Go Back   Sports Central Message Boards > Professional Sports Discussion > National Football League

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-21-2011, 08:36 PM   #1
bachslunch
Grizzled Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 64
bachslunch is on a distinguished road
Default Pro Football Hall of Fame 2011 voting announced

No one has posted here about this, so thought I'd do so.

The Pro Football Hall of Fame elected seven new members recently. They are:

Richard Dent
Marshall Faulk
Chris Hanburger (Senior)
Les Richter (Senior)
Ed Sabol
Deion Sanders
Shannon Sharpe

Congratulations to all.

My reaction here: this was a very strong class by and large. The only major quibble I've got is with Richard Dent, whose postseason honors I think are too meager to merit enshrinement. At 2(1AP)/4/none, that ties Fred Dean for the worst such profile for a HoF d-lineman.
bachslunch is offline  
Old 02-21-2011, 10:43 PM   #2
buckeyefan78
Happy Land
 
buckeyefan78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 12,864
buckeyefan78 is a jewel in the roughbuckeyefan78 is a jewel in the roughbuckeyefan78 is a jewel in the rough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bachslunch View Post
No one has posted here about this, so thought I'd do so.

The Pro Football Hall of Fame elected seven new members recently. They are:

Richard Dent
Marshall Faulk
Chris Hanburger (Senior)
Les Richter (Senior)
Ed Sabol
Deion Sanders
Shannon Sharpe

Congratulations to all.

My reaction here: this was a very strong class by and large. The only major quibble I've got is with Richard Dent, whose postseason honors I think are too meager to merit enshrinement. At 2(1AP)/4/none, that ties Fred Dean for the worst such profile for a HoF d-lineman.
Good Lord, Dent is the most deserving in that whole bunch. Well, along with The Hangman.

You're too hung up on the awards even though he has a healthy enough resume in that department anyway IMO.

The man had the greatest defensive performance, perhaps the greatest overall performance, in NFL playoff history in the 1985 playoffs vs. the Giants. That 3 week run in the playoffs by him is one of the most dominant performances in a playoff season ever.

Only 5 men have more sacks than him.

It's a shame it took this long to get him in.
buckeyefan78 is offline  
Old 02-28-2011, 06:25 PM   #3
Brad O.
1,549
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 792
Brad O. will become famous soon enough
Default

I agree with bachslunch.

Quote:
Dent's selection ahead of some of the other finalists surprised and disappointed me. As an easy comparison, Dent clearly was not as deserving as Chris Doleman. Both players were defensive ends in the NFC in the '80s and '90s. But Doleman made twice as many Pro Bowls (8) as Dent (4). Doleman had more tackles, more sacks, more forced fumbles, more fumble recoveries, more safeties, more touchdowns. There is nothing Dent was better at than Doleman.

I'm not trying to bash Richard Dent, and I don't think his election is some tragedy. But I can't imagine what led the voters to support Dent rather than Dermontti Dawson and Willie Roaf, or Tim Brown and Cris Carter, or Curtis Martin, or Doleman. I hope Dent's selection will at least clear the way for other worthy pass rushers, like Kevin Greene and Doleman, to finally win induction.

Last edited by Brad O.; 03-01-2011 at 08:31 PM.
Brad O. is offline  
Old 03-01-2011, 07:04 AM   #4
buckeyefan78
Happy Land
 
buckeyefan78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 12,864
buckeyefan78 is a jewel in the roughbuckeyefan78 is a jewel in the roughbuckeyefan78 is a jewel in the rough
Default

There's a typical Brad O. post. Say you agree with someone who says:

"the only major quibble I've got is with Richard Dent, whose postseason honors I think are too meager to merit enshrinement"

and then add thru a copy and paste job (cuz we all need to remember that he writes articles and stuff):

"I hope Dent's selection will at least clear the way for other worthy pass rushers, like Kevin Greene and Doleman, to finally win induction."

Fantastic. Dent's not worthy one second and then he is the next.

Damn, it's good to be back at SCMB...

buckeyefan78 is offline  
Old 03-01-2011, 08:31 PM   #5
Brad O.
1,549
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 792
Brad O. will become famous soon enough
Default

Do you want me to re-phrase something I already wrote? Of course I'll just paste.

Quote:
Originally Posted by buckeyefan78 View Post
Fantastic. Dent's not worthy one second and then he is the next.
Not sure where you got this. I don't have strong feelings either way on his induction, except that he was less deserving than other candidates.
Brad O. is offline  
Old 03-02-2011, 05:23 PM   #6
bachslunch
Grizzled Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 64
bachslunch is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by buckeyefan78 View Post
Good Lord, Dent is the most deserving in that whole bunch. Well, along with The Hangman.

You're too hung up on the awards even though he has a healthy enough resume in that department anyway IMO.
What's "healthy" about 4 pro bowl selections in a 15-year career? Not to mention one first-team all pro selection via AP (in 1985) and one more via Pro Football Weekly (in 1984) in those 15 seasons? As said above, that ties Fred Dean for the worst such postseason honors profile for any HoF d-lineman who played his entire career during the Pro Bowl era, and Dean only played 11 years.

