The Pro Football Hall of Fame: Both Boyd Dowler and Ron Kramer Deserve Consideration

[Packerraymond]

1 hour ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Jordy Nelson in highschool ran a 10.63 100m. Tinus Osenkomp won a god damn bronze medal in the olympics at 10.5 in 1936. He came in 5th at the European Championships that same year at 10.9. World Class speed in the 1930s and 1940s isn't even comparable to today. If we assume that Hutson was running at roughly the same speed as the 100m bronze medalist, which I think is an absurd assumption to make, he still only has average NFL speed. Hutson would be of average height, slim build, and below average speed if he played today, as well as being decades behind in technique, route running, and understanding of the game. The greatest receiver of the first half century of the NFL, wouldn't be close to ready to play if you time machined him at halftime. 

This isn't to say that Hutson wasn't dominant compared to his peers, but the game has changed significantly, and ignoring that seems to be a ridiculous way to handle the hall of fame. 

Who cares what has changed in the game? The HOF is about what you did in the league at the time you played, not how you would be today. Don Hutson played with guys who had the same equipment, training, skills and human development as he did. If Don Hutson was born in 1990 he may have been 6'4 200 and run a 4.3 for all we know. Most athletes from early period wouldn't hack it today. Most athletes from that period played as a hobby, didn't have money to eat salmon and workout for 4 hours a day and were from an era where growing to 6 foot and 200 pounds made you a big human. If Jordy Nelson was born in 1939 you'd have a hard time convincing me he's a 6'3 220 pound guy who can run a 10.6 100m in his prime.

[Norm]

5 minutes ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

No, you and I are on the same page. 

The truly great players should be in the HOF. Dowler and the lesser Kramer just aren't near that level. 

Kramer isn't close IMO. Dowler is closer but until this thread I had never actually went "why isn't he in" before either 

 

[AlexGreen#20]

Just now, Packerraymond said:

Who cares what has changed in the game? The HOF is about what you did in the league at the time you played, not how you would be today. Don Hutson played with guys who had the same equipment, training, skills and human development as he did. If Don Hutson was born in 1990 he may have been 6'4 200 and run a 4.3 for all we know. Most athletes from early period wouldn't hack it today. Most athletes from that period played as a hobby, didn't have money to eat salmon and workout for 4 hours a day and were from an era where growing to 6 foot and 200 pounds made you a big human. If Jordy Nelson was born in 1939 you'd have a hard time convincing me he's a 6'3 220 pound guy who can run a 10.6 100m in his prime.

Nobody is taking away from Don Hutson. The guy was one of the best to ever play the game relative to his peers.

But the reasons you're giving about guys not training is what causes some of the vast discrepancy among player abilities in the early parts of the league. Today all players have the same opportunities for self improvement once they reach the pro level. That wasn't the case when these guys were playing. 

[AlexGreen#20]

I just want to ask:

1. When did a post in another thread about something only vaguely related to this topic become the central portion of discussion rather than the actual thread topic?

2. Where did I say Hutson shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame? The guy was obviously a great player for his era.A clear lock first ballot HOF guy. However, era should be taken into account. A guy who actually bothered to lift weights twice a week playing against a bunch of guys who got their workout in hauling beer kegs isn't as impressive to me as a guy being better than guys on the same playing field. 

[Norm]

7 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Who cares what has changed in the game? The HOF is about what you did in the league at the time you played, not how you would be today. Don Hutson played with guys who had the same equipment, training, skills and human development as he did. If Don Hutson was born in 1990 he may have been 6'4 200 and run a 4.3 for all we know. Most athletes from early period wouldn't hack it today. Most athletes from that period played as a hobby, didn't have money to eat salmon and workout for 4 hours a day and were from an era where growing to 6 foot and 200 pounds made you a big human. If Jordy Nelson was born in 1939 you'd have a hard time convincing me he's a 6'3 220 pound guy who can run a 10.6 100m in his prime.

We're getting off topic more when I go down this road and I'm probably naive but it seems even in the last 75 years ago there's been athletic evolution beyond just health and training. That's not really my view from football though. From track and field moreso.

But obviously those guys would benefit huge from those plus modern coaching and understanding of the game.

[Packerraymond]

Just now, AlexGreen#20 said:

Nobody is taking away from Don Hutson. The guy was one of the best to ever play the game relative to his peers.

But the reasons you're giving about guys not training is what causes some of the vast discrepancy among player abilities in the early parts of the league. Today all players have the same opportunities for self improvement once they reach the pro level. That wasn't the case when these guys were playing. 

Agreed, and I'm sure some took it seriously and some didn't. I've just never been a fan of knocking down old players because the league was smaller and less athletic back then. I'm sure if you swapped the time periods they were born in, many of them would grow into the freaks that play today. Just between the compensation, food sources, human norms and just general coaching/training of those eras those guys never had a chance to be what today's athlete is.

