers in the HoF:

http://highwaytohall...ition-from.html

#24 Reaser
PFRA Member
Posted 07 August 2014 - 12:09 AM
JohnH19, on 06 Aug 2014 - 11:49 PM, said:
or does it just seem condensed because he played for 17 years. Would you argue that he was inconsistent if he made all-pro five times in a 10 year period?
Good point, John. The exact other end of my argument for "short career" guys and my continued amazement on how number of seasons is considered more important than what happened on the field.

Five "HOF seasons" in 7 seasons = didn't play long enough.
Five "HOF seasons" in 12 seasons = Hall of Famer
Five "HOF seasons" in 17 seasons = inconsistent and/or too many seasons not at HOF level (not that Bryan said this)

Maybe I'm wrong in how I see it but I still hope someday people start looking at seasons played as nothing more than chances to accomplish something, rather than an accomplishment, positive or negative.

Note: Not 'defining' "HOF seasons", was just using it as an example.

#25 John Turney
PFRA Member
Posted 07 August 2014 - 12:25 AM
JohnH19, on 06 Aug 2014 - 11:49 PM, said:
http://highwaytohall...ition-from.html
I am sure it's a fine article, I'l read it later, but I initially ignore articles with an "AP only" approach, especially in that 60s-70s era when UPI, NEA and PFWA were so vibrant and PFWA was THE All-Pro team to the NFL.

So, Mick will stand or fall on the efforts of the 5-6 seniors candidates in a week and a half.

#26 John Turney
PFRA Member
Posted 07 August 2014 - 12:29 AM
JohnH19, on 06 Aug 2014 - 11:49 PM, said:

I don't think it's so difficult to quantify Tingelhoff's career.
Also from be beginning of NFL there was Trafton then Hein, the Turner, then Ringo then Otto an emoty space in NFL) Langer, Webster, Stephenson, etc. . . . It's likely time toi fill that spot andif the tea leaves are beaing read right, Mick may be one of the two who emerge,.

#27 26554
Forum Visitors
Posted 07 August 2014 - 12:31 AM
Did Tinglehoff get the amount of honors he did during his prime because he was that much better than other NFL centers or because the competition wasn't that strong? It's an excellent question. I haven't seen enough footage, so I tend to defer to those like coach Troup who have, but if forced to answer I would say he was probably damn good at playing the position.

One piece of evidence - Dick Butkus said Tinglehoff was the toughest center he faced.

#28 Bryan
Forum Visitors
Posted 07 August 2014 - 08:03 AM
John Turney, on 06 Aug 2014 - 5:05 PM, said:
I think the question is: Did Mick get a bad rap in the Super Bowls? In Super Bowl IV, it was said that Culp whipped him. Watching the film, they didn't face each other that often. When KC was in the over, Buchanon was over the center, not Culp far more often than not. I think it's accurate to say Fernandez got better of Tingelhoff. I think ALL of the Steelers whipped ALL of the Vikings. In 76 I didn't notice anyone really getting the better of anyone from the center and NT spot, but could be wrong.

I think Tingelhoff does get a bad rap. The Chiefs, Dolphins, and Steelers defenses were stopping everyone's offenses, not just Tingelhoff's Vikings. Jim Otto's Raiders were similarly stonewalled in the AFL/AFC Championship games prior to these Super Bowls, yet it seems like Tingelhoff alone takes the blame for not being able to handle Greene, Buchanan, Fernandez. Otto couldn't really handle those guys, either.

Another interesting bit is how effective the Vikings running game was against these same teams in non-Super Bowl situations. The Vikings routed the Chiefs in 1970 (132 rushing yards, 2 TDs), played the Dolphins close in 1972 (131 rushing yards, 1 TD), and defeated the Steelers in 1976 (152 rushing yards, 2 TDs).

Also, the Vikings rushing totals in the 4 NFL/NFC championship games prior to the Super Bowls were 222, 203, 164, & 158. It seems like those Super Bowl performances weren't really indicitive of Tingelhoff's effectiveness.

#29 Bryan
Forum Visitors
Posted 07 August 2014 - 08:26 AM
JohnH19, on 06 Aug 2014 - 11:49 PM, said:
I don't think it's so difficult to quantify Tingelhoff's career. You did a pretty good job above. Don't most players' pro bowl/all-pro honors come in a condensed period? Is six years really a condensed period for a professional athlete or does it just seem condensed because he played for 17 years. Would you argue that he was inconsistent if he made all-pro five times in a 10 year period?

I admit I find it interesting that Tingelhoff was durable enough to play 17 seasons without injury, good enough to start 240 straight games, yet when the Vikings were winning their division every year, a former 5-time All Pro couldn't get a courtesy offensive lineman pro bowl berth from 1970-1978.

So my question is how much credit do you give Tingelhoff from 1970-1978? Was he still among the top centers in the game? Thats the part of Tingelhoff's career which is difficult to quantify IMO, and it constitutes 9 years of his career. If Tinglehoff retires after 10 or 11 seasons, would his 1964-1969 peak years be enough to put him in Canton?

#30 evan
PFRA Member
Posted 07 August 2014 - 09:12 AM
My Tingelhoff thoughts:

He certainly had the great intangible of leadership, I think I read where Bud Grant said he was a captain for every year Grant was there.

As a buddy of Tarkenton (he was with Tarkenton when heard the news that his father died after the Dallas Hail Mary game), he probably helped to give Tarkenton a much-needed sounding board at times considering the ups and downs of being Sir Francis.

