Bryant Young HoF

[JohnTurney]

you can, he won't know me from Adam, but I am sure he has a valid reason for saying what he said.

CTE?

SMH

[Ken Crippen]

I do not run the PFRA anymore, but I think that we can find better ways to express ourselves here.

[JWL]

Wow, so according to the game logs, Schlereth lied about having played against Young. He needs to be called out and shamed for this.

JWL, sounds like you didn't read this discussion from the beginning. I mentioned several times that Young made the second team of the all-1990s team and also said several times that in no way, shape or form should he have (at least not over Michael Dean Perry). There is absolutely no reasonably accessible criterion by which that should have happened. I've already listed the far greater number of times Perry was selected first team all-pro than Young by experts who made those determinations at the time, plus major advantages in other honors, which I find far more important than conversations people are having 20 years later. Those conversation apparently include people who claim they played against Young, rave about him, then it comes out they never played against him at all.

We've had numerous discussions about why all-decade teams are nice decorations but should have absolutely no role in determining whether someone gets in the HOF because they are flawed in oh so many ways. I've probably said more about the subject than just about anyone so won't go into any detail but just think about all the mistakes that have been made besides Young and also think about how ridiculous it is to evaluate players' career based on how they did in arbitrary 10-year periods.

I know. I read everything but then one of the pages vanished as someone else noted. I don't really want to argue any points in this thread. I think you and John both made a lot of excellent points.

Everything is problematic- film study, biases, All-Pro selections, All-Decade teams. I was just chiming in with my overall view of Young explained in only a few sentences.

The Associated Press, after years of disastrous All-Pro teams, finally had a decent one this season although the Trevon Diggs selection was pretty rotten. A couple decades from now I know I'm going to look at Associated Press All-Pro teams of this era a little funny in these PFHOF arguments. We saw a few guys get screwed out of first team spots because some voters voted for them at a flex spot instead of an actual position. Then there was that time when the offense had 11 slots but only 10 actual players. Dr. Z wrote about horrible All-Pro selections in one of his books. We know this stuff is faulty. There may have been a lot of screwy choices made in individual years in the 1990s too.

I rank both Bryant Young and Michael Dean Perry in my second tier of defensive linemen. The first tier consists of no-brainer types like Deacon Jones and Reggie White. The second tier is for could be Hall of Fame or could be Hall of Very Good types. The third tier is clear HOG guys (Hall of Good). A guy like Shaun Ellis would be a HOG in my book. The fourth tier is for decent starters. On and on we go until we get to the bottom tier which is "appeared in an NFL training camp at one time" sort of thing.

[George Bozeka]

I do not run the PFRA anymore, but I think that we can find better ways to express ourselves here.

I am in total agreement with Ken. Let's tone it down and keep it civil and respectful in the Forum. In your face commentary may be acceptable in some social media forums but it will not be tolerated here.

[Andy Piascik]

John, I have a number of long-winded questions I hope you’ll address. You’ve cited experts from 2022 who rave about Young, some of whom apparently lobbied hard on his behalf. I have cited experts (the Sporting News all-pro team) who did not think that highly of Young, as they only included him on their all-pro teams, first and second team, twice in his 14 years (ditto the esteemed Paul Zimmerman). Both groups can’t be right and one is clearly egregiously wrong.

By implication, you’re saying the group that’s right is the 2002 group. If that’s true, then were the people who evaluated Young while he was playing nothing but total screw-ups? How can they have been so wrong? Going by what you say, why should we ever believe them again? Should we just throw out the TSN all-pro teams as completely discredited? That seems to be the only possible conclusion of this whole Young mishmash. Another possible conclusion is that some of the people you’ve cited like Schlereth, who seems to have lied about playing against Young while with the Broncos, are also lacking credibility. (And, sorry, sitting in on game-planning sessions is not the same as playing in an NFL game).

[Ness]

From that panel, Mark Schlareth's vouching I already wasn't too keen on from the jump, because even if he had played Bryant Young in his career it would have been a max of 3 times off the top of my head: 1994, 1997, and 2000 maybe sprinkled in with some preseason play. The other four in Timmerman, Roaf (HOF player himself), Gogan, and Fontenot had a lot more credibility due to just the sheer amount of sample size against Young they have in their pocket in addition to going up against two other key defensive tackles in the NFC in Sapp and Randle at the time. Roaf, Timmerman, and Fontenot in particular all played on divisional rival squads most of Young's career. Personally that's something I feel is pretty important, because it is the testimonial of an active participant compared to a glorified spectator at best. I don't see all 5 of them getting together conspiracy-style and deciding to lobby for Young before the discussion started. Apparently they hardly know the guy. Could their testimonial still be a big fish story with Young? Maybe, but the same could be said about the scribes and pundits all of the editorial ether over the decades, since they're just as human. It would be ideal to get more testimonials from other offensive lineman who were seen as decent starters that played against Young at the time to see what they thought, but at the very least no one of that ilk has come out and said Young being elected was a misstep as far as I know. Maybe you'll find someone like Pace or McDaniel say Sapp was the best at that time, but that can't also mean that when looking back on their career Bryant Young isn't also as deserving of enshrinement. We'd have to ask.

Young getting in isn't the first controversial pick, and won't be the last. Honestly it shouldn't be that big of a deal. Isaac Bruce is in with only 4 Pro Bowls to his name, and never led the league in any major category. Andre Reed has "only" 7 Pro Bowls, but never won anything in addition to never leading the league in any major category. No All Decade Teams for either. Rickey Jackson and Harry Carson are the only linebackers with zero 1st Team All Pro selections in the HOF, and have zero All Decade Team appearances, although both were winners. Whatever.

