Mike & Mike In The Morning Talking 2012 Hall of Fame Class

[Chief]

The HOF is voted on by sportswriters, not football people, and it shouldn't be surprising that a guy who has never gave sportswriters the time of day could get the shaft. Especially in a class with some of the greatest self promoters of this generation like Sapp and Strahan.

That's a great point.

That's bound to be a factor.

 

[CoCo]

Larry Allen was clearly a HOF lineman, but he didn't finish his career well. Early in this decade, Allen gained a bunch of weight and was not the all-world linemen he used to be. IMO, he went noticably downhill even before he got his big contract in '02. Factor in that he's a Cowboy, and the odds that he gets in on the first ballot are pretty small, especially if all these guys are eligible.

There's a legitimate reason to rank Allen ahead of some of the guys who are included. Allen was just a better football player than some of them. Sapp finished his career poorly. Strahan was inconsistent throughout his career (if not for his self-promotion, no way he'd get the same recognition). Seau hasn't been elite for several years, even before he got so long in the tooth.

But none of that changes that the Larry Allen of 2001 and after wasn't the all-timer that he was in say 1998. When he still should've been elite in his early 30's, he went into steep decline. If Allen doesn't make it, it'll be in large part his own doing. Or perhaps in LA's case, his own eating.

Good point. I'd probably rate Strahan #1 in that group for still playing at a high level. Favre probably #2 on the strnegth of last season although he had some stinkers prior to that. Ogeden I'm not familiar enough with. Seau & Sapp have been shells for some time now.

So while its true that Larry has fallen off quite a bit from his peak he's not the only one from that group.

 

[AbeBeta]

C

I'm telling you, the HOF Voters will find a way to snub Larry.

Doubt it -- they will however insist he goes in as a 49'er

 

[AbeBeta]

Hos, there is no way Allen makes it on the first ballot. I think he absolutely deserves it, but he is going against some real media darlings.

Let's not forget how much John Madden was on Larry's jock his entire career. That makes him a media darling in many books - even when LA was hobbled, Madden would say stuff like "I'll take Larry Allen at 50% over most guards in the league"

 

[AbeBeta]

I will say this -- I have NEVER believed in the Cowboy bias -- however, if Ogden gets in and Allen has to wait a year I will take back every thing that I ever said about there not being a bias.

 

[Hostile]

I will say this -- I have NEVER believed in the Cowboy bias -- however, if Ogden gets in and Allen has to wait a year I will take back every thing that I ever said about there not being a bias.

A few years ago on his radio show the Houston voter, John McClain, said the San Francisco voter, Ira Miller, once told him he would never vote yes for a Dallas Cowboy and it didn't matter how good they were.

I forget the name of the New York voter who said he would not vote for anyone he didn't consider a lesser player than Harry Carson until Carson was elected.

The Detroit voter, Jeremy Green, was so proud of his snub of Bob Hayes and Cliff Harris the year that they were the only 2 voted out of the final six (both from the veterans committee) that he challenged a member here to a fist fight when confronted with it. That member was only a Navy Officer.

Paul Zimmerman of Sports Illustrated resigned as Chair of the veterans committee over those 2 snubs and openly has written that he believes there is a bias.

It took 26 years for Rayfield Wright to be admitted despite stellar credentials.

It took 19 years for Mel Renfro, again despite stellar credentials.

Cliff Harris has not been elected, but the man behind him on the 1970's all decade team at FS has been.

Drew Pearson has not been elected, but the man behind him on the 1970's all decade team at WR has been.

Pearson and Harris are the only 1st team all 1970's decade players not inducted in the Hall of Fame other than the punter and the kicker.

You really don't see it?

 

[AbeBeta]

A few years ago on his radio show the Houston voter, John McClain, said the San Francisco voter, Ira Miller, once told him he would never vote yes for a Dallas Cowboy and it didn't matter how good they were.

I forget the name of the New York voter who said he would not vote for anyone he didn't consider a lesser player than Harry Carson until Carson was elected.

The Detroit voter, Jeremy Green, was so proud of his snub of Bob Hayes and Cliff Harris the year that they were the only 2 voted out of the final six (both from the veterans committee) that he challenged a member here to a fist fight when confronted with it. That member was only a Navy Officer.

Paul Zimmerman of Sports Illustrated resigned as Chair of the veterans committee over those 2 snubs and openly has written that he believes there is a bias.

It took 26 years for Rayfield Wright to be admitted despite stellar credentials.

It took 19 years for Mel Renfro, again despite stellar credentials.

