There's a white Ford Bronco in Canton.

Sharpe will obviously go in when he's eligible. Dunno about Smith, unless they open an "Undrafted Free Agents" wing. Gradishar probably should. Two older Broncos Sando forgot were WR Lionel Taylor (4-time AFL All-star, first pro player with over 100 catches in a season, led the AFL in receptions for the league's first six years) and DE Richard "Tombstone" Jackson, who was as good as anyone in either league before injuries got him.

Will Tom Nalen get in, or is there a penalty for playing dirty?

Do we want to pick apart the list of active HOFers that ESPN published:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=halloffame/nfl1-10

I've been saying this for years. Since 1973, the Denver Broncos have 6 superbowl appearances... and 5 losing seasons. That's insane. They've been to more superbowls (6) than anyone except for Pittsburgh (also 6) and Dallas (7). From 1960-1972, Denver went 53-123-6 (30.8% winning rate). Since then, they've gone 318-204-4 (60.8% winning rate!). They've been the best franchise in the entire NFL over the past 30 years in terms of wins, winning%, superbowl appearances, and if I recall correctly, playoff appearances. They have to be considered one of the 5 best franchises in NFL history. The fact that they only have one Hall of Famer is absurd.

The biggest omissions, at this point, are Randy Gradisher (who holds the NFL record for tackles per game- if you extrapolate his career averages over a 16-game season, we're talking about 225 tackles per year ON AVERAGE), who has produced "big plays" (sacks, INTs, Fumbles) at a better rate than Ray Lewis and who was a bigger tackling machine than anyone in history, and Gary Zimmerman (one of four players to ever make two All-Decade teams which, oddly enough, are voted on by the same HoF committee that refuses to elect him)... but part of the problem is that while other teams will occasionally get a borderline case in, Denver's borderline cases aren't even considered. And even now there's a bias against Broncos, since Tom Nalen (who should at this point be a lock) is widely considered to be on the outside looking in (such as by ESPN, who thinks that Calvin Johnson and Adrian Peterson both have a better shot at making the HoF than Tommy Nalen).

Champ Bailey seems like a shoo-in, no? So long as he keeps playing at such a high level...and keeps playing for the Broncos. He's under contract until 2011 and I can't imagine him going to the Hall as a Redskin.

And while we're talking about HoF snubs, let me play the homer and take this opportunity to question why Ken Anderson still isn't in the Hall. Perhaps the recent dominance of the "West Coast Offense" will help him earn a place in Canton, but it seems to me his numbers speak for themselves.

I'm a Chiefs fan now and was a Colts fan when Elway stiffed them, so I have no love for the Broncos. But clearly they are under-represented.

Problem 1: they really sucked during the time prior to 1976, where the seniors "committee" is doing most of its work.

Problem 2: their run of greatness in the 80s is undermined by the twin perceptions that it was all Elway's doing and the fact that the AFC, especially in retrospect, was considered the weaker conference so the Super Bowl appearances don't carry the weight they should compared to the 49ers or Redskins. Losing didn't help.

Problem 3: the SB champs haven't yet gotten their shot.

When the seniors committee gets to the 80s and 90s, some of those players on those great teams will get in if they don't before that.

Without giving it great thought, I'd say Zimmerman, Gradishar, and Sharpe should get in. Probably Atwater. Unfortuantely, Davis' injury probably mean he won't get in because he wasn't great for a long enough time.

Shanahan will get in eventually too.

Elway needs to beat the drum for his teammates.

I'm guessing one of Denver's problems is a lack of star skill players. Many of their best players played on defense or the offensive line. Positions that are much tougher to be elected to the HOF.

kibbles makes the argument that they are underrepresented, but even he only lists 3 players that are currently omitted.

As for Nalen, whether or not he deserves it, he's probably not going to get in. He's got 5 Pro Bowl appreances (per p-f-r) and I don't think that's a strong enough resume even with two rings and the strong rushing game of the Broncos in his era.

Given that many people have testified to the efficacy of very good Hall of Fame presentations, I wonder how much blame can be attributed to the Denver presenter. I see from the HOF webpage that the Denver rep is currently Jeff Legwold. Legwold, though, was formerly the Tennessee rep, from when he was with the Tennessean before jumping to the Rocky Mountain News, and I don't remember who the Denver rep was before him.

The other possibility is that the Broncos had a number of very good players who weren't quite HOF-worthy. The only not-in Broncos I can say I believe certainly should be in are Zimmerman and Sharpe, though I plead youth on the candidacies of Tombstone Jackson, Gradishar, Tom Jackson, and Little. Atwater's a maybe, and probably never in my book, and I have him ahead of Mecklenburg and Dennis Smith, in that order.

I'd also like to note that having this flashing ad next to the comment box is really, really annoying, particularly since the cursor at least appears to be flashing just as the ad does.

Re: 5 Gary Zimmerman (one of four players to ever make two All-Decade teams which, oddly enough, are voted on by the same HoF committee that refuses to elect him)…

I'm certainly not going to argue that Zimmerman doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame, but if Zimmerman would count as a Bronco in the Hall of Fame, why don't Willie Brown and Tony Dorsett count as Broncos in the Hall of Fame? I don't know if players in the Hall go in as members of a certain team (I'm sure somebody can set the record straight on that point), but if they do, I assume that Zimmerman would go in as a Viking.

Tombstone Jackson was a great player as well, but Gradishar and Zimmerman are the most obvious guys to have been overlooked to date. Sharpe's going in, and so is Nalen, I think.

The Broncos are another indicator that the Hall of Fame should be inducting the maximum every year, for several years, until they get caught up.

I didn't really start following the Broncos until 1990, but my impression is that the successful members of the receiving corp in Elway's day were guys like Vance Johnson: so-so in terms of speed and craftiness but able to catch Elway's bullets. Other guys with more speed like Anthony Miller or Arthur Marshall weren't as able to hold on when no. 7 gunned it.

And the lack of a consistent running game during the Reeves years is a well-worn topic.

