Miklasz writes about DT/Gretz/Dr. Z...

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.

KCTitus · 02-14-2005, 10:11 AM

Gretz? good job, prepared and thorough? This guy needs to get a clue and read CP more often he wouldnt wind up sounding like a defender of the chiefs front office.

**ChiTown** · 02-14-2005, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KCTitus

Gretz? good job, prepared and thorough? This guy needs to get a clue and read CP more often he wouldnt wind up sounding like a defender of the chiefs front office.

Agreed. Miklasz really has a credibility problem now...........

02-14-2005, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KCTitus

Gretz? good job, prepared and thorough? This guy needs to get a clue and read CP more often he wouldnt wind up sounding like a defender of the chiefs front office.

I don't think anybody here said Gretz wasn't prepared and thorough. As I recall, other people questioned his choice of addressing the negatives. My beef at the time was all the print space dedicated to defending the guy.

FWIW.

shaneo69 · 02-14-2005, 10:20 AM

"For example, one voter asked a question about DT's reputation for taking plays off. I assume that swayed some voters."

I wonder which dumbass voter asked this question, and I wonder what Gretz' answer was.

I never saw the guy take plays off. I didn't realize DT had a "reputation" for taking plays off, and I wonder what idiot came up with that. I guess for any defensive player that is considered for the HoF, any voter that didn't like the player can always ask that question in front of the other voters, and some of the voters will take it seriously, no matter how untrue it is.

I guess if he was unstoppable enough to have six and seven sack games, then he must've been taking all the other games off when he only got a sack or two.

jspchief · 02-14-2005, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KCTitus

Gretz? good job, prepared and thorough? This guy needs to get a clue and read CP more often he wouldnt wind up sounding like a defender of the chiefs front office.

Wow, the abuse some posters endure here

They should mail out boxes of tissue to all new members...

KCTitus · 02-14-2005, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phobia

I don't think anybody here said Gretz wasn't prepared and thorough. As I recall, other people questioned his choice of addressing the negatives. My beef at the time was all the print space dedicated to defending the guy.

FWIW.

The comment that stuck most in my mind was the words 'slam dunk' had it not been for Gretz. You can take that to mean many things, I guess, but it's in direct opposition to Misklaz's account of the event. So we're left with a couple of options. A) we dismiss misklaz as yet another Peterson stooge, or B) actually give his version of the event credibility.

I'll take the latter and laugh about the discussion from last week, where I mistakenly didnt read the thread first.

shaneo69 · 02-14-2005, 10:31 AM

If they would just eliminate the NY, Dallas, Washington, and national media voters, the selection committee would be left with about 29 solid voters with minimal agendas.

KCTitus · 02-14-2005, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jspchief

Wow, the abuse some posters endure here

They should mail out boxes of tissue to all new members...

I dont get it...

**Rain Man** · 02-14-2005, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shaneo69

"For example, one voter asked a question about DT's reputation for taking plays off. I assume that swayed some voters."

I wonder which dumbass voter asked this question, and I wonder what Gretz' answer was.

I never saw the guy take plays off. I didn't realize DT had a "reputation" for taking plays off, and I wonder what idiot came up with that. I guess for any defensive player that is considered for the HoF, any voter that didn't like the player can always ask that question in front of the other voters, and some of the voters will take it seriously, no matter how untrue it is.

I guess if he was unstoppable enough to have six and seven sack games, then he must've been taking all the other games off when he only got a sack or two.

No kidding. It was ridiculous to even bring that up. No way did he have that reputation.

shaneo69 · 02-14-2005, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KCTitus

The comment that stuck most in my mind was the words 'slam dunk' had it not been for Gretz.

Actually, I think my exact words were, "Thomas' induction should have been a slam dunk, if not for Gretz' stupidity."

It was a joke. I guess I should've put a smilie there or something, but it's kind of fun watching you get yourself all in a huff defending Gretz.

Had I really thought that Gretz was solely to blame, I wouldn't have dug up this quote from Bernie on a P-D forum which defends big bad Bob.

KCTitus · 02-14-2005, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shaneo69

Actually, I think my exact words were, "Thomas' induction should have been a slam dunk, if not for Gretz' stupidity."

It was a joke. I guess I should've put a smilie there or something, but it's kind of fun watching you get yourself all in a huff defending Gretz.

Yep, you got me...I didnt think you were joking at the time, but I still thought your comment was uproariously funny at the time, so I guess instead of laughing at you, I was merely lauging with you.

Ive yet to figure out this whole 'defending gretz' thing...quite the contrary, I just dont believe the BS trotted out here as fact (except in your case you were merely 'joking'). If that's called 'defending' Gretz/Carl, whatever, we may have a new Lexicon entry.

Cormac · 02-14-2005, 12:46 PM

The only thing that matters now, is that DT gets in the Hall next year. I hope all the BS furore over this year's presentation helps his cause in 2006, doesn't hinder it.

I don't give a flying f*** about who says what, as long as he's recognised as a HOF player, sooner rather than later.

donkhater · 02-14-2005, 01:49 PM

Well, he did take the offensive plays off.

**the Talking Can** · 02-14-2005, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cormac

The only thing that matters now, is that DT gets in the Hall next year. I hope all the BS furore over this year's presentation helps his cause in 2006, doesn't hinder it.

I don't give a flying f*** about who says what, as long as he's recognised as a HOF player, sooner rather than later.

I think he will get in next year, and this minor "scandal" of his presentation will actually help him next year....kind of a "let's stop f'in around with this guy..he deserves better"....but who knows

02-14-2005, 10:06 AM
shaneo69 Smug Weasel Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Bleachers at Busch Casino cash: $10004900	Miklasz writes about DT/Gretz/Dr. Z... 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.
Posts: 4,910

02-14-2005, 10:11 AM	#2
KCTitus Archivist Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: The Ethernet Casino cash: $9892732	Gretz? good job, prepared and thorough? This guy needs to get a clue and read CP more often he wouldnt wind up sounding like a defender of the chiefs front office. __________________ Anything you post on this BB can and will be used against you...
Posts: 26,193

02-14-2005, 10:20 AM	#5
shaneo69 Smug Weasel Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Bleachers at Busch Casino cash: $10004900	"For example, one voter asked a question about DT's reputation for taking plays off. I assume that swayed some voters." I wonder which dumbass voter asked this question, and I wonder what Gretz' answer was. I never saw the guy take plays off. I didn't realize DT had a "reputation" for taking plays off, and I wonder what idiot came up with that. I guess for any defensive player that is considered for the HoF, any voter that didn't like the player can always ask that question in front of the other voters, and some of the voters will take it seriously, no matter how untrue it is. I guess if he was unstoppable enough to have six and seven sack games, then he must've been taking all the other games off when he only got a sack or two.
Posts: 4,910

02-14-2005, 10:31 AM	#8
shaneo69 Smug Weasel Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Bleachers at Busch Casino cash: $10004900	If they would just eliminate the NY, Dallas, Washington, and national media voters, the selection committee would be left with about 29 solid voters with minimal agendas.
Posts: 4,910

02-14-2005, 12:46 PM	#13
Cormac Haley sceptic.... Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: waiting it out....... Casino cash: $10004900	The only thing that matters now, is that DT gets in the Hall next year. I hope all the BS furore over this year's presentation helps his cause in 2006, doesn't hinder it. I don't give a flying f*** about who says what, as long as he's recognised as a HOF player, sooner rather than later.
Posts: 2,406

02-14-2005, 01:49 PM	#14
donkhater Brilliant!! Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Indiana, USA Casino cash: $10014051	Well, he did take the offensive plays off. __________________ The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants
Posts: 3,994