Link
Some awesome letters from some equally awesome players in here. Worth a read, especially if you're an older-timer like me.
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
That was cool!
I was surprised to see the number of hand-written letters. Talk about a dying art!
Since you're an "older-timer" like me, why do you suppose that is, cuqui?
At first, my thought was it was related to age, as older folks who were brought up that way may be more apt to do. But the Warren Moon letter, among others, blows that theory up.
I also wondered if any of the letters hand-written on a letterhead, legal pad paper, or what looks like a stick-it note were done in jest or mockery? Some almost seem they were replying to a young kid, or weren't seriously considered before writing, but it's hard to imagine that being the case from somebody like Hanburger or Ditka.
Whatever the case may be, good on this guy who is soliciting recommendations and making a push to get Kramer elected. II hope his efforts are successful!
I was surprised to see the number of hand-written letters. Talk about a dying art!
Since you're an "older-timer" like me, why do you suppose that is, cuqui?
At first, my thought was it was related to age, as older folks who were brought up that way may be more apt to do. But the Warren Moon letter, among others, blows that theory up.
I also wondered if any of the letters hand-written on a letterhead, legal pad paper, or what looks like a stick-it note were done in jest or mockery? Some almost seem they were replying to a young kid, or weren't seriously considered before writing, but it's hard to imagine that being the case from somebody like Hanburger or Ditka.
Whatever the case may be, good on this guy who is soliciting recommendations and making a push to get Kramer elected. II hope his efforts are successful!
That is awesome.
Sounds like the HoF wants him in the HoF.
Sounds like the HoF wants him in the HoF.
Sorry, but this will be an unpopular viewpoint.
In all fairness, I am too young (or maybe the correct phrase is not old enough) to have seen JK play. But, given the fact that the HOF voters who were around to see him play did not vote him in, and that most of them are either dead or no longer eligible to vote, how can you expect current, modern day voters to elect him? If the voters who actually saw him play didn't pull the trigger, how can todays voters? Just because a bunch of sentimentalists think he is worthy doesn't make it so.
In all fairness, I am too young (or maybe the correct phrase is not old enough) to have seen JK play. But, given the fact that the HOF voters who were around to see him play did not vote him in, and that most of them are either dead or no longer eligible to vote, how can you expect current, modern day voters to elect him? If the voters who actually saw him play didn't pull the trigger, how can todays voters? Just because a bunch of sentimentalists think he is worthy doesn't make it so.
Did you see who wrote the letters? Most of them saw him play. Frank Gifford, Bob Lilly, Chuck Bednarik, Joe Schmidt.
He made the all decade and all 50th year teams.
He made the all decade and all 50th year teams.
Fine and dandy. The HOF voters have deemed him unworthy. That's all that matters. Those other awards have no significance.
Most of the HOF voters at that time thought there were too many "Lombardi Packers" in the Hall at that time. Plus there were some family issues that are tame by todays standards. How can the guy voted the best guard, not right guard but the best guard in pro footballs 1st 50 years not be in the HOF?
MNPackman, not necessarily unpopular, but I'd say uninformed.
phaedrus mentioned a few players that had seen him play and were in favor of him being in the hall. There are many more... Citizen Dan may have better information as to why his contemporaries did not vote him in at that time, but I recall there was some personal feelings about too many Lombardi Packers already in there. I remember reading a comment, don't recall from who, that sarcastically was why don't we just put the whole team in or something like that.
phaedrus mentioned a few players that had seen him play and were in favor of him being in the hall. There are many more... Citizen Dan may have better information as to why his contemporaries did not vote him in at that time, but I recall there was some personal feelings about too many Lombardi Packers already in there. I remember reading a comment, don't recall from who, that sarcastically was why don't we just put the whole team in or something like that.
"Too many Lombardi era Packers are already in the HOF" was the argument that worked against Jerry.
It's always been a bad argument for keeping him out.
He's the only member of the NFL's 50th Anniversary Team that's not in the Hall.
It's always been a bad argument for keeping him out.
He's the only member of the NFL's 50th Anniversary Team that's not in the Hall.
I think Alex Karras hit the nail on the head when he said to not exclude JK "just because he played with so many of the greats." That alone gives you the reason he was probably left out.
