Congrats to the HOF Class of 2022

Discuss candidates for the Pro Football Hall of Fame and the PFRA's Hall of Very Good
racepug
Posts: 783
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2021 9:18 pm
Location: Somewhere in the continental U.S.

Re: Congrats to the HOF Class of 2022

Post by racepug »

I read that nobody on the candidates' list really stood out this year so that's why some guys got voted in who, in many other years, maybe wouldn't have. Personally I have no beef with anybody's inclusion in this year's class and I'm glad to see Cliff Branch get to complete the set of all-time great "B" receivers (Branch, Biletnikoff, and Brown) in Raiders history to make to Canton.
Zero26
Posts: 110
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2021 1:35 am
Location: NYC

Re: Congrats to the HOF Class of 2022

Post by Zero26 »

There were a lot of deserving finalists and semi finalists, these being the final 5 felt odd. Not that any of these players aren't HOFers neccessarily(I'm not a strong no on any of them). It just felt like the priority was rewarding wait time over putting in the best players.

I was happy with the Branch pick. I think most deserving senior candidates are from the pre merger era but Branch is one of the clearer modern era snubs.
JohnTurney
Posts: 2220
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2014 1:28 pm

Re: Congrats to the HOF Class of 2022

Post by JohnTurney »

Hail Casares wrote:Young might be one of the worst DT's in the HOF now(especially one that made it through via standard balloting.)
If you go by being a football player, Young > many of the HOF DTs, Sapp, Kennedy, others.

Many look only at Pro Bowls and All-Pros, and even then only AP all-Pros.

Watch the film, listen to scouts.

Maybe you disagree, that's fine---but man, the worst? Maybe on of the best
racepug
Posts: 783
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2021 9:18 pm
Location: Somewhere in the continental U.S.

Re: Congrats to the HOF Class of 2022

Post by racepug »

JohnTurney wrote:Watch the film, listen to scouts.
Uh huh. Yeah, well - not all of us have the luxury of/time for/interest in doing that.
User avatar
GameBeforeTheMoney
Posts: 576
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2021 3:21 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Re: Congrats to the HOF Class of 2022

Post by GameBeforeTheMoney »

Young had a large number of sacks for a DT.
Podcast: https://Podcast.TheGameBeforeTheMoney.com

Website/Blog: https://TheGameBeforeTheMoney.com

Author's Name: Jackson Michael
User avatar
74_75_78_79_
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:25 pm

Re: Congrats to the HOF Class of 2022

Post by 74_75_78_79_ »

Being here on this site these past few years has really taught me much better how to 'gauge' whether someone should or shouldn't be in the HOF or not. And I'm still not really an 'authority' at all; maybe in a sports-bar setting or among casual fans, but nowhere near worthy of actually being a...voter, lol.

I'm not going to critique the Class of 2022. Real glad Vermeil is in! Bryan Young? Whether worthy or not, or 'borderline' or not, I do remember being quite impressed with him in the '90s - both he and Stubblefield! That Forty Niners' D of '94 I, myself, have caught me underrating at times! Wrongly seeing it as pretty good but "nothing special". They certainly were more than "just" Deion Sanders and just because that defense was..."bought", it doesn't mean it wasn't a cohesive championship-caliber unit just the same! Money can't buy chemistry. And its why, as Shula complained about the following year, they didn't get too much gruff for 'buying' whereas Miami was accused of doing just that. It worked for San Fran. It didn't for Miami.

Bryant Young (and Dana Stubblefield) is an example of a starting defender from that team who wasn't "bought". For the longest time, I've seen a hypo-Steeler/Forty Niner SBXXIX as a Super Bowl that truly should-have-been; always assuming that it would have been close with a chance of the 'Burgh actually winning it. Very lately, that train-of-thought has finally, and rightfully-so, cooled down. Yes, I still opine that it would have been a noticeably better game. Blitzburgh would have gotten to Young, Woodson (or Lake with help) would have held his own vs Rice, but to assume that Barry Foster and that run-game would have kept that defense off the field enough of the time is totally overlooking SF's run-D who had...Bryant Young! And with Neil O's, at times, knack for putting up passing yards but no TDs (as what actually did take place vs SD)...if O'Donnell would have even put up the passing yards (away from #21) in the first place!

