Eye Test for Two revelation

[PFHOFlover]

Your not going to believe what I found out

On Episode 93 of the Eye Test for Two Bill Polian says he Bill Belichick Ozzie Newsome and Ron Wolf all members of the Blue Ribbon Panel that elected the Centennial Class studied film of the pre 60s players and rated them and concluded that all the players from that era that deserve to be in are in so there’s no need to worry about seniors pre 60s

If that doesn’t tell you what happened to Lavvie Dilweg Verne Lewellen Ox Emerson Cecil Isbell and Al Wistert in the room I don’t know what does yet they still elected Bobby Dillon Duke Slater Mac Speedie and Ed Sprinkle

Here’s a link

https://cms.megaphone.fm/channel/eyetes ... 5684505504

[JohnTurney]

Your not going to believe what I found out

On Episode 93 of the Eye Test for Two Bill Polian says he Bill Belichick Ozzie Newsome and Ron Wolf all members of the Blue Ribbon Panel that elected the Centennial Class stupidest film of the pre 60s players and rated theme and concluded that all the players from that era that deserve to be in are in so there’s no need to worry about seniors pre 60s

They also spoke against some of the guys they had film on and hurt them, especially Wistert. I heard they were very outspoken and talked down to some of the other non-players/coaches who were on the panel. I don't know if it was true but this seems to confirm what was said back then .. there was a recentism thing going on.

[Brian wolf]

Ron Borges brought it up about the rejection of Wistert on TOFN after the Blue Ribbon Panel announced the finalists. Many comments about the rejection and transparency of the voters.

George Allen wrote about how good Wistert was on offense and defense as a two-way player AND he blocked for Steve Van Buren, the all-time leading rusher at that time AND he blocked during a championship game--three years in a row--where Buren set the all-time championship game rushing record! Is any other Eagle blocker from that time in the HOF?

[TanksAndSpartans]

stupidest film

I agree with this as it's written, but you mean "studied" film, right?

Either way, thanks for sharing this @PFHOFlover - explains a lot.

[PFHOFlover]

stupidest film

I agree with this as it's written, but you mean "studied" film, right?

Either way, thanks for sharing this @PFHOFlover - explains a lot.

Yes that’s what I mean and I fixed it

[TanksAndSpartans]

Some thoughts I had on this:

-Seems inconsistent Duke Slater got in, I can't imagine there's much film on him.

-Ironic if anyone on the panel also had a say on the 100-year team. Hewitt got in and not Nagurski. I remember on the old board, a member brought up Hewitt being a weak HOFer and pointing to Ken and Matt's film study. I actually defended him by mentioning that the film study had to be put into context because there wasn't much to study of Hewitt in his prime, but I still never would have imagined him on an "inner circle" type team. I just didn't want to see him on one of those lists of the "10 worst HOFers' or whatever.

-Our own @GameBeforeTheMoney interviewed Wistert at 92. He seemed at peace with the HOF decision. Mentioned having a broken arm when he was considered for WWII and getting rejected. Felt that was the reason he'd never make HOF.

-The nice thing about the NFL era is that All-Pro teams exist. Were these all known when HOF classes were being selected in the '60s and '70s? Someone here probably knows the details, but I thought John Hogrogian published previously unknown early All-Pro teams in Coffin Corner. That was back in the microfilm days, so not like you could just search newspapers.com. With the internet now, it seems like you could spend a few hours and get a pretty good idea of the strength of the argument for say Dilweg for example - PFRA site, Ken's site, Talk of Fame, PFJ, etc. I'd do that before watching film.

-And contemporary opinion on who was the best based on observing the game that was played at the time is a click away with PFR. Those All-Pro teams don't have "future comparison bias" leaking in. No one who voted for the All-Pro QB in 1940 had seen Peyton Manning play for example. Disqualifying contemporary opinion because you need to see the player yourself and make your own observation seems like the wrong approach to me. Use the film study, sure, but use everything available. I thought the point of the centennial class was to get a few of these long discussed players in the HOF. Instead something like half the finalists had careers that started after the HOF ('63). Those guys get debated every year. They spoiled what would have been a good idea. A bunch of players wound up getting in who could have been considered any year. Not only that, a few of them came out of left field.

[PFHOFlover]

Some thoughts I had on this:

-Seems inconsistent Duke Slater got in, I can't imagine there's much film on him.

-Ironic if anyone on the panel also had a say on the 100-year team. Hewitt got in and not Nagurski. I remember on the old board, a member brought up Hewitt being a weak HOFer and pointing to Ken and Matt's film study. I actually defended him by mentioning that the film study had to be put into context because there wasn't much to study of Hewitt in his prime, but I still never would have imagined him on an "inner circle" type team. I just didn't want see him on one of those lists of the "10 worst HOFers' or whatever.

-Our own @GameBeforeTheMoney interviewed Wistert at 92. He seemed at peace with the HOF decision. Mentioned having a broken arm when he was considered for WWII and getting rejected. Felt that was the reason he'd never make HOF.

