Worst player in HOVG? Best player not in?

[Zero26]

You make it sound like head coaches in the 1950's stood in front of their teams and ask "Hey, does anyone want to return punts?" I think that undersells the impact of the return game in that decade. Before you had punters going for hang time, special teams coaches, and kicking specialists, a team could get several big return plays over the course of a season. I don't think the Cardinals had Ollie Matson returning kicks because someone had to do it, I think they had Matson returning kicks because he was great at it and it really helped a feeble offense put points on the board. I guess technically kick/punt returns aren't part of anyone's position, not just RBs. Not every RB gets the same opportunities to rush and receive, either.

No I think they picked the best player for that role like you said. But it wasn't part of the position it could be someone from any position and was something extra that shouldn't be held against a player at their position.

I don't think it even has to be in terms of the HOF; it's how the players were viewed in their own era. Was Webster ever considered an elite RB? Jon Arnett's accolades dwarf Webster's. I think that is due in part to Arnett's return ability.

Now this is getting into the lack of accolades thing. Webster only getting elected to 2 pro bowls doesn't mean those decisions or any other accolades were right. We hope they are but we can see the stats and judge that ourselves. Arnett went to 5 pro bowls but his stats were worse in every non special teams stat. Webster had more total and average rushing,receiving and scrimmage yards. Same with touchdowns. But in terms of accolades it's closer than it would appear in terms of all pros it's 1 first team versus 1 second team. Furthermore the 2 played in different confrences and were not competing with each other for pro bowl selections. Meaning Arnett was not picked over Webster for those spots but over other players.

I guess this could be it's own thread. George McAfee is one. Paul Hornung wouldn't be in if he wasn't also a kicker and didn't play in the postseason. Doak Walker probably wouldn't be in without his kicking/returning/postseason resume. Frank Gifford might not be in without his passing and his defense. I would guess that there are several borderline HOF RBs who had the scale tipped in their favor due to something other than scrimmage stats.

It could be. With Doak Walker average wise his scrimmage stats are hall worthy and he's a Gale Sayers case(another one with good return stats). He's 2 games over that 65 longevity floor that seems to have been set. Also like you mentioned there's postseason aspect which is also important for McAfee whose return stats were better. But he was an all pro 4 of his 6 seasons. Regardless of the kicking and returning he seems to be in for his dominace on offense. I don't think Gifford is a borderline case and while Websters might be slightly better average wise Gifford had far better accolades and career totals.



The postseason thing I 100% agree played a role in many of these cases even if I think that shouldn't be how individuals are primarily judged. There's also the all decade thing, Doak Walker is really the only one we've discussed who isn't on the all decade team. If they're on the all decade team it seems that's there starting point for picking hall of famers.

Towler was a rookie in 1950; I guess he could have touched the ball more, but Davis averaged nearly two more yards per carry and was a much better receiver. Davis spent a lot of time as a slot WR in 1950, so I'm not sure how Towler would factor in to that. If anything, what probably allowed Davis to take on a rather large rushing workload was the Rams using Tank Younger almost exclusively as an OLB in 1950. He went from 53 carries and 7 receptions in 1949 to 8 carries and 0 receptions in 1950 (but Younger was a great OLB).

Davis certainly deserved those touches given how great of a year he had. Just that those were the carries and catches seem to have went the following season. He was also a 1st round pick while Towler was a 25th round pick. And you're right they switched Tank Younger too, he was a great OLB but you wonder if they do that if they dont have so many mouths to feed offensively.

[Bryan]

Now this is getting into the lack of accolades thing. Webster only getting elected to 2 pro bowls doesn't mean those decisions or any other accolades were right. We hope they are but we can see the stats and judge that ourselves. Arnett went to 5 pro bowls but his stats were worse in every non special teams stat. Webster had more total and average rushing,receiving and scrimmage yards. Same with touchdowns. But in terms of accolades it's closer than it would appear in terms of all pros it's 1 first team versus 1 second team. Furthermore the 2 played in different confrences and were not competing with each other for pro bowl selections. Meaning Arnett was not picked over Webster for those spots but over other players.

