Dr Z vs Peter King

I hate how the Pro Bowl is used as a barometer. All-Pro selections should mean a lot more, less politics involved.

 

"I think William Clay Ford deserves a spot in the HOF... if he didn't manage his franchise the way he does, some of you might not have had the opportunity to succeed the way you have..."

 

My guess is that it was Sanders ability to run after catching ball that attracted voters. I would label him John Mackey lite. Since Mackey was there first I don't think Charlie Sanders redefined position. Closest player to him today might be Shockey.

In Sanders era there were 2 other tight ends that might have been compariable

Ted Kwalwick and Charles Young. Overall Kwalick had better numbers.

If I were a voter I do not think I would have voted for Sanders.

 

Kinda hard to ignore seven Pro Bowl selections in 10 years in an era where the Pro Bowl had better quality players than it does now. (NO, I'm not saying better talent. But a smaller pool to draw from -- like the number of quality pitchers in MLB today as opposed to 50 years ago when there were only 16 teams.)

 

Rick Reilly was on Dan Patrick today talking about the issue, briefly, and Reilly said Tags was shot down that "some people in the room don't like anybody." Patrick mentioned Dr. Z and Reilly said he wasn't allowed to comment. One great "I'm Rick Reilly" moment: Discussing reporters' complaints that Tags was tough to reach, not interested in helping out the media, Reilly said, "I've never had a problem reaching him!"

 

Saw Sanders play on numerous occasions. He was front-rank, but the fact that he was a stickout skill-player on RELATIVELY modest teams probably aided his cause. Given how tough the HOF's
been on tight ends, historically, he probably deserves to be in.

 

And if he was Rick Reilly of the Boulder Daily Camera, would he still have that same accessibility?

Thanks for that insight, Rick

 

Z likes plenty of guys for the Hall and will tell you about it. It's usually just not the most popular guys. And in some cases, such as Ray Guy vs. Tommy Davis, he's got a hell of an argument to back up his position.

 

No.

Those guys created the NFL, and then the Super Bowl.

Tags did nothing of the sort.

 

First, Tags isn't an old man, so if he has to cool his heels a bit before entry, no harm done. In my mind, he was a respectable candidate, and will get in eventually, but there were candidates ahead of him.
Don't be the guy who replaces the legend is as old a cliche as football has. Tagliabue replaced the legend and did well. There have been plenty of businesses as successful as the NFL where that didn't happen, so it's nothing to sneer at.
FWIW, although I certainly never had one-one-millionth of Rick's clout, when I absolutely positively had to get to Tagliabue, he was available-eventually.
If Zimmerman led the charge against Tagliabue over the issue of media access, that's about as petty as it gets, a parody of the kind of jerks many readers think sportswriters are.
Fighting for access=good. Holding lost fights against a retired commissioner=stupid.

 

Maybe I'm off-base here, but I'll throw it out there. I would liken Tagliabue to George Seifert - came in replacing a legend, didn't screw it completely up and won the big one. But that's just my opinion, and I obviously don't have a vote.