Today, the Seniors Committee to the Pro Football Hall of Fame announced its nominees to be finalists for the 2008 Hall of Fame class. Neither of the two choices were Broncos; the nods went to 1940s standout Marshall Goldberg of the Chicago Cardinals and longtime Kansas City Chiefs defensive back Emmitt Thomas.
At one point in time, when the Broncos were still a fairly young franchise, the Seniors Committee discusion was largely irrelevant. But as the depth and breadth of Broncos history has increased, so too has the possibility of seeing a Broncos great among these nominees.
More and more ex-Broncos are eligible for Hall of Fame nomination from the Seniors Committee, since the standard for being in the Seniors discussion is to be 25 years removed from one’s playing career. That places Floyd Little, Rich “Tombstone” Jackson, Lionel Taylor and by next year Randy Gradishar — whose career ended in 1983 — as players who could conceivably enter the Hall through these doors.
In recent years, going from finalist-via-Seniors Committee to the Hall of Fame has been a virtual slam dunk. Since 1994, there have been 18 Seniors Committee finalists, and all but one was selected for enshrinement. (Incidentally, the exception was Bob Hayes in 2004.)
With Goldberg, I could get into the the fact that the Cardinals already have 11 Hall of Famers. One might counter that their history is more than twice as lengthy as that of the Broncos, when factoring in their pre-NFL years. Fine. But the 1970s Cardinals have three players who made the Hall of Fame for their accomplishments with that franchise.
THREE!
Again, this is a team with zero playoff wins and only two postseason appearances in that 10-year span, and just one playoff win in the last 59 years. This is a team that deserves to have more players from one specific era than the entire span of Broncos history?
The selectors have seen fit to induct just one player for his accomplishments as a Bronco and two more who played in Denver, but made their HoF name elsewhere. It’s head-scratching to the point of drawing blood.
Then came today, when I saw a former Chief among the two seniors committee nominees. Since being a finalist through the seniors makes one a likely Hall of Fame choice, Thomas would become the ninth player to be enshrined in large part because of his accomplishments as a Chief.
And even if Thomas doesn’t make it, that’s eight for the Chiefs (Marcus Allen, Bobby Bell, Buck Buchanan, Len Dawson, Lamar Hunt, Willie Lanier, Jan Stenerud and Hank Stram) and one for the Broncos (John Elway).
Of course, all this is not to denigrate Thomas, who was a splendid defender and then became an exceptional assistant coach in his own right. But another Chief in the Hall? When you consider the accomplishments of both franchises — which came into existence in the same year, 1960 — the disparity is nothing short of absurd.
To wit:
Conference/AFL Championships: Denver 6, Kansas City 3
World Championships: Denver 2, Kansas City 1
Division Championships: Denver 10, Kansas City 8
Playoff Appearances: Denver 17, Kansas City 15
Winning Records: Denver 24, Kansas City 25
Overall Record: Denver 371-327-10 (.531), Kansas City 375-321-12 (.538)
Playoff Record: Denver 17-15, Kansas City 8-13
And I’m not going to even get into my own deep personal objections over Michael Irvin making the Hall of Fame before Art Monk. I don’t need to get any angrier. Matter of fact, I could use some lithium or a sedative right about now.
Anyhow, I know I’m preaching to the choir here, but I had to get all that out in the open. Until next time, when I get back into writing about the Broncos of the present, vaya con Dios.
Tags: Hall of Fame
You got no arguement from me. We get no respect…
I just stopped watching those pundit pukes who ignore the Broncos during the ballot process.
It’s kinda disturbing Andrew.
*raises fist*
There’s really no way to explain it without getting out of hand. There’s some serious hate for Denver. Any reason why is unknown to me.
There is a lack of love for Denver due to the fact that they were largely unsuccessful IN PUBLIC OPINION throughout the years. They were seen as a team that could win games, though few important ones. If a team flies under the radar for many, many years, they shine on their individul and few accomplishments. If a team cannot finish the season strong and win the S.B., they fall from grace. Who can argue that Elway is not the best Q.B. ever? Every conversation that I ever have with someone has Elway 2 or 3, simply because he couldn’t win a Bowl until the T.D. era…or was it the new uniforms???