I'd also like to know why it appears you think awards don't matter here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by buckeyefan78 View Post
The man had the greatest defensive performance, perhaps the greatest overall performance, in NFL playoff history in the 1985 playoffs vs. the Giants. That 3 week run in the playoffs by him is one of the most dominant performances in a playoff season ever.
Are you a fan of Dexter Jackson, Mark Rypien, Doug Williams, or former Cowboys CB Larry Brown for the HoF as well? One fine season or a clutch of great games do not a HoF-er make.

Quote:
Originally Posted by buckeyefan78 View Post
Only 5 men have more sacks than him.
So what? Dent should get down on his knees and thank Dan Hampton for raising havoc on opponents o-lines, freeing him up to get those fancy counting stats. Besides, Dent had a reputation for not playing the run well and taking plays off, not exactly something in his favor. And if he's playing this long, it's not surprising he racked up larger than usual sack stats.

Last edited by bachslunch; 03-02-2011 at 05:41 PM.
bachslunch is offline  
Old 03-02-2011, 05:25 PM   #7
bachslunch
Grizzled Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 64
bachslunch is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by buckeyefan78 View Post
There's a typical Brad O. post.
Brad O. has forgotten more about football than you know, if your posts on this thread are any indication.
bachslunch is offline  
Old 03-04-2011, 01:10 PM   #8
Tarkus
The Thread Stalker
 
Tarkus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: In The Wind...
Posts: 11,856
Tarkus has a spectacular aura aboutTarkus has a spectacular aura aboutTarkus has a spectacular aura about
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad O. View Post
Dent's selection ahead of some of the other finalists surprised and disappointed me. As an easy comparison, Dent clearly was not as deserving as Chris Doleman. Both players were defensive ends in the NFC in the '80s and '90s. But Doleman made twice as many Pro Bowls (8) as Dent (4). Doleman had more tackles, more sacks, more forced fumbles, more fumble recoveries, more safeties, more touchdowns. There is nothing Dent was better at than Doleman.
This is a tough one since I'm a big Doleman fan but I'm afraid your use of stats is still a major flaw in your reasoning, Brad.

I've said it before & I'll say it again: Stats are only useful in context & more often than not are misleading without the surrounding facts.

Case(s) in point:

Pro Bowl selections> 8 to 4. Yea, more...

Of course the Pro Bowl & the selection process has been ridiculed for it's politics & selections of players not as deserving & the omissions of obvious worthy selections. It's been a joke across the league & media since it began. Not even sure why this is even a point of contention. It's laughable.

Short excerpt (since there's a ton more out there to make that point):

**********************************************************************************
The Pro Bowl has been plagued with criticism ever since the NFL allowed fan voting. Voting by fans makes up 1/3 of the vote for Pro Bowl players. Many teams like Dallas, New York, and other large fan bases usually win because fans usually vote for their own team and not necessarily the best player. In the 2008 Pro Bowl, the Dallas Cowboys had thirteen players on the NFC roster, an NFL record. "If you're in a small market, no one really gets to see you play," said Minnesota Vikings cornerback Antoine Winfield. "If you're a quiet guy, it's hard to get the attention. You just have to work hard and play." Winfield made the Pro Bowl in 2008 after ten seasons of being shut out.

The player voting has also been subject to significant criticism. It is not uncommon for the players to pick the same players over and over again; former offensive lineman (and SI.com analyst) Ross Tucker has cited politics, incumbency, and compensation for injury in previous years as primary factors in player's choices among themselves.

Some players have had a surprisingly small number of Pro Bowl selections despite distinguished careers. Hall of fame running back John Riggins was only selected once in his career from 1971-1985. He was not selected in the year where he set the record for rushing touchdowns in a season and his team made it to the Super Bowl (though he did make the all-pro team). Hall of fame linebacker Ray Nitschke only made the Pro Bowl once, despite being named all-pro seven times and being the MVP of the 1962 NFL Championship Game. Defensive Back Ken Riley never made the Pro Bowl in his 15 seasons, even though he recorded 65 interceptions, the fourth highest total in NFL history at the time of his retirement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_Bowl
*********************************************************************************

Now if you wanted to really make a case, you could have tried the All Pro #s where Doleman actually leads, by 1, for 1st team honors & tied for 2nd team honors with 2. Hardly some sort of landslide tho.

More tackles> 914 to 671. Yea, more...

However, 162 were from the LBer position where tackles are much more plentiful. Still tackles but much more available for second level positions like LBers especially in the 3-4 that Minny was playing in at the time. Also with an extra 29 games played by Doleman.

More sacks> 150.5 to 137.5. Yea, more...

However, those awe inspiring extra 13 sacks were accumulated in 29 more games due to Dent's injury problems & short stint with SF where he was only used as a pass rush specialist.

Forced fumbles> 35 to 33. Yea, more...



Fumble recoveries> 24 to 13. Yea, more...

Not sure being at the right place at the right time ever makes the case for 1 player being better but I guess it does to some people.