But year by year, you can see how Arnett would have deserved his pro bowl selections when compared to Webster.

1957 = Arnett 669 SY/1258 APY...Webster 808/808

1958 = Arnett 1177 SY/ 1731 APY...Webster 677/677 (made pro bowl)

1959 = Arnett 790 SY/ 1294 APY...Webster 631/631

1960 = Arnett 662 SY/ 1138 APY...Webster 154/154

1961 = Arnett 803/1531 APY...Webster 1241/1241 (made pro bowl)

Arnett wasn't as dynamic the 2nd half of his career, and Webster was more consistent. But I'm not sure if I would say Webster was 'better' than Arnett.

[TanksAndSpartans]

Best player not in HOVG IMO is Alex Webster who I believe should be in the HOF. He had more rushing yards than his HOF teammate Frank Gifford and averaged more yards from scrimmage as well(77.2). He also averaged more rushing yards than McElhenny averaged more of everything than Ollie Matson. While Gifford, Matson and McElhenny had more touchdowns than Webster only Gifford scored at a faster clip.

The biggest obstacle for him is his lack of accolades as he was only elected to 2 pro bowls which seems to be a deal breaker for any player whose career started after the pro bowl started. Because Alan Amache and John David Crow and Alan Ameche beat him out for all decade honors they are seen as the best RB/FB's outside of the hall of fame in this era.

Most underwhelming would be Goldberg and Presnell. IMO they are the sixth and seventh best non hall of famers on their respective championship teams and whose stats and accolades for their era don't stand out. Of said 11 Pat Harder and Ox Emerson are the only players who are in the HOVG.

Comparing Webster to McElhenny or Matson seems like a stretch. I've never heard them mentioned in the same sentence before. I could never figure out why Matson wasn't utilized more as a running back. I would have given him 20+ carries per game. I've seen Cardinals footage where he would have a long TD run or catch and not even be on the field for the next series, like they had to stick to some sort of RB rotation no matter what. McElhenny played with other star backs and had his share of injuries, but if you watch the old Tel Ra footage, he was pretty enjoyable to watch, similar experience to watching Sayers. Webster seems like a tough case to make, with just two seasons with post-season honors, it doesn't look like his contemporaries thought he was among the best at his position very often. Do you have any testimonials that support him?

Goldberg was known as a defensive specialist, so I'd consider that aspect as well, but I get him being mentioned. Presnell was a great player, but played behind Dutch Clark. When he didn't like the year Clark retired or when he played for Ironton, he excelled. I wouldn't just judge him by '35 (the championship year) and later - he had turned 30 by then.

[Zero26]

Now this is getting into the lack of accolades thing. Webster only getting elected to 2 pro bowls doesn't mean those decisions or any other accolades were right. We hope they are but we can see the stats and judge that ourselves. Arnett went to 5 pro bowls but his stats were worse in every non special teams stat. Webster had more total and average rushing,receiving and scrimmage yards. Same with touchdowns. But in terms of accolades it's closer than it would appear in terms of all pros it's 1 first team versus 1 second team. Furthermore the 2 played in different confrences and were not competing with each other for pro bowl selections. Meaning Arnett was not picked over Webster for those spots but over other players.

But year by year, you can see how Arnett would have deserved his pro bowl selections when compared to Webster.

1957 = Arnett 669 SY/1258 APY...Webster 808/808

1958 = Arnett 1177 SY/ 1731 APY...Webster 677/677 (made pro bowl)

1959 = Arnett 790 SY/ 1294 APY...Webster 631/631

1960 = Arnett 662 SY/ 1138 APY...Webster 154/154

1961 = Arnett 803/1531 APY...Webster 1241/1241 (made pro bowl)

Arnett wasn't as dynamic the 2nd half of his career, and Webster was more consistent. But I'm not sure if I would say Webster was 'better' than Arnett.

