Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Lone Reader Wedding Weekend Wrap: Director's Cut

When we arrived at the NFL Hall of Fame in Canton, Ohio last Thursday afternoon, the facility was stuffed full of screaming kids on a field trip, and I felt my blood simmer a bit as I coughed up $18. Lucky for them, they were on their way out, and we, in a sense, had the place to ourselves. It was a fun time, a good kickoff to the bachelor party, and it was educational, too. Seeing as how we weren't quite drunk yet, I was able to spend a good part of the three hours there learning me some stuff. A lot of it was dry, dreary historical facts from the first chunk of last century, and there was no shortage of rotting dummies dressed in burlap uniforms and aged place-kicker shoes that fit the role of exhibits. As the timeline tour got newer, however, it got better. The bust room was of course incredible, and there was a new wing that had only opened five days prior. After the jump, I'll cast some rays on those tidbits. Let's roll 'em...

It was neat to learn how football originated in Pennsylvania somewhere around 1900, and how its life there as the football haven of North America suffered, then faded into the annals. Along came the sleepy town of Canton, where some school football rejuvenated the sport for America, historically speaking. Over the course of the next 50 years, some stuff happened, highlights -- some audio, some video -- were captured, and the NFL was founded.

Along the way, some of the original teams won a ton of championships, and eventually the AFL appeared, inadvertently threatened the owners, and merged into the league we know today. As we made our way toward the 60s and 70s, those that collected items on display naturally saw the exhibit pieces grow with the league's popularity. While attempting to entertain and educate hall visitors, however, the verbage on the displays continued to remind folks that it all started in Pennsylvania.



Finally, we neared the segment of football history that we all know, love and remember to varying degrees, and the levels of excitement grew. Granted, there were sour reminders of the not-so-great moments in history,



but even those times were enjoyable, 'cause hey -- football and learning -- win, win.

As we neared the bust room, I'd decided that there were five things that really surprised me:

1) All years of ownership/president aside, George Halas coached the Chicago Bears for 40 years. Forty years!

2) Al Davis was NFL Commissioner for one year: 1966. Didn't know it. Sweet tenure, though.

3) In the old days of straight-on place kicking, one dude had four of his toes lopped off in an elevator accident, then had a special, flat-faced shoe made so that he could continue kicking. First off -- nasty. Second -- did that remaining toe hurt like the dickens every kick thereafter?

4) The Green Bay Packers have won back-to-back-to-back championships on two separate occasions. Pretty impressive.

5) And finally, a House of Georges fact: The Kansas City Chiefs number one pick from the aforepictured, famous quarterback draft of 1983 was of course Todd Blackledge. His illustrious career spanned five entire seasons, most of which he was not the starter. His last action came in the form of relief duty in 1988 when he subbed for former Pittsburgh Steeler (and Bronco!) Bubby Brister.

The new display at the hall, was pretty sweet. They had some great, and some questionable displays in there. Among the questionable would be massive likenesses of Bob Sanders, Tom Brady, and Terrell Owens. Each of these cats will likely have a bust made of them when it's all said and done, but it seemed a bit premature. Of the sweet variety was a nice big encasement of a certain somebody, who just happens to be the best of all time at his position, who broke yet another record for said position last year. I do believe it was an all-time-touchdown record or something of that nature. And the NFL managed to scoop up his gloves, shoes and jersey from that afternoon, which (hey!) happened in Cleveland.



By the time we'd seen each corner of the new exhibit, it was time to call it an afternoon. Most of the guys were sneaking in and out for belts of Scotch and swigs of Little Kings in the parking lot, and we were slightly unsure how the Canton police would react to that. So, we made plans for food and strippers, not necessarily in that order, and made our way into the gift shop, then south to the lake.

For the record, the establishment was not over, rather accurately represented by Chiefs. I counted four Broncos, two of which played like a half a season for Denver, so take them out and -- my math is good -- that leaves two. There will certainly be more in the future, but as it stands, the orange and blue are the majority in the House, but the red and gold certainly rule the Hall.



And cut. That's a wrap.

22 comments:

Cecil said...

That final picture is sweet sauce. Stay classy, Missouri.

I think the over-representation of Chefs in the Hall is a goddamn disgrace. No franchise has earned more with less.

But hey, next year I'm sure they'll elect the second-string fullback who sold pills to Hank Stram--over Randy Gradishar, Louis Wright, Dennis Smith and even Rick fucking Upchurch.

old no. 7 said...

How exactly is Bob Sanders going to make it to the Hall of Fame? Did you mean to say Deion?

blairjjohnson said...

Yes. It's truly disgraceful to reward the winningest team in AFL history with Hall induction. A pity, even.

Bob. Deion. What's the diff? Neither played for Denver, so they're shoe-ins, right?

old no. 7 said...

There were some big-time teams in the CFL, USFL, XFL and Arena League too--let's induct their top dogs. Give me some Doug Flutie and He Hate Me.

blairjjohnson said...

Too bad those top dogs were top dogs where they were 'cause they couldn't hack it in the real pros.

Cecil said...

No one cares about the world's tallest midget, dude.

old no. 7 said...

Which brings me back to what I've always said--the true, modern NFL began with the merger. It was the first time that A.) football was a sport that drew premier American athletes away from baseball and B.) you had one league where the best of the best could all play.

Now there were certainly all-time greats that played before that, and there were certainly great players in the AFL and AAFC and whatever weird leagues sanctioned the Canton Bulldogs and Pottsville Maroons. I'm just sayin' that comparing AFL football to the modern NFL is like comparing a WWII ship to the USS Ronald Reagan.

blairjjohnson said...

