View Full Version : Broncos vs. HOF
Altitude
03-01-2008, 04:45 AM
As a Broncos fan I have some major issues with the Pro Football HOF. If any other franchise were as successful as the Broncos over time, they would have multiple HOFers every year. I think there is a bias against Broncos players.
For example
Randy Gradishar (7 Pro Bowls, 20/20 Club)
Floyd Little (3 Pro Bowls)
Louis Wright (5 Pro Bowls)
Tom Jackson (3 Pro Bowls, 20/20 Club)
Hopefully they will get in
Steve Atwater (8 Pro Bowls, 1990's All-Decade team)
Karl Mecklenburg (6 Pro Bowls)
Terrell Davis (3 Pro Bowls)
Shannon Sharpe (8 Pro Bowls, 1990's All-Decade team)
Rod Smith (3 Pro Bowls)
philkid3
03-01-2008, 05:52 AM
If any other franchise were as successful as the Broncos over time, they would have multiple HOFers every year.
Like the Cowboys?
Altitude
03-01-2008, 02:16 PM
Like the Cowboys?
I'm talking about lesser franchises behind the Broncos having multiple HOFers over the Broncos.
philkid3
03-01-2008, 03:09 PM
I'm talking about lesser franchises behind the Broncos having multiple HOFers over the Broncos.
You said if any other team was as successful as the Broncos they would have multiple Hall of Famers every year.
The Cowboys are markedly more successful than the Broncos and have only eight players who primarily played for them enshrined. Three of those were in the last two years. So for 45 years the Cowboys were arguably the most successful franchise in the NFL and they had five Hall of Famers. Cliff Harris has been named the starter on some all-time teams and is still not in.
There are probably some Broncos who deserve to be in, but the point is that teams more successful than the Broncos do not have multiple Hall of Famers every year. The anti-Cowboys bias is well publicized (and I believe there is one against the Raiders, as well).
Altitude
03-01-2008, 05:49 PM
8 (Cowboys) > 2 (Broncos)
Are you getting the bias yet?
philkid3
03-02-2008, 10:10 AM
8 (Cowboys) > 2 (Broncos)
Are you getting the bias yet?
First off, no, because the Cowboys have been significantly more successful and have had more great players. You are acting like the Broncos are by themselves or something.
And my point was mostly on this statement:
If any other franchise were as successful as the Broncos over time, they would have multiple HOFers every year.
Which is clearly not true.
Altitude
03-02-2008, 06:35 PM
Please enlighten me then why the Redskins and Raiders have many more HOFers compared to the Broncos and they only have 1 more Super Bowl win.
Please enlighten me then why the Redskins and Raiders have many more HOFers compared to the Broncos and they only have 1 more Super Bowl win.
The Redskins have 30-some years on the Broncos. They also have skill players with big numbers like Monk and Riggins. The Three Amigos are not the Smurfs, and as great as TD was for four seasons it was still only four seasons.
The Raiders may have only one more super bowl win, but outside of the last half-dozen years their legacy was probably the strongest of any AFL-based team. They actually competed in the 60's. The Broncos with those ridiculous helmets back then can't say as much. And it's not like they have an abundance of HOF'ers. Stabler isn't in. Guy isn't in. George Atkinson isn't in. Every team has such a list.
The Broncos and Bears are my teams, always have been, so it's not like I'm rallying against them. But I follow the HOF very closely, having attended the ceremony a couple of times and watching the ballot process from beginning to end. Have the Broncos been shafted? Maybe. Does Randy Gradishar deserve to make it? Probably, but there are a lot of players on the outside looking in, not just Broncos.
philkid3
03-03-2008, 06:01 PM
Please enlighten me then why the Redskins and Raiders have many more HOFers compared to the Broncos and they only have 1 more Super Bowl win.
More great players is part of it.
And while they may only have one more win, they have been consistantly better over their histories. The Raiders have been successful more often than almost any other team over their existence.
The Redskins have also been around a lot longer. Remember: football existed before the merger.
I don't think the Hall of Fame has a quota for players by franchise, and that quota raises as the franchise wins Super Bowls.