Oh, gosh, I think if Zimmerman has any input, he's going in as a Bronco. Zimmerman is part of a long line of good to great players that the cheapskate Viking ownership from, 1961 to 1998, alienated. Red McCombs bought the team and spent appropriately for a couple years, and then he turned tightwad before selling 2005. It is amazing that Vikings have done as well on the field as they have, considering how mediocre their ownership has usually been.

Zimmerman has a lot more attachment to Denver than he does Minnesota.

11 - I don't think it's like baseball, where you pick a cap, but if you follow the link in my name, you get to a description of players who are in either bold CAPS or small letters. Dorsett and Brown are listed in small letters for the Broncos, indicating their major contributions were elswhere.

I would assume that Zimmerman, if he got in, would actually get CAPS for both Denver and Minnesota based on his 7/5 split, and the fact that he was on both of Denver's SB winning teams.

I would assume that Zimmerman, if he got in, would actually get CAPS for both Denver and Minnesota based on his 7/5 split, and the fact that he was on both of Denver’s SB winning teams.

PFR says Zimmerman's last season was 1997, which would mean he didn't play on the 1998 Super Bowl team. Still, his one ring is with Denver - not Minnesota.

Re #8: kibbles makes the argument that they are underrepresented, but even he only lists 3 players that are currently omitted.

Actually, I only listed two omissions (Nalen hasn't been omitted yet, since he's still active). I listed the two guys who, in my mind, should have been stone-cold locks for the HoF (potential first-ballot locks, at that)- they were far and away the most glaring omissions. Beyond those two, if Denver were any other franchise they'd also have 2-3 other "arguable" players in the HoF, as well (guys like Floyd Little who hasn't been mentioned yet, Tombstone, Karl Mecklenberg, and Steve Atwater). Every other team has several players like this in the hall, but Denver can't even get its no-brainers in, let alone its "good argument" guys.

Re #9: As for Nalen, whether or not he deserves it, he’s probably not going to get in. He’s got 5 Pro Bowl appreances (per p-f-r) and I don’t think that’s a strong enough resume even with two rings and the strong rushing game of the Broncos in his era.
Pro Bowls are another thing that are biased against Denver (at least along the offensive line). Nalen, Hamilton, and Lepsis have all generally been considered among the top 5 at their position for the bulk of their careers, yet Nalen has only made 5 pro bowls, and Lepsis/Hamilton have not even made one. Dr. Z actually called Lepsis the best tackle in the entire NFL on his all-pro team two years ago, and Lepsis didn't sniff the pro bowl. A lot of that is just because 1/3 of the voting is done by opposing DLinemen (who hate Denver OLinemen), and because 1/3 is done by fans (who don't know anything about Denver Olinemen in large part due to the vow of silence).

In my mind, Nalen has two rings, was considered one of the top 2 players at his position for his entire career, and paved the way for the longest-running success story in NFL history. That's a HoF career in my books.

Re #10: I see from the HOF webpage that the Denver rep is currently Jeff Legwold. Legwold, though, was formerly the Tennessee rep, from when he was with the Tennessean before jumping to the Rocky Mountain News, and I don’t remember who the Denver rep was before him.

Woody Paige manned the duty before Legwold. I don't know how good he was at pleading a case, all I know is that he delivered the second-shortest argument in HoF history on Elway's behalf ("Respectfully, John Elway"- the only one shorter was Walter Payton's rep, who just said "Walter Payton").

Re #11: I’m certainly not going to argue that Zimmerman doesn’t belong in the Hall of Fame, but if Zimmerman would count as a Bronco in the Hall of Fame, why don’t Willie Brown and Tony Dorsett count as Broncos in the Hall of Fame? I don’t know if players in the Hall go in as members of a certain team (I’m sure somebody can set the record straight on that point), but if they do, I assume that Zimmerman would go in as a Viking.

Generally, a player is considered to be a HoFer for any team on which a substantial percentage of his HoF credentials occurred. Zimmerman would probably be considered a HoFer for both Denver *AND* Minnesota. Dorsett isn't considered a HoFer for Denver because less than 6% of his career rushing yardage came in Denver. I suppose Willie Brown is arguably a HoFer from Denver, but his HoF election had little-to-nothing to do with his Denver career and almost everything to do with his Oakland career.

Broncos fans just have to face facts Broncos players just not good enough. Bigger diss is not even Raiders in HallofFame. Jack tatum, K Stabler, Chris Bahr, Ray Guy, Cliff Branch, Dave Dalby, Bill Birdwell all belong in Hall.

As a Saints (& NFC) fan, I think that the omission of Broncos from the late 70's thru the 80's is that they were a good team--but didn't win SB's till the last 2 years of Elway's career. In other words, they would be like those players "on the bubble" referenced in post #4--just not quite good enough--just like in their SB's vs. the Giants, Skins, & Niners. Just my opinion.

re: 18.
I, too, am angered that there is an odd number of Raiders in the HoF.

Tom Nalen deserves to be in the Hall, but I doubt that he will get it in. His problems getting elected:

1) There simply aren't many centers in the Hall of Fame (5).

2) The whole "vow of silence" thing means that he's not as well known as other offensive linemen.

3) He played in a cut-block scheme, so everybody hates him.

4) He's a dirty player that will lunge at a defensive linemen's knees when his team is spiking the ball. Plus, the Broncos try and cheat as much as possible (salary cap shenanigans, fake injury reports, "forgetting" their dark jerseys on a road trip to a warm weather city, cut-blocking, etc.), so nobody likes or respects them. [/Anti-Broncos bias]

I must admit that even as a Broncos fan, I had never given this any thought. I guess I never followed the HoF. Still, it surprises me that Bradishar isn't in. To me, Nalen and Zimmerman are at least as worthy as most of their respective positions who are already in. I would give a strong nod to Atwater, though a lot of that is probably because of my Bronco upbringing and because I remember the big deal that the Denver media made of his one-day contract with the Broncos. The whole premise was that he'd retire as a Bronco, and his Broncos jersey would be displayed.

Other than that, I really don't have enough data to argue for or against anybody. However, I think the whole issue brought up by #17 and #18 could be resolved by a kibbles vs. Raiderjoe throwdown... :)

The problem is made worse by this phenomenon, identified by Rick Gosselin, that defense is under-represented in the HOF:

Arguably the only 2 skill players from Denver that are not that should be in are Rod Smith and Terrell Davis, and neither is a lock. They were known for many many years as a defensive team - the Orange Crush. So look there first for snubbed Broncos.

