Jerry Kramer for the NFL Hall of Fame

[LAG]

Will #64 ever get inducted?

Injustice that he is not, imo.

 

[Forget Favre]

We all have to pick our battles and this just isn't one of mine.
There are bigger and more important things in the world to worry about.
Compared to real world problems, football and the HOF is meaningless.

Besides, this is a lost cause. You'd be wise to spend your time elsewhere.
We all know that Brett Favre is going to get in with no problem.
He is the INT and fumble leader. And you're going to try to get in someone else who is not those things? Oh well. It's your life and your time.

 

[ivo610]

Peter King has a write up on this topic in todays MMQB

 

[ivo610]

"Kramer retired after the 1968 season, and he was a Hall of Fame finalist nine times in his 15 seasons as a modern-era candidate: 1974 through 1981, 1984 and 1987. He was also a Seniors Committee nominee once, in 1997. Thus, Kramer’s case was heard by the Hall of Fame selectors 10 times in 24 years. The Seniors Committee tries to nominate some of the players who, for one reason or another, have been overlooked. Tingelhoff is a perfect example. His case has never been heard by the board of selectors—pretty remarkable, I think, for a center who made first-team NFL All-Pro (on various teams such as AP and the Pro Football Writers) more than any other NFL center, and who started 358 consecutive preseason, regular-season and post-season games. “**** Tingelhoff is the reason we have a Seniors Committee,’’ said Dallas writer Rick Gosselin, a member of the panel. “He was an oversight that needed to be addressed.” I’ve always thought we should hear the cases of seniors whose candidacies fell through the cracks. Kramer never fell through the cracks. Tingelhoff did. I can’t explain why Kramer was voted to the NFL’s 50th anniversary team in 1969 and then not selected by many of the same voters to the Hall.


I also find it interesting that, two years ago, when I asked Bart Starr about any other candidates he felt strongly about on his team who deserved to be in Canton, he mentioned one offensive lineman, and it wasn’t Kramer. “Bob Skoronski,” he said. “Bob protected my blind side at left tackle, and you know how important the blind side is for protection to a quarterback. You’d look at their grades when the coaches graded the film after the game, and their grades were virtually the same, game after game. I am so disappointed he hasn’t gotten in the Hall.” I asked Starr if there were other players he wanted to recommend, and he said no. So that pretty much sums up why I believe other long-retired players are ahead of Kramer in line for Canton."

 

[JBlood]

I also find it interesting that, two years ago, when I asked Bart Starr about any other candidates he felt strongly about on his team who deserved to be in Canton, he mentioned one offensive lineman, and it wasn’t Kramer. “Bob Skoronski,” he said. “Bob protected my blind side at left tackle, and you know how important the blind side is for protection to a quarterback. You’d look at their grades when the coaches graded the film after the game, and their grades were virtually the same, game after game. I am so disappointed he hasn’t gotten in the Hall.” I asked Starr if there were other players he wanted to recommend, and he said no. So that pretty much sums up why I believe other long-retired players are ahead of Kramer in line for Canton."

Well, maybe Starr was distracted and forgot that in the past he has pushed for both Skoronski and Kramer for the Hall:

"Kramer and Skoronski need to be recognized by the Pro Football Hall of Fame," said Bart Starr via email. "They held key starting positions for a team who won five NFL titles! Jerry and Bob consistently made the plays that directly contributed to those titles, period. There is not another Hall of Fame player at the position of right guard or left tackle, today or before, who accomplished what Jerry and Bob did. I honestly don't know what you have to do to be more qualified."
(http://www.sbnation.com/2014/8/2/5957943/jerry-kramer-packers-hall-of-fame-canton)

So Peter King can rest easy knowing that Starr wants them both in the Hall.

 

[ivo610]

Well, maybe Starr was distracted and forgot that in the past he has pushed for both Skoronski and Kramer for the Hall:

"Kramer and Skoronski need to be recognized by the Pro Football Hall of Fame," said Bart Starr via email. "They held key starting positions for a team who won five NFL titles! Jerry and Bob consistently made the plays that directly contributed to those titles, period. There is not another Hall of Fame player at the position of right guard or left tackle, today or before, who accomplished what Jerry and Bob did. I honestly don't know what you have to do to be more qualified."
(http://www.sbnation.com/2014/8/2/5957943/jerry-kramer-packers-hall-of-fame-canton)

So Peter King can rest easy knowing that Starr wants them both in the Hall.

He should probably contact Peter King and explain why he "forgot" about Jerry Kramer and then said he supported him after he was pressured by Jerry's daughter.

 

[JBlood]

He should probably contact Peter King and explain why he "forgot" about Jerry Kramer and then said he supported him after he was pressured by Jerry's daughter.

