This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
for a moment i thought "Jake Plummer for the HOF"??? but then i went and looked it up and found that Kenny Stabler was also nicknamed The Snake and you mentioned him in the following sentence. Mr. Stabler played before my time as an NFL fan...
for a moment i thought "Jake Plummer for the HOF"??? but then i went and looked it up and found that Kenny Stabler was also nicknamed The Snake and you mentioned him in the following sentence. Mr. Stabler played before my time as an NFL fan...
Making an all-pro team is a sign of excellence. Making an all-decade team is even more impressive, sure but there are way more people who were "among the best at their position" over any ten-year period than can make the Hall.Don't forget that all-decade teams are arbitrary. You could have an all-decade team from '70 to '79, from '71 to '80, from '72 to '81.... to '00 to '09. That would be 31 teams in the post-merger era alone where you would analyze the best players from the decade. Obviously there would be a ton of overlap there -- Marshall Faulk missed the '90s all-decade team and the '00s all-decade team, but he'd be on several of the all-decade teams starting from about '94 on.But with 31 all-decade teams, it should be obvious that not everyone will or should make the HOF. Over some ten-year periods, there just are droughts at certain positions. There are also bad selections for the teams. And the criteria are different -- a great 5-year career could land you on the all-decade team, but five great years usually isn't enough for the HOF. Consider Terrell Davis, who is on the All-90s team.It just so happens that we only have four actual post-merger all-decade teams, but the theory is still the same. There will be some players on some all-decade teams who were merely pretty good players who managed to stand out because of a lack of talent at their position, playing on the right team, making some big plays at the end of the decade, or just sticking around for a really long time and having your prime coincide with the decade (say, Jamal Lewis in the '00s).None of the players you mentioned seemed HOF-worthy to me, but I'd be interested in hearing why you think they do aside from making the all-decade teams.
To put my homer slant on it, there's no way Jimmy Smith makes the 90-99 or 00-09 all decade teams. But had the last 10 seasons of his career happen to line up with a decade, he'd have a very strong case. The fact that his best play happen to line up with an arbitrary measure of time should not improve his case for the HoF at all.
Jamal Lewis and Shaun Alexander made this year's all-decade team, and neither of them will sniff the Hall.Stabler threw well more INTs than TDs and never finished in the top 3 in passing yardage. He had basically two good seasons (1974 and 1976) and a third good partial season (1973). He wound up on the All-Decade team because the bulk of his accomplishments were from 1970-1979, and they chose three QBs.
Before this year, every other all-decade team was selected by choosing a first team and a second team. There were 25 selectors, and each selector voted for one person. Whoever got the most votes was the first-team choice; whoever got the second-most votes got the second-team choice.For example, in the '80s, there were 26 selectors. 24.5 votes came for Montana at QB; presumably one voter split his vote between Montana and Marino. One of the voters voted for Fouts. So Montana was the first-team QB of the '80s, and Fouts (perhaps with the lone vote of the SD newspaper selector) was the second-team QB.In the '70s, 13 people voted for Staubach. Three voted for Bradshaw. Three voted for Stabler. So eight votes were obviously spread out among four or more QBs, presumably Griese, Tarkenton, Ken Anderson, Bert Jones and maybe Jim Hart. We can be pretty sure that Griese or Tarkenton or Anderson and/or Jones got two votes, so they missed out on being called a second-team All-decade choice by one vote.In other words, Stabler's status as an All-decade QB is pretty meaningless. I mean it's more impressive than say, Jim Zorn, but getting 3 votes out of 26 is hardly more impressive than getting 2 votes. Personally, I think Staubach was the best QB of the decade with Tarkenton at #2 , Anderson at #3 and Bradshaw at #4.
Because the HOF is a meaningless award that seems to only serve as a way for journalists to feel important. The HOF Selection Committee is comprised of one media member from each region with an NFL franchise, plus 11 at-large members. So let's be clear here. The Selection Committee is NOT comprised of NFL experts. These people have not played or coached in the NFL. They just write about it. If these media members were so bright when it comes to evaluating talent, they'd have a job with an NFL franchise. Heaven knows teams like the Lions or Browns have needed a great talent evaluator for years.
I won't say its perfect, but its a hell of a lot better than filling the Selection Committee with amateurs.
