Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
dude, spin your Bill James baseball stats all you want, but when Russ Grimm manhandled the most feared DL of the day, Randy White, to lead the way for John Riggins - reintroducing the power run game to a generation of football that had started to become pass-happy - I knew with my own two eyes that he was worthy of the HOF.Read this Grimm HOF profile if you want to know why Grimm wasn't a good choice. Here are a couple of excerpts:great class. all deserving.
especially happy for #68, Russ Grimm. I see a lot of criticism here about his election, but I attribute that to two factors: the youth of this board (never heard of Floyd Little?) and the fact that OL play doesn't jump out of the TV set. I don't know that many OL make it on their 1st try. Seems like they usually have to wait. Dawson will have his day, do not worry about that, Squeeler fans
Of the 20 semifinalists for whom P-F-R calculates AV, Grimm has the lowest score. (AV is PFR's Approximate Value metric, which is somewhat similar to Bill James' Win Shares concept... it is explained on the PFR site.)
For Grimm, his three first-team All-Pros from the Associated Press don't make him a slam dunk, either. Twenty-nine offensive linemen have three such selections and aren't in Canton, including 11 guards.
According to AV, Grimm's grade of 63 ranks ranks only 23rd among guards eligible but not yet in the Hall of Fame. Grimm was certainly better than some of those guys, and his AV score is hurt by his relatively short career: he started just 114 games.I am old enough to have seen his Redskins teams play. He was very good but not HOF worthy IMO.
I agree with this. Over the next three years, there will be several first ballot guys:2011: Marshall Faulk, Deion Sanders, and Willie Roaf will go in. That leaves two spots, and based on recent history, I have a feeling Dent will claim one of those two. Curtis Martin and Jerome Bettis are also in this class, so they will get likely get consideration as finalists as well.2012: Will Shields is the only likely first ballot guy, and so this is a key year for the other spots for guys like Sharpe, Carter, Dawson, Kennedy et al.2013: This class is absolutely loaded--with Larry Allen, Johnathan Ogden, Warren Sapp and Michael Strahan--plus several others that will receive consideration.So basically, some of these guys are going to get squeezed if they don't make it in 2012, and being a better candidate than Grimm doesn't help them at that point.
dude, spin your Bill James baseball stats all you want, but when Russ Grimm manhandled the most feared DL of the day, Randy White, to lead the way for John Riggins - reintroducing the power run game to a generation of football that had started to become pass-happy - I knew with my own two eyes that he was worthy of the HOF.Read this Grimm HOF profile if you want to know why Grimm wasn't a good choice. Here are a couple of excerpts:great class. all deserving.
especially happy for #68, Russ Grimm. I see a lot of criticism here about his election, but I attribute that to two factors: the youth of this board (never heard of Floyd Little?) and the fact that OL play doesn't jump out of the TV set. I don't know that many OL make it on their 1st try. Seems like they usually have to wait. Dawson will have his day, do not worry about that, Squeeler fans
Of the 20 semifinalists for whom P-F-R calculates AV, Grimm has the lowest score. (AV is PFR's Approximate Value metric, which is somewhat similar to Bill James' Win Shares concept... it is explained on the PFR site.)
For Grimm, his three first-team All-Pros from the Associated Press don't make him a slam dunk, either. Twenty-nine offensive linemen have three such selections and aren't in Canton, including 11 guards.
According to AV, Grimm's grade of 63 ranks ranks only 23rd among guards eligible but not yet in the Hall of Fame. Grimm was certainly better than some of those guys, and his AV score is hurt by his relatively short career: he started just 114 games.I am old enough to have seen his Redskins teams play. He was very good but not HOF worthy IMO.
3 1st team All Pro selections, 4 Pro Bowl selections, and just 114 games started aren't Bill James stats. Those are all low numbers for a HOF offensive lineman.
This position by Gosselin is asanine. I mean, it's not like these guys have been retired for at least five years already. The Hall Voters definitely need to make era adjustments, but the data is all there for these retired players. You can compare them relative to their peers each season that they played. I don't know why another passing increase in 2007 should affect how they view Cris Carter's career.
wrong again. he was voted into the Professional Football Hall of Fame todaydude, spin your Bill James baseball stats all you want, but when Russ Grimm manhandled the most feared DL of the day, Randy White, to lead the way for John Riggins - reintroducing the power run game to a generation of football that had started to become pass-happy - I knew with my own two eyes that he was worthy of the HOF.Read this Grimm HOF profile if you want to know why Grimm wasn't a good choice. Here are a couple of excerpts:
especially happy for #68, Russ Grimm. I see a lot of criticism here about his election, but I attribute that to two factors: the youth of this board (never heard of Floyd Little?) and the fact that OL play doesn't jump out of the TV set. I don't know that many OL make it on their 1st try. Seems like they usually have to wait. Dawson will have his day, do not worry about that, Squeeler fans
Of the 20 semifinalists for whom P-F-R calculates AV, Grimm has the lowest score. (AV is PFR's Approximate Value metric, which is somewhat similar to Bill James' Win Shares concept... it is explained on the PFR site.)