Starr being pressured by Kramer's daughter is funny, and more than just a little ironic. The fact is, Kramer deserves the HOF, and Starr is on record supporting it.

 

[ivo610]

Starr being pressured by Kramer's daughter is funny, and more than just a little ironic. The fact is, Kramer deserves the HOF, and Starr is on record supporting it.

whose record? Her record?

 

[JBlood]

whose record? Her record?

And how is that different from some reporter's record?

 

[ivo610]

And how is that different from some reporter's record?

One has a history of great journalism, ethics, and works for one of the most prestigious sports media companies in the world. The other has no history of any of that and will do anything to get her dad into the HOF. She has no more credibility than anyone on this forum, and is actually more biased. Instead of "reporting" it herself that Starr supports her dad, maybe she should have him contact the guy that wrote the original piece about him not supporting Kramer.

I am somewhat surprised that you dont see the difference between one of the most established reporters in football and someones kid.

 

[JBlood]

One has a history of great journalism, ethics, and works for one of the most prestigious sports media companies in the world. The other has no history of any of that and will do anything to get her dad into the HOF. She has no more credibility than anyone on this forum, and is actually more biased. Instead of "reporting" it herself that Starr supports her dad, maybe she should have him contact the guy that wrote the original piece about him not supporting Kramer.

I am somewhat surprised that you dont see the difference between one of the most established reporters in football and someones kid.

I have no reason to doubt King's story. I have no idea why Starr didn't mention Kramer to him when asked, but if Kramer's name was the one King was expecting, and King was working at his craft of great journalism, he certainly could have pressed the question about Kramer (since that's what great journalists do). Had Starr specifically said that he did not think Kramer was HOF material, that would end the speculation. As it is, we don't know if that is what Starr was thinking, or whether Starr was distracted, or in a hurry, whatever; and failed to mention an obvious HOF candidate. Since King wrote the article maybe he should contact Starr and clear it up. Sometimes even world famous journalists who work for prestigious media companies miss the boat.

I'd be interested in hearing Bart's reason for not supporting Kramer for the HOF. If there is one.

I will say that, in my opinion, your denigration of Kramer's daughter is uncalled for, unless you know for sure that she would do "anything" ( which includes lying, as you insinuate) to get her dad in the HOF. Uncalled for.

 

[ivo610]

I have no reason to doubt King's story. I have no idea why Starr didn't mention Kramer to him when asked, but if Kramer's name was the one King was expecting, and King was working at his craft of great journalism, he certainly could have pressed the question about Kramer (since that's what great journalists do). Had Starr specifically said that he did not think Kramer was HOF material, that would end the speculation. As it is, we don't know if that is what Starr was thinking, or whether Starr was distracted, or in a hurry, whatever; and failed to mention an obvious HOF candidate. Since King wrote the article maybe he should contact Starr and clear it up. Sometimes even world famous journalists who work for prestigious media companies miss the boat.

I'd be interested in hearing Bart's reason for not supporting Kramer for the HOF. If there is one.

I will say that, in my opinion, your denigration of Kramer's daughter is uncalled for, unless you know for sure that she would do "anything" ( which includes lying, as you insinuate) to get her dad in the HOF. Uncalled for.

You said lie, not me. As a child I would expect her to do anything in her power to get her dad into the HOF, I dont see how that gets turned into lying but hey however you want to twist things be my guest.

I doubt King even knows about Kramers daughters claim that Starr does support her dad. Hard to follow up when he doesnt know. Regardless of all of that, King makes a pretty good point that its for players that were overlooked, and its hard to call Kramer overlooked. Overlooked would be more like Bob Skoronski or Dilweg.

 

[gwh11]

It's apparent that a key argument for Kramer hinges upon being named as the top guard on the 50th Anniversary team. It's also apparent that several waves of HOF voters feel no obligation to that list. If many subsequent voters think mistakes were made on that list from 1969, they're not going to compromise their own opinions for the sake of conformity.

That list had Unitas as the top QB of all-time, beating out Bart Starr and Sonny Jurgensen, who were the runner-ups. If this list (and those voters at the time) is so authoritative, would someone care to defend the choice of Jurgensen as a runner-up over someone like Otto Graham? Is there a consensus that Cal Hubbard should be the top tackle on that list, and not Forrest Gregg?