More safeties> 2 to 1. Yea, more....

& I guess the 'gap' continues to widen.

More TDs> 3 to 1. Yea, more...

1 as a LBer & 2 as a DE. Dent should be taken out of the HoF immediately.



This doesn't even include the post season play of Dent along with SB XX MVP. Odd that has been swept under the rug in this convo.


Isn't it strange how a more complete layout of the full facts make that supposed 'gap' not a gap at all? Like I said, I'm a fan of Doleman but to try & diminish Dent to supplant him with Chris actually succeeds in diminishing Doleman in the process.

Bottom line is both deserve the honor IMO along with many others who didn't make it, past & present. The real problem is the selection process & the ones making the decisions. It smacks of the same ridiculous nature of the Pro Bowl process.


Quote:
Originally Posted by bachslunch View Post
What's "healthy" about 4 pro bowl selections in a 15-year career? Not to mention one first-team all pro selection via AP (in 1985) and one more via Pro Football Weekly (in 1984) in those 15 seasons? As said above, that ties Fred Dean for the worst such postseason honors profile for any HoF d-lineman who played his entire career during the Pro Bowl era, and Dean only played 11 years.

I'd also like to know why it appears you think awards don't matter here.
Using the Pro Bowl argument & ignoring the real awards sure doesn't help your credibility in this convo, I'm afraid...

(See above Pro Bowl excerpt)

Not going into detail of your squeezing Dean into this but his sack total, official & unofficial, stands at 93 in 11 years while Dent was basically done after 11 years due to injuries & having 124 at the time. Not much argument against Dent but actually bolstering his selection, I'd say.



Quote:
So what? Dent should get down on his knees and thank Dan Hampton for raising havoc on opponents o-lines, freeing him up to get those fancy counting stats.


Yea, Keith Millard & Henry Thomas were bums. Doleman did it all on his own.



Quote:
Besides, Dent had a reputation for not playing the run well and taking plays off, not exactly something in his favor.
& you obviously don't know about reputations nor watched Dent thru the years to even say that. I did, every one of them...


Quote:
And if he's playing this long, it's not surprising he racked up larger than usual sack stats.
*sigh*

Back to the facts, I guess:

Dent played 15 years, 203 games. Doleman played 15 years, 232 games.

If one wants to give credence to your 'longevity' argument, Doleman played 29 more games to also rack up even "larger than usual sack stats"...& that's only 13 more I might once again point out.

Dent had only 13 sacks in very sporadic play his last 4 years while Doleman had 35 in his last 4 & starting basically full seasons in all of them. Doleman clearly needed all 15 while Dent didn't have them.

More like you don't know what you're talking about since your comment, if you really want it to be true, makes Doleman look worse than Dent.

Better to just step away from the keyboard on this one...
__________________

Last edited by Tarkus; 03-04-2011 at 02:09 PM.
Tarkus is offline  
Old 03-04-2011, 04:57 PM   #9
ghostofSC
All-Star Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 205
ghostofSC is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bachslunch View Post
Brad O. has forgotten more about football than you know, if your posts on this thread are any indication.
Marc* - I certainly understand why you'd delete Buckeye's post and mine, and have absolutely no problem with that, but I'm not sure why this one was allowed to stand*.

*I assume Marc as I think he's the only admin left, but if it was someone else, my apologies.

*I like Brad's postings and have no doubt he knows football better than me, although I hope hasn't forgotten too much. That may indicate serious health issues.
ghostofSC is offline  
Old 03-04-2011, 07:08 PM   #10
bachslunch
Grizzled Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 64
bachslunch is on a distinguished road
Default

Note well that bringing up Chris Doleman in this discussion was emphatically not my doing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarkus View Post
Using the Pro Bowl argument & ignoring the real awards sure doesn't help your credibility in this convo, I'm afraid...

(See above Pro Bowl excerpt)

Not going into detail of your squeezing Dean into this but his sack total, official & unofficial, stands at 93 in 11 years while Dent was basically done after 11 years due to injuries & having 124 at the time. Not much argument against Dent but actually bolstering his selection, I'd say.
I can see the idea that devaluing pro bowl selections after the fans got one-third of the vote is not unreasonable. If memory serves, that happened in 1995, after which Dent was practically done and Doleman would get only two more such nods. That still leaves Doleman with two more such selections. And as you pointed out above, Doleman was named a 1st team all pro three times, Dent twice. Regardless, it's info that's there and perfectly legit to point out.

There are rare exceptions who are HoF deserving with meager numbers, something I've referred to in the past as the "Ray Nitschke exception." Nitschke was a 1st team all pro only 3 times and a pro bowler once, but that's because he was always stuck behind first Bill George and Joe Schmidt and later Dick Butkus when it came time to hand out such honors. I'm having a hard time seeing such an exception in Dent's case. If time permits, I can do a year-by-year to see if that holds up to careful scrutiny.