Anyway, the HOF selection process has always been looney tunes at times in addition to other editorial publications that hand out praise, and it's really nothing to get up in arms about if you're unsatisfied with the class of any given year. I'm happy for my boy, so at the end of the day I'm good.

[JohnTurney]

John, I have a number of long-winded questions I hope you’ll address. You’ve cited experts from 2022 who rave about Young, some of whom apparently lobbied hard on his behalf. I have cited experts (the Sporting News all-pro team) who did not think that highly of Young, as they only included him on their all-pro teams, first and second team, twice in his 14 years (ditto the esteemed Paul Zimmerman). Both groups can’t be right and one is clearly egregiously wrong.

By implication, you’re saying the group that’s right is the 2002 group. If that’s true, then were the people who evaluated Young while he was playing nothing but total screw-ups? How can they have been so wrong? Going by what you say, why should we ever believe them again? Should we just throw out the TSN all-pro teams as completely discredited? That seems to be the only possible conclusion of this whole Young mishmash. Another possible conclusion is that some of the people you’ve cited like Schlereth, who seems to have lied about playing against Young while with the Broncos, are also lacking credibility. (And, sorry, sitting in on game-planning sessions is not the same as playing in an NFL game).

It's simple. Some players get overlooked. There could be a glut of players, there could be someone like a Sapp that got a lot of sacks but didn't play the run. SO yeah, All-Pro voters can be wrong.

I would not be in favor of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I like the NEA and Sporting News teams for their inclusion of football-tyles (Players, coaches, GMs)

Who is likely most right is Proscout. 13 above the first line seasons. 8 for Sapp and Randle. Six Blue (tops) and 7 red for Young. 6-2 for Sapp and 7-1 for Randle.
These are people who were not in public eye. They had no bias. The graded based on experience.

Overall Young a better football player because he played the run better. And he was just 7 sacks short of Sapp who was the all-world three-technique. Randle, at leat had 130+ sacks and piles of hurries.

Clearly, we can disagree. No one is trying to make you change your mind, your view is as good as mine. But if you want to question the other linemen, go ahead...you can do that.

My view is that Proscout and the players comments are the thing and my eye test. I never considered Young not to be the best DT from 1995-00 or so. Then as a guy that was no longer a star had a bunch of "red" seasons. Including in a 3-4 defense where he averaged more tackles and sacks than Bethea when he made the switch, Seymour. . and others.

You don't think BY is a HOfer, and that's cool. I think he is.

[JohnTurney]

Maybe you'll find someone like Pace or McDaniel say Sapp was the best at that time, but that can't also mean that when looking back on their career Bryant Young isn't also as deserving of enshrinement. We'd have to ask.

Two things can be true. Sapp can be the better pass rusher, and he was at his peak. And Young (it's just my view) is the better all around football player. Sapp play 3-tech and was setup in a defense that had three reads--it was simple and effective.

Young had the play more difficult scheme. One that requires more power, strength plus good quickness. Playing shaded on the center is difficult and Young did it with the best ever, IMO. (and others). Plus when he did rush the passer he was very good. Not as high a peak as Sapp, but Sapp had some down years, too when he got post-season honors.

Essentially Young played the role Booger McFarland plays and played the role Sapp played. It just depended on the call. To me, that matters.

Merlin Olsen once told me the shade position (strong side on an Undershift, was like a setter in volleyball or a point guard.

The weak side rusher were the guys getting the spikes or dunks. Not a perfect analogy, but it was his. He felt he was the setter, the point guard for Jones and Brown and Youngblood and Brooks

Young was that setter and if he was on the weak side in an under he was getting his share of dunks and spikes (sacks and hurries).

[Hail Casares]

From that panel, Mark Schlareth's vouching I already wasn't too keen on from the jump, because even if he had played Bryant Young in his career it would have been a max of 3 times off the top of my head: 1994, 1997, and 2000

I already looked this up. They never played against each other in the regular season.

Young getting in isn't the first controversial pick, and won't be the last. Honestly it shouldn't be that big of a deal. Isaac Bruce is in with only 4 Pro Bowls to his name, and never led the league in any major category. Andre Reed has "only" 7 Pro Bowls, but never won anything in addition to never leading the league in any major category. No All Decade Teams for either. Rickey Jackson and Harry Carson are the only linebackers with zero 1st Team All Pro selections in the HOF, and have zero All Decade Team appearances, although both were winners. Whatever.

All-decade teams are kind of a joke. I don't even pay attention to them. They carry zero weight with me.

Secondly, the Reed/Bruce comps are...odd. Andre Reed, statistically, is one of the top 15 WRs ever. Bruce has something like the 5th most receiving yards all time. By most metrics, they are at least "in the neighborhood" of other WR's in the HOF. Young, doesn't have that distinction. You could make the argument that Young is the least accomplished DT in the HOF. You can't do that with Reed or Bruce relative to other WR's.

[Andy Piascik]

Well, John, your reply notwithstanding, the massive gulf between the experts of today and those who actually evaluated Young when he was playing remains. If I have to choose between what Paul Zimmerman said at the time Young was actually playing and Mark Schlereth, who apparently lied about having ever played against Young while he was with the Broncos, then I choose Zimmerman. (One point we can probably agree on is that Zimmerman, given that he left Young completely off his all-pro teams in 12 of the 14 seasons Young played, is rolling over in his grave at the thought of Bryant Young being elected to the HOF).

And, sorry, your point about a "glut" doesn't apply in this case. There were good, very good and maybe a few great DTs in the era we're talking about. In no way shape or form are we talking about the 1969-74 years when Lilly, Green, Olsen and Page were all playing and where a fifth guy like Culp or even a sixth guy should also be inducted because those four were so great.