Note-In last post I said Webster only made 1 second team all pro he actually made 2 I misremembered.

Looking at just the scrimmage stats 58(the year Arnett made first team all pro) is the only year Arnett was clearly better and 59 it could go either way. Otherwise Webster was consistantly better. He is higher than Arnett in almost every offensive category whether average, total, career, season,yard,touchdown. The big exception is Arnett's 1958 where he averaged the most scrimmage yards of any campaign by the 2 backs. Webster had slightly more yards in 2 seasons after the NFL moved to 14 games. So Arnett's 58 was arguably the highest peak either reached. In terms of scoring though even in that season Arnett had a career high 7 touchdowns while Webster had 7 touchdowns or more 3 times and a fourth time he had 6 but averaged more scores a game(0.66,0.58).

Arnett was not consistantly chosen over Webster because they were in different confrences. Of the 5 years there was only a 2 year stretch where Arnett's comparable and arguably superior to Webster, and a third year Webster would be out of the running having missed most of the year. So I can see 2-3 of them.

Webster's biggest issue was injuries which contributed to receiving less accolades. There are still 5 seasons where Webster had a case to make the pro bowl and didn't 55,56,57,59 and 62. Now In fact these include the 2 years Webster was named 2nd team all pro in 55 and 56. 56 is the one he was most deserving having scored 10 touchdowns. While Pro Bowls do a better job IMO of providing context than All Pros because there is more margin for error they are still imperfect and can be even worse depending on how good players at any position are divided by confrence. Just look at Ken Riley who made 0 pro bowls and 3 all pro teams and everyone thinks he's the senior favorite next year.

[Zero26]

Best player not in HOVG IMO is Alex Webster who I believe should be in the HOF. He had more rushing yards than his HOF teammate Frank Gifford and averaged more yards from scrimmage as well(77.2). He also averaged more rushing yards than McElhenny averaged more of everything than Ollie Matson. While Gifford, Matson and McElhenny had more touchdowns than Webster only Gifford scored at a faster clip.

The biggest obstacle for him is his lack of accolades as he was only elected to 2 pro bowls which seems to be a deal breaker for any player whose career started after the pro bowl started. Because Alan Amache and John David Crow and Alan Ameche beat him out for all decade honors they are seen as the best RB/FB's outside of the hall of fame in this era.

Most underwhelming would be Goldberg and Presnell. IMO they are the sixth and seventh best non hall of famers on their respective championship teams and whose stats and accolades for their era don't stand out. Of said 11 Pat Harder and Ox Emerson are the only players who are in the HOVG.

Comparing Webster to McElhenny or Matson seems like a stretch. I've never heard them mentioned in the same sentence before. I could never figure out why Matson wasn't utilized more as a running back. I would have given him 20+ carries per game. I've seen Cardinals footage where he would have a long TD run or catch and not even be on the field for the next series, like they had to stick to some sort of RB rotation no matter what. McElhenny played with other star backs and had his share of injuries, but if you watch the old Tel Ra footage, he was pretty enjoyable to watch, similar experience to watching Sayers. Webster seems like a tough case to make, with just two seasons with post-season honors, it doesn't look like his contemporaries thought he was among the best at his position very often. Do you have any testimonials that support him?

Goldberg was known as a defensive specialist, so I'd consider that aspect as well, but I get him being mentioned. Presnell was a great player, but played behind Dutch Clark. When he didn't like the year Clark retired or when he played for Ironton, he excelled. I wouldn't just judge him by '35 (the championship year) and later - he had turned 30 by then.

