Pastabelly on Dan Patrick

[stupidsuck]

this is a post from another sports board, posted by a non (i.e. objectionable)Skins fan living in texas (I did not personally get to hear it today)

any one else hear this?

Len Pasquarelli demonstrates what is wrong with the NFL HOF

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just got back from lunch where I was able to listen to Dan Patrick interview Len Pasquarelli about the HOF balloting. Pasquarelli's claims that there is no bais, and you couldn't tell if there was any by listening to him, but there apparently is enough bad logic to go around.

Highlights:

Asked about the HOF worthiness of certain players:

Art Monk - quick, definitive NO.

Rickey Watters - hedges a sec, then ehhh, no. (You had to think about that one?!?!?)

Asked about criteria for a player getting in, he said it was based on their skills. Then, when asked about certain players, he would say their team's performance hurt them (never played for a winner) in his view.

Then when asked about Joe Jacoby's worthiness as a HOF player, he said "No, Russ Grimm needs to go in first." (I may have the names reversed on that example).

What kind of twisted logic is that? It is up to the player's performance, but then every example Patrick asked him about that was no was based on the team, another player, or a comparison to another outside factor.

No wonder the choices come out wacked about half the time.

[SkinsHokieFan]

He said Jacoby was borderline mainly because Grimm was the one who should be in

I don't see why both can't be in? And of course his quick no with Monk was pathetic although I would say 80 percent were No's

[bubba9497]

Pastabelly on Dan Patrick

that's gotta hurt! :yikes:

[jschlesi]

He sat there and denied whether there was team bias and then in the next paragraph that Jacoby didnt deserve consideration until Grimm got in..---- Hello either you deserve to be there or not. If both have the credentials and you say that THEN YOU ARE BEING BIASED....

[tr1]

Wide screen TV I hope...

[PCS]

Another reason why thoe HOF voters need not be fellows in this line of work.

[ohioskinfan]

He still sucks, even in a diferent state

[Utah]

Not sure how to do it properly, but the system has to change.

These guys can not be the ones who decide any more. It is just wrong.

[Jaron]

Yeah, I heard this interview too.

Pastabelly actually talked a little about the debates that have gone on about Monk during the voting process. He said that some people have read testimonials from Gibbs talking about the way he played Monk, how great of a downfield blocker he was, etc.

And as other posters have stated, as they were reading through the list, Lenny said that Grimm should be in, but Jacoby was a "no" because Grimm was "a little better than he was" on those Redskins teams. Who was the better player shouldn't have anything to do with it.:2cents:

[bubba9497]

Monk, Grim, Jacoby, Mosely, Butz, and Green all deserve to be in the HOF

If Dexter had not had the drug problem that cut short his career at the end he would have been a sure HOF'er.

[th869]

Originally posted by bubba9497

that's gotta hurt! :yikes:

:

:laugh: Bubba your right thats gotta hurt

[Bang]

I noticed when he was asked specific names, every one of them he said no, except Jacoby who he waffled on a bit, then said he'd say Grimm goes first. Monk, no, Watters, no, Reed, no, etc. etc. etc.

On Monk, he said yeah, he was the possession receiver,, and it was remarkable how Gibbs used him, and he's been known to be a terrific down field blocker, and he retired as the #1 receiver of all time, I just don't think he gets in. Andre RISON had 700 some catches, and he won't get in. The game has changed."

So basically, he doesn't take Monk for the era he's in, he insists on comparing him to the passing stats of today. By that logic, he may as well take Don Hutson right on out of the Hall. when he led the league of his day with 36 or so receptions. . A tackle who played in 1943 at 220 lbs? Get his scrawny butt outta there, No way he'd compete today.

May as well have 5 inductees and 4 deductees every year

(BTW .. Comparing Monk to Rison.. an insult on every level.)

When talking about Andre Reed a minute later, he said that the ring does matter, yet somehow that logic doesn't creep in during the Monk debate, he who has 3 of them.

The most telling line was when he was talking about what makes them vote the way they do, he was asked what the criteria was, he said, and I quote, "What does it take to get in the Hall of Fame? I don't know."

He doesn't know.

Yet he votes.

~Bang

[bulldog]

the fact is the Redskins players under Gibbs get screwed each year because the OL is the unit least understood by voters and as such get the least number of candidates advanced each year.

each year you get running backs, quarterbacks and wid receivers considered on stats alone.

how about OG?

Russ Grimm should be in. I agree with Pasquarelli about that.

But at the same time evidently enough people voting seem to believe that any skill player with good stats should go in before a dominating lineman?

[bigricky3469]

I think coaches and sport writers should vote. Coaches can't vote for a player that played on their team while they were coaching.

A player becomes eligible after five seasons removed from the league. Most coaches either assistances or coordinators or head coaches would still be in the league thus making them eligible to vote. Only sports writers with 15 plus years should be eligible to vote.

[stburn]

"What does it take to get in the Hall of Fame? I don't know."

- Hall of Fame Voter, Len Pasquarelli.

That is ridiculous on so many levels, my head might explode.

"Len, what attributes are needed to become a good sports writer?

"I don't know."

"Len, how do you write a good sports article?"

"I don't know."

"Len, how many pizza slices can you consume in 60 seconds?"

"This I know. Through years of practice, I can now eat 16 slices in one minute. Take that, Kobayashi!!!!"