PDA

View Full Version : Football Whitlock Unloads on HoF process


Deberg_1990
02-03-2011, 01:55 PM
"Iím going to cry Saturday when Roaf isnít a first-ballot Hall of Famer. Iím not joking. Iím going to cry"



"Sharpe deserved to be a first-ballot inductee. Iíd take Sharpe over Tony Gonzalez."




http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/willie-roaf-hall-of-fame-snub-is-going-to-make-me-cry-020311



Willie Roaf is the reason I used to dream of being a Pro Football Hall of Fame voter.

I wanted to be in the room and make an effort to stop the injustice that is likely to transpire Saturday.

Roaf, the former Saints and Chiefs left tackle, is one of 15 modern-day finalists for this yearís Hall of Fame. Heís the second-best player on the ballot, behind only cornerback Deion Sanders. More than that, Roaf is the second-best offensive tackle of the modern era, finishing just behind Cincinnati left tackle Anthony Munoz.

Willie Roaf is one of the five best offensive linemen of all time ó Dwight Stephenson, Munoz, John Hannah, Larry Allen and Roaf.

Iím going to cry Saturday when Roaf isnít a first-ballot Hall of Famer. Iím not joking. Iím going to cry.

I donít respect the Pro Football Hall of Fame selection process. Itís rife with politics and cronyism. Itís not remotely transparent. The half-dozen selectors who have all the real power and influence have no interest in overhauling a system they know needs to be changed. They want to hold onto their power because it ensures their phone calls to NFL newsmakers get returned. The other selectors are just happy to be part of the fraternity and hope their prominent position protects them from a newspaper layoff.

I realize my criticism of the process sounds self-serving and jealous. I used to dream of being a Pro Football Hall of Fame voter.

Iím hoping youíve read enough of my columns and followed my career long enough to know that Iíd say and write these very same things (and much more) if I were a voter.

My outspokenness and aversion to politics are the primary reasons Iíd never be invited into the fraternity. Iím not, nor have I ever been, a frat boy. I like my independence. I prefer the freedom to choose to do whatís right over the sneaky, underhanded thing thatís best for the group.

Willie Roaf would be my tipping point. I suspect that on Saturday ó when Roaf is passed over for inferior candidates ó Iíd leave the voting room determined to expose every secret voting deal and every unqualified voter.

Donít get me wrong. I know the selectors have a difficult job. Many of them never played a meaningful game of football after junior high. It takes a special level of courage to brush off the pleadings of former pros who believe they belong in the Hall of Fame.



Itís no fun telling Harry Carson he doesnít belong in the same room with Dick Butkus, Mike Singletary and Willie Lanier. But thatís the job, and every time a Harry Carson whines, begs and bullies his way into the Hall of Fame, it diminishes sportsí most sacred shrine.

I love football. I worship it. I donít mind being the bad guy.

Iím tired of watching former players and sportswriters talk about every candidate like heís Willie Roaf, a deserving Hall of Famer. Itís not true. Itís not the Hall of Good.

With that in mind, each year Iím going to tell you who is and isnít worthy of enshrinement in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Iím not going to be politically correct about it.

1. Deion Sanders: A no-brainer. Heís one of the 20 greatest players of all time. Heís the best cover corner ever. It doesnít matter he avoided tackling.

2. Willie Roaf: Iíll give Munoz the edge as a pass blocker and Big Willie the edge as a run blocker. When Willie retired, the Kansas City offense completely fell apart. Idiots believe Jonathan Ogden was a better player. Willie didnít make the NFL Networkís Top 100 players. Clueless. Put the (bleeping) film on! Iím tearing up as I write this thinking about how pissed Iím going to be Saturday.

3. Marshall Faulk: A no-brainer. First three years in St. Louis, Faulk couldíve won the leagueís MVP award. During that stretch, Faulk was the most complete running back ó runner and pass catcher ó weíve ever seen.

4. Shannon Sharpe: Was the lone receiving threat on the Baltimore Ravens' Super Bowl team. Was a key contributor on three Super Bowl teams. Sharpe deserved to be a first-ballot inductee. Iíd take Sharpe over Tony Gonzalez.

5. Cris Carter: Thereís a myth that Carter wasnít really a star until he lined up opposite Randy Moss. Well, Carter had back-to-back 122-catch seasons long before Moss hit Minnesota. In fact, in the five seasons before Moss, Carter grabbed 56 touchdowns and 515 receptions. No, Cris Carter was not Wes Welker. Cris Carter was Cris Carter, a Hall of Famer.

6. Jerome Bettis: Only five modern players can get in. The Bus needs to wait until next year. Heís worthy of induction, but not on the first ballot.

7. Curtis Martin: A very productive player who is a borderline Hall of Famer. Terrific stats.

8. Tim Brown: Another borderline Hall of Famer with terrific stats.

Iím sorry. None of the other candidates ó except NFL films guru Ed Sabol ó even belongs in a serious Hall of Fame discussion.

Chris Doleman? Child, please. Same for Dermontti Dawson, Cortez Kennedy, Richard Dent, Charles Haley and Andre Reed. Theyíre very good players. Men who should be proud of their careers. But in the same Hall with Jim Brown, John Elway, Reggie White and Joe Montana? Come on, man.

I love the Charles Haley debate. He was a specialist who played on third downs. Ray Guy was a specialist who played on fourth downs. Guy was a more dominant specialist than Haley. Guy belongs in the Hall well ahead of Haley.

OK, Iím done. Iím ready to ball up and cry.

Count Zarth
02-03-2011, 02:00 PM
Absolutely 100 percent spot on.

Injustice is the right word.

We'll probably never see anyone own Dwight Freeney they way Roaf did every time the Chiefs played Indy.

Every. Time.

dirk digler
02-03-2011, 02:03 PM
I agree with Jason. Anybody that doesn't think Roaf belongs in the HOF doesn't know shit about football

WV
02-03-2011, 02:04 PM
I don't care if he's right or wrong, I refuse to lower myself enough to read Fatlock.

kstater
02-03-2011, 02:06 PM
http://i45.tinypic.com/2a6uxqw.gif

suzzer99
02-03-2011, 02:14 PM
Am I the only one who thinks Albert Lewis should be getting a lot more serious consideration? I mean the guy barely got thrown at for at least 5 years. And he has 11 blocked punts. I really think going to the Raiders is what's hurting him, as the Chiefs would normally be championing his cause right now.

Rain Man
02-03-2011, 02:15 PM
It's a great article and I agree with every major point.

I think Munoz is one of those players who has ascended to mythical status and no one will ever be put on his level in the media. I think Willie Roaf is better, and I would've said that when he was a Saint. Willie Roaf and John Hannah are the two best offensive linemen ever, along with maybe Larry Allen.

I do want to reiterate that I absolutely despise Shannon Sharpe, though.

Rain Man
02-03-2011, 02:16 PM
Am I the only one who thinks Albert Lewis should be getting a lot more serious consideration? I mean the guy barely got thrown at for at least 5 years. And he has 11 blocked punts. I really think going to the Raiders is what's hurting him, as the Chiefs would normally be championing his cause right now.

He was one of the finalists last year or the year before, and then didn't make it this year. Not sure why. Deron Cherry made half a dozen pro bowls and has 50+ interceptions on teams that never had a lead, and he can't even make the first cut. That's something I don't understand at all.

OnTheWarpath58
02-03-2011, 02:19 PM
I gotta agree with him here.

Gimme his Top 5, plus Sabol on Saturday.

Over-Head
02-03-2011, 02:20 PM
I agreee with this article 150%

I also Believe Ken Stabler deserves to be in there as well damnit!! :cuss:

Chiefnj2
02-03-2011, 02:29 PM
He's 100% correct on Roaf.

I disagree with him on Charles Haley.

I love the people who open up and comment on Whitlock articles by saying they won't read the article. Get a life.

big nasty kcnut
02-03-2011, 02:29 PM
overhead before plunkett really. Also i say roaf should be in the hall of fame but sorry sharpe not as good as tony g.

Rausch
02-03-2011, 02:30 PM
The pain and ruined sticks that man played on for YEARS alone should earn him a probowl spot.

The fact that he played well beyond his prime, and then made probowl status (deservedly, and as a LT for fuck's sake) well beyond his prime.

Just CONTINUED TO PRODUCE.

Guy sometimes wobbled off the field. He was broken when he got here and just ground bone on bone hoping for a ring.

I know he won't go in as a Chief but he definitely deserves the HOF honor.

Thank YOU Meat Roaf...

http://baseballsnatcher.mlblogs.com/Salute.jpg

the Talking Can
02-03-2011, 02:39 PM
I would laugh out loud watching Roaf destroy people...and he destroyed everyone.


He clowned Freeney so bad it can't be described. Like some no name WWF guy bouncing off the ropes into Andre the Giant who barely notices the contact....

siberian khatru
02-03-2011, 02:41 PM
Totally agree about Roaf.

I was thrilled when we got him, and he proved to be even better than I thought he'd be.

Chiefnj2
02-03-2011, 02:47 PM
One of the reasons I like Peter King is that he gives some insight into the voting process and gives his votes.