Just comparing their stats and Webster averaged more scrimmage yards and TD's than McElhenny and Matson though he falls short in career totals. He exceeds Giffords average scrimmage yards as well. Matson did average the least touches of any hall of fame back of the period. Due to longevity Matson finished 7th in touches and In yards per touch finished higher with 6.1. Webster finished with a yard less per touch at 5.1, same as Hornung and ahead of John Henry Johnson, Van Buren, Ameche. While Webster averaging a lot of touches does dilute his averages, in the case of splitting touches with Gifford I see more touching the ball more as a positive. But yeah they certainly could have used Ollie Matson more and it's odd they didn't.

Webster did get second team all pro in 2 seasons he didn't make the pro bowl so that's four seasons of recognition even if they don't match up. While the Pro Bowl has less players fall through the cracks than all pro teams due to the breakdown by confrence they still do depending on how talent is distributed. Some players also end up collecting excess accolades because of this setup. And that's just assuming voters always make the right pick. Ken Riley who is one of the highest regarded senior candidates is another example making 3 all pro teams but 0 pro bowls. This is speculative but a thought that's crossed my mind is voters being averse to 2 players from the same team at the same position and picking 1. While there was often a case for both Gifford and Webster(Webster was in contention 7 years) the former made it 8 times to the latters 2 and the 2 were only in the pro bowl together once. See a similar thing with Boldin who I honestly think is better than Fitzgerald(their stats are very similar when you take away Fitzgeralds longevity) going to 2 of his 3 pro bowls in the only years Fitzgerald who went to 11 pro bowls didn't make it. This includes a year they both had over 100 catches and 1400 yards in 2005. Another case is Pritchard who by Y/G was one of the best running backs of the 1940s(almost as many Y/G as Ollie Matson on even fewer touches less than 8) and he didn't get on a single all pro team sharing the backfield with Van Buren. There's the previously mentioned Ken Riley and Lemar Parrish. A lot of the duos with similar honors got them in different seasons. Then again there's some duos at one position who do get shared accolades like Bruce and Holt. It's just a possible factor I wonder about.

I'm aware Webster isn't widely discussed as a candidate for the HOF that's what makes him stand out among most of the other players I think should be in the HOF outside of the 1930s and 1940s(which is more a case of the era being ignored than the player). Most of the other modern era players I think are overlooked are in the HOVG. That's why he was my answer to this question.

In terms of Goldberg and Presnell everyone in the HOVG was a great football player just think there were a lot more noteworthy candidates on both their teams. I am looking at their careers not just 1935. For the 30s Lion Caddell and Ace Gutowsky might be the 2 best running backs outside of the hall of fame from the 1930s with Caddell averaging more yardage than most hall of fame backs. Bill Shepard who was a rookie in 35 and played a very small role became the Lions main back later and is deserving of HOVG consideration. Presnell could pass, run and catch but his numbers in all those things didn't compare to the best of his day except maybe passing(Clark had higher Passer rating and Y/A though Presnell had more Y/G). The Lions also had Ebding at WR who averaged good stats for the era and was in perennial all pro contention despite the team's main feature being it's backfield and usually not catching 10 passes a season as the teams number 1 receiver.

In terms of the Cardinals Goldberg averaged a lot of yards for a BB and his inteception helped win a championship that could have easily went the other way. But he was still light on accolades. In terms of WR's Kutner and Dewell were a great duo. Kutner like Box of the Lions would be in the HOF if not for longevity as their stats over 55 games were every bit as good as the best of the day. The Cardinals really had a great WR thing going with Bill Smith, Tinsley, Rucinski, Dewell and finally Kutner. That Cardinals team also has an all decade guard Buster Ramsey whose not in HOVG. Anyway those are the 2 that came to mind as the worst players in the HOVG.

[TanksAndSpartans]

@Zero26. Really good post, yeah I can't speak too much to Presnell because he's one of my favorite players - I'm biased. I feel had he taken an NFL offer rather than the Ironton offer and gone to a team that would have featured him, it would be a different story. A lot of ifs and buts though. We have to evaluate what happened on the field and doing that I don't think he gets into the HOVG without the Bob Carroll method of picking players.