[...] Seniors Committee HoF Nominees: No Broncos, Again By Andrew Neither of the two choices were Broncos; the nods went to 1940s standout Marshall Goldberg of the Chicago Cardinals and longtime Kansas City Chiefs defensive back Emmitt Thomas. At one point in time, when the Broncos were still a fairly … Mason’s Morsels – http://blog.denverbroncos.com/mason [...]
Tha HOF committee is a joke. Tombstone should be in, if Deacon Jones hadn’t been playing at the same time as him he would have been in already. Jackson was an outstanding player who should get the credit he deserves.
Buffalo didn’t finish its season strongly from 1990-93, either. But they made the Super Bowl four times, and as a result got Marv Levy, Jim Kelly, Thurman Thomas, James Lofton, and I’m sure Bruce Smith will be a slam dunk. And the Minnesota Vikings of the late ’60s to the late ’70s have Bud Grant, Carl Eller, Jim Finks, Paul Krause, Fran Tarkenton, Ron Yary and Alan Page.
I’m not saying a lot of those players on those late ’80s-early ’90s Broncos teams (pre-T.D., McCaffrey, Smith, Nalen, et. al.) have a strong case. But something’s just a tad askew here.
What a disgrace! I thought the Hall snubs were just east coast bias but with so many Chiefs and Cardinals in, this points out the glaring disrespect to the Broncos. And if we bring this up to any of the east coast based media their answer is we’ll get Shannon Sharpe in there soon enough so we should just shut up.
It almost seems to hurt us that we had such a strong /team/ in the mid to late 90s. McCaffrey and Smith I think watered each other down in the minds of voters.
The situation almost seems to be a badge of honor to me. There’s a reason football is called “true team sport”. In this case I don’t really see anything wrong with being viewed as a team with no bright stars, just a group of guys willing to put in the time and energy required to produce playoff quality teams year in and year out. It would be nice to get some guys in the HoF especially guys like Gradishaw and Mecklenburg, but the fact of the matter is the people that matter(the fans who watch these guys play every year and the players/coaches themselves) know how important they are/were to this team.
Playing in an offensive era as the 80′s and 90′s, the broncos weren’t the cream of the crop. Earlier was a heavily defensive era and there were some SERIOUS standouts. Denver had a few players who were very strong contributers but were overshadowed by the stigma of a losing team. In the next 5-10 years, we will be seeing a lot of Broncos being inducted. Why aren’t Gradishar, Atwater, Smith, Mecklenburg, Jackson etc in the Hall? Strength of team at the time, not player caliber. Art Monk was amazing, but the ‘Skins were a flash in the pan and have struggled since 1986. The fact that stats alone don’t allow entry causes enough concern. Add onto that the fact that it becomes a popularity vote of sorts… criminal.
What do you think, Mason?
Just a quick correction: The Broncos have won 6 conference championships, not just 5… don’t forget ’77.
Good catch, Anonymous.
The Detroit Lions have more players in the HOF than we do. ‘Nuff said.
At least we aren’t the NFC South… 2 total HOFers in 4 teams.
Andrew- while I can certainly understand your frustration with the Broncos’ lack of representation in the HoF, I must say your choice of comparison in the Chiefs is a bit odd. I simply don’t see how you can say the Chiefs and Broncos have an “absurd disparity.”
Look at the statistics you quoted. The only stat I would say contains an absurd disparity is playoff record. Other than that, the Broncos have only 3 more conference championships, only one more world championship (I will comment on this in a moment), only two more division championships, and only two more playoff appearances.
And look- two of the stats you use to support your argument are actually in favor of the Chiefs! They have had more winning seasons and sport a better overall record. Not sure how the sum total of the stats you quoted can be portrayed as an “absurd disparity” in favor of the Broncos…
As for the world championships, don’t get me wrong – there’s not a stat out there that is more important. And even though it’s only 2-1, that one Super Bowl differential is big. But even so, it’s just one.
