…and then there were 11

[AbeBeta]

BUT if you look at the All Decade lists most of them are in the HOF and if not have quite often made it to the short list of the HOF. ONE of the main arguements used for getting players into the HOF is the All Decade Lists.
Dallas did not have a good D untill 1965-1966. THAT is one of the reasons that Howley did not make the ALL 60's team. Look good and hard for any player in the 60's and 70's that had 6 ALL PRO's and is not in the HOF. BACK then, that REALLY meant something- unlike today.

Arguments by who? The Hall is the ultimate honor -- the all-decade list is a lesser honor. Those guys should get consideration but using a lesser honor as an argument for a higher honor doesn't make sense as the criteria are lower.

 

[AbeBeta]

What needs to be done is have one year set aside to remedy the slights and slurs of the past.

I don't know about that -- snubs of great players make for the honor being more exclusive. And the vets committee does address the worst snubs already.

 

[DallasEast]

Pure fantasy. It's a form of a short list. Plain and simple

Good answer.

The selectors' themselves consider members whom they have placed on the All-Decade teams as being the greatest players of that particular decade. Yes, they do omit other great players, but this discussion is about the players on their lists. Not my list, your list or anyone else's for that matter. If they are going to drag their feet (an understatement) in enshrining these players, they should edit their ADT lists and place asterisks beside the names of those players which they will always consider as being "not good enough for the Hall". If past history is any indication, their revised list will be topped by Harris, Martin and Pearson.

 

[AbeBeta]

The selectors' themselves consider members whom they have placed on the All-Decade teams as being the greatest players of that particular decade. Yes, they do omit other great players, but this discussion is about the players on their lists.

It is their list -- but it isn't a HoF list. You seem to fail to understand that the criteria for best in the decade is not the same as greatest of all time.

 

[burmafrd]

aber, maybe you need to look at how the process goes. THose from the various cities that argue for the HOF use the ALL DECADE lists as one of the main arguements - maybe you ought to look a little before you post.

 

[AbeBeta]

aber, maybe you need to look at how the process goes. THose from the various cities that argue for the HOF use the ALL DECADE lists as one of the main arguements - maybe you ought to look a little before you post.

And again, the all-decade team isn't the HoF. If it were the same kind of honor, why have the HoF? You can use it as an argument all you want but it isn't the same honor. It is a lesser one.

 

[DallasEast]

It is their list -- but it isn't a HoF list. You seem to fail to understand that the criteria for best in the decade is not the same as greatest of all time.

No one has lost sight of the selectors supposedly using a player's entire career as a standard. What you fail to understand is that the selectors' own criteria of enshrinement for evaluating a player's career may be different from your own.

While you may find that the credentials of players on their 'lessor' list to be insignificant, the selectors themselves may think otherwise. And that point-of-view rings true each time a player from an ADT is enshrined.

 

[AbeBeta]

While you may find that the credentials of players on their 'lessor' list to be insignificant, the selectors themselves may think otherwise. And that point-of-view rings true each time a player from an ADT is enshrined.

Not really. Any HoF shortlist qualified player is likely going to be on that list -- it is the proportions that aren't enshrined that make the point. The HoF is simply more selective than the ADT lists. Plain and simple. ADT is certainly an honor and certainly viewed as some form of short list -- but like any short list, simple inclusion doesn't mean you get the call.

 

[burmafrd]

aber, you somehow think that the way you think is how the process goes. NOT EVEN CLOSE. The mediots who unfortunately run this show start with all decade lists- this has been shown by Banks, Doctor Z, Clayton and others.

 

[AbeBeta]

aber, you somehow think that the way you think is how the process goes. NOT EVEN CLOSE. The mediots who unfortunately run this show start with all decade lists- this has been shown by Banks, Doctor Z, Clayton and others.

Good god. As I've noted over and over that is a form of short list. But you don't say "well, he's on the short list therefore he must be in the hall" - it gets you discussed, duh. Good god, DUH. That's what I've been saying. But simply being on that list doesn't get you in the hall. The hall is more exclusive.

 

[Biggems]

I think the new stadium should have two rings.....

The top ring is the HOF ring...listing all the Cowboys players in the HOF....the bottom ring is the ROH.....listing all those great Cowboys who made an IMPACT to the franchise, but were not quite good enough for the HOF..

I think JJ should add 1-2 players to the ROH every year, cause there are several deserving guys.....start with the guys that belong in the HOF, but aren't in. Maybe by putting them in the ROH it will help get them into the HOF. Also, once a player reaches the HOF, they leave the ROH ring and go to the HOF ring.

so basically in the new stadium...

HOF Ring(10) : Landry, Schramm, Staubach, Dorsett, Renfro, Lilly, Aikman, Irvin, Wright, White

ROH Ring(6) : Hayes, Harris, Howley, Jordan, Meredith, Perkins

This is how I believe the two rings should look

HOF: 22 players

1. Landry
2. Schramm
3. QB Staubach
4. QB Aikman
5. RB Dorsett
6. RB Smith
7. WR Hayes
8. WR Pearson
9. WR Irvin
10. OL Wright
11. OL Niland
12. OL Neely
13. OL Allen
14. DL Lilly
15. DL White
16. DL Too Tall
17. DL Martin
18. DL Haley
19. LB Howley
20. DB Green
21. DB Renfro
22. DB Waters
23. DB Harris
24. DB Walls

ROH:

1. QB Don Meredith
2. QB Danny White
3. RB Herschel Walker
4. RB Calvin Hill
5. WR Tony Hill
6. WR Alvin Harper
7. TE Billy Joe Dupree
8. TE Jay Novacek
9. OL Nate Newton
10. OL Mark Tuinei
11. OL Erik Williams
12. OL Mark Stepnoski
13. DL Jethro Pugh
14. DL Tony Tolbert
15. DL Jim Jeffcoat
16. DL Chad Hennings
17. LB Thomas Henderson
18. LB Eugene Lockhart
19. LB Ken Norton Jr
20. LB Dexter Coakley
21. DB Dennis Thurman
22. DB Darren Woodson

I am sure that I missed some very good names on the list.....feel free to help me with this list.....