Cliff Harris has not been elected, but the man behind him on the 1970's all decade team at FS has been.

Drew Pearson has not been elected, but the man behind him on the 1970's all decade team at WR has been.

Pearson and Harris are the only 1st team all 1970's decade players not inducted in the Hall of Fame other than the punter and the kicker.

You really don't see it?

I really think that if you applied this scrutiny to every decision made by the HoF committee you'd find 100s of instances of bias against players from lots of teams. Does Haynes, for example deserve to be in, yes, absolutely, but what about other who redefined positions like, say, Curly Culp?

What I see is that Dallas had excellent teams for a long time and that means that we'll have a few more guys who are in the should be category. Also, I never will buy the argument that mediocre player A (e.g., Lynn Swan) is in the Hall so that means that the bar is now set at that mediocre player.

But I have noted what it will take for me to believe this. Allen was the best OL player of his generation. So we'll speak again in like 5 years.

 

[JD_KaPow]

All 6 guys are HOFers. One of them will have to wait a year. Doesn't really matter which one; not to me, anyway. No big deal.

 

[InmanRoshi]

That's a great point.

That's bound to be a factor.

I still think the primary reason Charles Haley isn't in the HOF is he was unapologetically hostile towards all sportswriters as treated them as personal enemies.

 

[Hostile]

I really think that if you applied this scrutiny to every decision made by the HoF committee you'd find 100s of instances of bias against players from lots of teams. Does Haynes, for example deserve to be in, yes, absolutely, but what about other who redefined positions like, say, Curly Culp?

What I see is that Dallas had excellent teams for a long time and that means that we'll have a few more guys who are in the should be category. Also, I never will buy the argument that mediocre player A (e.g., Lynn Swan) is in the Hall so that means that the bar is now set at that mediocre player.

But I have noted what it will take for me to believe this. Allen was the best OL player of his generation. So we'll speak again in like 5 years.

I do not deny that other players deserve to be in. Randy Gradishar for instance.

I'm not talking about a low bar being set. I'm talking about legitimate worthy candidates on the Cowboys who are snubbed for no reason other than they wore the star. You cannot tell me Cliff Harris would nto be in already if not for wearing the star. If he had even been on the Cardinals he'd be in.

Chuck Howley's exclusion is a joke. Hayes' exclusion is beyond ridiculous.

Zimmerman resigned from the veterens committee for no reason at all right? It had nothing to do with his being fed up with a bias he has reported exists?

The coffee is going to burn before you wake up and smell it.

 

[Chief]

A few years ago on his radio show the Houston voter, John McClain, said the San Francisco voter, Ira Miller, once told him he would never vote yes for a Dallas Cowboy and it didn't matter how good they were.

I forget the name of the New York voter who said he would not vote for anyone he didn't consider a lesser player than Harry Carson until Carson was elected.

The Detroit voter, Jeremy Green, was so proud of his snub of Bob Hayes and Cliff Harris the year that they were the only 2 voted out of the final six (both from the veterans committee) that he challenged a member here to a fist fight when confronted with it. That member was only a Navy Officer.

Paul Zimmerman of Sports Illustrated resigned as Chair of the veterans committee over those 2 snubs and openly has written that he believes there is a bias.

It took 26 years for Rayfield Wright to be admitted despite stellar credentials.

It took 19 years for Mel Renfro, again despite stellar credentials.

Cliff Harris has not been elected, but the man behind him on the 1970's all decade team at FS has been.

Drew Pearson has not been elected, but the man behind him on the 1970's all decade team at WR has been.

Pearson and Harris are the only 1st team all 1970's decade players not inducted in the Hall of Fame other than the punter and the kicker.

That's a lot of good evidence.

I'm sure there are isolated biases against other teams, but there's a definite pattern when it comes to Dallas. The comments from the people on the committee are pretty good evidence.

Of course, I think Jerry does a crap job with the Ring of Honor, too.

 

[Hostile]

That's a lot of good evidence.

I'm sure there are isolated biases against other teams, but there's a definite pattern when it comes to Dallas. The comments from the people on the committee are pretty good evidence.

Of course, I think Jerry does a crap job with the Ring of Honor, too.

I absolutely agree with that. It's like he doesn't realize how important that is to the fans. He waited way too damned long to put Tex in.

 

[AbeBeta]

Zimmerman resigned from the veterens committee for no reason at all right? It had nothing to do with his being fed up with a bias he has reported exists?

Yes, we should really take the word of a guy whose voting record consists of decisions like this (re: Art Monk). "I figured, just put him the f--- in already, I'm tired of being the a--hole."