Shogun
02-03-2011, 02:48 PM
Somebody please post Roaf highlights so I can JIMP

Rams Fan
02-03-2011, 02:49 PM
If Faulk doesn't get in, I'm going to shit a brick. Good luck to Roaf.

Baby Lee
02-03-2011, 03:16 PM
I'm confident in my Willie Roaf bona fides, but Faulk is above him in the ranking. The guy could spin and return to full speed with compactness and explosion that the league hasn't seen before or since, and I include the immortal Barry. Watch starting at the 2:50 mark.

You can't explain that, you can't play-by-play that, you can't tell somebody what I just saw, Holy Smokes!!



<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/inNbddxZU4k" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Mile High Mania
02-03-2011, 03:48 PM
Sharpe should be in by now...

<iframe title="YouTube video player" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Csdfs1YeLIQ" allowfullscreen="" width="480" frameborder="0" height="390"></iframe>

Demonpenz
02-03-2011, 03:54 PM
Faulk was in another stratusphere.

Jerm
02-03-2011, 03:55 PM
Willie is the greatest OL ever and is 100% a first ballot HOFer.

Sadly he wont be because a majority of the voters are fucking clueless.

Mile High Mania
02-03-2011, 03:55 PM
Faulk was in another stratusphere.

Agreed and I have no issues with Jason's commentary or selections. I think Martin and Bettis are guys that may wait a few years, I'm just not convinced they are 2nd or 3rd ballot guys. Sure, they may be worthy... but they are not "no brainer" picks and honestly, the HOF should be exactly that - no brainer selections.

Deberg_1990
02-03-2011, 03:57 PM
Willie is the greatest OL ever and is 100% a first ballot HOFer.

Sadly he wont be because a majority of the voters are ****ing clueless.

The problem with Olinemen is, there really are no tangible stats that people can look at, gawk over and compare to other players.

Like Whitlock hints at, unless you played the game, you really shouldnt be voting on this stuff.

loochy
02-03-2011, 03:58 PM
Sharpe should be in by now...

<iframe title="YouTube video player" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Csdfs1YeLIQ" allowfullscreen="" width="480" frameborder="0" height="390"></iframe>

damnit how many catches against the chiefs are they gonna show? :cuss:

bowener
02-03-2011, 03:59 PM
I can't seem to find any highlight videos on Roaf. Perhaps this is a job for Clayton!

Demonpenz
02-03-2011, 04:03 PM
watch the priest holmes highlight video. that alone will put shields roaf in the hall. Plus Trich blocking!

Jerm
02-03-2011, 04:11 PM
The problem with Olinemen is, there really are no tangible stats that people can look at, gawk over and compare to other players.

Like Whitlock hints at, unless you played the game, you really shouldnt be voting on this stuff.

Good points...agree 100%

Bewbies
02-03-2011, 04:17 PM
Willie Roaf goes as my best ever. Watching him destroy everyone, especially the guys everyone said were 'the best' never got old.

MahiMike
02-03-2011, 04:30 PM
Gotta hand it to FAUX sports for actually making that fat ass work. He's been spewing out shit on an almost weakly basis.

DaFace
02-03-2011, 04:33 PM
I agree with him about Willie. The article as a whole still comes off as pretty whiny, though.

black angus
02-03-2011, 04:36 PM
Totally agree about Roaf.

I was thrilled when we got him, and he proved to be even better than I thought he'd be.

This

KCTitus
02-03-2011, 04:42 PM
Two words, Peter King. F'ing moron kept Art Monk out of the HOF for years. that's a travesty.

Im glad Derrick made it, but I think he was borderline.

dtebbe
02-03-2011, 05:20 PM
Let's put it this way... when big Willie came around the corner on a left sweep Deion Sanders would wet himself and lay down... If Deion is such a for-sure, no-brainer 1st round selection, well, I'm just sayin'

DT

dtebbe
02-03-2011, 05:30 PM
Here is Priest's record breaking highlight reel. Pretty good one for Roaf too.. but DAMN T-Rich.. just amazing. My all time favorite T-Rich moment (maybe outside of pwning Ray Ray) is at 6:05 when he blocks 2 separate Texans to spring Priest for the TD. MAX EFFORT ALL THE TIME - That's T-Rich.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0oMO9CfG03A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Over-Head
02-03-2011, 06:05 PM
overhead before plunkett really. Also i say roaf should be in the hall of fame but sorry sharpe not as good as tony g.
Agreed.
If there was ever the comeback kid it's Plunkett. I mean he was all but washed up till Dan got his leg broke. Granted, we had a hell of a line on both sides of the ball too.
I guess it all depends on who you are in the eyes of the NFL.
Using the Raiders for example:
Long starts a broadcasting career at FOX, next thing ya know he's a first time winner.
But yet Stabler gets passed every damn year.
Can't remember the dudes name, but on one of those "Top 10 NFL...." shows, one of the voters flat out said he'd never vote for Stabler.
I'm surprised Plunkett isn't in already, but then again, lot's of others deserve as well, like Roaf. he was a hell of a player, any team would have been better to have had him..

It's a popularity contest at best, with a whole lot of input from somewhere for a few "golden Boys" to get in quick.

RNR
02-03-2011, 06:27 PM
The hall has always been a joke. That said anyone who uses the term "child please" needs to be punched in the mouth~

Over-Head
02-03-2011, 06:37 PM
Let's put it this way... when big Willie came around the corner on a left sweep Deion Sanders would wet himself and lay down... If Deion is such a for-sure, no-brainer 1st round selection, well, I'm just sayin'

DT
Yes Dion was a great player, but if he makes it, 1st round, it'll be like Howie Yeah he was great too, stats and recordss prove it. But gee wouldn't another HOFer in the broad cast crew look great on TV every week?

ChiefsCountry
02-03-2011, 06:48 PM
For as a great player Willie Roaf was, he only won one playoff game in his career. Just shows you don't need Hall of Fame Left Tackle to win in the NFL.

Confucius
02-03-2011, 07:03 PM
but sorry sharpe not as good as tony g.


Dream on.

Halfcan
02-03-2011, 07:06 PM
Shrape over GonZo-that is laughable since Tony smashed all his records and is still playing at a Probowl level-catching his 6th TD the other night.

Haley has what 6 rings? He should be in the Hall.

teedubya
02-03-2011, 07:08 PM
Even Joe Horn thinks Willie Roaf should be a 1st ballot HOFer

jjchieffan
02-03-2011, 10:32 PM
I quit reading at Shannon Sharpe over Tony G. Whitlock is, always has been, and always will be a no account hack looking for some way to make his crap controversial so that people will read it. Damn you Deberg for posting his crap on here to read.:cuss:

L.A. Chieffan
02-03-2011, 10:41 PM
this was one of my fav commercials back in the day

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/1zrebn6LzQg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Phobia
02-03-2011, 11:39 PM
Many of them never played a meaningful game of football after junior high.

Like me, Jason Whitlock who played at Ball State. Place me, Jason Whitlock on your voting committee.

I agree with the premise - yes, Roaf deserves it whether he played in KC or not. But the rest of this attention whore column kinda sucked.

spida_man23
02-03-2011, 11:43 PM
jason whitlock is a silverback gorrilla
gonzalez is a good tight end but i hope he doesnt get a ring since he left us. and willie roaf was the shit.

Phobia
02-04-2011, 01:16 AM
I really like how Whitlock high-fives every single former player turned studio analyst as though they're the next stepping stone to his very own seat behind a desk in a game-day studio. Then the shout-out to KC by taking horseface over Gonzo.... I'm not personally slighted but after reading the guy for a decade.5 I have learned to read between the lines a bit. I actually liked Whitlock until he left KC and started his tired sour-grapes bit.

Coach
02-04-2011, 02:59 AM
For as a great player Willie Roaf was, he only won one playoff game in his career. Just shows you don't need Hall of Fame Left Tackle to win in the NFL.

The problem with that logic was that he played for the Saints, who were well known at the time, who were a very bad football team in general.

A player shouldn't be punished for being on a bad team, especially if the player is as good as Willie Roaf.

Count Zarth
02-04-2011, 03:01 AM
I can't seem to find any highlight videos on Roaf. Perhaps this is a job for Clayton!

There is no highlight video for Roaf, nor will there ever be one, because cameras don't focus on offensive linemen.

If I wanted to put some time into it, I could spotlight him during plays, but it would be an arduous process, and it really wouldn't be very entertaining.

Deberg_1990
02-04-2011, 06:20 AM
My guess is that the HoF is heavily weighted towards QB's, RB's and WR's....then even more so if you won a Super Bowl.....

Its always slighted defensive players and linemen. Even more so if you played on bad teams.

Los Pollos Hermanos
02-04-2011, 06:51 AM
My guess is that the HoA is heavily weighted towards QB's, RB's and WR's....then even more so if you won a Super Bowl.....

Its always slighted defensive players and linemen. Even more so if you played on bad teams.

My HoA is weighted toward people who move their trash cans in from the curb in a timely manner.

TIED5573
02-04-2011, 06:54 AM
Two things you can count on in every Jwhit column; Don't get me wrong, and I played at Ball State.

milkman
02-04-2011, 06:58 AM
The HoF voting process is, and always has been a joke.