Personally, I think Kramer should be in, and has the credentials, but Dilweg is just as deserving. He has all the numbers and accolades, and was considered by many as the predominant end of his time. Anyone with a serious interest in Packers history should read Ken Crippen's piece on him:
http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/old-school-the-hall-fame-case-for-packers-great/7801/

And Kramer isn't the only one who has a child campaigning for HOF consideration either:
http://www.foxsports.com/wisconsin/story/dilweg-a-name-and-some-statistics-hardly-071312

 

[JBlood]

I think Dan's letter is good. Kramer deserves to be in the HOF. Here's another avenue to promote his membership: a web site that costs nothing to sign a petition to get Kramer in the hall. They've got over 4000 signatures and looking for 5000. It costs nothing (there is a window asking for a donation--don't have to sign it to still sign the petition): http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/kramerhof/

We're now looking at 2016, since only **** Tingelhoff is a finalist from the senior's committee to be nominated. Tingelhoff deserves to be in the Hall, almost as much as Kramer.

 

[HardRightEdge]

No one will answer this (dan refuses to, and says Kramer is the reason Starr, Taylor, and hornung are in the hall)

Why are packer fans so outspoken about having Kramers case heard before the hof committee an 11th time and not equal or more deserving packers who have never had their case heard? I assume bc Kramer and his daughter are so public about this, but shouldn't we rally based on what they did on the field?

I'm not saying Kramer shouldn't be in the hall, but I'm saying let's support candidates that haven't had their case heard before. Dave Robertson got his case heard it believe for the 1st time and got in. Give support to the guys who haven't had their case heard

Yeah, Dave Robinson was overlooked to such a degree in the Jerry Kramer PR push, even dedicated fans mess up his name.

 

[ivo610]

Yeah, Dave Robinson was overlooked to such a degree in the Jerry Kramer PR push, even dedicated fans mess up his name.

So much so by fans that they still insist that the hof is anti 60s packers lol

 

[Dan115]

An idiot says Kramer is the sole reason Starr, Hornung and Taylor are in the Hall. What I am saying without Mr Kramer Starr, Hornung and Taylor would NOT have been as successful. Up to you what you believe --- I do believe Mr. Kramer deserves to have his bust in the Hall. If you think otherwise that is your right I will NOT belittle your opinion.

 

[JBlood]

A civil war soldier from Wisconsin was just awarded the Medal of Honor 150 years after being killed at Gettysburg. There were lots of mistakes made by people who decide such things in the intervening years, but his family continued to push the case. They wouldn't give up, a trait they probably inherited from their ancestor. Kind of like Kramer's daughter, who inherited her father's tenacity.

 

[HardRightEdge]

[QUOTE="Dan115, post: 552323, member: 220"That era saw some of the greatest running backs in football history: Paul Hornung, Jim Taylor, Donny Anderson, and Jim Grabowski.[/QUOTE]

Anderson and Grabowski? Greatest in history? You damaged your credibility with that statement.

 

[Dan115]

Lol I guess you are correct. Do not support Jerry Kramer for the Hall. You don't want to be associated with me. Lol

 

[Dan115]

[QUOTE="Dan115, post: 552323, member: 220"That era saw some of the greatest running backs in football history: Paul Hornung, Jim Taylor, Donny Anderson, and Jim Grabowski.

Anderson and Grabowski? Greatest in history? You damaged your credibility with that statement.[/QUOTE]


I never wrote that Mister credibility---- I offered this letter to help in Mr. Kramer's support for the Hall. I put this letter out on many Packer sites for it's use IF you wanted to support the cause for Mr. Kramer. ---- If you DO NOT WISH to support MR. Kramer or you are upset with the letter ---write your own letter. I AM not sure who wrote this letter.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I never wrote that Mister credibility---- I offered this letter to help in Mr. Kramer's support for the Hall. I put this letter out on many Packer sites for it's use IF you wanted to support the cause for Mr. Kramer. ---- If you DO NOT WISH to support MR. Kramer or you are upset with the letter ---write your own letter. I AM not sure who wrote this letter.

If you're promoting this letter you cannot disclaim its contents. I'm mildly in favor of seeing Kramer in HOF, but I'd never put my signature to this crappy piece of writing.

Edit: Strike "crappy" and insert "poorly crafted".

 

[gwh11]

I understand the passion & frustration expressed here, and it's safe to assume most everyone here feels Kramer should be in the Hall. But I'm wondering if there is any evidence that petitions and letters to selectors from fans have any impact whatsoever. What are we telling them that they don't know already (except the part about Grabowski & Anderson --sorry Dan115, you're getting a little good-natured ribbing for that one.)? I'm cynically beginning to wonder if the campaigns are working against him. (And the iPetition letter contains irrelevant material such as college honors.)

I think fans are putting too much emphasis on a few things that selectors may have a different view on.

