1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

News: CNNSI (King): Do HOF voters have a bias against former Cowboys?

Discussion in 'News Zone' started by WoodysGirl, May 17, 2005.

  1. zagnut

    zagnut New Member

    1,210 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    The fact that Wright and Harris are not in is BS, and Harvey Martin and Ed Jones should get very strong consideration. When I see some of these guys like Howie Long get in over Martin/Wright and Harris/Jones, that's just rediculous. Long was not a player before my time. Saw him his entire career. Hall of Very Good. Same deal with Carl Eller. John Stallworth. Jim Kelly. Lynn Swann. Marv Levy. Nick Buoniconti. The selections post 1999 class have been poor, IMO.

    If the voters want to continue witholding the honor, then the Lombardi trophy should be renamed the Landry Trophy. Apparently, Coach Landry is clearly the greatest coach of all time since he could achieve what he did with so few HoF level players. I hear some reporters point to the 3 Super Bowl losses. They lost them by an average of 3.5 points and 2 were against the beloved Steeler dynasty. The last one being generally mentioned as one of the greatest Super Bowls ever.

    On Bob Hayes, all I've seen is what ESPN classic and NFL Films has shown and what I've read. He's way before my time. From what I saw though, it seems he was mainly athletically superior. Does that alone get you in the Hall? I think a legit argument can be made that speed alone is Bob Hayes' claim to fame and, honestly, another really fast WR would have shown up at some point down the line and "changed the game" instead. Statistically, he was good for 3 to 4 catches per game average and made the most of those catches due to being uniquely fast. I mainly remember seeing film of him tucking his tail in the Ice Bowl and reading his hands were average.

    People who saw him play, I'd be happy to hear additional perspectives and eat my words. In my eyes, it's similar to the Fritz Pollard induction, which is crap. The guy was a journeyman player who is going in because he happened to be one of the first black players and the first black head coach. I just don't give credit for being the first anything if all you're being is who you are. Somebody else would have come along. Just my 2 cents.
  2. Kittymama

    Kittymama Benched

    2,170 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Calling all conspiracy theorists
    Do HOF voters have a bias against former Cowboys?
    Posted: Tuesday May 17, 2005 1:37PM; Updated: Tuesday May 17, 2005 3:13PM

    Cowboys in Hall of Fame
    Player Induction Year Years with Dallas
    Herb Adderley 1980 1970-1972
    Lance Alworth 1978 1971-1972
    Mike Ditka 1988 1969-1972
    Tony Dorsett 1994 1977-1987
    Forrest Gregg 1977 1971
    Tom Landry 1990 1960-1988
    Bob Lilly 1980 1961-1974
    Tommy McDonald 1998 1964
    Mel Renfro 1996 1964-1977
    Tex Schramm 1991 1960-1989
    Jackie Smith 1994 1978
    Roger Staubach 1985 1969-1979
    Randy White 1994 1975-1988



    Sometimes a story gets legs and takes off. People accept it as fact and when someone disputes the premise, people look at the disputer like: "Are you nuts?''

    Today's tale: There is an anti-Cowboys bias among Hall of Fame voters.

    I aim to dispel it, but let's kick off the festivities with our first e-mailer.

    ARE THE COWBOYS GETTING JOBBED? From Bruce E. Sellers of Mapleton, Minn.: "I would assume it is only a matter of time before you address the latest hubbub surrounding DrewPearson's comments about a bias in the media being the reason he and a number of other Cowboys from those '70s teams (i.e. Pearson, Rayfield Wright, Cliff Harris) have been snubbed by the Hall of Fame. This conspiracy theory has been floating around for quite a few years now, and I never bought into it until recently. My change of heart really started when Michael Irvin didn't get in last year. I thought he was a sure first-ballot HOFer. I don't want to hear about his off-the-field exploits, because there are a lot of characters in the Hall with not-so-glowing resumes. Paul Zimmerman even wrote that Irvin didn't get in because some of the writers didn't like the way he appeared on ESPN in his role with Countdown. If this is true, then that is ridiculous because the voting should be about what happened on the field.''

    This story gained some steam on Monday, when Dan Patrick devoted much of his afternoon radio show to the topic, and Pearson called in to rip the process that has excluded some Dallas stars from the Hall. It's the same thing I've been hearing for years as one of the 39 Hall voters: For some reason, we don't like the Cowboys, and so we're not electing a representative number of them to the Hall. Let me make three points:

    1. I can't vouch for the other 38 voters. I can only tell you what I think, and I know I have no bias against any player or any team when it comes to Hall voting. "Bias'' is an interesting word. Just because I vote against Art Monk does not mean in any way that I'm biased against him. I just feel he belongs in the Hall of Very Good, not in Canton. Paul Zimmerman may have heard in the room that some voters are biased against Irvin for his off-the-field problems or for his bombastic role on ESPN, but that is something I didn't catch. We are told that only on-field exploits are open for judgment, not what happens to a guy at midnight during the week. Might some voters hold his wild off-field life against Irvin? Could be, but I never heard any of the 39 voters say his vote was going to be affected by it.