For Grimm, his three first-team All-Pros from the Associated Press don't make him a slam dunk, either. Twenty-nine offensive linemen have three such selections and aren't in Canton, including 11 guards.
According to AV, Grimm's grade of 63 ranks ranks only 23rd among guards eligible but not yet in the Hall of Fame. Grimm was certainly better than some of those guys, and his AV score is hurt by his relatively short career: he started just 114 games.I am old enough to have seen his Redskins teams play. He was very good but not HOF worthy IMO.
Dermontti Dawson is an example of an OL who is much more deserving, and I'm sure there are many others. As I posted earlier, due to the limit on HOFers inducted every year, it is important that each class consist of the most deserving candidates. Unfortunately, Grimm was not one of the 5 most deserving candidates this year, which raises at least a slim possibility that someone more deserving than Grimm will never make it.
Yes, he was voted in today. That doesn't refute my statement... it's the whole point of this discussion.For the record, you are a Redskins fan, right?wrong again. he was voted into the Professional Football Hall of Fame today
Dermontti Dawson is an example of an OL who is much more deserving, and I'm sure there are many others. As I posted earlier, due to the limit on HOFers inducted every year, it is important that each class consist of the most deserving candidates. Unfortunately, Grimm was not one of the 5 most deserving candidates this year, which raises at least a slim possibility that someone more deserving than Grimm will never make it.
He'd have been in long ago had he put up the same #'s in Chicago, New York, or Philadelphia. Fair's fair.
Fair enough. Your opinion is duly noted. But let's not pretend that the selection committee is a bunch of schlubs who have no clue what they're doing and/or talking about. At least 80% of them disagree with you. I'm not sure why I should discount and/or disregard that out of hand simply because you say so.
IMO, that logic is flawed, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. Who right now is eligible for the Hall, has a HOF resume and doesn't get considered for induction?
Well, obviously I'm just stating my opinion. And that's what the voters do, but theirs counts. But isn't that the point of our discussion here?I certainly wouldn't assume the voters always get it right. The voters don't always get it right in voting for other things, like Pro Bowls and All Pro teams.You said you wanted to see details of any player selected who isn't worthy. I provided you with such details for Grimm. You're free to disagree, but it is based on objective data and facts.
The mere existence of the senior committee proves your stance is flawed. Unless you think the candidates getting in via that route are not deserving. (Which is a potentially valid stance.)Aside from that, your question doesn't really track with my comment. I didn't say there are worthy players who don't get considered. What I said is it is possible that a worthy player who is more deserving could get passed over in part because Grimm, who is less deserving, got inducted ahead of that player, and the competition going forward prevented that player from getting inducted in subsequent classes.
Are you asking me if the point of our discussions is to decide who is and isn't a HOFer, or are you asking me if the point of the discussion is just to air our opinions?Honestly, either way, I have no idea. IMO, most fans view and opinion of what the HOF is supposed to do is either not what the HOF actually sets out to do or it's not even the same as the next fan's view and opinion. From what I've experienced here, there is often no agreed upon basis to even start a discussion of opinions. Yet we do.
Maybe I don't understand PFR's AV metric, but as far as I can tell it's based heavily on All Pro selections for offensive linemen. If you're going to concede that those selections are fundamentally flawed in the first place, why should I place any weight on AV, and/or use only AV for determining who is a HOFer and who isn't? Also, if PFR is going to make it a point to say "AV is not meant to be a be-all end-all metric. Football stat lines just do not come close to capturing all the contributions of a player the way they do in baseball and basketball", then why should I just use AV to determine whether someone is deserving of the HOF, or not. Just about all I'm seeing in that argument against Grimm is "his AV isn't all that great".Since we're hung up on Grimm, if we want to discuss this like the selection committee does, why can't anyone bring up anything tangible about how Grimm played his position? Why can't anyone tell me how he was as a run blocker? Was he dominant, was he average? Compared to what and why? How was he as a pass blocker? Was he lights out against weaker opponents but struggle against the "good ones"? Is that why he's not HOF-worthy? Was he or was he not important to the game of football during his career, and how so? Did he effect the game planning of opponents? Was his team hurt or hindered with him in the lineup? Was he better or worse than the next guy even when injured?etc., etc., etc.