Don’t mean to rag on you or anyone here, as I certainly understand your frustration. I just felt your use of the Chiefs as an example, and even more so by saying there was an “absurd disparity” between the two when there is nothing of the sort, was a bit unjust.
Actually, this is me again. Just posted above ^^. I reread your section about the Chiefs, and I believe I may have misinterpreted your statement.
I thought you were saying there was an “absurd disparity” in the overall success of the two franchises. But now I see you meant to say the two franchises have had similar success, but the Chiefs representation in the HoF far outweighs the Broncos. The “absurd disparity” is in the number of HoFers, not overall success. Certainly a valid point.
My apology.
Andrew,
I e-mailed your fine column to Peter King, of Sports Illustrated (he has a prominent voice for the Hall of Fame nominations–at least via the regular nomination process–I’m not totally sure about his voice within the Seniors Committee), who I’ve been e-mailing for sometime with no response for the continued Hall of Fame snubbing. From what I can see through his writing, it doesn’t appear that he has any sympathy whatsoever for the plight of the Broncos’ organization.
For any fans who read this, would you please join me in bombarding Peter King’s e-mail link that demonstrate our outrage over the continue snubbing of the Broncos by the Hall of Fame? Maybe he’ll respond to you. Thanks and here’s the link:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/email/mailbag.html
Finally, a question for Andrew. Do you know who the other voters are for the Hall of Fame? I’d like to garbage up their in-box. Thanks.
I agree with regards to the Broncos and Chiefs but would like to point out that while the Broncos have two World Championships and the Chiefs one, all but one (Marcus Allen) of the Chiefs enshrined in the hall came from that Superbowl winning team. Every one. Very few of the members of the Broncos championship teams have retired or are eligible and I agree that Zimmerman should be in, but not many otherwise could be considered eligible.
Remember that the Chiefs won their first Superbowl in 1968. The Broncos won their first championship in 1998. That might be one of the reasons we get no respect from the pundits who make the decisions, right or wrong.
And I agree with you that this team needs to have better representation in the Hall.
It’s ridiculous Gradishar isn’t in. Thanks for the great stuff as always.
What is really ridiculous is that the next Bronco that will probably be enshrined will be Shannon Sharpe. Not the he doesn’t deserve it! But Gradishar, Jackson, Atwater, Mecklenberg. Maybe its just because I am a Broncos fan, but the lack of respect is unreal! I bet it will take Rod Smith a few ballots to get in as well…..Great! Now I’m just angry! Not how I planned to start my Friday morning.
Sharp deserves to be in and i’m not just saying that as a fan.he did things as a TE that affect how the postion will be played for years.one of the greatest of all time that left a mark on the game that is not a stat that you can see but if you look at his stats you can see that their there to back a vote in to the hall of fame also.Over all there are alot broncos you can make an argument should be in right now and there are a ton(rod smith, jason elam,and ect.) that we know should make it.Some you need to make an argument for but Sharp is not one of them
flyod little enough said
Friends and I saw Gradishar and Mecklenberg in the HOF during John Elway’s induction. While scrambling for autographs and pictures, everyone (wearing orange or the number 7) was talking about how they had to be the next Broncos inducted. Gradishar made a comment to the effect that “They don’t like the Broncos much around here.” No kidding!
Mase, I was wondering the same exact thing when I saw that Irvin made it in before any other player. I personally have a hard time even watching him on television just because of his off field embarassments. As a broadcaster, he just won’t shut up and let the other analysts speak there piece. And when you said he went in before Monk, THATS FRICKEN RIDICULOUS. I’m not even a Redskins fan and that drives me crazy to even think about the records Monk has over Irvin, that coke sniffin, jaw flappin……i’ll stop, but Andrew you brought me down the road.
As an Englishman I have always thought HOF awards were a joke. Real winners already have their awards via Superbowl and Championship wins. The only players to benefit from HOF’s are losers. Elway didn’t benefit as he had won already. Far more important to be honoured by your own fans and players. The HOF’s are too political to count for much.
So don’t fret Andrew. We know what we know, and that includes knowing Art Monk is a class act, and Bronco’s players played for the best club and fans in the world.
