Basically, we are--with the exception of what is bold in red. In my opinion, the particulars, which serve as the underlying basis for players being voted to the Pro Bowl during any given year, are debatable and should be substantiated with additional criteria (e.g. peer commentary, stats, etc.).
However, stating that the validity of a player's Pro Bowl selection
hinges on how often he's invited is, at best, a superficial determination. If a player is worthy of "A" Pro Bowl invite, it is highly likely that he is creditable enough to receive more. It is when a player DOESN'T receive invitation year-after-year that other standards factor in, such as:
- How did other players at his position perform that given season? A player's level of play may have been worthy of Pro Bowl recognition, but there may have been other players who played even better that year.
- How did a prior Pro Bowl player's team perform that season? One of the hardest things for a very good player to overcome some years is a disappointing performance by their own team.
- Was the player's season impacted by negative circumstances which may not necessary relate directly to his on-the-field performance? For example, injuries can lower the boom on even the most perennial of Pro Bowl invitees (see Tom Brady).
- Just how p-o-p-u-l-a-r was he among his peers both around the league and NFL fans? Other players' popularity the following season may have exceeded that which a player enjoyed the previous season.
Etc. So, while I know that I'm correct (thank you) that any player's Pro Bowl selection faces a certain level of scrutiny, I strongly disagree that his number of invites to the post-Super Bowl dance should strongly authenicate his overall resume over those with fewer invitations. That's a Pro Bowl double standard which is no more convincing than the one which you were arguing with the poster you referred about earlier.
