Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="HardRightEdge" data-source="post: 460199">I can't say I read it that way, Thx. King's first point seems to be that since he'd been passed over time and time again by contemporaries and senior committee members, then it's time to move on and not taint Robinson's opportunity with a Kramer/Robinson debate. The daughter seems to agree in wanting to focus just on Robinson in the current process. Seems reasonable to me. The second point is actually a question...why did the same group of guys who named him to the 50 year team--and a sting of All Pro selections for that matter which I think is much more important than the 50 year team--keep him out of the Hall? "Curious" indeed. There's no contradiction in believing the first point while wondering about the second. It's a matter of having an opinion based on what's known while acknowledging what is unknown. As a PS, I think it worth nothing that the 50 year team was voted the year after Kramer retired. These kinds of votes are always biased toward the players of most recent memory. However, the All Pro selections cannot be denied.</blockquote>

Total: 231 (members: 1, guests: 230)