Dr. Z Mailbag

[AbeBeta]

Since when did costing a team a "legit shot" (which is so debatable), while being a significant part of 3 teams that did win SBs (which is not debatable) become a factor of consideration for induction into the HOF?

Since when do "intangibles" work only in one direction -- you are so ready to put someone in the hall because he brought all kinds of good stuff that you can't measure -- by that same regard you can't ignore bad stuff that he was involved with that hurt the team. Unless, of course, you want to be a hypocrite.

 

[SultanOfSix]

Since when do "intangibles" work only in one direction -- you are so ready to put someone in the hall because he brought all kinds of good stuff that you can't measure -- by that same regard you can't ignore bad stuff that he was involved with that hurt the team. Unless, of course, you want to be a hypocrite.

I never said I was ready to put someone in the hall just because they did good stuff that you can't measure. Nor, did I say to ignore or not ignore the bad stuff that hurt the team. Your example sucked about bad stuff hurting the team. Cost a "legit chance" at a SB when that's not even remotely debatable? What the hell is that? Don't blame me for your weak arguments and strawmans.

 

[Champsheart]

I can't believe how many people act like these mediots who make up the HoF Selection committee are members of the Supreme Court, who have taken a sacred oath or something. The mediots who make up the selection committee are a bunch of sportswriters who represent each of the 32 NFL cities as well as a number of "at large" reps like "The Peter King".

The idea that a sportswriter who represents the city of a particular team would be in any way biased is unthinkable! Come on folks, wake up to a dose of reality. Every one of the members of the selection committee has biases and works for or against certain players or teams for their own personal reasons. Since we spent a lot of years beating up on the teams these guys cover it is no wonder that they are biased against us.

There are also a lot of personal biases at work so guys who screwed up like Irvin aren't judged solely on what they accomplished on the field but by what they did off it and even after they retired from the game, as Dr. Z admitted.

That's why Bob Hayes hasn't made it in. He should have been a first ballot inductee after he retired but he got busted for drugs and they didn't want anything to do with him. Now they say his numbers don't compare with the other WRs that are currently eligible but they certainly did when he was first eligible. Not to mention how he changed the game, which should have been enough to get him in a couple of years ago when he was a finalist but too many of these mediots still held him out from personal bias.

The HoF selection process is a joke because it uses the most biased people in the country as members of the committee. They might as well use fan voting like for the Pro-Bowl and would come up with the same results.

The committee should be made up of HoF members as well as some key NFL personnel, it shouldn't be left up to the mediots to decide as they are far from qualified and even farther from objective.

Excellent Post! Especially the last paragraph

 

[AbeBeta]

I never said I was ready to put someone in the hall just because they did good stuff that you can't measure. Nor, did I say to ignore or not ignore the bad stuff that hurt the team. Your example sucked about bad stuff hurting the team. Cost a "legit chance" at a SB when that's not even remotely debatable? What the hell is that? Don't blame me for your weak arguments and strawmans.

It is quite reasonable to believe that Irvin hurt the team in 1996. The defending superbowl champs got off to a 2-3 start. Losing games to Chicago who won only 6 other games all season, the Colts who went 9-7 and the Bills who went 10-6. Because of this poor start, we likely missed out on a first round bye. Instead we had to play Minnesota while Carolina had a week off to wait for us at home. You don't think that having your #1 WR and not having to start your top CB at WR might have led to different outcomes in those games?

That clearly is remotely debatable.

 

[Doomsday]

What in the world does Charles Haley need to do to get the recognition he deserves? The man was a beast on 5 different Super Bowl Championship teams.

 

[SultanOfSix]

It is quite reasonable to believe that Irvin hurt the team in 1996. The defending superbowl champs got off to a 2-3 start. Losing games to Chicago who won only 6 other games all season, the Colts who went 9-7 and the Bills who went 10-6. Because of this poor start, we likely missed out on a first round bye. Instead we had to play Minnesota while Carolina had a week off to wait for us at home. You don't think that having your #1 WR and not having to start your top CB at WR might have led to different outcomes in those games?