This is an ironic board post because recently on a football video game discussion board, we were talking about this very subject. It goes on beyond that though, because its very rare that when we have ANYTHING that is good, we get zero respect for it. Now now, there are quite a few people that are not bias against us, but for the most part, they are. I was reading a discussion about the Miami Dolphins today, and in it, it was a talk about Defensive player of the year. The author of the article stated “Even though i still feel strongly that Champ Bailey deserved the honors.” Its true, all the old geezers who are in charge of all this, are blind to what Denver has and has had. Its insulting. Heck, I truly believe that players like T.D. deserve to be in there more than most of them getting in now days. And as i said previously, its all these old geezers who don’t give Denver ANY respect.
If you’re talking Broncos who are eligible for HoF Seniors committee consideration, by far the most viable options are Floyd Little and Rich “Tombstone” Jackson. I’m fine with Little getting in if he gets the chance, as he’s probably the most accomplished RB from the old AFL days, and no RB from the old AFL is in. Jackson’s injury shortened career (7 years) likely works against him, as does his having only one all pro selection and 3 pro bowls (or the equivalent).
I can get behind the idea of Randy Gradishar being in as well as Gary Zimmerman, and I can also potentially see a case for Steve Atwater. They’re all eligible as regular candidates, though this is Gradishar’s last year as such.
Karl Mecklenberg however is caught in a LB numbers crunch with other guys from his time including Andre Tippett, Chris Spielman, Clay Matthews, Cornelius Bennett, Charles Haley (also DE), Wilbur Marshall, Sam Mills, Rickey Jackson, and Kevin Greene. All have anywhere from 1-3 all pro selections and 3 to 6 pro bowls. The only meaningful thing I see separating them from each other are the appearances of Tippett, Greene, and Bennett on all decade teams. Distinguishing between them in HoF worth doesn’t strike me as easy, and I’m not sure why Mecklenberg is more deserving than these other folks.
And I have no problem at all with the three ’70′s St. Louis Cardinals being in. Can anyone make a case for why Dan Dierdorf, Roger Wehrli, and Jackie Smith don’t belong in? I don’t see any good argument against them, and besides, running down guys who are in strikes me as being bad form and bad karma.
But I do think the two seniors nominees this time around are really, really bad ones:
1. Marshall Goldberg played 8 years, about half of it during WWII against a depleted talent pool. And even then, his numbers look like Hall of the Very Good, and that is being really charitable. He never was a first team all pro and is not on any all decade teams (there was no pro bowl back then). And he had already come up as a Seniors candidate in 1979 and was voted down. Why choose him when they could have picked 40s linemen Al Wistert or Riley Matheson, both named to several all pro teams? Or 20s lineman Duke Slater, a fine player whose career was hurt as badly by racism as that of Fritz Pollard? Or 20s end Lavie Dilweg? Or if they needed a back, why not Dilweg’s teammate Verne Lewellen? Awful, awful choice, if you ask me.
2. please tell me why Emmitt Thomas was chosen ahead of other DBs who are equally or more deserving, including (deep breath) Cliff Harris, Johnny Robinson, Lemar Parrish, Bobby Dillon, Bob Boyd, Abe Woodson, Jack Butler, and Jim Patton. Sure, Thomas has lots of interceptions — but so do Robinson and Boyd. Thomas was an all pro twice, but except for Robinson, who spent almost all his career in the AFL, every one of these players made more such teams: Parrish and Butler 3, Boyd, Harris, and Woodson 4, Patton and Dillon 5. If you compare pro bowl appearances (or AFL equivalents), Thomas has 5 but so do Woodson and Patton, while Harris has 6, Robinson has 7, and Parrish 8. Dillon has 4. Butler also has 4 and Boyd only 2, but both are on their respective all-decade teams. And Thomas had a reputation for being a big on-field risk taker, one who sometimes got the pick but also got torched for TDs and big gainers. Hard to see this choice, either.
I certainly won’t gripe if neither gets elected. I don’t think they belong at all.
[...] Of course, two of those six slots will likely be taken by veterans committee choices, with Floyd Little already having again beeen overlooked by that group. [...]