Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Similar to the Carroll Dale comment, I was really surprised that Terry Metcalf wasn't in the HOVG yet. Seems like this is the sort of thing that was made for that guy.

Though he was basically a WR listed as a TE, Aaron Thomas was similar to Jerry Smith without the accolades. Has a case for the HOVG, though he made his mark after the Giants' defenses went downhill ...

Great to know, so there doesn't need to he any sort of concerted nominating push. Just get your guys mentioned and the committee will look at them. I think 10 nominations per member would be better than 5, though, to reduce the kind of evidently unintentional neglect effects we've seen at times.

GameBeforeTheMoney wrote: ↑Wed Sep 06, 2023 11:05 am Similar to the Carroll Dale comment, I was really surprised that Terry Metcalf wasn't in the HOVG yet. Seems like this is the sort of thing that was made for that guy.

There's nowhere near enough here. William Andrews is a much better version of the same career, again unless we're counting CFL all of a sudden.

**

**

**

JameisSaintston wrote: ↑Wed Sep 06, 2023 5:19 pm I think 10 nominations per member would be better than 5

If there had been 10 this year, I bet I'd have gone 0-10 . (As it was I kind of went 0-5 since someone beat me to the punch on Christensen.). The main thing is the finalist list of 20, so I'm thinking just adding more players to be filtered out wouldn't actually change anything.

I could be off on this, but I think there were about 78 nominees (guessing 16 folks submitted nominations). With just 78, it should be easier for the committee to consider each.

Uh, Tanks, I think you accidentally posted that reply like 4 times.

What 10 nominations would do is just result in stronger 20-player ballots, since a lower percentage of nominations would be taken up by pet candidates that the committee isn't likely to give strong consideration. Either way, I plan to focus almost exclusively on players I think have an easy track to getting in on one attempt, just to clear that backlog of accidental omissions and then focus on guys I'm more personally invested in. (For the record, I finally did register after all these years the other day)

I have a theory on why guys like Dale and Clayton don't get nominated: the bystander effect. Everyone considers them so obvious that they all think someone else is inevitably going to nominate them, so they focus on more obscure players they think they may be the only one to nominate, because they don't feel they're given enough nomination spots to make room for both the obvious candidates and personal favorites. And then because everyone makes the same assumption, and no one feels they have enough space, no one nominates them. That doesn't really explain what is happening to guys like Dunn and Ed Danowski, though, who are very much history nerd magnets that aren't overly obvious to the more casual observer.

Did Henry Ellard become eligible this year, or does he next? If the former, that's the most definitive proof that this is exactly what's happening. It's not like literally everyone didn't see Ellard's turn coming up, they just all assumed someone else would be on the ball for him.

JameisSaintston wrote: ↑Wed Sep 06, 2023 8:29 pm Uh, Tanks, I think you accidentally posted that reply like 4 times.

I think the board has a new version of the software. I noticed it this week or last week, but I didn't see an announcement. Whenever I edit, it seems like it posts both versions of my post, but they aren't all visible to me until I close my browser and return. I edited this post several times, so we may see like 5 tomorrow.

You have some good theories, but also remember 16 is a small sample size - you may be reading more into it than is there.

TanksAndSpartans wrote: ↑Wed Sep 06, 2023 9:08 pm

JameisSaintston wrote: ↑Wed Sep 06, 2023 8:29 pm Uh, Tanks, I think you accidentally posted that reply like 4 times.

I think the board has a new version of the software. I noticed it this week or last week, but I didn't see an announcement. Whenever I edit, it seems like it posts both versions of my post, but they aren't all visible to me until I close my browser and return.

You have some good theories, but also remember 16 is a small sample size - you may be reading too much into it.

I just edited that post like 5 times and only one instance of it is showing for me. Do you see multiple copies of my post?

And that is exactly why we need more nominations, because we really don't have all that many voters.