"Well, the Giants just won another Super Bowl. Time to find four more Giants to elect!"
From those two Broncos wins, the player who most deserved to get in is in. The second most deserving player, Shannon Sharpe, is still playing. As is, Tom Nalen, the next most deserving guy, and Rod Smith is barely retired. Steve Atwater has the best case of any Bronco to have won a Super Bowl who is eligible not yet in. And there's no bias against Steve Atwater. Darryl Green was only the second (look it up) defensive back to enter the league since the rule changes in 1978 to be elected to Canton. With the next induction there will be only 16 defensive backs total.
It's not like those Super Bowls were a long time ago. Those guys are still very recent players. And they weren't loaded with Hall of Fame talent, anyway.
philkid3
03-03-2008, 06:08 PM
Have the Broncos been shafted? Maybe. Does Randy Gradishar deserve to make it? Probably, but there are a lot of players on the outside looking in, not just Broncos.
This is what I'm saying. The Hall of Fame makes a lot of mistakes, the Broncos are not a special case. Nor are they the most egregious.
Brooklyn
03-04-2008, 06:58 AM
This is what I'm saying. The Hall of Fame makes a lot of mistakes, the Broncos are not a special case. Nor are they the most egregious.
Do they make a lot of mistakes, or are they just more selective? I think of the baesball HOF as making a lot of mistakes. There are many baseball players in the Hall that are not deserving. I don't think of the Football HOF the same way. They seem to make players wait longer for enshrinement. The best of the best will get in, but the border line players may not. I don't really have a problem with that. I don't like the quote system that the football Hall has, but I think the end result is good - the guys in tend to be no brainers, and the arguments tend to be on the people outside looking in. Unlike baseball, where many arguments about qualifications are about people already enshrined.
Are there any players in the football Hall that you think are mistakes?
Do they make a lot of mistakes, or are they just more selective? I think of the baesball HOF as making a lot of mistakes. There are many baseball players in the Hall that are not deserving. I don't think of the Football HOF the same way. They seem to make players wait longer for enshrinement. The best of the best will get in, but the border line players may not. I don't really have a problem with that. I don't like the quote system that the football Hall has, but I think the end result is good - the guys in tend to be no brainers, and the arguments tend to be on the people outside looking in. Unlike baseball, where many arguments about qualifications are about people already enshrined.
Are there any players in the football Hall that you think are mistakes?
I have been curious how Elvin Bethea, who was a great player in his day, before my time, zoomed through the process all of a sudden one year. He had never even been a semi-finalist before, and, all of a sudden, he made it in a couple years back and ahead of some bigger names. I caught the tail end of his career, and he was regarded as a fine player but not with the hype of guys like Jim Marshall, LC Greenwood or Mike Curtis. I'm not saying Bethea was a mistake, just a surprise.
Their process for election is still the best, because it leads to actual examination and deliberation. And it's on a player by player basis. The shouting coming from Colorado, and there were quite a few articles in various publications in the days after the recent election, is kind of hollow, no offense, altitude. One writer complained that Fred Dean, who was elected, got in because of his pash rushing while Gradishar was criticized for focusing too much on that. The difference is Dean was a DE, where pass rushing is the integral part of the position. It's not necessarily so for a linebacker like Gradishar. And that was about the only article I read that actually focused on the players who have been elected. It was just conspiracy this, a Bronco player says that so it has to be the case. But the actual process and the rest of the players involved seemed to be left out. Like I said, hollow.
philkid3
03-04-2008, 07:37 AM
Do they make a lot of mistakes, or are they just more selective? I think of the baesball HOF as making a lot of mistakes. There are many baseball players in the Hall that are not deserving. I don't think of the Football HOF the same way. They seem to make players wait longer for enshrinement. The best of the best will get in, but the border line players may not. I don't really have a problem with that. I don't like the quote system that the football Hall has, but I think the end result is good - the guys in tend to be no brainers, and the arguments tend to be on the people outside looking in. Unlike baseball, where many arguments about qualifications are about people already enshrined.