The 50th Anniversary team list is clearly not taken as seriously among voters as it is with fans. (I wish I could recall where I saw that someone with some knowledge of the subject and process wrote that the list was long considered by "insiders" as very flawed.)

The NFL Network list has some dubious names on it (I'd be willing to bet Steve Tasker and Jim Marshall aren't in the top 10 of most voters minds; is there anyone here that would rank them over Howley, Stanfel, Wistert, J. Robinson, or Don Coryell, for example?), and willfully neglects a number of deserving potential candidates from pre-1960 pro football. I just don't see how a list designed for a network to show lots of modern-era clips and interviews carries any influence among selectors.

In the minds of some, Kramer was slightly offside on the "Ice Bowl" block, and Bowman didn't receive enough credit for that play.

Take those things away, and I still think he merits inclusion. But he faces some reasonable competition from other O-line names that are on their radar (Jim Tyrer, Winston Hill, Gale Gillingham). Starr's appreciation of Gillingham over the years may cloud the issue for Kramer.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I understand the passion & frustration expressed here, and it's safe to assume most everyone here feels Kramer should be in the Hall. But I'm wondering if there is any evidence that petitions and letters to selectors from fans have any impact whatsoever. What are we telling them that they don't know already (except the part about Grabowski & Anderson --sorry Dan115, you're getting a little good-natured ribbing for that one.)? I'm cynically beginning to wonder if the campaigns are working against him. (And the iPetition letter contains irrelevant material such as college honors.)

I think fans are putting too much emphasis on a few things that selectors may have a different view on.

The 50th Anniversary team list is clearly not taken as seriously among voters as it is with fans. (I wish I could recall where I saw that someone with some knowledge of the subject and process wrote that the list was long considered by "insiders" as very flawed.)

The NFL Network list has some dubious names on it (I'd be willing to bet Steve Tasker and Jim Marshall aren't in the top 10 of most voters minds; is there anyone here that would rank them over Howley, Stanfel, Wistert, J. Robinson, or Don Coryell, for example?), and willfully neglects a number of deserving potential candidates from pre-1960 pro football. I just don't see how a list designed for a network to show lots of modern-era clips and interviews carries any influence among selectors.

In the minds of some, Kramer was slightly offside on the "Ice Bowl" block, and Bowman didn't receive enough credit for that play.

Take those things away, and I still think he merits inclusion. But he faces some reasonable competition from other O-line names that are on their radar (Jim Tyrer, Winston Hill, Gale Gillingham). Starr's appreciation of Gillingham over the years may cloud the issue for Kramer.

I agree with most of that. And the point about Bowman is particularly relevant. In fact, Kramer has admitted to asking the young Bowman to let the media give him, Kramer, credit for the block, using the argument that it was likely Kramer's last chance at glory while Bowman had many years in front of him. Bowman has said, somewhat sardonically it seems, that he regrets letting Kramer con him.

I also believe that always leading the Kramer story with "The Block" (as in the OP) may be hurting him just as "The Catch" may be hurting Dwight Clark's argument for the Hall. When all one is reminded of is one play, with the body of work pushed into the shadows, the impression is left of a one trick pony.

The best argument for Kramer is the extent to which he redefined the position. Here I am, about to commit what should be post #49, and so far as I can tell the word "sweep" has yet to appear in this thread. Certainly we would not want to say Kramer is the template for the modern OG the way Hutson was for WRs or Ditka for TEs, but he's a main contributor in forming that template.

Lombardi did not invent the sweep or the pulling guard but he perfected it, featured it and the offense imposed it's will with it. Kramer showed how athletic and relatively fast interior offensive linemen could be more effective than the standard issue interior lineman. Today, we group interior linemen into either "athletic" or "road grader" and we just take that for granted as though it was always the case. It wasn't.

It's sadly ironic that by always leading the Kramer story with "The Block", a road grader's play, actually mischaracterizes the player and hurts his case. It's easy to say Jim Parker would have made that block or that Pugh slipped or that Bowman made the key play. It's a lot harder to discount Kramer's contribution to redefining his position.

Oh, and Kramer also became a quite decent pass blocker.

 

[PikeBadger]

I can't believe Karras and Stabler are not in the hall.
I remember when Detroit cut Karras loose somebody asked him how much money it would take to get him to play for another team, and he said "I'll play for free if I can go up against Detroit every week"......

Yes, I was surprised as well. Karras I believe was suspended for gambling, but so was Hornung and he got in.

I don't think Gillingham had a long career but he was very good.
Edit: Kramer was no one trick pony. He was all-pro 5 times and also did some kicking duties before Chandler came to Green Bay. Also, Bowman and Kramer saw on tape that Pugh could be had on a sneak because he got too high after the snap and they could get under his pads.