Merton Hanks, HOVG?

[74_75_78_79_]

Four-straight All-Pro (and Pro Bowl) selections, ’94-thru-’97. A significant part of that overlooked defense that won a Ring in ’94.

Is it enough?

[ChrisBabcock]

This 49ers fan says no. One more all pro might convince me. He never really "wowed" me. 26 picks over his 5 year peak is slightly impressive though. I'd put him a notch above "Hall of Good" but below HOVG. ....and that chicken dance or whatever that was that he did was annoying.

[bachslunch]

Four-straight All-Pro (and Pro Bowl) selections, ’94-thru-’97. A significant part of that overlooked defense that won a Ring in ’94.

Is it enough?

Definitely not HoF at 2/4/none unless film study evidence is utterly overwhelming. And given the lack of love for safeties for the HoF, that has put quite a few such folks in the HoVG, if memory serves. Has kind of a short career at nine years, too.

Not sure I’m seeing either option as likely.

[rewing84]

im a solid no on hanks

[sheajets]

Hanks made All-Pro once during his run of 4 straight Pro Bowls. I'm a no on him as well

[NWebster]

I watched every defensive play of the 49er 94 season on DVD as part of a research project on Deion Sanders. Merton was not HOVG worthy in my view. Remember he was "demoted" to S when Deion came in and there was never any discussion of k eping him at CB and moving Eric Davis. One thing seemed odd, he had good instincts with the ball in the air but seemed to take off angles against runners, not sure if that was just my impression because he's such an awkward looking guy or if it was really the case.

[sluggermatt15]

Hanks made All-Pro once during his run of 4 straight Pro Bowls. I'm a no on him as well

I found this during my research, too. I do not know where the four consecutive All-Pro's came from?

Four straight Pro Bowls is nice, but just the one All-Pro I don't think are enough for HOVG. Though I'd probably put Hanks in the Hall of Good, if there was such.

[Jeremy Crowhurst]

I do not know where the four consecutive All-Pro's came from?

Wikipedia.

There's always some All Pro team out there somewhere for everybody who had a good year. In 1994 he was Sporting News First Team, according to PFR. But there's always, like, the San Jose Mercury News All Pro Team, and other "All Pro teams" like that. 1995 was his only AP selection.

Despite the occasional hand-wringing to the contrary on this site and others, "All Pro" means Associated Press, and anything other than AP should have an asterisk.

[JohnTurney]

Despite the occasional hand-wringing to the contrary on this site and others, "All Pro" means Associated Press, and anything other than AP should have an asterisk.

Hand-wringing? Why insult those who disagree with you?

The case has been made that it's simply false that " "All Pro" means Associated Press". No one in the AP only crowd has ever offered any evidence that makes that statement credible.

However, those who disagree with you, and who you think are "hand-wringers" for some unspecified reason, have offered evidence. The evidence of the Official NFL Record and Fact Books who have never just published the AP teams. Ans when they did publish one team, an official team, it was the PFWA.

Then there is the evidence of Total Football: The Official Encyclopedia of the NFL. In those volumes they published more than just the AP teams.

There is the Pro Football of Fame who uses the official sources: the Record and Fact Book and/or Total Football for their bios.

Then there is the NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement, which specifies which teams may be used for the purpose of bonuses.

While it's true that the AP Awards are given out in the NFL Network, always remember that the NEA Awards were given out on CBS, then the official NFL broadcast network, but it didn't make them "official". A TV show does not do that. Also, the AP All-Pro teams are not awarded on the NFL Network. The Pro Bowl teams are. They are the closest thing to "offical" All-Conference teams

So, pardon the hand-wringing. My view is that those who reject the "AP only" school of thought are being true to the mission of the PFRA, which is research and record and write and discuss the history of the game and not take the position of "recentism" which ignores facts prior to maybe the year 2000. Any historical look at All-Pros, and actually current look, given the evidence just cited, shows any evidence that "anything other than AP should have an asterisk"

Actually, the intelligent look at it would say that when someone is listed as an AP All-Pro in an article the asterisk should be there, meaning *there are other All-Pro teams accepted by the NFL, NFLPA, and Hall of Fame but we're too lazy to look them up.

Now, Jeremy, if you can find a statement by the NFL that the AP is the official All-pro team, by all means, I am willing to listen. Or if you have some expertise in this are that some of us lack, again, please share.

But if you expect to make a flat-out errant statement, punctuated by an insult and not be challenged, then that's fine, but it's wrong. There have been too many players who were consensus All-Pro (making PFWA, SN, NEA, UPI) and missed the AP team (maybe were second-team) for the AP only school of thought to prevail.

I can think of the case of Andy Robustelli. If one goes by AP only (as Pro Football reference does) he's one of the best defensive ends ever in that category. But while he had the APs, usually Gene Brito or maybe Doug Atkins were the UPI and NEA All-Pros, making two of the three accepted All-Pro teams (as per the Record and Fact Book) and then you couple it with stats and film and you can see that Brito and Atkins were the better players it is the ideal example of the folly of "Ap only".

My personal view, and others are free to disagree, is that the way to look at All-Pros is Consensus All-Pro. Using Total Football as a guide, as the Hall of Fame does, see who was on the majority of teams for a given year. It is how I tried to organize the Wikipedia ALl-Pro teams 8-9 years ago, so people could see who the Consensus All-Pros were.

When I do my tables I use 3 levels, Consensus All-Pro, First-team All-Pro, and Second-team All-Pro. But that's me.

Again, sorry for the hand-wringing. But I'll take that over ignorance anyday

[Jeremy Crowhurst]

John, come on. Virtually every post on this site uses AP and AP only. If I cared, I could quote a hundred posts in a couple of minutes that list "2/6/70's" or whatever. The "2" is straight from PFR, and it's AP.

I have never seen anyone on this site argue, in any context, "Joe Bloggs should definitely be in the Hall of Fame. In addition to his three AP All Pro selections, he was three times first team PFWA, twice first team Sporting News, as well as three times each Sydney Morning Herald, Winnipeg Free Press, and Poukepsie Herald-Examiner All Pro".

I don't in any way mean to denigrate the work you've done on this topic. But there's what people do, and there's what they say they do. And what everybody does, on this site and elsewhere to the extent that it's in general use, is they use "All Pro" to mean "AP All Pro".