Cowboys | Pearson Claims HOF is Biased Against Team - from www.KFFL.com Sun, 15 May 2005 19:27:31 -0700
Chad Peters, of DallasCowboys.com, reports that former Dallas Cowboys WR Drew Pearson believes there is a possible anti-Cowboys bias among voters for the Pro Football Hall of Fame. "The only way this is going to be corrected . . . if the Hall of Fame committee cares if they can squash this talk about a conspiracy is to make the votes public," Pearson said. "We need to see the voting trends of some of these guys, and see if there is a pattern going on. I would love to see the history of the voting from the last 20 years for the Hall of Fame. I bet there is a trend there against Cowboys, and I bet you can find certain writers from the old days voting against the Cowboys, no matter who the player might be."
Nope, it's just that the Cowpies suck and no one likes them. Period.
"I was on the sideline and guys were talking about the score, and then it hit me -- we won by 21. I came in the locker room and I yelled it out, and immediately I just kind of broke down in tears. Because I miss Sean, you know."
I don't know. I'm actually hesitant to say that there's even an anti-Redskins bias with voters.
Hall of Fame voters tend to gravitate towards style over substance when it comes down to the tough decisions. A good publicist, getting guys like John Madden or Chris Berman to pontificate on your highlight reels, and self-promoting all seem to get you a long way down the road towards the hall. Being the best at what you do kind of helps.
I'm willing to believe that quality players from the Cowboys have been snuffed just like Art Monk, the Hogs, and any number of qualified players from the Skins have been. I'm just skeptical that, at the end of the day, it comes down to what team you played for.
I don't think there is any rhyme or reason to who get's in and who doesn't.
The 70's Steelers have many players in the hall that shouldn't be, and yet of all of the Skins with rings, only Coach Gibbs and John Riggins is in.
Art Monk should be in. Bob Hayes should be in. The Hogs should be in collectively and Jacoby and Grimm individually at the very least.
RIP 21
"Nah, I trust the laws of nature to stay constant. I don't pray that the sun will rise tomorrow, and I don't need to pray that someone will beat the Cowboys in the playoffs." - Irn-Bru
Pearson is right. And you guys who are upset about Monk are also right. We went through this all through the past two years and God knows how many threads we had on the subject during the election process.
Monk, Pearson, Bob Hayes, etc...continue to get the shaft and it's NOT because any of them were lesser players.
"He's a playmaker, that's his label. They used to have strong safeties, but now they got another position: They're called playmakers." -Terence Newman on Roy Williams
Sometimes a story gets legs and takes off. People accept it as fact and when someone disputes the premise, people look at the disputer like: "Are you nuts?''
Today's tale: There is an anti-Cowboys bias among Hall of Fame voters.
I aim to dispel it, but let's kick off the festivities with our first e-mailer.
ARE THE COWBOYS GETTING JOBBED? From Bruce E. Sellers of Mapleton, Minn.: "I would assume it is only a matter of time before you address the latest hubbub surrounding Drew Pearson's comments about a bias in the media being the reason he and a number of other Cowboys from those '70s teams (i.e. Pearson, Rayfield Wright, Cliff Harris) have been snubbed by the Hall of Fame. This conspiracy theory has been floating around for quite a few years now, and I never bought into it until recently. My change of heart really started when Michael Irvin didn't get in last year. I thought he was a sure first-ballot HOFer. I don't want to hear about his off-the-field exploits, because there are a lot of characters in the Hall with not-so-glowing resumes. Paul Zimmerman even wrote that Irvin didn't get in because some of the writers didn't like the way he appeared on ESPN in his role with Countdown. If this is true, then that is ridiculous because the voting should be about what happened on the field.''
This story gained some steam on Monday, when Dan Patrick devoted much of his afternoon radio show to the topic, and Pearson called in to rip the process that has excluded some Dallas stars from the Hall. It's the same thing I've been hearing for years as one of the 39 Hall voters: For some reason, we don't like the Cowboys, and so we're not electing a representative number of them to the Hall. Let me make three points:
1. I can't vouch for the other 38 voters. I can only tell you what I think, and I know I have no bias against any player or any team when it comes to Hall voting. "Bias'' is an interesting word. Just because I vote against Art Monk does not mean in any way that I'm biased against him. I just feel he belongs in the Hall of Very Good, not in Canton. Paul Zimmerman may have heard in the room that some voters are biased against Irvin for his off-the-field problems or for his bombastic role on ESPN, but that is something I didn't catch. We are told that only on-field exploits are open for judgment, not what happens to a guy at midnight during the week. Might some voters hold his wild off-field life against Irvin? Could be, but I never heard any of the 39 voters say his vote was going to be affected by it.