How do you get named the greatest guard in the first 50 years and are not in the HOF?
How do you get named the greatest guard in the first 50 years and are not in the HOF?
From Peter King's MMQB on 11-28-11
e. Now a word about Jerry Kramer. The former Packer guard seems to be the player in the last year or so who has the most ardent group of supporters behind him via email, on the Internet and in the Twitterverse. A few things about the Kramer candidacy. He retired from the Packers after a stellar 11-year career in 1968. He was elected All-Pro five times, and to the Pro Bowl three times (an odd juxtaposition, seeing that there were three Pro Bowl guards and just two on the All-Pro team), and to the NFL's 50th anniversary team in 1970.
He was a modern-era candidate from 1974 through 1988. He was a finalist nine times and not elected. After his 15 years on the modern-era list, he was eligible as a Seniors Committee candidate. For the last 24 years, he's been on the Seniors list, and came up again in front of the full selection committee in 1997. He didn't get the required 80 percent of the votes to make it. That Seniors Committee could recommend him again any year, and may in the coming years, to have his case heard by the committee, which has many new members since 1997.
(The Seniors Committee is a group of nine Hall voters who meet every year to determine which two long-retired players will have their cases heard by the 44-member group of Hall selectors. If Kramer had been a hot candidate, he'd have been in the room to be considered by now.
It seems to me a couple of things are at play here. He had some competition on his own team at guard, and overall. Gale Gillingham and Fuzzy Thurston (but Gillingham especially) were very good players too, and players in that era are split on who is most deserving, particularly between Kramer and Gillingham, who played with Kramer for three years and then took over for him at right guard when Kramer retired. The fact that there are 10 Packers from that era's team in the Hall can't help -- the same way it doesn't help L.C. Greenwood that there are so many Steelers in. But because Kramer was selected to the NFL's 50-year team, it seems dumb that he's not in.
OK, now you know the history. The way I view it is this: The vast majority of voters who watched Kramer and the Packers live are no longer on the committee -- including the writers who covered the great Green Bay era, with the exception of Sid Hartman from Minneapolis. The rest, veteran scribes like Art Daley from Wisconsin, Cooper Rollow from Chicago, Chuck Heaton from Cleveland, Jerry Green from Detroit, are gone from the committee. In their place are young writers and voters.
We are being asked, basically, to overrule those who watched Kramer's entire career. They had 15 chances to enshrine Kramer after watching the Packers win five titles in the '60s. They had years to nominate and push his case as a senior candidate. And the media people who saw him the most and knew the Packers the best didn't think he was worthy.
Many of the senior candidates are those who never had their cases heard before the entire body of voters, either because they played an invisible position or played for a mediocre team, or both. That's the case with this year's two candidates, guard Dick Stanfel and defensive back Jack Butler. Kramer was on TV a lot, and with the best team of his era. So it's a pretty tough thing to ask, first, the Seniors Committee to nominate him again, and second, the 44 voters to say the media who watched him year in and year out made a mistake. Not impossible. Just difficult.
Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.c...x.html#ixzz1yxbDYSCQ
e. Now a word about Jerry Kramer. The former Packer guard seems to be the player in the last year or so who has the most ardent group of supporters behind him via email, on the Internet and in the Twitterverse. A few things about the Kramer candidacy. He retired from the Packers after a stellar 11-year career in 1968. He was elected All-Pro five times, and to the Pro Bowl three times (an odd juxtaposition, seeing that there were three Pro Bowl guards and just two on the All-Pro team), and to the NFL's 50th anniversary team in 1970.
He was a modern-era candidate from 1974 through 1988. He was a finalist nine times and not elected. After his 15 years on the modern-era list, he was eligible as a Seniors Committee candidate. For the last 24 years, he's been on the Seniors list, and came up again in front of the full selection committee in 1997. He didn't get the required 80 percent of the votes to make it. That Seniors Committee could recommend him again any year, and may in the coming years, to have his case heard by the committee, which has many new members since 1997.
(The Seniors Committee is a group of nine Hall voters who meet every year to determine which two long-retired players will have their cases heard by the 44-member group of Hall selectors. If Kramer had been a hot candidate, he'd have been in the room to be considered by now.