You play for winning teams and you get serious consideration.

You play for bad teams.....Good luck.

Tommy Nobis was a better LB than Ray Nitscke, but never sniffed the Hall.

John Hadl was a better QB than almost all of his peers, including Len Dawson and Joe Namath.

No sniff.

Someone already mentioned Deron Cherry.

Johnny Robinson.

Jerry Kramer.

The list goes on and on.

Chiefnj2
02-04-2011, 07:07 AM
HOF voting results should be made public.

If you were too young to have watched a player, you shouldn't be able to vote.

Deberg_1990
02-04-2011, 07:14 AM
The HoF voting process is, and always has been a joke.

You play for winning teams and you get serious consideration.

You play for bad teams.....Good luck.

Tommy Nobis was a better LB than Ray Nitscke, but never sniffed the Hall.

John Hadl was a better QB than almost all of his peers, including Len Dawson and Joe Namath.

No sniff.

Someone already mentioned Deron Cherry.

Johnny Robinson.

Jerry Kramer.

The list goes on and on.

Agree...then theres guys in there like Lynn Swann, who doesnt really have very good stats, but because he made some huge highlight catches in big games that have played over and over for years he attained a "Mythical" status.

Halfcan
02-04-2011, 11:34 AM
I really like how Whitlock high-fives every single former player turned studio analyst as though they're the next stepping stone to his very own seat behind a desk in a game-day studio. Then the shout-out to KC by taking horseface over Gonzo.... I'm not personally slighted but after reading the guy for a decade.5 I have learned to read between the lines a bit. I actually liked Whitlock until he left KC and started his tired sour-grapes bit.

:thumb: Exactly- he just spews hate for the Chiefs and this city now.

whattadick

Halfcan
02-04-2011, 11:36 AM
My guess is that the HoF is heavily weighted towards QB's, RB's and WR's....then even more so if you won a Super Bowl.....

Its always slighted defensive players and linemen. Even more so if you played on bad teams.

Exactly, just beacuse you were a punter-if you were the BEST fricken punter of all time-you should get your place.

milkman
02-04-2011, 11:38 AM
Exactly, just beacuse you were a punter-if you were the BEST fricken punter of all time-you should get your place.

Quick.

Name 5 great punters.

Halfcan
02-04-2011, 11:43 AM
Quick.

Name 5 great punters.

lol good point

But you sure hear there name when they suck.

chiefsnorth
02-04-2011, 11:44 AM
I am with Whitlock, if Roaf is not first ballot there shouldn't be a HoF

Deberg_1990
02-04-2011, 11:46 AM
Quick.

Name 5 great punters.

Umm...

Ray Guy
Louis Aguir
Ray Guy
Bryan Barker and

Ray Guy....

beach tribe
02-04-2011, 11:46 AM
Willie Roaf is the best player that I have ever watched extensively. I have never seen him be bested in a game. EVER. I watched every game he played in Red, and Gold, and I think he is the best player I have ever seen in Chiefs uniform, and that includes Derrick Thomas. He is the only O-Linemen that I would go out of my way to watch on every play. The guy was a complete monster, with the feet of a ballet dancer. Never seen anything like it before or since, and Jonathan Ogden couldn't hold his jock.

Rain Man
02-04-2011, 11:53 AM
Quick.

Name 5 great punters.


Ray Guy
Jerrel Wilson
Reggie Roby
Shane Lechler
Sammy Baugh

What do I win?

Rain Man
02-04-2011, 11:55 AM
There is no highlight video for Roaf, nor will there ever be one, because cameras don't focus on offensive linemen.

If I wanted to put some time into it, I could spotlight him during plays, but it would be an arduous process, and it really wouldn't be very entertaining.


I'm looking at you right now the same way a boy does when he sees his dad fail for the first time.

beach tribe
02-04-2011, 11:55 AM
I really like how Whitlock high-fives every single former player turned studio analyst as though they're the next stepping stone to his very own seat behind a desk in a game-day studio. Then the shout-out to KC by taking horseface over Gonzo.... I'm not personally slighted but after reading the guy for a decade.5 I have learned to read between the lines a bit. I actually liked Whitlock until he left KC and started his tired sour-grapes bit.

He's completely transparent.

Halfcan
02-04-2011, 12:00 PM
Ray Guy
Jerrel Wilson
Reggie Roby
Shane Lechler
Sammy Baugh
What do I win?

Sammy still has punting records i do believe!

milkman
02-04-2011, 12:01 PM
Ray Guy
Jerrel Wilson
Reggie Roby
Shane Lechler
Sammy Baugh

What do I win?

The right to argue that punters deserve HoF consideration.

I was going to go with Rich Camarillo as my fifth, forgot about Baugh.

Rain Man
02-04-2011, 12:11 PM
The right to argue that punters deserve HoF consideration.

I was going to go with Rich Camarillo as my fifth, forgot about Baugh.


Camarillo is a good one. I remembered there was some other contemporary of Roby, but couldn't remember his name.

I've mentioned this before, but I honestly think that the Hall of Fame should have quotas by position that match their position on the field. 2 QBs for every punter, 2 DEs for every FS, etc. Or at least make it so that the ratio can never be off by more than a specific percentage. Just because QB is a more important position doesn't mean that a guy who was a top-ten all-time punter or right guard shouldn't be included. He was one of the best ever at his position.

Deberg_1990
02-09-2011, 10:41 AM
Ouch....Whitlock Unloads again.....Nice.



http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/pro-football-hall-of-fame-voting-is-busted-but-i-can-fix-it-020911


Let me compare the Pro Football Hall of Fame selection process to the BCS system that determines college football’s national championship.

Both, to some degree, are subjective beauty contests.

The BCS system, whatever its flaws, is a relatively transparent and above-board attempt to improve college football’s traditional (voting) way of determining a mythical national champion. Polls and computers decide which two teams meet in the title game. The architects of the BCS championship routinely answer their critics in public debate.

The men and women running and profiting from the BCS system are lambasted by the media as corrupt criminals denying non-BCS schools the chance to play for a national championship.

Meanwhile, the 44 “journalists” who participate in and profit from the Pro Football Hall of Fame selection process meet in secrecy and pledge to never discuss publicly how they determine who gets in the Hall of Fame. They don’t release who they voted for. They don’t talk about their "voting blocs" or personal biases. Their qualifications for assessing the careers of the players are never adequately debated.

It’s absolute power in the hands of a few. It’s a blatant violation of nearly everything that we as journalists allegedly stand for.

The setup is so good that members of Congress are insanely jealous.

And when it comes to racial diversity, well, let’s just say NFL owners with their Rooney Rule and seven African-American coaches, look amazingly progressive in comparison to the Pro Football Hall of Fame selection committee (three blacks).

It’s a textbook, old-school, good-ol'-boys network led by Sports Illustrated’s Peter King (speaker of the house) and the Dallas Morning News’ Rick Gosselin (majority leader).

Yep. It’s very easy for us in the media to preach to others about sharing power with people who look and think differently, but mustering the courage and confidence to do it ourselves is something we reject with little shame.

Hypocrisy is a staple of journalism.

The Hall of Fame process is far more broken than college football’s BCS system. But it’s nowhere near as fun or profitable to demonize the peers you run into at the media buffet. Plus, who wants to jeopardize their chance of securing a spot on the committee, arguably the most prestigious and influential position in sportswriting?

I do.

As I told you last week, I was going to be irate when this bogus committee snubbed this year’s second-best candidate (Willie Roaf) because of incompetence and deal-making to get in inferior candidates such as Richard Dent.

In the interest of transparency, let me make it clear Roaf is not Jeff George, a dear friend/family member I shill for out of love and loyalty. I’ve never socialized with Big Willie. He’s just an offensive lineman I admired. He played the one position I know quite well, and I got to watch him play it every fall Sunday for four straight years.

Roaf, an 11-time Pro Bowl selection and a two-time all-decade left tackle, should’ve been a first-ballot Hall of Famer. Period. I knew incompetence and politics would deny him that honor. I suspected the Roaf snub would be my tipping point and force me to address the HOF selection process.

It’s a joke.

The process is just as much about the selectors as it is the candidates. Seriously, the selection committee operates like Congress or the House (a few power brokers control everything and worry most about whether the process enables them to hold onto power) only with less transparency.

Someone — I honestly don’t know who — came up with the false narrative that induction into the HOF should hinge on "whether or not you can write the history of the league without mentioning this person or player." This meme has gained traction for at least the past decade (maybe longer).

The bogus meme put Dent (and Ed Sabol) in the HOF this year and Russ Grimm in last year.

Dent was a very good player for a decade. Grimm was a very good player for five years. Neither belongs in the Hall of Fame.

That’s a tough thing to say, especially about a big intimidating athlete who plays the most difficult and complex sport to understand.

Nothing makes sportswriters more insecure than the you-never-played-the-game card. The card is played most frequently and effectively in football. Pretty much everybody played basketball or baseball at some level. You can play some form of hoops or softball into your 50s or even 60s.

I played football in college and watch the game passionately. Today, most of the time, I don’t really know what I’m watching for the most part. I can admit that because I don’t have any insecurities when it comes to football knowledge.