-The nice thing about the NFL era is that All-Pro teams exist. Were these all known when HOF classes were being selected in the '60s and '70s? Someone here probably knows the details, but I thought John Hogrogian published previously unknown early All-Pro teams in Coffin Corner. That was back in the microfilm days, so not like you could just search newspapers.com. With the internet now, it seems like you could spend a few hours and get a pretty good idea of the strength of the argument for say Dilweg for example - PFRA site, Ken's site, Talk of Fame, PFJ, etc. I'd do that before watching film.

-And contemporary opinion on who was the best based on observing the game that was played at the time is a click away with PFR. Those All-Pro teams don't have "future comparison bias" leaking in. No one who voted for the All-Pro QB in 1940 had seen Peyton Manning play for example. Disqualifying contemporary opinion because you need to see the player yourself and make your own observation seems like the wrong approach to me. Use the film study, sure, but use everything available. I thought the point of the centennial class was to get a few of these long discussed players in the HOF. Instead something like half the finalists had careers that started after the HOF ('63). Those guys get debated every year. They spoiled what would have been a good idea. A bunch of players wound up getting in who could have been considered any year. Not only that, a few of them came out of left field.

You mean Joe Horrigan

There is film of Slater this is from the Centennial Class announcement on Good Morning Football although it’s hard to tell which player is him because it’s in black and white

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3phSxEYavSw

Joe Horrigan was a big advocate of Duke Slater

[TanksAndSpartans]

You mean Joe Horrigan

Check out this link. His name is John Hogrogian. He did research on early All-Pro teams:

https://profootballresearchers.com/arch ... 07-147.pdf

There is film of Slater this is from the Centennial Class announcement on Good Morning Football although it’s hard to tell which player is him because it’s in black and white

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3phSxEYavSw

Thanks. Is that film what put him in though? My point wasn't that Slater was a bad choice, just that it's inconsistent to require players to look good on film and then still put Slater in. If the focus was really on film how many games did they have on Slater or Dilweg or whoever? Across how many different seasons? Was the player in their prime or at the tail end of their career?

I listened to episode 93. The statement was along the lines, we watched the film of players from the 1930s and there are no players pre-1960 that deserve to be in the HOF that aren't there already. Maybe 1970, but say 1960 to be safe.

Honestly, Slater wasn't a slam dunk to me for HOF, for HOVG, sure - great choice. But he isn't mentioned in this article for example: https://profootballresearchers.com/arch ... 05-233.pdf. Dilweg, Emerson, Lewellen and Wistert were my top choices among the finalists. I read Neal Rozendaal's book wanting to see a strong case for Slater, but I came away from it feeling the case wasn't as strong as I was hoping. I think Rozendaal looked at the game summary from every game of his college and pro career and the college write-ups were much stronger from what I recall. To be fair though, it wouldn't be uncommon for contemporary writers of that era to hold racial bias, so a tough case for sure and even more so if those biases held him off All-Pro teams. Some of the write-ups on black players from that era are really bad - my experience is the '30s are worse than say the 1890s. Glad he got in - my favorite choice among those who did.

[PFHOFlover]

You mean Joe Horrigan

Check out this link. His name is John Hogrogian. He did research on early All-Pro teams:

https://profootballresearchers.com/arch ... 07-147.pdf

There is film of Slater this is from the Centennial Class announcement on Good Morning Football although it’s hard to tell which player is him because it’s in black and white

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3phSxEYavSw

Thanks. Is that film what put him in though? My point wasn't that Slater was a bad choice, just that it's inconsistent to require players to look good on film and then still put Slater in. If the focus was really on film how many games did they have on Slater or Dilweg or whoever? Across how many different seasons? Was the player in their prime or at the tail end of their career?

I listened to episode 93. The statement was along the lines, we watched the film of players from the 1930s and there are no players pre-1960 that deserve to be in the HOF that aren't there already. Maybe 1970, but say 1960 to be safe.

Honestly, Slater wasn't a slam dunk to me for HOF, for HOVG, sure - great choice. But he isn't mentioned in this article for example: https://profootballresearchers.com/arch ... 05-233.pdf. Dilweg, Emerson, Lewellen and Wistert were my top choices among the finalists. I read Neal Rozendaal's book wanting to see a strong case for Slater, but I came away from it feeling the case wasn't as strong as I was hoping. I think Rozendaal looked at the game summary from every game of his college and pro career and the college write-ups were much stronger from what I recall. To be fair though, it wouldn't be uncommon for contemporary writers of that era to hold racial bias, so a tough case for sure and even more so if those biases held him off All-Pro teams. Some of the write-ups on black players from that era are really bad - my experience is the '30s are worse than say the 1890s. Glad he got in - my favorite choice among those who did.

Sorry about that I thought you misspelled Joe Horrigan I must have misread it

[TanksAndSpartans]

Sorry about that I thought you misspelled Joe Horrigan I must have misread it

No problem - funny thing I almost wrote Joe Horrigan myself. Then I thought about it a minute and googled it. I just wanted the right guy to get credit. Great find on the podcast. Even from the outside (without any such tidbits from insiders), it's been clear for a while that there isn't much, if any, respect for the work of the researchers and authors I respect from HOF selectors. Until the make-up of the committee is such that PFRA and Talk of Fame types are the majority (probably not in my lifetime), I don't see anything changing.