17: I'm not trying to start an argument here, necessarily, but Nalen has been considered one of the 2 best centers in the league? By who? And even if he was so considered, when? For example, right now most would consider Saturday and Kreutz the top 2. Kevin Mawae has generally been considered top shelf for years before that. And the Steelers alone have had Hartings and Dawson.

Secondly, "he paved the way for the longest running success story in history"? In what sense?

For what it's worth Gradishar may be the best linebacker I've ever seen play and should be in.

Re #17
Thanks for refreshing my memory. I wanted to say it was Paige, but that didn't seem right for some reason. Judging by his ESPN appearances, the cynic in me wants to say that that's a significant reason there aren't more Broncos in the HoF.

I think Nalen does get in for his long run of general excellence, and also because he'll be a good way to represent a long run of Bronco rushing excellence that would otherwise not be represented (Zimmerman to me would not fit this bill, though I admit that's my own personal opinion).

Query: rank Dermontti Dawson (7 Pro Bowls), Kent Hull (3), Kevin Mawae (6), Tom Nalen (5), and Mark Stepnoski (5) in order of (a) most likely to make the HOF and (b) most deserves to be in the HOF. Also, are there any high profile non-recent centers other than Mick Tinglehoff who maybe should be in the HOF?

16 - You would think I would remember that, being a Broncos fan. I guess it was '97 where Zimmerman "retired" but came back to training camp just in time to bump Tony Jones to RT. I was thinking that was '98. It just goes to show how long ago that was now.

22 - I think that's a good point. I would add Shannon Sharpe to skill players getting in, and I think he is a near lock. I actually don't think Davis (career too short) or Rod Smith (career very similar to Art Monk's in terms of Pro Bowls and # of times he was in the top 10 in raw receiving stats) are going to make it.

I do think that people do look to the defense first. The first name is Gradishar when people talk about snubbed Broncos. I'd like to see Steve Atwater, but I think safety is non-impact HOF position, even though he made the requisite # of Pro Bowls.

I also think Zimmerman has a chance. People have pointed out the WRs that we are about to see for HOF induction, but I don't think we'll see another QB until Favre, which leaves openings at other positions for at least 6 years.

Rod Smith not going in Hall.

Re #23: I’m not trying to start an argument here, necessarily, but Nalen has been considered one of the 2 best centers in the league? By who? And even if he was so considered, when? For example, right now most would consider Saturday and Kreutz the top 2. Kevin Mawae has generally been considered top shelf for years before that. And the Steelers alone have had Hartings and Dawson.

From the late 90s through the mid 2000s, Nalen and Mawae were the consensus top-2 centers in the league on everything I saw. Sometimes Nalen was #1, sometimes Mawae was #1, but they were both there.

Secondly, “he paved the way for the longest running success story in history�? In what sense?
Mel Kiper used to call Denver's "plug-and-play" RB system the "longest running success story". I've always just liked the phrase.

Re: #26: It's my first post here. Thanks for the welcome. Calm down. Geez.

Almost very team's fans have a gripe when it comes to their players not being in the HOF it seems. Two words: Art Monk. And then there's the fact that Bob Kuechenberg hasn't gotten in. Are you telling me Larry Little is the only member of the Fins' O-line that went to 3 straight Super Bowls who deserves to be in? Hogwash. And then there's the case of the Hogs themeselves. I don't think any of them are in and *that's* garbage as well. Don't blame Zimmerman's exclusion on anti-Broncos bias, it's more due to anti-offensive lineman bias. (Dermontti Dawson always struck me back in the day as someone who'd definitely be in and he's yet another lineman who isn't.)

Of all the names I've seen, Zimmerman and Gradishar are the only ones who should be in that isn't. That's hardly an example of bias against Denver when again, several other teams have at least as many players who should be in but aren't.

#6:

I have a strong feeling Anderson will finally get in as part of the Bill Walsh tribute. After all, him being in just makes Walsh look like even more of a legend, right?

A quick check revealed that the Broncos played in the Hall of Fame Game 3 times, which is about normal. The Broncos were 1-2 in those games, which is reasonable for a meaningless preseason game. So, I wouldn't think that HoFG performance would matter... ;)

Len:

Welcome to FO posting!

In their defense, you just happened to stumble on a longstanding issue. I've noticed that FO has been very courteous about correcting issues - particularly w.r.t. other sites I've lurked on.

re: 30

So, what are you saying, DolFan? That Denver has been one of the most successful teams going, but they have much crappier players than the other successful football teams?

You'd think a Dolfan would know that Jim Langer was an offensive lineman, played for the Dolphins, is in the Hall of Fame, and played in three straight Super Bowls for them, but you are right that Keuchenberg should have been inducted yesterday.

#33:

What I'm saying is that Denver has been full of good and very good players, just not a whole lot of great ones. In fact, we are currently in an era of title winning teams exactly like that. How many members of the current Pats do you think will get in besides Brady? How many other Colts besides Peyton and Harrison?

The Broncos of the 90's were the beginning of this era. Davis would've been in had he just played longer but he and Zimmerman are about it.

I'm not even the only one who says this. SI had a cover story titled: "John Elway: An Appreciation" which didn't laud Elway on his own merits as much as it congratulated him for being so great while surrounded by a bunch of losers. This article just RIPPED the rest of the team. The week that issue came out the Broncos lost to the Jags in the playoffs.

#34:

Touche. It's sad that in Dolphins history Langer is a forgotten man next to Dwight Stephenson. At least you agreed with me about Kuechenberg, which may be the first time we've agreed on anything.

Gradishar absolutely should be in.

Terrell Davis sort of epitomizes the combination of bad luck and perceptual problems that have held quite a few Broncos back. When Davis' career was cut short, there seemed to be at least some sentiment he might make it on a Gayle Sayers type of a deal. But, every RB Denver plugged in after him went for 1,000+ yards and Lewis went for 2,000 with the Ravens, making that accomplishment seem less impressive. Now, it seems very unlikely he will get in.