    2. I don't believe the Cowboys, more than any other team, are under-represented in the Hall. I voted for Wright all the way last year, the same way I voted for Irvin all the way this year. But I've also voted for other guys who don't get in (RussGrimm and Harry Carson being the most notable ones these days). The Cowboys made it to five Super Bowls during a nine-year period, and 10 people from those teams are in the Hall. Let's exclude the short-timers, such as Herb Adderley, and say that seven bedrock Cowboys from those teams have made the Hall. Compare that to the team from the next generation that was as good, and maybe better historically, than Dallas. San Francisco, over a 14-year period, made it to five Super Bowls and has four people from that era in the Hall. So why don't I hear the same rabble-rousing from the Charles Haley, RandyCross and Roger Craig advocates that I do constantly from Dallas?

    3. The only logical argument for more Cowboys is the epidemic of Steelers in the Hall. I can't defend some of the Pittsburgh choices, because quite frankly, I wasn't in favor of some of the Steelers choices, like Lynn Swann. Just a personal feeling. But the Hall historically has favored players from Super Bowl winners. Pittsburgh was 4-0 in a six-season span. Dallas was 2-3 during a nine-year run. San Francisco was 5-0 in their 14-year spell, which makes the lack of Niners ever more noticeable. And look at Washington, 3-1 in Super Bowls in a 10-year run but just two Hall members -- John Riggins and Joe Gibbs. I'd buy the argument that Grimm, Joe Jacoby, Matt Millen and Darrell Green all deserve their day before our committee.

    So, the fact that "only'' seven Cowboys are in the Hall from that era doesn't get much violin music from me.
  3. fiveandcounting

    fiveandcounting New Member

    1,592 Messages
    0 Likes Received
  4. Jarv

    Jarv Loud pipes saves lives. Zone Supporter

    7,073 Messages
    120 Likes Received
    I guess we could compile a Redskin, Raiders, Vikings, Greenbay, San Fran list....probably others too, with the same information. Any HOF'ers play 1 year for the Steelers we could add to their list ? Same with all of the other teams.

    Lets do an apples to apples comparision.

    This makes me want to mount up and ride to Bristol, CT (1/2 from here) and take over the studio for a while. So our voices can be heard.

    I just want open voting, no secret ballots.
  5. Yakuza Rich

    Yakuza Rich Well-Known Member

    12,129 Messages
    1,159 Likes Received
    A horrible, grasping at straws argument. While these guys did play for Dallas, they will be forever associated with other teams. Seriously, how can you associate Adderly, Alworth, Ditka, Gregg, McDonald, and Smith as Cowboys when between the 6 of them, they played a combined 11 years with the team.

    That's like saying Emmitt is a Arizona Cardinal or Unitas is a Charger.

    Rich.............
  6. Maikeru-sama

    Maikeru-sama Mick Green 58

    14,547 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    His list is just very deceiving and he even inculdes Tex Schramm and Tom Landry to inflate the total number Cowboys in the hall of fame.

    The Hall of Fame is about how a guy compared to players at his position during the time he played. How can you named a starter on an All-Decade Team but not be considered one of the best players in your Era.

    Here is the 1970's All-Decade Team:3 Players are not in the Hall of Fame and 2 of the 3 are Cowboys.

    Offense Defense
    Drew Pearson, Dallas WR DE Carl Eller, Minnesota
    Lynn Swann, Pittsburgh WR DE Jack Youngblood, Los Angeles
    Dave Casper, Oakland TE DT Joe Greene, Pittsburgh
    Art Shell, Oakland OT DT Bob Lilly, Dallas
    Ron Yary, Minnesota OT OLB Jack Ham, Pittsburgh
    Joe DeLamielleure, Buf. G MLB Dick Butkus, Chicago
    Larry Little, Miami G OLB Ted Hendricks, G.B./Oak.
    Jim Langer, Miami C CB Willie Brown, Oakland
    Terry Bradshaw, Pittsburgh QB CB Jimmy Johnson, San Francisco
    Walter Payton, Chicago RB S Cliff Harris, Dallas
    O.J. Simpson, Buffalo RB S Ken Houston, Washington
    Garo Yepremian, Miami PK P Ray Guy, Oakland

    http://www.dallascowboyz.com/articles/NFL_All_Decade_Teams.asp?QVal=1&SearchKey=decade

    I am just numb that he would even mention guys like Forrest Gregg and Tommy Mcdonald...