I'm also one who is suspicious of raw defensive stats, as I'm not sure they necessarily tell us how good the player actually was. Dan Hampton's sack total was meager, but that wasn't his role in the Bear's defense at the time. And high sack totals don't tell you that Doleman, Dent, Dean, John Randle, and Derrick Thomas did not play the run well. Tackles are notoriously unreliable to cite, as Rich Gosselin said in an article that's unfortunately no longer up at his paper's website -- the article was originally found at:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont....141e71c8.html

In it, Gosselin pointed out that there's no uniform standard for counting tackles and many teams are remarkably lavish about awarding them. In short, tackle stats are meaningless.

I can also say that I did not sweep Dent's success in Super Bowl XX under the rug. It's not to be denied. However, I did note that "One fine season or a clutch of great games do not a HoF-er make."


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarkus View Post
Yea, Keith Millard & Henry Thomas were bums. Doleman did it all on his own.
As mentioned above, I didn't initially bring up Doleman here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarkus View Post
& you obviously don't know about reputations nor watched Dent thru the years to even say that. I did, every one of them...
I've noticed a fair bit of revisionist history going on the last several years regarding player reputations in order to boost their HoF arguments. I've seen observations from what would clearly seem to be, well let's just say "favorably leaning" sources saying that Shannon Sharpe blocked for several 1000 yard rushers (in fact he didn't block well and thought it was beneath him), that Derrick Thomas played the run and pass well (not my understanding here), and that Richard Dent played well against the run.

I'm not impressed when a Bears fan or Bears writer puts forth glowing praise of Dent's supposed run stopping prowess any more than I am about John Madden saying Ray Guy was the greatest punter ever. And the only places I've seen making the "good against the run" assertion for Dent come from Bear-friendly sources.

In defense of what I'm saying, please take a look at this article:

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nfl/stor...p-pass-rushers

which was written by someone from Sporting News who clearly thinks much of Dent and appears to have been a big '85 Bears fan. Note well that he says here:

"The only knock I can put on Dent is he was -- and this is hard for a guy who has "1985 Bears" tattooed on his forehead to admit -- kind of lazy. By my recollection, he took lots of running plays off. He didn't exactly chase ballcarriers across the field; his approach was more to wave his giant right hand and say, "Good luck to you. Otis Wilson probably is about to kill you, but good luck to you.""

Yeah -- I'm finding that really tough to ignore.

And no offense, but I'm also leery about taking a fan's word on behalf of a player's prowess, unless they did hard-core film study and really know what to look for in evaluating a player's skill. A fan who doesn't will probably see when Dent makes a sack or strip, but not likely be aware if he's out of position on a running play. Chances are good they're doing what most of us guys do at a football game -- noticing the guy with the ball, checking out the cheerleading talent, yelling invective at an opposing player. It's fun, but it's not hard-core talent weighing.

One other issue I have here is this: why has Dent been found worthy of the HoF when Claude Humphrey and L.C. Greenwood have been rejected several times and someone like Gene Brito hasn't even gotten the time of day from the committee? If the bar's low enough and all three of these folks are in, maybe that's different.
bachslunch is offline  
Old 03-05-2011, 11:06 AM   #11
Anthony
Moderator
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 8,372
Anthony is on a distinguished road
Default

Never thought who should be in the Hall of Fame and who shouldn't could generate such inflamed passions (referencing the posts that have been deleted from this thread).

That said, back in the '80s I had a close friend and erstwhile co-worker whose personal nickname for Richard Dent was "Bubble Butt."
Anthony is offline  
Old 03-05-2011, 08:23 PM   #12
Tarkus
The Thread Stalker
 
Tarkus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: In The Wind...
Posts: 11,856
Tarkus has a spectacular aura aboutTarkus has a spectacular aura aboutTarkus has a spectacular aura about
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostofSC View Post
Marc* - I certainly understand why you'd delete Buckeye's post and mine, and have absolutely no problem with that, but I'm not sure why this one was allowed to stand*.
That's still a sticking point for me here at SC, I'm afraid.

Missed your post but saw Buck's. His was short & sweet, , but was understandably 'forged' in the heat of that passive/aggressive post you refer to. A basic case of cause & effect, one more 'colorful' but only brought on by circumstances that prompted it.

I'm a life long proponent for getting paid for what you earned & while Buck's post had a raw feel to it, bachslunch's was the catalyst that brought it on & certainly 'earned it'.

Having said that, I didn't see that any censorship was necessary for the simple fact that no flags were gonna be thrown for 'piling on' nor was an impending wave of anarchy & civil unrest. It's the 'net, not a daycare center & the guys are grown men who can have their moments without having a teacher call a time out.

I will say that bachslunch, from my quick perusal of his following response to me, proves that point by laying out a football based view without the histrionics. Apparently the heat has died down.

That, I can live with...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony View Post

...back in the '80s I had a close friend and erstwhile co-worker whose personal nickname for Richard Dent was "Bubble Butt."


That he was, Anthony. In more circles than just your friend's...