Are there any players in the football Hall that you think are mistakes?
Yes, the football Hall of Fame makes a lot more mistakes than baseball. Probably because it's a harder job. There are a few players who I think of mistakes and many more who are deserving and left out.
I mean, do you really think that over the last 30 years there have only been two Hall of Fame defensivebacks? And only 14 over the history of football?
Their process for election is still the best, because it leads to actual examination and deliberation. And it's on a player by player basis. The shouting coming from Colorado, and there were quite a few articles in various publications in the days after the recent election, is kind of hollow, no offense, altitude. One writer complained that Fred Dean, who was elected, got in because of his pash rushing while Gradishar was criticized for focusing too much on that. The difference is Dean was a DE, where pass rushing is the integral part of the position. It's not necessarily so for a linebacker like Gradishar. And that was about the only article I read that actually focused on the players who have been elected. It was just conspiracy this, a Bronco player says that so it has to be the case. But the actual process and the rest of the players involved seemed to be left out. Like I said, hollow.
I do agree that they have a much better system than baseball. The reason I don't think they do a better job is just because football players are so much harder to evaluate.
Is it really only two dbs? There's Green, Ronnie Lott, Mike Haynes, and Mel Blount who I know have played the last 30 years. I think Roger Wehrli, Lem Barney and Paul Krausse also fall in that time period or very close.
I believe there are more errors of omission than admission, easily. But when you're maxing at 7 from a much larger yearly pool than baseball, there's going to be a waiting period that should eventually work itself out. The question is, though, who should not have made it in order for someone else to have made it. Who are the glaring omissions, and the players who made it who should not have? A lot of people point to the low numbers for Lynn Swann, but you hear of plenty of support for him as an absolute game breaker, a player who could easily change a game with a couple of spectacular catches. I've likened him to a guy who I feel should be in, Bob Hayes. If it weren't for his legal issues, the late Olympic sprinter probably would be in. Another Cowboy great who seems to have been forgotten is Drew Pearson, who made the all-decade team for the 70's. But I don't think he's ever been a finalist.
Brooklyn
03-04-2008, 10:34 AM
Yes, the football Hall of Fame makes a lot more mistakes than baseball. Probably because it's a harder job.. There are a few players who I think of mistakes and many more who are deserving and left out.
That was my point. The ones that get in tend to be right. That is what I mean when I say they don't make many mistakes. Once in, you are always in, so that is truly a mistake. I don't consider it a mistake to not vote for someone - that can be remedied. I'd prefer the more selective process to that in baseball where too many people get in
philkid3
03-04-2008, 11:08 AM
Is it really only two dbs? There's Green, Ronnie Lott, Mike Haynes, and Mel Blount who I know have played the last 30 years. I think Roger Wehrli, Lem Barney and Paul Krausse also fall in that time period or very close.
Green and Lott are the only Hall of Fame DBs to enter the league since '78. Haynes is the only other DB to have played at least half of his career since then.
Blount played five years after the rule was instated (because of him). Wehrli played four years after, Krause two and Barney retired before it was created. And look at how long it took Wehrli and Krause to get in.
I believe there are more errors of omission than admission, easily. But when you're maxing at 7 from a much larger yearly pool than baseball, there's going to be a waiting period that should eventually work itself out. The question is, though, who should not have made it in order for someone else to have made it. Who are the glaring omissions, and the players who made it who should not have? A lot of people point to the low numbers for Lynn Swann, but you hear of plenty of support for him as an absolute game breaker, a player who could easily change a game with a couple of spectacular catches. I've likened him to a guy who I feel should be in, Bob Hayes. If it weren't for his legal issues, the late Olympic sprinter probably would be in. Another Cowboy great who seems to have been forgotten is Drew Pearson, who made the all-decade team for the 70's. But I don't think he's ever been a finalist.
I don't think 7 is too small a total, but they should be filling that every year. And I'm a Small Hall advocate, but when you have a league of 22 starters on a team and short careers there are going to be MANY more people who deserve to get in than there are in baseball.