A month ago, I spent an afternoon talking football with Phil Simms, Cris Collinsworth, Warren Sapp and Michael Lombardi (former NFL executive). They’re still deep inside the game. I was blown away by how much more they knew than I did. And they don’t know squat compared to the coaches and players still in the fire.

My point is the overwhelming majority of HOF selectors know next to nothing about football. It’s why they buy into stupid narratives about “write the history of the league.” They think they’re decorating a museum. They should be focused on honoring the players, coaches, owners and executives who were the most dominant at their jobs.



Dent was a key contributor on Buddy Ryan’s celebrated “46 Defense.” Grimm was the most famous and best of Washington’s “Hogs.”

You can’t write the history of the league without mentioning the “46 Defense” and the “Hogs” and, in order to tell those stories, we must have players to decorate the display!!!

How about we put the nicknames in the HOF and leave the very good players at home? Is there a member of the “Smurfs” in the HOF? Or how about Billy “White Shoes” Johnson? Can you really tell the story of end-zone celebrations and look-at-me antics without White Shoes?

Dent was a dominant player for three or four years, about the same length of time as linebacker Wilber Marshall. Mark Gastineau received more honors (five Pro Bowls and three All-Pro berths) than Dent and powered the “New York Sack Exchange.”

Dent has been romanticized by people who think the HOF is a place for fairy-tale storytelling. Just like Grimm, who wasn’t a starter on two of the three Washington Super Bowl teams. Take away the “Hogs” nickname and the fact Grimm is seen as a future NFL head coach (sportswriters want to be in his good graces) and Grimm wouldn’t sniff the HOF.

Seriously, Grimm’s HOF bust should include a handwritten thank-you note to John Madden for celebrating fat guys. Nate Newton has a better HOF resume than Grimm. Mark “Stink” Schlereth could go toe-to-toe with Grimm.

It’s a joke, man.

There isn’t one sane person who would argue that Richard Dent had a more dominant NFL career than Big Willie Roaf. Not one. So how are they on the same ballot and Dent gets in and Roaf doesn’t?

Dent played from 1983 until 1997. The Pro Football Hall of Fame selection committee failed to elect Dent to the 1980s or 1990s all-decade team. Roaf was first team in the 1990s and second team in the 2000s.

Come on, man.

The process is broken. Unlike the BCS system that creates no true victim, the HOF process hurts people. You think Cris Carter isn’t sitting at home hurt wondering how many painkillers Ed Sabol took to get into the HOF?

You can’t let a “special contributor” steal a spot from someone who was actually in the fire. You know how that happens? When people who have never been in the fire control the process and are fearful of rocking the boat and pissing off the people who let them serve on the board of selectors.

The senior committee needs to be killed. Chris Hanburger has no business in the Hall of Fame. None. Put these guys out of their misery. If you can’t make the HOF within five or six years after your retirement, close the books. It’s a sign the player was unworthy.

I’d set up a committee of former players, coaches and scouts who would evaluate current players year to year and name a 50-player (position doesn’t matter) Hall of Fame team after each season. Individual teams would write up nominations explaining why a player in their franchise had a HOF-worthy season. Each team would get to nominate two people. A team with a winning record could nominate three people. A playoff team could nominate four. A Super Bowl qualifier would get five. And the Super Bowl winner seven.

You’d get between 90 and 100 nominees every season. My committee of former players, coaches and scouts would whittle the nominees to 50. If a player retired with fewer than two (maybe three) HOF seasons, he’d be ineligible for induction into the Hall.

No more Art Monks.

Longevity alone will no longer make a player Hall-worthy. Hopefully, it would help the next Ray Guy get what he deserves (a bust in Canton).

Among the other changes I’d make to the actual HOF selection process: 1. all selectors would publish their votes; 2. four-year term limits for selectors (although you could serve again after sitting out four years); 3. add some former players and coaches to the selection committee; 4. free all voters to talk and write openly about the process.

OK, I think I’m done with my Willie Roaf tantrum (for now).

Halfcan
02-09-2011, 10:54 AM
Yep the fact that DT did not get in first ballot-says alot.

The Rock and Roll hall of shame is even worse.

CoMoChief
02-09-2011, 11:01 AM
Ouch....Whitlock Unloads again.....Nice.



http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/pro-football-hall-of-fame-voting-is-busted-but-i-can-fix-it-020911


Let me compare the Pro Football Hall of Fame selection process to the BCS system that determines college footballís national championship.

Both, to some degree, are subjective beauty contests.

The BCS system, whatever its flaws, is a relatively transparent and above-board attempt to improve college footballís traditional (voting) way of determining a mythical national champion. Polls and computers decide which two teams meet in the title game. The architects of the BCS championship routinely answer their critics in public debate.

The men and women running and profiting from the BCS system are lambasted by the media as corrupt criminals denying non-BCS schools the chance to play for a national championship.

Meanwhile, the 44 ďjournalistsĒ who participate in and profit from the Pro Football Hall of Fame selection process meet in secrecy and pledge to never discuss publicly how they determine who gets in the Hall of Fame. They donít release who they voted for. They donít talk about their "voting blocs" or personal biases. Their qualifications for assessing the careers of the players are never adequately debated.

Itís absolute power in the hands of a few. Itís a blatant violation of nearly everything that we as journalists allegedly stand for.

The setup is so good that members of Congress are insanely jealous.

And when it comes to racial diversity, well, letís just say NFL owners with their Rooney Rule and seven African-American coaches, look amazingly progressive in comparison to the Pro Football Hall of Fame selection committee (three blacks).

Itís a textbook, old-school, good-ol'-boys network led by Sports Illustratedís Peter King (speaker of the house) and the Dallas Morning Newsí Rick Gosselin (majority leader).

Yep. Itís very easy for us in the media to preach to others about sharing power with people who look and think differently, but mustering the courage and confidence to do it ourselves is something we reject with little shame.

Hypocrisy is a staple of journalism.

The Hall of Fame process is far more broken than college footballís BCS system. But itís nowhere near as fun or profitable to demonize the peers you run into at the media buffet. Plus, who wants to jeopardize their chance of securing a spot on the committee, arguably the most prestigious and influential position in sportswriting?

I do.

As I told you last week, I was going to be irate when this bogus committee snubbed this yearís second-best candidate (Willie Roaf) because of incompetence and deal-making to get in inferior candidates such as Richard Dent.

In the interest of transparency, let me make it clear Roaf is not Jeff George, a dear friend/family member I shill for out of love and loyalty. Iíve never socialized with Big Willie. Heís just an offensive lineman I admired. He played the one position I know quite well, and I got to watch him play it every fall Sunday for four straight years.

Roaf, an 11-time Pro Bowl selection and a two-time all-decade left tackle, shouldíve been a first-ballot Hall of Famer. Period. I knew incompetence and politics would deny him that honor. I suspected the Roaf snub would be my tipping point and force me to address the HOF selection process.

Itís a joke.

The process is just as much about the selectors as it is the candidates. Seriously, the selection committee operates like Congress or the House (a few power brokers control everything and worry most about whether the process enables them to hold onto power) only with less transparency.

Someone ó I honestly donít know who ó came up with the false narrative that induction into the HOF should hinge on "whether or not you can write the history of the league without mentioning this person or player." This meme has gained traction for at least the past decade (maybe longer).

The bogus meme put Dent (and Ed Sabol) in the HOF this year and Russ Grimm in last year.

Dent was a very good player for a decade. Grimm was a very good player for five years. Neither belongs in the Hall of Fame.

Thatís a tough thing to say, especially about a big intimidating athlete who plays the most difficult and complex sport to understand.

Nothing makes sportswriters more insecure than the you-never-played-the-game card. The card is played most frequently and effectively in football. Pretty much everybody played basketball or baseball at some level. You can play some form of hoops or softball into your 50s or even 60s.

I played football in college and watch the game passionately. Today, most of the time, I donít really know what Iím watching for the most part. I can admit that because I donít have any insecurities when it comes to football knowledge.

A month ago, I spent an afternoon talking football with Phil Simms, Cris Collinsworth, Warren Sapp and Michael Lombardi (former NFL executive). Theyíre still deep inside the game. I was blown away by how much more they knew than I did. And they donít know squat compared to the coaches and players still in the fire.

My point is the overwhelming majority of HOF selectors know next to nothing about football. Itís why they buy into stupid narratives about ďwrite the history of the league.Ē They think theyíre decorating a museum. They should be focused on honoring the players, coaches, owners and executives who were the most dominant at their jobs.



Dent was a key contributor on Buddy Ryanís celebrated ď46 Defense.Ē Grimm was the most famous and best of Washingtonís ďHogs.Ē

You canít write the history of the league without mentioning the ď46 DefenseĒ and the ďHogsĒ and, in order to tell those stories, we must have players to decorate the display!!!

How about we put the nicknames in the HOF and leave the very good players at home? Is there a member of the ďSmurfsĒ in the HOF? Or how about Billy ďWhite ShoesĒ Johnson? Can you really tell the story of end-zone celebrations and look-at-me antics without White Shoes?

