Dr Z vs Peter King

Not to threadjack, but I've always found it very odd -- in a conflict-of-interest sense -- that writers lobby and do the active persuading for candidates for the football HOF. I guess it's no different than the discussion that goes on when the baseball vote comes around, but with baseball it's an informal thing. With football, you've got a writer formally acting as a campaign manager for a player in an event that writer is covering (including writing pre-vote pieces arguing why his man should be in the hall).

Just seems a little strange to me.

 

Who else would do it? Yeah, I see your point and all, but it makes sense...

 

Also, it's very possible (and necessary) to make the appeal based on the facts. I've never sat on the pro football HOF proceedings but I imagine it's more researched than "this guy was really good." Who better than professional reporters to dig into the research and try to get to an objective representation? Usually, it's also guys from that city who can provide local perspective and talk to people around the teams. I could totally see the writers saying in a roundabout way to PK, "Well, you're a national guy who sucked off Tags all the time anyway, you do his case."

 

It just seems a little strange if Derrick Thomas' HOF chances hinge on how convincing a case the Chiefs' beat writer makes.

 

Dr. Z once said, "The person who spoke for Thomas highlighted the incredible pass rushing skills, but made the mistake of mentioning that 'some question his skills as an all-around linebacker.' Once that was in voter's mind, it killed Thomas' chances."

Makes perfect sense to me, because if that confirms what the voters already believed, then there's no reason to vote him into the HOF. Because even the presenter had doubts about Thomas as an "all-around linebacker" that day.

 

All great accomplishments--but that's his job. The HOF should be reserved for those who redefined the sport, achieved something that few if any will ever match or surpass.

Any commissioner of a major US sport is responsible for running one of the most visible and powerful businesses in America...the fact that he doesn't fail shouldn't be qualification for the Hall of Fame.

 

During Saturday's deliberations, I stood up and said, "I don't give a shit about these 15 finalists, the fact that Lynn Dickey is not enshrined is a travesty that knows no proportion. He had a big arm -- resulting in one receiver already being enshrined in the HOF, an iron rod in his leg and a cool late 70s pale white man 'froish-jeri curl thing going. Attica!"

To which Dr. Z said, "Bubbler's an idiot, but we love you, because you're an entertaining idiot. A round of applause!"

Outing alert: I'm not really on the HOF committee.

 

In all seriousness, anyone who thinks this is a bunch of dudes strolling in without any research or questioning whether they care about the process -- including Dr. Z or Peter King -- is seriously deluding themselves. The voters take it very seriously, having seen many of them in action myself this past weekend.

One of the committee members I'm familiar with approaches everyone on his beat who has the perspective to comment on the finalists and asks their opinion on each of them. It gives him perspective beyond his own, especially for players who weren't active when he covered his team.

One thing I constantly heard on the media buses after Saturday was the backlog issue with HOF finalists. Very few finalists weren't deserving of getting in, but some are going to have to wait because of the rules.

My only question with Saturday's process: 1. Charlie Sanders played before my time. Can someone explain what undefinable trait made him HOF worthy? Even by the standards of his time, his numbers weren't outstanding. Not saying he's not deserving, but I'm just trying to glean that perspective.

 

Except it's not all roses with Tagliabue. From a Joe Posnanski column last week ...

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/sports/columnists/joe_posnanski/16602668.htm

Herb Adderley, one of the players who defined how to play cornerback, suffers from terrible post-football injuries and gets $126.85 a month from his pension, according to his former Packers teammate Jerry Kramer.

Hall of Fame center Mike Webster died without a home. John Unitas could barely move his golden right arm at the end of his life. The incomparable Earl Campbell sometimes jolted up in bed with a panic-attack pain in his chest so intense it made getting hit by Jack Lambert seem like a shower massage.

There are dozens of stories like these, horrible stories, heart-wrenching stories about great football players in pain: Mercury Morris, Pete Pihos, John Mackey, Doug Atkins, Wilber Marshall, Conrad Dobler, on and on. All of them suffer, many of them are helpless. No surprise.

The surprise is this: The NFL and its players association let this happen.

And the bigger surprise: They’re unapologetic.


... Had Tagliabue made a pledge not to allow these former players to slip through the cracks, I would have more respect for him and would feel bad he didn't make the HOF cut this past week. All that money generated from TV contracts, yet Tagliabue -- along with the NFLPA, of course -- didn't feel a need to cut even a sliver from that huge pie to help players who helped build the league.

So no, I don't believe Tagliabue did everything he could have as commissioner to make the league a better, because the suits still don't care about the guys who built the foundation for this well-oiled cash machine when they need it most.