100% agree - Gutowsky and Cadell don't get the credit they deserve. When I went back through the '30s, I had Gutowsky All-Decade. He was one of my 19 and the only player I had that the HOF did not. My post is here:

https://www.profootballresearchers.org/ ... b7d#p42559

I also have him among my top 5 players not in the HOVG (listed chronologically):

Sonnenberg
McMillen
Latone
Christensen
Gutowsky

On the other note, McElhenny played a long time, wasn't even a starter anymore at the end, so I would look at Y/G and TDs/G during his peak to make sure you are comparing apples to apples or take the best 5 years from each player. McElhenny averaged 7.0 yards per carry one season - I'd probably not mention him when trying to make a case for Webster.

As far as the voters having biases or sometimes being wrong, I agree, but also allow for the possibility they were smart more often than not especially as the decades went on (I think the '20s was the decade you probably see the most homer voting and lazy voting for players who were college stars, but didn't even have good seasons, etc.). I don't think Pritchard has the same statistical success without Van Buren same way I feel Spec Sanders doesn't have the same statistical success without Buddy Young.

Finally,

In terms of Goldberg and Presnell everyone in the HOVG was a great football player just think there were a lot more noteworthy candidates on both their teams. I am looking at their careers not just 1935. For the 30s Lion Caddell and Ace Gutowsky might be the 2 best running backs outside of the hall of fame from the 1930s with Caddell averaging more yardage than most hall of fame backs. Bill Shepard who was a rookie in 35 and played a very small role became the Lions main back later and is deserving of HOVG consideration. Presnell could pass, run and catch but his numbers in all those things didn't compare to the best of his day except maybe passing(Clark had higher Passer rating and Y/A though Presnell had more Y/G). The Lions also had Ebding at WR who averaged good stats for the era and was in perennial all pro contention despite the team's main feature being it's backfield and usually not catching 10 passes a season as the teams number 1 receiver.

In terms of the Cardinals Goldberg averaged a lot of yards for a BB and his inteception helped win a championship that could have easily went the other way. But he was still light on accolades. In terms of WR's Kutner and Dewell were a great duo. Kutner like Box of the Lions would be in the HOF if not for longevity as their stats over 55 games were every bit as good as the best of the day. The Cardinals really had a great WR thing going with Bill Smith, Tinsley, Rucinski, Dewell and finally Kutner. That Cardinals team also has an all decade guard Buster Ramsey whose not in HOVG. Anyway those are the 2 that came to mind as the worst players in the HOVG.

Especially enjoyed this part of your post. When I took a deep dive into the '30s I did notice Bill Smith and wondered why no one ever mentions him. I had never even heard of him. I went back and looked at the book on the Cardinals (When Football was Football) and couldn't dig up much there either.

And @Andy has mentioned Ramsey before as a counterpoint to my promoting players not in the HOVG from the '20s and '30s, I think (I don't remember).

[Zero26]

@Zero26. Really good post, yeah I can't speak too much to Presnell because he's one of my favorite players - I'm biased. I feel had he taken an NFL offer rather than the Ironton offer and gone to a team that would have featured him, it would be a different story. A lot of ifs and buts though. We have to evaluate what happened on the field and doing that I don't think he gets into the HOVG without the Bob Carroll method of picking players.

100% agree - Gutowsky and Cadell don't get the credit they deserve. When I went back through the '30s, I had Gutowsky All-Decade. He was one of my 19 and the only player I had that the HOF did not. My post is here:

https://www.profootballresearchers.org/ ... f61#p42559

I also have him among my top 5 players not in the HOVG (listed chronologically):

Sonnenberg
McMillen
Latone
Christensen
Gutowsky

On the other note, McElhenny played a long time, wasn't even a starter anymore at the end, so I would look at Y/G and TDs/G during his peak to make sure you are comparing apples to apples or take the best 5 years from each player. McElhenny averaged 7.0 yards per carry one season - I'd probably not mention him when trying to make a case for Webster.