Dent was a dominant player for three or four years, about the same length of time as linebacker Wilber Marshall. Mark Gastineau received more honors (five Pro Bowls and three All-Pro berths) than Dent and powered the ďNew York Sack Exchange.Ē

Dent has been romanticized by people who think the HOF is a place for fairy-tale storytelling. Just like Grimm, who wasnít a starter on two of the three Washington Super Bowl teams. Take away the ďHogsĒ nickname and the fact Grimm is seen as a future NFL head coach (sportswriters want to be in his good graces) and Grimm wouldnít sniff the HOF.

Seriously, Grimmís HOF bust should include a handwritten thank-you note to John Madden for celebrating fat guys. Nate Newton has a better HOF resume than Grimm. Mark ďStinkĒ Schlereth could go toe-to-toe with Grimm.

Itís a joke, man.

There isnít one sane person who would argue that Richard Dent had a more dominant NFL career than Big Willie Roaf. Not one. So how are they on the same ballot and Dent gets in and Roaf doesnít?

Dent played from 1983 until 1997. The Pro Football Hall of Fame selection committee failed to elect Dent to the 1980s or 1990s all-decade team. Roaf was first team in the 1990s and second team in the 2000s.

Come on, man.

The process is broken. Unlike the BCS system that creates no true victim, the HOF process hurts people. You think Cris Carter isnít sitting at home hurt wondering how many painkillers Ed Sabol took to get into the HOF?

You canít let a ďspecial contributorĒ steal a spot from someone who was actually in the fire. You know how that happens? When people who have never been in the fire control the process and are fearful of rocking the boat and pissing off the people who let them serve on the board of selectors.

The senior committee needs to be killed. Chris Hanburger has no business in the Hall of Fame. None. Put these guys out of their misery. If you canít make the HOF within five or six years after your retirement, close the books. Itís a sign the player was unworthy.

Iíd set up a committee of former players, coaches and scouts who would evaluate current players year to year and name a 50-player (position doesnít matter) Hall of Fame team after each season. Individual teams would write up nominations explaining why a player in their franchise had a HOF-worthy season. Each team would get to nominate two people. A team with a winning record could nominate three people. A playoff team could nominate four. A Super Bowl qualifier would get five. And the Super Bowl winner seven.

Youíd get between 90 and 100 nominees every season. My committee of former players, coaches and scouts would whittle the nominees to 50. If a player retired with fewer than two (maybe three) HOF seasons, heíd be ineligible for induction into the Hall.

No more Art Monks.

Longevity alone will no longer make a player Hall-worthy. Hopefully, it would help the next Ray Guy get what he deserves (a bust in Canton).

Among the other changes Iíd make to the actual HOF selection process: 1. all selectors would publish their votes; 2. four-year term limits for selectors (although you could serve again after sitting out four years); 3. add some former players and coaches to the selection committee; 4. free all voters to talk and write openly about the process.

OK, I think Iím done with my Willie Roaf tantrum (for now).

There's a lot of truth to this.....Many players in the hall are in because they were a part of some of the greatest teams ever, even if they weren't necessarily dominant their entire careers or weren't even the best at their position during the time they played.

Obviously Whitlock has a strong heart for offensive linemen. I'm sure he will lobby hard for Will Shields too. He should also be a 1st ballot HOF guy. Not having Roaf in the hall and having Dent instead is indeed, a catastrophe.

CoMoChief
02-09-2011, 11:08 AM
Yep the fact that DT did not get in first ballot-says alot.

The Rock and Roll hall of shame is even worse.

Who else was being considered at the time DT was first eligible...that probably has a lot to do w/ it.

Deberg_1990
02-09-2011, 11:20 AM
There's a lot of truth to this.....Many players in the hall are in because they were a part of some of the greatest teams ever, even if they weren't necessarily dominant their entire careers or weren't even the best at their position during the time they played.



Agreed. Too much emphasis on players that played on dominant teams. Players that were great and played on bad teams get screwed.

Rain Man
02-09-2011, 11:26 AM
There's a lot of truth to this.....Many players in the hall are in because they were a part of some of the greatest teams ever, even if they weren't necessarily dominant their entire careers or weren't even the best at their position during the time they played.

Obviously Whitlock has a strong heart for offensive linemen. I'm sure he will lobby hard for Will Shields too. He should also be a 1st ballot HOF guy. Not having Roaf in the hall and having Dent instead is indeed, a catastrophe.

I would agree. Players like Russ Grimm and Chris Hanburger were not great players. They were good players. They weren't dominating, and the Hall of Fame should include only dominating players.

I also agree with Whitlock's point on career stats. For WRs, RBs, and TEs in particular, the Hall of Fame is in danger of becoming the "Hall of Above Average for a Long Time". Art Monk was a fine player, but he wasn't great.

How odd. Three Redskins in the above examples. Does Whitlock hate the Redskins?

The thing that amazes me on the Redskins front is how Russ Grimm is in and Joe Jacoby isn't. Jacoby was way more dominant than Grimm, and I thought it was pretty common knowledge that Jacoby was the Redskins' best lineman in that era.

ForeverChiefs58
02-10-2011, 03:16 PM
Hall of Fame voter Len Pasquarelli rips “idiots like Jason Whitlock”

Posted by Michael David Smith on February 10, 2011, 3:15 PM EST
We’ve talked a lot over the last week about the seven new members of the Pro Football Hall of Fame, the 10 candidates who were voted down at Saturday’s selection committee meeting, and the process by which new Hall of Famers are selected. It’s been an interesting, productive topic of conversation in the football media world.

But one of the members of the selection committee, Len Pasquarelli of The Sports Xchange, thinks it’s time to move on or move out from questioning the selection committee’s decisions.

In an interview with 1560 The Game, Pasquarelli said that he understands the calls for more transparency in the selection process, but he also believes that more transparency could lead some voters to become more reticent to have a candid conversation at the selection committee meeting.

“I think there probably will be a day where there’s more transparency,” Pasquarelli said. “I believe in transparency to a point, but I do think that having TV cameras in that room and televising the whole thing, while it would make for fascinating theater, you’re absolutely right about that, would perhaps deter some people from airing their views, and probably bring even more criticism.”

Fair enough, but if you’re going to be a member of the selection committee, don’t you need to have thick enough skin to deal with that criticism? And, with all due respect to the members of the committee, if criticism would deter them from airing their views, working in the media is the wrong business for them.

Pasquarelli then turned his attention to Jason Whitlock, who has sharply criticized the selection committee, both in his column at FOXSports.com and in his appearance on PFT Live, for selecting Richard Dent while voting down Willie Roaf.

“There’s been enough from idiots like Jason Whitlock who doesn’t know what he’s talking about, criticizing the process and the fact that Willie Roaf didn’t get in,” Pasquarelli said. “Let me ask you this: In his championing of Willie Roaf, OK, and the fact that he claims he would cry if Willie Roaf didn’t get in — and I assume that he’s honest about that — how is he any less subjective, for instance, than the people who voted for Richard Dent? Isn’t it his opinion and nothing more? There’s no criteria by which he goes. Isn’t it his opinion that Willie Roaf should be a member of the Hall of Fame? What does he have to go by that’s concrete about that?”

Of course, Whitlock did spell out what his case for Roaf over Dent is, including Roaf’s selection to two all-decade teams (Dent never made one) and Roaf’s 11 Pro Bowls (Dent made four). Pasquarelli is free to disagree with Whitlock about the importance of such accolades, but it’s wrong to say those who support Roaf as a better candidate than Dent have no criteria.

Pasquarelli, however, doesn’t buy it.

“What argument does Mr. Whitlock have that Willie Roaf deserves to be in the Hall of Fame more so than Richard Dent?” Pasquarelli said. “I’m dumbfounded by the logic of that because it’s totally illogical.”

Pasquarelli also rejects the idea that players should have some voice in determining who makes the Hall of Fame.

“The argument made by Mr. Whitlock that players should vote on this? Players in some cases have a different agenda than people in that room,” Pasquarelli said.

Although Pasquarelli insisted that “I’m not taking this personally,” he sounded as if he was. That’s too bad. It does a disservice to the Hall of Fame candidates if the selection process starts to feel like a media pissing contest. Even though media pissing contests are always fun.

Baby Lee
02-10-2011, 03:47 PM
Pasquarelli defends committee against Whitlock's charges, comes off looking worse than before defense

FYP

Deberg_1990
02-10-2011, 05:30 PM
“There’s been enough from idiots like Jason Whitlock who doesn’t know what he’s talking about, criticizing the process and the fact that Willie Roaf didn’t get in,” Pasquarelli said. “Let me ask you this: In his championing of Willie Roaf, OK, and the fact that he claims he would cry if Willie Roaf didn’t get in — and I assume that he’s honest about that — how is he any less subjective, for instance, than the people who voted for Richard Dent? Isn’t it his opinion and nothing more? There’s no criteria by which he goes. Isn’t it his opinion that Willie Roaf should be a member of the Hall of Fame? What does he have to go by that’s concrete about that?”

Of course, Whitlock did spell out what his case for Roaf over Dent is, including Roaf’s selection to two all-decade teams (Dent never made one) and Roaf’s 11 Pro Bowls (Dent made four). Pasquarelli is free to disagree with Whitlock about the importance of such accolades, but it’s wrong to say those who support Roaf as a better candidate than Dent have no criteria.