Jack Youngblood would probably jump him, too. With that said, I have no problem with Randle getting in. I agree that he compares fairly well with Warren Sapp, who in my mind should be a first ballot HoFer.Randle had 6 1st team All Pro selections and is tied for 6th on the official all time sack list. Even if you include unofficial sack counts, he is probably in the top 10-12 (not sure how many would be ahead of him on the list with unofficial sacks other than Deacon Jones, Gino Marchetti, and Alan Page).You may feel he is overrated, but he was definitely a great player. And he made it in this class, in case you didn't hear the results.can someone explain to me why Cortez Kennedy and John Randle are considered hall of fame finalists John Randle is one of the greatest characters in the NFL but he is hardly one of the greatest as a player
And of course they start this "Receiver Freeze" the year after they elect Art Monk. What a joke.
I'm a Broncos fan, and I don't think Floyd is particularly deserving. I'm not going to rail against the Hall and give all sorts of "there goes the neighborhood" speeches because he got elected, but there were much better choices out there. I think it's nice that the Hall is finally admitting that they've been irresponsibly negligent when it comes to electing Denver Broncos, but Floyd Little was not the place to start. Randy Gradishar isn't just the most deserving Bronco not in the hall, I think he's the most deserving PLAYER not in the hall, regardless of position. The guy never missed a game and essentially went out and AVERAGED 220 tackles every single year. His big-play numbers compare favorably to Ray Lewis's, and he averaged something like 60% more tackles per game.If you were looking for other Broncos to induct before Floyd Little, I'd also go with Rich Jackson (the Gale Sayers of defense), Karl Mecklenburg, or Steve Atwater. They're all borderline candidates, but they're still better choices than Little. Heck, Little isn't even the most deserving former Broncos RB, imo. And if the Hall insists on trotting out Steve Tasker and Ray Guy every year and pretending that special teamers matter as much as actual offensive or defensive players, then Rick Upchurch should be a Hall of Famer because he was probably one of the three most impactful special teamers of all time (as far as I know, his 4 pro bowls and 3 All Pros as a returner tied Mel Gray for the NFL record), and he chipped in with 4,000 yards and 24 TDs on offense for good measure.It actually irks me a bit that Tasker and Guy both get far more consideration than Upchurch. Upchurch is twice as deserving as either of them. Granted, I don't think ANY of them are deserving (special teamers just get far less chance to make an impact), but if you're going to continue this whole farce that special teamers should be represented, then Upchurch should be the guy carrying the flag, not Guy and Tasker.
IMO, Strahan is the third best DE of the past 30 years, behind only Reggie White and Bruce Smith. Not only was he an uber-elite passrusher (5th on the career sack list, and even if you toss an asterisk on his single season sack record, he still had at the very least the second most single-season sacks in NFL history), but he was also consistently one of the top run-stopping DEs in the entire league. White and Smith were the only other DEs that I saw excel as thoroughly at both of the DE's most important responsibilities. Early-decade Strahan was basically Jason Taylor against the pass and Richard Seymour against the run.
Thanks, that was what I thought and what I really don't like. I'm not saying that Jackson isn't deserving. I'm saying that he hasn't been that close before but now that the Saints are playing in their first Super Bowl they get in their first HOF when he hasn't been in the top 10 or 15 recently? It just smells bad and I laugh that King insists that the teams in the SB had nothing to do with it. I really think the football HOF is heading the way of the baseball HOF and that's just sad.
Guys like Grimm and to some degree, Jackson, are what the Senior committee is for. Guys that missed their window to get in by other players becoming eligible.
So your primary criteria for the HOF is how many SB victories he was a participant in? Charles Haley must be your god.
Youngblood had 150.5 unofficial/official sacks.