 

[burmafrd]

actually, aber, I would argue that the ALL DECADE teams are more exclusive then the HOF picks are sometimes. Take a good hard look at the all 70's, 80's teams. Its very difficult to argue that any of them SHOULD NOT be in the HOF.

 

[Biggems]

i would rank it like this as far as importance....


1. all-pro
2. all-decade
3. pro bowl

 

[AbeBeta]

actually, aber, I would argue that the ALL DECADE teams are more exclusive then the HOF picks are sometimes. Take a good hard look at the all 70's, 80's teams. Its very difficult to argue that any of them SHOULD NOT be in the HOF.

Let's see best of the decade vs. best all time. What exactly are you missing here?

 

[DallasEast]

Let's see best of the decade vs. best all time. What exactly are you missing here?

Lynn Swann’s career began in 1974 and ended in 1982.

Drew Pearson’s career began in 1973 and ended in 1983.

Swann was only named to the 1970’s All-Decade Team.

So was Pearson.

Swann’s career accomplishments include two #7 finishes in receptions; #4, #7 & #8 finishes in receiving yards; #1, #2 & #6 finishes in receiving touchdowns; 336 receptions, 5,462 yards & 51 touchdowns; nine postseason touchdowns; three All-Pro selections; three Pro Bowl & three Super Bowl appearances; and named Super Bowl X MVP.

Pearson’s career accomplishments include #3, #4 & #9 finishes in receptions; #1, #2, #5, #8 & #10 finishes in receiving yards; #6 & #8 finishes in receiving touchdowns; 489 receptions, 7,822 yards & 48 receiving touchdowns; eight postseason touchdowns; three All-Pro selections; three Pro Bowl and four Super Bowl appearances; and named All-NFC in 1975.

Swann was voted into the Hall of Fame.

Pearson has not been voted in.

Since Swann was enshrined, he must be one of the ‘best all time’ wide receivers.

On the other hand, Pearson is only one of the ‘best of the decade’ wide receivers.

 

[AbeBeta]

Lynn Swann’s career began in 1974 and ended in 1982.

Drew Pearson’s career began in 1973 and ended in 1983.

Swann was only named to the 1970’s All-Decade Team.

So was Pearson.

Swann’s career accomplishments include two #7 finishes in receptions; #4, #7 & #8 finishes in receiving yards; #1, #2 & #6 finishes in receiving touchdowns; 336 receptions, 5,462 yards & 51 touchdowns; nine postseason touchdowns; three All-Pro selections; three Pro Bowl & three Super Bowl appearances; and named Super Bowl X MVP.

Pearson’s career accomplishments include #3, #4 & #9 finishes in receptions; #1, #2, #5, #8 & #10 finishes in receiving yards; #6 & #8 finishes in receiving touchdowns; 489 receptions, 7,822 yards & 48 receiving touchdowns; eight postseason touchdowns; three All-Pro selections; three Pro Bowl and four Super Bowl appearances; and named All-NFC in 1975.

Swann was voted into the Hall of Fame.

Pearson has not been voted in.

Since Swann was enshrined, he must be one of the ‘best all time’ wide receivers.

On the other hand, Pearson is only one of the ‘best of the decade’ wide receivers.

Last time now. You can't use the worst WR in the hall as a benchmark. Swann is an anomaly -- he shouldn't be in the hall. But you don't use that anomaly to justify more borderline or even bad picks for the hall.

 

[DallasEast]

Last time now.

You can't use the worst WR in the hall as a benchmark. Swann is an anomaly -- he shouldn't be in the hall. But you don't use that anomaly to justify more borderline or even bad picks for the hall.

Swann is a HoF member. That's a fact. Anyone can use him as a valid example in an argument. It is the selectors who picked him for the 1970's All-Decade team and it was the selectors who elected him to the Pro Football Hall of Fame. This is a discussion of the selection process. You can put yourself in their place by 'determining' who they shouldn't have picked, but it will not alter which players they have already enshrined.

 

[AbeBeta]

Swann is a HoF member. That's a fact. Anyone can use him as a valid example in an argument. It is the selectors who picked him for the 1970's All-Decade team and it was the selectors who elected him to the Pro Football Hall of Fame. This is a discussion of the selection process. You can put yourself in their place by 'determining' who they shouldn't have picked, but it will not alter which players they have already enshrined.

and you'd have to be stupid to use the worst player in the hall as your benchmark. you use the average of the guys in the hall -- not the worst.

 

[DallasEast]

and you'd have to be stupid to use the worst player in the hall as your benchmark. you use the average of the guys in the hall -- not the worst.

Remember...

"Last time now".

Now, I'm 'stupid' for using Swann as a 'benchmark'. Well, I'm not a selector. Does this mean that, in your opinion, all selectors are stupid? After all, the HoF is the 'benchmark' of pro football excellence.

 

[phildominator]

Just reviewing the 70s and 80s All Decade Team...

1. No Tony Dorsett on either. Guess his career was too evenly split between two decades. He'd be a shoe-in for 1975-1985 All Decade Team, I guess.

2. For the 80s, Boomer Esiason made it over Dan Marino.