It seems to me a couple of things are at play here. He had some competition on his own team at guard, and overall. Gale Gillingham and Fuzzy Thurston (but Gillingham especially) were very good players too, and players in that era are split on who is most deserving, particularly between Kramer and Gillingham, who played with Kramer for three years and then took over for him at right guard when Kramer retired. The fact that there are 10 Packers from that era's team in the Hall can't help -- the same way it doesn't help L.C. Greenwood that there are so many Steelers in. But because Kramer was selected to the NFL's 50-year team, it seems dumb that he's not in.
OK, now you know the history. The way I view it is this: The vast majority of voters who watched Kramer and the Packers live are no longer on the committee -- including the writers who covered the great Green Bay era, with the exception of Sid Hartman from Minneapolis. The rest, veteran scribes like Art Daley from Wisconsin, Cooper Rollow from Chicago, Chuck Heaton from Cleveland, Jerry Green from Detroit, are gone from the committee. In their place are young writers and voters.
We are being asked, basically, to overrule those who watched Kramer's entire career. They had 15 chances to enshrine Kramer after watching the Packers win five titles in the '60s. They had years to nominate and push his case as a senior candidate. And the media people who saw him the most and knew the Packers the best didn't think he was worthy.
Many of the senior candidates are those who never had their cases heard before the entire body of voters, either because they played an invisible position or played for a mediocre team, or both. That's the case with this year's two candidates, guard Dick Stanfel and defensive back Jack Butler. Kramer was on TV a lot, and with the best team of his era. So it's a pretty tough thing to ask, first, the Seniors Committee to nominate him again, and second, the 44 voters to say the media who watched him year in and year out made a mistake. Not impossible. Just difficult.
Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.c...x.html#ixzz1yxbDYSCQ
Ultimate tough guy. Hell, he played with a huge wood sliver in his gut half his football life. Never missed games except for that infected wood surgery.
And talented enough to place kick for us to boot?
If Ray were still alive, he wouldn't allow this travesty to continue. He was the players' official whip at the HOF ceremonies.
(Gale Gillingham would be in too if GD Devine wouldn't have put him in at D guard.)
And talented enough to place kick for us to boot?
If Ray were still alive, he wouldn't allow this travesty to continue. He was the players' official whip at the HOF ceremonies.
(Gale Gillingham would be in too if GD Devine wouldn't have put him in at D guard.)
Several years ago I did a bit of research... I wish I could find it to get the exact numbers, but they were suprising -- to me, at least.
Jerry was voted by the Hall itself as the best guard in the first 50 years of the NFL. I forget how many there are, but there are quite a few guards from the first 50 years in the Hall currently.
So the obvious question persists. If JK was the best according to their own standards, and there are several others from that era enshrined, how can he possibly not be in???
Jerry was voted by the Hall itself as the best guard in the first 50 years of the NFL. I forget how many there are, but there are quite a few guards from the first 50 years in the Hall currently.
So the obvious question persists. If JK was the best according to their own standards, and there are several others from that era enshrined, how can he possibly not be in???
There has also been some animosity toward Kramer for the Ice Bowl Block - he was offsides according to Pugh (IIRC), and he pushed Bowman out of the camera view during the post game interview in the locker room, taking full credit for The Block. His book Instant Replay was a diary of the '67 season that likely wouldn't have sold much or given him the notoriety he gained from that if not for the Ice Bowl Block.
I saw St. Vince watch the replay in the Ice Bowl's winner's locker room and immediately say, "Nice block, Jerry". (Or something dang close.)
St. Vince said it was Jerry's block upon review. Just sayin'.
St. Vince said it was Jerry's block upon review. Just sayin'.
quote:Originally posted by Timmy!:
I was surprised to see the number of hand-written letters. Talk about a dying art!
Since you're an "older-timer" like me, why do you suppose that is, cuqui?
Thanks for posting the link, cuqui.
This Oldtimer thinks the authors know that a hand-written letter or note still holds the most sway with readers. People appreciate writers who take the time to sit down and craft a letter, as opposed to transmitting an e-mail, or dashing off a text message or tweet. How much thought and creativity go into doing that??