Not comparing the two, but since you mentioned it, how do you explain why the coveted modern league happens to be the very one full of guys that felt so many AFL guys were worth of being in it? Things that make you go, "hmmm..."

old no. 7 said...

I don't speak Spanish and don't know what you just said. I've never argued that AFL players should not be in the Hall of Fame.

It's like pre-integration baseball. There were great players in the Negro Leagues as well as the majors. But both faced inferior competition. There's no way you can compare the quality of baseball played in the 20s and 30s to what was happening in the 50s and 60s.

The great players from MLB back then, Babe Ruth and Hornsby and Speaker, earned their way into the Hall. So did Josh Gibson, Satchel Paige and Cool Papa Bell. But there's a bit of an asterisk there--because we never know how great Ruth or Gibson would have been against fully integrated competition.

Similarly, those "great" Chiefs teams from the AFL did not play against the "great" Packers or other NFL teams of the 60s. It was only when the leagues merged that we had top-flight competition. My only position is that the Chiefs of the 60s are overrepresented in the Hall--they are put up as an all-time great team when they did not have to beat elite teams to post their record.

old no. 7 said...

I do think Gary Barbaro should be in the Hall though. Not only was he a starting defensive back for the Chiefs he also won the Kentucky Derby and Preakness Stakes before suffering a freak injury. He's almost as inspirational as Brian Piccolo.

old no. 7 said...

And Dick Curl. No explanation needed.

blairjjohnson said...

Look here and you'll see words like "Packers," "60s," and "Chiefs." They didn't have to because the league was afraid to let those teams join. What happened instead was, the AFL took players that would've gone to NFL teams, and then those AFL teams played against one another. Same thing goes with coaches that were employed; AFL franchises snagged up a few guys that had/may have had jobs coaching in the alleged elitest league.

Frankly, the "who should and shouldn't be in the Hall" discussion is one I've always found very interesting. To come out and say that one team is overrated, especially when it's one the sayer can't stand, is silly. As you know, there's a committee of guys that vote on these things. I'm sure the argument you pose crossed their minds a time or two, yet they're in regardless.

blairjjohnson said...

*overrepresented

Blanche Feverpiss said...

Nice thumb ring, homo.

blairjjohnson said...

Figured you'd like that. It was a gift from the Ron Paul '08 HQ; they give them out after you make a pledge. Guess that makes you a banana-hammock gawker, too. Jackass.

Cecil said...

Look, the Chiefs used to beat the Broncos by such fairminded scores as 62-7 and 59-7 on a regular basis.

That happened long before my family ever lived out here, but it remains a kind of ancestral memory of fandom. So fuck Stram's run-up-the-score mentality, his gamblin' quarterback and his misuse of the word "matriculate."

A Hindu might say that you're all paying for it on the field now. That Brodie Croyle must suffer for the sins of Len Dawson.

As far as the Hall of Fame--how can you objectively say that the Chefs aren't totally overrepresented? They're one of the dominant squads in there, except without all of that on-field success.

The selectors can suck it. All I hear is about how they should be beyond criticism, how theirs is something of a public service, how conscientious they all are, etc. etc....and I call shenanigans.

They have favorites, they make deals, they hold petty grudges for decades (cough cough Paul Zimmerman cough), they end up electing guys like that tight end from the '70s Lions whom no one outside that room, or certain bars in the greater Detroit area, had ever fucking heard of.

Unknown said...

The Hall is worth a visit. I think they could use a little more Chiefs representation, personally. I'm sure if I spent a couple more hours I coulda dug some up.

Cheers boyz,

TLR

Cecil said...

Maybe Lake Dawson?

How 'bout Wayne Simien?

(Update previous post: Zimmerman has a Q & A with former Packer GM/Raider henchman Ron Wolf about various hypothetical candidates right now at SI.com. Worth a look--especially since he endorses Louis Wright and Tom Jackson.)

blairjjohnson said...

I can objectively say it just the same way that you can "objectively" gripe about their existence in there, and the lack of Bronco representation. The Chiefs beat the tar out of the Broncos regularly in those days -- alleged score runups or not -- because they were better. That's why a lot of the guys from that era are in, and no Broncos are. Same goes for other less-represented teams from that time. If they'd been better, they'd have more representation. But they weren't, so they aren't.

Wayne Simien? The Jayhawk? Surely you meant Tracy.

Cecil said...

It wasn't Wayne? Huh. Swear it was Wayne...anyway.

See, now, you nailed exactly why I have a problem with it--because those ten years of beatdowns went a long way toward proving the greatness of Stram et al., true; but through the several decades since, the Broncos have clearly fielded a large share of Hall-worthy personnel.

And those guys also delivered a lot of mid-'70s and '80s crunchings to bad KC teams. All I'm asking is for Tom Jackson and Randy effin' Gradishar to get the same respect afforded guys like Willie Lanier.

old no. 7 said...

Dead horse: beaten

blairjjohnson said...

I acknowledge your point about the 70s and 80s beatdowns. And I don't disagree with the cases for Jackson and Gradishar. I really don't. To compare them to Lanier, however, is a bit of a stretch in my mind. While Gradishar's stats are relatively comparable, they don't quite match up to Lanier's . And Jackson's certainly do not.

Put them in? Yes. Were they as good as Lanier? No. I reckon the same argument could be made for many other Chiefs of the era, i.e. Buchanan, Taylor, etc.