Re #30: Of all the names I’ve seen, Zimmerman and Gradishar are the only ones who should be in that isn’t. That’s hardly an example of bias against Denver when again, several other teams have at least as many players who should be in but aren’t.

The difference is that, for a lot of those teams, the players are being excluded because that team already has a lot of players in the HoF (sort of like how Kuech is being kept out because two of his OLine teammates are already in). And a lot of those teams have gotten far more borderline players into the HoF, too, which evens up their total numbers (i.e. a team might have the right number of HoFers, it's just they don't have the right HoFers).

The author says that there's a 90% correlation between wins and HoFers, which is a pretty strong correlation, all things considered. For the Broncos to be the only team in the league that completely flies in the face of this seems a bit odd unless there are lurking variables involved. Personally, I think the lack of media coverage of the "Dusty Cowtown" really killed the chances of pretty much everyone who played in the '60s and '70s (such as Tombstone, Gradishar, and Floyd Little). I also think that there really wasn't anyone deserving from the late '80s other than Elway, who often carried those teams alone, and I think that most of the late-90s players haven't gotten a chance yet (except for Zimmerman, whose exclusion to this point is getting bizarre).

re 26:

Why is your website so poorly designed that a web link breaks it???

The fact that Harry Carson got in the HOF so early and Gradishar has barely had a sniff is a joke.

Historically there has been too much of a bias towards teams from major media markets and teams that have won multiple SBs (w/ exception of Denver).

Besides Gradishar, the following Broncos should be in:

STEVE ATWATER: Playing safety, which is the toughest position to get in, is his only significant negative. He has the long term career individual honors pedigree; 1990s All Decade Team, 8 time pro bowler along with being a two time SB CHamp. He also played huge in big games. Atwater played the game of his life in SB32 where he saved at least 2 TDs, forced a fumble and made some of the biggest hits I have seen in a SB. In the 98 AFC Championship game Denver was losing 10-0 in the 3rd qtr and Atwater casued two fumbles that either stopped Jets drives or led to Denver scores. (Parcells signd him the next year because of this game.) If Atwater played for the Giants or Cowboys and accomplished the same, he would easily be a HOFer.

GARY ZIMMERMAN: All decade 80s and 90s. He is easily a HOFer. Perhaps joining the Broncos in '95 actually hurt his his HOF chances despite winning a SB in 1997.

TERRELL DAVIS: Despite the short career and future success of other Denver runners his accomplishments were amazing in that short period. 2000 yds, SB MVP, NFL MVP & two time SB Champion. He is obviously a maybe candidate, but I think the Sayers presidence would apply him. If Davis played for the Bears, Giants or Cowboys and accomplished the same, he would go from being a maybe candidate to a probably candidate. IF the main argument against him is that anyone can run behind that line, then why would Nalen or Zimmerman not be more highly regarded candidates.

SHANNON SHARPE: He has the statistics, pro bowls and championships to be a strong candidate. Add in his media presence and personality and he looks to have the nest chance of any Bronco.

TOM NALEN: I think many posters have argued his case in previous posts. He is the only consisent player behind a line that has paved the way for a 2000 yd rusher (Zimmerman was retired and not part of the 2K season) along with paving the way for multiple 1000 yd rushers.

CHAMP BAILEY: Unless he has a major drop-off or scandal, he should have no problem getting in the HOF.

I think players like Rod Smith and Karl Mecklenberg were great players but are not HOFers. FLoyd Little was very good in his day; I think he led the league in rushing 2 or 3 times on awful teams, but he only played 7 or 8 years and his teams were not very good. His chances would have been much better had he not retired in '76, as he would have had more yards and been able to play in a SB.

I don't think there is a magic formula in which the HOF operates, meaning 4 Super Bowls = 9 HOFers, 3 Super Bowls = 5 HOFers, etc.

Denver has a few borderline candidates, but no slam-dunk candidates IMO other than Gradishar. Looking at the HOF voting from years past, I don't think that even Zimmerman is a slam-dunk candidate. That said, I think Zimmerman and possibly Atwater will eventually make the HOF. I don't understand whats going on with Gradishar. The fact that he isn't in yet is a bad sign. IMO, Gradishar is the most overlooked HOF candidate regardless of position. He is still probably the best 3-4 ILB to play the game. He was very well-rounded, and he was a tackling machine. I doubt there has ever been a better ILB in pass coverage.

I think the problem is pure geography: Denver is probably the most geographically isolated of all nfl cities, (maybe Pheonix compares), and nearly every quasi-deserving eligble Denver Bronco that has been mentioned here played in the pre-internet era, when news was much less ubiquitous than it is now. Because of this, Bronco players were less famous than players of similar accomplishments, so when their names come up, voters think "I don't remember this guy that well," which leads to voters looking for reasons to exclude them instead of looking for reasons to include them.
We've seen this scenario play out here with comments to the effect of--no doubt those guys had great careers, but most of them just weren't quite hall-of-fame caliber.

senser, when the same people who select for the HOF also select a player to the all-decade team for two different decades, and he still is not a slam-dunk HOF inductee, one can only conclude that either the selectors are drunk, or they have determined that no player at that position, over a two decade span, is deserving of induction. Of course, the latter determination is indicative of inebriation as well, which is coming pretty close to summarizing the HOF selection process. I'm losing more interest in it with each successive year, because the guys involved are clueless, just as I would lose interest in the NFL as a whole if every head coach approximated Marty Morningwheig.

I also think that there really wasn’t anyone deserving from the late ’80s other than Elway, who often carried those teams alone

I tend to think that Elway carried his first 3 Super Bowl teams also. But if you really think about it, that's highly unlikely. Football is the ultimate team sport. There is no way one player - even a QB - could truly carry a team to a Super Bowl on his own. This means that those Super Bowl teams really had some other players of considerable talent. Or maybe the team had 21 other above-average players, while many other Super Bowl teams have some great players and some less than average players.

I think the odds are that the 1980's Broncos had some other very talented players on their roster - guys who just aren't getting their just due.

The 1989 Broncos finished 9th in points allowed. Greg Kragen, Karl Mecklenburg and Dennis Smith were Pro Bowlers on that defense. Atwater and Tyrone Braxton also played on that team.