That clearly is remotely debatable.

Even if I grant you this notion that it's "debatable", you're trying to contrast the possiblity (that his suspension cost the team a chance at a SB - I don't agree with it because they made the playoffs and from there it's a clean slate) that he contributed to a "legitamite shot" (whatever that means) at the SB, with the fact that he was a significant factor to acctually winning not just one or two SBs, but three of them.

And that is a stupid argument.

 

[AbeBeta]

Even if I grant you this notion that it's "debatable", you're trying to contrast the possiblity (that his suspension cost the team a chance at a SB - I don't agree with it because they made the playoffs and from there it's a clean slate) that he contributed to a "legitamite shot" (whatever that means) at the SB, with the fact that he was a significant factor to acctually winning not just one or two SBs, but three of them.

And that is a stupid argument.

So you are saying that Irvin's off the field digressions has NOTHING to do with the demise of the team? Right.

That sir is a stupider argument.

 

[percyhoward]

Different era -- Tim Brown has what? 8 Pro bowls. Hard to compare - especially with a sample of 4 receivers.

Different era?

You wanna explain how playing in a different era from Swann and Stallworth meant Irvin went to more Pro Bowls than they did?

 

[AbeBeta]

Different era?

You wanna explain how playing in a different era from Swann and Stallworth meant Irvin went to more Pro Bowls than they did?

the different era comment had to do with the statistic in general not necessarily the probowls -- but you certainly can argue that with more modern training techniques, better nutrition, better surgeries, etc. that players have a better shot at extending their careers.

Take Jerry Rice -- 20 years ago an ACL tear would have pretty much ended a player's career. Rice tore one early in 1997 and came back for two more probowls and another 500 or so receptions. Never happen back in the 70s. So the # of probowls could be influenced in that manner as well.

 

[percyhoward]

the different era comment had to do with the statistic in general not necessarily the probowls -- but you certainly can argue that with more modern training techniques, better nutrition, better surgeries, etc. that players have a better shot at extending their careers.

The only statistic I gave was SB rings and Pro Bowls.

Modern training techniques, better surgeons, chlorinated water, etc. doesn't have anything to do with Irvin going to more Pro Bowls than they did. In fact, Stallworth played one more year than Irvin did.

 

[AbeBeta]

The only statistic I gave was SB rings and Pro Bowls.

Modern training techniques, better surgeons, chlorinated water, etc. doesn't have anything to do with Irvin going to more Pro Bowls than they did. In fact, Stallworth played one more year than Irvin did.

Well if you are going to completely ignore any sort of reasoning, then you can't play with me.

 

[SultanOfSix]

So you are saying that Irvin's off the field digressions has NOTHING to do with the demise of the team? Right.

That sir is a stupider argument.

Another strawman.

What are you arguing? Irvin's "borderline" HOF eligibility, or the demise of the team?

I think that JJ's horrible drafting was what caused the demise of the team, as opposed to Irvin not behaving.

 

[J-DOG]

Call me nieve, but I can not believe the Irvin comment. Z has lost all credibility with me. I will be sending an intense email to Sports Illustrated.

Yo man, I agree with you.
I heard about this comment thru a friend.
I am suprised it was Dr. Z whom I have enjoyed reading thru the years who said it.
To me Dr. Z was an old school type of writer who cut to the chase and was right the point. To have this comment come from him...that's terrible and I do not want to hear again how he almost quit the voting committee because something was wrong in the voting process. Credibility???? He lost it with me too.

 

[percyhoward]

Well if you are going to completely ignore any sort of reasoning, then you can't play with me.

Unless you can tell me the two seasons in which Swann and Stallworth were each denied a chance at the Pro Bowl because of injuries that you can prove they would have healed more quickly from in the 90's, then you're not being ignored, your argument's just being blown up.