    - Mike G.
  7. joseephuss

    joseephuss Well-Known Member

    21,339 Messages
    1,226 Likes Received
  8. percyhoward

    percyhoward Research Tool

    8,441 Messages
    2,380 Likes Received
    Maybe it's because Harris and Writght have been retired for more than 25 years, so their only remaining chance to enter the Hall is as Senior Nominees. Drew Pearson has now been retired for 21 years, so you still have a chance to do right with him.

    Randy Cross, whose credentials are less impressive than Pearson's, was playing until 1988 (five years after Pearson retired). Craig played until 1993, and has 13 more years of eligibility. Haley has 19 more years of eligibility, so even to mention either one of them is a joke.

    Obviously King was pressured to respond to all the recent pub, but is this really the best he could come up with?

    Probably so, because empirical evidence just isn't there.
    PRIOR TO 1981
    Team/NFL Chamionship Games (Record)/Hall of Famers
    Giants 14 (3-11) (5 pre-1940) 13
    Browns 10 (4-6) 12
    Bears 10 (6-4) 17
    Packers 10 (8-2) 16
    Cowboys 7 (2-5) 5
    Redskins 7 (2-5) 12
    Rams 6 (2-4) 9
    Lions 5 (4-1) 11
    Eagles 5 (3-2) 8
    Colts 5 (3-2) 9
    Steelers 4 (4-0) 14
    Vikings 4 (0-4) 6
    Raiders 3 (2-1) 8
    Dolphins 3 (2-1) 6
  9. percyhoward

    percyhoward Research Tool

    8,441 Messages
    2,380 Likes Received
    I missed that quote the first time I read it, but that has to be the stupidest thing he's ever said, and that's saying something.

    49ers historically better than Dallas?

    Using what criteria?

    Dallas 10 championship games, 49ers 5

    Dallas 5 World Championships (all won by double-digits),
    49ers 5 (including a couple of close ones)

    Dallas 7 NFL Championship Games/SB's in 13 year period
    49ers 5 SB's in 14 year period
  10. Manster68

    Manster68 Well-Known Member

    1,611 Messages
    98 Likes Received
    Do you know what gets under my skin the most when talking about the Cowboys getting snubbed out of the Hall?

    The NFL has all but ordained the 70s Steelers as the best team of all time.

    Yet

    1. Dallas goes to FIVE SUPER BOWLS, winning three.

    2. Dallas makes SEVEN appearances in the NFC Championship Game in the 70s, winning five (lost to Wash in 72 & Minn in 73)

    3. Dallas wins more games in the 70s than any other team.

    4. Dallas had virtually fielded two different teams in 1970s. The early 70s was almost completely different from the late 70s. The one rebuilding year, 1974, Dallas still went 8-6 (the only season Dallas did not go to the Playoffs that decade).

    5. Dallas' Super Bowl loss to Baltimore was tainted by a BS non call that allowed John Mackey to score a TD. Dallas only lost by three.

    6. As heavy underdogs to Pittsburgh (as well as to Minnesota and Los Angeles prior), Dallas comes to within a fraction of an inch from beating the Steelers on the second to last play of the game. Had Percy Howard jumped a split second earlier, he would have came down with that ball as well. Dallas only loses by four.

    7. Thanks to Jackie Smith and the BS Pass Interference call on Benny Barnes (Fred Swearengen was the ref who threw the flag), as well as the umpire setting a pick on Charlie Waters allowing Franco Harris to score from 25 yards out, Dallas still only lost to the 78 Steelers by four.

    Yes, the team considered the greatest of them all only beats Dallas by four (with help from the refs).

    Meanwhile, Dallas lost three Super Bowls by a grand total of ELEVEN points, wins more games in the 70s, plays in more playoff games in the 70s, and had a winning season every year in the 70s, with two totally different teams, and what do they get?...

    ...only FIVE FULL TIME PLAYERS GO TO THE HALL OF FAME WHEN ONLY ONE OF THOSE FIVE PLAYERS (STAUBACH) PLAYED IN EVERY SEASON IN THE 70S!!!!