The 1987 team was 7th in points allowed. In addition to the above, Rulon Jones was a member of the defense.

The 1985 team was only 15th in points allowed and also had Tom Jackson and Louis Wright.

I'm sure if the Broncos had won 1 or 2 of the Super Bowls in the 1980's, a couple of guys like Tom Jackson, Mecklenburg, Dennis Smith and/or Rulon Jones would be in the HOF.

It's unfortunate how much a difference a win or a loss in a Super Bowl can make on the reputation of individual players.

The Vikings have done very well in regards to the HOF, considering how many great, great, players have been ridiculoulsy overlooked, but there is no doubt that if they had won one of their Super Bowls, Mick Tinglehoff would certainly be in.

re #42:

John Anderson was selected to the 80's All-Decade team. Mel Blount was also selected to the 80's All-Decade team, despite having only 3 effective seasons in the 80's.

I think the point is that if you have to mention that Player X made the All-Decade team, then that player isn't a slam-dunk candidate. The only all-80's T in the HOF is Munoz. The all-90's T are Zimmerman, Roaf, Boselli, and Webb. Webb won't make the HOF, Boselli probably won't, Roaf might, and Zimmerman might. No slam-dunk candidates there, IMO.

re #43:

Rulon Jones making the HOF is highly questionable. The Steelers won 4 Super Bowls and LC Greenwood isn't in the HOF. Greenwood was about 10X the player Jones was. I think it would be worse for the HOF if the Broncos had won 1 or 2 Super Bowls in the 80's and Rulon Jones made the HOF.

Even with 1 or 2 rings, I don't think Tom Jackson should make the HOF over an OLB like Chuck Howley, Dennis Smith over Cliff Harris, or Karl Mecklenburg over Randy Gradishar.

43 - I tend not to think that Elway carried those teams. We don't have DVOA for that era, and I don't have my Hidden Game (either edition) in front of me, so I'm not even sure what the drive stats were, but I think it was definitely the defense of those 80s teams more than the offense that got the Broncos into those Super Bowls.

Of course, the fact that the AFC was weaker than the NFC at the time and that the Broncos lost 39-20, 42-10, and 55-10 in those SBs really hurts their case.

Of the defenders mentioned, though, I only think Mecklenburg would actually have improved his chance with a SB victory. Wright and Smith play DB, and there are only 17 DBs in the HOF, meaning you have to make quite an impact. Kragen and Jones had their years, but really didn't excel over long stretches.

Really, even as a Broncos fan, it's hard to make a case for many of the guys that were big impact players (other than Elway) during their 1986-1989 SB run.

Senser, the point is that the same people who select the HOF have already told us that they think Zimmerman was one of the dominant ots in the 80s AND the 90s, and yet they have not deemed him fit for the HOF. It becomes logically insescapable, then, that either the selectors are clueless about their own beliefs, or that they don't believe that any ot but Munoz, over a two decade span, is worthy. To think that only one ot throughout the 80s and 90s is worthy is sheer idiocy. You may be right that Zimmerman isn't a slam dunk, but that's only because the gatekeepers are morons.

Oh, goodness, yes, every year that Greenwood and Howely are left out is indicative of the inadequacy of the HOF selectors as well. The list of guys who belong in who aren't in is getting ridiculously long. The fact that Rayfield Wright didn't get in until last year was a complete joke.

Every time one of these threads appear here, I come closer to convincing myself that the HOF isn't worth paying attention to anymore.

Re #48:

I think all it proves is that Zimmerman's career perfectly overlapped two decades. He made 3 pro bowls in the 80's, 4 in the 90's. Good for him. I don't think he should earn bonus points for good timing. Zimmerman's 7 pro bowls aren't exactly a slam-dunk total. I'm sure I can find at least a dozen O-lineman with more pro bowls that aren't in the HOF.

I would be surprised if you can find any player with 8 or more probowls and not be in the hall of fame.

Yes, senser, I'd like to see the list of 12 linemen with more than seven pro bowls who aren't in the HOF, especially any who have been eligible for induction for more than five years. Please let me know who they are.

Randall McDaniel comes to mind, but he only became eligible last year.

50 - I don't know. I think there is something a little strange when Jackie Slater is a first ballot HOFer, not on any all-decade team, while Zimmerman beat him out for the all '80s team, and Zimmerman can't seem to make it.

O-Linemen with 8+ pro bowls not in HOF:

George Kunz
Winston Hill
Walt Sweeney
Jim Tyrer
Steve Wisniewski

Guys like McDaniel, Ogden, Allen, and Roaf have all made like 11 or 12 pro bowls. To me, those are the slam-dunk guys. Ruben Brown made 8 pro bowls, and I don't think he's HOF material. Will Shields will probably be a toss-up, and he's made 11 pro bowls. Tom Mack had to wait forever to get into Canton, and he made 11 pro bowls.

Zimmerman is a borderline candidate, lumped in with other 7 pro bowl O-linemen like Lomas Brown, Ed Budde, Dermontti Dawson, Jay Hilgenberg, Chris Hinton, etc. etc. etc.

re #53:

I agree with you that the All-80's team composition is very strange. I already mentioned Blount and Anderson, and I too find it odd that Zimmerman made the team over Slater.

That said, the HOF looks at a player's career, they don't separate everything into decades. Slater's career was nearly twice as long as Zimmerman's, FWIW.

Senser, if you want to say that Zimmerman's performance doesn't make him a slam dunk, that's a point that can be sensibly argued. What can't be sensibly argued, however, is that you voted Zimmerman to be one of the top two ots of the 1980s and 1990s, but he isn't a slam-dunk for the HOF. It doesn't matter if he timed it perfectly; the selecters have told us that THEY BELIEVE that no other ots in the '80s and '90s were better than Zimmerman. Not putting Zimmerman in the HOF reveals the selectors to be morons, in one way or another.

I didn't think there were 12 eligible offensive linemen with 8-plus pro bowls not in the HOF. I'll also note that most of Tyrer and Sweeney's Pro-Bowl appearances came in an era when getting voted to a Pro Bowl was easier, since there two of them, prior to the merger. I think Tyrer belongs, however. I don't know enough about Sweeney. Kunz certainly should be in.