I disagree with this completely. I don't think the number of times a guy has been a finalist before should weigh on the decision at all--it should be based on their careers. So the fact that he was not a finalist before is not a reflection of the quality of the pick. In fact, I think the opposite would bother me more--"this guy has been a finalist many times, so he is due".Jackson was a deserving Hall of Famer, and I think that the "never a finalist before" is a reflection on him being inappropriately overlooked until now. His career clearly meets the standard of a Hall of Fame linebacker. He played for 15 seasons, and when he played with very little talent around him and he was the only pro bowler, the defenses were still above average and moved the Saints to mediocrity as a whole (with the offense holding them down) and when he was joined by the rest of the Dome Patrol, the defense became elite. I don't doubt, as a practical matter, that the Saints in the Super Bowl made the HOF voters take a closer look. But when they actually did so, they probably saw what they should have seen years ago. A guy who lost awards to LT and in almost any other era would have been a 4 time first team all-pro (he was selected four times by organizations like NEA and Sporting News, just not the AP) and who played at a high level for a very long time on some very good defenses. He joins, by the way, Jimmy Johnson (the cornerback, not the coach), Lee Roy Selmon, Joe DeLamielleure, Elvin Bethea and Bobby Mitchell as guys who had been retired 10+ years and got in the first year they finally were selected as a modern era finalist. Those guys have something in common with Jackson, in that they were typically underawarded by the Associated Press relative to other postseason awarding organizations. Like those guys, I think it was a case of correcting an oversight than inappropriately electing a questionable candidate.
You make some very good points, but I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on two:I think that the more times a guy has been a finalist, the more likely he is worthy of being in the HOF. The fact that Sharpe, Carter, Brown, Reed have made it to Finalist several times is because they are very worthy and just miss the cut, likely due to numbers. When there is a void in "locks" like this year, those type of players should get in, ie. Art Monk. I think that clearly the Saints making the Super Bowl influenced the vote for Jackson and I just don't like the voters, or at least one of the voters, saying it didn't. And it shouldn't. But don't try to tell me that when some guy who, although deserving, hasn't been in the finalist discussions for years suddenly gets in when his former team is in the Super Bowl over guys who have been in the finalist discussions the last several years is just a coincidence. I'm not that stupid.
Sharpe should have been first ballot. Same for Dawson.
No tight end ever made it in on the first ballot. Ditka, Mackey, Newsome, Winslow, Smith, Sanders, and Casper all had to wait multiple years. Winslow got inducted the quickest. He made it in on his third year of eligibility.
Couldn't agree more. The only guy I think who was better, was Charles Haley, and because of the injuries, I reluctantly put Strahan ahead of him.*Haley also played LB, so he's not a true DE.SSOG said:
Yeah, it's White and Smith at the top.Right below them would be Strahan, Doleman, and Lee Roy Selmon (bulk of his career has been within the past 30 years).Then you have Dwight Freeney, Jason Taylor, and Howie Long.
I guess the distinction I'm trying to draw is that, while occasionally this is a fun exercise, it amounts to a whole lot of nothing. My opinion and your opinion mean zilch when it comes to who should be in the HOF.I put a lot of weight in the decisions of the selection committee. Some people think that's ridiculous to do, and they are certainly free to have that opinion. But when I have to decide who's opinion to listen to, I'll take the group of professionals that follow the sport intimately over the average fan with a laptop and access to Google. The guys who have watched every snap, seen these players in practice, watched game film, talked to the players themselves, their teammates, their coaches, their opponents and their opponents coaches on a daily basis, put what they see in writing on a regular basis and otherwise eat, drink and breathe football more than 99.9% of any of us do. Those are the guys who I prefer having control of the keys to the gates of Canton. Not the ones that just crunch stats and count AP nominations.
1. I didn't just cite AV.2. AV does involve All Pro and Pro Bowl selections but also has to do with games played and started and effectiveness of the player's offense.Sidewinder16 said:
This is part of the problem for offensive linemen. There is no objective way to express how great Grimm was at any specific facet of the game due to a lack of metrics for OL. I think it goes without saying that he wouldn't be under consideration unless he was great, which makes it even harder, since it is necessary to decide among great players who played different positions, for which in some cases there are no useful metrics.It's especially difficult to grade and compare great OL against one another. Run blocking and pass blocking involve the whole offensive line, the RB/QB, and other help blockers, like TEs and RBs. One thing that can be done is to look at offensive success, but an issue for doing this with Grimm is that Joe Jacoby and Mark May were rookies in the same seasons as Grimm, and Joe Bostic was in his second year and was a first year starter at center. During the 6 years that made up the prime of Grimm's career, all of them were starters. So it is very difficult to determine what impact Grimm made independent of the others, unless one can break down game film.To me, the easier question is whether or not he was one of the five most deserving players eligible right now. Because I believe there are a number of others, like Dawson and Sharpe, who are more deserving, I think the answer is no. If at some point in the future he was among the five most worthy candidates, then he would be deserving. I am skeptical that would ever happen, so to me he isn't HOF worthy.Sidewinder16 said:
You are basically saying my opinion and anyone else's who doesn't agree with the committee is worthless, which is rather insulting. If you think this discussion amounts to nothing, why don't you just stop participating?
