shaneo69
02-14-2005, 10:06 AM
Similar to how Ivan Carter used to answer questions on the Star website, Bernie Miklasz of the StL Post-Dispatch has a forum on their website where he'll answer questions. I was going to post a question to him about Derrick Thomas' snub, but apparently some other Chiefs fan beat me to it.
Here's Bernie's answer.....
"I thought Gretz did a good job with his presentation. He was prepared and very thorough.
I disagree with my friend Doc Z ... I don't think anything that Gretz said or did had a negative impact on DT's chances.
I also don't think Bob should be overreacting to what Zimmerman says. Everyone knows Zimm is a curmudgeon.
As for my own feelings on Thomas: I really thought he'd make it. I guess I was naive. I voted for him each step of the way. There were a few voices of dissent -- they didn't rip him or savage him. It was nothing personal. They just asked questions, and raised concerns, about his overall play, his consistency. For example, one voter asked a question about DT's reputation for taking plays off. I assume that swayed some voters. Not anything that Gretz said.
I do not know what's in heart of each voter. I have no idea what they're thinking inside, when it comes time to check the names on the ballot.
This is my speculation, not supported by fact -- but I also suspect that some of the more veteran voters probably have a higher threshold for first-time eligible players. No one voices this in a meeting, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of them have this type of attitude: if in doubt, let a first-time eligible wait. If a player isn't a slam dunk kind of candidate, like Marino, perhaps he doesn't receive the benefit of the doubt.
I fret over the politics. I always have questions/concerns. This year: (1) Did the more adamant pro-Monk supporters withhold votes from Irvin on the final ballot out of some sort of spite? Unfortunately, the debate this year veered off into an Irvin vs. Monk argument at one point, which is wrong, because it isn't an either/or. Each guy deserves to be considered on his own merits. (2) the NY guys, or those who have covered the Giants, push really hard for Harry Carson...does that cause some resentment? A sort of an anti-NY backlash? Again, I have no idea, because voting is confidential, and no one is required to explain their votes, yeah or nay. Just some thoughts I have.
The two senior committee nominees: positively, absolutely merited selection. I was proud of what we did. Pollard and Friedman may not resonate or mean squat with modern fans, but these guys were pioneers, giants, in the early days of the NFL. We righted a longstanding injustice. I heard some clowns on national radio ripping the committee for putting Pollard and Friedman in, and I can't think of anything more clueless than some ignoramus talk-show host who knows nothing about NFL history condemning the selections of these two men."
Interesting comments.
Here's Bernie's answer.....
"I thought Gretz did a good job with his presentation. He was prepared and very thorough.
I disagree with my friend Doc Z ... I don't think anything that Gretz said or did had a negative impact on DT's chances.
I also don't think Bob should be overreacting to what Zimmerman says. Everyone knows Zimm is a curmudgeon.
As for my own feelings on Thomas: I really thought he'd make it. I guess I was naive. I voted for him each step of the way. There were a few voices of dissent -- they didn't rip him or savage him. It was nothing personal. They just asked questions, and raised concerns, about his overall play, his consistency. For example, one voter asked a question about DT's reputation for taking plays off. I assume that swayed some voters. Not anything that Gretz said.
I do not know what's in heart of each voter. I have no idea what they're thinking inside, when it comes time to check the names on the ballot.
This is my speculation, not supported by fact -- but I also suspect that some of the more veteran voters probably have a higher threshold for first-time eligible players. No one voices this in a meeting, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of them have this type of attitude: if in doubt, let a first-time eligible wait. If a player isn't a slam dunk kind of candidate, like Marino, perhaps he doesn't receive the benefit of the doubt.
I fret over the politics. I always have questions/concerns. This year: (1) Did the more adamant pro-Monk supporters withhold votes from Irvin on the final ballot out of some sort of spite? Unfortunately, the debate this year veered off into an Irvin vs. Monk argument at one point, which is wrong, because it isn't an either/or. Each guy deserves to be considered on his own merits. (2) the NY guys, or those who have covered the Giants, push really hard for Harry Carson...does that cause some resentment? A sort of an anti-NY backlash? Again, I have no idea, because voting is confidential, and no one is required to explain their votes, yeah or nay. Just some thoughts I have.
The two senior committee nominees: positively, absolutely merited selection. I was proud of what we did. Pollard and Friedman may not resonate or mean squat with modern fans, but these guys were pioneers, giants, in the early days of the NFL. We righted a longstanding injustice. I heard some clowns on national radio ripping the committee for putting Pollard and Friedman in, and I can't think of anything more clueless than some ignoramus talk-show host who knows nothing about NFL history condemning the selections of these two men."
Interesting comments.