As far as the voters having biases or sometimes being wrong, I agree, but also allow for the possibility they were smart more often than not especially as the decades went on (I think the '20s was the decade you probably see the most homer voting and lazy voting for players who were college stars, but didn't even have good seasons, etc.). I don't think Pritchard has the same statistical success without Van Buren same way I feel Spec Sanders doesn't have the same statistical success without Buddy Young.

Finally,

In terms of Goldberg and Presnell everyone in the HOVG was a great football player just think there were a lot more noteworthy candidates on both their teams. I am looking at their careers not just 1935. For the 30s Lion Caddell and Ace Gutowsky might be the 2 best running backs outside of the hall of fame from the 1930s with Caddell averaging more yardage than most hall of fame backs. Bill Shepard who was a rookie in 35 and played a very small role became the Lions main back later and is deserving of HOVG consideration. Presnell could pass, run and catch but his numbers in all those things didn't compare to the best of his day except maybe passing(Clark had higher Passer rating and Y/A though Presnell had more Y/G). The Lions also had Ebding at WR who averaged good stats for the era and was in perennial all pro contention despite the team's main feature being it's backfield and usually not catching 10 passes a season as the teams number 1 receiver.

In terms of the Cardinals Goldberg averaged a lot of yards for a BB and his inteception helped win a championship that could have easily went the other way. But he was still light on accolades. In terms of WR's Kutner and Dewell were a great duo. Kutner like Box of the Lions would be in the HOF if not for longevity as their stats over 55 games were every bit as good as the best of the day. The Cardinals really had a great WR thing going with Bill Smith, Tinsley, Rucinski, Dewell and finally Kutner. That Cardinals team also has an all decade guard Buster Ramsey whose not in HOVG. Anyway those are the 2 that came to mind as the worst players in the HOVG.

Especially enjoyed this part of your post. When I took a deep dive into the '30s I did notice Bill Smith and wondered why no one ever mentions him. I had never even heard of him. I went back and looked at the book on the Cardinals (When Football was Football) and couldn't dig up much there either.

And @Andy has mentioned Ramsey before as a counterpoint to my promoting players not in the HOVG from the '20s and '30s, I think (I don't remember).

Yeah the Lions backfield certainly held each other back statistically.

For that era I'd have Farkas and Caddell ahead of Gutowsky but those are the 3 from that era I feel have been overlooked. Pug Manders and Dick Todd have interesting cases as well. Caddell think longevity is the issue(1 short of the magic 65) where with Gutowsky think he suffered the most statistically from splitting touches and accolades(he made 1 all pro team though he was a perennial honorable mention). But yeah those Lions teams having so many talented backs certainly hurt all six on that Lions team though it could have been worse like the 40s Bears where the backs also had to share the ball with more of a passing game. That being said in terms of team success think having a bunch of all pro talented running backs is a great system and the Lions were unlucky to not win more with it.

When you have 2 good players at one position it's tricky whether it was a benefit or a challenge to be overcome. I tend to go with the beneficial route with receiver duos because they make double coverage impossible for both meaning they both can benefit where with running backs I see it more as splitting touches and oppurtunities.

Accolades should certainly matter and be the starting point. But if we look at the different all pro teams it shows that there was quite a bit of disagreement among experts and just looking at the honorable mentions for the official team other organizations picked show just how few players among the elite actually receive these accolades. Sometime the picks were obvious other times there were several players who could be reasonably picked. This is why I prefer the pro bowl because there's more room for error than all pros but even there the setup based on confrence means even if voters are always right it's depending on talent at one position being somewhat evenly distributed.


With McElhenny seasons he didn't play much many players at the very end have seasons like that. I do try to adjust the numbers for extreme cases(like Blanda's kicking career taking away from his passing averages). McElhenny does have more of these seasons than normal though for an elite player and it does swing the difference between Webster and McElhenny at least in yards. I see your point.