A dying art, indeed. Handwriting is certainly on the endangered list. As more and more schools stop teaching cursive writing, it will soon become totally extinct. Imagine 100 years from now, a high school student looking at a handwritten letter and not being able to decipher it--their equivalent of what hieroglyphics is to us in the 21st century.
Kramer is worth every hand-written letter or note penned on behalf of his HoF induction. I really hope this happens. Hats off to the guy who organized this effort!
For some, 13 seconds is all it takes.
quote:Imagine 100 years from now, a high school student looking at a handwritten letter and not being able to decipher it
You don't necessarily have to imagine it. Some of my elderly relatives from the old country would write in Sütterlin. I can speak German fairly well, and have little problem with stuff printed in Fraktur but trying to decipher the chicken scratches of some of those handwritten letters was nigh on impossible.
Disregarding the merits of the argument (which should have been settled around 1974),
the presentation itself is better than some I've seen for multi-million dollar contracts.
the presentation itself is better than some I've seen for multi-million dollar contracts.
Man, cuqui... that was EXCELLENT! Thanks for posting it!
Ok, I feel like I ought to throw in my two cents. I saw Kramer play ( tho at my age at the time that means little). He was really good. But he played guard, and he was well known largely because he played for the best team in NFL history. I imagine lots of other guys who played this invisible position for crummy teams were just as good. Gillingham was better by a lot but he played on largely crummy teams and no one thinks it a travesty of justice that he is not in the HOF. Kramer was regularly beat up by Karras, and that influenced a lot of votes in the early years. As for the Ice Bowl block, you have to ask why the game ever came down to that block at all. For most of the game, the GB line was inert.
Well, having grown up in the same era, and having seen probably many of the same games you did: As the booklet shows, even Alex himself is on record as endorsing Jerry's inclusion. As to why "the block" was even necessary, yes, the Green Bay offense was bogged down for a lot of the game. But they DID build a 14 point lead at one point, and at the time when the supreme effort was needed the most, they delivered. In absolutely inhuman conditions. With the third straight title on the line. Against a GREAT team. While running out of time.
As to whether many of the guys who played on crummy teams were just as good... I'd need to see some justification for that statement. When his peers regularly vote him to ALL-Pro teams over those other guys, well...
Add to that the fact that he was their placekicker for several years, and personally outscored the Giants in the 1962 NFL Championship game, which was yet ANOTHER game played in inhuman conditions.
"Gillingham was better by a lot." Even Jerry sang Gilly's praises regarding his skill, so I certainly don't doubt his skills. "Better by a lot" is a pretty subjective phrase. "Kramer was regularly beat up by Karras." Well, for sure in the T-Day game in 1962, and for sure in the 17-17 tie that opened the 1967 season. However, try as I might, for the remaining 18 games that the Packers and the Lions played during their respective careers, I find no evidence that in those games Alex "beat up" JK. And the Packers won the vast majority of those games.
As to whether many of the guys who played on crummy teams were just as good... I'd need to see some justification for that statement. When his peers regularly vote him to ALL-Pro teams over those other guys, well...
Add to that the fact that he was their placekicker for several years, and personally outscored the Giants in the 1962 NFL Championship game, which was yet ANOTHER game played in inhuman conditions.
"Gillingham was better by a lot." Even Jerry sang Gilly's praises regarding his skill, so I certainly don't doubt his skills. "Better by a lot" is a pretty subjective phrase. "Kramer was regularly beat up by Karras." Well, for sure in the T-Day game in 1962, and for sure in the 17-17 tie that opened the 1967 season. However, try as I might, for the remaining 18 games that the Packers and the Lions played during their respective careers, I find no evidence that in those games Alex "beat up" JK. And the Packers won the vast majority of those games.
Anderson scored on the play before, but the ref placed the ball at about the 1/2 yard line... that infamous sneak and block should have never happened.
I've ALWAYS believed that, H5.
When you watch the play frame by frame, it looks like he cleared the goal line by a foot, at least.
But I sure loved the SNEAK!
When you watch the play frame by frame, it looks like he cleared the goal line by a foot, at least.
But I sure loved the SNEAK!
Could play center in his spare time.