Re: 51

Redskins LB Chris Hanburger went to 9 Pro Bowls (and won a defensive player of the year) and is not in the Hall. For all that Skins fans campaign on behalf of Monk and Grimm (myself included), Hanburger is even more deserving.

re: #56

Maybe it just comes down to semantics. I just don't subjectively see Zimmerman as a slam-dunk, and all my arguments are geared toward that. You are right about two all-decade teams...its an impressive accomplishment. Not many have that on their HOF resume. I'm not as impressed by Zimmerman's pro bowl total, because so many O-lineman had 7+ pro bowls. I also don't understand the comparison of Zimmerman to O-linemen that had 8+ pro bowls, because Zimmerman only had 7 himself.

All in all, I think Zimmerman deserves the HOF, but isn't a slam-dunk like a Munoz or an Ogden. I don't think he was ever the best OT in the game. Just my opinion.

As to the 8+ pro bowl guys, I think Tyrer is the only one who deserves the HOF.

#51,54

There's also Chris Hanburger with 9PBs, who isn't in the Hall and can't even be excused by the anti-lineman bias. I think the Redskins fans who get behind the Monk case should spend more time getting behind him.

The Harry Carson induction was one of the strangest things that the Hall has ever done (and that's a long list of strange) when you consider the list of great LBs who haven't been inducted like Hanburger, Gradishar, Greenwood, Brazile.....

The ESPN list is horseshit

Greenwood was a dl.
Considering the amount of steelers in the hall,
I can see why he isn't in.
I have no problem with his selection
I think you could make a case for Donnie shell as well,
I just think they are fighting an unusual numbers game

Greenwood's a de, Doc, but you are correct about Hanburger. The bias against linebackers is even stronger than the bias against offensive linemen, and another indicator of what a joke the Pro Football Hall of Fame is becoming, if it hasn't done so already.

Senser, I wasn't arguing against your subjective judgement of Zimmerman. When it comes to o-linemen subjective judgements is pretty much all we have, and people can reasonably disagree. I was arguing against the moronic applied logic of the selectors who see fit to proclaim Zimmerman to be one of the best ots of the 80s and 90s, but not worthy of the HOF. That's just stupid.

I will say this, subjectively: Zimmerman was the best pass blocker of his era. Absolutely wonderful footwork, and technically flawless overall.

I think part of the problem with the HoF is that there are more deserving players than there are slots on any given year, and it's causing this gradual build up of HoF caliber guys who'll never get in because every year the competition gets harder and harder. Art Monk has created a giant plug up at WR. How are O-linemen supposed to compete with all the big name position players coming up every year?

I also think part of the problem is stats. With O-linemen, there really arne't a lot of stats to weigh them against their peers, which can cause an overvaluing of Pro Bowls and SBs. We can look at Jerry Rice's numbers and go "Wow, look how much better he was than all these other receivers". Dan Marino was a shoo in despite never winning a Super Bowl. But you can't look at Tom Nalen and go "Wow, look at those stats, he really stood out from the competition."

re 47
db 86 drive stats
25.2 off
24.0 def
26.0 nfl ave

87
29.0 off
25.1 def
26.0 average

89
26.0 off
21.9 def(lowest in afc)
27.0 average

I took those numbers from the recent ESPN pfe
Now that I look at my 1998 hgof the numbers are a tiny bit different.
For example, the hgof lists the db as
26.1 off
21.8 def

I am not sure why that is.

I must say, I agree fully with Will on the perpetually inebriated state of the HOF selectors, and have felt the same way for years.

That's two agreements with Will in a couple of days. Hell has officially frozen over.

I can sum up in two words why Carson got in: political correctness.

Harry Carson deserved induction, although certainly a good case could be made that other linebackers were more deserving. I don't know what is meant by "political correctness" but playing in New York always helps.

Damn, I knew it couldn't last :-(

Playing in New York didn't do a thing for Carson. He CLEARLY wanted to be in and it clearly frustrated him so much he resorted to believing the HOF selectors were racists (a completely absurd notion for obvious reasons). This led him to make his infamous "don't even vote me in, I've had it with all of you" statement and the selectors were so intimidated at the mere notion that people might consider them racists that they instantly did just that despite completely ignoring Carson for years prior to his hissyfit. Like I said, political correctness. And I believe that was Carson's plan all along.

This is also why you *never* hear about Moon's playoff flops, including the Buffalo Comeback, while Marino will always be raked over the coals for not winning the Big One.

Oh, and Irvin only got in because our society now celebrates bad behavior. If he had played in the 70's or most of the 80's with the same stats he'd still be waiting for enshrinement. Monk has three rings too and way more catches but he'll never get in because he was too nice, plain and simple. Nice guys are too dull and boring, you see. This is why I believe TO is a lock and Moss will eventually get in too. It sure won't be because those guys had much playoff success.

I think Harry Carson over Gradishar and Hanburger is the ultimate validation of anyone who thinks there is a bias towards teams that played for high profile teams or were on SB championships. The day I found out Carson was in and Gradishar was not even given a sniff was the day I lost respect for the hall.

I was not aware of him suggesting racism in regard to the HOF selection process. I hope that was not the case.

Dolfan, when it gets to the point that you pretend to be able to read people's minds, and thus know that Harry Carson was inducted into the Hall of Fame because the selectors were afraid of being thought racists, well, let me be blunt: You are every bit as large a jerk as Michael Irvin. Every single bit. Excuse me, Aaron, for using this bandwidth to deliver invective, but I've had it with this gaping A-hole.

Dolfan, how about this? I promise to never respond to any post you have here, and you can do the same for my posts. My experience here would be improved by avoiding you at every opportunity, and pretending as if you did not exist. If you could extend the same courtesy to me, and not address me directly, or any of my posts, I'm sure most in this forum would be appreciative.

I tell ya' what. Go ahead and have the last word, say anything you want, and from then on we just ignore each other. Deal?

LMAO!!! I may not be able to read people's minds, but I'm a lot better at seeing their true natures than you are, Will. As big a jerk as Michael Irvin? That's a big statement from someone who doesn't know me. Why, I don't even indulge in illegal drugs. Irvin and I aren't even close to the same personality. I'm not the problem here, YOU are. You decided not to like me from the start just for expressing my opinion the same as everyone else.