Swann is a good example. No way did he deserve to get in ahead of several snubbed players. Cliff Harris was a starter on the All-1970s team, is considered by Paul Zimmerman as the second greatest safety of all-time, was on John Madden's All-Time team and made one of the NFL Anniversary teams (I think the 80th), among other accolades. He as the best defensive back (better than Renfro) on a team that was twice four points from being the dynasty of the 70s. But Lynn Swann is in and he is not. He was even one of seven players to make the final ballot a few years ago and didn't get in (former teammate Rayfield Wright also made the final seven and got snubbed that year).
For obvious reasons, positions that compile stats and get the highlights get in much more easily than linemen and defensive players, so you have this glut of skill positions, when QB is the only one that's definitely more important than the others.
There are 33 ends, tight ends and wide receivers in Canton. There are only 19 defensive backs. I have trouble considering receivers more important than DBs. Especially after the rule changes, when being a receiver and putting up stats became easier and being a DB became harder. Receivers are at least not so much more important that there should be 14 more of them.
That was my point. The ones that get in tend to be right. That is what I mean when I say they don't make many mistakes. Once in, you are always in, so that is truly a mistake. I don't consider it a mistake to not vote for someone - that can be remedied. I'd prefer the more selective process to that in baseball where too many people get in
I think it's a mistake to put someone less deserving in front of someone more deserving.
Let's say, for example, Jim Kelly and John Elway were on the same ballot. Kelly gets in and Elway didn't. That is a mistake. Lynn Swann over Cliff Harris is a mistake.
Additionally, it is very hard to get in once you are no longer on the modern ballot. So players who are pushed off for that long are huge mistakes.
Thanks for framing the 30-year thing for me, phil. Makes better sense to me now.
Direct comparisons by position would certainly pose a problem. Like if Warren Moon got elected and Troy Aikman did not the year they were eligible? (both were voted in same year, first year of eligibility)
Or if Art Monk got elected and Cris Carter did not. (That actually just happened.)
I'm not sure you can compare positions like that in regards to HOF cases. Harris and Swann make for an interesting case, as the two retired at the same time and are linked because of the two super bowls. I could well be wrong, but I think Swann has said Harris was the hardest hitter he ever played against.
Swann received more politicking for his election than Monk did. That very well could have played into it (along with John Stallworth's subsequent election). Harris may very well get the same Seniors push Renfro and Wright received.
I think the Seniors have done a decent job with what they've had of late. With so many deserving players who were passed over and only one or two players able to be pushed forward, it's like they have to pick their spots carefully.
Do you think Benny Friedman and Fritz Pollard were mistakes then?
Brooklyn
03-04-2008, 01:39 PM
I think it's a mistake to put someone less deserving in front of someone more deserving.
Let's say, for example, Jim Kelly and John Elway were on the same ballot. Kelly gets in and Elway didn't. That is a mistake. Lynn Swann over Cliff Harris is a mistake.
Additionally, it is very hard to get in once you are no longer on the modern ballot. So players who are pushed off for that long are huge mistakes.
I'd concede that one player getting in over another more deserving is a mistake, but I don't see too many cases of this. Sometimes a more deserving player may have to wait, but I don't have a problem with this.
As CCN states (quoted below), I'd agree that Chris Carter is more deserving then Monk. But if Carter gets in (and there is no reason to think he won't), then I don't have a problem with the timing issue.
Or if Art Monk got elected and Cris Carter did not. (That actually just happened.)
I'm not sure you can compare positions like that in regards to HOF cases. Harris and Swann make for an interesting case, as the two retired at the same time and are linked because of the two super bowls. I could well be wrong, but I think Swann has said Harris was the hardest hitter he ever played against.
Swann received more politicking for his election than Monk did. That very well could have played into it (along with John Stallworth's subsequent election). Harris may very well get the same Seniors push Renfro and Wright received.
I agree with not being able to compare positions. It is like saying that Ron Santo should be in just because Don Sutton is in. Not a fair comparison.
If you think Cliff Harris should be in (and I'm not arguing against him), what D-back from his era do you think shouldn't be in, hence the mistake?