Pasquarelli, however, doesn’t buy it.

“What argument does Mr. Whitlock have that Willie Roaf deserves to be in the Hall of Fame more so than Richard Dent?” Pasquarelli said. “I’m dumbfounded by the logic of that because it’s totally illogical.”

Pasquarelli also rejects the idea that players should have some voice in determining who makes the Hall of Fame.

“The argument made by Mr. Whitlock that players should vote on this? Players in some cases have a different agenda than people in that room,” Pasquarelli said.

Although Pasquarelli insisted that “I’m not taking this personally,” he sounded as if he was. That’s too bad. It does a disservice to the Hall of Fame candidates if the selection process starts to feel like a media pissing contest. Even though media pissing contests are always fun.

Typical.....he asks about an argument for Roaf.....Whitlock clearly spelled out his case for Roaf.....Did he even read the column???

and of course he offers no solid defense for Dent over Roaf.

googlegoogle
02-10-2011, 05:54 PM
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wJtGfG5PQm0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Deberg_1990
02-11-2011, 02:28 PM
Sweet...this is getting good. Whitlock has ruffled the feathers of Gretz now....although i cant get to Gretz's site right now.


http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/02/11/whitlock-strikes-a-nerve-with-some-hall-of-fame-voters/



In past years, any complaints regarding the Pro Football Hall of Fame selection process usually evaporated the next day, once the Super Bowl kicked off.

This year, the complaints have legs. And now some of the persons to whom the complaints relate are helping to lace up the running shoes.

In past years, the 44 media members who solely and exclusively determine the contours of each class of Hall of Famers kept their heads low and their mouths closed in the face of criticism that they know will quickly subside and disappear, arriving again 52 weeks later as a temporary blip on the radar screen. This year, Jason Whitlock of FOXSports.com opted not to move on (or move out), and he took aim at the process in a scathing column posted earlier this week.

Whitlock also joined us on ProFootballTalk Live to discuss his views on the subject.

Now, some members of the selection committee are fighting back, aggressively. Len Pasquarelli dismissed Whitlock as an “idiot” on Thursday, and Bob Gretz takes aim at Whitlock today with an item that attacks him extensively, while barely addressing Whitlock’s core concerns.

Our reaction? Whitlock’s criticisms have chafed one or more rear ends, possibly because his efforts threaten to disrupt the star chamber that has been charged with the duty of determining in shadows and codes of silence who gets in, and who doesn’t.

That said, Pasquarelli and Gretz seem to realize that the process should display a greater degree of transparency. But they’re too busy circling the wagons and/or firing arrows at Whitlock to address in meaningful fashion the various problems with the process and meaningful ways for fixing them.

My own homework assignment for the weekend, which I may or may not choose to accept, is to articulate the things that I believe can be done to improve the process. The reaction to Whitlock’s effort to shine a light on a system that has been cloaked in secrecy for far too long has convinced me that the time has come to try to make the process better, even if it means incurring the wrath of one or more of the 44 persons who probably don’t want to see their influence diluted, their power undermined, or their clique disrupted by meaningful change to the procedures for picking new Hall of Famers.

Chiefnj2
02-11-2011, 02:47 PM
How does Sanders get in ahead of Roaf? I'm serious. Deion was great against the pass. One of the top guys ever, if not the top. But against the run, would you say he was even top 20? Top 30? Top 40?

Roaf was a beast in both run blocking and pass blocking. He didn't have a weak area.

How does a player, who was incomplete in one aspect of his game, get in over a complete player?

Deberg_1990
02-14-2011, 10:42 AM
Heres Gretz's response to Whitlock....

http://www.bobgretz.com/chiefs-football/hall-of-fame-dunce-%e2%80%a6-weekend-cup-o%e2%80%99chiefs.html#more-19117


really hate to do this, but I feel there’s no choice in this matter. When you are dealing with an ignorant bully, there are only so many times you can let it slide.

I’m talking about Jason Whitlock, Kansas City’s long-time sports media bully extraordinaire. Listen, if I blogged something about that blob every time he was factually incorrect or didn’t know what he was talking about, then I would never stop. With the shrinking of his audience and no outlet for his special brand of yellow journalism in Kansas City, Whitlock tends to flail about willy nilly these days, trying to pick journalistic fights so he can save a dead career.

He’s not Chicken Little, he’s Chicken Big and he laid an egg this week by going after the Pro Football Hall of Fame Board of Selectors. If you like, you can go off to the only outlet he has these days and read the whole thing. I’m not going to link and make it easy.

But I will re-cap some of his comments: he says the process of selecting inductees to the Pro Football Hall of Fame is corrupt. He uses as evidence the failure of OT Willie Roaf to get a first ballot election. Whitlock says the committee knows nothing about football and does know about backroom dealing. Here are a few actual passages:

“It’s a textbook, old-school, good-ol’-boys network led by Sports Illustrated’s Peter King (speaker of the house) and the Dallas Morning News’ Rick Gosselin (majority leader) … the process is just as much about the selectors as it is the candidates. Seriously, the selection committee operates like Congress (a few power brokers control everything and worry most about whether the process enables them to hold onto power), only with less transparency.”


Transparency is the word Whitlock keeps throwing around. So, let’s lay some things out right from the start, so there’s no doubt where I’m coming from, for transparency purposes:

Is it hard to get in the Hall of Fame? Absolutely; it should be.
Yes, I am a member of the board of selectors, a role I’ve proudly served for over 15 years now and will continue for a few years more. I do not consider the position a lifetime appointment. I do consider it one of the highlight’s of my professional life.
Part of being on this committee is dealing with the disappointment of those who do not gain election each year. Being called an idiot, knucklehead or stupid is part of being on the board.
Whitlock wants desperately to be on the Board of Selectors, and for years when he was employed in Kansas City, he waged a campaign with others to have me removed so he could step into the role. One of his many failures.
There is no question that the Hall of Fame process could use some tinkering, and alterations. But I have no problem saying I’m proud of the work the board has done and think the Class of 2011 is a wonderful group.
And I agree with Whitlock – yes there are those times when the planets align – that there needs to be more transparency in the voting. If you read my post from last Sunday, you would have seen all my notes on the candidates that I voted for in the balloting for the Class of 2011. If you missed it, here’s the link.
Now, all of this got started because Roaf did not make the Hall this year. I voted for Roaf all the way through, but he did not make the final five. I have no problems with that. There were 15 people on the list and all were Hall of Fame worthy under the rules and standards that we’ve worked with over the years.

Did Roaf get knocked out by the positive votes for NFL Films Ed Sabol? Probably. But understand that it’s the Pro Football Hall of Fame, not the Pro Football Players Hall of Fame. There are a lot of people who have contributed to making the game what it is today and Ed Sabol was most definitely a worthy contributor.

Willie Roaf will make the Hall of Fame and in the end it matters not whether it was in his first, second or fifth year.

That Whitlock is outraged by Roaf being left out of the 2011 Class is fine. I didn’t like it either, nor when Derrick Thomas did not get in the first year that he was eligible. That’s part of what makes the arguments and process of the Hall of Fame interesting. Throw any number of people into a room and they will come up with any number of combinations.

But for Whitlock to impugn the character of members of the committee, especially guys like King and Gosselin is the sad rantings of a jealous man. Rick Gosselin has forgotten more football in a week than Whitlock has known in his life. Note to JW: believe me big guy, you don’t want to get into a football battle of wits with Goose. It’s a beating you will never recover from.

If there are backroom dealings involved in the Hall of Fame process they have escaped me. I’ve never been offered anything for my vote. I have been campaigned by people inside and outside of the board for particular players, coaches and contributors. But I’ve never been strong-armed by anyone to vote in a particular manner or for a particular person. There is no voting trading, no quid-pro-quo for taking a certain player.

Whitlock wants to be part of the board, but knows he won’t ever reach that status because he knows little or nothing about the game, its history or the men who made it happen. Take his rant on Chris Hanburger, one of the senior candidates elected to the Hall this year. Hanburger is not some obscure linebacker. Every year when the seniors committee meets to select the candidates they are joined by a pair of players already in the Hall of Fame. Last year, those players were LB Jack Ham and TE Charlie Sanders.

Ham told the group that when he went to the Steelers in the 1971 NFL Draft out of Penn State, the Pittsburgh coaches gave him film of Hanburger to study. Something he did for the rest of his career. There was no doubt in Ham’s mind that Hanburger was a legitimate candidate. Whose word are you going to take on this subject: Hall of Fame linebacker Jack Ham, or Jason Whitlock?

Are their biases in the room? Absolutely, and anybody that tries to tell you otherwise is not being honest. Everyone has biases on every level of our society.

I believe we put too many people in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Too often there are players going into the Hall that were very good players, but were not the best of the best. Those types of outstanding performers do not fall from trees every year. But the Hall of Fame has set up the process it wants. They are in charge and the rules are set by them. They want at least four inductees every year, so that’s what happens.

At some point in the future I will write more about how I think the process could be improved. There’s no question that it could be tweaked, and I doubt there would be many people on the board of selectors that would fight against change.