It sure is funny how I was able to post with the same group of people for NINE YEARS on various Dolphins boards and none of them decided to think I was a jerk even though I'm the same person there as I am here.

Ah well. I can't control what other people think, the only person whose thoughts and actions I can control is mine.

I'm actually kinda proud I could inspire this kind of deep-seated (I hate it when people say deep "seeded") feeling in someone. I wasn't really going for overriding hatred but whatever. I haven't had anyone hate me on the internet this much in about 6 years. Maybe you're just a spiteful, hateful person. It's pretty sad that you can hate me that much just for not caring what you think of me. In that case I suppose I'd be better off not communicating with you.

But if you think I'm going to not comment on an article just because you've posted before me then think again. I'll keep expressing myself and hopefully the rest of the posters here aren't as vile, venomous and vitriolic as you.

And now, back to your regularly scheduled programming :-)

Dolphan,
could you dial it down just a bit?
If you go back and read some of the posts from years past I think you will find that
1. Will Allen has posted here a lot(I bet he is in the top 10)
2. Almost all of the time he comes across as a reasonable guy, somebody who, if I was in a bar watching a game, would be a fun guy to hang out with.
3. Almost everyone who has been here for awhile likes a lot.
More than one person has suggested he is the best poster here(this was before raiderjoe!)

All I am saying is go back and look at old pages and you might find that Will Allen comes across as a pretty sensible guy and maybe not vile and vitriolic.

One of the cool things about Football Outsiders is that folks often disagree but for the most part are pretty nice to each other.

damn right. And Simon Fletcher should have made the Pro Bowl multiple times, he could knock down passes. And Joe Dudek had a great replacement game, plus he was just so damn cool.

Yeah, I didn't think you would agree to that; you are just too big a jerk, as well as just too damned stupid. Dolfan, you haven't earned the right to be hated, any more than a dog turd that I accidentally step on has. As far as being vile, as well as stupid, yes, you half-wit, when you state it as fact that some people cast a vote a certain way because they were intimidated by the prospect of being thought racists, yes, you are pretending to read their minds, for you are making an assertion regarding their state of mind, based on nothing but pure speculation. A person who would adopt that conceit is a jerk, through and through.

Now, due to your illiteracy, I am forced to extend my offer again. I didn't ask that you not participate in any thread in which I appeared first, you numbskull. I simply asked that you not reference or respond to any post of mine, and I will do the same in regards to your posts.

Now, under the assumption you can demonstrate the literacy common among typical 2nd graders, I will offer again; you can say whatever you wish in response to this post, and I will give you the last word. Please, will you simply pretend as if you never read another post of mine, so I am not otherwise ever tempted to interact with your kind again?

Dolfan, I don't know how you do it but you somehow manage to come across as more of a ridiculously self righteous, holier than thou, judgmental, whining ninny every time you post. Sorry if that is too vile, venemous and vitriolic for you.

The concept that the Broncos are owed a certain quota of HOFers since they won a lot of of games is misguided at best.

Certainly, kevin, to say they are "owed" is misguided. I would say, however, that an oustanding overall winning percentage over multiple decades is likley more indicative that a team might have had multiple players who are HOF worthy that the usual proxy adopted by selectors, which is a tiny sample of Super Bowl performances. Now, I could see a counterargument if a team played for multiple decades in a weak division, accompanied by .200 winning percentage in playoff games, but otherwise I would say that it is a bit unexpected that a team with a top notch winning percentage over a thirty year span only would have one player in the HOF. Somebody had to play extraordinarily well to chalk up those 300+ wins.

Kevin
Given Denver's success and lack of HOFers one of two things has to be the case. Either John Elway is by far the greatest NFL player ever, or the Broncos are under-representing in the HOF.

76- Point taken, but the HOF is to award great individual achievement. The Elway era Broncos were Elway and a bunch of guys that belong in the Hall of Very Good. I just don't think the arguments for a Steve Atwater or a Karl Mecklenberg should be advanced by a "we need more Broncos" argument.

77- A third posibility is that Elway was surrounded by a lot of very good players, none of whom were HOF-worthy superstars.

#71:

If someone was the nicest man in the world, but treated you like garbage, would you like him?

Because that's apparently the situation going on here.

As far as "toning it down" you're talking to the wrong guy. But even though I realize now that you and this site in general blatantly endorse Will's hate and insults of me, I STILL am going to keep posting in whatever thread I want. Because I haven't done anything wrong. I already bought PFP for the first time, I can't stop now.

Way to break your own agreement that I was perfectly happy to comply with BTW Will. I'm sure you've still got another hate-spewing post or two left in you. I'm not even concerned about myself, I can take it. I'm concerned about your hatred for me taking away from every thread we're both in. There *are* other posters here who *might* not want to constantly deal with this, you know.

And this really is my last word on the matter. I don't care if Will calls my mother an idiot for not having me aborted, I will do what Will can't and never respond to him--or his supporters'--hate for me again. I'm better than that.

77/78:

A fourth possibility that I don't think would go over well with most Denver fans: Dan Reeves is a lot better coach than most people think. He's not just good, but great.

Steve Atwater played for Denver from 89 to 98 and only played for one of the SB losing teams of the 80s. His HOF status is significantly higher than Mecklenbergs.

STEVE ATWATER: Playing safety, which is the toughest position to get in, is his only significant negative. He has the long term career individual honors pedigree; 1990s All Decade Team, 8 time pro bowler along with being a two time SB CHamp. He also played huge in big games. Atwater played the game of his life in SB32 where he saved at least 2 TDs, forced a fumble and made some of the biggest hits I have seen in a SB. In the 98 AFC Championship game Denver was losing 10-0 in the 3rd qtr and Atwater casued two fumbles that either stopped Jets drives or led to Denver scores. (Parcells signd him the next year because of this game.) If Atwater played for the Giants or Cowboys and accomplished the same, he would easily be a HOFer.

