By John Turney
What it means is that if some technically true things are presented in a way that is deceptive to a person or audience. Here is an example. Years ago I knew a US Congressman and when he ran he touted that he was ex-military and that he'd been a pilot. However, in some meetings I attended and on his website, it was announced that he was a "Viet Nam era pilot". Still, to me, no problem.
Then after he'd been elected and there was a fervor among some veterans groups about public people, usually politicians were puffing up their military careers. Giving themselves credit or credentials they had not earned. This congressman ended up, along with many others, on a "Stolen Valor" list on a website that purported to track such things
Concerned, I called the congressional office to get clarification. And they reported to me that the congressman never claimed to be a Viet Nam pilot, only that he'd been a pilot in the Air Force in the "Viet Nam era". Apparently, he'd ferried jets around from base to base. Of course, this is 100% honorable service, and necessary and needed. If someone was in the military and was a cook or any rear echelon person it's honorable service and I salute them.
However, for the group that was outing people they accused of "stealing valor" (puffing of military resume) it was a problem because while true, his website left the casual reader (and I was one of them) with the impression that he served in Viet Nam. So, the words were 100% accurate but was it deception? Was it "non-deceptionism". The only fair answer is yes.
Recently, I got into a long debate with some Raiders fans who desperately want Tom Flores in the Hall of Fame. And they had several talking points or "nuggets" as I call them about Flores' career. All the nuggets were true and most were very helpful and captured Flores' great accomplishments.
However, one of the nuggets was the fact that Flores, along with Mike Ditka, were the only two people ever to have a Super Bowl ring as a player, assistant coach, and head coach.
That was the nugget I have an issue with. While it's not the backbone of the case for Tom Flores for the HOF (his 2 rings as a head coach is that) it's one of those true lies. It was being presented a bullet point or talking point as to the main reasons why Flores should be in the Hall of Fame. They gave maybe three or four reasons and that was one of them.
What the defenders of this nugget refused to accept that when you put that kind of thing out there it casts doubt on the rest of the information. It flirts with falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus or "false in one thing, false in everything" which can even be a jury instruction in our court system. It simply means it' reasonable for a juror or person to not believe anything a witness says if they think he's inaccurate about one thing. And if the jury of the HOF committee were to adopt that it could actually hurt Flores. I think they are smart enough to see that and dismiss it but you never know.
My thoughts in the debate were that it would be better to leave that out because while true, it carries no real meaning because Flores' Super Bowl ring as a player was in 1969 when he was acquired at midseason by the Kansas City Chiefs because they had injury issues at quarterback. Len Dawson was hurt, Mike Livingston was filling in so they needed a backup. Flores barely played in 1969. He was essentially third string for the Chiefs. He threw one pass. That hardly fits the meaning of an NFL quarterback "winning a ring".
"Winning a ring" is a phrase that has meaning. It denotes that the player contributed to the ring, especially as a quarterback. While accurate no one says Marc Wilson won two rings. The rightly say Jim Plunkett won two rings. Both are true, but one would not fit the actual meaning of the phrase.
In 2004 some in the media were trying to tout Steve Young as having three "rings". Well, yeah. But, no. No sale. Sports Broadcaster Jim Rome used to call the rings we are talking about (Flores, Young, Wilson) gravy-train rings. The only exceptions would be when a backup actually took over and drove the team home to ultimate victories like a Plunkett or a Jeff Hostetler or a Nick Foles.
Why would being a decent quarterback in the AFL help a HOF case? Did Don Shula's playing career help him one whit? Shula was a serviceable defensive back. Chuck Noll was a pretty good lineman. Tom Landry was a really good defensive back. All irrelevant. They are HOFers as coaches, nothing else.
Oddly, there are some things the 1980-86 Raiders did that were interesting and if articulated they would actually enhance his case in my view. These are football things, i.e. schemes and packages that they did that were unique and special. As the head coach, he would get credit for letting his coaches do them. But sadly, I've not seen one word written about them.
Fred Dean was being presented it was expressed that he was an "innovator" and his innovation was that he invented or was the first player to be a third-down rusher or designated rusher. False.
This was not a case of non-deception but one a "simple deception". I don't think it was mean or malicious nor do I think the nugget about Flores is somehow evil, it's not it's just deceptive. I think it's simply well-meaning people trying to achieve something and using all the things they can to get it done.
Back to Dean. Dean, in 1981 was not the first guy to come in and rush on passing downs. In earnest, it began in 1970 with Cedrick Hardman, though Paul Zimmerman once told me that Larry Cole may have done a little of it as a rookie. The Rams used it in 1969 when Roger Brown was nicked up and needed to be spelled, But Hardman was the first to do it for most of the season. There were other milestones in the next decade.
In 1971 Jimmie Jones of the Redskins was the first to lead a team in sacks from that role. Harvey Martin was first to make the team in that specific role. In 1977 Pat Toomay was first to lead a conference (AFC) in sacks when he was the designated rusher for the Raiders. In 1980 Cedrick Hardman, now with Oakland, was the first player in that role to win a Super Bowl ring.
None of that takes anything away from Dean who was the first designated rusher to win a Player of the Year Awad, he was the UPI Defensive Player of the Year in 1981 and he was the first to be named All-Pro and to go to the Pro Bowl—all great milestones. But he didn't innovate his position with the 49ers. It could be argued he perfected it and in that part of it, he earned his HOF ring—being better than the rest. Was Dean a dominant rusher? Absolutely. Was he innovative in his position? No.
With the Pro Football Hall of Fame Centennial Class of 2020, there will be two coaches included. We would love to see Tom Flores be one of those two. We'd predict it, in fact, along with Don Coryell simply based on how close those two have been in the regular process in the last few years.
However, if the Committee chose Jimmy Johnson or some of other two Super Bowl-win coaches or even a Mike Holmgren or someone else, we'd have no issue. I have posted my thoughts on the coaches a few times. My take is simply that either all the 2-win coaches should get in or none of them. I simply cannot separate them.
If Flores, with his being a pioneer as the first Latino coach to win the Super Bowl, is first then wonderful. He deserves it. Friends of mine who worked for the Raiders in the 1980s will be happy for him and I will be happy for them. I have never heard a negative word about the man. However, if he's not one of the two and the two that are chosen are worthy then I'd have no issue with that.
The issue is if I read before or after his election (which is inevitable in my opinion) that among Flores' HOF bona fides is that he is one of two people who have a ring as a player, assistant coach, and head coach then I will simply laugh because someone doesn't know the difference between the literal meaning of a phrase and the actual meaning of that phrase and that is the very definition of irony. And irony is usually funny.