Zimmerman is a good writer and a long time Hayes advocate. He's also a guy who reacted poorly to not getting his way. If you think for a minute that the issue with Hayes comes down to being a Cowboy then I think you are wrong. This is about drugs and nothing else.

 

[Hostile]

Yes, we should really take the word of a guy whose voting record consists of decisions like this (re: Art Monk). "I figured, just put him the f--- in already, I'm tired of being the a--hole."

Zimmerman is a good writer and a long time Hayes advocate. He's also a guy who reacted poorly to not getting his way. If you think for a minute that the issue with Hayes comes down to being a Cowboy then I think you are wrong. This is about drugs and nothing else.

I love this angle. First of all in their by-laws it specifically says admission is based upon contributions on the field or in the avenue of their scope of work for GMs, Owners, journalists, etc.

Off the field activities have nothing to do with eligibility.

In the inaugural class of 1963 one of the inductees was George Preston marshall, the 1st owner of the Commanders. He was an avowed racist. He didn't hide it at all. The Commanders did not integrate until pressure form the Kennedy administration.

Who hurt more people? The guy who did drugs? Or the guy who for 30+ years excluded Blacks?

Honestly, is that the best you've got?

 

[Chief]

If you think for a minute that the issue with Hayes comes down to being a Cowboy then I think you are wrong. This is about drugs and nothing else.

I keep hearing that some voters are bringing up video of the Ice Bowl that showed Hayes trying to keep his hands warm by sticking them in a pocket on his jersey while lining up.

That's the excuse I've heard.

That's weak, IMO. You've got a Florida native playing in the coldest game in NFL history and he decides to protect himself from frostbite and it costs him the Hall of Fame?

:bang2:

 

[AbeBeta]

I love this angle. First of all in their by-laws it specifically says admission is based upon contributions on the field or in the avenue of their scope of work for GMs, Owners, journalists, etc.

Off the field activities have nothing to do with eligibility.

In the inaugural class of 1963 one of the inductees was George Preston marshall, the 1st owner of the Commanders. He was an avowed racist. He didn't hide it at all. The Commanders did not integrate until pressure form the Kennedy administration.

Who hurt more people? The guy who did drugs? Or the guy who for 30+ years excluded Blacks?

Honestly, is that the best you've got?

The bylaws do state that -- yet we see over and over that players who have off the field issues ARE not given the benefit of the doubt. You plop another player who played for another team with those same issues down in front of the committee, you won't find a hell of a lot of writers standing up for the guy. Writers are going to use whatever criteria they like and bad behavior is something that a ton of them will look at. They may not openly state it -- but when push comes to shove, these guys are going to be swayed by ALL the information. Is that right? No. But it is coincidental with being a Cowboy.

Since very few of the same people are on the committee as in 1963, what the hall did before is a moot point. Again, that's like saying "well, Lynn Swann was mediocre" so every player that was similarly mediocre should be in. Using the most extreme point to establish the bar is never a good argument.

How is it that you believe in one breech of the bylaws -- bias against a certain team -- yet refuse to acknowledge another?

 

[adamknite]

If drugs are keeping Bob Hayes out of the hall of fame... then why is Lawrence Taylor there?

Only because of the trafficking he's being kept out?


Plus the Lynn Swann versus Drew Pearson argument isn't an extreme example, it's a perfectly valid comparison. They played in the same era, they played the same position, they both made the 1970 all-decade team, where Pearson was a starter. Drew Pearson had the better numbers in like every category. How is that not a valid comparison?

 

[ZeroClub]

I really think that if you applied this scrutiny to every decision made by the HoF committee you'd find 100s of instances of bias against players from lots of teams. Does Haynes, for example deserve to be in, yes, absolutely, but what about other who redefined positions like, say, Curly Culp?

What I see is that Dallas had excellent teams for a long time and that means that we'll have a few more guys who are in the should be category.

... I think that the above is a particularly strong argument against the bias.

Also, it is easy to confuse anti-Cowboys bias with pro-Steelers bias. If you compare the 1970's Steelers who got in with the 1970's Cowboys who didn't get in, clearly there is a bias. But a large portion of the discrepancy is the result of a pro-Steelers bias (and not anti-Cowboys bias).

In any event, there are many former players not in the HoF who deserve to be there. And several of them are Cowboys.