To make those types of suggestions, one needs to have some idea of the history and the current process. Unfortunately, as is true about so many other things that he writes about, Jason Whitlock has no clue.

Rausch
02-14-2011, 10:44 AM
I really like how Whitlock high-fives every single former player turned studio analyst as though they're the next stepping stone to his very own seat behind a desk in a game-day studio. Then the shout-out to KC by taking horseface over Gonzo.... I'm not personally slighted but after reading the guy for a decade.5 I have learned to read between the lines a bit. I actually liked Whitlock until he left KC and started his tired sour-grapes bit.

You only say that because black males grow up from broken homes and act irresponsibly...

Deberg_1990
02-14-2011, 10:52 AM
Peter Kings response......Whitlock definately not making any friends.


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/peter_king/02/13/mmqb/index.html?eref=sihp


I don't recall such a negative reaction to the Pro Football Hall of Fame class as this year's in the 18 years I've been on the Selection Committee.

I got a tweet the other day from a reader who asked me to defend taking part in a "corrupt'' process. Jason Whitlock, writing for FOXSports.com, called me the "speaker of the house" in a "textbook, good-ol'-boys network'' and said the selection committee violates "nearly everything that we as journalists stand for.'' Fans of Cris Carter, Andre Reed and Charles Haley, who weren't voted in, have e-mailed and tweeted with particular vitriol. "Resign, King!'' one e-mailer railed. "If you don't know Cris Carter is a Hall of Famer, you have no business voting for the Hall of Fame.''

We're considered to be idiots for putting in Chris Hanburger, totally out of touch for enshrining an old geezer, Ed Sabol, who never played the game, and shouldn't be voting for football immortality because so many of us have never played the game. And so on.

The process has always been an exercise in intensity, both inside the room and out. The 44 voters are passing judgment on what could be the last truly important thing in a former player's or coach's life, and so I appreciate the importance of our job. I also appreciate the interest people inside the business and outside have in the process.

The best way to address the criticism is to go through the issues, one by one, that have come up in the nine days since we sat in a Dallas meeting room for seven hours and 28 minutes, picking the seven-man class of 2011.

SECRECY. The Hall appoints each selector -- 32 representing each NFL franchise, and 12 at-large voters picked for their overall knowledge of the game. We are asked to abide by the Hall's selection criteria, which includes taking into account, only in the case of players, what a player did on the field; and in the case of coaches or contributors, only what they did on and around the game that influenced the game.

We're asked to keep the subject and intensity of the discussions out of the press when we leave the room. I'm often asked why. I'll give you a totally fictitious example. Let's say the Dallas representative, Rick Gosselin, is asked to give his case, pro or con, for Larry Allen when the longtime Cowboys guard comes up for a vote in 2013. And let's say Gosselin presents the case for Allen well, but lets it be known he doesn't think he's as strong an offensive-line candidate as, say, Dermontti Dawson or Willie Roaf.

It's not fair for Gosselin to walk into Cowboys offices, having to cover the team (which he does occasionally, but not as a beat man) and team officials not cooperating with him fully because he's not pro-Allen. That's just an example, but the Hall feels, and I agree, that if our discussions are quoted or characterized outside the room other than in saying that so-and-so gave a great presentation for a particular candidate, the honesty of the discussion in the room could be compromised.

Now, the Hall requests, but does not mandate, that we not say who we voted for during the meeting. I believe the 44 votes should be a matter of public record. I feel we should say who we supported, because the fan interest is so high and because transparency in the vote should be expected of us. Many of my peers disagree with me on this, but I think if we're not willing to put our name to our vote, then we shouldn't be on the committee.

I had one TV-loving NFL owner a couple of years ago tell me how cool it would be to have the Hall deliberations on live TV, on NFL Network. This, in my opinion, would be a disaster. If everything we say in the room can be quoted in the outside world (and what a boring set of quotes that would be, mostly), I'm convinced it would paralyze real debate and make it way too stilted. The key is to promote honest debate, not staged debate.

"CORRUPTION'' OF THE PROCESS. I think Whitlock's column must have stirred the masses, because I checked my e-mail and Twitter feed when I rejoined civilization Saturday and saw that I was being accused of being corrupt and deceitful about the Hall process. Be careful, people. Corruption is defined as a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain. (Whitlock didn't use the word, but he said we "profit'' from being on the committee, and keep our "personal biases'' hidden.)

For the record: I have never been offered anything, financial or otherwise, to vote for any Hall candidate. I have never had another voter say to me, "If you vote for my guy, I'll vote for your guy.'' I have had voters say to me, "I know you have voted against this candidate before, but I just ask you to come back one more time and look at his case again.'' It happened when Len Shapiro, formerly of the Washington Post, asked me to reconsider Art Monk, which I did because he made a good point -- all the good points about leadership and on-field example-setting I made about Harry Carson with the Giants, Art Monk did with the Redskins.

And, yes, I have biases, if that's what you call strong feelings about people being candidates or not. We all do. I covered the Giants for four years when they had the best run defense in football, and I pushed Harry Carson hard, and he finally got in five years ago. At the same time, I am not a George Young supporter; not that I feel he wasn't an excellent general manager, but if we're going to put a GM in, I'd start with Ron Wolf and then Bill Polian.

THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE SELECTORS. I am not opposed to the committee being expanded. Not at all. But at some point, if you want the process to be somewhat the same as it is now -- discussion and/or arguments about the candidates -- I don't know how much bigger the pool can be. I'd love to see, say, a few more nationally respected people in the room, like widely read Bob McGinn of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.

Some of those in the room have more experience covering the game and watching the game than others. But I still think it's valuable to have each franchise represented, even if the selector from that franchise isn't a veteran football writer or broadcaster. If we start eliminating selectors because some haven't been around the game for 20 years, I think we're setting a bad precedent, because then the franchise won't get the same attention for its candidates than the veteran selectors can give. You just have to let some green selectors grow into the job. This brings us to ...

THE BOARD OF SELECTORS. Lots of people want to expand the process. That is OK with me, but it's not going to solve the problem of who gets in and who doesn't. Just because you add more voters doesn't mean that the percentage for enshrinement (80 percent) is going to change.

I'm not a fan of including former players as voters. Many former players could be counted on to give a totally dispassionate view of teammates and foes alike. But a few years ago, I remember a current Hall of Famer arguing passionately for a former opponent NOT in the Hall, and then we found out during the meeting that the two men are in business outside of football together.

Let's say we decide to put one player or coach from each franchise on the committee. (Because you simply can't put a former Steeler on and not include a former Brown.) That would add 32 voters, making it a 76-person panel. Could the selection meeting be held in one day with 76 voters arguing their cases? I think the meeting might be better, but there's no guarantee it would be. It also might be more partisan.

I wouldn't decry adding 32 former players and coaches, but for all those who think it'd be nirvana and fix everything that ails the process, I don't see it. And for those who want the media out of it altogether, there's some merit there, because none of us played in the NFL, and, in fact, very few of us played beyond high school. But I want to know if Joe Cowboy is going to put in the work that Gosselin does, or if the former player is just going to show up, test the waters and vote the way his peers want him to vote.

THE VOLUME OF CANDIDATES. If we put in everyone the fans (and many media) wanted to be in, the Hall would be increased by 200 people tomorrow. Raider fans are adamant about Ray Guy, Tom Flores, Lester Hayes, Jim Plunkett and Cliff Branch. After the Hall put in three Broncos in the last four classes, I got at least five angry tweets from Denver fans about how Randy Gradishar, Karl Mecklenburg, Steve Atwater and Terrell Davis were all getting jobbed. That's only two teams, and nine guys getting the shaft.

It should be hard to get into the Hall. I think seven enshrinees in one year is plenty. I've asked people over the years to take the 15-man ballot and tell me which 10 don't belong in the Hall. Very, very rarely can people honestly pick 10. And that's the problem. Almost every year I've ever voted, after we get through the debate and have to winnow the class from 15 to 10 on the first cutdown of the day, I have looked at the ballot and said, "If any of these 10 or 11 get to the final five, I'd vote for them.''

REGIONALISM. Whitlock said in his column that he would cry if Roaf, a tackle he covered for several years as a columnist in Kansas City, didn't get elected this year. I've found that to be a common trait over the years: Local columnists get passionate about local guys. It wasn't the Denver Post guy, or the Miami Herald voter, who pushed the Art Monk candidacy so hard. It was the Washington Post guy. Is it more of a travesty that Roaf wasn't a first-ballot Hall of Famer, or that a man with 1,101 catches (Carter) has now missed four times? Or that Dawson -- who was first-team All-Pro more than any other center (six times) in the last 50 years, and double the times Roaf was first-team All-Pro -- can't get in? Pick your travesty. I suspect if Whitlock had worked for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette instead of the Kansas City Star, he'd be decrying the Dawson snub, not Roaf's.

RACISM. The only thing that angered me about Whitlock's column is when he followed his skewering of the Hall selection committee because it has three black voters (a fourth, Michael Wilbon, left the panel when he began covering the NBA a few years ago) in the next sentence by saying two white men -- me and Gosselin -- lead an "old-school, good-ol'-boys network'' in the selection room. If he finds me racist, I wish he'd just call me racist.