[Norm]

I wonder how much second jobs these guys had during the season by the 60s though? That was certainly the case at least until the mid to late 50s. I used to have more info of this in my head but Google says by 69 the average NFL salary adjusted for inflation was 150k. With just that in mind it seems maybe the idea of everyone taking it as just a fun way to get paid in between smoking and drinking was overrated by that decade?

I'm not making a case it's true. Just wondering.

[AlexGreen#20]

3 minutes ago, Packerraymond said:

Agreed, and I'm sure some took it seriously and some didn't. I've just never been a fan of knocking down old players because the league was smaller and less athletic back then. I'm sure if you swapped the time periods they were born in, many of them would grow into the freaks that play today. Just between the compensation, food sources, human norms and just general coaching/training of those eras those guys never had a chance to be what today's athlete is.

If it was only those factors that needed to be taken into account when regarding eras, that would be one thing, but it isn't.

The coaching back then was significantly worse than it was today, and maybe "worse" is the wrong word, but there was a bigger difference between the best and the worst than there is today. Part of that is due to lack of available film, part of that is due to lack of exposure to other ideas, but there were teams running schemes that were just better than their opponents. There is still some of that today, but it's significantly less pronounced now that McCarthy can walk into his office on Monday, and on his computer is all of the successful 3rd and medium plays run by every team in the NFL, cut up from the correct camera angle. 

[Norm]

This is irrelevant but funny. I was watching Sammy Baugh play someone once, Lions I think. The QB for the Lions would take a shotgun type snap and his feet would never move. He didn't step back, not forward, he didn't step into the throws. His hips swiveled and knee bend. It was the craziest thing I've ever seen. 

Now this is late 30s/early 40s but Baugh has been slinging it since TCU just himself in a more modern style. Yet he was coached to play that way. That always blew my mind.

[ThatJerkDave]

1 hour ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Jordy Nelson in highschool ran a 10.63 100m. Tinus Osenkomp won a god damn bronze medal in the olympics at 10.5 in 1936. He came in 5th at the European Championships that same year at 10.9. World Class speed in the 1930s and 1940s isn't even comparable to today. If we assume that Hutson was running at roughly the same speed as the 100m bronze medalist, which I think is an absurd assumption to make, he still only has average NFL speed. Hutson would be of average height, slim build, and below average speed if he played today, as well as being decades behind in technique, route running, and understanding of the game. The greatest receiver of the first half century of the NFL, wouldn't be close to ready to play if you time machined him at halftime. 

This isn't to say that Hutson wasn't dominant compared to his peers, but the game has changed significantly, and ignoring that seems to be a ridiculous way to handle the hall of fame. 

And with modern training he would have been faster, and bigger, as would those track stars.  The post I replied to suggests that he couldn't even make a roster now.  That is ludicrous.  Jerry Rice was one inch taller than Hutson, and 17 pounds heavier, and a lot slower.  Would he not make a roster either?

 

That doesn't change the fact that neither Dowler nor Kramer should be in the Hall of Fame.

[ThatJerkDave]

31 minutes ago, NormSizedMidget said:

Kramer isn't close IMO. Dowler is closer but until this thread I had never actually went "why isn't he in" before either 

 

I don't think Dowler is close either.  Should Hines Ward be in the Hall of Fame? I say no.  

[AlexGreen#20]

1 minute ago, DavidatMIZZOU said:

And with modern training he would have been faster, and bigger, as would those track stars.  The post I replied to suggests that he couldn't even make a roster now.  That is ludicrous.  Jerry Rice was one inch taller than Hutson, and 17 pounds heavier, and a lot slower.  Would he not make a roster either?

 

That doesn't change the fact that neither Dowler nor Kramer should be in the Hall of Fame.

Rice was one inch taller, 17 pounds heavier, likely significantly faster, and was a master of subtle moves and techniques that Hutson had never even heard of before.

Rice had many of the same advantages that Hutson had, mainly that the defenses that he was playing against had no reference point for the offense being run. The West Coast Offense blew people away at it's inception. 

The route tree that Hutson was running was stupid. Passing attacks evolved significantly from the 30s and 40s to the 60s and the passing attacks of the 60s were stupid compared to today's. 

[AlexGreen#20]

1 minute ago, DavidatMIZZOU said:

I don't think Dowler is close either.  Should Hines Ward be in the Hall of Fame? I say no.  

Hell no

[Norm]

16 minutes ago, DavidatMIZZOU said:

I don't think Dowler is close either.  Should Hines Ward be in the Hall of Fame? I say no.  

I get both sides. I would put him in. I'm all for guys being in for reasons beyond stats. Statistically he's good enough, couple rings with an MVP in one. But his Identity to me was his effort. That blocking he was known for, sometimes to the point of dirty accusations but he was really good all around and has enough credentials. 

I'm far more gimme not just pure stats but something with it. Like I was a huge Warner getting in guy because of the back story for example.

Though you'd like to see these guys have years where they were top 3ish at the position, can't say he ever was in my memory.

I'm pretty soft and different with who I want in though lol