2. I don't believe the Cowboys, more than any other team, are under-represented in the Hall. I voted for Wright all the way last year, the same way I voted for Irvin all the way this year. But I've also voted for other guys who don't get in (Russ Grimm and Harry Carson being the most notable ones these days). The Cowboys made it to five Super Bowls during a nine-year period, and 10 people from those teams are in the Hall. Let's exclude the short-timers, such as Herb Adderley, and say that seven bedrock Cowboys from those teams have made the Hall. Compare that to the team from the next generation that was as good, and maybe better historically, than Dallas. San Francisco, over a 14-year period, made it to five Super Bowls and has four people from that era in the Hall. So why don't I hear the same rabble-rousing from the Charles Haley, Randy Cross and Roger Craig advocates that I do constantly from Dallas?
3. The only logical argument for more Cowboys is the epidemic of Steelers in the Hall. I can't defend some of the Pittsburgh choices, because quite frankly, I wasn't in favor of some of the Steelers choices, like Lynn Swann. Just a personal feeling. But the Hall historically has favored players from Super Bowl winners. Pittsburgh was 4-0 in a six-season span. Dallas was 2-3 during a nine-year run. San Francisco was 5-0 in their 14-year spell, which makes the lack of Niners ever more noticeable. And look at Washington, 3-1 in Super Bowls in a 10-year run but just two Hall members -- John Riggins and Joe Gibbs. I'd buy the argument that Grimm, Joe Jacoby, Matt Millen and Darrell Green all deserve their day before our committee.
So, the fact that "only'' seven Cowboys are in the Hall from that era doesn't get much violin music from me.
King's an idiot (not that I needed to tell you guys).
He throws 10 Cowboys out there and only explains Adderly. Why not include a washed up Jackie Smith spending a year in Dallas as a backup. He then drops the number to seven but neglects to say what "seven" he was referring to.
If you buy his argument, than there are no Cowboy HOFer from any other decade. I guess Tex Shramm should only be in for what he did in the seventies, same with Landry. Lilly spent a good portion of his career in the sixties, Dorsett was more productive in the eighties. That leaves three players from the only team in the modern era to make the playoffs every year of a decade with only three HOFers.
Harris and Wright are the only two positional players to make the all-seventies team and not make the Hall. Pearson finished higher in that same voting than Swann. Hayes, Neely, Lee Roy Jordan, Chuck Howley, Ed Jones.....Too many snubs to mention.
He then uses the Redskins and 49ers as examples of other "dynasties" being snubbed. Did he mention that some of the 49ers aren't eligible yet and will be inducted as soon as they are?
The Redskins are a strange case because while winning three times, it was a relatively brief run at greatness and it was done without the "marquee" players. Witness the turnover at the high profile positions.
Green will get in without a doubt, a case can be made for Grimm being snubbed. Monk and Clark both have merit even Jacoby should get some consideration, but to compare their accomplishments to some of the snubbed Cowboys is a stretch even for the most die hard homer.
Maybe he should explain how instigated a little fiasco to keep Harris out of the Hall by changing the time period for the veterans committee whan Harris appeared to be a sure thing.
This space reserved for BTP......If he ever wins it.
curveball wrote:King's an idiot (not that I needed to tell you guys).
He throws 10 Cowboys out there and only explains Adderly. Why not include a washed up Jackie Smith spending a year in Dallas as a backup. He then drops the number to seven but neglects to say what "seven" he was referring to.
If you buy his argument, than there are no Cowboy HOFer from any other decade. I guess Tex Shramm should only be in for what he did in the seventies, same with Landry. Lilly spent a good portion of his career in the sixties, Dorsett was more productive in the eighties. That leaves three players from the only team in the modern era to make the playoffs every year of a decade with only three HOFers.
Harris and Wright are the only two positional players to make the all-seventies team and not make the Hall. Pearson finished higher in that same voting than Swann. Hayes, Neely, Lee Roy Jordan, Chuck Howley, Ed Jones.....Too many snubs to mention.
He then uses the Redskins and 49ers as examples of other "dynasties" being snubbed. Did he mention that some of the 49ers aren't eligible yet and will be inducted as soon as they are?
The Redskins are a strange case because while winning three times, it was a relatively brief run at greatness and it was done without the "marquee" players. Witness the turnover at the high profile positions.
Green will get in without a doubt, a case can be made for Grimm being snubbed. Monk and Clark both have merit even Jacoby should get some consideration, but to compare their accomplishments to some of the snubbed Cowboys is a stretch even for the most die hard homer.
Maybe he should explain how instigated a little fiasco to keep Harris out of the Hall by changing the time period for the veterans committee whan Harris appeared to be a sure thing.
What he said...This article is so full of it (and so is King) that I can't even put it into words.
"He's a playmaker, that's his label. They used to have strong safeties, but now they got another position: They're called playmakers." -Terence Newman on Roy Williams