 

[AbeBeta]

Another strawman.

What are you arguing? Irvin's "borderline" HOF eligibility, or the demise of the team?

I think that JJ's horrible drafting was what caused the demise of the team, as opposed to Irvin not behaving.

Well, if you actually read the posts you would see I was answering two different questions. I'm sorry it is so hard for you to follow two different discussions.

I never said Irvin was the only reason for the team's demise but he certainly played a role. Of course, you obviously don't believe that not having your #1 WR for 5 games matters. As you put it we made the playoff and "there it's a clean slate" -- of course you fail to understand that a 2-3 start can put you in a worse playoff position.

 

[AbeBeta]

Unless you can tell me the two seasons in which Swann and Stallworth were each denied a chance at the Pro Bowl because of injuries that you can prove they would have healed more quickly from in the 90's, then you're not being ignored, your argument's just being blown up.

Unless you can show me how players have worse training and medical care now than they did in the 70s then your arguments aren't blowing up crap.

 

[SultanOfSix]

Well, if you actually read the posts you would see I was answering two different questions. I'm sorry it is so hard for you to follow two different discussions.

I did read your posts, and I wasn't talking about anything other than Irvin's "HOF" eligibility. It was you who interjected this notion of Irvin being partly responsible for the team's demise into the discussion, which I wasn't talking about at all. You tried to use this idea to divert the attention from the real issue, as if the possibility of costing his team a SB has anything to do with his "borderline" HOF eligibility.

I never said Irvin was the only reason for the team's demise but he certainly played a role. Of course, you obviously don't believe that not having your #1 WR for 5 games matters.

Another strawman. I said it didn't cost the team a "legitimate chance" at the SB, because every team has one as long as they get into the playoffs. Is this difficult for you to understand?

As you put it we made the playoff and "there it's a clean slate" -- of course you fail to understand that a 2-3 start can put you in a worse playoff position.

So what. The team started 0-2 in the year Emmit held out. That didn't prevent them from making the playoffs and winning their second SB.

 

[AbeBeta]

Another strawman. I said it didn't cost the team a "legitimate chance" at the SB, because every team has one as long as they get into the playoffs. Is this difficult for you to understand?

So what. The team started 0-2 in the year Emmit held out. That didn't prevent them from making the playoffs and winning their second SB.

You do have chance if you get to the playoffs. Looking at the past 10 years however, only 5 of the 20 SB teams didn't have a bye. So clearly, there is a big difference between having a bye week or not. We went 2-3 with Irvin gone. Had he not been suspended we very likely win at least 2 of those games and get the bye. We went 8-3 with him there - and that included a loss in the final game of the season where we rested players b/c we had no shot at the bye.

Without Irvin in the lineup the passing game suffered. Aikman threw for 183 YPG during his absence. With Irvin in the lineup that season Troy threw for 221 YPG.

So saying that Irvin didn't hurt the team at all because we still made the playoffs is the real straw man here.

 

[InmanRoshi]

Posters argue that a player's selection should only be based on his on-field accomplishments, but when there's a limited number of candidates who can be placed in the Hall any given year and you have equally qualified players, off-field controvery will be taken into consideration.

Yep. It's its not like Michael was a no brainer Jerry Rice, Walter Payton or Joe Montana type of candidate. He was a borderline candidate, and as such people's own bias will always enter into it. The entire process is subjective by it's nature, and there is no way to get around it.

The man admittedly stabbed another man in the neck with scissors while intoxicated while on probation, and somehow got away with it. Irvin's fans should just take the same approach Irvin has ... count your lucky stars he's in the Hall and not prison, and just be happy with it.

 

[AbeBeta]

The man admittedly stabbed another man in the neck with scissors while intoxicated while on probation, and somehow got away with it.

Yes, but we made the playoffs that year so that distraction didn't influence the season at all.

Signed,

SultanofSix