Quote:
Originally Posted by bachslunch View Post
Note well that bringing up Chris Doleman in this discussion was emphatically not my doing.
I saw that but am confused why you didn't jump Brad for his view on Doleman being much more worthy while slamming Buck for disagreeing about Dent's induction even tho he based it on a football POV.

As I easily pointed out, Doleman's 'stats' in no way show any great disparity between the 2. As usual, stats are only there to be support in a opinion on a player & never...never, alone tell of a player's true talents in a team sport.

To be truly fair, I'd have expected your response to have that same 'flavor' toward the obvious mirroring criteria for Doleman that you disagreed so strongly with Dent.


Quote:
I can see the idea that devaluing pro bowl selections after the fans got one-third of the vote is not unreasonable. If memory serves, that happened in 1995, after which Dent was practically done and Doleman would get only two more such nods. That still leaves Doleman with two more such selections. And as you pointed out above, Doleman was named a 1st team all pro three times, Dent twice. Regardless, it's info that's there and perfectly legit to point out.
Of course it's legit to include the All Pro...that's why I mentioned it tho I wonder why I would have to. It wasn't my argument about Doleman over Dent tho I'm more than fair about it to have done so.

& that's why people debate issues. Different views/different takes. No choice, well almost no choice , is entirely wrong but more of what a fan's criteria of what makes a particular player an all time great/HoFer.

IMO, the Pro Bowl was never a gauge whatsoever, whether by player choice or the inclusion of fan voting. The same likes/dislikes, favoritism, etc. affected the players as well as the fans. It's always been a popularity contest & in some cases by players, as a 'punishment' or retribution by excluding deserving but less than popular players.

The All Pro stat carries some weight as a tool in a debate but even then can be colored by surrounding players helping one be considered greater than he was & conversely by diminishing accomplishments by attributing more accolades to another when said player set the table for another to garner more of the 'sexy' press i.e. a player who draws double & at times, triple teams that allows the freedom to accumulate the stats to enhance his resume as an example. or how many other greats may have stolen the spotlight for that particular position.

It helps some healthy debate on what the real value of a player is but is too subjective to start a pissing contest on who is smart & who is stupid in their selection tho.


Quote:
There are rare exceptions who are HoF deserving with meager numbers, something I've referred to in the past as the "Ray Nitschke exception." Nitschke was a 1st team all pro only 3 times and a pro bowler once, but that's because he was always stuck behind first Bill George and Joe Schmidt and later Dick Butkus when it came time to hand out such honors. I'm having a hard time seeing such an exception in Dent's case. If time permits, I can do a year-by-year to see if that holds up to careful scrutiny.
Notice that you're now devaluing the All Pro stat in this case by referencing who had to play behind mainstays like George & Schmidt. I watched Nitschke thru-out his career & while I valued his grit/play, never had him that high on the HoF list. He was the face, as most MLBers were back in the day, of the Pack D but wasn't a game changing player IMO.

Quote:
I'm also one who is suspicious of raw defensive stats, as I'm not sure they necessarily tell us how good the player actually was. Dan Hampton's sack total was meager, but that wasn't his role in the Bear's defense at the time. And high sack totals don't tell you that Doleman, Dent, Dean, John Randle, and Derrick Thomas did not play the run well.
& that's why the whole argument about the HoF is a no win situation with me in as it's more for spirited debate with no clear cut answer. Just using raw stats does absolutely nothing except show, for the most part, that a fan didn't see enough of that players to only use stats for a main factor.

There's numerous examples of great/HoF players who got the 'sexy' nod of greatness on those raw stats where it was more about other great players that gave them the opportunity for inclusion than it was about them being all around great.

Tackles? Not a defining tool at all. Hell, a lot of tackles/sacks are a direct result of players having the play herded to them thru other players efforts.

Sacks? Always found it a marketing tool by the NFL since most sacks are designed for isolation of a players talents to maximize the chance. How many sacks by the great LT were nothing but a free lane to the QB or crafted stunts to leave a RB to pick up him up? Can't discount his greatness as a game changer but silly not to understand it's a team sport where it includes the talents of a DC who knows how to attack an offense in this case.

Dent's induction was about his talents but not some sort of whitewashing of his good but not great run support. He altered OC's schemes thru-out his career which is more of criteria to me than just stats.



Quote:
Tackles are notoriously unreliable to cite, as Rich Gosselin said in an article that's unfortunately no longer up at his paper's website -- the article was originally found at:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont....141e71c8.html

In it, Gosselin pointed out that there's no uniform standard for counting tackles and many teams are remarkably lavish about awarding them. In short, tackle stats are meaningless.
You're singing to the choir on this one...

Stats just help flesh out a career but are notoriously lacking as a main course. Besides being inflated by teams as an example, tackles alone don't explain where it was made. Was it a tackle made 5 yards past the LOS, was it a penetration tackle, a blown assignment gimme, or a truly great individual effort, etc.?

Just too vague to fully rely on...


Quote:
I can also say that I did not sweep Dent's success in Super Bowl XX under the rug. It's not to be denied. However, I did note that "One fine season or a clutch of great games do not a HoF-er make."
& as I noted, followed his career thru-out & didn't rely on raw stats. Use of any of his stats are supporting the fact that he wasn't reliant on a season or 2 for his induction.