 

[Hostile]

The bylaws do state that -- yet we see over and over that players who have off the field issues ARE not given the benefit of the doubt. You plop another player who played for another team with those same issues down in front of the committee, you won't find a hell of a lot of writers standing up for the guy. Writers are going to use whatever criteria they like and bad behavior is something that a ton of them will look at. They may not openly state it -- but when push comes to shove, these guys are going to be swayed by ALL the information. Is that right? No. But it is coincidental with being a Cowboy.

Since very few of the same people are on the committee as in 1963, what the hall did before is a moot point. Again, that's like saying "well, Lynn Swann was mediocre" so every player that was similarly mediocre should be in. Using the most extreme point to establish the bar is never a good argument.

How is it that you believe in one breech of the bylaws -- bias against a certain team -- yet refuse to acknowledge another?

Who says I believe in one breach? You? Therefore it's true? Wake up.

I am saying that off field cap in both cases should not be a qualification. That it wasn't for GPM, but you're saying it is for Hayes. I can try to explain it plainer if the synapses still aren't firing, but I honestly don't see how someone with your background can't see immediately what the greater "sin" is between the 2.

No, what the Hall did before is not a moot point. Lynn Swann is in the Hall fo fame because he made an impact on the game. I don't subscribe the "he's mediocre" philosophies.

His impact compared to Hayes is simply not a comparison. He was a great WR, but his in terms of sheer impact on the game of football he couldn't carry Bob Hayes' jock strap.

This is from Frank Luksa.

It is now official, beyond quarrel or question. Bob Hayes is captain of the all-time All-Snub team.


Thus the post-career fate of the fastest man ever to play pro football, or anything else, continued to languish as an historical footnote. Hayes should rate an everlasting headline as the player whose speed reconfigured how the game was played during the 1960s and influenced how the game is played today, almost a half-century later.


As rejections go, this was the third for Hayes in recent years. The Pro Football Hall of Fame was the first major entity to bar its door to him for reasons never made clear to me as a selection committee member from 1976-2000. He became the Veterans Committee candidate years later but again failed to gain approval.


There are distant voices who disagree with the exclusion of Hayes.



"I doubt that there has ever been anyone who revolutionized the offensive game the way Bobby did," said Don Meredith, the first quarterback to team with Hayes. "His amazing speed forced the defense to do a complete re-evaluation of what it had to do to stop him.''


I can't testify that there wasn't some form of zone coverage before Hayes entered the NFL in 1965. But there were a lot more zones thereafter. Man coverage against Hayes was a fool's pursuit. No one could run with the world record holder in the 100-yard and 100-meter dashes; the sprinter who won the 100 meters during the 1964 Olympic Games wearing a borrowed shoe and who, with a running start, was timed in an astonishing 8.6 on the anchor leg of the winning 400-meter relay.


The only defense that made sense was to borrow strategy from Wile. E. Coyote, even if his quest to trap the beep-beep roadrunner always failed. Teams retreated in the secondary and lay in wait for Hayes to come to them. Hence he forced the advent of deep zones and their spin-off variations.


''There's no one who can make a defense commit itself as much as Hayes can,'' Spider Lockhart, a New York Giants defensive back from 1965-75, once said of Hayes.

Resistance to anointing Hayes as unique and worthy of special attention is embedded like the fossilized footprint of dinosaurs. Yet note that there's a short roll call of those who were active in the NFL during the '60s. Most who evaluate Hayes never saw him play or felt the electricity of all-the-way suspense he brought to crowds at every site.

When guys like me are gone, who'll be left to remember?

 

[AbeBeta]

Who says I believe in one breach? You? Therefore it's true? Wake up.

I am saying that off field cap in both cases should not be a qualification. That it wasn't for GPM, but you're saying it is for Hayes. I can try to explain it plainer if the synapses still aren't firing, but I honestly don't see how someone with your background can't see immediately what the greater "sin" is between the 2.

No, what the Hall did before is not a moot point. Lynn Swann is in the Hall fo fame because he made an impact on the game. I don't subscribe the "he's mediocre" philosophies.

His impact compared to Hayes is simply not a comparison. He was a great WR, but his in terms of sheer impact on the game of football he couldn't carry Bob Hayes' jock strap.

This is from Frank Luksa.

And who says I believe that Hayes shouldn't be in the Hall? Never said that. Never believed it. What I said was I don't believe that his absence is due to an anti-Cowboy bias. I firmly believe his drug conviction is the reason why people have soured on him as well as the "stat freak" mentality of many of the sportswriters who look at his numbers and say "meh."

I was citing the popular "Lynn Swann had weak #s so player X should be in the hall" argument used to support folks like Drew Pearson. That has nothing to do with Hayes.