Smith leads pre Hutson WR's(who played more than 2 seasons) in receiving yards per game. Tinsley overshadowed him for sure with his 2 incredible seasons that got him on the all decade team. While I would have otherwise given that spot to Joe Carter it might have went to Bill Smith(you put 2 on your all decade team curious who your 2 would be if you put 4?). Given that Benton who IMO is a no brainer HOF(is in HOVG) wasn't inducted I think whoever got that spot still wouldn't be in HOF though as they'd be a borderline case. Tinsley didn't get in because his career was too short. This was a position and era that best demonstrates the ambuigity of all pro as there were so many wide receivers to choose between. Once Hutson came on the scene that meant there was only one first team all pro spot left each year(which Tinsley promptly took for 2 seasons). To put this in perspective Wayne Milner made the HOF while never making a 1st or 2nd all pro team. He was an honorable mention most years as was his teammate Charley Malone who also never made it.


I tend to not have strong opinions on players from the 1920s whose careers didn't last long into the 30s. View 32 as the start of the modern NFL as that's when so many institutions started, first postseason game, first official all pro teams first in depth stats etc. I wouldn't argue with the first decade having a seperate wing of some sort. I do agree with Latone though and voted for him for HOVG. Like Lewellen they are both high on the touchdown list and were major contributors to championships. Latone would also be a great tribute to that Pottsville team that was robbed. Would be nice for the HOF to induct him in 2025 for an 100th anniversary without taking up a senior spot. I think Christensen should be in all halls though he'd be last among the 30s Lions I think should be in the HOF(Caddell, Gutowsky, Ox Emerson). Would put him before Ebding for HOVG because the passing game just wasn't that important for those teams.

[Bryan]

Arnett was not consistantly chosen over Webster because they were in different confrences. Of the 5 years there was only a 2 year stretch where Arnett's comparable and arguably superior to Webster, and a third year Webster would be out of the running having missed most of the year. So I can see 2-3 of them.

I get what you are saying. I might not be as high on Webster as you, but I agree that Webster is underrated based on a second-viewing of his career. Even if I have disagreed with you on certain points, this has been a fun discussion and I hope you continue posting on this message board.

[TanksAndSpartans]

Smith leads pre Hutson WR's(who played more than 2 seasons) in receiving yards per game. Tinsley overshadowed him for sure with his 2 incredible seasons that got him on the all decade team. While I would have otherwise given that spot to Joe Carter it might have went to Bill Smith(you put 2 on your all decade team curious who your 2 would be if you put 4?). Given that Benton who IMO is a no brainer HOF(is in HOVG) wasn't inducted I think whoever got that spot still wouldn't be in HOF though as they'd be a borderline case. Tinsley didn't get in because his career was too short. This was a position and era that best demonstrates the ambuigity of all pro as there were so many wide receivers to choose between. Once Hutson came on the scene that meant there was only one first team all pro spot left each year(which Tinsley promptly took for 2 seasons). To put this in perspective Wayne Milner made the HOF while never making a 1st or 2nd all pro team. He was an honorable mention most years as was his teammate Charley Malone who also never made it.

@Zero26, what do you think? My reasoning was I didn't like Tinsley as all-decade for just two seasons, so my conclusion was not to have another end. Would you have added another end to the All-30s team? Smith? Carter? Malone? Were any of them known for blocking ro defense? Any testimonials? Honestly, I was close to including Smith, but felt a little uncomfortable going with a player I had never heard of on the basis of his PFR card. I'm persuadable in this case, but if no one really stood out, I'm ok to leave it too. Might this be the least competitive position for any all-decade team? No one seems to jump out an an obvious 3rd or 4th end.

[Brian wolf]

Carter and Malone could be deserving of the HOVG, along with Kutner, Beals from the 40s, Taylor, Nickel and Renfro from the 50s, McGee, Orr, Randle, Dale, L Taylor and Burford from the 60s ...