Yes, sadly, Steelers lose by 10 or 13 (or maybe by a little bit more) in such an event. And Bryant Young would have been a big reason. Not being apart of those '80s Forty Niners defenses and just on the less-heralded '94 unit is what likely makes his induction an argument in the first place. A worthy question is, what interior lineman on any of those excellent Forty Niners defenses of the '80s was better than him?
Andy Piascik
Posts: 155
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2014 11:32 pm

Re: Congrats to the HOF Class of 2022

Post by Andy Piascik »

I get all the stuff about scouts and experts and to answer the question, yes, I saw Young play many times during his career. There’s no doubt he was a good player and often a very good one. But where were all these scouts and experts when he was playing? If he was so great, why weren’t they able to convince the coaches, players and writers who select the all-pro, all-conference and Pro Bowl teams of that at the time more often? Then somehow 15 years after he retires they are able to convince people that he’s a Hall of Famer? That doesn’t make any sense.

It reminds me of Jim Covert’s election a few years ago. Nobody I know of ever said Covert was a Hall of Famer until somehow he made it to the Final 20 of the Centennial Class, very likely because he was mistakenly selected to the all-1980s team. Then he gets elected over far more deserving players who get talked about here all the time who got bypassed (Wistert, Dilweg, Gradishar) and others who didn’t even make it to Final 20 (Barwegan, Jim Ray Smith, Howley).

The problem with Young being named to the second team of the all-1990s team which, given how things are going with the HOF selectors lately undoubtedly went a long way to his getting elected, is that he didn’t deserve it. Michael Dean Perry did. And it’s not just a matter of Perry’s all-pro, all-conference and Pro Bowl resume during the decade being vastly superior to Young’s, which it certainly is. At different times in his career, Perry played DE, DT and NT and excelled at all. And while I admit I have not studied his play on film, I have never heard anyone say anything to the effect that he was given honors that the experts don’t believe he deserved.

But Perry is not the point, though it is very unfortunate that he has now fallen into the Senior swamp without getting so much as a serious look while Young is now a Hall of Famer. The point is that the selectors, apparently following the lead of the recently departed head of the HOF, have become obsessed with all-decade teams when determining who to vote for.
SixtiesFan
Posts: 854
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 8:04 pm

Re: Congrats to the HOF Class of 2022

Post by SixtiesFan »

Andy Piascik wrote:Very well said, Hail Casares. I think Branch is a weak Hall of Famer whose election seems to have come about because the guy who ran the HOF up until recently was determined to get every single member of the all-1970s team in. In Mills's case, I think they justifiably gave some weight to his USFL accomplishments and that may have put him over the top.

I like Boselli but even his election comes with a question mark: he only played seven seasons that are really more like six (and only 3-4 of those at a really high level) because he only played three games in his final season. In e-mail exchanges I've had with several members of the Selection Committee about Dick Barwegan and Jim Ray Smith, two Seniors who are among the top five of the most deserving of enshrinement, the response was that the Committee said their careers were too short. Yet both played longer than Boselli and both have seriously better credentials.

The real mind-boggling one, like you said, is Young. Whoever the San Francisco voter is must have done a terrific sales job because there's nothing in Young's credentials that says Hall of Famer. I know John Turney supported him and, knowing John, I'm sure a lot of the reason was because he spent hours studying Young on film. But from what I'm told, HOF voters are disinclined to study film or to pay much attention to those who do.

The bottom line is that Young's election lowers the bar considerably. He goes in with exactly one consensus first team all-pro and four Pro Bowl selections. I don't know how many players there are on the outside looking in who have similar or better credentials but it must be at least 50 and probably more like 100. Included among them are all-time greats that we talk about all the time like Wistert, Dilweg, Barwegan, Gradishar, Jim Ray Smith, etc., whose resumes are off the charts compared to Young's.