Quote:
I've noticed a fair bit of revisionist history going on the last several years regarding player reputations in order to boost their HoF arguments. I've seen observations from what would clearly seem to be, well let's just say "favorably leaning" sources saying that Shannon Sharpe blocked for several 1000 yard rushers (in fact he didn't block well and thought it was beneath him), that Derrick Thomas played the run and pass well (not my understanding here), and that Richard Dent played well against the run.
This is true but I'd say you haven't seen it in this thread. Maybe some of this "favorably leaning" rhetoric we've all read has you more fired up to say things like he should kiss Hampton's feet for his play.

All greats thru-out team sports benefit from other players efforts to get to where they are. The debate will always be about how much of that supported that player's play & how much propped them up.


Quote:
I'm not impressed when a Bears fan or Bears writer puts forth glowing praise of Dent's supposed run stopping prowess any more than I am about John Madden saying Ray Guy was the greatest punter ever. And the only places I've seen making the "good against the run" assertion for Dent come from Bear-friendly sources.
I wouldn't be impressed by anyone touting his "supposed run stopping prowess" either but then you mention "good against the run".

Confusing...

Now you seem to say he wasn't good against the run. He was a solid run defender & surely wouldn't be a HoFer if that was the single criteria being used. However, it's the sum of the parts with any player. Using 1 thing like that would make, say a HoF RB, ineligible even with outstanding run greatness cuz he was an average receiver. Or a HoF QB shouldn't be in cuz there were better good QBs out there with a better deep ball, etc., etc.

Like I said, confusing...


Quote:
In defense of what I'm saying, please take a look at this article:

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nfl/stor...p-pass-rushers

which was written by someone from Sporting News who clearly thinks much of Dent and appears to have been a big '85 Bears fan. Note well that he says here:

"The only knock I can put on Dent is he was -- and this is hard for a guy who has "1985 Bears" tattooed on his forehead to admit -- kind of lazy. By my recollection, he took lots of running plays off. He didn't exactly chase ballcarriers across the field; his approach was more to wave his giant right hand and say, "Good luck to you. Otis Wilson probably is about to kill you, but good luck to you.""

Yeah -- I'm finding that really tough to ignore.
Well, that's his opinion. I've seen players run down ball carriers 15 yards down field with a lot more motor than others, in & out of the HoF & others, also in & out of the HoF, not have that same motor.

I'd agree to that extent but that cute part of "wave his giant right hand and say, "Good luck to you. Otis Wilson probably is about to kill you, but good luck to you." is ridiculous. Once again, not ever on a soap box embellishing his 'run prowess' but reiterating his solid run support.

Besides all that, Dent would not have survived being on that Bear D with that kind of mentality. No one, especially Singletary, would have put up with that kind of play not to mention Ditka.

This use of an article smacks of trying to fill in blanks as a replacement to actually having seen him play.


Quote:
And no offense, but I'm also leery about taking a fan's word on behalf of a player's prowess, unless they did hard-core film study and really know what to look for in evaluating a player's skill. A fan who doesn't will probably see when Dent makes a sack or strip, but not likely be aware if he's out of position on a running play. Chances are good they're doing what most of us guys do at a football game -- noticing the guy with the ball, checking out the cheerleading talent, yelling invective at an opposing player. It's fun, but it's not hard-core talent weighing.


& no offense, but I'm leery of a fan who already made a disjointed case based on innuendo & sound bites magnifying the run only as the criteria while discounting any supporting stats like sack totals, hyping hollow Pro Bowl awards yet omitting things like the SB XX MVP award, speaking of longevity of career to pad totals while ignoring the fact that it was essentially accomplished in 11 years due to injuries instead of when he retired in 15 years, etc.

To be honest, I've yet to understand where your basis on Dent's induction comes from except from what you've read/heard.

& the comment of "hard core film study' makes this sound like you have to be in a room with a projector when it's more about either having football knowledge or not. This is not that complicated....

The problem in today's NFL is games are drastically changed by the smaller viewing camera work which has eliminated the opportunity to follow the whole play, seeing exactly how plays develop/who's doing what for the close up view. The drive to show the 'up close & personal' has ruined it for fans to be able to see simple things like that INT was the receiver getting bumped off that timing route instead of the outcry of that QB is a bum or the times the announcers expound on that great tackle when a replay shows it was a blown assignment, not some heroic effort...if you're lucky to see a replay at all.

Mark my words, one day down the road the NFL will market some kind of NFL Plus or some nonsense offering more camera angles & zoom outs...for a charge. Capitalism at it's finest...

& thanks for the breakdown of what some fans miss & what those fans should be looking for but that lesson isn't something needed at this end. You won't find anything in my posts lacking.

I'm not a fan that needs stats as my sole foundation nor am I ever going to belittle a player without having seen enough film to make a solid assessment.