Mecklenberg, Rod SMith and Tom Jackson were all very good players, but when Bronco supporters try to include them in any discussion about how Bronco players are "dissed" by the HOF it takes away some of the credibility when making arguments for more deserving canddates. Besides Gradishar, Zimmerman and Sharpe every other candidate (Davis, Atwater, Nalen) admitedly is a borderline candidate. However it seems Denver has a difficult time getting guys who should be in, and their borderline candidates will never get a shot.

You are right about Reeves. In close games he was one of the best coaches I have seen. Elway was obviously the catalyst, but Reeves was the master out of getting more out of less in terms of talent and had a lit to do with Denver's 1980s success. However Reeves was one of the first guys to get the GM/coach position so he should has accountablitiy for Denver's lack of any type of power running game.

He is the only coach since Beamer to get anything positive out of Vick.

Re: #71

WTF are you talking about? DolFan316 talks about the HOF selectors being too politically correct, Will Allen calls DolFan316 a jerk (while previously suggesting that the HOF selectors are morons for not inducting Gary Zimmerman yet), and you feel the need to step in and tell Dolfan316 to "dial it down"? I thought we were talking about the HOF.

The sheep mentality of the posters on this site are just too much. God forbid someone have an original thought.

re 83

I’ll keep expressing myself and hopefully the rest of the posters here aren’t as vile, venomous and vitriolic as you.

that's what i am talking about.
I do not think there is a need to use words like that to describe other posters.
If that is being a sheep, so be it.

No, senser81, I stated that I didn't know what "politically correct" meant, and then was informed that it meant that the voters inducted Carson because they were afraid of being thought racist. That is a vile insult to hurl at both the voters and at Carson.

Now, insulting the voters and Carson is fine, AS LONG AS ONE MARSHALS SOME EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE INSULT (sorry for the caps, can't italicize), and this vile insult was accompanied by no evidence. If the insult had been accompanied by evidence regarding A) that Carson's career didn't warrant induction on it's merits, or B)some evidence regarding the state of mind of the voters, or lacking any evidence regarding their state of mind, C)the insult had been clearly speculative in nature, I would not have reacted in the manner I did. None of those elements were present, however.

The assertion/insult regarding the voters' state of mind was categorical, there was no evidence marshaled to support the assertion, nor was there any evidence supplied regarding whether Carson's career was not deserving of induction. Thus, all that is left is a vile insult without a shred of evidence to support it. That is how jerks behave.

In contrast, my attribution of idiocy to the voters is based on a logically inescapable fact, that it is illogical to the point of idiocy to assert that Zimmerman was one of the two best ots in both the 80s and 90s, and yet is not worthy of HOF induction.

There is nothing sheep-like in demanding that vile insults regarding a group's character or an individual's accomplishments be accompanied by evidence to support the insult, and in concluding that failure to supply such evidence is itself damning evidence regarding the character of the person who delivered such an insult.

re: #83

Did you not read post #69? I don't see how you could be so one-sided with your "dialing it down" comments. I saw one guy say that Carson was enshrined because the HOF selectors didn't want to be branded 'racist' after Carson accused them of such, then the response he gets is to be called a big jerk and a gaping A-hole. So I don't understand why your "dialing it down" comments weren't directed toward Will Allen.

If that makes me vile, venomous, and vitriolic, so be it.

re: #85

How is it a "vile insult" to hurl at the voters? I'd say its more of a theory than an insult. I could say the same thing about Fritz Pollard's enshrinement. His accomplishments were not up to par with the other HOFers, but his skin color played a big role in his induction. It was as if the HOF selectors were on a political mission. That said, Duke Slater would have been a better candidate than Pollard, but oh well.

BTW, Zimmerman was one of the 4 best OTs in the 80's and one of the 4 best OTs in the 90s when you consider the makeup of the All-Decade teams. Its not "1 of the 2 best OTs in the 80's and 90's".

Well, golly, senser, perhaps if someone accused you of shirking your professional responsibility to employ your expertise to the best of your ability, by instead casting a vote in a cowardly manner in order to avoid being labeled a racist, you wouldn't consider it a vile insult. I would, because my professional reputation is something I've spent years and years earning. I'll ignore the insult directed at Carson via the same assertion, absent any evidence.

As to the all-decade team, I stand corrected, and I'll rephrase: If the people who vote for the All-Decade have decided that 25% of the 8 best tackles to play in the eighties and nineties are named Gary Zimmerman, yet they also have decided that Gary Zimmerman isn't worthy of the Hall of Fame, it logically follows that the people who cast those votes are clueless.

That's the difference between accusing someone of a less than desirable behavior (will that suffice for you?) based on observed behavior, and doing so by purely creating something out of thin air, without supplying even the flimsiest evidence.

re: #88

To sum up...

Should Zimmerman be enshrined? Yes.

Should Gradishar been enshrined before Carson? Probably.

Was Carson enshrined due to his complaining? Maybe.

Was Carson enshrined due to racism? Most unlikely.

Was Pollard enshrined due to his race? I think so.

Does anyone care? Probably not.

I'm too uninformed about Pollard to have an opinion, and, no, I don't care all that much. Of course, there is no rational reason to care much about any aspect of the NFL, unless one is making a living in the industry. I probably reacted more angrily at the remarks than was warranted, but I get very irritated when people drop race into an issue being discussed, absent good evidence that racial thinking played a role in the behavior being discussed. I've previously been irritated by remarks by the poster in question, who, I promise, I'll never respond to again, so that probably played a role as well.

Carson beat Gradishar to the HOF because he played in New York and was on a team that won two SBs.

I agree with the idea that Randy Gradishar and Gary Zimmerman should be in the HoF and that Shannon Sharpe should be in when he's eligible. And I could potentially get behind Atwater, depending on how the argument is made.

For me, Tom Nalen is a more problematic case, as he has been a first team all pro only once, as opposed to Dermontti Dawson's 6 times and Kevin Mawae's 3 times. I don't see why Nalen is more deserving than Dawson, who hasn't even reached the finalist list yet desite being eligible for two years.

Re #18: sorry, but the only Raiders on your list who merit consideration for the HoF are Cliff Branch and Ray Guy.

And if Branch gets in, Drew Pearson and Harold Carmichael also should be in, as they're pretty comparable.