    YES VIRGINIA, THERE IS A BIAS!!!!
  11. trickblue

    trickblue Old Testament... Zone Supporter

    28,858 Messages
    320 Likes Received

    Excellent post Manster... nice work...
  12. Cbz40

    Cbz40 The Grand Poobah

    31,365 Messages
    1 Likes Received
    Excellent post.....
  13. Chief

    Chief "Friggin Joke Monkey"

    8,541 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    What hall of fame?
  14. percyhoward

    percyhoward Research Tool

    8,441 Messages
    2,380 Likes Received
    Manster, let me add that not only did the Cowboys lose 2 very close SB's to the "greatest team of all-time", we also lost 2 NFL Championship Games in the final minute to the other "greatest team of all-time," the Packers. Pretty amazing that a TD (or less) was all that separated the Cowboys from the Packers in '66 and '67, and yet the Cowboys only had two Hall of Famers (Lilly and Renfro) on that team, and NONE on what was a dominating offense.

    Cough, cough, Bob Hayes.

    I can imagine Peter King's son coming home with an "F" in history and saying, "so what Dad, you don't know any more about history than I do."
  15. lurkercowboy

    lurkercowboy Active Member

    4,039 Messages
    12 Likes Received
    Dallas also lost by one point to yet another greatest team, the 49ers in the 1981 NFC title game. It was great that the 1990's team settled these accounts by beating the Packers and 49ers repeatedly in the playoffs, and then the Steelers in the Super Bowl.
  16. Manster68

    Manster68 Well-Known Member

    1,611 Messages
    98 Likes Received
    About the 1981 NFC Title game, what many people forget is what happened on the first play from scrimmage after the catch. Danny White hit Pearson over the middle near the 50 and was almost gone until Wright reached out and barely got enough jersey to pull Pearson down.

    The sad part is, Dallas could have easily won 10 Super Bowls - the three that they lost, plus 1981 and 1994.

    So close yet so far.
  17. jimmy40

    jimmy40 Well-Known Member

    15,145 Messages
    290 Likes Received
    1.Dallas didn't win 3 out of 5 Super Bowls in the seventies.

    2.The NFC sucked as bad then as it does now. Do you really think Pittsburg would have won less if you swapped places?

    3.See #2.

    4.Agreed.

    5. Baltimore played like crap, don't blame the refs, it shouldn't have come down to that.

    6. If my aunt had nads .......

    7. We lost to a better team, although they got some help.

    I wonder why the Cowboys players that are in the HOF don't make more noise about this bias. If any team should cry about a bias, it's the 80's 49ers. San Fran went 4-0 in Super Bowls in that decade. Why don't they have as many HOF players as Pittsburg? I know my post sucks but somebody here has to live in the real world so it might as well be me. :(
  18. Manster68

    Manster68 Well-Known Member

    1,611 Messages
    98 Likes Received
    1. You are right. I had a mistype.

    2-4. No, the NFC did not suck as bad as it does today. Dallas in the 70s could hang with any AFC team (and they did). You just don't virtually change over starting squads within a decade by accident. That is called Sustained Superior Performance. Dallas had that for a 20 year stretch - Pittsburgh only 8. Dallas got the best from each opponent for the entire decade of the 70s because they were at or near the top every year. Pittsburgh stunk in 1970 and 1971.

    5. Actually, both teams played like crap. That's why they called it the Blunder Bowl. Morton, Like O'Donnell in Super Bowl XXX, threw that game away. The mysterious "tipped" ball to Mackey was BS.

    6. I don't care if your aunt had nads. The fact of the matter is, Dallas was that close to knocking off a heavy favorite on the road for the 3rd time in a row.

    7. Glad to see that you didn't have much to counter with Super Bowl XIII. That proves my whole point. The 78 Steelers were ordained as the best team ever, and Dallas took them down to the wire. If it were only that game, then maybe one could say it was a fluke. However, Super Bowl X dispells any notion that the Cowboys of the 70s were every bit as good as the Steelers.

    Oh BTW, the Steelers special teams stunk, but I guess that is not factored in as part of "The Greatest Team."

    You know, I don't deny the greatness of the Steelers (except for their special teams). What bothers me is that Dallas doesn't get their just due in the real world.

    I will also acknowledge that part of that is Jerry Jones' fault for not getting more Cowboys from the Landry era in the ring of honor.
  19. percyhoward

    percyhoward Research Tool

    8,441 Messages
    2,380 Likes Received
    The question isn't "why don't the Cowboys have as many in the Hall as the Steelers?', it's why there aren't as many Cowboys as 0-time champ Vikings, for example.

    As for the 49ers, almost all the likely remaining candidates have 10+ more years of eligibility, so ask that question again in 2015.
  20. jimmy40

    jimmy40 Well-Known Member

    15,145 Messages
    290 Likes Received
    If that's the question, fine, but that's not what everybody's crying about now is it? It's always boo hoo the Steelers have more players in the Hall than we do. Well, they should.

Share This Page