Quote:
One other issue I have here is this: why has Dent been found worthy of the HoF when Claude Humphrey and L.C. Greenwood have been rejected several times and someone like Gene Brito hasn't even gotten the time of day from the committee? If the bar's low enough and all three of these folks are in, maybe that's different.
& that's the real outcry here. More about the 'If he's in, why aren't they?".

I said it before, I'll say it again:

It's the process & the way decisions are made & by whom & the shame is that it's not going to change. To ignore that simple fact ends up with these player against player convos that go nowhere except down.

Realize where the real issue is...
__________________

Last edited by Tarkus; 03-06-2011 at 12:29 AM.
Tarkus is offline  
Old 03-06-2011, 03:17 AM   #13
Anthony
Moderator
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 8,372
Anthony is on a distinguished road
Default

Marc was right to do away with the "swear filter;" yet I also stand with him four-square when it comes to his continued zero tolerance of personal attacks.

But players, etc. are fair game; otherwise, I'd have been banned years ago for my incessant flaming of Donovan McNabb! :lol:
Anthony is offline  
Old 03-06-2011, 08:57 AM   #14
Jack Knoff
Grizzled Veteran
 
Jack Knoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 165
Jack Knoff will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony
zero tolerance of personal attacks
lol



Sure am relieved that Les Richter and Ed friggin' Sabol got in the NFL Hall of Fame instead of the guy who is 3rd all-time in receptions, 4th all-time in receiving TDs and 8th all-time in TDs.

Cris Carter - hosed.


Ed Sabol??


LMAO!
Jack Knoff is offline  
Old 03-07-2011, 08:10 PM   #15
bachslunch
Grizzled Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 64
bachslunch is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarkus View Post
I saw that but am confused why you didn't jump Brad for his view on Doleman being much more worthy while slamming Buck for disagreeing about Dent's induction even tho he based it on a football POV.
Well, that's where freedom of choice comes in.

Besides, it's really, really tough for me to understand why anyone would refer to Richard Dent as "the most deserving in that whole bunch" of HoF inductees when we also saw the following folks elected:

-a top-notch KR who was also one of the premiere cover corners in NFL history (so says Dr. Z on the latter).

-one of the best RBs to combine rushing and pass catching skills.

-the founder of NFL Films.

-one of the most prolific pass catching TEs in NFL history.

Which is why I responded to buckeyefan78 as I did. In fact, I'm still seriously wondering if he was trolling or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarkus View Post
IMO, the Pro Bowl was never a gauge whatsoever, whether by player choice or the inclusion of fan voting. The same likes/dislikes, favoritism, etc. affected the players as well as the fans. It's always been a popularity contest & in some cases by players, as a 'punishment' or retribution by excluding deserving but less than popular players.

The All Pro stat carries some weight as a tool in a debate but even then can be colored by surrounding players helping one be considered greater than he was & conversely by diminishing accomplishments by attributing more accolades to another when said player set the table for another to garner more of the 'sexy' press i.e. a player who draws double & at times, triple teams that allows the freedom to accumulate the stats to enhance his resume as an example. or how many other greats may have stolen the spotlight for that particular position.
I actually think that stats for skill position players (QBs, RBs, WRs, TEs, kickers, punters, KRs) can be useful tools for evaluation. Of course, like all stats, one needs to know how to use them with care and thought. For example, folks who use them to say "Cris Carter should be a HoF-er -- just compare his lifetime stats to those of Ray Berry" are not using stats well. I can certainly see a good argument for Carter being in the HoF and think he belongs in, but doing such a comparison isn't the way to go.

Finding a respectable criterion for non-skill positions is tougher. Film study is a great way to go, if one has access to film and knows what to look for. Failing this, I'm hard-pressed to see a better way to make such decisions that by seeing what their postseason honors numbers look like -- 1st team all pro selections, all decade team selections, and pro bowl selections, roughly weighed in this order. None are perfect solutions, of course, but failing good film study, I don't know what's better. In the case of 1st team all pro and to a lesser extent pro bowl selections, this tells us what their contemporaries thought of their play. I find counting stats pretty useless for these folks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarkus View Post
Notice that you're now devaluing the All Pro stat in this case by referencing who had to play behind mainstays like George & Schmidt.
Note well that I used the term "exception," which means this is extremely unusual. Nitschke is arguably the best example of this phenomenon, and unless you want to consider Sam Huff another possible example, perhaps the only major exception. That's about equivalent to a spoonful of dirt out of a large earthen dam -- undermining is minimal here at best. As best I can tell, an overwhelming majority of non-skill position HoF-ers have the best such numbers in this regard for their time period. And the players often griped about as "snubs" have the best such numbers among those omitted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarkus View Post
I watched Nitschke thru-out his career & while I valued his grit/play, never had him that high on the HoF list. He was the face, as most MLBers were back in the day, of the Pack D but wasn't a game changing player IMO.
Interestingly enough, you're the only person I've run across with this opinion of Nitschke. He shows up on Brad Oremland's list of 30 best LBs of all time, with this quote:

"Here's something odd: Ray Nitschke only made one Pro Bowl, by far the fewest on this list. No other LB listed here earned fewer than five. And yet, no one questions that Nitschke was an all-time great. He started for five championship-winning teams, made the 1960s All-Decade Team, and was a first-ballot Hall of Famer in 1978. He had all the qualities you want in a middle linebacker. He was tough, a ferocious hitter. He was quick to the ball, an instinctive tackler, and a superb pass defender. He was also a leader and a big-game player, the MVP of the 1962 NFL Championship Game. The man even looked like a linebacker."