This is another reason why these discussions become pointless quickly. Everyone gets all bent out of shape when someone disagrees with them.For the record, I'm not in here to hurt anybodies feelings, so I apologize if I did so. I also have never said that Grimm is a slam dunk HOFer who should have been in years ago, or anything even close to that sentiment.The fact is, the class of 2010 are now HOFers. A bunch of people want to complain about who got in and who didn't. I'm fine with a discussion and with people having whatever opinion they want to have. But if you, or anyone else, is going to get chippy because I put more stock in the thoughts and opinions of an NFL beat writer who followed Grimm's career intimately over AV then I guess you're right. I should stop participating in this thread.
I'm not chippy or bent out of shape. You said dissenting opinions mean zilch and the discussion amounts to nothing. Right? Or did I misread your post I quoted?
I'm not sure it's Gosselin's position but I also may not have presented what he wrote accurately enough. He wrote a long article about Dallas area native Tim Brown on Thursday in which he wrote that Brown is getting close but would likely not make it this season since Rice was a lock and the HOF had not elected two WR's in the same year since 1983. As a subset to that article he wrote a small piece detailing how WR's in general are not overly well received by voters. I don't take this as his opinion as much as I do it's the sentiment of the majority of HOF voters of which he has long been a member. This is the entire subset to the Tim Brown article:Just Win Baby said:JKL said:
And this is the dumbest part of the whole process. If there are 8 modern-era players who are HoF worthy, then they should all go in. If there are 10, they should all go in. So does that mean that there will be some years with 10 and some with 2, sure, but so what? If they're worthy, they're worthy.Sidewinder16 said:
That's what makes it elite, and not the 100 players a year that you guys would all vote in.
Thanks.Mentos said:
Which is interesting, but shouldn't be taken as a reflection on whether Sharpe should have gotten in on the first ballot or not. I mean, no tight end ever produced numbers like Shannon Sharpe. If a guy's a slam-dunk HoFer, then he's a slam dunk HoFer, whether his position had been historically overlooked or not. And Sharpe should have been a slam-dunk HoFer.When Gonzalez is eligible for enshrinement, then there still will not have ever been a TE who was a first-ballot HoFer... but it shouldn't matter a fig. Gonzo should be a first ballot guy whether any TE had gotten that honor before or not.
I think he's simply saying nobody has provided a good argument against someone like Grimm. Without a good argument against him, the fact that he was voted in leads him to believe he's worthy. Since he plays a position with very few stats, the word (votes) of guys who have supposedly followed his play (along with most everyone else' play) carry more weight than what the PFR folks have come up with. Don't get me wrong. I LOVE the stuff the PFR guys have done. It's good info. But, it's not the magic formula for offensive linemen value. I think many great things will be developed going forward. However, for now, looking back at player from 25 years ago, I don't think we have a solid way to statistically judge them.I heard David Elfin (HOF voter from DC) the other day talking about Grimm. He believed he was going to have a good chance. He had collected many quotes from Redskins opponents who said Grimm was the best on that OL; he was the one they had to be concerned about...not Jacoby. Quotes were from guys like Bill Parcells and Randy White and a few others.I think the HOF voters thought a member of the Redskins OL deserved induction and Grimm, in their minds, was the best of the bunch. So, he's in. While I don't necessarily see that as a deal-sealing argument FOR Grimm, it certainly isn't an argument AGAINST Grimm.I'm not chippy or bent out of shape. You said dissenting opinions mean zilch and the discussion amounts to nothing. Right? Or did I misread your post I quoted?This is another reason why these discussions become pointless quickly. Everyone gets all bent out of shape when someone disagrees with them.For the record, I'm not in here to hurt anybodies feelings, so I apologize if I did so. I also have never said that Grimm is a slam dunk HOFer who should have been in years ago, or anything even close to that sentiment.The fact is, the class of 2010 are now HOFers. A bunch of people want to complain about who got in and who didn't. I'm fine with a discussion and with people having whatever opinion they want to have. But if you, or anyone else, is going to get chippy because I put more stock in the thoughts and opinions of an NFL beat writer who followed Grimm's career intimately over AV then I guess you're right. I should stop participating in this thread.
