Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Given what I've read, it looks like Dr. Z feels Jerry Kramer doesn't have HoF credentials and Bob Kuechenberg does. If so, it's something I'd be interested to see the argument for. For what it's worth, Kramer's profile is 5/3/60s and Kooch's is at 2/6/none. What does film study say? Anybody have good insights?

Ken and Matt have, at least for Kramer:

http://www.kencrippen.com/historical-sc ... eports.htm

Ronfitch wrote:Ken and Matt have, at least for Kramer:

http://www.kencrippen.com/historical-sc ... eports.htm

Ron, thanks for posting. Terrific looking work by Ken and Matt with lots of specifics and detail. Should be enough to convince anyone of the usefulness of knowledgable film study. Looking forward to future installments. It's especially helpful to see this done for HoF Senior candidates. Great job!

My guess is that Dr. Z saw Kramer's deficiencies in pass protection and sometimes giving up on plays. Whether that outweighs Kramer's run-blocking, screen-blocking, and pulling prowess is a good question.

A question I've had for a while is: Why is Tom Mack in the HOF when Jerry Kramer is not?

I do think Mack belongs in the HOF. As I've written, I followed the Rams during Tom Mack's career.

bachslunch wrote:

Ronfitch wrote:Ken and Matt have, at least for Kramer:

http://www.kencrippen.com/historical-sc ... eports.htm

Ron, thanks for posting. Terrific looking work by Ken and Matt with lots of specifics and detail. Should be enough to convince anyone of the usefulness of knowledgable film study. Looking forward to future installments. It's especially helpful to see this done for HoF Senior candidates. Great job!

My guess is that Dr. Z saw Kramer's deficiencies in pass protection and sometimes giving up on plays. Whether that outweighs Kramer's run-blocking, screen-blocking, and pulling prowess is a good question.

Thank you for the compliments. We are focusing on players who regularly come up in HOF discussion for seniors candidates.

bachslunch wrote:

Ronfitch wrote:Ken and Matt have, at least for Kramer:

http://www.kencrippen.com/historical-sc ... eports.htm

Ron, thanks for posting. Terrific looking work by Ken and Matt with lots of specifics and detail. Should be enough to convince anyone of the usefulness of knowledgable film study. Looking forward to future installments. It's especially helpful to see this done for HoF Senior candidates. Great job!

My guess is that Dr. Z saw Kramer's deficiencies in pass protection and sometimes giving up on plays. Whether that outweighs Kramer's run-blocking, screen-blocking, and pulling prowess is a good question.

I think it also has to be borne in mind that the Packers' offense was built around running, so run blocking was much more important to the team than pass blocking. If film of all the games was available and someone could go through the film and count the number of times Kramer blocked more than defender on the strongside sweep, I think he'd be a shoo-in.

Ken Crippen wrote:
Thank you for the compliments. We are focusing on players who regularly come up in HOF discussion for seniors candidates.

You've rightly championed '20s players like Lavvie Dilweg, Verne Lewellen, and Duke Slater. Was wondering how much footage exists for players of that time. Might not be much.

rhickok1109 wrote:

bachslunch wrote: My guess is that Dr. Z saw Kramer's deficiencies in pass protection and sometimes giving up on plays. Whether that outweighs Kramer's run-blocking, screen-blocking, and pulling prowess is a good question.

I think it also has to be borne in mind that the Packers' offense was built around running, so run blocking was much more important to the team than pass blocking. If film of all the games was available and someone could go through the film and count the number of times Kramer blocked more than defender on the strongside sweep, I think he'd be a shoo-in.

Good point. And there's no question that every player's game has strengths and weakness, which Ken's evaluations show. And the HoF had several distinguished members who were frankly one-dimensional (pass rush specialists being an obvious example). I'd think there's plenty of precedent to enshrine Kramer even with the blemishes his game had.

rhickok1109 wrote:I think it also has to be borne in mind that the Packers' offense was built around running, so run blocking was much more important to the team than pass blocking.

Definitely.

Also believe that being voted as the best guard of the first 50 years of the NFL continues to be the biggest feather in his cap.

Being voted as the greatest guard of the first 50 years but not being voted into the PFHOF defies logic.

bachslunch wrote:

rhickok1109 wrote:

bachslunch wrote: My guess is that Dr. Z saw Kramer's deficiencies in pass protection and sometimes giving up on plays. Whether that outweighs Kramer's run-blocking, screen-blocking, and pulling prowess is a good question.

I think it also has to be borne in mind that the Packers' offense was built around running, so run blocking was much more important to the team than pass blocking. If film of all the games was available and someone could go through the film and count the number of times Kramer blocked more than defender on the strongside sweep, I think he'd be a shoo-in.

Good point. And there's no question that every player's game has strengths and weakness, which Ken's evaluations show. And the HoF had several distinguished members who were frankly one-dimensional (pass rush specialists being an obvious example). I'd think there's plenty of precedent to enshrine Kramer even with the blemishes his game had.

I think that Bob Skoronski should also be in the discussion. I know that Reaser and I disagree slightly on the topic of Kramer vs. Skoronski. While we graded both the same, I gave a slight edge to Skoronski. Reaser gave the edge to Kramer.

When we write the reports, it is a consensus opinion of both Reaser and myself. If our grades are close (within 0.2-0.3), we will average them to give an overall score. If we are way off (more than 0.5), we both go back and watch the film through the other person's eyes to see if we see it the way they saw it. It has worked out well so far.