I think it’s fair to say his career can be portioned into two or maybe three stages. The first stage in the 60s where his athleticism and technique certainly contributed to the Vikings’ offensive success mentioned earlier in this thread, and led to the honors mentioned (although, would he have been so honored if “combined” AFL-NFL all-pro teams were named? Would you have taken him over Jim Otto?)

That second stage unfortunately contained the Super Bowl nightmares, and I doubt Tingelhoff or any of the Viking o-linemen, including the highly decorated Ron Yary and Ed White, would say they are very proud of their SB performances. In the three Tarkenton Super Bowls, the Vikings had one rush of over 10 yards (when Foreman gained 12 yards on a rather daring 3rd-and-11 draw play against the Steelers), and it wasn’t for lack of effort by Foreman. There was no where to run. No holes, or even gaps.

There are endless ways to illustrate the Vikings' running game futility in the Super Bowls. The Vikings had chances to score from close to the goal line against Miami, Pittsburgh and Oakland and came up empty three times, with three turnovers. No Viking could generate a hole, or even seal an edge.

Perhaps the ultimate indignity came in Super Bowl XI, when the Vikings had the momentum in the fourth quarter when they were down 19-7 but had driven to the Oakland 35. But Foreman was snagged by an unblocked Monte Johnson for a 2-yard loss on 2nd-and-1, forcing Tarkenton into what was unfortunately a passing situation on 3rd-and-3. Had the Vikings developed any confidence in their running game, then Tarkenton wouldn’t have needed to pass. But he felt he had to throw, and was pressured by Ted Hendricks into making a terrible decision by throwing up a desperation pass while running to his left, and Willie Hall easily intercepted. That effectively ended the game.

The lack of running game in the Super Bowls was certainly due in large part to the legendary-quality opponents, although in the 1973, 1974 and 1976 NFC Championship games the Vikings averaged 175 yards rushing per game, against the Cowboys and Rams twice, no slouches there.

Like many Viking veterans, Tingelhoff benefitted from Grant’s sense of loyalty maybe a bit too long. The Vikings rarely drafted a center at all, and just about never drafted one very high, in Tingelhoff’s career. Only when they took Dennis Swilley was it obvious Tingelhoff was near the final wrap.

An anecdote that comes to mind about Tingelhoff is one I read or heard where during pre-game stretches before Super Bowl IX, one Viking pointed to Mike Webster of Pittsburgh and said to Tingelhoff, “Hey Mick, look at their young center. He doesn’t look anything like you.” Even though that was before Webster started seriously pumping up his body to nearly grotesque proportions, he was still physically much bigger than Tingelhoff, who was undersized throughout this career and extremely so by the mid-1970s. Given that the defensive players Tingelhoff opposed were also consistently larger by the mid-1970s, it’s not really a surprise that age, mileage, size and lack of dominating fellow offensive linemen made Tingelhoff’s second stage of his career not all that impressive.

Does all that add up to being a Hall of Famer? It’s up to each of you to decide that one for yourself. I’ve decided to not worry about what Canton does, as I can’t get into the minds of the voters to understand how they evaluate (and as has been discussed so often on this board, there is no agreed-upon set of criteria to become a Hall of Famer), so I’m better off not concerning myself with all of that. I support each of us having our personal Hall of Fame (if you even want to have one at all), so for me, the Evan Hall of Fame is the only one I care about, as its members only make sense to me.

#31 JohnH19
Forum Visitors
Posted 07 August 2014 - 02:44 PM
Bryan, on 07 Aug 2014 - 08:26 AM, said:
I admit I find it interesting that Tingelhoff was durable enough to play 17 seasons without injury, good enough to start 240 straight games, yet when the Vikings were winning their division every year, a former 5-time All Pro couldn't get a courtesy offensive lineman pro bowl berth from 1970-1978.

So my question is how much credit do you give Tingelhoff from 1970-1978? Was he still among the top centers in the game? Thats the part of Tingelhoff's career which is difficult to quantify IMO, and it constitutes 9 years of his career. If Tinglehoff retires after 10 or 11 seasons, would his 1964-1969 peak years be enough to put him in Canton?

I think that considering the Vikings had a terrific offense, for the most part, from 1972-78 that Tingelhoff would deserve his share of props for being an effective player during the tail end of his career.

Why would it matter if he retired five or six years sooner? His all-pro seasons were what they were. There's a lot of guys in the Hall who had fewer all-pro seasons than Mick.

#32 conace21
Forum Visitors
Posted 07 August 2014 - 03:29 PM
If Mick had retired after 1970, people would look at his honors and likely conclude he was a surefire HOF C. He may not have been the best C in the NFL in the 1970's, but he was good enough to start at C for the best regular-season NFC team during that period.

#33 JohnH19
Forum Visitors
Posted 07 August 2014 - 07:27 PM
conace21, on 07 Aug 2014 - 3:29 PM, said:
If Mick had retired after 1970, people would look at his honors and likely conclude he was a surefire HOF C.

You're probably right but I don't understand that line of thinking.

conace21, on 07 Aug 2014 - 3:29 PM, said:
He may not have been the best C in the NFL in the 1970's, but he was good enough to start at C for the best regular-season NFC team during that period.

Exactly. His performance during the 70s certainly didn't tarnish his reputation. Unfortunately, many people, including some HoF voters, think that not playing well in the Super Bowl diminishes all other accomplishments.

#34 Ken Crippen
Administrator
Posted 10 August 2014 - 09:41 AM
Talk of Fame Radio Show: Talking Contributors and Mick Tingelhoff:

http://www.talkoffam...me-show-8-8-14/

Page 2 of 2