Now, as for the three-out-of-44 argument, it's valid ... to a point. In an ideal world, there'd be a lot more than seven percent black voting members in the Hall. But let's look at the pool these voters come from. The Hall takes its voters from NFL press boxes, and I'd guess (it'd just be a guess, but I'm probably not far off) that the NFL's main press box at the Super Bowl was no more than 10 percent black. And is there some great injustice we've perpetrated that can be linked to racism? Four of the last 19 modern-era enshrinees are white.

Now, as for my power in the room, I hope I'm looked at respectfully, and I try to make good arguments. But if I was so powerful, wouldn't I have gotten Paul Tagliabue in once in three tries? Couldn't I have swayed the room on Cris Carter? In fact, both men have gone in reverse since I began to vehemently support them. Tagliabue didn't even make the final 15 this year, and Carter didn't make the cut from 15 to 10 this year.

As always, comments welcome.

DJJasonp
02-14-2011, 01:48 PM
"Blob" gretz calling Whitlock a "blob".

You cant script this sort of entertainment, people! :)

Halfcan
02-14-2011, 03:58 PM
Peter King blah blah blah

So how exactly does Neon Dion get in his first try then?? He absolutly could not tackle and spent more time trying to play baseball then he did training hard for football. YES he had a lot of nice run backs on INT's but sucked in other areas.

Maybe he will be in the Baseball Hof next-he looked AWESOME stealing bases-lol

Deberg_1990
02-16-2011, 08:33 AM
Damn, Whitlock punches back......Whitlock Owning King, Gretz their cronies at this point.


http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Jason-Whitlock-says-Pro-Football-Hall-of-Fame-selection-process-still-needs-reform-021511



would argue that the Pro Football Hall of Fame board of selectors should hire Karl Rove or James Carville to defend its non-transparent, hypocritical, ripe-for-abuse selection process, but Peter King’s gang appears quite skilled at disingenuous political maneuvering.

Our tolerance for hypocrisy tickles and angers me.

Powered by Facebook and with virtually no bloodshed, Egyptians wrested power from Hosni Mubarak in a matter of weeks.

We don’t surrender (or share) power that easily in America.

The reaction to my criticism of the HOF selection process gives sports fans a glimpse into how our real power people respond to threats to their rule. You can see why it’s incredibly difficult to enact significant change or root out corruption in this country.

Criticized for ignoring the principles we as journalists champion — transparency, diversity — for others, the HOF selectors rationalized, name-called, lied and tried to shoot the messenger.

Two voters, Len Pasquarelli and Bob Gretz, called me an idiot. Gretz called me a “blob” and falsely claimed that I waged a campaign to have him removed as a selector so I could take his place.

There is no reason for me to waste time responding to Pasquarelli and Gretz’s childish and illogical attacks. Mike Florio and Michael David Smith of Profootballtalk.com and Jason Lisk of TheBigLead.com already spanked Pasquarelli and Gretz for their foolishness.

Nope. Sports Illustrated’s Peter The King and The Dallas Morning News’ Rick Gosselin are the Avon Barksdale and Stringer Bell of the HOF selection process. In his weekly Monday Morning Quarterback column, King rose from his throne and offered his defense of the fiefdom he and Gosselin oversee.

A Palin-like populist, King nailed himself to a cross (insinuating that I called him racist), pretended that the ethics of journalists are somehow superior to those of athletes and coaches, suggested my passionate support for Willie Roaf was a byproduct of “regionalism” and acted like it was ridiculous to think any back-room deals could influence the selection process.

I’m not doing his column justice. Read it yourself here.

After I read his column, I was left to believe one of three things about King: 1) He’s naive and simpleminded; 2) He never learned a single journalistic principle at Ohio University; 3) Money and fame caused him to abandon what few journalistic principles he ever had.

As a journalist, there is no reasonable way to defend the lack of transparency in the selection process. A journalist never should state an opinion of any kind he’s not willing to sign his name to.

News organizations, including FOXSports.com, that allow journalists to participate in a news-making process that requires secrecy toss away credibility in exchange for the power it gives reporters.

Being a Pro Football HOF voter is one of the most powerful tools in sportswriting. Picking up a phone and calling a football source and identifying yourself as a Hall voter is a crucial strategic advantage over nonvoters. King knows this.



King also must surely realize that several voters have used their status as a tool to either land a job or avoid layoffs in these hard economic times.

It’s why the good-ol’-boy-network aspect of the board of selectors is wrong and offensive.

I did not call Peter King a bigot. He knows this. It’s a ploy, a tactic to garner sympathy.

I called King a human, a flawed one like all the rest of us.

I’ve written numerous times that we all, black, white, red, yellow, have our biases along racial lines. We all are inclined to favor people who look and think like us. We all struggle with fairness and the most unfair people are the people who think they’re incapable of being unfair along racial lines.

The naive and simpleminded refuse to think about the consequences of their action or inaction.

King is the leader of a good-ol’-boys network. There are black good-ol’-boys networks. The HOF board of selectors just happens to be a predominantly white one that sits in judgment of a diverse group of athletes.

I’ve already explained that there is power and profit in being on the HOF board of selectors. King rationalizes away the lack of diversity by saying three of 44 selectors is close to the equivalent of the percentage of black journalists in the Super Bowl press box. He implies that Mike Wilbon’s departure to cover the NBA for ESPN is the reason there are not four African-Americans on the board.

King is lying with numbers. Darryl Ledbetter was added this year, bringing the number back to its all-time high of three. Wilbon was the lone minority voice initially and then he was joined by Jarrett Bell and Mike Preston. When Wilbon bounced and The Baltimore Sun made Preston relinquish his position (because of the obvious journalistic hypocrisy), Bell was the lone minority voice until Jim Trotter was added.

Does it lead to black candidates being treated unfairly?

I don’t know. Ask Michael Irvin. I can guarantee you this: If 41 of 44 voters were black, The Playmaker would’ve been a first-ballot hall of famer. Irvin had to wait to get in because some people had a problem with his television work and off-the-field problems.

(You can count me among the people who had a problem with Irvin off the field and I ripped him in numerous columns. But Irvin deserved immediate Hall induction.)

I suspect Warren Sapp is going to have a problem getting in early. Or maybe there’ll be a stupid, 35-minute debate about Sapp the way there was for Deion Sanders.

If the selectors were predominantly black, I suspect Ed Sabol wouldn’t have stolen a spot from a deserving player.

Is Roone Arledge (“Monday Night Football”) the next TV executive the board of selectors will put in the Hall? Sabol was a candidate for years who never gained any traction. But word started filtering out in November and December that he would make the HOF this year.

Why? How was Sabol’s election gossiped about months before the vote?

Yeah, but there are no backroom deals. There aren’t any voting blocs. There aren’t a handful of voters with more power who create a false narrative the others follow like sheep.

Child, please.

(You noticed none of my critics touched the bogus “Hogs” narrative that put Russ Grimm in the HOF? Again, Grimm didn’t start on two of the three Redskins Super Bowl teams. Joe Jacoby, a starter on all three Washington Super Bowl teams, has a far superior rťsumť. Why Grimm instead of Jacoby? Sportswriters don’t need Jacoby, an assistant coach at a tiny school in Virginia. Grimm is ticketed to be an NFL head coach. Also, no one gave a rational explanation for Richard Dent getting in ahead of Roaf.)

Any real journalist knows this process has every ingredient for abuse. You have past-their-prime sportswriters, whose 401ks have been ravaged, desperately trying to hang onto their careers and relevancy. You have former players desperately trying to get into the HOF for two reasons: 1) their egos; 2) money.

Induction into the HOF is a lucrative second career. A HOFer can make a decent living just signing autographs at card shows. If he can speak, he can launch a career speaking to corporations.

It’s laughable to argue that adding former players and coaches to the process would compromise the integrity of the system. Hell, the players and coaches probably will have more integrity than the alleged journalists who are violating principles they espouse.

King suggested my support of Willie Roaf is some sort of uncontrolled “regionalism” or homerism. I was a local columnist at The Kansas City Star for 16 years.

King should know this is untrue. My reputation as a columnist was that I destroyed the home teams and athletes. The Chiefs player I was closest to was Derrick Thomas. He died tragically in 1999. I considered him a dear friend. When he didn’t get into the HOF his first year, I wrote that it might take 10 years for him to get in and that Kansas Citians should be patient.

Do I want to be a HOF voter?

No. Especially considering the rules of secrecy.

Did I ever work to be a HOF voter and try to get anyone removed?

Hell, no. Gretz’s allegation speaks to the lack of ethics among some on the board of selectors.

Two or three years ago, Jarrett Bell of USA Today told me he wanted to recommend that I join the board of selectors as an at-large voter. Bell was the lone black voter at the time. I told Bell he would be met with incredible resistance by the board of selectors. I never heard from Bell again about it. Jim Trotter was placed on the board.

I do want the process changed. I want players, coaches and current Hall of Famers to play a significant role. The people in charge now are compromised. Those who are not compromised are scared to publicly point out the unfairness they see because they don’t want to lose the power they have.

It’s a system and process that should shame legit journalists.