According to the Hall's website (http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/positions.jsp) by position, in the modern era there are 107 offensive players and 62 defensive players. This isn't surprising as there are more skill players on the offensive side of the ball, but it probably too biased.
philkid3
03-04-2008, 01:55 PM
Do you think Benny Friedman and Fritz Pollard were mistakes then?
Absolutely, especially Friedman. But at least those were corrected to an extent.
The thing is, a player who needs to be in and is not is a mistake until it's corrected. Even then, a mistake was made.
philkid3
03-04-2008, 01:58 PM
I'd concede that one player getting in over another more deserving is a mistake, but I don't see too many cases of this. Sometimes a more deserving player may have to wait, but I don't have a problem with this.
And, see, I do have a problem with that, and I see many cases of it. Every year, the best 7 players not in should be elected (save for the rare case where there aren't 7 deserving players) I can see picking the guy who's been waiting longer if it's close, but he never should have been waiting that long, anyway.
As CCN states (quoted below), I'd agree that Chris Carter is more deserving then Monk. But if Carter gets in (and there is no reason to think he won't), then I don't have a problem with the timing issue.
But to me, that doesn't stop it from being a mistake, it just means it was corrected.
And it's a totally different argument, but I think putting Monk in was a mistake anyway.
If you think Cliff Harris should be in (and I'm not arguing against him), what D-back from his era do you think shouldn't be in, hence the mistake?
I don't think there are any DBs who shouldn't be in. I think more DBs should be in. And the mistake is that there are not.
According to the Hall's website (http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/positions.jsp) by position, in the modern era there are 107 offensive players and 62 defensive players. This isn't surprising as there are more skill players on the offensive side of the ball, but it probably too biased.
It's not surprising to me, either, but it's also a mistake.
Brooklyn
03-04-2008, 02:14 PM
And it's a totally different argument, but I think putting Monk in was a mistake anyway.
I agree with you here. While I don't think there are many players in the Hall that shouldn't be, Monk is one that I wouldn't have elected. I don't think it is agregious, but he wasn't high on my receiver list.
I agree with you here. While I don't think there are many players in the Hall that shouldn't be, Monk is one that I wouldn't have elected. I don't think it is agregious, but he wasn't high on my receiver list.
I'd rather have errors of omission than errors of admission. One step in the right direction was to increase the Seniors candidates. Yeah, two is not much better than one, but at least they're back to focusing on players. I have no problems with George Allen and John Madden getting in, but the line of players waiting from 25+ years ago keeps growing.
The HOF should never be an open door, which is why there should be a limit. The fact there are still plenty of deserving players out there means they still have work to do, but to not have elected someone yet is more an issue of timing than a pure mistake. The numbers game is what is ruling, not short-sightedness. One big root of so many eligible players still out there, so many players on both sides of the ball per team, is not a mistake in of of itself, so I don't see players waiting amongst a sea of greats part of the HOF process. The true greats do get in.
So, where did Altitude go?
Brooklyn
03-07-2008, 10:55 AM
As a Broncos fan I have some major issues with the Pro Football HOF. If any other franchise were as successful as the Broncos over time, they would have multiple HOFers every year. I think there is a bias against Broncos players.
For example
Randy Gradishar (7 Pro Bowls, 20/20 Club)
Floyd Little (3 Pro Bowls)
Louis Wright (5 Pro Bowls)
Tom Jackson (3 Pro Bowls, 20/20 Club)
Hopefully they will get in
Steve Atwater (8 Pro Bowls, 1990's All-Decade team)
Karl Mecklenburg (6 Pro Bowls)
Terrell Davis (3 Pro Bowls)
Shannon Sharpe (8 Pro Bowls, 1990's All-Decade team)
Rod Smith (3 Pro Bowls)
What is the 20/20 club?
philkid3
03-07-2008, 12:25 PM
What is the 20/20 club?
It's usually 20 sacks and 20 interceptions, but that only applies to Jackson if you count unofficial sacks.
It's kind've an obscure club and bizarre designation.