And in 1969, Nitschke was named the NFL's all-time top linebacker. Not Bill George, Joe Schmidt, Sam Huff, or Chuck Bednarick, all of whom had completed their careers by this time. Who was on that committee? Tell me and we'll both know.

Tarkus, that of course doesn't mean you're wrong -- but it definitely doesn't appear to be a mainstream opinion, either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarkus View Post
Dent's induction was about his talents but not some sort of whitewashing of his good but not great run support. He altered OC's schemes thru-out his career which is more of criteria to me than just stats.
The problem I have with Dent is that he comes up on the short end of some crucial (for me) issues. The arguments in his favor are the number of sacks he had (and we're apparently both in agreement that the meaningfulness of this stat can be legitimately questioned) and a terrific but short peak in a long career. Not in his favor are his meager postseason honors (and might I add that in addition to the modest lead in 1st team all pro selections and pro bowls Chris Doleman has over him, Doleman was named to an all decade team and Dent was not) and the reputation for taking plays off and not playing the run well. And the "not in his favor" stuff is a problem for me.

Re the Steve Greenberg article:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarkus View Post
Well, that's his opinion.
But here's why I'm more inclined to give this some weight.

Glowing comments in favor a player's HoF induction put forth by that player's teammates, fans, coaches, team websites, and local covering sportwriters bring out the skeptic in me, to put it kindly. Propaganda is rampant these days in HoF arguments.

Glowing comments by opponents or disinterested parties? I'm more inclined to take this seriously.

Greenberg's article in fact appears to be a piece containing negative evaluations put forth by someone who falls in the category of being among that player's teammates, fans, coaches, team websites, and local covering sportwriters. He could have just done a puff piece, but I find it really interesting, and perhaps quite significant, that he did not do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarkus View Post
& no offense, but I'm leery of a fan who already made a disjointed case based on innuendo & sound bites magnifying the run only as the criteria while discounting any supporting stats like sack totals, hyping hollow Pro Bowl awards yet omitting things like the SB XX MVP award, speaking of longevity of career to pad totals while ignoring the fact that it was essentially accomplished in 11 years due to injuries instead of when he retired in 15 years, etc.

To be honest, I've yet to understand where your basis on Dent's induction comes from except from what you've read/heard.
I've already answered this above in bits and pieces except for one issue. "Innuendo" and "what [I've] read/heard" aren't necessarily meaningless by any means. People lose court cases all the time via circumstantial evidence -- after all, even though no one actually saw O.J. Simpson kill his wife, there was sufficient circumstantial evidence for him to lose the case brought against him in civil court.

If one isn't doing film study, what else is one going to use to make the argument? And if we're solely limited to film study as legit, we're going to have to limit comments here to Dr. Z., Ron Wolf, and a few other folks who are apparently knowledgeable in this regard. I'm at least trying to weigh what information I've got here and come to a thoughtful solution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarkus View Post
& the comment of "hard core film study' makes this sound like you have to be in a room with a projector when it's more about either having football knowledge or not. This is not that complicated....
So then the question is -- what's the basis for making decisions like this? I'm doing my best to puzzle it out using something I can evaluate other than thin air.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarkus View Post
& that's the real outcry here. More about the 'If he's in, why aren't they?"
I found it especially galling to see Claude Humphrey come up as a Senior a couple years ago and get voted down, when Humphrey was essentially Dent or Fred Dean with better postseason honors numbers (1st team all pro/pro bowl/ all decade teams in the formula below) and a career spent mostly on terrible teams. Put Dent or Dean on the 70s Falcons and nobody would give them a second HoF thought. And L.C. Greenwood also has better such numbers and was the only one of these folks named to an all-decade team.

Dent: 2(1AP)/4/none.
Dean: 2(2AP)/4/none.
Humphrey: 5(2AP)/6/none.
Greenwood: 2(2AP)/6/70s.

Like I said, have all four of these folks in, and I've got less of a problem here.
bachslunch is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
College Football Hall of Fame MountaineerDave College Football 3 07-20-2009 12:20 AM
NFL Hall of Fame Senior candidates announced: Claude Humphrey, Bob Hayes bachslunch National Football League 1 09-04-2008 05:52 PM
Who are these people that run the Pro Football Hall of Fame? Dano National Football League 3 08-08-2007 06:02 PM
SC Newsfeed: The Pro Football Hall of Fame's Biggest Snubs Marc Latest Sports Central Headlines 0 08-08-2007 03:00 PM
You Know You're Getting Old When... MountaineerDave National Football League 24 11-20-2003 06:03 PM



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:48 PM.