Just think if we now begin to hear from supporters of every player whose credentials are the same as or better than Young's. The HOF would have to erect a whole new wing just to accommodate them all.
I think I've mentioned before an article by the SN columnist Larry Felser in the 1977 Zander Hollander preview about the PFHOF being the hardest Hall to get into. Some players Felser mentioned who would "never get in" were enshrined during the 80s. Felser's theme was the PFHOF was a Small Hall.

Speaking of Cliff Branch, interesting that he went in right after Drew Pearson.
Brian wolf
Posts: 2981
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2019 12:43 am

Re: Congrats to the HOF Class of 2022

Post by Brian wolf »

Andy makes a point but with pass rushing defensive tackles like Randle, Sapp, Thomas, Pryce and run stuffers like Kennedy, Perry, Krumrie and Childress, there were only so many accolades to go around for Bryant. Henry Thomas has even fewer accolades and he played a lot of shade tackle on running downs with almost 94 career sacks ... Turney and company like him as well.
User avatar
Ness
Posts: 158
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 5:26 pm

Re: Congrats to the HOF Class of 2022

Post by Ness »

JohnTurney wrote:
Hail Casares wrote:Young might be one of the worst DT's in the HOF now(especially one that made it through via standard balloting.)
If you go by being a football player, Young > many of the HOF DTs, Sapp, Kennedy, others.

Many look only at Pro Bowls and All-Pros, and even then only AP all-Pros.

Watch the film, listen to scouts.

Maybe you disagree, that's fine---but man, the worst? Maybe on of the best
We can even do one better and listen to the players who played against him. This was written back in December by Clark Judge for Talk of Fame Network. You're even referenced here.

https://www.si.com/nfl/talkoffame/nfl/b ... ll-of-fame

Pretty remarkable he was able to get a group together on Zoom to talk about Bryant's candidacy for enshrinement. BTW, Bryant Young himself had no idea of this having taken place, but was notified later.
You see, this is Young’s 10th year of Hall-of-Fame eligibility, and while he’s a three-time semifinalist he’s been a finalist only once. That was 2020. But then voters forgot about him, with Young the only returning 2020 finalist who didn’t make the cut one year later.

That made no sense to me then, and it makes no sense to some of his opponents now. So six of them – all offensive linemen – volunteered to join a Zoom call with Hall-of-Fame voters Wednesday afternoon to offer insight into Young’s 14-year career and voice support for his Canton candidacy.

The lineup included Kevin Gogan (who played with and against Young), Adam Timmerman, Mark Schlereth, Jerry Fontenot, Robbie Tobeck and Hall-of-Famer Willie Roaf. All were contacted by former 49ers’ public-relations director Kirk Reynolds, and all, according to Reynolds, jumped at the chance to participate.

What made the call extraordinary is that, with the exception of Gogan, these weren’t former teammates. They were opponents. Support for Hall-of-Fame candidates frequently comes from teammates, coaches or GMs via e-mails, but Wednesday’s call marked a departure from conventional procedures. It was the first time opponents assembled for a video to support a Hall-of-Fame candidate some of them barely knew.
In this article I found what Timmerman had to say interesting:
“When people ask me who are the best guys I ever played against,” said Timmerman, “I would say the best defensive players were inside. I go: John Randle, Bryant Young, Warren Sapp; those three, and in that order, too. Bryant was John Randle without all the talking. He did his talking with his pads.”
Both Timmerman and Gogan say in the article that against the run there really wasn't anyone better. Gogan thought he was the best he had ever faced against. All six of these guys interviewed with maybe the except of Schlereth have enough of a sample size of going against not only Bryant Young (mostly on division rival squads), but in addition to going up against the other big DTs at the time in Sapp, Stubblefield, and Randle since they also played in the NFC. Anyways, it's a good short little read, which basically echoes the sentiment sometimes the accolades and awards just don't tell the entire story, which is the best that most fans can do for comparison's sake.
Post Reply