I read somewhere long ago that the Cowboys DL all believed Anderson scored. The Sneak is a big part of Packers lore and I am not diminishing its importance there. Just wondering, if they had given the TD to Anderson what might have been for Kramer and Instant Replay?
@ the 54:17 mark... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaAmQVoGWPI
Anderson laying across the goalline...
@ the 54:17 mark... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaAmQVoGWPI
Anderson laying across the goalline...
In 1967, Kramer & Gillingham were the guards. Gillingham replaced the aging and more often injured Fuzzy Thurston. For his part Gillingham would be named to the pro bowl 5 times and to first team all pro 2 times in his 8 year career as a starter. He was really around 10 years, but did not play his rookie year, and was injured and missed the entire season in 1972. He was a good technician.
In the ice bowl the Packer offense (and the OL) was alive and well fore the first half and the last 4-5 minutes of the second half. When Dallas came out for the second half, they decided to take away GBs WRs, and amp up the rush. That kept GB busy the second half trying to figure it out. They did just in time to win it. When I say "figure it out" - I mean what to do to counter it. I don't think it took them all that long to see what Dallas was doing.
The notion that it should not have come down to the last play - and hence the famous block - is immaterial to the fact it did come down to it. It is easy to sit here in our warm surroundings and second guess what went on. There are more factors that play into it than just make plays. If you have ever played in a game where footing is difficult to maintain, it seems like things are happening in a kind of slow motion as compared to games where the footing is good. It messes with timing - all over the place. And just to mess you up even further, who plays better under those conditions is a revealing process. So adjustments are made for that. And when that requires a player change, it can furthur dimish your teams ability to execute. So I will never second guess why the play/block was necessary. I am just thankful, very thankful, GB had the opportunity.
In the ice bowl the Packer offense (and the OL) was alive and well fore the first half and the last 4-5 minutes of the second half. When Dallas came out for the second half, they decided to take away GBs WRs, and amp up the rush. That kept GB busy the second half trying to figure it out. They did just in time to win it. When I say "figure it out" - I mean what to do to counter it. I don't think it took them all that long to see what Dallas was doing.
The notion that it should not have come down to the last play - and hence the famous block - is immaterial to the fact it did come down to it. It is easy to sit here in our warm surroundings and second guess what went on. There are more factors that play into it than just make plays. If you have ever played in a game where footing is difficult to maintain, it seems like things are happening in a kind of slow motion as compared to games where the footing is good. It messes with timing - all over the place. And just to mess you up even further, who plays better under those conditions is a revealing process. So adjustments are made for that. And when that requires a player change, it can furthur dimish your teams ability to execute. So I will never second guess why the play/block was necessary. I am just thankful, very thankful, GB had the opportunity.
Good stuff Ghost.
Long after "4th and 26" , and the two Lambeau losses to the Giants in the NFC title game are forgotten, they'll still be writing about the Ice Bowl.
.....and Viking fans will still have....um, memories of the Ice Bowl.
Long after "4th and 26" , and the two Lambeau losses to the Giants in the NFC title game are forgotten, they'll still be writing about the Ice Bowl.
.....and Viking fans will still have....um, memories of the Ice Bowl.
quote:If you have ever played in a game where footing is difficult to maintain
like jagged concrete is how I have heard Lambeau Field described that day after the sun went below the stadium wall. definitely a test of will and determination to adjust the timing of a play and do it at as unit. The Sneak is great and all but the drive to get down there in the first place - impressive!
Put Kramer in already, ffs. Get it done. He was on the NFL's 50th Anniversary Team. He's the only one from that team not in. Ridiculous.
quote:Originally posted by Tdog:
like jagged concrete is how I have heard Lambeau Field described that day after the sun went below the stadium wall.
When I played in a game that counted when maintaining footing was very difficult the field was rain soaked - in short a mud pit. Different condition - same result as far as maintaining any footings. I am glad I have never had to play on a frozen ice field.
BK - I think you are right - although any true Packer fan will have a tough time forgetting 4th & 26.
Name a team wthout a few gut-wrenching losses.
Vikings have like, 12.
All I can say is that I hope the Pack go undefeated thru the SB next season. There is this group at work that thinks the world comes to an end with a 3 point loss. I was thru enough of those in 2010 I was reincarnated 6 times. I need a little less stress.